And while we can argue whether Muslim leaders are doing enough to combat extremism in the name of Islam, surely we can agree that American Muslim teenagers should not experience discrimination as a result of all this,

This pretty much sums it up.  There is no argument, no protest, no outcry following Islamic terrorism.  There is almost total silence from Muslim leaders on the issue of extremism in the name of Islam.  The silence is deafening.  The Muslim world needs to take responsibility for the view held by those who only hear silence in the wake of Muslim violence.  Silence portends complicity, or at the very least, approval.

The silence is deafening

The celebrations in the streets of the Muslim world after the World Trade Center attacks were not silent.
    Discrimination is one of those words that have become warped into a near meaninglessness by the repeated use in only one aspect of their meaning.  Discrimination between the safe and the dangerous is a fundamental ( another bad word?)  survival skill.  Ignorance (another?) of how dangerous a thing may be makes it safer to choose to shun it.
  In this case we are ignorant because the soi disant “Moderate” Muslim world will not actively condemn, resist or even impede the violence perpetuated in the name of the faith that they profess by their coreligionists.  How can we know that they do not embrace it?
  Given this ignorance due inaction, it is understandable to see discrimination against professed members of a religious movement defined for more than a millennium by it’s evangelical expansion through conquest, subjugation, and extermination.

Great argument. So, on that theory, the deafening silence of Irish Catholics in Ireland to IRA violence and the equally deafening silence of Protestants in Ireland to UDA violence would justify teenagers in America to bully children of Irish descent who have absolutely no control or responsibility for what their remote cousins in the Old Country might be up to.

“In those days they shall say no more, The fathers have eaten a sour grape, and the children’s teeth are set on edge. But every one shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge.” Jeremiah 31:29-30.

“Yet say ye, Why? doth not the son bear the iniquity of the father? When the son hath done that which is lawful and right, and hath kept all my statutes, and hath done them, he shall surely live. The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.” Ezekiel 18:19-20.

Of course, you may differ from those sentiments, since they weren’t written by Christians but by men of another faith.

#3
As I sit at my desk listening to LiveIreland on the internet, I reflect that had Irish Catholics or Irish Protestants come to this country, and killed my fellow citizens in the name of religion, your argument might have some merit. Otherwise it is just a straw man.
I have yet to hear a Muslim ‘spokesman’ condemn any activity from 9/11 through the Christmas 2009 attempt without adding ‘however…’ and giving some rationale for the situation. ‘Nuff said.

Four points, Angloirish:

1. No, instead Americans sent assistance to the IRA and UDA that was used to kill Irish and UK citizens in the name of religion. How is that a straw man? Are you suggesting that killing Irish men, women, and children is somehow less morally repugnant than killing Americans?

2. If you haven’t heard a Muslim spokesman condemn terrorism, you weren’t reading Fr. Kendall’s website last Tuesday, when he ran a story on one of a large number of such condemnations.

3. Even if we were to assume (contrary to the evidence) that Muslim spokesmen uniformly support terrorism, that doesn’t answer Mr. Patel’s question of how theoretically-civilized “Christians” can justify the bullying of children.

4. Incidentally, the quotes on “Christian” in #3 aren’t his, but mine. I think that Scripture is pretty clear in its rejection of vicarious personal guilt (as opposed to original sin), even for adults. It seems equally clear on the notion that God has a special care for children, “for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven.”

5. I will also make the observation that the alliance in the USA between certain elements of the Anglican reasserter movement and certain elements of the far political right makes it rather difficult for those of us with an orthodox theology but merely conservative politics to join our cause to theirs. I hope I never reach the point when I can say “nuff said” to bullying children because of my political opposition to people who are only remotely related to them.

I don’t see that we differ in any substantial respect; I described an empirical scheme for surviving in a fallen world, not ascribing any moral judgment. Children (and men) will taunt and bully, especially when fearful. And ignorance often begets fear. The flaw is blaming the ignorant for information that has been held from them.

“On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets.”

Neither do I regard Christianity and Judaism to be completely different faiths.
  When a Muslim iman announces that it is the duty of believers to convert, or kill if necessary all infidels, I will take his words at face value, given recent history. Of course, being one of those infidels myself casts a different light on the subject. It is not my duty, but that of his followers. The question to put to the so far hypothetical Muslim Moderate is: “Do you believe that it is your duty to kill or convert those who don’t adhere to Islam or not?” I have asked exactly that question of Muslim believers that I believe to be reasonable men. I have never received a clear answer.  Is it because the Hypothetical Moderate Muslim doesn’t exist? Or does he fear being branded by more radical or “devout” Muslims as a heretic or apostate, with the sentence of death or worse that that could entail? Somebody knows, but they aren’t talking.

  As to the Irish, I recall neither the Protestants or Catholics being particularly silent in expressing their opinions regarding sectarian violence in the old country or it’s justification. Nether do they demand my submission to their creed, or randomly murder my compatriots to support their cause. The Norwegians, on the other hand, I know nothing about, so I must worry…..

“What’s a parent to do?”

I would think it easier to educate one’s 14 year old son (regarding fear and ignorance) than to attempt to change the attitudes of the classmates.  It’s not the teacher’s responsibilty to police attitudes.  If the child is really in a good area for diversity, they’ll (the young people) will work it out.

Schools should take positive steps to ensure that all students are safe in their persons and in their property at school.  Schools should teach personal respect for all.

However, it is simply not possible for the school to see that all students like each other, or that no student ever hears an unkind word from others.  Children suffer because they are too short, too tall, too fat, too thin, too smart, too stupid, or any of an infinite number of things which make them different from others.  To take each and every difference and insist that the school must teach that whatever characterizes this student is above criticism is impossible.

This student does deserve protection if he’s being, as the article says, literally pushed around.  Otherwise, he should explore his religious and family traditions and why they are important to him, leading to a pride and identification in spite of outside disapproval.  That’s what many believing Christians are doing today, after all, and what many generations of Jewish American students have done.

Muslim anger at American “prejudice” is often misdirected.  They should be angry at their co-religionists whose actions taint the whole group.