For nine years after the attacks of Sept. 11, many American Muslims made concerted efforts to build relationships with non-Muslims, to make it clear they abhor terrorism, to educate people about Islam and to participate in interfaith service projects. They took satisfaction in the observations by many scholars that Muslims in America were more successful and assimilated than Muslims in Europe.
Now, many of those same Muslims say that all of those years of work are being rapidly undone by the fierce opposition to a Muslim cultural center near ground zero that has unleashed a torrent of anti-Muslim sentiments and a spate of vandalism. The knifing of a Muslim cab driver in New York City has also alarmed many American Muslims.
“We worry: Will we ever be really completely accepted in American society?” said Dr. Ferhan Asghar, an orthopedic spine surgeon in Cincinnati and the father of two young girls. “In no other country could we have such freedoms ”” that’s why so many Muslims choose to make this country their own. But we do wonder whether it will get to the point where people don’t want Muslims here anymore.”
American Muslims who have previously felt successfully assimilated but are now questioning their place in this country might be wise to ask those who are involved with the new New York mosque and cultural center why the need for that facility right there right now. Tolerance is two-sided. It is incredibly intolerant to draw a line in the sand and then dare those on the other side to love it!
Well, I have a couple of questions for them.. Is their “community center/mosque,playground, and etc going to be governed as a “private entity”, or will it be subject to scrutiny regarding civil rights? If the latter, good.. What about the civil rights of women who enter? And, will the surrounds be called by the five-times-a day “Calls to Prayer… As for employees, even non-profits are governed by hiring practices.. Seems there are quite likely to be some interesting applications of “double standards”.. Just askin,
Grandmother
“Will We Ever Belong?”
An interesting question.
Some others might be,
“Will we ever stop self-excluding ourselves?”
“Will we display a reciprocity of respect and tolerance in our relations with those who are not Muslim?”
“Will we openly express our non-tolerance of those within our communities who claim to be Muslims and who also condone prejudicial attitudes or violence against non-Muslims?”
“Will we foreign born immigrants acknowledge by that immigrating to the USA we or our parents made a decision to be part of the American culture, its traditions and its constitutional republic?”
[blockquote]For nine years after the attacks of Sept. 11, many American Muslims made concerted efforts to build relationships with non-Muslims, to make it clear they abhor terrorism, to educate people about Islam and to participate in interfaith service projects. [/blockquote]
If so, they sure have been keeping a low profile. It would appear that for a significant fraction of Islaam, moderate behavior by muslims verges on apostasy. It is certainly true that muslims have suffered disproportionately from the violence of muslim extremists, if there is such a demographic. Perhaps that might explain the dearth of vocal “moderate muslims”.
A Church in Gainesville, a Florida church want’s to burn a Koran. It may be insensitive and crass (http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/09/05/1810373/uf-muslims-fear-koran-burning.html), but no more so than the Mosque. From the press reports you can see the double standard in operation.
The people I know at work who are from Muslim countries have either abandoned Islam or say things such as “I admire sharia law.” Unfortunately I have not had an opportunity to continue the conversation. I would like to ask “All of it? Or which parts?”
Full membership in this country is contingent on embracing democracy and the essential freedoms.
#5: It is far more than “insensitive and crass.” One is considered a blasphemy (cf Piss Christ) and the other is media-manufactured know-nothingism based on undefined measures of proximity to a terrorist site. Please check your work and try again.
hrsn (#7.),
In response to your supposedly illustrative use of “(cf Piss Christ),”
I find your use of this intentionally offensive blashphemy as a counter-point example to be extremely offensive and simple-minded.
Elves,
Please remove or edit both comment hrsn’s (#5) comment and my comment to remove hrsn’s deliberately offensive blasphemy and my citation of his blasphemy.
RE: “the other is media-manufactured know-nothingism . . . ”
Lol.
No it’s not.
It might be instructive for Americans to spend the dual anniversary this year of 9/11 and Eid ul-Fitr by reading the Constitution and reflecting on why many of our ancestors came here to flee religious intolerance in Europe. I’m kind of at the stage of wondering, “What was the point?”
Some people who claim to follow both the Prince of Peace and the Founding Fathers quite obviously cannot see any difference between (a) the construction of a house of worship and interfaith center by a religion the majority disapproves of, and (b) the public burning of a despised religion’s holy book. What comes next, smashing synagogue windows? Jews in general have exactly the same collective responsibility for killing Christ that Muslims in general have for hijacking airplanes… none, apart from stereotyping prejudice.
Anyone who hasn’t heard a moderate Muslim just isn’t listening. Anyone who read the whole article would have heard answers to virtually all of AnglicanFirst’s questions. The overwhelming majority of American Muslims have been saying the same thing for 9 years now. I can hardly blame them for concluding that nobody is ever going to believe them.
As I said last week, I am inclined to agree with my Choctaw grandmother that anybody whose ancestors arrived here after 1491 should be considered an American on sufferance. If you don’t like American civil rights like freedom of religion, go back to Europe.
It is has just came out that the owners of the property turned down an offer of $18 million and then turned around and sold it to the GZ Mosque organizers for $4.5 million. Unless the owners were Episcopalians, something stinks about the affair. They also owe nearly half a million in back taxes.
Actually I think my point was made and the double standard exposed. Burning the Koran is well within the first amendment rights of the Church as a form of protest and it is nowhere equivalent to burning a church or mosque or what ever. Part of the first Amendment is to protect the free speech rights to be offensive isn’t it Dale? Burning a Koran is at least as offensive and blasphemous to a Muslim as placing a crucifix in a jar of urine was to Christians yet the usual suspects defended the rights of the artist and condemn the Christians.
There are plenty of examples where Christians as a group are expected to tolerate blasphemy to God (Jesus) and Muslims are not expected to tolerate similar blasphemy to Allah and the Prophet.
“Jews in general have exactly the same collective responsibility for killing Christ that Muslims in general have for hijacking airplanes… none, apart from stereotyping prejudice.”
But, you see, Dale, that this simply isn’t true, for the issue isn’t simply hijacking airplanes. The examples of religious terrorism by Moslems are so great and widespread that it would be hard to count them. This is fact, not perception, and it has precious little to do with stereotyping. That the stereotyping exists, I do not dispute; it always exists as we move from induction to deduction in our search for answers. But it isn’t the substantive issue. Nor does it have any factual relationship with the ancient charge about Jews as Christkillers. Larry
“Anyone who hasn’t heard a moderate Muslim just isn’t listening.”
Yeah. They are the ones that, by definition, are calling for the GZM to be moved because they see that building for what it is, a provocative act that is meant to polarize feelings.
#12: Again with the comparisons…. “Piss Christ” was a tired and inane example of modern art’s supposed mission to “shock the bourgeoisie,” and it did spectacularly (while still being inane!). That we can still reference it as a cultural moment tells you that there was plenty of controversy and protest over it. The usual suspects defended the rights of the “artist” and condemned those who decided to play “philistines” in this drama. It’s an old story.
Now, the Koran burning is supporting the idea the “Islam is of the Devil,” which is also protected opinion. The action, as it turns out, looks like it will also go on undisturbed by the authorities. It is obviously designed as a deliberate provocation motivated by hatred of another’s religion–the kind of thing that has led to persecutions and wars, even among Christians.
So, in sum: one is harmless, silly, modern art; the other is ominous, dark, and hate masquerading as righteousness. (And book burning….really? The universal symbol of ignorance?)
Regarding moderate Muslims, we have an [url=http://www.danielpipes.org/2226/identifying-moderate-muslims ]essay by Daniel Pipes which concludes[/url]:
[blockquote] * Islamists note the urge to find moderate Muslims and are learning how to fake moderation. Over time, their camouflage will undoubtedly further improve.
* Figuring out who’s who is a high priority. It may be obvious that Osama bin Laden is Islamist and Irshad Manji anti-Islamist, but plenty of Muslims are in the murky middle. An unresolved debate has raged for years in Turkey whether the current prime minister, Recep Tayyip ErdoÄŸan, is an Islamist or not.
* The task of identifying true moderates cannot be done through guesswork and intuition; for proof, note the American government’s persistent record of supporting Islamists by providing them with legitimacy, education, and (perhaps even) money. I too have made my share of mistakes. What’s needed is serious, sustained research.
[/blockquote]
I don’t want the mosque built at the 9/11 attack location, and I think the scheduled Koran burning is incredibly stupid and insensitive, even though it is legal. That being said, this country was founded on certain Christian principles that are timeless and do not need to be treated like some sort of gross religious insensitivity by every other minority group. Our founding fathers would never have contemplated a country that wanted to erase our Christian heritage from public places, even as they recognized the rights of citizens to practice other religions.
Look at France. They have a somewhat standard definition of what constitutes French culture and they are saying if you can’t or won’t accept that this is French culture and the way we live in this country then you will not be happy here and you probably should settle someplace else.
To borrow from the old saying about real estate, the three most important things about Muslims feeling a sense of belonging in American culture is assimilate, assimilate, assimilate.
Don’t y’all find it a little ironic that the some of the same folks who are calling for Muslims to “assimilate, assimilate, assimilate” by giving up all their religious distinctives have been calling for Christians to resist assimilation to American culture on matters of sexual ethics? That inconsistency isn’t a new American phenomenon–in the 1920s, the American majority attempted to outlaw parochial schools in several states, arguing that Catholics needed to “assimilate, assimilate, assimilate.” American majorities have been doing that sort of thing at least since the authorities in Massachusetts drove out the founders of Rhode Island because they wouldn’t “assimilate, assimilate, assimilate” on infant baptism. Those incidents have not been our best moments as a nation, and this isn’t either.
RE: “So, in sum: one is harmless, silly, modern art; the other is ominous, dark, and hate masquerading as righteousness . . . ”
Oh, I think it’s perfectly possible for the Piss Christ work [funded by the State] to be ominous, dark, and full of hate, while also being silly.
Dark and hate go nicely with silly and trivial. Some of the most shallow, trivial people in the world are murderers, for instance.
So, while the Piss Christ work was indeed silly and trivial — mirroring the mind of the maker — it was also dark and hate-filled, also mirroring the mind of the maker.
15, the two incidents are exactly the same. The truth is that both can and both shouldn’t. The same for the ground zero mosque. Both the crucifix and Koran burning are intended to show contempt for that which the perpetrators consider false. One is condemned and one is uplifted by the same cultural liberal elite. Double standard.
Dale,
You don’t get it. It’s not about religious assimilation. It’s about cultural assimilation. The United States has always had a general Christian culture. This doesn’t stop diverse, yet culturally reasonable, religious expression by other faiths, but it does provide a cultural context within which such religious expression operates. As a practical application, I don’t mind seeing women wearing head scarves in public , but I strenuously object to having complete covering, including the meshed screen over the eyes. I also strenuously object to Hasidic Jews blocking public streets on the Sabbath in the U.S. and hurling rocks at drivers who attempt to navigate these public streets in their cars. This is a whole lot different that disagreeing over infant baptism.
As far as resisting assimilation to American culture, the culture you are falsely positing, is the aggressively secularist, anti-Christian culture advanced over the last 50 or so years by the progressive socialists/secularists who have a stroke if anyone dares to sing a Christmas carol in a public school setting. I suggest you try living in a Muslim country for a while and see how well you do with any public expression of Christian faith before you condemn what people are calling for in the U.S. Better yet, just try to do some street evangelism in Dearborn, Michigan and you will get a real taste of the coming dhimmitude of the U.S.
#17 Daniel wrote: “I don’t want the mosque built at the 9/11 attack location.”
What if it’s not a mosque, but a public community and recreation center with some space set aside for prayer? And what if it’s not at the 9/11 attack location, but a quarter of a mile away?
John Wilkins, on another thread, talked about how Obama “bravely” took a stand for the Constitution because he said that the GZM organizers have a “right” to build the Islamic community center at the proposed location (but the next day, Obama “bravely” reneged on commenting on the wisdom of doing so). Of course, the law is not so clear: [i]Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.[/i] does not necessarily give someone to build a religious building wherever he wants.
I am waiting with bated breath for Obama (and John Wilkins and Dale…) to stand up for the Florida church’s right to Koran burning since they are no doubts whatsoever that it is their Constitutional rights. Obama can take the fifth on the wisdom of the burning again. And let’s liberally use the hate card against anyone who opposes the Florida church.
How about more level heads prevail and move the GZM and cancel the Koran burning? I know. Ain’t going to happen.
Robroy (#23), how do you think President Obamas should weigh General Petraeus’s concerns? Do you suggest he “stand up for the Florida church’s right to Koran burning” regardless of the implications that may have for troops on the ground in Afghanistan?
I find the Koran burning a magnitude more offensive than the community center, for one reason because the intention of the burning is to be intentionally offensive while the stated purpose of the center is to promote inter-religous dialogue and tolerance.
But, I will gladly acknowledge that the church has the constitutional right to burn the Korans and, assuming they are not violating local zoning or fire ordinances, can go ahead with the burning. I do think it makes them look like backwards, ignorant bigots; gives a black eye to Christianity; and (as asserted by Gen Patreaus) may endanger our troops. So I’m not questioning the wisdom, I’m stating with confidence that it is unwise and counterproductive – but sure, it’s their right.
Re #20: I don’t recall anybody at the time (other than the artist and the museum) who “uplifted” the art work in question. Almost everybody said that it was in terrible taste and horribly offensive, but some also suggested that it was protected by the First Amendment. The same is certainly true of the proposed Koran burning, with the difference that American citizens may well die in retaliation for the offense (I’m not aware that anyone was placed in physical danger by the art work). The same is arguably true of the placement of the mosque, although I still find it astonishing that any American should find the placement of a community center including a house of worship offensive; nonetheless, that is obviously the case.
The mosque example, however, differs from the other two in a couple of respects: (1) There is no credible evidence that the proponents of the community center were driven by the specific intent to offend or attack a specific religious group, and (2) The opponents are trying to get the government to prevent American citizens from the free exercise of their religion, in full compliance with the relevant land-use statutes, on property that they themselves own. Again, the notion that anybody could confuse these three situations is beyond my comprehension.
Re #21: I’m not sure that I understand the difference you are drawing between religious and cultural assimilation. What seems cultural to you may appear religious to the person whose behavior is being regulated. Under the First Amendment, it is not the role of the government to tell a religious group what to believe or how to express those beliefs, unless there is a compelling public purpose. That exception means that it is constitutional to prohibit Mormons from bigamy, Native American Church members from selling hallucinogens, Chasids from stoning taxicabs on Shabbat, Muslims from covering their faces before entering a bank, and so forth. The people involved all see these practices as religious, rather than cultural, but they are still subject to regulation for the protection of public health, safety, or welfare. In contrast, I cannot see any compelling public purpose in telling one faith that it can locate its houses of worship in Lower Manhattan, while another faith cannot. It is perfectly permissible for private citizens to engage in that sort of discrimination, but the government is not supposed to impose religious tests.
Finally, I honestly don’t understand why Evangelical and Orthodox Christian believers aren’t willing to join together with Muslims against our common cultural enemy, the “aggressively-secular, anti-religious culture that has been advocated over the last 50 years.” If pro-life, pro-traditional marriage policies are important, why not form the same sort of coalitions with Muslims as Christian reasserters have formed with, for example, Mormons (who have a theology that is even more alien to Christian orthodoxy than Islam). Muslims affirm that Jesus was “born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate and ascended living into heaven, from whence he shall come to judge the living and the dead.” Instead of making common cause on those issues that Christians hold in common with Muslims (and respectfully differing on those where our beliefs are incompatible), the two faiths have acted as if the Crusades were still in progress.
26, the reason is that Christians didn’t threaten anyone with death for placing an image of God in urine. I find it telling that you don’t find this offense to Christians. Muslim’s around the world have made threats over the Koran burning. http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/72263 There is a difference. Christians, it seems are expected to take such offenses in their stride and move on, Muslims are not. Double standard. And Muslims and others are asking the government to step in and stop the burning.
And Muslims don’t: “… affirm that Jesus was “born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate and ascended living into heaven, from whence he shall come to judge the living and the dead.”
The following is taken from an Islamic web site (http://www.islam-guide.com/ch3-10.htm)
[blockquote]What Do Muslims Believe about Jesus?
Muslims respect and revere Jesus (peace be upon him). They consider him one of the greatest of God’s messengers to mankind. The Quran confirms his virgin birth, and a chapter of the Quran is entitled ‘Maryam’ (Mary). The Quran describes the birth of Jesus as follows:
(Remember) when the angels said, “O Mary, God gives you good news of a word from Him (God), whose name is the Messiah Jesus, son of Mary, revered in this world and the Hereafter, and one of those brought near (to God). He will speak to the people from his cradle and as a man, and he is of the righteous.†She said, “My Lord, how can I have a child when no mortal has touched me?†He said, “So (it will be). God creates what He wills. If He decrees a thing, He says to it only, ‘Be!’ and it is.†(Quran, 3:45-47)
Jesus was born miraculously by the command of God, the same command that had brought Adam into being with neither a father nor a mother. God has said:
The case of Jesus with God is like the case of Adam. He created him from dust, and then He said to him, “Be!†and he came into being. (Quran, 3:59)
During his prophetic mission, Jesus performed many miracles. God tells us that Jesus said:
“I have come to you with a sign from your Lord. I make for you the shape of a bird out of clay, I breathe into it, and it becomes a bird by God’s permission. I heal the blind from birth and the leper. And I bring the dead to life by God’s permission. And I tell you what you eat and what you store in your houses….†(Quran, 3:49)
Muslims believe that Jesus was not crucified. It was the plan of Jesus’ enemies to crucify him, but God saved him and raised him up to Him. And the likeness of Jesus was put over another man. Jesus’ enemies took this man and crucified him, thinking that he was Jesus. God has said:
…They said, “We killed the Messiah Jesus, son of Mary, the messenger of God.†They did not kill him, nor did they crucify him, but the likeness of him was put on another man (and they killed that man)… (Quran, 4:157)
Neither Muhammad nor Jesus came to change the basic doctrine of the belief in one God, brought by earlier prophets, but rather to confirm and renew it.1[/blockquote]
The Muslim understanding of Jesus is totally different from that of orthodox Christianity.
While the constitution does permit and encourage the free exercise of religion, it cannot by definition permit activities that subvert it outside of the procedures contained within it.
Islam is more than a religion, it is a codified culture and system of government at all levels. The universal implementation of Sharia law is the purpose of jihad however jihad is manifested. Sharia is evident on it’s face as incomparable with a constitutional republic moderated by democracy and based on natural law.
If the ummah had the power to do so we would be facing swords. Instead we are facing jihad by subversion using our own system of laws and constitutional rights.
The Ground Zero Mosque is nothing more or less than a direct attack on our constitution. it is no coincidence that the project is called Cordoba Center, hearkening to a period when muslims dominated most of Spain.
This is a subtle and dangerous game they are playing, and we need to find ways to inhibit it without destroying ourselves. It would be preferable to do so before even more widespread bloodshed results from escalation of the conflict. Otherwise, history shows us that we will sooner rather than later be personally forced to choose between Jesus and Mohamed.
Creedal, I’m not sure I understand the first sentence of your post.
Every single sentence after it is untrue.
🙂 So – Mormons can’t marry multiple women because there is a compelling public interest against it. How you gonna’ handle it when places like Dearborn, Michigan institute Sharia law and demand that faithful Muslims be allowed to marry multiple women? Does that change your definition of compelling public interest? How about when the same Muslims claim the right to discriminate against same-sex marriage and LGBT folks because it offends their religion and is against Sharia law?
Re: #25 Scott K. – as long as the mosque/community center is out of sight of the 9/11 site and the call to prayer is not blared out over speakers, I don’t have a problem. Also, the mosque and its attendees have to be subject to the same scrutiny that the ATF and FBI routinely apply to Christian separatist movements in the West.
Again, our national culture is decidedly Judeo-Christian, always has been, and it was never really a problem until the mid 20th century. And, yes, I know the people who settled our country to escape religious persecution in many cases turned right around and persecuted people who differed with them, but we moved beyond that rather quickly.
Scott, but those statements are not untrue at all. In fact, to be a most faithful Muslim, following the Koran, requires that you see yourself as Muslim first, last and always, and not a “citizen” of a nation. Also, and this is a fact we better learn in this country pretty quickly – – -Islam itself calls for “conversion” of the world, either by the choice of the converted, or the forcing of that conversion by the sword; or, if both fail, the immediate death of the unconverted infidel.
Scott, Creedal has it completely correct.
Daniel #30 — the people in Dearborn Michigan (or anywhere else) cannot enact laws that violate the constitution. Or rather, technically they can, but they will quickly be overturned by the courts. Which is why I have no fear of Sharia Law in the United States (except those aspects of Sharia that happen to already conform with our existing laws).
jkc1945 wrote [blockquote]to be a most faithful Muslim, following the Koran, requires…[/blockquote] According to whom? There are as many interpretations of the Koran as there are of the Bible. [blockquote]requires that you see yourself as Muslim first, last and always, and not a “citizen†of a nation.[/blockquote]Like Christianity? Isn’t our allegiance to the Kingdom of God greater than our allegiance to any nation? [blockquote]Also, and this is a fact we better learn in this country pretty quickly – – -Islam itself calls for “conversion†of the world,[/blockquote] Like Christianity? Also, again, you are imposing one very specific interpretation of the Koran on the entire religion. This is not a universal tenet within Islam. [blockquote]either by the choice of the converted, or the forcing of that conversion by the sword;[/blockquote] This has also been practiced in Christianity, but you would not claim all “true” Christians do this. [blockquote]or, if both fail, the immediate death of the unconverted infidel. [/blockquote] All except the most radical Muslims would strongly object to that accusation. It’s simply anathema to mainstream Islam. [blockquote]Scott, Creedal has it completely correct. [/blockquote] No, I’m afraid he is completely misinformed about mainstream Islam in all its forms and is basing his knowledge on extremism and/or half-truths about the religion of Islam.
*Light bulb*
When #31 and #28 et al. make categorical statements about Islam, they essentially define a radically “reasserting” Islam, which is not far from what the jihadis and their sympathizers are about. What is needed, at least here in America but also elsewhere, is a “reappraising” (moderate) Islam.
Alas, since this site is a bastion of Anglican reasertion, there’s no room to consider the merits of any kind of religious reappraisal, lest heads explode. Our national interest, however, is in encouraging reappraising Islam, and not in Koran burning.
And, #19, I looked for your in-depth biography of Andres Serrano on Amazon, but couldn’t find it. Would you mind extracting passages dealing with the artist’s psyche and motivations?
Of course he’s basing his knowledge on extremism. This is one of the defining characteristics of modern Islam. Its institutionalized violence is part of history so we won’t worry about that. The record speaks clearly.
But contemporary Islam has made it clear that its extremism is its Mom and apple pie. How much evidence do you need? If contemporary evidence makes no difference to you, then this portion of the debate is wasted breath.
What will it take for Moslems to be accepted in the US? They will place themselves above suspicion when they act that way and the construction near GZ suggests nothing of the sort.
The notion that America religion-tolerant is historically false, as the Mormons have found out with their involvement in California.
What has happened of course is that tolerance has become a virtue – which it is not – so deeply instilled by the left that we have a culture in which tolerance means the acceptance of anything at all that doesn’t interfere with their pleasures ]and that doesn’t cross their favorite fads.. It has come to extol those who have no principles of their own (save a belief in fads) and so have no reason to distinguish between good and bad (except in fads). Hence the passion for being “non-judgmental.”
America paid no attention to Islam as long as it stayed in its own house, tended its own garden, and kept its mouth shut. The Islamic pew sitters (like the pew sitters in TEC) are now reaping what they have allowed the activists to sew, and so they should. Welcome to the real America, Islam. America has said “Put up or shut up,” a redaction of “Don’t tread on me.” This is a true American motto and defines an enduring American belief. Larry
Gee, Larry. That last was sort of incoherent. I think you claimed that religious toleration isn’t a virtue, and that Islam is OK if it keeps it mouth shut. Hard to tell with all that foam spewing out.
#35 but I cannot make sense of your response. Toleration isn’t a virtue, if a virtue is an attitude that this correct and desirable in all situations. Toleration is always circumstantial. What does this have to do with Moslems in America? That they are tolerated as long as they stay at home, so to speak, is simply a sign that toleration is circumstantial. Change the circumstances, change the tolerance. And this is precisely what has happened, is it not? Is this not clear to you?
If you speak of forbearance, then you speak of a virtue, but precious few speak of this social skill. It is a violation of forbearance which we may bring against the burning of Korans. Forbearance is the refusal to use the power one has for the sake of a higher purpose.
Larry
Is not the Islamic world a main focus of evangelical outreach in accordance with the Great Commission? As Christians we cannot accept our Moslem neighbors without first reaching out to them with the Good News and telling them of the Way , the Truth, and the Light. To do any less is unchristian.
#36: I hope we can clear this up pretty easily. In the particular version of “Caesar’s kingdom” in which we live (the USA), religious toleration is very broad–with polygamous Mormons and “Christian Identity” militias at the limits, and cults, Scientology, and Rastafarianism inside but given a gimlet eye. This toleration is a foundation of our social harmony. Islam, broadly speaking, has enjoyed it in the past and is certainly entitled to it now. “Reasserting” Islam (jihadism) is little different in its social purpose (though more “successful”) from a nutty religious militia, and is beyond the toleration boundary. The Islam practiced by the vast, vast majority of its adherents–as evidenced by behavior and social practice–is certainly tolerable.
The problem here with the “GZM foamers” is their (your?) sympathy with religious reassertionism, which, when applied to Islam, creates something quite like jihadism. Since “reappraising” is ruled out on principle, there’s no way to understand a “moderate” or even “liberal” Islam.
RE: “Would you mind extracting passages dealing with the artist’s psyche and motivations?”
Tee hee — those passages are precisely where your passages are in the biography dealing with the psyche and motivations of those supporting the Koran burning — which you assert are “ominous” and “dark” and full of “hate.”
But it’s good to see that you didn’t like or approve of my comment #19, which led you into the rhetorical mistake of #33.
I know it’s tough to be here, hrsn . . . amongst all the primitives here. Just try to swallow the bile and be consistent a bit.
[blockquote]What is needed, at least
here in America but also elsewhere, is a “reappraising” (moderate) Islam.[/blockquote]
Hrm. Let me parse that.
[blockquote]What is needed, at least
here in America but also elsewhere, is [strike]a “reappraising” (moderate) Islam.[/strike] something that is different from Islam.[/blockquote]
We are perhaps not so far apart here. Some would say that the reappraisers are creating something other than Christianity.
On another thread, a comparison was made between Timothy McVeigh and the 9/11 terrorists. What would the citizens of Oklahoma City say if the Christian churches of OKC built an center next door to the bombing site? (quoting an eminent reappraiser)
The difference is, that McVeigh performed a manifestly un-christian act of mass murder, whereas the 9-11 terrorists were celebrated (on camera) by everyday muslims around the world as martyrs who had achieved a great victory.
After 80+ years of being inundated by various media with outlandish advertising claims and propaganda, the people of the west should at this point have become not easily fooled. Many people in the developing countries of the middle east have not had the opportunity to learn that lesson.
“Who are you going to believe? Me? or your own lying eyes?”
That may well contribute to our ultimate salvation.
RE: “I find the Koran burning a magnitude more offensive than the community center, for one reason because the intention of the burning is to be intentionally offensive while the stated purpose of the center is to promote inter-religous dialogue and tolerance.”
And such a lovely job the “center” [sic] is doing in promoting all of that dialogue, tolerance, and [dare I say it] “reconciliation” too. Why I feel unified and honored and included already — just as I feel in TEC, as a matter of fact! ; > )
It’s interesting. Last night I was considering just the opposite of Scott K’s thoughts. I find the Koran burning to be foolish and perhaps even immoral [I need to think more about that latter] for Christians. I wish they wouldn’t do it [although I don’t give a flying fig whether political libs think it backward or bigoted — if anything that would make me consider encouraging them onward if I felt a little mischievous.]
But I find the building of the mosque [let’s not kid ourselves here about the “community center” — that rhetorical switch needed to be tried much much earlier for it to fly] to be foolish — [i]coupled with malevolent[/i].
Our differing views on which action is malevolent is probably based on our differing foundational political worldviews. I don’t think the mosque organizer is remotely innocent or harmless, although of course he has striven to give that impression. Plenty of people on these T19 threads have supplied lots of evidence for that lack of innocence — Katherine springs to mind, but there have been others too — and that evidence is and will continue to be duly ignored.
I expect this is yet another thing that the two opposing political camps simply won’t agree with, no matter what either side says. I think the mosque organizer is a malevolent person who is a shill for radical Islamists. Others don’t.
Since our beliefs and interpretations of the various actions of the various players in this are based on our foundational political worldviews, I think it unlikely that any exchanges here at T19 will result in changed minds. We simply don’t agree enough on the larger political basics to be able to come to agreement on the smaller issues that confront us.
That’s really the place where America in general is as well. It will all be hashed out, I expect, election by grinding election and through the various educational efforts that both sides enact in the coming generations.
#39. While I couldn’t find your insightful biography of Serrano, I visited the Dove Center webpages, with their clever clever “love the sinner, hate the sin” positioning– The short version: “We love Moslems! We hate their religion!” For comparison’s sake, you might consult this document from Westboro Baptist–clearly, their fellow travelers: http://www.godhatesfags.com/fliers/20100907_WBC-to-Burn-the-Koran.pdf
And why describe yourself as a primitive?
#40: My point confirmed.
Sarah, regarding your impression of malevolent intent by Imam Rauf:
[blockquote]”There will be separate prayer spaces for Muslims, Christians, Jews and men and women of other faiths,” [Rauf] wrote. “The center will also include a multifaith memorial dedicated to victims of the Sept. 11 attacks.”
“I am very sensitive to the feelings of the families of victims of 9/11, as are my fellow leaders of many faiths. We will accordingly seek the support of those families, and the support of our vibrant neighborhood, as we consider the ultimate plans for the community center. [b]Our objective has always been to make this a center for unification and healing.[/b]”[/blockquote] Oooh, scary and malevolent!
Scott, I wonder if you are in the market for a bridge. I have a nice one for sale. . . .
RE: “And why describe yourself as a primitive?”
Oh I proudly claim it as the word is defined by TEC revisionists. So because it makes me smile, that’s why. ; > )
RE: “While I couldn’t find your insightful biography of Serrano . . . ”
A repetition of a red herring. Nobody needs to write biographies in order to express their opinions — as hrsn himself demonstrated when he expressed his opinions about the psychology behind those supporting burning the Koran.
And then you throw in Fred Phelps — another red herring.
It’s delightful to watch.
So what we’ve established is that hrsn didn’t like the assertion on my part that the Piss Christ work [funded by the State] was ominous, dark, and full of hate, while at the same time being silly and trivial . . . and so was led to strew red herrings in the path, impelled by his irritation. So I’ll repeat myself: [blockquote]Dark and hate go nicely with silly and trivial. Some of the most shallow, trivial people in the world are murderers, for instance.[/blockquote]
The question is . . . why does hrsm get so irked — irked enough to trivialize his own fine mind by randomly throwing in red herrings into a comment thread — by my simply pointing out that the Piss Christ work was dark, hate-filled, silly, and trivial?
RE: “regarding your impression of malevolent intent by Imam Rauf . . . ”
WOW — Scott K! Man, who knew that Imam Rauf was all about “unification and healing?” Now that I’ve seen it right there in black and white — [for the FIRST TIME EVER, TOO] then I’m completely convinced.
Boy — I had no idea that Imam Rauf was telling everybody that he’s all about unification and healing. I’ve never seen those words before, despite the news media’s incessant repetitions. Gosh, if only somebody had told me that Imam Rauf has really really really stated that he’s all about “unification and healing.”
[Seriously Scott K — um . . . do you really say the above as an actually convincing thing to those of us who believe that Rauf is malevolent in his intentions and a shill for radical Islamists? Might as well believe Schori saying that she’s entirely orthodox. What next? You’re going to quote Charles Bennison to me to “prove” that he’s completely sincere?]
Y’all sound like conspiracy theorists. Any evidence that contradicts want you want to believe is a lie. You assume their motivation is sinister (despite all the evidence), so when they state clearly that they are peaceful and have good intentions, they must be lying. Because he’s Muslim!
Really, what evidence to you have he is lying? NONE. He has been promoting inter-religious dialogue and understanding in Manhattan for years and years. He has condemned violence in the name of Islam over and over. He has been vetted by multiple government agences (going back to the Bush Administration) and worked on their behalf as a embassador to the Muslim world.
Assuming he is lying despite all the evidence is foolish and makes you look like the people who wear tin foil hats to protect themselves from mind control rays.
Scott (#46), it took me far too long to figure it out, but I finally realized that talking to a wall was unproductive. Sarah already told you this in #41.
I was just having the same thoughts about talking to a wall. It’s getting hard to take some of you seriously.
Scott, I’m on your side.
Scott, I apologize to you. My wise crack was out of line, and deserves the rebukes it got.
I cannot speak for everyone on the blog; I can only speak for me. And I am aware of the “moderation” of the imam in question. But I am also aware of the Koran and its teachings. Unlike the Bible, it has no “old” Islam and “new” Islam in its teachings. There is only Islam. The Koran claims its divine origin forever, from start to finish.
And part of it (and I forget where to tell you to look — – but I ask you to understand that I am not making it up) speaks very clearly about the Divine acceptance of a Muslim, a follower of Allah, in lying to his adversaries, if by that lie, he can advance the cause of Allah, which is now, and always has been, to convert the world, by persuasion of by force if required, to Islam (submission).
So forgive me if I appear to you as one of your “tin-hat” types; I ask you to accept that I have done my homework, too. I am a reasonable and reasoning man, and I think I may see intense trouble on the horizon for mankind, primarily as a result of Western society’s dogged determination to be “tolerant” even when “tolerance” is not necessarily the intelligent thing to do – – likely not even the Godly thing to do.
Please keep in mind what we all know, but don’t usually remind ourselves every day: just because a “faith” is monotheistic in its nature, does not at all mean that ‘faith’ worships the one ‘true’ God. It may well not. And toleration can be a good thing, except when we decide to tolerate Satan himself, if he throws around the right buzz-words, every once in a while.
Once again, Scott, my sincere apology for the wise crack. That was uncalled for, and I am sorry for it.
Oops, sorry WarrenS, I assumed otherwise. Thanks 🙂
jkc, thanks for the apology. My understanding of the rule you are referring to (as explained to me by moderate Muslims) is that the Koran allows Muslims to lie about their faith if their lives (or the lives of others) are in danger. So while in Christianity, we revere martyrs and confessors who faced torture and death for refusing to renounce Christ, in Islam there is no shame in denying one’s faith under threat of death — it doesn’t count if you didn’t mean it. This has been twisted by some extreme jihadists and misunderstood by westerners.
I’m also not making any claims that Muslims worship the same God we do. But whether their faith is true or not, they deserve the same fair treatment that all individuals are entitled to in our country, until there is actual evidence that they have done anything criminal.
“…until there is actual evidence that they have done anything criminal.”
You mean like owing a half of a million in back taxes? Or how about declaring another property, a low end apartment building, to be a mosque for tax evasion?
[url=http://weaselzippers.us/2010/09/08/2010-u-s-military-condemns-plan-to-burn-the-koran-2009-had-no-problem-burning-bibles-it-confiscated-in-afghanistan/ ]Found this interesting[/url]: It seems that the military is asking the church not to burn the Koran but it didn’t have any qualms about itself burning copies of the Bible.
Sarah #45: Of course you were expressing your opinions–I was merely pointing out that they that no documentary support. You have a totally fact-free opinion about the artistic intention of Piss Chris; I went to the Dove website and read their statements. (With a little analysis of web links to/from the site, it wasn’t hard to find Fred Phelps and his full-throated support.)
And as for primitive, since I’m not a TEC revisionist, I didn’t get it.
Robroy, since you’re still around, what about my question at #24? Apart from both events involving fire, how do you draw a connection between the US Army and Terry Jones? Are you suggesting that the US military has a secret plan to disrespect Christianity? Did someone mention conspiracy theorists earlier?
WarrenS, did you follow the link that I provided in #53? The army confiscated Bibles in the local Afghan language and then later burned them. Was that a “conspiracy”? Did I ever imply a conspiracy? No, it is just a fact that the American army burns Bibles and opposes burning the Koran. Liberal smear techniques: label opponents as hateful or phobic or conspiracy theorists (or better yet, all three!).
Your question in #24: “[H]ow do you think President Obamas should weigh General Petraeus’s concerns? Do you suggest he ‘stand up for the Florida church’s right to Koran burning’ regardless of the implications that may have for troops on the ground in Afghanistan?”
So you are saying Obama should defend the “rights” of the GZM organizers but not the Koran burners because Jihadists are threatening violent retaliation against the later? And now we have the [url=http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2010/09/ground-zero-supremacist-imam-rauf-threatens-americaif-we-dont-do-this-right-anger-will-explode-in-th.html ]”moderate” GZM organizer[/url] saying that the situation will be worse than after the Danish cartoon publication if we don’t allow him to build the [strike]mosque[/strike], er the [strike]Cordoba House[/strike], sorry the “Project51”. Should jihadists being pulling the strings of the president? Interesting that Angela Merkel is giving an award to one of the Mohammed cartoonists. (But see article [url=http://reason.com/blog/2010/09/08/brave-angela-merkel-presents-a ]here[/url] that posits the question of why the press is making a big deal about a western leader who simply offers limited support for free speech.) She certainly is more the man than Obama and our country would be better off if we had her as leader.
The constitution does not guarantee a religious organization the “right” to build a religious building wherever it wants. It does guarantee the right to burn a flag or a book. I believe the president took an oath to defend the Constitution.
I should add that I stand with the majority of Americans (whom the liberal elitists look down on) and directly opposite to what Obama idiotically did. He [i]should not[/i] of defended the “right” to build a mosque at the site (it is not a right issue – that’s an irrelevant straw man), he [i]should[/i] have commented on the wisdom of it – it is a stupid, provocative act, he [i]should[/i] defend the right of the Koran burners, but he [i]should[/i] also condemn that as a stupid, provocative act.
Robroy, yes I read the story at the link (before I commented); and good avoidance of my question.
robroy, you’ve posted a lot to respond to.
[blockquote]“…until there is actual evidence that they have done anything criminal.â€
You mean like owing a half of a million in back taxes? Or how about declaring another property, a low end apartment building, to be a mosque for tax evasion?[/blockquote]According to the NY Post, city records show that Sharif El-Gamal, one of the developers, owes $224,270.77 in back Property Tax on the site. He says the taxes have been paid. If he owes them, he should be held liable for all the taxes and any penalties. Is anyone saying anything different? [blockquote]Found this interesting: It seems that the military is asking the church not to burn the Koran but it didn’t have any qualms about itself burning copies of the Bible.[/blockquote]You are leaving out a lot of details. A church in the US sent unsolicited Bibles in the Afghan language to soldiers in the military. US Military policy forbids soldiers to proselytize while deployed there, so the the Bibles were confiscated and discarded. Ultimately some were burned along with other trash. There is a big difference between that and deliberately burning Korans as an intentionally provocative act, with the knowledge that it will lead to further violence against American troops and civilians.[blockquote]So you are saying Obama should defend the “rights†of the GZM organizers but not the Koran burners because Jihadists are threatening violent retaliation against the later? And now we have the “moderate†GZM organizer saying that the situation will be worse than after the Danish cartoon publication if we don’t allow him to build the mosque, er the Cordoba House, sorry the “Project51â€. Should jihadists being pulling the strings of the president? [/blockquote] Obama should — and is sworn to — uphold the rights of everyone. Neither he nor anyone else has said the church in FL can’t burn the Koran. That’s protected free speech. But what Obama, Patreaus, religious leaders and almost everyone has said is that it’s a bad idea because (besides being offensive) it is very likely to provoke more violence and encourage more extremism.
I don’t know what you’re referring to about comparing the Park 51 project with the Danish cartoons. But it’s irrelevent: no one is going to force Park 51 to move just like no one is going to force the Florida church to cancel their bonfire (although I understand that the church has been unable to acquire a burning permit and may face the consequences of that).
sorry, forgot this:[blockquote]The constitution does not guarantee a religious organization the “right†to build a religious building wherever it wants. It does guarantee the right to burn a flag or a book. I believe the president took an oath to defend the Constitution. [/blockquote] The government cannot prevent a religious organization from building on land it owns (properly zoned) because of it’s religion. So as it relates to Park 51, it is absolutely a constitutional right. Just like, as you say, there is a right to burn a flag or book. By what authority do you think the government can tell Park 51 it can’t build there?
Obama has consistently upheld constitutional rights in both cases.
RE: “You have a totally fact-free opinion about the artistic intention of Piss Chris . . . ”
Well of course I don’t have a totally fact-free opinion about the psychological or philosophical undergirdings of the producer of Piss Christ. Whatever gave you that idea?
Naw — you were just trying to imply that if someone isn’t an expert on the “artist” they couldn’t opine about his psychological and philosophical motivations — and then you went right on and opined about the psychological and philosophical motivations of the Koran burners, and then got irked when I called you on the inconsistency. And now you’re trying to cover it by switching to “documentary support” rather than “your in-depth biography of Andres Serrano on Amazon.” We’ve neither of us written “in-depth biographies” of either of the two, and both of us have expressed opinions about the psychological and philosophical undergirdings of the two. You just don’t happen to like my expressed opinion about Serrano’s production, which is: [blockquote]So, while the Piss Christ work was indeed silly and trivial—mirroring the mind of the maker—it was also dark and hate-filled, also mirroring the mind of the maker.[/blockquote]
Indeed, to take it a step further, I expect that Serrano’s level of maturity is about the same level as that of the Koran burners, only of course better dressed and with better hygiene [sort of, maybe, depending on how you look at works accomplished using the medium of feces]. Both are basically children, but one is more acceptable to those who fancy themselves academics, artists, and Deep Thinkers than the other.
RE: “And as for primitive, since I’m not a TEC revisionist, I didn’t get it.”
You did, and you are. And your comments from 08 still come up on Google. ; > )
Maybe you should try purging them before trying either of those lines.
RE: “Really, what evidence to you have he is lying? NONE.”
Nope, you’re wrong — Katherine and others have supplied you with plenty on numerous threads, which you have ignored where convenient.
Face it — you *want* to believe what he says, regardless of other evidence to the contrary.
RE: “I finally realized that talking to a wall was unproductive. Sarah already told you this in #41.”
Yup — I did. We don’t share the same foundational political worldviews. [blockquote]Since our beliefs and interpretations of the various actions of the various players in this are based on our foundational political worldviews, I think it unlikely that any exchanges here at T19 will result in changed minds. We simply don’t agree enough on the larger political basics to be able to come to agreement on the smaller issues that confront us.[/blockquote]
RE: “It’s getting hard to take some of you seriously.”
[shudder] Oh. No. Say it ain’t so!
Sarah, it’s nice to know you’re still always right. ; > )
[blockquote]RE: “Really, what evidence to you have he is lying? NONE.â€
Nope, you’re wrong—Katherine and others have supplied you with plenty on numerous threads, which you have ignored where convenient.
Face it—you *want* to believe what he says, regardless of other evidence to the contrary.[/blockquote] I just want the truth. I must have missed Katherine’s evidence of his lying – can you point me to her posts? I haven’t been able to find the thread they were in.
Scott K. writes in regards to the Bibles that the army burned: “Ultimately some were burned [b]along with other trash[/b]. There is a big difference between that and deliberately burning Korans as an intentionally provocative act, with the knowledge that it will lead to further violence against American troops and civilians.”
Wow. Bible is just trash. And Scott tries to differentiate by intentions. Somehow I don’t think that if some copies of the Koran were confiscated by the army (not an unrealistic scenario) and the army burned them “along with other trash” (his words not mine) that the Muslims would care much about intentions.
WarrenS #58 and #62: I did answer your question about how Obama should act – just as the overwhelming majority of the citizens want him to: diplomatically ask the GZM organizers to move the mosque/community center and similarly diplomatically ask the pastor of the church to not burn copies of the Koran.
And one thing that I have learned: Sarah is ALWAYS right.
Robroy (#64), when one of my Bibles gets worn out, I have no qualms about tossing it in the trash. The paper and ink are nothing special – it is the words it contains that are the Word of God. If you consider that “trashing” the Bible, fill your boots; but you have no biblical grounds for holding that position.
No, Sarah just refuses to ever admit she is wrong.
Oh, for Pete’s sake, are you for real? I can twist words out of context too:
According to Robroy, “Bible is just trash.”
Wow, I’m surprised to hear you feel that way. I guess we have nothing more to talk about.
#61 Sarah:
[blockquote]you were just trying to imply that if someone isn’t an expert on the “artist†they couldn’t opine about his psychological and philosophical motivations[/blockquote]
Nope. Just that you didn’t show any of your work for your opinion–and you still haven’t. And since it was an opinion about motivation and intent, it’s important to source it in documented facts. (Lawyers, help me out here!)
[blockquote]and then you went right on and opined about the psychological and philosophical motivations of the Koran burners, and then got irked when I called you on the inconsistency. [/blockquote]
I opined after I had explored the Dove Center’s site. If we want to continue disputing about the Koran burners, then we should end up analyzing their own words as presented on the site (i.e., the documentary evidence). If we want to continue disputing the intent of Serrano, then….what, exactly? (Yes, we’d have to wade through a lot of modern-art twaddle and BS, but we’d end up finding that Serrano is most interested in the, uh, medium of technical expression; he’s more of a pisser than a hater.)
Also, the real “red herring” was inserted by you: the repetition of the claim that Serrano’s work was “funded by the State.” Diversionary, and off the point of his motivations and intent. Or was it?
So with Serrano, also with hrsn–whom you’ve pegged culturally, socially, and theologically on the basis of a couple of comments. (That’s actual documentary evidence, so I’m not complaining.) So yeah, I’m a regular and multi-year lurker–reading and learning. I don’t comment positively, it’s true. But I don’t do that anywhere except on Facebook 🙂 My comment policy here (as well as on the reappraiser sites) is to dissent from the collective wisdom of the echo chamber when provoked by something particular.
The one time my comments were actually productive, both for me and for other readers of T19, was here: http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/4286
which was another call for documentary evidence! The elves jumped in and helped It was amply produced.
Hopefully, over and out on this thread.