“Muslim” isn’t a political group. That’s a tiny problem for this analogy. The Kos story makes some interesting points and there really need to be clearer rules and better oversight of these kinds of groups - not that we need them in the first place, but since they are apparently not going anywhere…
Would you mind explaining why you have seemingly disparate beliefs.
And no, I’m not calling you a hypocrite and its not a gotcha question.
New development – apparently the IRS did the same thing to Democratic organizations.
Does that make it better or worse?
If the viewpoint expressed in that excerpt is correct on the relevant facts…a question I am not in a position to judge…then your analogy faceplants from a high dive.
It suggests that the problem resulted largely from a sudden influx of applications, with the arrival of the TP phenom. Which suggests that the TP entities concerned have other characteristics in common outside of their political persuasions that renders them subject to more than customary perusal. I find that argument sensible, but still vulnerable to facts yet unknown.
If the Obama Admin has set the IRS dogs loose upon their political enemies, why is Karl Rove’s Crossroads still scampering freely across my TV screen? I have seen his ads, and if thats non-political “social welfare” he’s pumping out, I am the Queen of Romania.
Could be that I’m simply naive on that score, been seriously lefty all my adult life, and we have never experienced any political oppression, so I don’t really have any metric to go by.
Perhaps not, but Islam most certainly is an ideology which certainly can be seen by many(both Muslims and non-Muslims) as political in nature.
In fact that’s the very reason for the existence of the Shia. For those not aware, “Shia” is the shortened version of “Shi’atu Ali” which means “party of Ali”. They were so named because they believed that Ali, Muhammad’s Son-in-Law, should become the Caliph following his death.
In short, in modern parlance, they supported a specific candidate for public office.
Similarly, you’ll notice countless numbers of political parties throughout the Middle East, not just those that are Islamist in nature, have words like “Islam”, “Muslim” or comparable words in their title, including such ostensibly secular ones as “Al-Fatah.”
The author of the article seems to agree since he advocates doing the same for any group with with title “Muslim brotherhood” even though a whole range of groups in the Middle East have that title or something similar, not just the major political group in Egypt.
I’ll add that similar arguments could be made regarding both Jews and Christians.
So then you do disagree with the author since he says he applaud the IRS doing the same if they were getting an explosion of applications from groups with the word “Muslim brotherhood” in them(a term which, like “the committee for the prevention of vice and promotion of virtue” goes back to the earliest days of Islam)?
You want to stick to the subject, or should we bring the Klingons into this?
Er… you’re the one who brought up an article who’s author seemed to argue in his article that he would favor specifically investigating groups with the word “Muslim” in their name if a bunch suddenly applied for tax-exempt status.
If you feel the article you linked to and encouraged everyone to read isn’t to be discussed then you shouldn’t have linked to the article in the first place.
Now, for the third time, do you disagree with the author’s insinuation that if a bunch of groups with the words like “Islam”, “Muslim” and similar words start applying for tax-exempt status then they should be subjected to extra scrutiny?
If you do disagree with the author, please explain why and why you still thought the article was “worth the read”?
Also, I don’t know why you’re being so defensive and hostile because I haven’t been hostile to you.
If the same criteria to examine each application was used, then it makes the situation (one more) “Right Wing Claims Persecution for Being treated Equally” event. If the the groups were subjected to greater or lesser scrutiny due to their political views, then the original cries of unfair behavior are legitimate.
This follows from my earlier comment
The author isn’t in favor of targeting Muslim organizations, he was implying that the (presumed anti-Muslim) conservative pundits who are most loudly protesting the IRS’ targetting of Tea Party organizations would have nothing to say about the IRS targetting Muslim organizations in the same manner.
Neither action, of course, is acceptable.
I’ll let others decide, but that’s not the impression I got. From the article.
The author explicitly says that if a bunch of environmentalist groups suddenly started applying for tax exempt status he would favor giving them extra scrutiny and, at best, strongly implies he’d do the same if a bunch of Muslim organizations did the same.
For those not in the know, “Muslim brotherhood” and words to that effect have been in use for 14 Centuries and are used by a wide variety of groups throughout the Middle East, not just the political party in Egypt.
You made find such behavior unacceptable, but when the author specifically says “I would” he clearly doesn’t share your views.
The part that refers to the Muslim Brotherhood is phrased in such a way as to imply and suggest hypocrisy on the part of “pundits”. It carries a suggestion of disapproval, but more of the pundit than anyone else. The term is therefore a “brand name”, that the reader will easily recognize as widely unpopular and most especially unpopular with the rightmost edge of the political spectrum.
Even the Huffington Post is reporting that Right Wing groups were excessively singled out.
I don’t think the “they did it to Democrats, too” defense is going to fly when the agency has already claimed to have disciplined people for going after Tea Party groups.
“Even” the Huffingtion Post? Gasp! Shit that settles it for me, I’ve got her face tattooed on my…well, never mind.
So then what you’re saying is that you think the author of the piece would call for targeting environmentalist groups if a bunch all applied for tax exempt status but would object to investigations if a bunch of groups with phrase “Muslim brotherhood” suddenly applied for tax exempt status?
Is that your position?
That if a bunch of environmentalist groups applied for tax exempt status they should be given special scrutiny, but that the same shouldn’t be done for groups with the term “Muslim Brotherhood” in their name.
If so or if not, would you mind explaining the logic of your position.
I would not expect Huff Post to bury a story that was embarrassing to the Left or, (à la Faux News), invent something derogatory about the Right. However, there is no question that Huff Post is a bit Left leaning and it is not outside the realm of possibility that they would hold onto a story for an extra few hours to be sure of the facts. Their publication of the quoted info would tend to indicate that it was pretty well established as fact.
Didn’t say all that much, they “disciplined” two employees? Well, ok. Then they report what the National Review said, which is not quite the same thing any more. I don’t have any particular problem with the Huff’s political leanings, nor have I caught them in a lie. i would prefer my political oriented news without reference to any or all of the Kardashians, but hey, that’s just me.
Really? How about facebook connections? This is the kind of stuff the IRS asked for. I think the best solution is to do away with the IRS or drastically reduce it’s size.
After reading the IG report, it is clear the IRS acted inappropriately. Not, ‘everyone should be fired’ inappropriately and not ‘someone should go to jail or resign’. It seems like the people involved are tasked with executing their mission with unclear guidelines, and in the absence of that they made their own. I can reasonably believe they felt they were doing their best in carrying out their jobs - they just chose a poor (in retrospect) way to go about it. It’s not a threat to democracy or the republic - just people need better guidance and their middle management failed them. More Dilbert than Machiavelli.
The only part that is outstanding is the IRS rep that testified before congress stating that no targeting of conservative groups was going on, after he was briefed that that had been happening. That seems to be the most serious thing that could or should come of this.
Ironically enough, while the IRS during the investigation clearly targeted conservative groups, the only group that wound up having it’s tax exempt status was a progressive group “Emerge America.”
Not only a stupid scandal, but a stupid and counterproductive scandal.
When Karl Rove engages in wrong-doing he winds up looking like Michael Corleone.
When progessives do so they wind up looking like Fredo.