It is hard to imagine that anything has gone unsaid about the so-called Ground Zero mosque, but an important point seems to be missing.
The mosque should be built precisely because we don’t like the idea very much. We don’t need constitutional protections to be agreeable, after all.
This point surpasses even all the obvious reasons for allowing the mosque, principally that there’s no law against it.
I am a fan of Kathleen Parker, but she has missed the mark on this one.
Ms. Parker is wrong. She confuses religion with culture…as in Islam is more than a religion, it is an entire way of life that seeks to become predominant on the planet. She also wrongly assumes that Americans should appease Muslims in the manner that many Europeans have done, as well as conflates differences between the polities of the U.S. and some European countries. And her argument for us to show sensitivity in the face of a lack of sensitivity from many Muslims is stunningly idiotic. To build an “Islamic cultural center”, including a mosque, next to the site of what Jihadists consider a victory over “infidels” and to name it after a city in a country they dream of re-occupying is more than a little insensitive on the part of the organizers of the project. We have been sensitive enough…now it’s their turn.
If we push her thinking on this to its logical conclusion, it is ok for guys around the office to make remarks about her figure, call her names like “babe,” etc. etc.
We bag on the liberals alot, but they have in the past challenged the culture to look at the way behaviors and language demean various groups.
The Cordoba Mosque – no, not the Mosque itself, but its proposed location – demeans people. Show some respect for others and build it some place else.
She is right on target.
In Muslim countries and formerly Muslim lands (which, BTW, are still technically Muslim possessions, even if temporarily in the hands of usurpers…ie Serbs, Hungarians, Romanians, Spaniards, and so forth) mosques are built on places of Muslim conquests or victories. The 9/11 mosque will UNQUESTIONABLY be seen as such by all Muslims everywhere, even if they don’t admit it. However, I can see an upside to this. To paraphrase Ms Parker, ‘the mosque should be built precisely because it will be the final nail in the electoral hopes of the Democratic party.’ Thanks to Mr Obama’s timely intervention, he is irreversibly identified with the ‘pro’ lobby. No one pays much attention to Harry Reid anymore.
Here is a new commercial featuring families of victims of the Islamist 9/11 bombers: http://bigpeace.com/stzu/2010/08/18/new-ad-against-ground-zero-mosque-features-911-families/
At the linked site, I also found [url=http://bigpeace.com/cbrim/2010/08/17/ground-zero-mosques-hidden-websites-follow-the-shariah/ ]an article[/url] about the imam’s “Shariah Initiative” which is to develop America into a “perfect Islamic state”. Apparently, the website has been scrubbed, but they have links to the deleted material.
[i]Liberals make great dhimmis.[/i]
Ms Parker’s essay is as empty as Rodney King’s “Why can’t we all just get along?”
A more important essay by one who understand Islam is [url=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703426004575338471355710184.html ]How to Win the Clash of Civilizations [/url]:
[blockquote] According to a CIA report written in 2003, the Saudis invested at least $2 billion a year over a 30-year period to spread their brand of fundamentalist Islam. The Western response in promoting our own civilization was negligible.
Our civilization is not indestructible: It needs to be actively defended. This was perhaps Huntington’s most important insight. The first step towards winning this clash of civilizations is to understand how the other side is waging it—and to rid ourselves of the One World illusion.[/blockquote]
This woman is severely misinformed. The imam of this mosque is not a moderate. His father was a founder of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt – you know, those moderate guys who worked so diligently with the Nazis during WWII because they admired them so much for the way they dealt with the “Jewish problem” in Germany. This is the same imam who refuses to say Hamas is a terrorist organization. This is a mosque whose developers refuse to rule out accepting money from Saudi Arabia or Iran to help build it.
I think that if this mosque is built then what I heard proposed on the radio today should happen. Either next door or as close by as possible, a gay bar call Al-gay-da should be opened. Then let’s see how tolerant our Islamic friends are. I agree with Robroy, liberals make great dhimmis. I’d like to see what they do when the first GLBT patrons of the bar get stoned.
A Senior Priest wrote:
[blockquote]In Muslim countries and formerly Muslim lands (which, BTW, are still technically Muslim possessions, even if temporarily in the hands of usurpers…ie Serbs, Hungarians, Romanians, Spaniards, and so forth) mosques are built on places of Muslim conquests or victories. The 9/11 mosque will UNQUESTIONABLY be seen as such by all Muslims everywhere, even if they don’t admit it.[/blockquote]
All those formerly “Muslim” lands were somebody else’s first. Earlier I mistakenly referred to Islam as a culture. That was imprecise. I should have said “civilization”. The Liberal assumption is that Islam is willing to exist as a religion (or culture) among other religions (or cultures) under the framework of a Western civilization whose principles were determined by the Enlightenment. If so, fine–and such seemed to have been the case for many decades in this country. The question is whether or not it is still true. It seems to me that if it were the case, Muslims in this country would be more respectful of the opinions of some two-thirds of their fellow citizens.
For the life of me, I do wonder what happened to all the good secular humanists in this country. Where is our secular civic religion now that we need it? Wasn’t there a time when places like Valley Forge, Gettysburg, Pearl Harbor, and, now, Ground Zero could be considered “hallowed” simply by the suffering and sacrifice that took place there? Perhaps we have “moved beyond” it. If so, then let us celebrate diversity, our diversity, in all it’s unvarnished vulgarity. Let there be a 20-story Jewish cultural center at Ground Zero. Let there be a 50-story Christian cultural center at Ground Zero. Let the Hindus, the Buddhists, and the Wiccans all build religious skyscrapers in Lower Manhattan. Remember, all of it is protected by the First Amendment, so what are we waiting for?
like Krauthammer said, are we going to build a Japanese Cultural Center next to the USS Arizona? Or an American Cultural Center in Hiroshima? No, and this would be very close to that.
#1, Parker has been wandering off the reservation for a few years now, she is not the writer she once was.
Just because someone has a lawful Right to do something, doesn’t necessarily make it “right” to do.
One would think that will all of the positive PR that worldwide Islam could really use right now, that the last thing they should be doing is showing such “in your face” insensitivity to the 75% or 80% of Americans who oppose the choice of this site. The fact that this does not seem to be of any concern, says a lot.
Instead of just repeating the claim that the imam is not a moderate, how about actually providing evidence? Not information about his brother, but things that he has said or written that indicate he is not a moderate.
[blockquote]are we going to build a Japanese Cultural Center next to the USS Arizona? Or an American Cultural Center in Hiroshima? [/blockquote] Or a Catholic church next to a playground? Is that where were going? That would make about as much sense.
The Cordoba House has been in lower Manhattan for 40 years – since before the WTC was even built. They have no ties to terrorism and in fact work to promote peace and understanding. Park 51 will have a swimming pool, b-ball courts, cooking classes etc all open to the public of all faiths; it is not a “victory mosque.” The only victory we hand to the terrorists is if we prevent it from being built; that’s exactly what they want to do; drive a wedge between moderate peaceful muslims and the rest of us. You’re playing right into their hands. Fortunately Bloomberg and most Manhattanites are being more clear-headed.
#12 – There’s no need for the gratuitous jab at the Roman Church. The fact is that the nuns praying at Auschwitz had a perfect right to do so, were not doing anything that most people should have seen as objectionable, but yet their religious superiors were entirely in the right to take note of the inappropriateness of the location of what they were doing and have them moved. This was not a slap in the face of Catholicism, Christian prayer or the entirely legitimate desire on their part to heal the hurts of the world – particularly through prayer. The issue was entirely one of taste and comity. The same would apply here. The fact is that this entirely well-intentioned endeavor has become a cause celebre and will do the opposite of what it intends. The sensible, polite thing to do is to call the project off indefinitely. Doing so is a victory for aestheric good sense and humility, not for barbarism. It’s a shame to have to point out something so obvious.
The imam of the mosque was the main organizer of the Shariah project meeting in Malayasia. The Shariah project’s goal is to bring sharia law to the U.S. Sure, they say that want it compatible with democratic principles, but where are all the democratic Islamic Republics? Turkey? Egypt? Only Iraq. And how do we know the “democratic” part of the Shariah project is just them applying Taqqiya (lying to infidels).
[blockquote] The only victory we hand to the terrorists is if we prevent it from being built; that’s exactly what they want to do; drive a wedge between moderate peaceful muslims and the rest of us. You’re playing right into their hands. [/blockquote]
Wrong. It is the liberal dhimmi-wannabes that are playing into their hands. The radical islamists are counting on liberals to fall over just like they are doing in Europe – allowing sharia law to supersede the national law, funding polygamy, etc. The liberal dhimmis then make the argument for the radical islamists, the west is at war with you, they hate you, etc.
The proper response would be just like David Patterson has done…a polite but firm, “I think that there are more appropriate, less inflammatory places for the mosque.” Moderate Muslims are the ones saying, “Of course, it is an act of provocation.”
I really don’t care if Scott K chooses dhimmitude, but I don’t like him working towards that goal for my kids.
Robroy, the article you cite is pure propaganda. She says, for example, that Rauf “Admires” an imam of whom he merely says – in the article she links t – “he’s important.” It’s like me saying the same of Newt Gingrich. He’s an important politician. Doesn’t mean I admire him.
If he does want a Muslim state, he’ll be one of its first victims. If conservatives had done their homework, they’d realize he’s the sort of Muslim that conservative muslims hate. He’s a sufi.
I will say that I’m puzzled by the aggressive desire to remain ignorant about the varieties of Islam. We don’t think of Christianity, after all, as one monolithic entity.
I understand the fear. Alas, fear is bigotry’s first excuse.
The John Wilkin’s in 1939: “Don’t give into fear about Germany. They need [i]lebensraum[/i]. Otherwise you are a bigot.”
I am so sick of liberals like John using the “bigot” card, etc. The country is more divided than I can ever remember precisely because of this. I am with David Patterson, democratic governor of New York. There are more appropriate venues for a Muslim center – that aren’t unbelievably insensitive to families of 9/11 victims. That is not being bigoted.
#10 Chris wrote:[blockquote]Japanese Cultural Center next to the USS Arizona? Or an American Cultural Center in Hiroshima?[/blockquote] One important difference is that America bombed Hiroshima; Japan bombed Pearl Harbor; Islam did NOT take down the WTC, terrorists did. I would not support an Al Queda facility in NYC, but very few Muslims belong to Al Queda or support terrorism and these specific ones most certainly do not.
#14 Robroy wrote:[blockquote]The imam of the mosque was the main organizer of the Shariah project meeting in Malayasia. The Shariah project’s goal is to bring sharia law to the U.S. Sure, they say that want it compatible with democratic principles[/blockquote] How is this different from Christians who want to base US jurisprudence on the Ten Commandments? They say they want it compatable with democratic principles…[blockquote]And how do we know the “democratic†part of the Shariah project is just them applying Taqqiya (lying to infidels). [/blockquote] The better question is what evidence to we have that they are lying? They’ve had their offices in lower Manhattan for forty years without incident. Assuming that they are lying because they are Muslim is simply religous prejudice.
Cordoba shouldn’t have to move out of the neighborhood it has called home for over a generation because people are conflating it with terrorists, or play into their uninformed offense. The better apprach is education and help people understand that Park 51 will be good for the community (both the Muslims and non-Muslims) and will help build bridges, not walls, within the community.
Here’s the analogy I used in the other thread. I’m not taking potshots at the Catholic church; my intention is highlight the similarities between using a few abusive priests to slander the whole church and using radical terrorists to slander Islam.
“If you are an Anglican, how would you feel about people protesting your building of a new soup kitchen near a school because of the Catholic Church sex scandals? People were severly wounded by the scandals and the presence of your church would be highly offensive. Would you give up that land and voluntarily move to a less desirable part of town because people from other parts of the coutry were offended by your original plans? Or would you try to explain to them that 1) most Catholic clergy are not child abusers, 2) you are not Catholic, and 3) the soup kitchen is good for the community?
RE: “I am so sick of liberals like John using the “bigot†card, etc.”
I’m not really — I smile when John Wilkins attempts to use words that he means to be negative about conservatives. ; )
Just think what they’ve done to the word “homophobe” — it’s essentially meaningless and less and less of an insult as people laugh at being called it. The same thing is happening to the word “bigot.”
I am truly sick of the anti-Christian/anti western double standard. If any group remotely related to Christianity tried to do anything like this all of Christianity would be accused of insensitivity to Islam. The liberal/progressives are truly a piece of work. I am truly sick of the liberal/progressives defending practices that represent the norm in Islamic countries as somehow an aberration when in fact it is common. See the video here that shows the “religion of peace” stoning a woman to death, finally crushing her skull with a cinder block. See http://themcj.com/?m=201007&paged=2 under John Chane.
Br. Michael, you realize there are diffent strands – “denominations” – of Islam right? And that the Park 51 group are not the same as the Taliban or other groups that practice stoning? That they haven’t actually stoned anyone in New York in all the decades they’ve been there?
Please, let’s address the people who want to build this community center — not ascribing to them all the atrocities we can find that have been committed in the name of Islam around the world. You wouldn’t want to be blamed for all the evil done in the name of Christianity.
Scott K, if only terrorists and not Islam took down the WTC, then why were crowds of Muslims dancing in the streets after 9/11, rejoicing that the Great Satan had been dealt a crushing blow? And in surveys taken of Muslims without regard for what strain of Islam they espoused, why did a majority think that violence, including 9/11, the Lockerbie bombing and numerous other terrorists acts acknowledged by their Islamic perpertrators, was acceptable, let alone not to be publicly denounced? John Wilkins can dismiss as propaganda what seems to be a carefully researched trail of links and the purpose for 6 or 7 seemingly unnecessary floors of offices. That’s SOP for him. Do you turn a blind eye as easily?
Again, I will say that the Ground Zero mosque can be built the day that the death penalty for conversion away from Islam is written out of the Quran and Christians can evangelize freely in Muslim countries. I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for that, though.
Milton, did you see Muslims in the United States dancing in the streets after 9/11? Or, for that matter, France or England? It would have been odd considering the number of Muslim- and Arab-Americans who were killed in the towers.
The dancing and celebration came from Muslims in places like Palestine, where there is already hatred or distrust of the US — in other words those were political, not religious, reactions. I’d like to see the surveys you refer to.
[blockquote]I will say that the Ground Zero mosque can be built the day that the death penalty for conversion away from Islam is written out of the Quran and Christians can evangelize freely in Muslim countries. I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for that, though. [/blockquote] So, you want the US to model itself after the most oppressive regimes in the world, is that what you’re saying? Wouldn’t you rather we live up to our democratic ideals, recognize personal responsibility and liberty? Besides, the Park 51 group does not represent those countries. [b]They are Americans[/b].
Scott, I have read most of your posts. I will reply to you only once. I can recognize a deliberately provocative act when I see one. The ground zero mosque was not an accident. It was located here precisely to create the up roar that it has. It was done for the same reason that Nazis stage perfectly legal marches through Jewish neighborhoods or the Ku Klux Klan holds a perfectly legal rally in a black neighborhood. The liberal/progressives seem to have no problem in the condemnation such legal first amendment activities when it suits their purposes on the grounds that the activities are “insensitive or offensive”. The selectivity of their condemnation is instructive. It reminds me very much of those Americans who were apologists for the Third Reich in the 1930″s.
Full of deceit: “Cordoba shouldn’t have to move out of the neighborhood it has called home for over a generation.”
Who is asking them to move out of the neighborhood? NO ONE. What people are asking them is to not build a $100 million 13 story edifice that is a slap in the face to the families of 9/11 victims.
If you read the WSJ article by Ayaan Hirsi Ali linked in #7, you will see that the idea of new, “democratic Islam” is a fiction believed by deluded liberals. The example she gives of “moderate” Turkey is very pertinent:
[blockquote] A year ago Turkey’s President Recep Erdogan congratulated Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on his re-election after he blatantly stole the presidency. Then Turkey joined forces with Brazil to try to dilute the American-led effort to tighten U.N. sanctions aimed at stopping Iran’s nuclear arms program. Most recently, Turkey sponsored the “aid flotilla” designed to break Israel’s blockade of Gaza and to hand Hamas a public relations victory. [/blockquote]
Br. Michael: you would be surprised, I think, at how un-liberal I am. But I am a critical thinker and I am ashamed of the way these people are being treated. Building a community center open to the public – with swimming pools, cooking classes, basektball courts open to the public – is a provocative act? Only because people choose to see it that way. The location was chosen because the real estate was available, and it is in the same area where the organization has been located for decades. It’s only because these people are Muslim, and not because of anything they have done or said, that there is outrage. That’s simple prejudice.
Robroy: “Who is asking them to move out of the neighborhood? NO ONE. What people are asking them is to not build a $100 million 13 story edifice that is a slap in the face to the families of 9/11 victims.”
Why is it a slap in the face? Please draw the line for me between this community center and the 9/11 attacks. And what about all the families of the Muslim 9/11 victims?
“If you read the WSJ article by Ayaan Hirsi Ali linked in #7, you will see that the idea of new, “democratic Islam†is a fiction believed by deluded liberals. The example she gives of “moderate†Turkey is very pertinent: ”
What does this have to do in any way with the Park 51 project?
I missed the part in Wilkins’ comment (15) when he talked about “conservatives”, Sarah (19). I think he was talking about people who allow their views to be formed in ignorance and their fears to govern their thought process. I also took him to suggest by implication that ignorance and fear might decline in some kind of proportional relationship. As a conservative, I would strongly hope he was saying nothing about my political philosophy. He doesn’t appear to. And I agree with his observation that there does seem to be a tremendous civic inertia that prevents our discussion of these issues from being a deeply informed one. I would hope that that problem is one that people would want to address regardless of their secular political orientation.
The NYC mosque opposition discussion is interesting in that it is difficult to separate out the strain 1) that is concerned about the particular site from the strain 2) that has intense dislike and suspicion for the Muslim religion generally. The responses and remedies are quite different between these two strains, but they are often quite intertwined in their presentation. If the problem is the latter issue, and its advocates are correctly identifying Islam as a whole as being an immediate existential threat to the United States, the answer logically would have to be no mosques nowhere, no how. And probably the same goes for Muslims. The practical implications of that view of things are virtually apocalyptic. If, on the other hand, the problem is the site, then we can talk about alternatives and explore the underlying assumption that there is some link between the murderous nuts who designed and executed the attack on the WTC and the people who are backing the construction of this facility. If we find that that is an invalid link, then opposition to a facility on this site will no doubt evaporate (I say that hopefully, but not with a lot of conviction).
I do have a concern that the way we are expressing ourselves about the second world view is in fact making things very easy for our enemies who love to paint the US as almost pathologically anti-Islamic, and who use this portrait of America as a recruiting and inspirational pitch. It would be a real disaster if we actually allowed ourselves to become the kind of people or country the bin-Ladens accuse us of being.
Before 9/11 (even with several previous attacks on US interests outside of US soil) the US was practically Islamic-blind, hardly pathologically anti-Islamic. Let’s not forget who declared war on who, who called for whose destruction or subjugation.
They may not have been dancing in the streets in this country, but they sure were celebrating in their homes and mosques. I seem to recall some celebrating in Jersey City, for example.
Cennydd13, were [i]these[/i] people — the Park 51 muslims — celebrating? That’s what’s relevant. You can’t lump them all together, that’s what I’ve been trying to say. Most Catholics are not sex abusers, most Evangelicals do not bomb abortion clinics or picket funerals, most Muslims are not anti-America.
Scott K’s expressions are the wisest and sanest of all these posts on this topic.
#30: There is a problem with making this whole thing about [i]these[/i] people. No, they were no more involved in or responsible for the 9/11 murders than Catholic nuns were involved in or responsible for gassing Jews (and yes, I think the Auschwitz convent is far and away the best parallel to this situation). This entirely well-intentioned proposal has caused scandal and hurt – surely the opposite of its intent. The decent thing to do is drop it, at least for now. There is surely a time and a place. This is most certainly not the time for this place.
I understand and appreciate the desire not to appear influenced by extremists on either side and surely if the project is set aside, there will be those whose responses will be less than appealing. This isn’t – or shouldn’t be – about handing out victories or defeats, but about simple decency. The leaders of this organization had no particular reason to think that their proposal would occasion scandal and so should not be in the least ashamed. Nevertheless, they should withdraw it, ignoring the sesationalist tendencies of either “side”.
Scott K, you wanted surveys.
Here is a link to a Fox News (don’t tune out yet) article that contains direct links to a Pew Research Center study that says among other things:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,274934,00.html
Another survey reflects a similar “truther” attitude among likely moderate US Muslims:
http://www.dojgov.net/american_muslim_attitudes.pdf
IIRC this mosque (unlike the dozens of other mosques that [i]already[/i] exist nearby) is largely funded by Saudi money. Could an American-funded (or any at all) Christian cultural and understanding center be built in Saudi Arabia?
Milton, those survey results are disturbing. But unless you’re going to outlaw Mosques everywhere in the US, it’s still not a condemnation of Park 51 specifically.
[blockquote]IIRC this mosque (unlike the dozens of other mosques that already exist nearby) is largely funded by Saudi money. Could an American-funded (or any at all) Christian cultural and understanding center be built in Saudi Arabia? [/blockquote] Your first assertion is incorrect; as far as I know none of Park 51’s money has been traced to Saudi Arabia. Your hypothetical question is irrelevent, we do not aspire to have our laws or culture mirror Saudi Arabia’s.
Scott K writes, “What does this have to do in any way with the Park 51 project?”
It has everything to do with Rauf’s Shariah Project which is to incorporate Sharia law into America. Mr. Rauf says that he wants to incorporate only the parts of Sharia that is compatible with American law. All the examples of Islamic “republics” that have done successfully incorporated Sharia law into their constitutional democracies (that is to say, none at all because they are all run by despots), shows this is Taqqiya nonsense meant to deceive the gullible like Scott K.
Scott K asks, “Why is it a slap in the face? Please draw the line for me between this community center and the 9/11 attacks.” I find it hard to believe that a sensitive, warm and fuzzy liberal can’t see that the mosque is like opening a wound and poring salt in it to the families. Or are the liberals only sensitive to those poor, oppressed jihadists?
I guess the families are they mistaken about their feelings? Why don’t you look at [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIlCiX0LIqA ]the commercial here[/url], and tell them that they are hateful bigots.
“This mosque it’s wrong…it is so wrong.”
“Our first task at ground zero is preserve the sanctity of the site.”
“I can’t let the actions of the passengers and crew of flight 93 go in vain, and to continue the fight that they began.”
“We promised to never forget. Is that just meaningless words?”
“We understand that they can build where they want to build. We just ask them to use some good sense and to think about what they are doing.”
#32 Daniel — I’m sorry, I missed your post until now. Yours is a very reasonable response. If they decided to move, postpone or drop the project, it would certainly be a generous reaction to the criticism (not that I expect they would get much credit for it). But I don’t believe they are obligated to do so, and I do believe that all parties would be worse off for it.
Robroy:[blockquote]It has everything to do with Rauf’s Shariah Project which is to incorporate Sharia law into America. Mr. Rauf says that he wants to incorporate only the parts of Sharia that is compatible with American law. [/blockquote] So far, there is nothing nefarious about that. Don’t we try to incorporate notions of Chrisitan justice into our system, in as much as it is compatable with American law? [blockquote]All the examples of Islamic “republics†that have done successfully incorporated Sharia law into their constitutional democracies (that is to say, none at all because they are all run by despots), shows this is Taqqiya nonsense meant to deceive the gullible like Scott K.[/blockquote] I’m not sure what you’re saying. It’s impossible to incorporate Sharia law into American jurisprudence? Then he’ll fail at his goal and we’re no worse off. Or your afraid he’ll succeed at incorporating Sharia law into American jurisprudence, and we’ll end up with despotism? That’s far-fetched. But if that’s a concern, why does it matter where Park 51 is located? Why would you want it build [i]anywhere[/i]? It has nothing to do with it’s location near Ground Zero.
[blockquote] I find it hard to believe that a sensitive, warm and fuzzy liberal can’t see that the mosque is like opening a wound and poring salt in it to the families.[/blockquote] I’m in the minority on this issue, but I assure you I am not a liberal. I am getting fuzzy in my middle age, though. In any case, I’m not denying the pain this is causing, but I’m saying the pain and anger is misplaced. The correct object of our anger and hurt are the true fanatics, Al Queda and their terrorist networks, not Imam Rauf and his basketball courts.[blockquote] Or are the liberals only sensitive to those poor, oppressed jihadists? [/blockquote]I don’t know what gives you the impression I have any sympathy with actual jihadists. I’m angry and ashamed that you (and others) lump all Muslims into the category of “jihadists” when Rauf and his group are demonstrably [i]not[/i] jihadists. That’s why so many supporters are accusing the protesters of being bigoted; you’re not distinguishing ordinary peaceful law-abiding Muslims from fanatical jihadists.
[quote]I guess the families are they mistaken about their feelings? Why don’t you look at the commercial here, and tell them that they are hateful bigots. [/quote] They’re not mistaken about their feelings. But first, we don’t restrict people’s rights based on other people’s feelings. Second, I do believe that their feelings are based on ignorance or baseless fear. That doesn’t make the feelings less real, and I would never call them (nor have I called anyone) hateful bigots.
[blockquote]“This mosque it’s wrong…it is so wrong.â€
“Our first task at ground zero is preserve the sanctity of the site.â€[/blockquote] It’s not a mosque, and it’s not at ground zero. Right there are two examples of misinformation that is contributing to the feelings of these victims. Instead of using these feelings to restrict the rights of others, we should help them understand that anger at Park 51 is misplaced, and should be targeted at the real enemies.
“It’s not a mosque.” Yeah, right. Add some basketball courts and a pool to the mosque and call it a community center. The “community center” business is for the gullible. Sort of reminds me of the Virginia Dar al-Hijrah mosque: “The Washington Post reported on the Dar al-Hijrah mosque 30 times from Sept. 11, 1983, to Sept. 11, 2001, and the big news stories about the prayer center were its popular summer camp, its charitable activities and its joyful celebrations of Muslim holidays…But to federal investigators and watchdog groups, the big news about the Dar al-Hijrah mosque was that it was a magnet for some of the top names in terrorism – most recently including the Sept. 11 hijackers and the Fort Hood shooter.” Al-Awaki was the “moderate” imam of the Virginia mosque who turned out to be the imam of several of the 9/11 jihadists, the Fort Hood shooter, and the Christmas bomber.
Is Rauf “moderate”. As Rudolf Giuliani points out, he obviously is not by foisting this “community center” in a deliberately over the top provocative act that is inflammatory. (Even Scott K can’t deny that it is inflammatory because of the obvious inflaming of tensions. Scott might be able to project his own naivete on the organizers and believe that they simply had no idea that it would evoke such strong reactions. I give the organizers credit that they aren’t that foolish.)
“But first, we don’t restrict people’s rights based on other people’s feelings.” Stupid Obama-ite, liberal argument. NO ONE is talking about restricting rights. Non-dhimmis are calling for the Muslims organizers to act in a sensitive and responsibly and move the mosque to a less provocative location – just like David Patterson has done (and also Harry Reid and Howard Dean).
When I mentioned Jersey City, I was referring to the news reports (which I clearly remember listening to) of Muslim residents of that city rejoicing over the attacks on September 11th.
Just saw [url=http://hotair.com/archives/2010/08/19/bombshell-olbermman-debates-guy-who-disagrees-with-him/ ]Keith Olberman interviewing Howard Dean[/url]. Howard Dean hits it out of the park and says exactly what I am calling for. I disagree with Howard Dean’s use of hate, racist, bigoted means for Republicans, but he says that forcing the issue and dismissing all opponents of the mosque as hateful is toxic to this country. Dean calls for a meeting of the mosque organizers and family members of victims and come to a compromise. How fantastic. That is exactly what needs to happen.
#39 if there were a unanimous perspective of 9/11 survivors that would be one thing. I doubt there is. I wonder what they think of the Gentleman’s clubs nearby.
I personally don’t think an institution built on the values of love, mercy and hope should be a slap in the face of anybody. Those who think that any Islamic representation is intrinsically a slap are sensitive and wrong.
As far as Robroy’s comment goes about Lebensraum goes, the more accurate analogy would be those Germans who were sensitive about Jewish presence in their country. They were offensive to Germans. Why couldn’t they just move? Having the government – or anyone – tell any religious institution where to celebrate requires force. Who wants to approve the state telling a voluntary association to do so?
I admit, I’m struggling with the idea that these individuals are “jihadists” when there is no evidence for it. That is why I think it’s bigotry. These are individuals who are also being persecuted by Muslims, after all.
May I assume then, that for the reasons stated, those of you defending the mosque, have no objections to a historical heritage group, say the Sons of Confederate Veterans, flying and promoting the flying of the Confederate Battle Flag where ever any type of flag may legally be flown?
Robroy said:[blockquote]“It’s not a mosque.†Yeah, right. Add some basketball courts and a pool to the mosque and call it a community center. The “community center†business is for the gullible. [/blockquote] It’s hard to take your argument seriously when your objections are this silly. It’s not primarily, or formally, a mosque. It has some worship space, I think one floor. It’s primary purpose is as a community space. What’s really sad is that with no evidence you insist on calling these people liars and people who sympathize with them niave and deluded. You have [b]no evidence[/b] that this is not exactly what they say, and the only reason for your hostility is their religion. [blockquote]Sort of reminds me of the Virginia Dar al-Hijrah mosque: “The Washington Post reported on the Dar al-Hijrah mosque 30 times from Sept. 11, 1983, to Sept. 11, 2001, and the big news stories about the prayer center were its popular summer camp, its charitable activities and its joyful celebrations of Muslim holidays…But to federal investigators and watchdog groups, the big news about the Dar al-Hijrah mosque was that it was a magnet for some of the top names in terrorism – most recently including the Sept. 11 hijackers and the Fort Hood shooter.†Al-Awaki was the “moderate†imam of the Virginia mosque who turned out to be the imam of several of the 9/11 jihadists, the Fort Hood shooter, and the Christmas bomber.[/blockquote] And this has what to do with Imam Rauf and Park 51? Nothing. Should we picket your church because Westboro Baptist Church is despicable? [blockquote]Is Rauf “moderateâ€. As Rudolf Giuliani points out, he obviously is not by foisting this “community center†in a deliberately over the top provocative act that is inflammatory. [/blockquote] So you are saying that exercising his First Amendment rights by building a community outreach center makes him a radical? What if he were a Christian organization doing the same thing? I think you have a double standard based on the fact he is Muslim and nothing else. [blockquote](Even Scott K can’t deny that it is inflammatory because of the obvious inflaming of tensions. Scott might be able to project his own naivete on the organizers and believe that they simply had no idea that it would evoke such strong reactions. I give the organizers credit that they aren’t that foolish.)[/blockquote]I think they were proably a little taken aback at first. I’m sure they are aware now, but are hoping that calmer heads prevail. [blockquote]“But first, we don’t restrict people’s rights based on other people’s feelings.†Stupid Obama-ite, liberal argument. NO ONE is talking about restricting rights. Non-dhimmis are calling for the Muslims organizers to act in a sensitive and responsibly and move the mosque to a less provocative location – just like David Patterson has done (and also Harry Reid and Howard Dean). [/quote] You still haven’t explained why this site is more provocative than any other. If the mosque is a jihadist breeding ground and full of radical, anti-American terrorists-in-waiting, why would you want it two blocks, six blocks, or ten miles from anywhere? The only reason to object to it’s location is the proximity to the World Trade Center, and (once again) this is a peaceful group that’s been in lower Manhattan for decades and had NOTHING to do with ANY attacks, except maybe to help the families of the Muslim victims of the attacks.
You haven’t made your point, you’ve only resorted to name-calling and fear-mongering. You continue to try to tar Park 51 with evils done in the name of Islam all over the world, instead of looking at the work they’ve been doing in the neighborhood for all these years. Any piece of evidence or support raised you label a lie or propoganda without any evidence of such. You’re like a birther or truther — anything that contradicts your premise is dismissed in favor of unsupported allegation and slander. I’ll respond again when you’re interested in talking about [u]this[/u] project and [u]this[/u] Imam — not Muslims in Saudi Arabia or Washington or anywhere else.
Br Michael said:[blockquote]May I assume then, that for the reasons stated, those of you defending the mosque, have no objections to a historical heritage group, say the Sons of Confederate Veterans, flying and promoting the flying of the Confederate Battle Flag where ever any type of flag may legally be flown? [/blockquote] That’s a good question. First, assuming that it is a spot in which it is legal to fly the Flag, I would have no legal objection and would defend the Free Speech rights of those who fly it. As far as whether I support the flying of the flag as a practical issue, it would depend on the context. The flag itself is a symbol of institutional racism and oppression to many. But however distasteful, I would not object to its being flown on private property.
Many people may find Park 51 distasteful, but in a free country we have to tolerate those kinds of things.
There is no convincing people like Scott K or John Wilkins, who see “Islamophobia” or other putative “phobias” where other people see only reasonable objections. Scott K might try reading this fairly balanced summary of Imam Feisal and his history and connections. He has been the leader of the al Farah Mosque in lower Manhattan since 1990. The Cordoba Initiative appears to be a separate project, funded by foreign countries of the OIC. Among his other connections:[blockquote]Rauf is a permanent trustee of an Islamic Cultural Center (ICC) which his father founded in New York City. Until September 28, 2001 — seventeen days after 9/11 — the ICC employed Imam Sheik Muhammad Gemeaha, who later said that “only the Jews†could have perpetrated the 9/11 attacks; that if Americans only knew about this Jewish culpability, “they would have done to Jews what Hitler didâ€; and that Jews “disseminate corruption in the land†and spread “heresy, homosexuality, alcoholism, and drugs.†Gemeaha’s successor at the ICC, Omar Saleem Abu-Namous, said there was no “conclusive evidence†proving that Muslims were responsible for 9/11.[/blockquote]And his comments following 9/11:[blockquote]In a 60 Minutes interview that aired on September 30, 2001, Rauf said that the 9/11 attacks were part of a larger Islamic “reaction against the U.S. government politically, where we [the U.S.] espouse principles of democracy and human rights, and [yet] where we ally ourselves with oppressive regimes in many of these countries.†“I wouldn’t say that the United States deserved what happened,” Rauf elaborated, “but United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened.” Rauf further stated that “because we [Americans] have been accessory to a lot of innocent lives dying in the world,†it could be said that “in fact, in the most direct sense, Osama bin Laden is made in the USA.â€[/blockquote]And here’s the one that stands out for me as entirely preposterous. This one alone makes me dubious about any of his statements about the “reconciliation” intended by the Cordoba project:[blockquote]Rauf contends that authentic Islam is highly respectful of women’s rights and freedoms. In a 2009 piece he penned for the Huffington Post, Rauf stated: “The Prophet Muhammad has been known as the first feminist. … Gender equality is an intrinsic part of Islamic belief.â€[/blockquote]
I’d like to see more reporting as well on the developer of the project and his connections.
In my #44, I forgot to mention the imam’s participation in the Malaysian “Perdana Global Peace Organization,” the largest funder of the IHH- and Hamas-linked flotilla which provoked, many reports say deliberately, the confrontation with Israeli forces which ended in nine deaths, mostly IHH members.
Katherine, thank you! for addressing Imam Rauf specifically. I am about to read the article you linked to.
Regarding the first quote, it looks like the ICC got rid of Gemeaha after he accused the Jews of 9/11. Shouldn’t that be applauded? I don’t understand why that’s a knock against them. Regarding his successor Abu-Namous, I’d have to see the whole quote in context to see what he meant by that (and what the reaction of the rest of the ICC was).
Rauf’s comments about 9/11 are particularly interesting. First, which of those statements to you object to? Then I’d ask you to watch [url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/17/stewart-rips-fox-news-for_1_n_684467.html?ref=fb&src=sp]this segment[/url] of The Daily Show, which reports on Rauf’s quote and then shows a clip of Glenn Beck from a few months prior saying [i]the same thing[/i]. (I apologize for linking to the Huffington Post, but the Daily Show website only provides a video of the whole episode while the HP link just shows the relevent segment). I don’t find it particularly scandalous or controversial to say that the terrorists were inspired by certain actions or policies of the U.S.
I think in your third quote you’ve really proven my point about Rauf being a moderate. His reading of Mohammed and the Koran is pro-woman and pro-feminist. He is different from the radicals who cut the noses off women for leaving their husbands or throw acid on their faces for going to school. That’s why he’s the kind of Muslim who should be encouraged, because he represents thoughtful, moderate, peaceful Islam. That’s why the true radicals hate him, by the way.
Thanks for your specifics and I will go read the article you linked to now.
Scott K, since the second guy says that he doesn’t think Muslim were responsible for 9/11, I don’t really see the improvement over the first.
I object to the statement that U.S. policies were responsible for the events of 9/11. I don’t think that’s true, and I don’t care what Glenn Beck says or said about it. I don’t watch either the Daily Show or Beck.
His quotation about the alleged feminism in the Qur’an is refuted by his own participation in the “Sharia Index Project,” which intends to impose sharia in all countries including America. Scott K, I have personal friends who have experienced the inherent inequality of women under sharia law. When he says this, he’s either fooling you or he hasn’t read his own foundational religious material. The second is unlikely, so the first is the explanation. Genuine moderate Muslims are trying to break the connection between sharia and Islam, the treatment of women and the militaristic aspects of it being their two primary objections. This imam wants to promote sharia, not modify it.
Katherine, we have different interpretations of what he’s saying.
Regarding US policies prior to 9/11, no one is saying — not Rauf, not Beck, and not me — that we are in any way responsible for the attacks or that we deserved them. But it is not debatable that US polices (support for Israel, our presence in Arabia, going all the way back to our support for the Shah in Iran) served as motivation for the attackers. Now maybe we had good reasons for all of that, but it’s not the case that we were just minding our own business and the attacks came out of nowhere.
I note the following quotes from your article:[blockquote]“The vast history of Islam through the 14 centuries of history,†Rauf added, “has proven that except for certain moments in history, the predominant attitude of Muslims toward non-Muslims, especially to Jews and Christians, was one of friendship, was one of engagement.†In 2009, Rauf took up this theme again, writing: “Religious freedom is at the core of Islam.â€[/blockquote][blockquote] In March 2009, Rauf said that “Islamic law and American democratic principles have many things in common,†and he claimed that sharia’s endorsement of “political justice†and “economic justice … for the weak and impoverished†is a creed that “sounds suspiciously like the Declaration of Independence.â€[/blockquote][blockquote]”I’m not a politician. I try to avoid the issues. The issue of terrorism is a very complex question…. I’m a bridge builder. I define my work as a bridge builder. I do not want to be placed, nor do I accept to be placed in a position of being put in a position where I am the target of one side or another.”[/blockquote][blockquote]In recent years, Rauf and ASMA have pursued a project known as the Cordoba Initiative, whose mission is to recapture an “atmosphere of interfaith tolerance and respect†in “Muslim-West relations.†[/blockquote][blockquote]In August 2010, the State Department announced that it would be sending Rauf on a trip through the Middle East to foster “greater understanding” about Islam and Muslim life in the United States. [/blockquote]Sounds like the State Department doesn’t consider him a threat.[blockquote]In addition to his work with ASMA, the New York-based Rauf teaches Islam and Sufism at the Center for Religious Inquiry at St. Bartholomew’s Church. He also is a member of the World Economic Forum Council of 100 Leaders (Islamic West dialogue); sits on the board of trustees of the Islamic Center of New York; and serves as an adviser to the Interfaith Center of New York.[/blockquote] He belongs to several multi-faith organizations and initiatives? It sounds like we could use a whole lot more imams as “radical” as he is.
Scott, you’re fighting the good fight.
Brother Micheal, I’m sure I would be offended by Confederate flags. I tend to see it as a form of regional anti-American pride. I suppose when I see southern blacks raise it, I’ll think through my position. I’m offended, also, by burning crosses. However, I will submit my feelings to the law. Can I burn the Confederate flag?
But I do believe that you really think that Imam Rauf really has it in for the US. And I don’t suspect that there would be much convincing of you otherwise. He’s part of a persecuted sect in Islam; he’s been vetted by the FBI, state department and the DOD. He’s loved by the local Rabbis and his neighbors in Tribeca. Does it matter? No. Instead, we argue about a completely different sect of Islam.
Katherine’s revealing comments may indicate that he doesn’t believe that the US has clean hands, but given our historic support for Islamic Fundamentalism (which started around 1967) as a balwark against Arab secularism, he’s said nothing that other foreign policy experts haven’t already remarked (think Chalmers Johnson). But he has not said that the US deserved to be attacked or does he believe in terror to get his way.
One can still claim the US is a victim while addressing the historical record of our support of the Taliban and o the Saudi Kingdom. And if he is to be a bridge builder, he’s probably going to say things to both sides that make us uncomfortable.
Scott, I do deny your litany of “why bin Laden hated us” with the exception of our presence in Arabia. We should have taken Saddam Hussein out in 1991 and not planted defensive troops in Saudi Arabia and played the foolish, expensive, and, for Iraqis, disastrous, games we did for twelve years. Support for Israel is a line used to gin up popular opinion by Arab tyrants from Nasser on. They don’t actually give a hoot about Palestinians. The Arab states were set to divide Israeli territory among themselves until they were defeated in 1948 and 1967. Like the rest of your quotations from Rauf, these are fairy tale versions of Islamic history which make little rational sense. He sounds like my Egyptian landlord, a nice Muslim man, who told me one evening that the Copts have never been subjected to any pressure to change their religion and that all the problems are merely village squabbles having nothing to do with religion. You are buying the fantasies; because they say it, it must be true, but it isn’t. I’m not comforted by the approval of our Arabist State Department. Some of these professional diplomats are the same types who managed the first couple of years in Iraq so poorly.
John, I just wanted to smoke out liberal hypocrisy and double standards. Thanks. My great great grandfather was in the 11th Florida Infantry. And you can burn any flag you want.
Katherine, I’m a little confused by your statement. Granted it’s blogging, but in a single paragraph you reduce the entire Israeli-Arab conflict, the first war in Iraq, our relationship to Saudi Arabia and Egypt and somehow its relevant to our understanding of Imam Rauf? It sounds like a very tight and impenetrable world view. After all, even the “nice” Muslims are clueless about the violence of their religion. I doubt much would convince you otherwise.
I admit, I give him the benefit of the doubt. He’s studied western philosophy and has the trust of Rabbis, Episcopalians and the FBI. And I hope you’ll excuse me for trusting his reading if Islamic history rather than yours. But for now, I (and most people in Tribeca) see no reason to fear him, and see every reason to see this as political posturing, a way to scare voter into the polls. Remember the “know-nothing” party?
Katherine, it sounds like you’ve made up your mind and nothing will change it. I do wonder why you think bin Laden attacked the US – because he “hates our Freedom?”
I do wish you’d recognize that different Muslim groups have different understandings of their history and scriptures and what represents true Islam — just as you find in Christianity. It’s unfair to assume that someone is being deceptive or disingenuous just because they’re a Muslim. Perpetuating stereotypes only ensures continued antagonism between Muslims and the rest of us and, as I said before, plays right into the hands of the true fanatics.
Imam Rauf, like many, many Muslims we knew in the Middle East, has, or at least expresses, a fantasy version of Islamic history, both ancient and modern. A man who can support the institution of sharia in America and at the same time claims that Islam is inherently equal in its treatment of the sexes is either fooling himself or fooling you.
Or, he has a better understanding of Sharia than you or I do. I find that to be most likely.
Scott K: “So you are saying that exercising his First Amendment rights by building a community outreach center makes him a radical? What if he were a Christian organization doing the same thing?”
Um, yes. This is not difficult. All but the most gullible, liberal apologists for the “community center” see this as a provocative act, one that increases despite the [s]talk[/s] Taqqiya about decreasing tensions. If decreasing tension is really their goal and apparently there are parcels of land being offered to them that is an more appropriate place, then they obviously would gladly take them up on the offer.
And once again, we have the talk of “constitutional rights”. It is laughable to hear Obama-ites repeat their leader. Here is what [url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/19/AR2010081904769.html ]Charles Krauthammer said[/url] about the Obama sycophants (Krauthammer’s term) after Obama changing from irrelevant talk of “rights” to refusing to talk about the “wisdom” of the mosque:
[blockquote]You’re left looking like a fool because now Obama has said exactly nothing: No one disputes the right to build; the whole debate is about the propriety, the decency of doing so. [/blockquote]
Scott K, you also have made up your mind and will not change it.
Bin Laden attacked us because he wanted to become The Leader in the power struggle within Middle East Islamism, to establish his new caliphate. A spectacular terrorist success against what he thought was a weak adversary would increase his stature in his main battle, to take over Saudi Arabia and from there the Arab world. I don’t think he or the fanatics in the airplanes thought the towers would collapse and the U.S. would respond.
I don’t think Rauf is deceptive because he’s a Muslim. I think he’s deceptive because he supports sharia law while claiming to support equality for women. You are reading prejudices into my thought which I do not have. I think we should support moderate Muslims — Muslims who, while maintaining their connection to their faith, acknowledge that some aspects of it must be modified to make it adaptable to life in modern times. Any Muslim who supports the imposition of sharia is not a “moderate.” If you want to know what sharia says, there are multiple books out on the medieval Islamic authorities, whose authority is still recognized and accepted by any Muslim who supports sharia, because their authority is sharia.
Katherine: As his own quotes indicate, he does not support the “imposition” of sharia; he wants to introduce sharia insofar as it is compatible with American law. In other words, he wants it to “be modified to make it adaptable to life in modern times.” Yet you have labeled him an absolutist and refused to hear him. He advocates for a verson of sharia that treats women equally and with dignity, but you can’t get your head around that because it doesn’t fit your notion of what sharia is. Even the Archbishop of Canterbury (and I know how popular he is here) recognized the value of a modified, modernized version of sharia for muslim enclaves in England. But I suppose he’s been deceived too, because we all know how dim Rowan Williams is.
RobRoy: you’ve used too many personal insults in what should be a reasonable debate for me to respond to you any further.
Scott, there is no version of sharia which treats women equally. When we enter into family law, inheritance, and the treatment of women, sharia has to be discarded in order to be made compatible with modern ideas of women’s rights. When we enter into the treatment of apostasy and the rights of non-Muslims to preach to Muslims, there is no version of sharia which is compatible with modern Western ideas. The Archbishop of Canterbury, he later said, had in mind allowing Muslims to enter into business contracts among themselves according to their own principles, an idea which I do not oppose, nor do most people, so long as there is no coercion.
On the subjects of family law, let us look at the habits of strict Orthodox Jews in America, since in some ways this community is similar to observant Muslims. Strict Orthodox Jews do keep, among themselves, family law which is not quite the same as American secular law, and yet, they recognize the subsidiarity of their law to the secular law where there is a conflict. A Jewish divorced woman can sue in secular court for rights and benefits not necessarily covered in the Jewish law, for instance. If sharia were allowed to be established in America, Muslim women would lose the rights they currently have to property accumulated during marriage, and to alimony and child support. As another example, we do not allow wife-beating in secular law, and we do recognize the concept of marital rape in extreme cases. Neither of these is recognized in sharia.
And Katherine, none of those laws would be compatable with current US law, so they would not be what Rauf is advocating. He has specifically indicated — quoted above — that he wants to introduce sharia law [i]as far as it is compatable with US law[/i] — which it sounds like you are okay with, since that is basically what the ABC said. Subsidarity to our constitution, which protects women’s rights.
Katherine, Scott K has apparently paid no attention to what Sharia says or how it is meant too work. To say that Islam speaks of equality for women is so absurd that rational response is quite impossible When this is the case, nothing one can say will illuminate the darkness. He also has paid no attention to the entire history of Islam, for, unlike anhy other religion I know of, it has institutionalized violence as a means of “evangelizing.” The present shows not the fainest difference from the past. Larry
I’m sorry the world is not as black and white as you would like to understand it to be.
I’m also impressed that you have all managed to acquire more expertise on Islam and Sharia law than this Imam who has studied and taught it for decades.
Scott, you can believe what you want to believe, as it is still a free country. I believe you are mistaken, and there it rests. Much of my knowledge about the effects of sharia on women comes from personal discussions with Egyptian friends who live with it, so it is not as ill-informed as you think.
Katherine, you go girl!!!!
Some more info on Imam Rauf:
So I guess next week we’ll hear more about this. Will be interesting.
From [url=http://weaselzippers.us/2010/08/20/ground-zero-imam-wants-to-americanize-islam/ ]Weasel Zippers[/url]:
“Ground Zero Imam Wants To “Americanize Islamâ€.
“Taqiyya translation: Ground Zero Imam wants to â€Islamize Americaâ€.
Branford: I look forward to hearing the report and tapes in context.
robroy: It’s amazing how any point of data that supports your preconception is presented as evidence, but anything that contradicts it is mocked as a lie (without any evidence). Why do you assume a priori that every moderate evidence that man makes is deception? I refrained from pointint it out, but you [i]are[/i] a bigot.
I seem to recall reading something about a Muslim leader…….I don’t recall his name……..saying something about “lulling one’s enemy to sleep by making him believe you’re his friend, and then slitting his throat.” Something about the insidious introduction of Shariah Law and gradual assumption of control over our Western society. My brother was stationed in Turkey with the USAF thirty years ago, and he told me “beware of the Muslim who says he’s your ‘friend; watch your back.”
Yes, how convenient to be able to judge the hearts of people just by knowing their religion.
Scott must be exhausted.
A close reading of this entire thread convinces me that the controversy has very little to do with the location of the proposed community center/mosque. It has everything to do with attitudes toward Islam in non-Muslim America. Virtually none of the stated objections would be vitiated if the project were to be relocated three blocks to the north, particularly given the lack of any rational link between the supporters of the project and the attacks on 11 September 2001. The site location argument is simply a make-weight for a larger antipathy. These views appear to be widely held and fast spreading. I continue to think their implications are quite dire, for I see no way that people possessed of them can possibly permit the construction of any mosque anywhere or even the presence in their midst of any Muslim.
At a minimum, the ferocity of expression and the sweeping content of this variety of opinion must give enormous joy and comfort (and outright glee) to our enemies in the Muslim world, who create and recruit malleable and credulous zealots to murderous deeds by arguing that the United States is populated by extreme, group-thinking Islamophobic hordes who belie the propaganda stance of the US Government that America is a tolerant and open nation whose laws and culture of liberty embrace all religions. I fear that there are not enough indefatigable Scott Ks to keep this discussion from feeding our enemies precisely the ammunition that they want to use back against us. We are in great danger of appearing to be the ugly people they accuse us of being.
I see no way that this can be a good thing for America.
Perhaps we are proving the radical Muslims right. We do hate them. And we seem both eager for the battle. Sadly.
Perhaps we’re entering a new age of anti-semitism. We’re just replacing it with Islam. Don’t trust them, says one commentator.
Them. Any of them.
Here’s [url=http://www.theatlanticwire.com/editor-at-large/view/article/Cordoba-House-Charles-Krauthammer-and-the-First-Amendment-44 ]Michael Kinsley’s[/url] the “constitutional rights argument” followed by a hilarious false dichotomy, bigotry or political opportunitism:
[blockquote] Muslim American citizens have a constitutional right to build a religious and cultural center anywhere in this country that Christians or Jews may build one. This is so clear and obvious that opponents of the planned Muslim center near Ground Zero usually concede or avoid the point. Then they say that the center should not be built at this location anyway. I guess they mean that these Muslims should give up their right voluntarily–or under duress.
And why do they say this? Well, the two obvious possibilities are bigotry and political opportunism.[/blockquote]
[b]Liberal commentator # 1[/b]: The Muslims have a right to build the mosque, (no, let’s call it the “Muslim community center”, no, let’s call it “the Cordoba project”, no, let’s call it the non-descript “Project 51”).
[b]Commonsensical conservative[/b]: No one denies that they have the right, but we are talking about the propriety of the choice of the site.
[b]Liberal commentator #2[/b]: But they have a right to build there!
[b]Commonsensical conservative[/b]: Again, we aren’t talking about rights but propriety.
[b]Liberal commentator #3[/b]: But we have the freedom of religion in this country. They have a right to build there!
[b]Commonsensical conservative[/b]: Perhaps we don’t understand the word “propriety”.
[b]Liberal commentators #1, #2, and #3 in unison[/b]: Oh, you are just bigoted and fearful.
I wonder if Michael thinks the [url=http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/08/20/2010-08-20_miss_usa_rima_fakih_first_muslim_winner_speaks_out_against_mosque_near_ground_ze.html ]new Miss USA[/url], a Muslim, is a bigot against her own religion or a political opportunist (or both!)?
RobRoy need only review this thread (which is sufficiently well-populated to probably have some vague statistical validity as an indicator of general opinion trends) to find that there is much more to opposition to this project than the propriety of the site (and Robroy’s several comments confirm this). A substantial proportion of the views expressed here would not apply to the construction of a similar Christian facility at the same site and much of the opposition here would not, based on the content expressed, be assuaged by moving the project a few blocks (or even a few miles) in any direction. It strikes me that the “propriety” argument must rest on linking the backers of the Project to the events of 11 September in some fairly direct way. Of course, if they actively participated in the attacks, the argument has strength and these people should be serving hard time, not organizing building projects of any sort. But if the link is that the proponents of the project are Muslims, and the peole who plotted and executed the attacks claim to be Muslims (leaving to one side whether they are something else altogether using Islam as a unifying ideological tool), then the “propriety” argument seems to be one of imputing the murderous intent and effects of bin-Laden’s boys to Muslims generally. If, by contrast, the propriety argument is based on the idea that there is some kind of two-block religious-affiliation-free-structure aura around WTC Ground Zero, for reasons of “propriety”, it is hard to understand why such a position is being espoused, where it comes from, and how it is measured.
And, while Michael Kinsley unquestionably strikes me as someone who could be fairly classified as a political “liberal” (I’m sure he would wear the label proudly), this discussion does not have its roots or explanations in a “liberal v. conservative” construct. It is quite possible for “conservatives” to see significant danger in this controversy to constitutional principles/founding ideals and to the kind of informed, analytical discussion of public policy that are part of the foundations of American political conservatism.
“It strikes me that the “propriety†argument must rest on linking the backers of the Project to the events of 11 September in some fairly direct way. ”
Well, you are wrong. If Toyota built a plant next to the USS Arizona memorial, it would be insensitive and should be condemned even though modern Toyota has nothing to do with the Pearl Harbor attack. The nuns who wanted to pray for the dead at Auschwitz certainly had nothing to do with the Nazi’s that perpetrated the holocaust, yet JP II saw the lack of propriety and canceled the proposed convent.
Here is more liberal hypocrisy: Dr. Laura (someone I have actually never heard) was criticized by liberals for using the N-word. (Apparently it was not used as a slur even but as an example of inflammatory language.) The liberals said it was protected by the first amendment but was [i]inappropriate[/i]. See discussion [url=http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/08/21/dr-laura-and-the-911-mosque-the-shifting-sands-of-the-lefts-moral-vacuity/ ]here[/url]. So propriety only comes into play if the offender is a conservative.
Looking back on nearly fifty years of activity in what are commonly referred to as “conservative” causes and issues, I have found it frequent, if not commonplace, for us to question the propriety of behavior by those commonly supposed to be “liberals.” I have never heard it before seriously suggested that taking offense at the activities of those who espouse opposite views is a one-way street. It seems to happen all the time in both directions. One only has to watch cable news (pick the orientation) to see this in action.
I’m not sure why one would regard Dr. Laura Scheslinger as a “conservative”, but her use of the word in the context she used it did not strike me as apocalyptic, but did seem to reflect a lack of imagination and verbal agility. She was quoting others to assert a premise that there is a double standard about the word’s acceptable usage. The word in question has acquired an enormous taboo load, perhaps more than any other word in the English vocabulary, so even quotation is understood by most people to be dangerous ground (witness Huck Finn’s sometimes non-sensically precarious perch on public library shelves). Saying it repetitively (or even once) on a radio broadcast has to be understood to be particularly risky. Her point could have been made as effectively without her directly using the word. From my personal perspective, I am wary of loading up individual words with too much taboo force. Her sponsors might be more sensitive to this than I am, and therein lies the rub for a broadcaster.
An auto factory on a battle site strikes me as particularly discordant, but I think I would feel that way even if it were a Ford plant, as opposed to a Toyota factory, as in the example of No. 74. A sectarian community center near the WTC site doesn’t excite the same sense of disconnect for me. Again, how proximate or distant is the force-field around that particular site, and does its acceptable distance vary depending on the religion of the proponents? If the problem is the site, why does all this stuff re Sharia law and the caliphate etc. get thrown up in the comment thread? If it is these latter issues, is there any place for Muslims to live or worship in America, let alone lower Manhattan?
The sisters at Auschwitz is probably a better analogy to this situation, but I didn’t find that idea lacking in propriety. I think the Pope simply thought the matter to be one where the mission could be accomplished without the furor and moved on. Certainly, the backers of the community center here could reach a similar conclusion. The issue for non-Muslim Americans, however, is why do we feel the way we do about this particular project and what are the implications for our country that these views are so strongly held.
The proper response now? Build it right there. Anything else is pandering to politicians and lets ignorance win the day. On principle, this mosque SHOULD be built where they planned precisely because it challenges the sensitivities of others. It forces us to say: do we believe in freedom to worship? Or only when we like it?
Plenty of people, at different times, were too sensitive about having blacks or Jews near them. Both were considered dangerous.
In general, this is a distraction from the real issue: unemployment.