Sadly, I laughed when I read in a recent Blade story that, according to Cherrefe Kadri, former president of the Islamic Center of Greater Toledo, local Muslims fear "stereotyping" by non-Muslims as a result of the conviction of three local Muslims of planning to cause injury and death to American soldiers abroad.
While minority elements are quick to play the "poor me" card and whine about stereotyping and profiling, that's exactly what Ms. Kadri is doing to non-Muslims. Isn't it stereotyping to assume that non-Muslims see all Middle Easterners as terrorists? Isn't it stereotyping to assume that non-Muslims will lump everyone with a Middle Eastern name into one nameless, faceless pile? Isn't it stereotyping to assume that non-Muslims are so narrow-minded and prejudiced that they will perceive all Muslims as the same?
Perhaps the traditional Muslim community could help prevent stereotyping if it was to speak out loudly, plainly, and frequently against the beliefs and actions of its radical brethren here and abroad.
While Ms. Kadri and others quoted in the story stated that "if they are guilty," the accused should be subject to the law, there was never any demonstrative condemnation of radical Islam or its actions other than to concede that there are some "criminal elements in the Muslim community." It's like, well, every basket has a bad apple. Call me stupid, but I don't see any non-Muslims targeting Muslims with suicide bombers and beheadings.
Until such time as those Muslims who "do not condone any type of violence" forcefully separate themselves from the actions of radical Islam, what reason do prudent people have to consider them different? This is not the time to be "tolerant," "politically correct," or "expect understanding." It is their time to separate their wheat from their chaff.
Mom, Tim Russert in tune with politics
Last Friday we buried our mother. She raised 10 children in her 77 years and until the last five years was a healthy, vibrant, and intelligent woman.
The horror that is Alzheimer's disease brought a sad end to what was a loving woman whose wit and keen mind were in tune with all things, but especially politics. So it was with added sadness that we heard of the untimely death of her favorite political reporter-anchor, Tim Russert, on the day of her interment. Her respect for this man was shared by me and millions of people around the world.
The word "unique" is far too often overused but is certainly apropos in the case of Mr. Russert. Unique because he was not a man who sought to increase his stature by being condescending with his guests as so many talking-head commentators do these days. He asked straightforward, appropriate questions. He didn't let his guests, regardless of their station in life, substitute "talking points" for answers to his questions.
Tim Russert suffered fools badly but not so badly that he allowed himself that nasty, biting edge that seems to be in vogue with interviewers. Most important to my mother and me, he was unique because he didn't make his political persuasion the purpose of his time on the air. It wasn't about Democrat or Republican or Tim Russert; it was about getting the truth from those so adroit at avoiding the truth.
I am sad that both were taken from us so soon, but a part of me finds small pleasure in that I know that my mother and Tim are having some pretty interesting political conversations about now. Rest in peace, Tim Russert and Alice Sanford Fuerst.
Toledo-Detroit Metro shuttle would work
With the loss of Continental Airlines, our regional government leaders must deal with the facts that airline travel to or from Toledo is nearly impossible using Toledo Express Airport.
Miss a flight outbound or inbound and you are in for a long delay. Our community deserves a dependable, scheduled land-shuttle service to and from Detroit Metro Airport from locations in the Toledo metropolitan area. I travel frequently to Tucson, Ariz., and use Arizona Shuttle from Phoenix to Tucson that is downright economical at $60 a round trip. If it can work for Tucson, located 110 miles from a major hub airport, it should certainly work for Toledo.
Do criminals' rights outweigh victims'?
Regarding The Blade's editorial of June 14, "No dilemma exists," why does The Blade appear to favor criminals instead of their victims? Seems to me common sense dictates that if an invader violates a home or a vehicle, especially with family inside, the invader gets what he deserves. But then, "common sense ain't common" as Grandpa used to say.
In The Blade's opinion, should we wait for a home invader to shoot first? If his aim is good, then what? What happens to my wife and daughters? As for prosecuting attorneys, any law that makes them earn their pay works. What happened to "innocent until proven guilty"? Does that apply only to perpetrators?
The Blade seems to be inordinately afraid of anything or anyone associated with the NRA. Why? The National Rifle Association is an organization that teaches safety above all else. It is composed of more than 4 million law-abiding Americans who voluntarily join, pay dues, and elect management. We train civilians and military and law-enforcement personnel for safe, effective use of firearms. Surely, that's not a bad thing.
Oak Grove Place
Constitution allows right to bear arms
The Blade's June 14 editorial titled "Dilemma of shooting first" laments the loss of landlords' so-called property rights because a new law will no longer let them deny tenants First Amendment rights: "Those have included such rules as no pets, no painting or nailing the walls, noise restrictions, and, until this law goes into effect, no weapons on the premises. It makes no sense that while landlords can bar pets, soon they will not be able to outlaw guns on their properties."
The last time I looked, the U.S. Constitution didn't guarantee citizens the right to keep pets, paint, nail, and make noise. It does guarantee citizens that their right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Should landlords be able to dictate what tenants may say or where they go to church? That's the amendment that comes right before the Second.
Marc K. Myers
Fairview Park, Ohio
4 justices respect habeas corpus rights
A Readers' Forum writer misses the whole purpose of Boumediene vs. Bush in her June 17 letter.
This case did not uphold "our" habeas corpus rights, as the petitioners are not U.S. citizens. This case does not affect or expand the habeas corpus rights of U.S. citizens in the slightest. Rather, this case merely allows out-of-country noncitizens who pay no taxes toward our system and are not accountable to our laws to have access to our courts.
In reality, the four justices she so despises have more respect for "our" habeas corpus rights than do the majority, as they wish to reserve our court system for those who pay for its operation and live under its rulings.
James Q. Nesbitt
for Public Policy Solutions
Presidency seekers not the best choices
What does it say about American culture when we review the choices for our next president?
I cannot believe that these people are the best that our country can put forward for the electorate to choose from. I have often said: The most qualified people for president of the United States also are the same people smart enough to not take the job. This election is certainly going to prove it.
To the woman who rants in her letter that Republicans should be defeated on all levels because the Supreme Court upheld the right of habeas corpus: Three of the five justices who did uphold that right were appointed by Republicans. She shouldn't regurgitate the New York Times story as fact.