” Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani stood by Congressman Peter King, a homeland security adviser to his campaign, over his comment that there are “too many mosques” in the country.” (cnn)


Unfortunately we have too many mosques in this country, there’s too many people who are sympathetic to radical Islam. We should be looking at them more carefully, we should be finding out how we can infiltrate, we should be much more aggressive in law enforcement.” King, the top Republican on the House Homeland Security Committee said the comments were taken out of context. (cnn)


————————————————————————————————


I’m pretty sure there is a difference between saying that there are “too many mosques”, and there are too many people sympathetic to radical islam… This is like the statement Republican candidate for 2008 President Tom Tancredo made, saying that he would “support bombing Mecca” as a consequence to further terrorist attacks.


The problem with this line of thinking is that it bunches together both radicals and non-radicals alike. By bombing Mecca or being critical of mosques in general, you aren’t differentiating between the 2 groups: for both comments critique Islam in general, not just the radicals. An analogy would be to say that there are “too many churches” or we should “bomb churches” because there was a recent KKK attack. Such an analogy is obviously fallacious, making Rudy Giuliani, Tom Tancredo, and Congressman Peter King wrong…


In the end, I must say that Tom Tancredo’s statement would quickly lead us to WWIII, as once we bomb Mecca (their most holy site), their terrorist groups will be strengthened, they will attack us, and they won’t provide oil to us either. Luckily he isn’t close to being elected. On the other hand, I don’t know if the Congressman ought to be fired, but he definitely needs to watch what he says, and perhaps be a little more open-minded in his thoughts…