"[I]t is a parody of political correctness to argue that a hearing on domestic terrorism cannot focus solely on the Muslim community to be acceptable." Now there's a sentence you might expect from Charles Krauthammer. Except he didn't write it. Rather, these are the sentiments of Washington Post liberal columnist Ruth Marcus. And what she has to say in defense of the upcoming hearings on radical Islam in America is sure to rile her left-leaning colleagues.
"[T]he unavoidable fact is that, however much violent terror reflects a distortion of the tenets of Islam, it is not only practiced by adherents of the religion but practiced in its name," Marcus explains. "To ignore the religious nature of the terrorist threat is to succumb to politically correct delusion. To ignore the homegrown religious nature of the terrorist threat is to succumb even further."
Marcus quotes Minnesota Democrat Keith Ellison, a Muslim American, who told CNN that "It's absolutely the right thing to do for the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee to investigate radicalization, but to say we're going to investigate a religious minority . . . is the wrong course of action to take." To which she replies, "Yes, there are other sources of terrorism. Radical Islam is the biggest and most dangerous. And, yes, King is a flawed questioner. But the question he poses is an appropriate—and important—one." She calls the opposition response to the impending hearings an "overreaction" and adds, "To listen to King's critics, you would think he was urging modern-day internment camps for Muslim Americans." (Which is ironic considering that it in the very same print edition of the Post is a report on Japanese Americans coming to the defense of Muslims before the hearings.)