When Congressman Brad Sherman (D-CA) refused to meet with members of the Muslim Public Affairs Council earlier this week, maybe he forgot that the First Amendment of the United States Constitution grants citizens the right to petition the government for redress of grievances. Isn't it part of the job description of a member Congress to meet with constituents?

This week, self-proclaimed "terrorism expert" Steve Emerson testified in the House Subcommittee on Terrorism, Non-proliferation and Trade on Foreign Aid and the Fight against Terrorism. Before Thursday's hearing, several members of the Muslim American community were turned away from Congressman Sherman's district office when they approached his staff to request a balanced panel for this hearing.

In the hearing, Chairman of the Subcommittee Brad Sherman claimed that his office was "being stormed by demonstrators who were demanding the cancellation of this hearing." In reality, seven constituents who are citizens of the Congressman's district peaceably sought to meet with his staff to address their concerns. While Congressman Sherman may think otherwise, it is the duty of constituents to request that their government exercise its powers to further the general public good.

Doesn't diversity of opinion create better policy? Had alternative voices been on the panel, perhaps there would have been a direct response to Mr. Emerson's claim that "there are hundreds of children of known Islamic terrorists now living in the United States" and that there is a "danger of the United States granting citizenship to American-born children of terrorists." While Mr. Emerson is entitled to make such vitriolic comments, the essence of free speech can only be upheld when others who disagree are included in the discussion.

Had Congressman Sherman sought to include an expert from the NGO sector on the panel, they would have responded to the suggestion from Mr. Emerson that a litmus test be created for Muslim groups seeking State Department grants. Emerson and Sherman seek to create a questionnaire for prospective grant recipients whereby groups must prove they are not linked to terrorist groups abroad. This idea not only has serious First Amendment implications by singling out certain groups for disfavor, but also creates a presumption of guilt. What the Congressman didn't realize was that differing opinions are necessary to strengthen the democratic principles that are the foundation of this country.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis once stated, "It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears." The irrational fear of ideas that challenge our way of thinking cannot be the standard by which policy is made. The First Amendment was intended to ensure that our leaders listen to the concerns of their constituents as a healthy part of democratic discourse. This is particularly important when Muslim Americans are at the forefront of fighting terrorism while others are in the business of profiteering from it.

Comments (1) >>

The Name Says It All
written by Jalal on August 04, 2008

What do you expect an congress man like SHERMAN to say or do. Muslims need to participate more and prove that they have a voice, and can make a diffrence. Then people like Sherman will have to kiss their feet for votes.

Write comment

Name

Title

Comment

Add Comment