An essay from a thoughtful Christian about the controversy over building a mosque in Manhattan; Kinnamon notes some of the history that should be considered:
For thousands of families, Ground Zero in southern Manhattan is holy ground. Thousands lost someone they love in the terror attacks of September 11, 2001, and hundreds of thousands know someone who was directly or indirectly scarred by the collapse of the World Trade Center. The emotional investment in Ground Zero cannot be overestimated.
That is precisely why Ground Zero must be open to the religious expression of all people whose lives were scarred by the tragedy: Christians, Jews, Sikhs, Buddhists, Hindus, and more. And Muslims.
No one knows how many Muslims died on 9/11, but they number in the hundreds. One was Salman Hamdani, a 23-year-old New York City police cadet, emergency medical technician and medical student. When Salman disappeared on September 11, law enforcement officials who knew of his Islamic faith sought him out among his family to question him about the attacks. His family lived with the onus of suspicion for six months until Salman’s body was identified. He was found near the North Tower with his EMT bag beside him, situated where he could help people in need.
The point of this now famous story is simple. Not every Muslim at Ground Zero was a terrorist, and not every Muslim was a hero. The vast majority were like thousands of others on September 11: victims of one of the most heinous events of our times.
But for the family of Salman Hamdani and millions of innocent Muslims, the tragedy has been exacerbated by the fact that so many of the rest of us have formed our opinions about them out of prejudice and ignorance of the Muslim faith.
It is that narrow-minded intolerance that has led to the outcry against the building of Cordoba House and Mosque near Ground Zero. It is the same ignorance that has led many to the outrageous conclusion that all Muslims advocate hatred and violence against non-Muslims. It is the same ignorance that has led to hate crimeand systematic discrimination against Muslims, and to calls to burn the Qur’an.
On the eve of Ramadan on August 11, the National Council of Churches, its Interfaith Relations Commission and Christian participants in the National Muslim-Christian Initiative, issued a strong call for respect for our Muslim neighbors.
“Christ calls us to ‘love your neighbor as yourself’ (Matthew 22:39),” the statement said. “It is this commandment, more than the simple bonds of our common humanity, which is the basis for our relationship with Muslims around the world.”
The statement supported building Cordoba House “as a living monument to mark the tragedy of 9/11 through a community center dedicated to learning, compassion, and respect for all people.”
Now the National Council of Churches reaffirms that support and calls upon Christians and people of faith to join us in that affirmation.
The alternative to that support is to engage in a bigotry that will scar our generation in the same way as bigotry scarred our forebears.
Three-hundred years ago, European settlers came to these shores with a determination to conquer and settle at the expense of millions of indigenous peoples who were regarded as sub-human savages. Today, we can’t look back on that history without painful contrition.
One-hundred and fifty years ago, white Americans subjugated black Africans in a cruel slavery that was justified with Bible proof-texts and a belief that blacks were inferior to whites. Today, we look back on that history with agonized disbelief.
Sixty years ago, in a time of war and great fear, tens of thousands of Japanese-Americans were deprived of their property and forced into detention camps because our grandparents feared everyone of Japanese ancestry. Today that decision is universally regarded as an unconscionable mistake and a blot on American history.
Today, millions of Muslims are subjected to thoughtless generalizations, open discrimination and outright hostility because of the actions of a tiny minority whose violent acts defy the teachings of Mohammed.
How will we explain our ignorance and our compliance to our grandchildren?
It’s time to turn away from ignorance and embrace again the words of Christ: Love your neighbor as yourself.
In that spirit, we welcome the building of Cordoba House and Mosque near Ground Zero.
Michael Kinnamon
General Secretary
National Council of Churches
The Rev. Dr. Michael Kinnamon, a Disciples of Christ minister who is the General Secretary of the National Council of Churches of Christ in the USA.
The Rev. Dr. Michael Kinnamon, a Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) clergyman and a long-time educator and ecumenical leader, is the ninth General Secretary of the National Council of Churches of Christ in the USA.
The NCC is the ecumenical voice of America’s Orthodox, Protestant, Anglican, historic African American, evangelical and traditional peace churches. These 36 communions have 45 million faithful members in 100,000 congregations in all 50 states.
More:
- Bob Cornwall also posted the essay at Ponderings on a Faith Journey
- Thin Places picked it up from Cornwall
- Story at the Minnesota Independent
- Story at Faith in Public Life
- DailyKos
- Big Stick weighs in (added 8-16-2010)
- NPR on the controversy, and how c0ntroversy lives on its own
- Washington Post “On Faith” blog — “The Great Ground Zero Mosque Hoax”
- Public relations issues, from MuslimMatters.com
Also, at Millard Fillmore’s Bathtub:
Stumble It!
I’ve searched for it several times since our discussion. There just isn’t much that has developed that is worth spending much time discussing.
Personally, I was in the discussion for the principle of “could vs. should.” Really though, just because I “could” have a discussion for so long on the subject didn’t mean I “should.” lol :-)
Odd how this issue just dropped out of the news. It’s almost as if the critics of Cordoba House were not really sincere, but just wanted to make some noise.
[...] How about it, Joe, Morgan? Doesn’t this plan meet yours and Sarah Palin’s objections t… [...]
Almost reads like Kruschev’s “We Will Bury You” speech.
Hey…Nick…Nikita. Is that you? Come back from the dead?
Got both shoes on your feet?
Tell you what, Lower. Your Republicans can have the scared and ignorant white vote.
I and my fellow Democrats will continue to take the rational white vote, the hispanic vote, the black vote and now the muslim vote. Plus the votes of all the other minorities your party keeps on treating like ****.
Your party’s tactic may win it this election…hell it may even win the Presidency in two years.
But we both know that sooner rather then later your party will be not be able to even be considered a national party with the way your party is going. Your party is simply excluding too many people for its own good.
So feel free to win this year and in two years if you want…but within the next 10 years your party will not be able to hold onto the south with your party’s continued pandering to the scared white vote. And when your party no longer has the south…and no longer has the southwest thanks to your party’s continued attacks/racism against hispanics your party will be handing the Democrats the country for at least a generation.
Your party is dying, Lower, and you’re too blind to realize it. This fearmongering is just one of it’s last gasps of existance.
Oh I forgot one. Why would your side be constantly harping “Obama is a Muslim” if not out of bigotry and trying to stir up anti-Muslim hysteria? And would you like to admit that is also an example of your party treating the American people as stupid idiots?
You say that when my side accuses the protestors of bigotry we are engaging in “elitism” and are treating the American people as idiots. What do you think your side is doing when it accuses Democrats of “being anti-Christian” and “socialists” and accuses the President of being racist against whites?
What do you think your side is doing when it says because a majority of the American people oppose that mosque that mosque shouldn’t be built there and the President shouldn’t support it? But when the majority of the American people believe that Bush’s tax cuts to the richest should be done away with your party conveniently ignores that? After all, even on the health care debate your party continously harped “The majority of the American people oppose it.” but yet curiously despite the fact that the majority of the people want the tax cuts to the rich done away with your party still supports those tax cuts? Do you really want to try and argue that isn’t an example of your party treating the people as idiots? Oh and even better when your party was hapring that the majority of the people opposed health care reform your side conveniently ignored that 15-20% of that opposition came from people who thought it didn’t do enough.
Oh and just to point something out for you. The reason I have gone after the right wing on the topic of the mosque, Lower, is simple. Were it not for your precious Republicans and their fear mongering the mosque would never have been an issue outside of NYC. Were it not for your precious Republicans there would not be hatred of Muslims sweeping the country and causing violent attacks on Muslims and their places of worship.
Some on my side may be stupid enough to play along to your sides example of fascism…but your side is still the ones responsible.
Oh and sorry you don’t get to complain about the term “bigot” when your side throws around terms like “socialist” and “President is a danger to the United States” hoping the people of the United States are stupid enough to believe them.
Your side doesn’t get to play victim when its your side that has been doing the victimizing.
Tell me, if there’s no bigotry going on here why was that guy in New York attacked simply because the protestors thought he was Muslim? Why was the cabbie stabbed after answering that he was Muslim? Why did the mosque in California get attacked? Or are you going to be like the man who says the woman was “asking for it” because she was dressed provactively when he’s accused of rape?
Oh and please don’t go off about “massive government spending.” According to the CBO, government spending as part of the GDP of this country is at its lowest point in 40 years. Less then 15%. But there you sit, trying to pretend otherwise just because you’ve convinced yourself that the Republicans giving massive tax cuts to the rich and letting the corporations take over is what is best for the American people.
Again, Lower, its a false comparison to compare that mosque to the nunnery at Auschwitz. Why? It’s real simple. The nunnery was on the grounds of Auschwitz…the mosque is not on the grounds of the WTC. It’s blocks away. It can’t even be seen from the WTC site.
And I’ll give you credit for saying that if it was Christians who attacked the WTC then no Christian church should be built near there. But I’d still say you were wrong for taking that position. Do the Muslims of that mosque have anything to do with 9-11? Therefor blaming them for it and holding them responsible for it is stupid. Then there is the fact that building has been used as a mosque for a while now and it wasn’t a problem before. Then there is the fact that there are two mosques also within blocks of the WTC site and oops..there wasn’t a problem with them. Is every person who objects to that mosque a bigot? No. But you can’t deny that bigotry, racial hatred and just hatred in general isn’t playing a part in what is going on in NYC and elsewhere. There have been several violent attacks on mosques and muslims in this country in the last two weeks. Tell me, how many attacks have to happen..how many muslims have to be attacked before you realize that your side has created that? What reason are other mosques in this country being protested and objected to if not bigotry?
The only ones who have a valid reason to complain about that mosque are the families of the victims of 9-11. You don’t, Morgan doesn’t. Fox News doesn’t. Sarah Palin doesn’t. The Republicans don’t. Neither do the Democrats who have sided with you on this. But this should never have become a “Lets protest the mosque” bit. If they had what they felt was valid objections to that mosque they should have sat down with the owners of that site and tried to work it out peacefully. But your side picked it up, ran with it and turned into a political football just in an attempt to scare the American people into voting with them. And instead of having the balls necessary to stand up and say no that was wrong Howard Dean and several other Democrats surrendered and played along. Oh and by the way, I didn’t call that Archbishop a bigot. I said he was wrong. Remember when you complained that I was putting words into your mouth? You just did it to me.
Your side for 2 years has been on a “Lets scare the American people into putting us into power.” quest. That’s exactly what the Nazi’s did. And you think your party deserves power? For what? They ****** up the country the last time they were in charge. You are being played by your own party, Lower, whether you realize it or not. They don’t give a damn about you, they don’t give a damn what you think. They don’t give a damn about this country. They are willing to tear it apart if it puts them back in power. It isn’t my party that deserves to get its ass kicked, its yours. You say my party is the one that treats the American people as stupid and acts all elitist. No, Lower, it’s yours. Your party is the most elitist bunch of jackasses possible and your party does nothing but treat the American people as stupid idiots.
Your party is nothing but a bunch of fear mongering jackanapes who don’t give a damn about the well being of the American people and this bit with the mosque is only the current page of that playbook. Your party is no different then it was 2 years ago, Lower, but there you sit thinking that they have changed and deserve to be in power. After doing nothing for two years to deserve power…after doing everything possible for the 6 or so years previous to **** up the country your party thinks the American people are stupid enough to vote for them. And if your party gains power I guarantee you, Lower, they will not do a damn thing to fix this country.
Lower, you say that mosque is scheduled to be dedicated on 9-11 of next year. Do you have verifiable proof? From an unbiased source.
As for the TN Lt Governor, this is what he said: “Now, you could even argue whether being a Muslim is actually a religion, or is it a nationality, way of life, cult whatever you want to call it”.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/27/ron-ramsey-tenn-lt-gov-is_n_659725.html
Do you or anyone else, Lower, have any evidence to show that any Muslim or Mosque has been trying to enforce Sharia law?
Lower writes:
nydailynews.com/opinions/2010/08/23/2010-08-23_bloombergs_tolerance_hypocrisy.html
Interesting that the left keeps yelling louder and louder about the “bigots” on the right for desiring the mosque to be built elsewhere. Seems that NY has been on again off again denying churches the use of public school facilities for years and it continues to be in litigation. Will both Ed and Nic come out and call this religious bigotry? I highly doubt it.
If it is religious bigotry then yes. But again, Lower, you don’t provide any evidence that is the reason. You just say it is and expect us to believe it. Do you have any proof that NYC has been allowing nonChristian religions to use those schools?
Lower writes:
The sad thing is that you actually believe that this is true. And you wonder why the American people are upset when they are continually slapped in the face with insults? You might as well say, “Down, you disgusting filthy animals!” It’s called biting the hand that feeds you and smacks of elitism and a liberal aristocracy to characterize the US this way. I so very much can’t wait for November to get here!
Oh you mean like when Republicans insult the people by calling them lazy and greedy? You know…when the Republicans went after the unemployed arguing that most of them were choosing to stay unemployed? You mean how the Republicans continously insult the people of this country by treating them as stupid idiots? You know…by worrying about the defecit suddenly now when they didn’t spend any time at all worrying about the defecit when they were in power? When arguing that BP isn’t responsible for what it did? When the Republicans didn’t worry about that mosque before but suddenly they’re all butthurt about it? When the Republicans make a fuss about illegal immigration…a few years after they were the ones that killed the last attempt to pull off immigration reform? When the Republicans screamed about “death panels” and “socialism” and “Obama is a Muslim” what do you think is going on if not the Republicans are treating the people as stupid idiots? What do you think Fox News is doing when it spends an entire day going after a certain Saudi Prince for being a financial backer of that mosque implying that Prince is a radical Muslim and that makes that mosque a “radical mosque” but they conveniently don’t mention that same Saudi Prince is the second largest investor in News Corp…Fox News’ parent company.
You say you can’t wait til November, I don’t know why you say that. Your party isn’t gaining control of Congress and your party isn’t going to have quite the success it think its going to have. Or did you somehow forget the fact that Republicans are the least trusted political party in this country according to every single poll?
Your party has spent the last 2 years treating the citizens of the United States as a bunch of stupid idiots. And you’re too dimwittedly blind to realize that.
You even did it yourself. You somehow think that the elections of 2006 and especially 2008 were about stopping “government spending.” You have somehow managed to convince yourself into believing that the people of the United States elected a Democrat…while expecting that Democrat to act like what the Republicans think they are. Then you expect the American people to believe that the Republican party are now so interested in dealing with “runaway spending” and solving its mistakes of the past when the Republican party of 2010 is the same party of 2008. You want the surest sign that the Republicans are not remotely interested in curbing spending or taking care of the defecit and debt? It’s because they still buy into this notion that tax cuts don’t have to be paid for and that tax cuts don’t add to the defecit.
Got any peeps, Morgan? That’s a long post just to say you want terms. You were so certain before there were protests.
Got anypeeps of protest?
I’d like some evidence that you’re right. It would restore some of my faith in fallen humanity. Got anything besides your say-so?
Let’s straighten out our terms here first, Ed. You said there wasn’t a peep of protest prior to 11/08; I interpret that to mean anything rightward-inclined, be it politicians, hoi polloi, the hoi polloi’s pets, microbes living in their kitchen sponges, etc.
If you’re now changing the terms of what you were saying before and confining it to the Senate Minority Leader, or politicians in general — well that’s just deranged, isn’t it? You’re saying if Republican politicians don’t point out what’s wrong with Republicans and give people reason to vote for the opposition, this is evidence that they’re irrational and bigoted?
How often do politicians in the democrat party give us reasons to support their opposition? Is it the job of a Pepsi salesman to tell me why I should by Coca Cola products?
No, I’m referring to the persons whom, at first, it appeared you were addressing. Sensible voices like myself. And yes, for your edification House of Eratosthenes Post #1 was a chastisement directed at President Bush who had just won re-election and babbled some foolish nonsense about reaching across the aisle to display a spirit of conciliation with the opposition he had just defeated. I thought at the time that was sheerest nonsense; people would say “Why should I take the trouble to vote for an imitation democrat, when I can just stay home? Or proceed to my polling place and pull the lever for the real thing?”
Two years later, events proved me right. But anyway, yes, when George Bush governed like a democrat I had a problem with it.
By the way, if the evidence did support your point, it would still be weak enough to be useless. Obama’s expansion of government bothers Person X; if Person X is not on record being equally alarmed and incensed about Bush expanding the government, Person X is obliged to shut his cakehole because you’ve exposed him as a racist — have I got that right?
Such an argument rests on a premise that skin color is the only difference between Presidents #43 and 44. There are actually quite a few differences between the two. Just within identity politics, there are many things besides skin color. Party affiliation, for one thing. Person X might be more comfortable with deficit spending by a Republican than by a democrat. Just as someone who makes an effort to be centrist, might object more forcefully if a Republican starts a war than if a democrat starts a war. Sort of an “Only Nixon can go to China” thing. Would that be inherently irrational?
Or Person X could be a numbers zealot…since, although the budget was in a deficit posture during the Bush years, such negative numbers have spun way out of control under Obama. You might check this page for some scary graphs with regard to our federal spending…in the way it really matters with respect to our national ability to bear the burden of debt, which is as a percentage of our GDP.
Or, Person X could be trying to read the two Presidents to see if there’s any concern over the standard of living of future generations that will be required to bear this debt. Granted, Bush has always come across as a likable dimbulb unconcerned with such things. But Obama, and His friends in Congress (where the constitutional authority to spend money is really located), are actually coming up with multiple new ways to spend money! Bailing out GM, Cash-fer-clunkers, Stimulus II is going to be all-Obama. I’ve even heard talk about a newspaper bailout.
Also, in order to regard the Bush tax cuts, or any other tax cuts, as an expenditure of money, you have to start with the premise that all money belongs to the government in the first place. That may be your opinion, but it is quite rational to disagree. Especially when you work your fanny off for the money you earn, it becomes very rational to say — congratulations on your temporary wisdom allowing me to keep a little bit more of it, government, but you aren’t “giving” me a damn thing. I earned this, it belongs to me.
But back to your question, Ed. When you say not a peep of resistance prior to 11/08, who exactly are you talking about? By 11/08, President Bush’s disapproval numbers were pretty high. Are you saying that’s only among rational libs? There aren’t that many of them, and I personally spoke to quite a few staunch Republicans who were downright ticked at the Texan well before the date you gave.
Your claiming it is so does not make it so, Morgan. I don’t recall Mitch McConnell complaining that the Iraq War cost too much in 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, nor 2008. McConnell didn’t complain about any expansion of the federal government in those years, either — nor did most of the other people who now complain (erroneously) that Obama did it instead.
Do you disagree? I’d like some evidence that you’re right. It would restore some of my faith in fallen humanity. Got anything besides your say-so?
hat expansion came in the Bush administration, in about 2002 and 2003. That the opposition defended it until the moment Barack Obama became president-elect is a clear sign that it’s resentment toward something irrational — there was not a peep of resistance prior to November 2008.
I’ve bold-faced the two parts that are absolutely false.
You really need to stop making arguments that are Jenga towers, Ed. Your pieces are not as square as you believe them to be.
nydailynews.com/opinions/2010/08/23/2010-08-23_bloombergs_tolerance_hypocrisy.html
Interesting that the left keeps yelling louder and louder about the “bigots” on the right for desiring the mosque to be built elsewhere. Seems that NY has been on again off again denying churches the use of public school facilities for years and it continues to be in litigation. Will both Ed and Nic come out and call this religious bigotry? I highly doubt it.
Krauthammer: “Now we know why the country has become “ungovernable,” last year’s excuse for the Democrats’ failure of governance: Who can possibly govern a nation of racist, nativist, homophobic Islamophobes?”
Ed said, “He’s right about that last part.”
The sad thing is that you actually believe that this is true. And you wonder why the American people are upset when they are continually slapped in the face with insults? You might as well say, “Down, you disgusting filthy animals!” It’s called biting the hand that feeds you and smacks of elitism and a liberal aristocracy to characterize the US this way. I so very much can’t wait for November to get here!
Thanks Ed, for not only proving Krauthammer’s point but upping it a few notches too. :-)
Ed said, “That expansion came in the Bush administration, in about 2002 and 2003. That the opposition defended it until the moment Barack Obama became president-elect is a clear sign that it’s resentment toward something irrational — there was not a peep of resistance prior to November 2008.”
There WAS resistence to it by the grassroots of the US population. Why do you think Democrats took over in 2006? Because the Republicans made them mad! Why do you think Obama got elected in the first place?! To CHANGE us back into what we should be. That is the exact opposite of what has happened and the American people are angry! Unfortunately for Obama, it has been building and building since 2002 and now it has reached the boiling over point since there seems to be no from Obama that he will be slowing the tanking of our country down but rather he’s throttling the engine.”
Ed, “Obama’s made no grab to expand government.”
And Obamacare doesn’t qualify how? Taking over 1/6 of the whole economy isn’t government expansion??? I’d really like to hear your definition then.
Ed said, “Unmentioned is this: Illegal immigration is significantly reduced since Obama took office. The irrational claim that Obama won’t act, when he has acted and produced results, smacks of bigotry.”
Ah, so that must be why the unemployment rate is so high! To keep illegal immigrants from wanting to come to the US and get a job! It’s worked Brilliantly as attested to your statistic that illegal immigration has declined! I knew there had to be a logical explanation for this tanked economy! Since illegals can’t get a job very easily, there’s no reason to come…drying up the money trail by putting 9.5% of the US out of a job is brilliant! Why do we need a fence? Just make the US economy worse than Mexico’s and it will solve the problem! We’ll get there yet!
Ed said, “The rub here is that Obama is opposed to homosexual marriage. So Krauthammer is blaming him for a position he doesn’t support.”
The rub here is that the article isn’t about Obama but about liberals in general. Do a majority of liberals stand for gay marriage? Yep. Ed, you’re not helping his narcissism by attributing all liberalism to Obama.
Ed said, “Irrational. Bigoted. Stupid, too. Wrong. Immoral to blame people for things they did not do.”
You make these accusations right after getting the facts wrong about who Krauthammer was writing about. Hilarious!
Ed said, “That’s bigotry even in a pure sense.”
And I’ll accept these words once you put in print that Pope John Paul II and Archbishop Timothy Dolan are bigots as well. Until then, you are giving them a pass when I have taken the exact same position as they have.
Joe quotes Charles Krauthammer, who appears to have stopped thinking in about 1993:
I’m not saying you can’t have opinions. I’m just saying that you can’t have a separate set of opinions that you call “facts” that are not facts.
For example, Krauthammer said:
That expansion came in the Bush administration, in about 2002 and 2003. That the opposition defended it until the moment Barack Obama became president-elect is a clear sign that it’s resentment toward something irrational — there was not a peep of resistance prior to November 2008.
What’s the only thing that changed?
Obama’s made no grab to expand government. Fear based on imagined slights is not un-bigoted.
Obama’s increased the number of people deployed to secure the borders, and has taken other steps. Unmentioned is this: Illegal immigration is significantly reduced since Obama took office. The irrational claim that Obama won’t act, when he has acted and produced results, smacks of bigotry. If it’s not racist bigotry, that’s good — it’s bigotry all the same.
The rub here is that Obama is opposed to homosexual marriage. So Krauthammer is blaming him for a position he doesn’t support.
Irrational. Bigoted. Stupid, too. Wrong. Immoral to blame people for things they did not do.
But, you and Morgan freely admit that. It’s your dislike of Islam that makes you wish this building go somewhere else. That’s bigotry even in a pure sense.
But you’re carping about the group of Moslems who support America, New Yorkers who suffered in the WTC attacks in 2001. Senseless bigotry, ugliness by definition.
He’s right about that last part.
Man, I’m really starting to like Krauthammer!
THE LAST REFUGE OF A LIBERAL (i.e. calling people bigots and other adjectives)
By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, August 27, 2010
Liberalism under siege is an ugly sight indeed. Just yesterday it was all hope and change and returning power to the people. But the people have proved so disappointing. Their recalcitrance has, in only 19 months, turned the predicted 40-year liberal ascendancy (James Carville) into a full retreat. Ah, the people, the little people, the small-town people, the “bitter” people, as Barack Obama in an unguarded moment once memorably called them, clinging “to guns or religion or” — this part is less remembered — “antipathy toward people who aren’t like them.”
That’s a polite way of saying: clinging to bigotry. And promiscuous charges of bigotry are precisely how our current rulers and their vast media auxiliary react to an obstreperous citizenry that insists on incorrect thinking.
– Resistance to the vast expansion of government power, intrusiveness and debt, as represented by the Tea Party movement? Why, racist resentment toward a black president.
– Disgust and alarm with the federal government’s unwillingness to curb illegal immigration, as crystallized in the Arizona law? Nativism.
– Opposition to the most radical redefinition of marriage in human history, as expressed in Proposition 8 in California? Homophobia.
– Opposition to a 15-story Islamic center and mosque near Ground Zero? Islamophobia.
Now we know why the country has become “ungovernable,” last year’s excuse for the Democrats’ failure of governance: Who can possibly govern a nation of racist, nativist, homophobic Islamophobes?
Note what connects these issues. In every one, liberals have lost the argument in the court of public opinion. Majorities — often lopsided majorities — oppose President Obama’s social-democratic agenda (e.g., the stimulus, Obamacare), support the Arizona law, oppose gay marriage and reject a mosque near Ground Zero.
What’s a liberal to do? Pull out the bigotry charge, the trump that preempts debate and gives no credit to the seriousness and substance of the contrary argument. The most venerable of these trumps is, of course, the race card. When the Tea Party arose, a spontaneous, leaderless and perfectly natural (and traditionally American) reaction to the vast expansion of government intrinsic to the president’s proudly proclaimed transformational agenda, the liberal commentariat cast it as a mob of angry white yahoos disguising their antipathy to a black president by cleverly speaking in economic terms.
Then came Arizona and S.B. 1070. It seems impossible for the left to believe that people of good will could hold that: (a) illegal immigration should be illegal, (b) the federal government should not hold border enforcement hostage to comprehensive reform, i.e., amnesty, (c) every country has the right to determine the composition of its immigrant population.
As for Proposition 8, is it so hard to see why people might believe that a single judge overturning the will of 7 million voters is an affront to democracy? And that seeing merit in retaining the structure of the most ancient and fundamental of all social institutions is something other than an alleged hatred of gays — particularly since the opposite-gender requirement has characterized virtually every society in all the millennia until just a few years ago?
And now the mosque near Ground Zero. The intelligentsia is near unanimous that the only possible grounds for opposition is bigotry toward Muslims. This smug attribution of bigotry to two-thirds of the population (including Dean, Reid, and Archbishop Dolan – comment mine) hinges on the insistence on a complete lack of connection between Islam and radical Islam, a proposition that dovetails perfectly with the Obama administration’s pretense that we are at war with nothing more than “violent extremists” of inscrutable motive and indiscernible belief. Those who reject this as both ridiculous and politically correct (an admitted redundancy) are declared Islamophobes, the ad hominem du jour.
It is a measure of the corruption of liberal thought and the collapse of its self-confidence that, finding itself so widely repudiated, it resorts reflexively to the cheapest race-baiting (in a colorful variety of forms). Indeed, how can one reason with a nation of pitchfork-wielding mobs brimming with “antipathy toward people who aren’t like them” — blacks, Hispanics, gays and Muslims — a nation that is, as Michelle Obama once put it succinctly, “just downright mean”?
The Democrats are going to get beaten badly in November. Not just because the economy is ailing. And not just because Obama over-read his mandate in governing too far left. But because a comeuppance is due the arrogant elites whose undisguised contempt for the great unwashed prevents them from conceding a modicum of serious thought to those who dare oppose them.
Nic, thank you for your post demonstrating to one and all what “fear mongering” looks like. That was your intent right? I can’t think of any other logical reason why you would have written what you just posted.
Regarding the Gov. candidate from Ten, he was referencing Sharia law in his comments. I even read up on it from a liberal news article. His comments were that Sharia law is unconstitutional and could not be protected by the 1st ammendment. If it was more than that, then he was wrong. But I agree that political Sharia law is unconstitutional.
By the way guys, I’ll gladly wear the label “bigot”, etc. when you use every adjective you’ve used on me and refer them to Arch Bishop Timothy Dolan. If he is the definition of a bigot, then this country could use some more bigots! If he is a bigot, then even Pope John Paul II was a bigot for calling for the nuns at Auschwitz to leave “devoid of reason”. We need more “bigots” like him, who understand that what you CAN do is not always what you SHOULD do. So, Nic and Ed, after you’ve finished writing out the long list of adjectives and apply them to the “bigoted “fascist fool” of a pope and archbishop, then fire away gentlemen!
How many times must it be said that the main objection to this mosque is not the Muslim faith but rather the callousness to 9/11? Again, why won’t either of you respond to the dedication being scheduled on 9/11 – the 10th anniversary??? Convenience of sceduling? Come on! This has absolutely nothing to do with attacking the Muslim faith itself because both Morgan and I have repeatedly…and I mean REPEATEDLY said that if the situation were reversed where Christians had blown up the buildings, it would be bad form for a church to be built near the site…no matter which denomination. I would be just as upset as I am with Westboro Baptist Church that is practicing their consitutional rights, but are absolutely for picketing funerals of dead soldiers. How many more ways does it need to be said before you will concede the point that there is consistency between what is said of Christians and what is being said of Muslims.
Why this makes me upset is because you’re calling me a liar for continually saying that I believe the exact opposite that I do. It’s easy to do because you’re not looking at my face but that’s one of the greatest insults you can give to me. Unless you accurately represent my position, this conversation will continue to go round and round in circles because I’m not going to let you accuse me of things that are simply not true.
By the way, are there bigots on the right? Probably. And I’m equally confident that there are just as many bigots on the left. And yet it does little more than to side track from the conversation at hand and waste everyone’s time.
Ed, I have no fear of Rauf personally instigating violence. And Pope John Paul the II had no fear of nuns inciting violence at Auschwitz. That point has nothing to do with this scenario.
If I am a bigot, it is towards terrorism. But then, I’m not really a bigot, am I, because being a bigot is a paranoid, ungrounded fear. 9/11 proved that fear to be valid. It is not fear mongering to accurately state that this mosque will be taken by terrorists to be a major victory against the infidels as a holy site is errected in the place where the planes that destroyed the towers did damage. It is not bigoted to wonder why they are dedicating it on 9/11 on the 10 year anniversary of 9/11. It is not bigoted to wonder why they won’t work towards reconciliation with Archbishop Dolan and officials of NY. You do understand that this building was close enough to have been damaged by the plane that was hijacked right? I would wager that this fact would make this location to be considered on site by terrorists – not near the site.
Another thing that bugs me here: You (Ed) keep referring to this as the “community center” when that is only part of the site. The mosque will hold 1,000 praying Muslims – hardly just a prayer closet to be sure. Is there a community center? Sure – a lot of Christian churches make that claim too…even putting “center” in their name instead of “church”…but it still gets called a church. Why refer it to being a community center and not a mosque unless you have an agenda to do so?
Nic said, “Sorry, that’s still an example of argumentum ad populum. And that’s a logical fallacy.”
I used Donald Trump’s name as well as the archbishop’s name (or Deans and Reid’s names) not to demonstrate ad populum but to demonstrate that this isn’t just about the “right” being bigoted because there are honest, hardworking liberals with no agenda that more than usually agree with you politically and religiously that are saying that this mosque SHOULD be moved elsewhere. They’re not bigots, are they? They believe in religious freedom, don’t they?
You’re actually the one making fallacious arguments here, Nic. Argument by dismissal, and the fallacy of composition (what is true of parts is true of the whole). And yet you’re the one accusing me of saying that I blame all Islam for terrorism when I don’t! Yet you at the exact same time assume that if there is even one bigot on the right, or one person on the right who is an extremist, all the right is an extremist. How is this helpful again??
Nic said, “Oh before you two stupidly try to argue that the Nazi’s never used Christianity that way…don’t even try.”
Oh, I love how you brought that up because again, I use John Paul II as an example and stand with archBishop Dolan and say that what the pope did with the nuns at Auschwitz is the perfect example of what should be done in this scenerio as well. No one forced him to, no one blamed Catholicism for Nazi Germany, but he understood the history and the sensitivity of the Jewish people and had it moved. Bravo John Paul! Bad form Imam Rauf.
Once again everyone…………….they CAN build the mosque! Stop with saying that I’m attacking religious rights, ok?! They probably will build it if they can get the money. Bad form.
Ed…again, no owner of Fox has contributed a penny to the building of the mosque. A twisting of accurate information to make a punchline. If my church built a women’s center for abused women, people would contribute who had no tie to my church but wanted to support our cause. To say that everyone who supported this cause gave money to our church would be an inaccurate statement. The same is true for saying money has been donated by a Fox owner for the building of this mosque.
Nic said, “They are not required to make that choice. And if you really respect their rights as you say then if and when they say no you will sit down and shut up.”
I have the right to say “bad form”, the right to peacefully gather and protest the site by stating my desire for it to be built elsewhere (though I haven’t done so – I live in AZ), and the right to ask my Representative’s position on the matter as well. And I have the right to vote. Not one person, not one protester that I have seen – NO one that I have heard or read has said that they CAN’T build the mosque there. Morgan and I both agree that if it gets built then we’re not going to do petitioning, etc. How is liberty threatened by saying they SHOULD not build and asking them to move out of respect and peace? Again, if I am threatening liberty, say so of your archbishop and Pope John Paul II.
Kind of weird to be defending Harry Reid, Howard Dean, an Archbishop, and the Pope against a liberal Catholic. :-) Who would have thought???
Nick,
This is going on and on because it isn’t my job to convince you and Ed that I’m being reasonable. You two are supposed to craft an argument that appeals to me, and convinces me the Victory Mosque is an instrument for healing a division…as opposed to what it is, a Victory Mosque.
Because let’s face it: The First Amendment grants me a right to freedom of speech, too. Which means it grants me a right to have thoughts in my head that aren’t appealing to you.
Ed says it must be bigotry, because after all there are other mosques in the neighborhood and they haven’t agitated tensions like the Victory Mosque has. Now, think on that for a moment or two. I’ve heard the number of mosques in the neighborhood to be as low as 23…as high as 30. What does this mean, really? It means Ed’s point, far from being supported, is actually nullified. Anti-Islamic hatred? If it was anti-Islamic hatred that was the motivating factor, the 30 other mosques would be just as responsible as the Victory Mosque for stirring up the puddin’. And they’re not.
There. That takes care of anti-Islamic “bigotry.” Better luck next time, Ed.
As for you, Nick, you’re just making a complete fool out of yourself. The jerk who stuck that taxicab driver was not motivated by anti-Victory-Mosque fervor, he’s actually a member of the group that is pushing for the mosque.
This point has been made before. You act as if it’s news to you…except you don’t even acknowledge it. The only explanation is that you’re showing off for somebody else, putting on an Alan Alda angry-guilty-white-male act, engaging in these diatribes to show how unbelievably outraged you are by certain selected things. Learning absolutely nothing.
Know what I think? I think the rights and freedoms and liberties of us all, are in greatest peril when people like you and Ed start putting out monologues about how important they are. Because I can’t help noticing, right after you guys talk about this, out come a whole bunch of eloquent essays that center around all the consequences involved if certain things continue to be allowed.
Kind of reminds me of that thing that gets forwarded around the e-mails: “If a Republican is offended by something he hears on a radio, he change the station; if a democrat is offended by something he hears on the radio he writes a letter to the FCC demanding the station’s license is suspended.” Don’t worry, I’m not like you — if they build the Victory Mosque I’m not going to protest or blockade or circulate a petition saying it should be burned or condemned or bombed or targeted by a laser satellite. I’ll just harbor the private opinion, and now & then say it out loud, that it is what I think it is.
If you’re opposed to that, Nick, you’ve a right to your opinion but don’t go telling me you’re trying to preserve freedoms!
There is something you and Lower don’t get, morgan.
Politically speaking the longer this stupid controversy of yours goes on the worse your side looks. The longer this goes on the more hatred, fear and intolerance of Muslims will be created. The longer this goes on the more violence will be done against Muslims.
You say you guys aren’t bigots but yet your side is responsibile for that Muslim getting stabbed, that mosque in california getting attacked, the GOP candidate for Governor in TN saying “Islam is not even a religion and doesn’t deserve first admendment protection.” The longer this goes the worse your side looks, the longer this goes on the worse your side makes this country look. Whether you realize it or not you are making muslims in this country into second class citizens. Why should the people in the military who are muslims fight for this country when this is what they are facing back home? How does the United States combat the extremists contention that the United States is at war with Islam when your side has ginned up all this hatred of Islam that is boiling over into acts of violence? How does the United States fight that contention when you are objecting to a mosque being built but you would have absolutely no problem with a church being built there…even if 9-11 had been caused by Christian terrorists. Do you honestly think the right wing would require a Christian church go through this nonsense? Do you think Fox News owuld go off on a bender?
You and your side are screwing over this country’s security…and for what? That you’re throwing a hissy fit over a mosque being built in a place that has housed a mosque for the last few years with nary a word of complaint?
It is resistance to being told what to think, Ed. You speak of the dread you have of American principles being steamrolled, or put to pasture, or whatever. That’s the singular founding principle of America right there, and this exercise that has been engaged by yourself and Nick is a textbook illustration of its abandonment.
What you’re really arguing about, is feelings. Nick has a feeling that if the Mosque is built, people all over the world will be convinced America is not at war with Islam. Or lots of minds will get changed; or a few; or something. And conversely, if the mosque doesn’t go up this will demonstrate we’re a bunch of hardasses …his argument is based largely on this, and yet there’s absolutely nothing to support it at all. In fact the pattern has been that if people want to presume the worst about the United States, they’re going to go ahead and presume it no matter what, so there’s a lot of evidence to contradict what he’s supposing. But Nick has his feeling. He’s entitled to his feeling.
My own feeling is it was almost guffaw-inducing when he pointed to the taxicab-driver-slashing incident as evidence of the damage awful people like myself are doing with our bad feelings…and it turned out that throat-slasher guy was actually a mosque supporter. And from what’s being written up about that lately, it seems the “hate crime” was triggered by the taxicab driver saying what LL and I have been saying in this thread: “That there was no need to put it there.”
Morgan, I’ve repeatedly asked for a rational basis to oppose the center. You’ve offered none I can pin down, other than an irrational fear of something “other.”
You know, you can make everything in the world look reasonable or unreasonable if you’re willing to close your eyes to one selection of evidence and see only another selection of evidence. You, Ed, say this is all about freedoms. I’m still waiting to see what freedoms are being promoted or protected here. All you and Nick have come out with, that I can see, is a bunch of can’t-can’t-can’t…anyone who oppose the mosque is supposed to be identified as a hater, even though the actual evidence says it is mosque promoters who are trying to kill our nation’s cab drivers. You call people bigots if they disagree with you on this issue and you don’t seem that ambitious to figure out if their opposition is rational or not, you give a lot of signs of having already made up your mind. The undertone that mosque opponents should not enjoy freedom of speech so as to express their/our ideas, is palpable. The whisperings of a climate-of-fear, unsupported by actual facts, persists nevertheless. It is obviously a campaign to silence.
I am being told this is all about First Amendment liberties. And the actions I see, seem to be all about destroying those liberties.
There’s supposed to be an exchange involved in the Victory Mosque…which would imply some kind of two-way street. Give-and-take. And yet I’m seeing only one side pressured to take on the burden of tolerance. If the Victory Mosque is supposed to be a healer of wounds, the evidence indicates it is a failure before it’s even started — and yet I don’t see anyone even beginning to evaluate it that way.
This makes me suspicious of motives.
And pardon me for saying so, but that’s reasoned and rational. There’s no basis for judging it any other way, unless you have pre-judged it to be…which I’m sure you know is the origin of the word prejudiced.
“Bigot” comes from “by God,” meaning a feeling of faith devoid from reason.
It seems accurate, to me, in this case. Joe generally confesses that it’s a faith issue with him, though he still objects to being called a bigot, for reasons I don’t understand considering their origin.
The Sufis are the peaceful branch of Islam, and yet the mosque opponents claim to worry about violence indoctrination. That’s not reason, but bigotry.
New Yorkers had nothing to do with the destruction, but everything to do with the attempts at recovery. Culture center opponents claim they are offended, but not by anything they can point to that isn’t bigoted. It was a Connecticut guy who set off the dud in Times Square — where is the movement against Connecticut institutions?
Boeing built the airplanes used as bombs. There’s no anti-Boeing, anti-aircraft, or anti-Seattle sentiment. Why not? Bigotry.
Opponents of the center claim they would be offended by calls to prayer. They haven’t heard any of the calls to prayer made in the last two years, but they are sure they will be offended in the future. Any reason there? No. Bigotry.
Opponents claim to worry about the source of funding for the center. Jon Stewart, in good humor and great accuracy, suggests the source of funding is a co-owner of Fox News. The criticism is directed at the cultural center, and not at Fox News. Why? Bigotry.
The cultural center is intended to work to bring cultures together in the tradition of the Cordoba capital city of Spain, when the Moslems practiced religious freedom, Jews and Christians were welcomed, and the blending of the religious traditions’ better characteristics produced two powerhouse nations on the Iberian Peninsula who changed the world with progressive, forward thinking. Opponents worry about “glorifying” the deaths of people who died in the attacks on the World Trade Center, though, without any basis in anything the center’s organizers have said or done. Irrational. Bigotry.
Morgan, I’ve repeatedly asked for a rational basis to oppose the center. You’ve offered none I can pin down, other than an irrational fear of something “other.” Irrational fears are the definition of bigotry.
Don’t want to be known as a robber? Don’t rob banks. Don’t want to be known as a chiseler? Don’t chisel. Don’t want to be accused of bigotry? Don’t be a bigot.
I think you, and Joe, are uncomfortable with the word because of its accuracy in this case.
Nick,
I kick puppies, too. <wink>
Since you two want to hold the Muslims in this country as being responsible for the violence committed on 9-11, are you two going to object to being held responsible for the acts of violence being committed against muslims in this country?
We get to start infringing on your rights, right? We get to start dictating to you, right?
After all…if you’re so principled you two are willing to abide by what you’re trying to force the muslims to live by, right? You’re so certain you’re right that you’re willing to do that, yes?
Morgan writes:
Hmmm. Let’s see. “People who have an opinion about something other than the opinion Nick has about it, are bad people.”
Sorry, not how it works. People who believe differently then me aren’t automatically wrong or bad.
But when people believe things that are wrong or bad they’re bad people. Or what? Are you saying that the Nazis’ weren’t bad because of what they believed? Are you saying that Al Qaeda aren’t bad because of what they believe? You really should think through what you’re saying, Morgan, because you tried twisting what I said except for..oh wait…you backed yourself into a corner where you were in effect saying that every opinion is right. And that no opinion is “bad.”
Sorry, Morgan, you and yours are acting out of fear, hatred and intolerance. Like it or not…that makes you bigots…that makes you bad. I am not going to pretend that a group of people who want to infringe on the equality and the rights of another group are “good people.” They aren’t. They….you are misguided and nothing you say changes that fact.
They have the right to build that mosque there. Like it or not that is the truth. If your side was really so worried about “respecting the dead” your side would have tried negotiating, not using it as an opportunity to gin up anti-Muslim hysteria. If you were really respecting the victims of 9-11 you’d bother to recognize that not all of them agree with you.
Do not take away someone elses rights unless you want your own taken away. Nothing about 9-11 gave you approval rights on any mosque in this country, Morgan. Nothing about 9-11 justifies the hatred, fear and intolerance you and moreover those your defending are acting out of.
There are two mosques near the WTC already. There was no protest about them. There was no protest about this new community center/mosque until just a few weeks ago..despite the fact that the thing has been in the planning stages for a year. The only reason it is an issue now, Morgan, is so that your precious right wing can try to win the next election by tearing this country apart with fear, hatred and intolerance. Fear of gays, fear of blacks, fear of hispanics…and now fear of muslims.
Just like the Nazi’s did.
Yeah, Lower, the Archbishop is wrong. Sorry, little one, we Catholics aren’t robots. The Archbishop is saying his personal opinion and while he’s entitled to it…he’s still wrong. And so is Krauthammer.
Ed, the proposal is that the New York government would trade them a piece of land. Imagine the can of worms there.
I find it curious, Lower, that you never considered the ramifications of your position. Let’s use Krauthammer’s little piece as a jumping off point.
The Nazi’s used/twisted Christianity to justify what they did to the Jews and everyone else. Does that mean that every single Christian church in any part of Europe that was conquered by the Nazi’s should be closed up? That Christianity, in act of respect to the dead, do what you’re asking that mosque to do?
Christianity was used to justify slavery in this country? Should Christianity do the same in this country what you’re asking of that mosque?
Do you even realize how much hatred, intolerance and fear your side is causing to form in this country, Lower? You want the Muslims in NYC to be responsible for what Al Qaeda did near 10 years ago. Are you going to be responsible for what is being done to Muslims in this country now? Are you, Lower? Are you, Morgan? Do we get to strip away your rights because of what your brethren are doing?
Answer the question, Lower, because your blithely ignoring it is only you acknowledging that you refuse to be held to the same standard that you are trying to hold those Muslims.
Oh before you two stupidly try to argue that the Nazi’s never used Christianity that way…don’t even try. I guarantee you I have had enough experience with my fellow Christians playing that game to be able to kick your tails from pillar to post on that topic.
You may ask those Muslims to move that mosque, Lower, but if they so no that is their choice. They are not required to make that choice. And if you really respect their rights as you say then if and when they say no you will sit down and shut up.
But the fact still is that your side and your party, Lower, is using this topic to tear the country apart with fear, hatred and intolerance. As I said, your party has in the last 6 months ginned up hatred of blacks, hispanics, gays, poor people, the middle class, people out of work and now muslims. Tell me, Lower, who is next? Who is the next victim of your sides bigotry?
Where does it say that you get to turn muslims into second class citizens? Where does it say that your side gets to create hatred and intolerance of muslims? Where does it say that tearing the country apart out of fear is good for the country?
Exactly how is your side acting any different then the Nazi’s did before the Nazi’s? Your side has already started acting violently.
Since I’m pretty sure Lower and Morgan can guess what the point I’m making…
Hmmm. Let’s see. “People who have an opinion about something other than the opinion Nick has about it, are bad people.”
Hey Nick, have you ever stopped to think how your ideas are evaluated? It looks like this:
“I’m supposed to hate Muslims. Well, let’s see about that. Ummmm…nope, if Christians bombed something and someone wanted to build a Christian building really close to whatever it is, I’d still say that’s in incredibly bad taste. So that fails. What else has he got? Ooh, some angry words! So an angry guy is presuming to know how I look at the world and he happens to be wrong. Yawn.”
So in case you didn’t pick it up, when I said you convinced me I was being sarcastic.
I hope you keep at it. All the arguments from the left, lately, seem to have it in common that someone is supposed to be forced to accept something they would not, by choice, accept — dismissal of opposition. I see your “You’re bad because you disagree with me” as an offshoot of that. In fact, this entire thread, when you boil it down to its essentials, is just me & a few others saying “this tactic is not working on me” and you and Ed just doing it a few more times because you don’t have anything else.
This technique of yours is well worn out. People are sick of it. That’s the reason the elections are going the way they’re going — NO Republicans have emerged as clear leaders, anywhere, and yet your guys are getting spanked because whenever they offer an opinion about something, they have to tell a lot of people to go stick it. It’s like a nervous tic, and it doesn’t seem to matter much what the issue is.
Do keep at it though. People like you have soured the national discussion of politics to the point where it can really get any worse…and meanwhile, the change in ideological tone in this country over the last year and a half is absolutely history-making. It’s been enjoyable to watch. You’re proving that tea party sign correct, “It doesn’t matter what my sign says, they’ll just call it racist,” and as you prove it you continue to reap the benefits. You’re not arguing, you’re just name-calling with a whole bunch of words & paragraphs.
I’m loving this. I’m having dinner catered on November 2nd.
To quote:
By the way, just as a point of news (not that it will matter to you very much), Donald Trump has joined the names of those who say the mosque should be moved elsewhere. Yes, he’s a Republican, but a majority of his contributions go to Democrats.
Sorry, that’s still an example of argumentum ad populum. And that’s a logical fallacy. Let me be blunt…
If 99.999% of the country opposed that mosque..guess what…you’d still be wrong. You’d be wrong legally, you’d be wrong morally, you’d be wrong ethically and you’d be acting out of pure unAmerican hatred.
Morgan writes:
And yet, the memory of what happened, is still there. It’s predictable futile to instruct strangers to forget all about something that happened.
I’m curious, Ed. You seem to be a more reasonable chap than that silly deranged character Nick. Yet you continue to use that word “bigoted” to describe people who disagree with you on this issue. Lower has politely asked you to stop this and you keep doing it.
If I thought your side was being reasonable I’d return the favor, Morgan. But you’re not. To be blunt I’m being far more reasonable then you and your side are even attempting. I also tend to take attempts to blow holes through the US Constitution…especially the 1st Admendment and 14th Admendment’s as a personal affront. Sorry, like I said before…I don’t suffer fools. I especially don’t suffer fascist fools.
If your side was being reasonable your side would have tried asking first. It would have tried negotiating. But no…your side jumped straight to “Lets gin up hatred of Muslims” and stupid protests.
And sorry, while you and Lower may not be bigots yourselves…though you’re far closer to being a bigot then Lower is…quite a few people on your side of the fence are nothing but bigots.
So before you chide me for not being reasonable…try it yourself.
Since I’m pretty sure Lower and Morgan can guess what the point I’m making by citing this, I’ll refrain from saying it:
http://www.fresnobee.com/2010/08/25/2053382/vandalism-at-madera-islamic-center.html
Imam Abdullah Salem arrived at the Madera Islamic Center on Tuesday to find a pair of menacing signs, including one that read “Wake up America, the enemy is here.”
It was the latest in a series of incidents that the Madera County Sheriff’s Department is investigating as hate crimes. On Sunday, a brick nearly smashed a window at the center on Road 26 just outside Madera. Last week, another sign left on the property read “No temple for the god of terrorism.”
Signs left at the mosque claimed to be from a group called the “American Nationalist Brotherhood.” Sheriff’s officials said they hadn’t heard of such an organization.
Some local Muslims worry that talk radio hosts who have repeatedly invited callers to express their anger about the controversy surrounding a proposed Islamic center near the site of the 9/11 terrorist attacks in New York City are fanning flames of intolerance — and putting their families in danger.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/ns/msnbc_tv-countdown_with_keith_olbermann/#38857745
It’s specifically the 4th story from the show yesterday.
The lady’s name is Donna O’Conner. She is the mother of a victim of 9-11. She’s part of a group called Sept 11th Victims for a Better Tomorrow. And she and her group supports the mosque. Now..as I said..she’s the mother of a 9-11 victim.
Would Lower or Morgan, since they keep on insisting that what they and their own are doing is trying to be “respectful to the victims” and insist that the Muslims in New York are doing the same, like to explain how exactly they and their fellow mosque protesters are being respectful of that woman’s dead child, her dead grandchild and to the woman herself?
Where does the hate end, Lower? Where does the Islamophobia end, Lower?
How is trying to force a group of people to go somewhere else at all an American value? How is dictating that they can’t worship in a spot that you would allow Christians to worship an American value, Lower?
Oh here’s another article you should read: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE67J45U20100826
And yet, the memory of what happened, is still there. It’s predictable futile to instruct strangers to forget all about something that happened.
I’m curious, Ed. You seem to be a more reasonable chap than that silly deranged character Nick. Yet you continue to use that word “bigoted” to describe people who disagree with you on this issue. Lower has politely asked you to stop this and you keep doing it.
Are you that far down the crazy-pathway that you’re no longer capable of considering the possibility people can disagree with you, and still have their hearts in the right place? Because if you can’t do that, you’re confessing to something else, and it would be very far down the list of confessions you’d appreciate making: That the opinions you form are not based on reason.
You know, my objection to that sort of surrender is this: It’s a confession that the U.S. is waging war with Islam. That’s abandoning the founding principles of this nation, the principles that allowed the U.S. to make peace with Islam from the very start (from before the Constitution, even).
I think we should not piss away our heritage on the basis of bigoted error. We shouldn’t act on error in any case — but in this case, the bigotry, a rejection of the founding principles of this nation, make it particularly galling.
Ed said, “What do you make of the Fox News financing for this site? Shouldn’t that make you worry more about Fox News?”
Well, to start off, I’ll leave the comments alone that you’re using John Stewart as your source for news now, and two, this Saudi prince hasn’t contributed a dime to the building of this site. His charity has contributed to Rauf’s projects, but not directly to the building of this mosque. So what? He’s a Muslim Saudi Prince – what are the odds he’s going to contribute to Muslim causes? Is anyone surprised?
If it was Rupert Murdoch who was funding the site, you’d have a real story here.
Here’s the raw story here:
rawstory.com/rs/2010/0821/fox-shareholder-funded-mosque-imam/
Interestingly, bin Talal also contributed $20 mil to Harvard in 2009. Compare that to the $300,000 he contributed to Rauf and you get his contributions to Rauf being small potatoes. Wait! Obama graduated from Harvard! Quick! Call Stewart! We may have a follow up story!!!
Ed, here are the details that I could find. Just about every news agency has a story on it. Here’s one from the AP on Yahoo:
news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100810/ap_on_re_us/us_ground_zero_mosque_paterson
By the way, just as a point of news (not that it will matter to you very much), Donald Trump has joined the names of those who say the mosque should be moved elsewhere. Yes, he’s a Republican, but a majority of his contributions go to Democrats.
By the way, Nic, along with Trump, NY Archbishop Timothy Dolan has come out in favor of the mosque being built elsewhere as well, though at the same time he praised Bloomberg’s work for producing healthy discussion. So…what will you do as a Catholic? Will you state that the Archbishop is wrong as well? Is he “stupid, bigoted, racist” etc?” Or perhaps good people on both sides just happen to disagree and you can tone down your rhetoric about the “fear mongering, bigoted”, etc. because even your own church leader agrees with me! I agree with the archbishop and with the Governor’s call for “respectful dialogue.”
I fully agree with the archbishop and especially with his thoughts on the way this discussion should be handled by both sides. You can see the bishop’s full comments here:
huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/19/archbishop-timothy-dolan-_n_687404.html
Interesting that he praises Krauthammer for his analogy used in his article that you guys tried to blast. Are you sure you’re not on the wrong side of this one Nic, or is your bishop a bigot too?
I’d like to hear details of that offer.
This group has been worshipping at that site for many months, with no problems. It appears to be a fine site, for this group.
What offer is there of a similar site, at similar cost?
What do you make of the Fox News financing for this site? Shouldn’t that make you worry more about Fox News?
Lower, I don’t know about you but I’ve found Nick’s confrontational tone, preening, dismissive cocky attitude, and constant stream of insults to be most compelling. A little bit more of the same and he’s sure to sway me toward his way of thinking on this.
Nick, I congratulate you on your powers of persuasion, and your talent for showing the true spirit of fellowship being promoted by the Ground Zero mosque. Well done.
Oh and that still doesn’t explain, Lower, how exactly that proposed building never got any protests or any of that folderol for the last year…until a mere 3 months before the next election. It’s only been in the planning/approval stages for the last year…but no..noone protested at all until the last few weeks…
Or does it never occur to you that you and your fellow Americans on the right wing are getting played by your leaders? That they are ginning up fear and hatred of various minorities in order to gain political party exactly like the Nazi’s did in Germany?
Or have you not paid attention to the fact that in the last 6 or so months the right wing has stirred up fear and hatred of Hispanics, gays, African-Americans and now Muslims. Tell me, Lower, who is next?
Lower writes:
The fact that Rauf is unwilling to move the site of the culturul center even though they have been offered to in the name of peace, is contraditory to what pure Sufi teaching would advocate. The Sufi, even more than the other sects of Islam, would do well to move the center since to incite such controversy and protests is counter to what they say they believe.
Translation: The fact that they’re unwilling to give into our bullying in the name of fear and hatred is proof that they’re not interested in “peace” and “fellowship.”
Seriously, Lower, do you think about the crap you say? Do you put even one second’s thought into what you say? They do not have to move it. They are not required to. They may choose to do so but it and pay attention here: IT IS THEIR CHOICE. And if they choose not does not grant you permission to use it as further justification for your sides stupid bullying. Sorry, you don’t get to say “offered in peace” when your side has not even been remotely close to “peaceful.”
Maybe if your side had tried talking to them calmly, politely and civilly instead of out of fear, anger and stupid prejudice they might have been more inclined to listen. But guess what…your side didn’t. So don’t blame them for your side’s stupidity. I swear to God your side is like a husband who beats his wife and then blames his wife for “making” him beat her.
If I was the one in charge of that community center and you and yours were doing what you’re doing my reply to any offer to move it would not even be fit for polite and civil ears.
As for what you said about the Ku Klux Klan…you’re forgetting something. Islam is not Al Qaeda. The KKK is not representative of all Christianity…just as Al Qaeda is not representative of all Islam. But you’re saying, in effect, “The KKK is not representative of all Christianity…but Al Qaeda is representative of all Islam.” Which is why you and moreover those you’re defending keep on trying to hold all Muslims responsible for what happened on 9-11.
Here, since you dismiss what happened thousands of years ago as happening thousands of years ago..lets use something a bit more modern:
From: http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/140578
So far in the last two years we’ve had an doctor who provides abortions gunned down in his church. He was a frequent target of that right wing bloviator Bill O’Reilly. An right wing white supremacist entered the Holocaust Museum and shot up the place and killed a guard. A mentally disturbed man who believed the “tea-bagging” movement’s contention that the Obama administration is destroying the American economy — and who reportedly owned a number of firearms — withdrew $85,000 from his bank account, said he was part of a plot to asassinate the President, disappeared and was caught in Vegas. Then there’s the attack on the Muslim cabdriver who as attacked and nearly killed in NYC for being Muslim. Then there’s all the other mosque’s around the country being targeted and protested. Oh and lets not forget the bombing in Oklahoma City that was caused by two right wing extremists with ties, among others, to the Christian Identity movement. They especially bought into the anti-government hysteria that your precious right wing has spent 30 years plus spewing.
Should we apply to your side of the political fence and to right wing Christianity what you and yours are trying to apply to that mosque? Should we hold you and yours responsible and demand that you bow down to our demands? Does that give us the right to say that we have final say on what you can and can’t do? What rights you have and what rights you don’t? Where you can worship and where you can’t? Where your place of worship can and can’t build?
Because so help me, God, Lower, I would have absolutely no problem in doing to you and yours what you and yours are trying to do that mosque just to get you to realize how incredibly stupid, dangerous and deranged your side is being right now.
Are you going to bow, Lower? Are you going to say that Ed and I and our fellow liberals get to hold you to account for the actions of the crazies on your side of the political fence? Are you going to place your rights in our hands? Next time some crazed idiot on the right does something violent do we get to protest your church and demand that it go somewhere else?
Ed said, “And it is your claim that this applies also to the Whirling Dervishes, the Sufi sect (the sect building the cultural center)?”
To be sure, the Sufi sect is the most non-violent group of the Islam religion. Pragmatically speaking, it would be highly beneficial to Islam if Sufi’s took over the religion. That the group building the cultural center is Sufi is the one thing they’ve got going for them. That being said, there’s not a lot of strict Sufi’s these days. Most have been diluted with the other sects of Islam. The fact that Rauf is unwilling to move the site of the culturul center even though they have been offered to in the name of peace, is contraditory to what pure Sufi teaching would advocate. The Sufi, even more than the other sects of Islam, would do well to move the center since to incite such controversy and protests is counter to what they say they believe.
The Sufi sect is an interesting study. I have been doing some research on them the past few days. Sufi’s (including Rauf) very much believe and teach the importance of Sharia law. Their tactic is simply different than those who are violent – they believe in infiltration through non-violence rather than at the edge of a sword. That’s a commendable thing, to be sure! The end game is the same in that Muslim rule (Sharia) is the goal of every Muslim sect. Those who accuse Christians of wanting a theocracy haven’t seen anything compared to Sharia law!
Ed said, “Joe, I think anything you have said here against Islam applies in spades to Christianity, especially to the Inquisition, the conquest of America in the 16th century, and to the Ku Klux Klan. Will you urge your congregation to burn its building to avoid offending victims of lynchings, Hispanics and African Americans?”
Well, since the church I attended on Sunday rents from a local high-school facility, I’m probably not going to urge them to burn the building. LOL :-)
What Christendom’s ancestors did was wrong. Period. No defense of atrocities wherever they occur. Why do you and Nic insist on trying to get me to justify what is blatantly evil just because it is done in the name of Jesus? There will be a lot of people who won’t be going to heaven who did things because they thought they were doing it for Jesus. Jesus says in Matthew what he will tell these people who do these things in His name without having a relationship with Him, “depart from me you workers of iniquity. I never knew you!” I give no defense for them – Jesus doesn’t either.
All that being said, I would have a big problem with a “peace loving” Klu Klux Klan “cultural center” that wanted to go up right next to the headquarters of the NAACP. It’s the wrong message and I completely oppose the Klu Klux Klan!
Also, we’re not talking about something that happened 500 years ago in this scenario, it is something that happened 9 years ago and the violence by terrorist jihadists continues on to this day. If Catholic Spaniards were still killing and burning in middle America you’d have some legs to stand on in your argument. I’m not going to defend anyone’s actions who commits violence in the name of God, whatever religion they are from.
Ed said, “Which sura is that?”
I mispoke by stating it was in the Quran because the law called Naskh is how Muslim’s handle the Quran, it is not found in the Quran itself.
You can find more information on this teaching of Islam here:
wikipedia.org/wiki/Naskh_(tafsir)#cite_note-7
Just to give an example: Mohammed was in Mecca when he wrote the passages about peace. He was in the minority and not as popular at that point of time. So, he called for peace. Later, when he was in Medina, he gained a large following and after gaining much strength began calling out for war against the infidels and those who believe in multiple gods (which they believe includes Christians who believe in the Triune God).
So, some Muslims interpret Naskh to mean that when Muslims are the minority they should declare peaceful until such time as they have strength enough to fight the infidels. Others (Jihadists) just claim that the older passages of the Quran that talk about peace are just completely nullified.
Nick,
Let me offer the standard rebuttals to your cab driver story and, thereby, give the right wingers a break on bandwidth.
1. The man who slashed the cab driver was not a real Christian. No real Christian would ever do violence to an unarmed person. Of course, all the 9/11 terrorists were real Muslims and typical ones.
2. The cab driver provoked the poor, innocent attacker by admitting he was Muslim. The presence of a Muslim cab driver so close to (whoops, I mean right on the very site of) the twin towers, just made the poor Christian fellow go berzerk. The wounds of NYC are still raw, Nic. And if we hang or burn a Muslim or two, well…that’s sad…but they need to learn their place.
3. ACORN! Community organizers! Jeremiah Wright!
4. The slasher was a closeted Muslim (like Obama) who is running around attacking Muslims (the victims may be part of the conspiracy, too) in order to make peace-loving, God-fearing, real ‘murricans look like terrorists.
5. When the cabbie admitted to being Muslim, he did so in a very uppity fashion. There’s far too much uppity in this country since Michelle Obama became First Lady!
There, Nic. The wingnuts can just pick one without having to do a lot of writing.
Since Lower and Morgan and all their fellow anti-mosque friends want to blame Islam for the actions of a crazed few, lets see if they’re willing to take responsibility for the action one person took at their behest:
http://www.ny1.com/?ArID=124338
A city cab driver is in the hospital after being stabbed by a passenger who allegedly asked if he was Muslim, police tell NY1.
Investigators with the New York City Police Department say it all began Monday night when a 21-year-old man hailed a cab at 24th Street and Second Avenue in Manhattan.
Police say the passenger asked the driver, “Are you Muslim?” When the driver said yes the passenger pulled a knife and slashed him in the throat, arm and lip.
The 43-year-old driver was able to lock the passenger in the back of the cab and call 911.
Both the driver and the passenger were taken to Bellevue Hospital.
As of late Tuesday, no charges had been filed.
Joe said:
The Quran states that if there is a contradiction between earlier passages in the Quran and later passages, you go with the later passages.
Which sura is that?
Wonder what Joe would say about all the contradictions in the Bible.
Re: Fox News. Not really news to anyone who is aware that Rupert Murdoch has no loyalty to anyone but himself, and is only interested in selling whatever he can sell to acquire more money, and most importantly, more power.
He is an evil person, and certainly a liar, and will throw gasoline on any fire available when it suits his purpose.
In December, the Islamic Center was a good idea. Then Murdoch decided it was incendiary time, and the order came down from on high (Oh Great Murdoch, Whom We All Worship) to make it a bad idea. Of course, they aren’t going to mention their ties or who else owns them, and most of their viewers are too stupid to check things out. They just join the employees in worshipping at the Throne of Murdoch. Yes, Good Patriotic Americans worshipping at the throne of a foreign power who became an American citizen for the sole purpose of buying a television station, because here in these United States, he was not allowed to make that purchase as an Australian citizen.
Fox, because they are an appendage of Murdoch will do or say anything, and the truth is not in them, nor is it ever required to be. And they have such a dandy piece of explosives here, because people don’t care about the facts if the “truth” is sexier and will arouse more emotion.
Joe said:
And it is your claim that this applies also to the Whirling Dervishes, the Sufi sect (the sect building the cultural center)?
Have you ever read Rumi?
Joe, I think anything you have said here against Islam applies in spades to Christianity, especially to the Inquisition, the conquest of America in the 16th century, and to the Ku Klux Klan. Will you urge your congregation to burn its building to avoid offending victims of lynchings, Hispanics and African Americans?
If not, why should this group not proceed with its meeting house, even were your claims accurate?
This is certainly an interesting twist. Morgan asked, “Where’s the $100mil coming from, anyway?”
Turns out it’s coming from Fox News, in a rather direct way:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-august-23-2010/the-parent-company-trap?xrs=eml_tds
I’ll bet both faces of the Tea Party movement are stinging.
Joe said:
Which sura is that?
At 8/21 7:50pm Nick sez…
You and yours are giving the terrorists a perfect recruiting tool, you are making this country less safe. And you are dishonoring the dead by using their corpses as justification for your petty hatred. And well…that is my right to say so.
At 8/22 9:29pm Nick links a video at Alan Colmes’ LiberaLand called “America at its Ugliest” which is clearly intended to portray America in a negative light. Not a bunch of protesters. But the country.
Nick: Please reconcile those to things for me. If you can. You’re worried about our country’s image overseas, or aren’t you?
Can’t figure out how to post the pictures, so here are the captions from Islam protests throughout Europe, though the pictures are much more intense – do a google search on Muslim protestors if you want the pics:
- Europe is the Cancer Islam is the Answer
- Anglican Soldiers Go To HELL
- Massacre Those Who Insult Islam
- Freedom Go to Hell
- God Bless Hitler
- Be Prepared for the REAL Holocaust
- Bush is the Real Terrorist – Osama Bin Laden is our Hero
- Europe. Take some lessons from 9/11
- Islam will Conquer ROME
- Whoever insults a prophet KILL HIM
- Slay those who Insult Islam
- Europe You Will Pay – Your 9/11 is on it’s way
- Behead Those who Insult Islam
- Butcher Those who Mock Islam
- Europe You Will Pay – Your Extermination is on it’s way!
- Europe You will Pay – Demolition is on it’s way!
- Sharia for the Netherlands!
- Islam will Dominate the world!
- Freedom of Expression Go to Hell!
These aren’t isolated – they include protests in London, Rome, Netherlands, France, and Germany and the numbers are in the thousands! Are you SURE this is the religion of peace? Are you sure this is about liberty and tolerance on their part? Are you SURE that this mosque is not being dedicated on 9/11 for a reason? Are you sure this isn’t bad form on their part?
Just to be clear on a couple facts about the Islam religion as well –
1) Sharia law is a primary goal of the Muslim religion – there is no end until all the world is under Muslim control and all is controlled by Allah.
2) Unlike the Bible that claims that all passages are true and do not contradict, the Quran does not make this claim as such. The Quran states that if there is a contradiction between earlier passages in the Quran and later passages, you go with the later passages. The passages about peace are earlier writings and the passages about Jihad are later. Muslims can legitimately state that the Quran calls for peace when they know full well the Quran states that these are overridden by later writings.
3)Muslims are completely free to lie to infidels if it advances the agenda of Islam. So I do not find it comforting when Muslims are talking to ‘infidels’ about their beliefs and how this community center is about peace. If you want to know what they believe, only go by what they say to each other, not the American press.
I also did a google search on those protesting the mosque – no call for anyone’s death, just calls to move it somewhere else and calls for an end to terrorism and peace. The difference in rhetoric is astounding! One pic I liked was a guy with a sign that said, “And they think a CARTOON is offensive???”
Kindly explain to me, Lower or Morgan, where what happens to this guy has anything to do with the people doing it to him having a problem with a mosque near the WTC site. Or rather..explain to me how this isn’t a “Lets attack the Muslim looking guy!” incident. Oh…and before you open your mouths…the guy who gets mocked/attacked is a laborer on the actual WTC site.
http://www.alan.com/2010/08/22/america-at-its-ugliest/
Oh wait, Stewart didn’t go far enough. A Saudi Prince, member of a family known for backing radical Islam, is a major investor in News Corp….which just gave a million dollars to the Republicans.
*imitates Beck* The Republicans have become the political party for Osama bin Laden!
I’m leaning toward thinking Frank Rich is right: Those who make a big whoop about this deal are trying to sabotage the U.S. war in Afghanistan.
Since some on the right are insisting that the proposed mosque is really a terrorist command center, there’s this: Jon Stewart connects Fox News to bin Laden
http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/08/jon-stewart-is-fox-news-a-terrorist-command-center-video.php
And curious isn’t it that a year ago Christian and Jewish groups endorsed the project. And oops..so did Fox News.
Lower writes:
Thanks Thomas for proving Morgan’s point better than anyone else possibly could. This isn’t about religious liberty – it’s about stopping those “right wing fanatic Christians” who have “gotten out of hand.”
Oh? And are you sure that the opposition to that mosque can’t be summed up as “It’s about stopping those “fanatical Muslims” who have “gotten out of hand.”?
Anyways, here’s a little article about the Imam for you:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/22/nyregion/22imam.html?_r=1
You writes:
Also, how about this mosque being slated to be dedicated on 9/11/11 – ten years after 9/11? Are you SURE this is about tolerence???
Also, according to a Time magazine poll, Americans would be much more willing to have a mosque two blocks from their house than two blocks from ground zero. I agree. For most people, it’s about 9/11, not about peaceful Muslims.
Really? Then pray tell why are so many other mosques around the country likewise facing opposition? And since when is building permits given out by popular poll? When did the entirety of the United States get permission to make decisions on what gets built where in New York City?
Lower writes:
By the way Nic, this “mosque” that you say exists in the Pentagon is an interfaith chapel – it’s just as much a Mormon Ward and Buddhist Temple as it is a mosque or a church. It’s not a mosque at all.
Yeah…just like the area around the WTC site is an “interfaith area.” It’s just as much a muslim area as it is a Christian area and so on. That new mosque won’t change that fact and moving it somewhere else won’t change that fact either.
Oh and by the way, for me this is about religious tolerance and freedom. That it ticks off the right wing when I oppose them on their bullying is just really frosting on the cake. One can be for religious tolerance and oppose you. However, you can not be against that mosque just because of where its proposed and still claim to be for religious tolerance. You want them to tolerate you but you don’t want to tolerate them.
If your side was really so interested in being respectful here, Lower, your side would have tried negotiating with them quietly instead of making this a big giant hullaballoo. Furthermore, if your side was so interested in the victims of 9-11 your side wouldn’t be trying to turn this into a campaign issue. For your side this is one big giant smokescreen act to distract the people from the fact that your precious political right have no damn idea how to run the country or fix the country’s problems. Meaning, if it wasn’t 3 months before the election this never would be a controversy.
As for the big about the dedication being on 9-11-2011, have any proof? Oh and I mean something actually unbiased. And if you mean “dedicate” as in the thing will open in less then 13 months try again. It took two years to build my church and that church is quite a bit smaller.
But if they really are trying to dedicate the thing on 9-11 next year…fine then stick them to asking them to dedicate it some other day. But you’re going to object to Glenn Beck using the anniversary of Martin Luther’s I Have A Dream speech to engage in racism right?
The only time I went off a side discussion about other things I disagree with about the Republicans was when you accused me of hating the right. And I chose to explain why I detest them. You opened the door on that one, Lower.
As for this “Why else does Nic keep trying to have side discussions about the things he disagrees with the Republican party? I am confident in this point because NO ONE here has spoken out against Reid or Dean.”
Lets see…I called Mr. Reid’s office last week to file a complaint about his position. I intend to do the same with Mr. Howard Dean. And oops..there’s this: http://www.alan.com/2010/08/18/howard-dean-wrong-on-mosque/
Oh and by the way…according to the New York State Attorney General’s office..the fund to build that mosque…has all of $18,000 in it. Meaning they’re not even close to starting construction on it.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/41238.html
But please, Lower, continue to refuse to let the facts get in the way of your little narrative.
I find it cute you chide me for bringing up side issues but you did the same with that church in NYC, however. Even better…you didn’t even bother to do any research into why that church hadn’t been granted permission to build. It’s as if you expected me to be dumb enough to think that we poor Christians are being persecuted in a country where we’re 80% of the population.
Thomas: “I am following this discussion because the influence of right wing fanatic christians in the United States has gotten so out of hand in recent decades and IT IS TIME THEY ARE STOPPED. IN THEIR TRACKS(emphasis mine).”
Thanks Thomas for proving Morgan’s point better than anyone else possibly could. This isn’t about religious liberty – it’s about stopping those “right wing fanatic Christians” who have “gotten out of hand.”
So glad to see you all are for religious tolerance and liberty. Sigh…I figured if we gave enough time, we’d stop beating around the bush and get to the heart of the issue in writing. Thanks for pointing it out Thomas. Glad to see if Christians are ever in the minority where you would stand on religious liberty.
By the way Nic, this “mosque” that you say exists in the Pentagon is an interfaith chapel – it’s just as much a Mormon Ward and Buddhist Temple as it is a mosque or a church. It’s not a mosque at all.
Also, you have yet to address Howard Dean and Harry Reid – are they religious bigots who need to “shut up”? Can I count on you supporting the Republican who is running against Reid to get those bigots to “shut up”?
Also, how about this mosque being slated to be dedicated on 9/11/11 – ten years after 9/11? Are you SURE this is about tolerence???
Also, according to a Time magazine poll, Americans would be much more willing to have a mosque two blocks from their house than two blocks from ground zero. I agree. For most people, it’s about 9/11, not about peaceful Muslims.
You all (especially Thomas and Nic) are simply using this whole thing as a soap box for all the disagreements you have with the right. Why else does Nic keep trying to have side discussions about the things he disagrees with the Republican party? I am confident in this point because NO ONE here has spoken out against Reid or Dean.
Yeah Thomas, I think you’re having an Inigo Montoya moment with that word “bigotry.”
Once you start making sounds like THIS SIDE GOOD…THAT SIDE BAD…you’re it.
I am following this discussion because the influence of right wing fanatic christians in the United States has gotten so out of hand in recent decades and it is time they are stopped. In their tracks.
I served in the USAF in the late ’60′s and ’70′s. There were two major issues the USAF (I assume all branches of the US military) handled with precision and with a zero tolerance policy. One was racism. Everyone was mandated to attend what was called “Race Relations Training.” It was a lengthy, in-your-face training forcing any person who held racist ideas or who thought they could act out their racism – to face that racism. They were forced to change – to accept that racism was not tolerated in any form or fashion, and if they could not or would not change – they were shown the door. It worked beautifully.
The second issue was separation of church (religion) and state (the USAF). There was NO acceptance of any proselytizing by anyone. No one could intimidate others into “accepting jesus christ, blah, blah, blah.” No Commander would have allowed that. Chaplains were available to those who sought them out for comfort or counseling. Religion was not allowed into the day to day mission. Not at all.
Of course we all know that since the fundamentalist/evangelical fanatics have grown in power in the US, they even have gained inroads into the US military. The USAF Academy had had a serious problem with evangelical christians taking positions of power as trainers, teachers and Staff Officers. Thanks to a Jewish student and his family, that is being stopped. There is no excuse for such behavior in the US military. We are a nation of law and of the separation of church and state as one of our founding and guiding principles.
The opposition to the NYC Mosque by bigots and racists such as Sarah Palin is a scream from a dying monster – the monster of xenophobia and right wing christian extremism – a monster that is losing its power. Think of the Wicked Witch of the West in the Wizard of Oz.
Oh, I see. Contrary to your earlier claims, I really haven’t said anything sufficiently incriminating so you have to play the game of “Let’s see Morgan denounce this” so you can put some words in my mouth. What are we gonna pretend I’m endorsing next, “I can see Russia from my house?”
Nick, let’s get back to the subject at hand.
Bill Whittle’s video just cuts through all the crap. It does something you don’t, which is to distinguish between reconciliation efforts that demand tolerance out of one side, versus more honest efforts that demand it out of both.
He starts talking about you, Nick, at 12:50. Hope you can stay tuned in that long.
http://www.peekinthewell.net/blog/it-is-weakness-that-starts-wars/
Lets see Lower and Morgan condemn this “Christian.” Oh and Lower, I’ll be waiting for you to say that this guy should not be allowed to do his “preaching” inside the public schools too. I’ll be waiting for you to condemn the Republicans for supporting that jagoff. I’ll be waiting for you two to apply to Christianity because of that jagoff what you’re trying to apply to Islam. And tell me, you two, where is your concern about the mosque that is inside the Pentagon? After all…people died in the Pentagon on 9-11. If you’re so thinking that mosque in NYC is offensive because it’s going to be two blocks from the WTC site…how come you don’t find the other two mosques near the WTC site offensive? Or can you be honest enough to admit that your being offended at it is a lie and made up?
Christian says that executing homosexuals is moral
You Can Run But You Cannot Hide, Inc., a 501(c)3 nonprofit ministry that brings its hard rock gospel into public schools, has been deepening its long-running ties to the Republican Party of Minnesota. Long a cause célèbre for Rep. Michele Bachmann, who has twice lent her name to the group’s fundraising efforts, You Can Run (YCR) had a booth at the GOP convention in April, and the group’s frontman, Bradlee Dean, reports that gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer recently accepted an invitation to visit with him at Dean’s home. But recent controversial statements by Dean — that Muslim countries calling for the execution of gays and lesbians are “more moral than even the American Christians” — have drawn the ire of some both within and outside the party.
“Muslims are calling for the executions of homosexuals in America,” Dean said on YCR’s May 15 radio show on AM 1280 the Patriot. “This just shows you they themselves are upholding the laws that are even in the Bible of the Judeo-Christian God, but they seem to be more moral than even the American Christians do, because these people are livid about enforcing their laws. They know homosexuality is an abomination.”
“If America won’t enforce the laws, God will raise up a foreign enemy to do just that,” Dean continued. “That is what you are seeing in America.”
Nick,
I understand the rage and the grief. You’re finding everyone in the world doesn’t necessarily have the same opinions that you do. For an immature mind this comes as a shock. First step in getting better is admitting you have a problem.
Now along the way, it’s very common for people to engage in a common false belief: “**I** am merely expressing disapproval of something, ***YOU*** are trying to make a rule!” You can’t play that card here because you’ve explained, repeatedly, that the law is the law is the law as far as granting the permit for building this Mosque, and everyone needs to get behind it.
Speaking for myself, I’ve gone as far as calling bullshit on Ed when he says RLUIPA requires that the permit be granted. From all I’ve read about this, it doesn’t seem this is the case at all; in fact, one of the example cases I cited was specifically about a RLUIPA lawsuit, in which the defense prevailed. It isn’t the kind of suit where a council says “Because of RLUIPA, our hands are tied” — I know Ed was trying to make it look like that, but that’s not what it is. It’s another tool in the box for lawyers who want to go hunting; an ambulance-chaser law. It’s a delegation from Congress to the Justice Department to go throwing mud at the wall to see what sticks…a very common tactic to deploy in the Clinton era.
So far as I know, at this point, any little thing you want to put up, there’s at least a fighting chance it might be turned down if it pisses off enough of the community. RLUIPA might provide an avenue by which a different outcome might be sought, but it doesn’t decide the issue by itself.
Now, I’ll not answer any of your hypothetical scenarios because I’m still waiting for a response to my own: Christian institution wants to erect a Christian edifice on private property, which happens to be deplorably near a site of a massacre committed by Christians. Since we haven’t had Christians knock down buildings with hijacked jet planes lately, this would require some creativity from you, and being an agenda driven liberal you aren’t going to supply it. So that’s fallen flat; you aren’t sufficiently friendly to an intellectual discourse, and Christians aren’t massacring enough people.
So I’ll tell you what I will do. I’ll condense the problem with your argument so that the summary can be managed by your limited attention span…maybe…after you’ve calmed down from this traumatic experience of encountering someone who disagrees with you.
Your argument, as I see it, is — “‘Should’ doesn’t matter, ‘can’ is the only thing that matters, so when something is clearly legal, expressing your disapproval is something you shouldn’t do!”
See the contradiction?
It’s like the old canard about “all absolute statements fail.” No matter how you cut it, in order to maintain what you’re trying to say, you have to monopolize a “right” to deplore things — while denying it to your opposition. And claiming you’re all about equal rights for everyone, in the middle of demonstrating you’re not for this.
By the way, Morgan, just to explain something to you.
The reason I said “shouldn’t doesn’t matter” basially boils down to the fact that in this country things are decided by the law. Meaning, whether NYC approves the permits for that mosque are decided on the law. NYC can not say “Well, we can’t let a Mosque be built here” because unless they decide to allow no places of religious worship to be built anywhere near the WTC site they are discriminating and walking themselves into a lawsuit they wouldn’t win.
Furthermore, you say “what about the families of the 9-11 victims?” but you ignore the fact that more then a few of the families of the victims have said they have no problem with the mosque.
You ignore the fact that there are two other mosques already there, that this proposed building is intending to replace one of those mosques because it is too small (in other words they have a viable and reasonable reason to build that mosque instead of this trumped up “Islamic Triumphalism” you and the others spout.) You ignore the fact that if it had been Christians who blew up the WTC building you’d be among the last to block any Christian church from building there.
And you argue that the Muslims should be respectful and understanding but you are not interested in being respectful or understanding at all. In fact I doubt that if those Muslims decide to proceed to build that mosque there, assuming they get approval, that you would bother to be respectful enough to acknowledge their right to make their decision. You and the others would still spout off, make stupid unfounded accusations and demand that they obey you and all the while protesting that you were the ones being bullied, harassed and victimized.
You have the right to say your opinion…but it is their decision ultimately so now it is time for you to respect that fact. They may choose to listen to you and the others…but acknowledge the fact that they are not required to.
Oh and next time before you claim that the area around the WTC site is sacred I also suggest you speak out against the actual affronts to “sacredness” that are near there. You know..the porn shops, the strip joints and such.
But I suggest that you start to prove that this isn’t a “Hate Muslim fest” with you by bothering to acknowledge that the people opposing mosques in other places are doing so out of fear and hate. Because I’ve pointed out that mosques in other places have been opposed and you have not uttered a peep about them.
One of our ideals is religious freedom. I suggest you start practicing that ideal instead of this nitwitted “I get to approve whether other religions can worship here or not” bulldrek you’re engaging in.
Lower, Morgan, so tell me you’re going to back the soldiers who are claiming they were punished for not attending a Christian rock concert right?
RICHMOND, Va. — The Army said Friday it was investigating a claim that dozens of soldiers who refused to attend a Christian band’s concert at a Virginia military base were banished to their barracks and told to clean them up.
Fort Eustis spokesman Rick Haverinen told The Associated Press he couldn’t comment on the specifics of the investigation. At the Pentagon, Army spokesman Col. Thomas Collins said the military shouldn’t impose religious views on soldiers.
“If something like that were to have happened, it would be contrary to Army policy,” Collins said.
Pvt. Anthony Smith said he and other soldiers felt pressured to attend the May concert while stationed at the Newport News base, home of the Army’s Transportation Corps.
“My whole issue was I don’t need to be preached at,” Smith said in a phone interview from Phoenix, where he is stationed with the National Guard. “That’s not what I signed up for.”
Smith, 21, was stationed in Virginia for nearly seven months for helicopter electrician training when the Christian rock group BarlowGirl played as part of the “Commanding General’s Spiritual Fitness Concerts.”
Smith said a staff sergeant told 200 men in their barracks they could either attend or remain in their barracks. Eighty to 100 decided not to attend, he said.
“Instead of being released to our personal time, we were locked down,” Smith said. “It seemed very much like a punishment.”
The Military Religious Freedom Foundation first reported on the Christian concert. The foundation said it was approached by soldiers who were punished for not attending or offended by the religious theme of the event.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/21/troops-skipping-christian_n_690032.html
Your idea that popular whim should allow the trumping of the law is the most destructive idea of them all.
Even compared to you? Everyone has to agree with you or you can say all these bad things about them.
And all because on 9-11 you became a coward and so desperately want to give the terrorists exactly what they want…to turn this from a war of the United States against terrorism..to a war of the United States against Islam.
The idea that, once the mosque goes in, the terrorists are all going to go “Oh no, they’re staying tolerant those Americans…we didn’t scare them into giving up their freedoms, ah, we suck so much!” just like The Grinch hearing the Whos singing on Christmas morning.
Go on, keep peddling it. You already look as foolish as you’re ever going to.
So, Nick is in favor of Dr. Laura Schlessinger’s “racist rant.” Popular whim shouldn’t allowing trumping of the law…and the First Amendment says she should be able to say what she wants.
Nick is also in favor of a Serbian Orthodox center being erected right by the killing fields.
Furthermore, once the Ground Zero mosque goes in, Greg Gutfield can enjoy Nick’s complete support of the gay bars he plans to open right next door. Nick also supports my plan to open a gun shop right by Columbine.
You were probably pleased as punch when that bereaved father had to hand over that judgment amount to Rev. Fred Phelps.
For those who are smarter and have better personal insight than Nick…
This is a short, slick, slippery slope of its own. When the law defines morality and there is no “should,” the word “can” is the only thing that matters — your replacement “should” takes on a life of its own. Suddenly you get this “should” that says “we must keep our personal liberties intact.” Which is noble, of course…but in the space of an instant, suddenly you’re giving uneven importance to these “cans.” It’s the most reprehensible “cans” that get the priority.
And then you get to be like Nick. Someone logs onto a blog and says “Whoah, I see a problem with this”…and you condemn them for it.
Many of us are just saying “You know, if my son got killed in the attacks, I don’t think I’d like this.” Refer to Nick’s comments to see how we’re ripped apart for this. We have low character, we’re moral reprobates, we’re detestable…which means the hypothetical bereaved parent, not quite so hypothetical with three thousand dead, is also detestable and horrible just for having such natural feelings.
Nick can say all he wants that he’s not out to interfere with anybody’s rights. But it’s obvious he doesn’t want us to have them. We are to “shut up about it and respect their decision” otherwise we’re giving the terrorists a “perfect recruiting tool.” That means freedom of speech is not for us. It isn’t for the bereaved parents who are naturally offended by this Ground Zero Mosque.
So some of us have these basic rights, others don’t, or shouldn’t. We got to this point by avoiding “shoulds,” saying they don’t matter, the absolute preservation of personal liberties is too precious. This is where it takes us. Some of us are superpeople who get to express opinions about what we find detestable…others don’t have this because we’re not good people.
Nick, in his blind rage, has become the polar opposite of what he seeks to be. And he’s in some very good company this way.
So Nick, my verdict on your way of thinking is FAIL. It doesn’t achieve what it is supposed to achieve. It bends around in a perfect 180 just like a paper clip.
And to think, this disagreement started because I’m the one who was factoring in how people would feel about things, and you’re supposed to be the rational one looking far down the road at what would happen to our personal liberties. Huh. How’d that work out.
And well…that is my right to say so.
Wish I was cool, like you, Nick. Then I could have a right like that. That’d be completely awesome.
Morgan writes:
This is, by the way, the reason Nick’s idea of “should doesn’t matter” is so destructive. It’s a good way for a society to work only if it’s filled with weak people, with weak character. Such a society ultimately becomes a weak society, because it becomes a place where people are constantly telling each other to f— off.
Oh you mean people like you who have the weakest character of them all? Sorry, Morgan, when it comes to strong character…between you and yours and me and mind…you and yours fall way short. You fall short in character and you fall short in morality.
Your idea that popular whim should allow the trumping of the law is the most destructive idea of them all. Your idea that fear, hatred and intolerance should trump people’s rights to worship in a building that you would allow if they were Christian is very destructive.
And all because on 9-11 you became a coward and so desperately want to give the terrorists exactly what they want…to turn this from a war of the United States against terrorism..to a war of the United States against Islam.
That should be “while trying to divide the country so your side can win an election by mimicing some…
Morgan writes:
Your own bullying implication that we don’t have the right to speak out against the Ground Zero Mosque, register any objections, maybe not even think them to ourselves,
Oh, speak your mind all you want, Morgan. But before you talk about “bullying” tell me….if they decide to build that building where they want instead of doing as you wish…are you and yours going to shut up about it and respect their decision? Or are you going to be bullies about it?
Noone here has tried taking away your rights, and noone here has been bullies to you. Not even me. Yes I’ve been harsh..but sorry I find ignorant fear mongering, ignorant hate mongering, blatant racism, and using those things to score political points while trying to divide the country so your side can win an election but mimicing some of what the Nazi’s did to the Jews to be..well..detestable. I also find it morally depraved. And I also find it UnAmerican.
You and yours are giving the terrorists a perfect recruiting tool, you are making this country less safe. And you are dishonoring the dead by using their corpses as justification for your petty hatred.
And well…that is my right to say so.
To quote:
this is post 911 America, it is our responsibility to question and be vigilant…or we will surrender our rights!
You’re not being asked to surrender any rights. And there is a difference between vigilance and paranoia. There is a difference between responsibility and fear/hate mongering.
And I find it curious that you whine about “or we will surrender our rights”….but you are asking them to surrender their rights.
You are being a rank hypocrite and a coward.
Where’s the beef? There ain’t any.
The Golden Rule, Ed. Persons of weak character would say it has no binding force at all, although persons of strong character regard it as the mightiest law of all. Both are right. This is why we don’t open gun shops across the street from Columbine High School.
This is, by the way, the reason Nick’s idea of “should doesn’t matter” is so destructive. It’s a good way for a society to work only if it’s filled with weak people, with weak character. Such a society ultimately becomes a weak society, because it becomes a place where people are constantly telling each other to f— off.
By the way, I’m noticing your blog is filled with a curious mindset and it isn’t just you. People start talking about the sanctity of some precious personal liberty, and by the time they’re done prattling with whatever, the rest of us are about to become a lot less free than when they started.
Your own bullying implication that we don’t have the right to speak out against the Ground Zero Mosque, register any objections, maybe not even think them to ourselves, that’s a good example of what I’m talking about. “Religious freedom” is precious, so wham-bam, our right to peaceably assemble and petition our government about our grievances…it’s history. Our freedom is so precious that there need to be some rules to make us behave right.
Here’s another example.
No. You have no right to draw “a line in the sand” regarding prayer in public schools. It is unconstitutional. Always has been. It was practiced for a period of time in some public schools in the United States because the christians had such power and influence and our nation was less diverse and so the christians were able to impose their will. No more.
Thomas, first of all, if this was an accurate legal summary then Engel v. Vitale would have meant nothing. And if you really think this is correct, you’d better write to the Oyez website so they can strike misleading, mistaken statements like “This was the first in a series of cases in which the Court used the establishment clause to eliminate religious activities of all sorts, which had traditionally been a part of public ceremonies.”
Also, this statement ignores the fact that the Constitution, and the First Amendment in particular, is constructed to restrict the activities of the Government, not of the people. It says “Congress shall make no law” — not “private citizens in public school.”
You’re one of the people I’m talking about. Our constitutional “freedoms” are so precious, it’s important that we be stopped from doing things. Was that a prayer?? Citizen’s arrest!
Where do we put these people who were caught praying? What kind of punishment do you think would be appropriate for a first offense?
I’ve had some girlfriends who loved me pretty much the same way liberals “love” our personal freedoms. I’m glad I got out of those situations in one piece.
Robert Asci. No. You have no right to draw “a line in the sand” regarding prayer in public schools. It is unconstitutional. Always has been. It was practiced for a period of time in some public schools in the United States because the christians had such power and influence and our nation was less diverse and so the christians were able to impose their will.
No more.
Robert Asci, I started school in 1951. During my school years, we had one — count her — one teacher who led prayers in school. And she used the Roman Catholic Lord’s Prayer. Prayer in school, I have learned over the decades, varied widely from place to place and its loss is no bad thing. I’m quite sure the non-RC’s parents from long ago would agree with me remembering the teacher and how she singled out “All you Protestants.” Who knows what she would have said if she had suspected there were any students who were not Christian at all?
Robert wrote,
Where do you get the “vehemently” business? There are countless people “vehemently” opposing the exercise of the right to build, but those trying to build are just exercising their rights under law. In what way are they being vehement? They bought property, they are using the property, they sought permits to demolish the building and build a more suitable one on the property they own. If that’s vehement, then real-estate developers are vehemently exercising their rights every day in this country–why don’t you complain about their “vehement” exercise of their rights?
And who cares if someone exercises their rights vehemently anyway? I have friends who make a big noise about voting in every election, but nobody criticizes them for vehemently exercising their rights. If I get arrested and dragged into court, I’m going to stand up and loudly demand a lawyer–would you criticize me for vehemently exercising my rights?
In fact why aren’t you criticizing the people objecting to the mosque, as they are so vehemently exercising their First Amendment rights to free speech? Do you object to Christians who vehemently exercise their First Amendment right to freedom of religion by going to church multiple times a week, proselytizing their co-workers, and praying in public?
Of course none of that bothers you. But a group of Muslims just seeking a building permit, that’s too vehement? Smacks of bigotry and hypocrisy to me.
There, fixed that for you.
Nick,
A quick correction. Cato is libertarian all right, but not at all right wing. Right wingers are authoritarian–Cato-style libertarians (like me) are very anti-authoritarian.
Everything else you’ve said here in your valiant battle against bigots I’m wholly in agreement with.
Yes…I believe in religious freedom, this country was founded on it
Yes again to the f…act that I do not blanket view all Muslims as being terrorist affiliated. Most are hardworking, family oriented and gentle loving people, as are the majority of us law abiding, God fearing individuals.
That being said, I still must ask myself, what is the motivation behind those who are most vehemently attempting to exercise this right to express religious freedom? Who is financing this endeavor and what does it say that they are attempting to build a monument to their religion so near a site which demands reverence and respect. Sorry to say, but this is post 911 America, it is our responsibility to question and be vigilant….our way of life depends upon it!
I view the thought of this project as not only being insensitive but a blatant act of disrespect to those who’s lives and feelings are forever changed by the violence which took place here….I never again want to see a day when this country is disrespected on its own soil. Some may say that I am just being over-sensitive …..maybe so, am I distrustful….I have the right to be!
….and yes again, to the fact that we live in America, for as long as they stand before me declaring their right to erect this structure, I will do the same to see that it doesn’t happen. I sat idly by and have watched the erosion of some long held traditions like reciting The Pledge of Allegiance or saying prayers in our schools, so pardon the pun…but if this were the desert, I’m drawing a line in the proverbial sand!
Well Mr. Wolpe, it certainly is O.K. to say “I just don’t know” because this is a tough question…. but here is one man’s opinion that is clear and loud!
Yes…I believe in religious freedom, this country was founded on it
Yes again to the f…act that I do not blanket view all Muslims as being terrorist affiliated. Most are hardworking, family oriented and gentle loving people, as are the majority of us law abiding, God fearing individuals.
That being said, I still must ask myself, what is the motivation behind those who are most vehemently attempting to exercise this right to express religious freedom? Who is financing this endeavor and what does it say that they are attempting to build a monument to their religion so near a site which demands reverence and respect. Sorry to say, but this is post 911 America, it is our responsibility to question and be vigilant….our way of life depends upon it!
I view the thought of this project as not only being insensitive but a blatant act of disrespect to those who’s lives and feelings are forever changed by the violence which took place here….I never again want to see a day when this country is disrespected on its own soil. Some may say that I am just being over-sensitive …..maybe so, am I distrustful….I have the right to be!
….and yes again, to the fact that we live in America, for as long as they stand before me declaring their right to erect this structure, I will do the same to see that it doesn’t happen. I sat idly by and have watched the erosion of some long held traditions like reciting The Pledge of Allegiance or saying prayers in our schools, so pardon the pun…but if this were the desert, I’m drawing a line in the proverbial sand!
Still waiting for a correct fact to suggest any reason why these mostly-native New Yorkers, completely unaffiliated with al Quaeda, the leader of the group sent on missions of diplomacy for George W. Bush, should be denied a permit to build a cultural center. They had nothing to do with 9/11. Their sect does not urge violence. Their worship at that spot for 2 years has produced no annoyance to anyone.
Where’s the beef? There ain’t any.
Oh even better, you use the fact that the terrorists claimed to be Muslim and doing it in Islam as you being given permission to blame all of Islam for what they did….but yet you refuse to blame all of Christianity for what Christian terrorists have done.
You are a hypocrite.
You mean I’m hostile against hate mongering fear mongering racist bulldrek, Morgan? Gee…I wonder why. You mean I’m hostile aginst intolerance and blaming innocent people for a crime a bunch of extremists did while claiming to be members of the same religion as the innocent people? Tell me, Morgan, how many times has a Christian done something terrible and the first words out of your sides mouth is “That person isn’t a real Christian”?
Lets see, so far you have accused them of radicalism without proof, of getting funding from radical sources without proof and generally acted as if the United States follows the idea of “Guilty until proven innocent.”
Furthermore you somehow manage to argue that they haven’t given into bullying and so far refused to move the site means that they’re guilty of not worrying about “fellowship” and are trying to be provacative. Which is a bit like saying that if a woman says no to having sex she’s begging to be raped.
Furthermore you blithely ignore the fact that not all the 9-11 victims and their families oppose the building. You also ignore that the building is not actually on the WTC site, you ignore that even President George W Bush said Muslims were victims of the attacks.
What? You saying he lied?
They do not have to move that building just because you and others oppose it. And you would flip your lid if this was a Christain church being asked to do that. So its time for you to get off your soapbox and stop being a bullying goon.
Morgan, I have yet to see where any facts have changed.
Therefore, it is my suspicious and cynical opinion, that some people took this event and ran with it, knowing it would stir up emotions, play into fear, and bring dissension; knowing it, and reveling in it, even though this should have been an issue decided in and by the people of the borough of Manhattan and not Albany, or DC, or Georgia, or Alaska.
When I see the facts change, I may also change my mind. As yet, that has not happened.
Ellie,
I’m pretty sure that when people work hard to support decent things and oppose ugly things, it isn’t completely out of appearances. I think overall, most people want to have a beneficial effect on things in substance as well as in symbolism.
Now, to a casual observer, obviously it seems like the tolerant thing to do is be permissive: “Go ahead.” But when you discuss these things for a little while you start to run into people like Nick. And then the truth emerges that there’s a lot of hostility on the “go ahead and build” side of the argument. I’ve pointed this out before, with this very thread: My very first comment, #1 of 150+ now, had to do with this ethereal reference to Muslim victims of the 9/11 attacks, “no one knows how many.” I asked for an explanation of how this could be the case. Ed supplied the only explanation possible — difficulty in determining religious denominations of individuals. I’ll leave it to you to determine whether that passes the smell test. It doesn’t with me.
But since then, the conversation has been dragged off countless times into an attitude I’ll sum up as “We, who want the building to proceed, are enlightened and open-minded; you, who would oppose it (or merely question it), are crazy, stupid, bigoted, and should somehow be forcefully shut up.”
Ellie, that is the very definition of intolerance right there.
So in response to your question, maybe people have been learning. And since they still want to do the decent thing, they’re using the new knowledge they’re gaining. You lie down with dogs, you wake up with fleas.
I think Keynes said it best with that quote about “when the facts change, I change my opinion, what do YOU do, sir?”
I’d like to see a list of people who were shouting against this in December 2009, or even March of 2010. Trot out the list. Give the links. Point to the video.
We could look at video from Fox, December 21, 2009. Or, maybe not. Because there, you’d see Laura Ingraham saying to Daisy Khan, “I like what you’re trying to do.” Of course, now, she’s against it.
It was a good idea last December, but not any more. Somehow it went from “I like what you’re trying to do,” to “It’s a finger in the eye to New York.”
But, I’m sure this was just some kind of natural progression.
You’re not free to claim a right for others to give your foolish idea any more deference than it deserves. That’s what this discussion is about.
Indeed it is. And it is the pro-mosque people demanding deference. Look at Nick, just to cite one example. Man, I’d love to have a relative like him over for Thanksgiving, I’ll bet the guy just makes the party.
This whole notion of “show me twenty people who oppose the mosque and I’ll show you twenty xenophobes” is childish and it is also unpleasant. It is not possible for a civil conversation to ensue around its presence. Step One for me is to assume a defensive posture and prove I’m not something, and take a civil tone with my opponent while he’s in the midst of spreading propaganda that I am? Seriously, Ed, how do you go about engaging in such an exchange and keeping it friendly? It’s a fool’s errand.
You’re quite right that it is an invalid extension of the First Amendment to assume the right to tell others what to think. And thinking people are not persuaded to think this is any kind of “fellowship center.” The forces behind it, if their motives were pristine, would have relocated it long before now; if that’s out of the question, then the logical thing to do would be to declare the project a dismal failure. Blame Palin if you want. But it isn’t healing any divide, it’s heading in the opposite direction, and only a blind man would fail to see that.
See, what I object to in this debate is the crude and crass mislabeling of things. It’s not a mosque. It’s not at Ground Zero of anything. [Muslims] didn’t blow up the World Trade Center, terrorists did. No one worshipping at the WTC site has been bothered by anyone’s call to prayer, nor is that likely to change. I didn’t say that any person can’t have free speech.
Please stick to the facts.
You polled everyone worshiping at the WTC site?
Here’s a fact: Airplane debris fell and hit the building Park51 would replace. Here’s another: The hijackers were Muslims. They shouted Allahu Ackbar as the planes hit the buildings. Gee I dunno, Ed, if I were related to one or more of the victims, I’d find this all pretty disturbing. If I knew someone who was so related, and found it all disturbing, I wouldn’t blame them for it. I’d find that to be a reasonable reaction.
Would you agree with our House Speaker that such a person should be investigated to see where their funding comes from?
I watch the arguments coming from people like yourself and from Nick…of course I’m looking more at Nick, but still it applies to both of you…and this is looking more, and more, and more like “My position is the only one, you have to agree with me or else you’re a hateful bigot.” It’s looking more and more each passing day like you’re the guys trying to push an intolerant opinion.
The Supreme Court says any corporation has the same rights you do — just more resources. I didn’t say they couldn’t speak. I merely point out that this exercise in free speech isn’t free, but costs a penny, and is not pure in “citizen” origins.
You’re free to say any fool thing you wish to say. That’s what the Constitution says. You’re not free to claim a right for others to give your foolish idea any more deference than it deserves. That’s what this discussion is about.
You are free in America to say hateful, racist, sexist, hurtful things. Everyone else has a right to ignore such speech, and act nobly and wise instead.
See, what I object to in this debate is the crude and crass mislabeling of things. It’s not a mosque. It’s not at Ground Zero of anything. Moslems didn’t blow up the World Trade Center, terrorists did. No one worshipping at the WTC site has been bothered by anyone’s call to prayer, nor is that likely to change. I didn’t say that any person can’t have free speech.
Please stick to the facts.
Freedom of expression for one side but not the other, eh, Ed?
You thought this was a spontaneous protest? How do you think you heard about it, Joe? The idea that this is not a paid political attack is the joke — but, then, I’m cynical from my years working inside that beast.
The fingerprints are all over it. You could track it back. If Newt Gingrich is on the issue, you can be sure his campaign is paying a lot of people to place his editorials, with an eye to beating Sarah Palin in any primary she may run in.
You could take it to the bank.
If you really care, build it somewhere else.
“An act of ‘fitna’.”
Did you catch this quote by Nancy Pelosi – a follow up to her initial comments:
“I support the statement made by the Interfaith Alliance that ‘We agree with the ADL that there is a need for transparency about who is funding the effort to build this Islamic center. At the same time, we should also ask who is funding the attacks against the construction of the center.’
I didn’t know Morgan, me, and 60% plus of America required funding to oppose the construction of the ‘center’. Apparently, no one would be criticizing this project if they weren’t being paid for it. What an out of touch joke!
Another interesting take.
Debra Burlingame, bereaved sister of a victim of 9/11, and head of 9/11 Families, recently issued a statement co-written with Tim Summer.
I’m not saying everything she says is right or wrong – I’m just saying that this is what some of the victim’s families are going through with all this. Are you going to tell them to “shut up” and “get over it” as well?
“Barack Obama has abandoned America at the place where America’s heart was broken nine years ago, and where her true values were on display for all to see. Since that dark day, Americans have been asked to bear the burden of defending those values, again and again and again. Now this president declares that the victims of 9/11 and their families must bear another burden. We must stand silent at the last place in America where 9/11 is still remembered with reverence or risk being called religious bigots.
“Muslims have worshipped in New York without incident both before and after the attacks of 9/11. This controversy is not about religious freedom. 9/11 was more than a ‘deeply traumatic event,’ it was an act of war. Building a 15-story mosque at Ground Zero is a deliberately provocative act that will precipitate more bloodshed in the name of Allah. Those who continue to target and kill American civilians and U.S. troops will see it as a symbol of their historic progress at the site of their most bloody victory. Demolishing a building that was damaged by wreckage from one of the hijacked planes in order to build a mosque and Islamic Center will further energize those who regard it as a ratification of their violent and divinely ordered mission: the spread of shariah law and its subjugation of all free people, including secular Muslims who come to this country fleeing that medieval ideology, which destroys lives and crushes the human spirit.
“We are stunned by the president’s willingness to disregard what Americans should be proud of: our enduring generosity to others on 9/11–a day when human decency triumphed over human depravity. On that day, when 3,000 of our fellow human beings were killed in a barbaric act of raw religious intolerance unlike any this country had ever seen, Americans did not turn outward with hatred or violence, we turned to each other, armed with nothing more than American flags and countless acts of kindness. In a breathtakingly inappropriate setting, the president has chosen to declare our memories of 9/11 obsolete and the sanctity of Ground Zero finished. No one who has lived this history and felt the sting of our country’s loss that day can truly believe that putting our families through more wrenching heartache can be an act of peace.
“We will honor the memory of our loved ones. We will protect our children, whose lives will never be the same. We will not stand silent.”
Nic, the reasons I am not responding to everything you write about other issues is that I simply do not have time to get into discussions with each of these issues. You’re wanting to delve into practically every offense that you have against the entire Republican party. What good would it do to get into a Sarah Palin/Repub vs. Dems debate here? I simply do not have time at this point in my life. Sorry.
You’re complaining about Republican power when they’re NOT in power. Did they mess up royal when they were? Absolutely! They handed control of the Congress and the Whitehouse over to the Democrats on a silver platter because of their stupidity. Am I all things Republican? Unlike liberals, my loyalty is not to a party but to ideals. When a party doesn’t share my values then I look for the candidate that does. When one is not to be found I unfortunately have to look for the one I agree with the most.
How am I treating Muslims and Christians different when I said I would advocate a Christian church not building if the situation were reversed? How am I treating them different when I have Baptist roots and am completely ticked off at Westboro Baptist? they have rights – but I’m still completely against their picketing.
Again, you say that what CAN happen is the only thing that matters. I think we understand each other Nic. You believe that whatever someone can do they should freely express themselves. That’s narcissism. I believe that while someone has the right to do many things, one also has the right and the moral obligation to limit their freedom for the good of others. Something about loving neighbors as one loves himself. For example, would I go to jail if I cheated on my wife? Nope. Does that mean that I have the legal right to cheat on my wife? I suppose you could look at it that way. But SHOULD I cheat on my wife??? Absolutely no! So in that scenario, which one really matters? What I CAN do or what I SHOULD do? Unfortunately a lot of people are like you and justify what they CAN do because they WANT to do it, not because they SHOULD do it. To me, what I should do trumps what I can do hands down. Again, I could go to Vegas and blow all my money. I could become an alcoholic. I could waste my days playing video games. There are a LOT of things I CAN do but what I CAN do doesn’t really matter if it is something that is not expedient to do. To me, this mosque does not fall into the realm of “CAN” because practically no one is disputing their religious rights! Everywhere I turn people are asking about the SHOULD and I agree. You’re telling over 60 percent of the US, including Howard Dean and Harry Reid to just shut up because SHOULD doesn’t matter. It matters. Not that they should be forced to move, but because the Muslims building this mosque should realize that this mosque SHOULD be moved elsewhere.
Speaking of which, how do you reconcile that this is a Republican tactic when both Dean and Reid have come out saying that while they support religious liberty the mosque SHOULD move elsewhere? That and most Democrats are just saying that ground zero is simply a local zoning issue and refuse to give an opinion one way or the other.
Nic said, “As for that bit about “freedom from a works religion” you are aware that is Christianity actually? Or did you somehow miss the lesson Jesus was teaching when He talked about the sheeps and the goats? Faith without works is nothing but empty words.”
There is a major difference here. Some teach that we work in order to gain entrance to heaven and God’s good graces – i.e. a works based salvation. But the Bible says that believers do good works BECAUSE we have been given the gift of heaven/forgiveness of sins. The very definition of grace is being given something that is not deserved or worked for. As an illustration, when I was a child, I did not do things for my parents in order to become their child – I did it in order to demonstrate my love and thankfulness because I AM their child. I did not work to become their child. As a Christian, I do not work to become God’s child, I work because God gave me the free gift of forgiveness of my rebellion to Him and made me His child and no one can take that away from me, ever. See the difference?
Nice said, “I didn’t equate the mosque with porn shops but nice misrepresentation of what I said. However you are the one that equated a mosque with immorality. That building it is immoral.”
You brought up the parallel. If that’s not what you intended, again, forgive me. As I said, the building of the mosque 600 ft. from ground zero is immoral. It’s sticking it where it hurts to the American people. Do you really believe this is all about tolerance and religious freedom to those who are building this mosque? Simply need a place to worship? Seriosly? Let me ask you then, why do they plan to dedicate it on 9/11/11, the 10th anniversary of 9/11?? Coincidence, I’m sure!
Distance from ground zero does matter. If not, why did the governor of NY offer to move it farther away, even offering to give up state owned land?? Wow, you want to talk separation of church and state? You guys are all saying that there is a cultural center AT Pearl Harbor, but it would be like saying that there is a mosque at Ground Zero when it is in Queens! There’s a big difference between being located in the adjoining town and a place so close my baby girl could crawl there.
I completely recognize that they don’t have to do what I say. This is a blog. I’m stating my opinion on the matter. I’m stating my frustration. Blogs don’t do a lot to effect change in policy and zoning laws now do they? Either way, this is more a discussion of principle than law because we’re not going to change anything one way or the other anyway.
Nic said, “However I would point out for you there have been quite a few times when I’ve been told by protestant Christians that I’m not a real Christian because I’m Catholic.’
I’m not a Protestant, unless you lump everyone who is not Catholic compltely into the mold of the Reformers’ views. I understand your frustration if they told you that being a Catholic means you’re not a Christian. I’ve been told the same thing because I’m not Catholic, Mormon, and Jehovah’s Witness. Again, it’s not what church you go to – it’s what you believe about Jesus that really matters. The church you go to either encourages you from the Bible to be like Him or a mold that they have created for you. I always ask people which one their church teaches? That’s a good test to see how healthy their church is.
[...] noted on another thread that there is, in fact, a Japanese Cultural Center at Pearl Harbor. Hanley wonders how the Japanese deal with reminders of the being the victims of the first atomic [...]
*sighs* That should read:
Where were the rest of the conservatives who are so for “financial responsibility.”
And does not “financial responsibility” also mean that sometimes you have to spend and that sometimes you have to raise taxes?
When did financial responsibility come to only mean “cut spending” and “cut taxes.”
Lower writes:
Funny that you are mad at Palin who agrees with you on several of your points against the Republicans. It is the conservatives that are upset with Republicans for being hypocrites by saying they are for financial responsibility and then completely ignoring it when in power. While some of your concerns are attacks against things that Republicans have always stood for (family values, defence of the innocent, personal responsibility vs. government entitlement, liberty, etc), some of the accusations are just ridiculous. Going back to a state religion? And you accuse me of fear mongering? Seriously!
Sarah Palin is not for financial responsibility. She’s the one that said we should be spending more on our military and we should build more aircraft carriers and nuclear powered submarines. The military consumes 45% of all our spending..and thats not even counting the two wars. Does that sound very “financially responsible” to you? Where was she when Bush and the Republicans were spending money hand over fist? Where were the rest of the conservatives who are so for “financial responsible”?
As for family values…when was the last time the Republicans were for that? When they were attacking the middle class? When they were criticizing Bill Clinton for having an affair while more then a few of the leaders of the Republicans were having affairs of their own? When they were attacking health care reform? Or are families not having adequate health care actually a “family value”? Yeah the right loves to claim its for family values and morality but for most of the last 30-40 years they’ve been saying that and doing the opposite.
And as for the state religion bit…apparently you haven’t been listening to some of the Republicans over the years. I wasn’t saying you’re for a state religion and if thats what you thought then my apologies. But lets see…more then a few Republicans support organized school led prayer..which is an example of a state religion. Then there’s the teaching Creationism/ID in public schools..which is also an example of a state religion. Then there’s the repeated claims that the United States is a Christian nation and our laws are based on the Bible. The repeated attacks from the right on the separation of church and state. The Lt Governor of Tennesee saying that Islam is not a religion and therefor doesn’t deserve 1st admendment protection. Pat Robertson’s repeated statements that only Christians should be allowed to hold office.
Again..the whole manufactured nonsense with Keith Ellison not saying the oath of office on the Bible.
Look up the term “Christian Reconstructionism” Lower.
From: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,210680,00.html
MIAMI — U.S. Rep. Katherine Harris told a religious journal that separation of church and state is “a lie” and God and the nation’s founding fathers did not intend the country be “a nation of secular laws.”
The Republican candidate for U.S. Senate also said that if Christians are not elected, politicians will “legislate sin,” including abortion and gay marriage.
Harris made the comments — which she clarified Saturday — in the Florida Baptist Witness, the weekly journal of the Florida Baptist State Convention, which interviewed political candidates and asked them about religion and their positions on issues.
Separation of church and state is “a lie we have been told,” Harris said in the interview, published Thursday, saying separating religion and politics is “wrong because God is the one who chooses our rulers.”
“If you’re not electing Christians, then in essence you are going to legislate sin,” Harris said.
Would you like to acknowledge that Ms. Harris is wholesale advocating the violation of the third paragraph of Article 6 of the US Constituton?
Lower writes:
From the very beginning I’ve understood your claim that the mosque had a legal right to be built. I’ve never disputed that! And yet you keep chiding me again and again for wanting to trample religious freedom, even after I’ve clarified my position over and over. And now I’m to answer for it again??? What’s it going to take??
And you can say you understand that they have the legal right to build it and that you respect their rights to their religion all you want…but when you try and put yourself in a position of telling them to go somewhere else just because you don’t like them you are being hypocritical.
I have not misrepresented you once, Lower. I just don’t buy your bulldrek attempt to pretend that you’re all for religious tolerance when you’re trying to treat Muslims differently then you would treat Christians.
You write: You again say, “having the right to do so is the only thing that matters.” You completely side step my whole point of coming on here and saying that it’s not about what they CAN do but what they SHOULD do.
Well yeah it is the only thing that matters. New York City can not…I repeat…can not deny them a permit when they meet all the requirements for said permit just because a bunch of people object. NYC’s decision has to be based on the law..not on popular opinion. Hence my repeated saying “should” doesn’t matter.
Whether they do it or not is their choice…but you and the others are in effect trying to bully them into making that choice. Those who you’re defending, Lower, are the ones turning this into a hate Muslim fest. This has not been a rational or even an civil attempt to get them to reconsider by your side yet. Nor is there any indication from your side that if they choose not to do as you wish that your side would sit down, shut up and respect that choice.
And as for my saying you hate Muslims..well congratulations, consider that turnaround for you saying I hate the right. Since you apologize for that statement then I likewise apologize for what I said.
As for that bit about “freedom from a works religion” you are aware that is Christianity actually? Or did you somehow miss the lesson Jesus was teaching when He talked about the sheeps and the goats? Faith without works is nothing but empty words.
And as for my statement about the porn shops…curiously it was you that tried to claim that building the mosque there was an immoral thing. I only pointed out that you were blithely ignoring actual immoral things on the “sacred ground” of the area around the WTC site. I didn’t equate the mosque with porn shops but nice misrepresentation of what I said. However you are the one that equated a mosque with immorality. That building it is immoral.
You say you recognize their right to their religious beliefs and to build that mosque? Then live by what you claim you acknowledge. If you wouldn’t have tried pulling a double standard, Lower, I wouldn’t have jumped down your throat. You say you recognize their right to build that mosque? Then recognize that you have no valid grounds to oppose it. Recognize they are not beholden to obey your wish. And that if you expect them to move the mosque somewhere else then you better apply that same standard to other religions…including Christianity. You can start by acknowledging that just because they want to build that mosque there does not mean they’re trying to be offensive.
As for the bit about the Council of trent you’re right. It never has. But most Catholics don’t hold to that belief. And the Catholic church doesn’t run around condemnig Christians who aren’t Catholics. However I would point out for you there have been quite a few times when I’ve been told by protestant Christians that I’m not a real Christian because I’m Catholic. So you’ll forgive me but it seems to me that your side of Christianity is just as guilty of that particular stupidity as my denomination.
And Morgan’s rhetoric may be tamer..I really don’t care. I’m fed up with the absolute nonsense your side of the spectrum routinely engages in. And like I said before..I don’t treat ignorance, fear, hatred and stupidity with kid gloves. Though Ed can attest that actually I’ve gotten quite a bit tamer then how I used to be. But there Morgan sits making the stupid claim that liberals don’t believe in religious freedom, he provides no evidence to back that claim and I very much doubt you would have done anything but defended his statement if I hadn’t used it as an opportunity to prod you.
But considering that your side of the spectrum routinely uses insults, lies and such. Considering your side’s recent propensity for violent talk, hate talk and rampant fear mongering, sorry, I’m no longer interested in playing at diplomat. When your side calms down, finds its brain and starts acting like rational responsible adults then I’ll tamper down my rhetoric and give your side a chance to prove itself. Until then…well…to borrow from the fictional character of Bruno Gianelli: Because I’m tired of working for candidates who make me think that I should be embarrassed to believe what I believe, Sam! I’m tired of getting them elected! We all need some therapy, because somebody came along and said, “‘Liberal’ means soft on crime, soft on drugs, soft on Communism, soft on defense, and we’re gonna tax you back to the Stone Age because people shouldn’t have to go to work if they don’t want to!” And instead of saying, “Well, excuse me, you right-wing, reactionary, xenophobic, homophobic, anti-education, anti-choice, pro-gun, Leave It To Beaver trip back to the Fifties…!”, we cowered in the corner, and said, “Please. Don’t. Hurt. Me.” No more. I really don’t care who’s right, who’s wrong. We’re both right. We’re both wrong. Let’s have two parties, huh? What do you say?
Or to put this more simply, lower, I am tired of the demons on your side of the spectrum, I am tired of them having power, I am tired of people on your side of the spectrum putting them in power. I am tired of people like you idly standing by while they destroy the party I used to be proud of being a member of.
I find it curious though, Lower, that you didn’t even attempt to address what I listed as the problems with the right.
See this:
http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2010/08/19/cat-and-mosque-at-dogboy-and-mr-dan/
And this:
http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2010/08/17/what-would-george-washington-say-and-do-about-a-mosque-in-manhattan/
Yes, Nick K, authoritarianism is a scary and very ugly phenomenon when it, to paraphrase ex 1/2 Governor Paylin, “raises its head” over this country. It is a belief system that is inherently anti-american, and yet it gains support by appealing to nationalism, patriotism, tribalism (“we are number one,” “we are exceptional,” “USA is the best,” “We have the best healthcare system in the world” (this lie is really offensive), and the religious right, where the bible and our constitution get mixed up in the small minds of the authoritarians.
The best hope for the United States is that, more and more, the young are not buying into hatred, prejudice, xenophobia, homophobia, sexism, etc. Most young, socialized and halfway intelligent people in the US do not hate blacks, gays, Muslims, the “Other” and the French (for whom, as a people & country, I have tremendous respect – the TRUE best health care system in the world, very high on the “Happiness Index” where its citizens report great satisfaction with their lives and their society.)
The authoritarians have beliefs that are so contrary to American values. Religious freedom is the First Amendment to the US Constitution. There is a reason for that. It is a bedrock principle in this country.
Seriously Nic, if you misunderstand and misrepresent my positions on a blog site where my words are just a few scrolls of the mouse away from yours, how do you expect to have any credibility in your understanding of Republicans or anything else for that matter?
From the very beginning I’ve understood your claim that the mosque had a legal right to be built. I’ve never disputed that! And yet you keep chiding me again and again for wanting to trample religious freedom, even after I’ve clarified my position over and over. And now I’m to answer for it again??? What’s it going to take??
You again say, “having the right to do so is the only thing that matters.” You completely side step my whole point of coming on here and saying that it’s not about what they CAN do but what they SHOULD do. Seriously, I can’t think of anything else to do but to throw my hands up and say, “I give up!” I can’t carry on a meaningful discussion with someone who refuses to accurately acknowledge the other’s position. It’s a fundamental principle in debate is to not misrepresent the other’s position.
That being said, I think I need to actually apologize if I have been guilty of that myself. I said that you “hate all things right.” That was obviously not an accurate statement so I apologize for misrepresenting your point of view.
You then go on to claim that I hate Muslims…WOW. If you really knew me you wouldn’t be saying that Nic. You have no idea what my wife and I have done for Muslims nor would you care if I told you. As a Christian, I hurt for Muslims (and any other faith that says you must DO to earn God’s approval) that believe that somehow they have to earn their way into God’s good graces by their own merits. Those who believe that somehow God’s approval is determined by their own good works is shackling them with an impossible demand. No one could ever measure up to perfection, which is where God stands. The most loving thing for Muslims is to meet their physical needs of food, water, shelter, and compassion, and share with them the love and forgiveness of Jesus and the freedom from a works based religion. That’s a message and a work that ironically will get your head chopped off in many countries, but it’s a message that is worth it. Do I hate Muslims? No. Does that mean I approve of everything they believe and stand for? No. Otherwise I’d be Muslim myself.
Funny that you are mad at Palin who agrees with you on several of your points against the Republicans. It is the conservatives that are upset with Republicans for being hypocrites by saying they are for financial responsibility and then completely ignoring it when in power. While some of your concerns are attacks against things that Republicans have always stood for (family values, defence of the innocent, personal responsibility vs. government entitlement, liberty, etc), some of the accusations are just ridiculous. Going back to a state religion? And you accuse me of fear mongering? Seriously!
You said, ” I have seen you claim that allowing a mosque is “immoral” while you don’t say a word about the porn shops or prostitutes or all the actual immorality near the WTC site.”
So now you’re equating a house of worship to a porn shop and prostitutes??? Are Muslims supposed to feel defended by that statement? Once again…sigh…building A mosque is not immoral, building a mosque 500-700 feet from the single worst act of murder in American history that was carried out by Muslim extremists? Just bad form.
Also, you make a mistake to assume that just because I haven’t said anything here that I’m actually defending porn shops and prostitutes? You know me better than that!
You said, “I have seen you say that you really dont think they should be allowed to build Mosques because “they haven’t come to Jesus””
I never said that. And I never said that they shouldn’t be allowed to build it. I said that they shouldn’t build it. Big difference.
You said, “you’re the one that conveniently forgot that the Catholic church used to say that Christians who weren’t Catholics werent really Christians, that they weren’t true followers of Jesus.”
That’s actually still the official Catholic Church doctrine though it’s not brought up much anymore – The Counsel of Trent has never been revoked that basically says if you don’t belong to the Catholic Church you are anathematized. Read your history. I’ve never said that Catholics aren’t Christians. I know some that are. The Bible never says that belonging to a church automatically makes you a Christian. I love the quote – “going to church doesn’t make you a Christian any more than sleeping in the garage makes you a car.” :-) Being Catholic, Protestant, Mormon, Baptist, Non-demonimational, etc. does nothing to make one a Christian. According to the Bible, being a follower of Christ is about a personal relationship with Him through forgiveness of the cross. “Church” is a fellowship of believers, not a pathway to heaven.
You said, “You think NYC should walk itself into a multimillion dollar lawsuit over a mosque just because you think you have approval rights on where the mosque goes.”
Great example of stating something I never said. Good case in point of attacking something I’m not defending.
Morgan shouldn’t hate liberals. :-) Frustrated…I can understand that, but hatred? No. But Morgan’s rhetoric is seriously tame compared to yours though Nic.
So Ed, you and Nick are BOTH acknowledging what you were implying earlier was a false implication. “Permit” is a verb as well as a noun…if the application is sufficiently over-the-top, the approval is not necessarily a done deal, RLUIPA or no RLUIPA. “Religious freedom” — it’s adorable that liberals think this is sacred, suddenly, by the way — does not mean that the discussion cannot take place. And the outcome of such a discussion is not guaranteed, just because “free exercise” is guaranteed.
If you were consistent in this, you’d come to Dr. Laura’s defense.
You’d also come to the defense of anybody in America who was placed in the same situation as this guy. You’d have to come to the defense of all the right wing talk show hosts who are criticized by left wing politicians for “creating an atmosphere of violence.” Catholic and protestant clergy as they are sued for refusing to conduct gay wedding ceremonies — you’d have to be on their side, as well.
Thomas…
This hate Obama/hate Muslims thing has really gotten out of hand.
The hating-Republicans-and-conservatives thing has really gotten out of hand too, right?
Thomas, part of the core of what the Republican party is suffering from is the craven desire to be authoritarian.
They did it to Clinton and they’re now doing it to Obama. They are so incredibly angry that the American people decided to put the Democrats in charge that they’ve convinced themselves that it’s not the true will of the people. They’ve forgotten that living in a democratic Republic means that sometimes you lose.
They lost fairly so they want to win by cheating. Hence the blather about where Obama was born, the blather about secession and the states somehow magically nullifying federal law on whim. The threats of armed violence, that the people should rise up in arms against their own government. The nonsense racism. The “taking back our country” bulldrek. The calls for the military to stage a coup to “take care of the Obama problem.”
Hell even the “papers please” nonsense in Arizona and in other states is all tied up in that the Republicans are throwing a fit that they lost. And feeding into the latent racism being displayed by a bunch of white people who are scared to death that *gasp* within 20 years Texas, Arizona, New Mexico and other states that will not be majority white.
And even more..the Republicans are increasingly starting to eat their own.
This hate Obama/hate Muslims thing has really gotten out of hand. It was reported Thursday in two polls (Pew Research Center and a Time magazine/ABT SRBI poll) that around 25% believe that the president is a Muslim. In one poll, those saying they don’t know President Obama’s religion increased from 34% to 43% from a year ago.
So, from this we know that the Republican/Rovian disinformation/lie machine (Rove nearly perfected the “tell a lie often enough and repeat it over and over in the media” and some people begin to believe it, EVEN if they hear it reported as a lie)actually works on many people. Now that, in my view, is how the Republican right wing extremists such as Scarah “Death Panels” Paylin, Michelle Bachman, Susan Angle, Rush Limpballs, Glenda Beck and the rest of those nutcases, do garnish some support. Add to that the outlandish and out of the mainstream nature of their declarations and pontifications, and the MSM (including MSNBC, CNN, Huffington Post, etc.)following them and reporting the ignorance in all its gory detail and discussing the fringe beliefs as if they had any merit or merely as insane ramblings – no matter – some of those inclined to have their ignorant beliefs reinforced, look at that and say to themselves, “you see, others believe like I do, so I am not crazy after all.”
This can work only in a society where there are many ignorant, unsocialized and unsuspecting fools (such as the USA – which is my country and which I dearly love, by the way, and which I served to protect, by the way). I have seen in my lifetime, an erosion of the social contract and of the number of educated and sane people in this country that parallels the onset of Reagonomics, the acceptance by many of “the best government is no government” meme in the US, social conservatism, the Evangelical/Fundamentalist culture (or the religious right – a sorry bunch of humans if ever there was, if you ak me), the increasingly sad phenomenon of home schooling , and finally the Rovian/Bush/Cheney assault on the American people which resulted in the near crash of our entire economic system, the debacle of the Iraq war, the eight-year embarrassment of the American people by the mindless fool, George W. Bush, and the suffering of our working class beyond anything I could ever have imagined while growing up as the son of a proud Steelworkers’ Union member and a stay-at-home mother of five.
It is unbelievable what some Americans have come to accept as normal.
Oh, Lower, I trust you’re going to chide Morgan for his obvious hatred of liberals, right?
Or would that be expecting too much honesty from you?
Morgan writes:
The same First Amendment that guarantees free expression and religious freedom — and it’s a privilege, by the way, to be alive during this moment when liberals suddenly start believing in it — says you get to bring your concerns to a forum of public comment.
We liberals have always believed in it. Its you conservatives that loves to play fast and loose with it. The right to religious expression, the right to be free from a state religion is a liberal idea. If conservatives had their way there would be a state religion and those who weren’t members of that religion would be second class citizens.
Yeah Morgan, go find out the reasons that those churches were denied permits. Because some of those complaints by those churchs are probably valid…others aren’t.
Like the one who wanted to operate a commerical business inside their church. You are aware that there are restrictions on churches because of their tax exempt status? Seriously, the one church wanted to open up a dance studio and a fitness center and run it for profit. Or the couple who wanted to set up a church inside their home. Lets see…that couldn’t possibly be a scam in order to declare themselves tax exempt could it?
Sorry, cities do have the right to enforce their zoning laws.
Neither Ed nor me were saying that a city has to grant a permit to a church just because its a church or other place of worship. A church/other place of worship is subject to the same rules as everything else and can be denied permits for valid reasons. Churches aren’t above the law just because they’re churches.
But sorry, if a Christian church was being built on that spot in NYC you wouldn’t have a problem with it. But a mosque you do have a problem with. Sorry, that isn’t valid. You can’t deny to one what you would grant to another in the same exact circumstances.
I find it cute that you’re complaining about churches being denied permits but if you had your way you’d deny a permit to a mosque.
Hello hypocrisy.
Or should my town have gave my Catholic church the right to build a church right off County Road 19 in my town with just a driveway connecting it to the road? Or do you acknowledge that the fact that County Road 19 in my town which sees upwards of 50,000 cars on it every day might not be the best place to have a church just off it with only a drive way connecting it to the road? In other words, Morgan, some of those churches were denied permits because of too little parking, not sufficient enough space or, as in my example, creating a very big traffic hazard because the plans were not thought through.
Like I said, some of those churches probably have valid complaints. But you might want to bother to acknowledge the fact that there are valid reasons to deny permits too..even to churches.
Morgan, notice the first permit denial you cite is similar to the denial you urge in Manhattan — no good reason given — and that the ACLU has taken the case.
What was your point, again?
Where unjust, there are appeals pending. In most of those cases, the denial was based on existing zoning rules.
In Manhattan, the Cordoba House group has met all zoning rules.
Your analogies are off the mark, I think. It’s not finding a group of Christians whose pilots attacked the World Trade Center — since no Moslem from this group of American Moslems did that — but more similar to denying a permit to a Baptist church in Birmingham, Alabama, because the Catholic Black Shirts who supported Mussollini were thugs.
You forgot the misplaced accusations of violence. When we add that factor in, the hypotheticals look real silly, don’t you think?
Oh forgot one little part to my little..diatribe.
I have seen the Republicans throw a hissy fit at the fact that Keith Ellison, part of the Minnesota delegation to the US House, took the oath of office on the Quran and not the Bible.
Despite the fact that there is no requirement that the oath be taken on the Bible…or any other thing for that matter. A Representative can take the oath of office on this month’s copy of Playboy if they want. Or they can just simply take the oath on nothing. The decision is up to the Representative and that is how it should be. But there quite a few Republicans sat..being all offended because a Muslim dared to take the oath of office on the Quran. The Republicans…the party of “individual choice” sat there throwing a fit when an individual made a choice that they happened to not like.
Actually, Lower, I’m going to give you one last little lesson. Lets call it “Why Nick doesn’t like the Right.”
First off, for full disclosure, I’m a former Republican. I stopped being one in the early 90′s.
In the last 20-30 years I have seen the party of Lincoln, Eisenhower, Teddy Roosevelt…hell even Reagan and George H Bush become the party of Gingrich, Palin, Michele Bachmann, Rand Paul and George W Bush and Dick Cheney. I have seen the party I grew up in march to the tune of arrogant hateful jack***** like Limbaugh, Hannity and Beck.
I have seen the party that treasured sound fiscal policy become the party of tax cuts at every cost, of wars despite the cost, of using the government to enrich their cronies. I have seen it become the party of profligate spending and massive debts/defecits. I have seen it then try and be the party of “Defecits are bad” and “spending is bad” the second the Democrats gain power. I have seen that despite the fact that most of the defecit/debt is the result of Republican decisions.
I have seen it become the party of racists, of ignorance, of fear, of hatred. I have seen it become the party of “papers please” because they think that US citizens and legal residents of this country who happen to be Latino should have to prove they belong here. I have seen it become the party of hysterical claims and rampant fearmongering regarding so called violence at the SW border despite the fact that according to the FBI violence along the border has gone down in the United States.
I have seen it become the party of Bachmann and Palin, both of whom can barely go a day without saying something so incredibly stupid and idiotic that no one in their rights minds should believe them. But there they sit, one is a member of Congress and the other nearly became Vice President.
I have seen the Republican party promote ignorance when it comes to the theory of evolution, promote ignorance when it comes to climate change, promote organized school prayer in the public schools. I have seen Republicans claim that the idea that teen girls should be vaccinated against HPV is actually “promoting promiscuity.” As if they’re saying that if our children are sexually active they deserve to get STD’s. I have seen Republicans insist that we teach only abstinence in sex ed classes despite the fact that doesn’t work.
I have seen the Republicans use the war against terroism as justification for tax cuts. I have seen Republicans use the war against terrorism as proof that anyone who opposes the Iraq war suddenly wasn’t American. I have seen the Republicans use the war to justify torture and the illegal and warantless wiretapping of US Citizens. I have seen them pull this line “If you’re innocent, you have nothing to hide.” I have seen Republicans go absolutely bonkers at the US Justice Department releasing a report about the dangers of right wing extremist groups despite the fact that the day before that the US Justice Department released a similar report about left wing extremist groups.
I have seen the Republicans manage to convince 1 in 5 Americans that the President is a Muslim. Despite the fact that even if he was it shouldn’t matter. I have seen the Republicans paint health care reform as “Naziesque” and “death panels” and “the government is going to kill grandma.” I have seen the Republicans paint everything the Democrats do as “socialist” which only goes to prove that very few Republicans actually know what socialism is.
I have seen the Birthers get enough power in the Republican party that there are members of Congress questioning the President’s place of birth on the US House floor.
I have seen Republicans attack people who are unemployed and are on unemployment assistance as “lazy” and “not real Americans.” I have seen them say that people should be fine living on wages barely above minimum wage. Oh wait..they want to get rid of minimum wage.
I have seen Rand Paul say that regulations on mines should be done on the local level and not by the federal government. Yeah…thats a good idea. The last time that happened was back in the 30′s and the mining companies owned the local governments and shot and killed the mine workers who demanded better working conditions. I have seen the Republicans constantly sell out the interests of the average American and the middle class out to the interests of the rich, the powerful. I have seen the Republicans sell out this country to the corporations no matter the cost.
I have seen the Republicans turn a blind eye to the fact that the richest 10% in this country have seen their incomes rise by 300% in the last 30 years while the middle class has barely seen its income rise 20% in the same time period. I have seen the Republicans cut the taxes on the rich by more then half..and then claim that the rich are still taxed too much. I have seen Republicans willing to toss programs designed to help the middle class and the poor just to save their precious tax cuts to the rich. I have seen the Republican wanting to privatize social security and medicare. Yeah..because what happened in the stock market the last few years is an example of the brilliance of that idea.
I have seen the Republican candidate for Minnesota governor propose to cut the wages of waiters and waitresses because he thinks they all make more then a hundred grand a year. But cutting the wages of the people that make 40 million dollars a year? Oh that’s socialism.
I have seen the Republicans strip away nearly all of the government’s ability to regulate businesses and then throw fits at the idea of reregulating those businesses despite ample evidence that getting rid of the regulations was a bad idea. The BP oil spill being a prime example.
I have seen the Republicans…the party of Lincoln..advocate secession, treason and armed violence if they don’t get their way. I have seen the Republicans do everything short of handing out weapons in order to stoke fear and hatred in this country. I have seen them do their damndest to split this country apart just to gain power.
I have seen Republicans attack education and educated people as “elitist” and not really American.
I have now seen the Republicans willing to toss out the 1st Admendment and the 14th Admendment just to score political points on the backs of Muslims and latinos. The party of “strict constitutionalists” wants to throw out part of the 14th Admendment and ignore the 1st Admendment giving equal rights to Muslims.
I have seen Republicans argue that giving gays the right to marry is giving them “special rights.” I have seen them argue that gay marriage will somehow threaten heterosexual marriage. I have seen them argue that gay marriage will damage the institution of marriage as if we heterosexuals havent already done that.
I have seen the Republicans turn a mosque in NYC and in other cities into a political football. If you think the Republican party gives a damn about the people who died in the attacks or their families then I want to sell you the Golden Gate bridge. I have seen them argue that a mosque two blocks away on private property can’t be allowed. Despite the fact that there’s other mosques nearby already. I’ve seen you, Lower, pull a double standard there. A new mosque is somehow “trampling on the dead” but you’re perfectly fine with the two mosques there already. I have seen you claim you support the Muslims right to their religious beliefs but then pretend that you are the one that gets to determine where they practice those beliefs. I have seen you and Morgan pull a standard with Muslims that you refuse to do to Christians. I have seen you and Morgan try and pretend that the entirety of Islam is to blame for what happened on 9-11 but you don’t blame the entire of Christianity for the violence that has been done in its name. I have seen you claim that allowing a mosque is “immoral” while you don’t say a word about the porn shops or prostitutes or all the actual immorality near the WTC site. I have seen you claim that the area around the WTC site is sacred but I have yet to see you show that. I have seen you say that you really dont think they should be allowed to build Mosques because “they haven’t come to Jesus” despite the fact that if a person of some other religion tried barring you from building a church because you didn’t follow their religion you would throw a fit. I have seen you lecture me about the history of the Catholic church but you’re the one that conveniently forgot that the Catholic church used to say that Christians who weren’t Catholics werent really Christians, that they weren’t true followers of Jesus. And there you sit parroting that same exact stance. Oh plus quite a few Protestant churches in the past..and even nowadays say the Catholic church really isn’t Christian. You seem to think that the Muslims right to their religious beliefs is dependent on your approval. But you’d be the first to flip out if your rights to your religious beliefs was dependent on someone elses approval. You think a Christian church is being snubbed because they’re Christian by NYC despite no evidence that’s what is going on. But you turn around and say NYC should snub a Mosque just because you don’t like them. You think NYC should walk itself into a multimillion dollar lawsuit over a mosque just because you think you have approval rights on where the mosque goes. A lawsuit that NYC would not have a chance in hell of winning. NYC has to make its decision according to the law…not according to the whims of the masses.
I have voted for Republicans in the past, Lower. I voted for Arne Carlson as Minnesota governor. I voted for Mark Kennedy when he was my representative. If McCain had been the Republican nominee for President in 2000 I would have probably voted for him because I liked him. The only thing that would have kept me from voting for him at that time is…well the rest of the Republican party. But then he sold his soul in 2008 to get the nomination. I didn’t vote for Bob Dole in 96 but I liked him. I would have voted for George H Bush in 1992 if I had been able to vote then. But I was 17 then.
If the Republican party would go back to how it was I would still be a Republican. But it has marched so far to the right and engaged in so much nonsense that, imo, the Republican party that exists today is not even worth the name.
But the Republican party, Lower…the right wing of the political spectrum has gone off the deep end. There are very few sane Republicans or sane people on the right. Until that is fixed they have my annoyance, they have my contempt, they have my disdain.
No, I don’t hate the right, Lower. I have family and friends who are Republicans. But they are true Republicans while the ones who run the Republican party today…are not even close. Why should I respect the fakes and the charlatans? Why should I respect people who act out of fear and hatred? Why should I respect people who are willing to throw out the ideals of this country because of 9-11? Why should I respect the people who are willing to throw the poor and the middle class under the bus just as long as the rich are protected and don’t have to pay for anything? Why should I respect a party that thinks just because the rich are better off that means everyone else is too? Why should I respect a party that is willing to let working class Americans get sick, get exploited and die just so companies can make more profit?
A short list of churches & religious organizations that have been denied the right to build…
Second Baptist Church is denied a permit in West Mifflin, PA
http://www.aclu.org/racial-justice/aclu-pa-files-discrimination-lawsuit-over-denial-zoning-permit-african-american-bapti
South Baton Rouge Presbyterian Church is denied a permit
http://www.allbusiness.com/legal/property-law-real-property-zoning-land-use-planning/12679612-1.html
Centro Familiar Cristiano Buenos Nuevas Christian Church is denied a permit by the City of Yuma
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=20146
New Life Worship Center is denied a permit in Rhode Island, sues under RLUIPA, and loses
http://findroom219.wordpress.com/2010/07/13/zoning-permit-denied-for-new-life-worship-center/
Chesapeake Church is shot down in Huntingtown, MD
http://www.somdnews.com/stories/07232010/recmor121926_32366.shtml
Kennewick, WA rejects the application of Cole and Julie Morgan to make a new church inside their home
http://www.tri-cityherald.com/2010/06/25/1069160/kennewick-board-says-no-to-church.html
A Muslim group is denied a permit in DuPage County, near Naperville, IL
http://www.cairchicago.org/2010/04/20/naperville-sun-rejected-muslim-center-plan-still-alive-in-courts/
Much has been said to the effect that since we have a First Amendment, it’s game-set-match, wham-bam-thankya-ma’am, get the hammer and nails, the permit process is a mere formality. It does not appear that this is the case. Yes, there is RLUIPA, which is a weapon in the arsenal for lawyers in the justice department to go a-hunting. It is NOT a preliminary end to the permit process.
The same First Amendment that guarantees free expression and religious freedom — and it’s a privilege, by the way, to be alive during this moment when liberals suddenly start believing in it — says you get to bring your concerns to a forum of public comment. Maybe even gum up the works. Because none of us get to enjoy our First Amendment rights more than anybody else. Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion does not mean everyone else has to shut up.
If it did, the list I put up there would not exist.
Hey Nick, Ed — I hear Dr. Laura is in some trouble for some insensitive comments she made. She’s supposed to have hurt someone’s feelings…and yet, she has an absolute right to speak her mind in public. You two are going to go to bat for her any minute now, right?
Lower, just one last thing.
I don’t think you’re in much position to chide me for supposedly misrepresenting what you’ve said…when you’ve been doing nothing but misrepresenting them.
You can claim I hate people on the right if you want…and some I do. But the fact is you hate Muslims. Which is why you want to treat them differently then you would treat anyone else.
So get over yourself, Lower.
Gee, Lower, my dad is a Republican and is to the right of me on the political spectrum. Most of my family is.
Are you saying I hate them?
But if you say I’m misrepresenting what you say then lets make this simple.
You acknowledge that they have the right to build that mosque, yes?
Because if you say yes to that then we can end this little argument because them having the right to do so is the only thing that matters. You can object if you want…but you have no actually legally valid grounds to do so. Meaning, Lower, you can not legally stop them.
That has been the point I’ve been trying to get you to understand. But you want to pretend that they are creating some gross immorality by building a mosque two blocks away from WTC…when that is not the case. The only gross immorality going on here is the thinking of some that they get to ignore the US Constitution when it comes to Muslims.
A friend sent this note on Facebook:
Nic, you’ll save yourself a lot of time writing if you stop attacking positions that no one here is defending.
Half of my time writing things in response to you Nic is unraveling and untwisting the positions that you give to me. What a waste of time when you misrepresent my positions so much! What baseless slander!
One thing that I should thank you for is that you have overwhelmingly proven my point of what happens to a person when virtue is taken off of the table. Your vile hatred of all things to the “right” and how far you distort my positions demonstrates my point better than I ever could. In one sense I say thank you and at the same time I’m broken hearted for you. You miss out on so much to live with such hatred. It is honestly frustrating to have to spend so much of my limited blog time in having to clarify and unravel things that I just plain didn’t say and don’t believe. So, instead of replying to your entire post since you would most likely twist my words and positions anyway, let me just write as plainly as possible what my position on the subject is. Frustrating to be doing this again…but perhaps the fault is mine that I was not sufficiently clear and somehow was mistaken.
Ok, do I believe that the mosque is illegal? No. Do I believe it should be forcibly stopped? No. Should this “congregation” be held liable because of 9/11? No – they didn’t do anything wrong that I’m aware of. Do I believe that even an olive branch could possibly be appropriate in this case for believers as was originally given in this thread? Cautiously yes. Do I believe that the Muslim’s who are building this have a responsibility to do the right thing? Yes. Do I believe they SHOULD be respectful to the 9/11 tragedy by moving the site, especially after getting offers to do so? I beleive that would be the most honorable thing to do in this case and I would applaud them for their sensitivity to the victim’s families and the country’s raw wound from 9/11. My call was for them to be self-governing to the effect that they recognize what is very real hurt to people whose innocent loved ones were killed in a gruesome and horrible manner. Are they asking what is helpful to a very sensitive situation or what they have a right to do? I think because of that, they should volunteer to move the mosque to a different location out of respect to the dead and their loved ones.
That’s not going to happen, so I guess we’re stuck, huh? It’s not going to be resolved on a blog anyway. I don’t think any imams are reading this who will be convinced to put pressure Rauf to move the mosque, so this is all moot anyway. My only point in all this is that it is highly inappropriate and bad form on their part. Stop saying that I blame the entire Islamic religion for the choices of a few. That’s absurd! But just to be clear, just in case it isn’t, if the situation were reversed where a radical “christian” sect decided Jesus wanted them to kill and so blew up the buildings, I would be calling for a church that sought to build near the location to move their site, just as I have called the unregenerates over at Westboro to stop giving Jesus a bad name and misrepresenting Christianity! Because what SHOULD happen and what CAN happen are often two different things.
And yes, I do blame “Christendom” for all the terrorist attacks carried out in Jesus’ name. What a profanity to Christ to use His name to carry out violence! There is no defence for it, only shame.
Am I to blame? I believe I am when I do not love my neighbor as I should. When I do not share Christ’s offer of forgiveness and love with others, I do them an injustice that is akin to hate by witholding love…to my shame. So while not directly in situations of violence, we are all to blame for perpetuating hatred and violence by witholding of the Mesage of grace and forgiveness that Jesus offers. Cutting people off in traffic, cheating on our spouses and taxes, lying, stealing, etc. all add to the chaos. I’m not exempt. Is anyone? Thank God for the forgivness of Jesus!
Regarding St. Nicholas, delay is one thing – a lack of communication is another. Their going to the news has gotten the ball rolling a bit, which is good. I don’t know if they want more money or not -it’s a he said they said situation. If they do, you can add that to the reasons I’m not Greek Orthodox. :-) But they have a right to be there AND should be there, especially since they were there before the attack.
Ed, Regarding Pearl Harbor, if it would take you 15 minutes to walk 500-700 ft. then you need to get out more. :-) To put that into perspective, it’s less distance from one side of Super Walmart to the other. That’s appropriate distance away?
In response to WWGD: I believe as president he would say that they have the right to build the mosque or would say nothing at all and allow the local governments to handle it as he believed in limited government. If he were the leader of the Muslim’s building the mosque, I think he would move it to another site…he was so gracious and humble. He only reluctantly became president because of people insisted. I believe both sides should be more like our founding president in this case. That’s unfortunately not what’s happening.
From: http://www.alan.com/2010/08/18/ted-olson-on-nyc-islamic-center-the-president-was-right-about-this/
Conservative lawyer Ted Olson, the Solicitor General in the Bush 43 administration who lost his wife Barbara on 9/11, believes the president is correct to defend the building of an Islamic center in lower Manhattan. (via Think Progress)
OLSON: I do believe that people of all religions have a right to build edifices or structures, places of religious worship or study where the community allows them to do it under zoning laws and that sort of thing. And that we don’t want to turn an act of hate against us by extremists into an act of intolerance for people of religious faith. And I don’t think it should be a political issue. It shouldn’t be a Republican or Democrat issue either. I believe Governor Christie from New Jersey said it as well, that this should not be in that political partisan marketplace.
Come on, Lower, you going to be “sensitive” to what he says?
Just for you, Morgan, I asked a former mayor of my town whether permits can be blocked simply “because I don’t like you.”
He said that any town/city who did that would be walking itself into a lawsuit it can’t win. Permits can only be blocked for legally valid reasons. It can’t, for example, give a permit to a Catholic church while blocking a Lutheran church because its a Lutheran church. Which means NYC can’t block a mosque while allowing a Christian church.
Now in the interest of full disclosure, the former mayor of my town that I asked is my father. But also I’d point out he’s a lifelong Republican. Oh and when I say Republican I mean he’s actually a Republican. Unlike the fake Republicans that Palin, Gingrich and most of the so called Republican party are.
And perhaps you and Lower, since you think the WTC site is so sacred can answer me this question? If it’s sacred..why aren’t you protesting all the porn shops there?
http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/08/16/2010-08-16_a_sea_of_filth_near_ground_zer0_mosque_gets_all_the_press_but_porns_around_corne.html
For example, at the Thunder Lingerie and peep show where the marquee sports an American flag above a window display of sex toys and something called a “power pump.”
“In a walk of the streets within three blocks of Ground Zero, the Daily News counted 17 pizza shops, 18 bank branches, 11 bars, 10 shoe stores and 17 separate salons where a girl can get her lady parts groomed.”
And why should a Mosque be denied when, according to the NY Daily news there are “at least 10 churches in lower Manhattan south of Canal St., three synagogues, one Buddhist community center and a Hare Krishna facility.”
As for you, Lower, regarding St. Nicolas Church, as long as they meet all the same rules and whatever as the Mosque then I see no reason why they should be denied either. See, unlike you, this Christian isn’t dimwitted enough to think that every time a Christian is being denied something that means that Christian is being persecuted. Like my Church wasn’t being persecuted when my town made it pay for city water/sewer hookup when it built a new a church. Why? Because the city was charging all the other churches being built the same thing. Just as it would charge a Synagogue or a Mosque or a Hindu temple the same fees.
See also unlike you I want the rules applied the same to everyone. You, Lower, want the rules to apply to some, not applied to others and then special rules conjured that only apply to Muslims. And Morgan thinks Ed and me are the ones supporting special rights? Sorry, Morgan, your side of the political fence is the absolute king at supporting “special rights.”
Liberals support equal rights. Conservatives support special rights.
But I find it cute how often the right wing of the political spectrum thinks us Christians don’t have to obey the rules everyone else has to live by.
Morgan, if the Greek Orthodox Church (that Joe is so concerned about) is not rebuilt, the faithful Christians who attended there can just go to the First Baptist church down the street at 49 Broadway, right?
Or, maybe they could go to the Mormon Temple downtown, or the closer Mormon Ward House at 401 Broadway. It’s just a short cab ride.
All Moslems are interchangeable, like all Christians are interchangeable, right?
You did see this at the Washington Post, right?
So much for ecumenism in America.
Heck, since the Abrahamic faiths all worship the same God, maybe the Moslems could go to the Baptist church, too, yes?
(It’s about 12 blocks to the next mosque. Do you know whether that mosque is Sunni, Shiite, or something else? Do you know what sect this group at Cordoba House is?)
Hey here’s a question:
If the mosque at Ground Zero cannot go forward, then how far must the faithful Muslim travel to find another?
WWGWD? (George Washington, that is)
Morgan, despite your delusion to the contrary…permits can only be denied for legally viable reasons. As long as they meet all the requirements of the permit process, as long as they meet all city, state and federal laws/rules/statutes/ordinances then there is no viable grounds to deny them the permit.
Just because you don’t like them isn’t viable grounds to deny a permit. if you want to pretend otherwise then let me know what town you live in so i can move there, run for city office and proceed to screw you over six ways to sunday.
Oh and by the way, Lower, when you were being sneering of the fact that the Japanese cultural center is 10 miles from Pearl Harbor…you should have bothered to remember that there are two mosques within blocks of the WTC already.
Or did that fact escape your mind? And that the proposed mosque is supposed to give one of the…congregations (apologies to any Muslims, I don’t know the correct term) at one of those mosques more space since they’re running out of space? Did that fact escape your mind too?
Should my town have not charged my Catholic church for city water and city sewer fees when it built a new church, Lower? After all..that’s what quite a few Catholics in my town wanted the town to do. Does feeling and emotion trump the law there as well?
Sorry, Lower, you don’t get to whine about morality in this country when you’re committing a gross immorality in trying to blame the entirety of a religion for the actions of a few. You don’t get to claim morality when you’re the one trying to wholesale ignoring the US Constitution just because you don’t like something. A tyranny of the majority, Lower, is still a tyranny.
You have no proof that Imam or that mosque is radical. You have no proof whatsoever that they were involved in 9-11 in any way shape or form. And you are conveniently ignoring that in NYC two blocks is actually a greater distance then you think. You can’t even see the WTC site from that proposed mosque location. Or did you somehow forget that there are a bunch of really tall buildings in between?
Do the nitwits have the right to oppose the mosque? Yeah. However that doesn’t mean they have legal grounds to oppose the mosque. You whine about Westboro and them having to stay a “respectful distance” well guess what..two blocks is a respectful distance.
You write:
Again…if this Mosque is about religious tolerance to you Nic, why aren’t you mad that the Port Authority won’t authorize the St. Nicholas church that actually was destroyed in 9/11 to be rebuilt? It barely made the news and even Ed had never heard abotu it! Here’s a case where Christians are being snubbed and Muslems are given the fast tract. Again…Morgan’s point is validated.
Yeah convenient isn’t it that you don’t give the reason why St. Nicolas church hasn’t been given permission. Would you like to provide some actual verifiable evidence to back your claim? Or are you going to insist that Christians are being snubbed just because you say so? It’s also convenient of you to want St. Nicolas church to be approved…but not the mosque. So apparently it only concerns you when Christians are “snubbed” but you want Muslims to be snubbed. Thank you for proving my point. Last time I checked we Christians still have to obey the laws, ordinances and statues of city, state and federal government. Or are you saying we’re special and deserve special rights?
You get belittled by me, Lower, because so far you’ve done nothing but deserve it. You have no evidence, you have no logic. All you have is fear, hatred and ignorance. Sorry, Ed and me are two different people. He may choose not to call stupid, fearful and hateful people for what they are…I’m not so diplomatic. I see no reason to play nice with people who are doing their damndest to not deserve it.
Oh and by the way, Lower, this is what the NY Times says about the St. Nicolas Church:
But today, the church exists only on blueprints. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, the agency overseeing reconstruction, has not finalized the exchange of land needed to provide the congregation with a new home near ground zero. Until that deal is completed, the authority cannot proceed with building the southern foundation wall for the entire site, and cannot draw up designs for a bomb screening center for buses and trucks that would go under the new church.
And because security is crucial, delays in the vehicle security center mean delays in other parts of the site.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/03/nyregion/03trade.html?_r=1&n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/People/B/Bagli,%20Charles%20V
Oopsie, oh look. They haven’t been snubbed, just that its been delayed. And oh oops..its been delayed for valid reasons.
Whereas you want the mosque blatantly rejected for invalid reasons.
As for the thing with Pearl Harbor, sorry, you’re being silly. Yeah it’s 10 miles..but the fact still is that it’s there. And again..the 1st Admendment does not say that after 9-11 the rules changed for Muslims.
So, you will apply the US Constitution equally…you have no choice. Your objection to that mosque meets no legal grounds. it’s as if a bunch of Catholics in my town objected to a lutheran church being built just because the Catholic church in my town was the only church in town for 100+ years.
You can pretend that “feelings and emotions” should trump the law if you want. I don’t subscribe to that right wing bullshit. The law is the only thing that matters…the US Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. If you don’t like that fact, Lower, then well…too bad.
Because sorry, I am not going to let this country fall to fascist fear mongering and hatred just because on 9-11 you and a bunch of others ****** your pants out of fear. You can say you are defending what is “right” and what is “moral” all you want, Lower, I’m quite sure the Nazi’s would say the same with what they did. But sorry, it is not right nor is it moral to deny a group of people their equality just because you don’t like them. And as for them needing to find Jesus…you need to find Jesus first. Because nothing of what you have said has indicated that you have found Jesus yet. In fact you’re doing an excellent job of proving that the one you’re following is the exact opposite of Jesus.
They have every right to build that mosque there and you have no legal grounds to oppose it…indeed you have no moral grounds either to oppose it. Fear and hatred do not constitute morality. They were not to blame so stop blaming them. If you want to blame them then also blame Christianity for all the terrorist and violent acts done in its name. Or would you like to admit your hypocrisy there?
They aren’t being disrespectful, Lower, except for in your mind. But you are being entirely disrespectful.
You are playing right into the terrorists hands, Lower. You are giving them exactly what they want.
And you count yourself a moral person? A person of intelligence? A person of Christ? Oh please you’re failing miserably on all three.
Joe argues it’s all a matter of distance.
So, what’s your formula? how do you determine that a 15-minute drive from a much larger site is less offensive than a 15-minute walk from a smaller site? All Krauthammer said is that a Japanese Cultural Center at Pearl Harbor shouldn’t be allowed — and there it is, where it’s been for 40 years or so.
Moreover, it was founded by American citizen Japanese desdendants, similar to the American citizen, New York resident Moslems who want to put up their culture center in Manhattan. Why do you allow Japanese to build where Krauthammer says they shoudln’t, but not New Yorkers?
What is your real bias here?
Those men who flew airplanes into the World Trade Center also were not taught by their radical pastor to go kill people. They were recruited by Osama bin Laden, who is not a cleric, and who was trained in asymmetrical warfare against superpowers by the U.S. CIA.
We don’t know the reasons that one nut went on a rampage in McKinney. The two cases are similar in that there does not appear to be any clerical involvement in their terrorist training.
According to the Port Authority, there’s no reason that the congregation can’t start rebuilding their church tomorrow. The two cases are not alike in many ways, but are alike in many ways:
The Port Authority says the church is free to rebuild on their own property. The church has not started to rebuild because they hoped for a $20 million grant from the Port Authority, plus a new piece of property a hundred yards away from the old site.
In contrast, the Muslim group asks for no money from any government, and is even farther away from Ground Zero.
It’s unclear to me why you think the nation should be up in arms about the Greek Orthodox church. There is no restriction on rebuilding the church at all.
“Because its probably safe to assume that guy was a Christian.”
Nic, if he had been taught by a radical church pastor to go in and kill people and he did it in the name of Jesus then it would probably be bad form for a church to go in and build a church there. Did that happen? No…there’s just no comparison here.
I love mapquest. It just proved to me how asinine your argument for the Japanese cultural center in Honolulu was comparing it to the mosque in NY.
According to mapquest, the cultural center is 10.63 miles from Pearl Harbor taking appx. 16 minutes to get there. In NY, since Church street is a one way street, you’ll have to drive down to broadway and turn right, and then turn right again at Fulton St. How far to go ALL that way around to get to the WTC? .38 miles – est. time 1 minute drive (who knows exactly in NY). Actual distance from ground zero? Less than 500-750 ft.
Westboro has to be a minimum of 300 ft. away just to protest a funeral. 500-700 ft. is close!
Nic, thank you for proving Morgan’s point in a rather verbose way. It was helpful in understanding who I am dealing with when I talk with you. “Should doesn’t matter” and is “irrelevant.” Gotcha.
And we wonder what happened to morality in our country? Nic just demonstrated that what is right and wrong doesn’t really matter to some people. Just what is legal and what is not. Did anyone else catch it? Wow!
And it’s hypocritical too. You make a moral judgment about Westboro and then say it doesn’t matter with the location of the mosque. Why then is it right that Westboro be made to be a “respectful” distance from soldier’s funerals and then wrong (a moral jugment) to say that it is bad form for the Muslims to put the mosque so close to ground zero? It doesn’t have to be right on the property to be offensive – Westboro isn’t right at the funeral. It’s still wrong.
And yes, what is right and wrong DOES matter. I can think of no time when it does not matter.
Those who oppose mosques in all places are wrong. There, I made a judgment on SHOULD. You’re so hypocritical for saying that what SHOULD be doesn’t matter and then saying that people SHOULDN’T oppose mosques being built. You throw what should and shouldn’t happen out the door then you have no right to oppose those who oppose the mosque. They have a legal right to oppose the mosque. Got it? No
I believe there shouldn’t be any mosques anywhere either – but only because I believe that Muslim’s need to turn their hearts to Jesus, not because they’re forced to close up shop and be persecuted. Yeah, that’ll teach ‘em the love of Jesus!
Again…if this Mosque is about religious tolerance to you Nic, why aren’t you mad that the Port Authority won’t authorize the St. Nicholas church that actually was destroyed in 9/11 to be rebuilt? It barely made the news and even Ed had never heard abotu it! Here’s a case where Christians are being snubbed and Muslems are given the fast tract. Again…Morgan’s point is validated.
Ed, I disagree for reasons already stated, but at least you answered the question and didn’t belittle it like Nic did. Thanks.
So, Lower and Morgan, you are going to say that there shouldn’t be a Christian church near the McKinny Public Safety building in McKinny Texas right?
http://cbs11tv.com/local/Patrick.Gray.Sharp.2.1864290.html
Because its probably safe to assume that guy was a Christian.
Lower, have fun:
Japanese Cultural Center of Hawai’i
2454 South Beretania Street, Honolulu, HI 96826-1502
Oh..and here’s a map in relation to Pearl Harbor:
http://www.mapquest.com/maps?1c=Honolulu&1s=HI&1a=%5B1-99%5D+Arizona+Memorial+Dr&1z=96818&1y=US&1l=21.366425&1g=-157.93741&1v=BLOCK&2c=Honolulu&2s=HI&2a=2454+S+Beretania+St&2z=96826-1502&2y=US&2l=21.293822&2g=-157.823908&2v=ADDRESS
Oh even better, Lower, there are Shinto shrines near Pearl Harbor too. One of them is about 5 miles from Pearl Harbor. Also Buddhist temples as well.
You also might want to bother to remember that with Pearl Harbor we were at war with the entirety of Japan. We are not at war with the entirety of Islam.
You should also remember that George W Bush praised Imam Rauf. After he made that comment you tried condemning him with.
Joe, about Krauthammer:
There is a Japanese Chamber of Commerce in Honolulu.
The Hawaii Japanese School is at the Japanese Cultural center, less than five miles from Hickham Field, within view of the mouth of Pearl Harbor.
Let me suggest that, once again, Krauthammer doesn’t really know much of what he talks.
The Japanese Cultural Center and the Japanese Chamber of Commerce were founded by Nisei, Japanese-Americans who live in Honulu, some of whom had families in Hawaii for a couple of generations.
Similarly, New York Moslems should be allowed to build a meeting place with a chapel in Manhattan.
Lower, get this through your head.
The “Should” doesn’t matter. In fact you can’t claim it’s about the “should” since the mosque in NYC is hardly the only one being protested and objected to.
Or did you somehow miss the fact that nutjobs like Morgan are objecting to Mosques in Wisconsin, California, Tenneesee and other places? Sorry, this is not about “should.” Because last time I checked the US Constitution did not grant rights based on popular opinion.
The whole quesiton of “should” is completely irrelevent.
Morgan writes:
But before you know it, they’re championing special rights, not equal rights.
That’s a cute claim coming from you, Morgan, because you’re the one arguing that every non-Muslim has “equal rights” but that the Muslims don’t.
You would have no problem if a church was built on that site..but a Mosque gets your panties in a bunch. That Christians have equal rights in this country but Muslims only have rights if the rest of us like them.
Sorry, little one, you are the one asking for special rights.
Lower, if I could I’d drop kick the Westboro idiots into next week.
But they have the right to their opinions and to express them as much as I don’t like it.
See, that’s what separates the United States from countries like Iran and Iraq and all the rest. Whereas you are trying to make us like Iran and Iraq and all the rest.
This mosque in NYC shouldn’t even be a controversy. THe only reason it is one is because certain members of the Right Wing are either so bent on distracting the people of the United States from the real problems facing this country because they know that once the people focus on those problems they’ll remember that it was the Republicans who caused those problems. Then there’s the idiots and the hate mongers who have surrendered to Al Qaeda and are trying with all their hearts to turn the war against terrorism into the war against Islam.
This is not a question of “what should be done.” This is a question of do the Muslims have the right to build that mosque there? And the answer is yes they do. Just as the Jews have the right to build a synagogue there, just as the Christians have the right to build a church there, just as every other religious group in the country has the right to build a place of worship there.
ANd the ones opposing it need to get their heads out of whatever orifices they have their heads stuck in, take a good long look in the mirror and figure out their real motivations and what they should be doing.
And despite what Mr. Krauthammer, that gaseous windbag, thinks…while the WTC site may be sacred…two blocks north of it is not. It’s kind of hard to claim an area is sacred when there is strip joints and prostitutes there. Or perhaps the “sacred” that Mr. Krauthammer wants to worship is something a bit more…well…physical.
Oh and as for the Disney park near Manassas…well unless it was actually on the battle field itself…sorry again a piece of property does not gain “sacredness” just because its near another site that can claim to be sacred. Else the fact that there is houses within one or two blocks of my town’s catholic church presents a problem. Are you going to say those people can’t live there, Lower?
Sorry, lower, there is a point where sentimentality is taken way too far.
By the way, Lower, the nunnery at Auschwitz was 1: actually on the grounds and 2: in the building that the Nazi’s stored the gas they were killing the Jews with.
Sorry, to compare that to a mosque that is not on the WTC site is stupidly inappropriate.
As for you saying this:
Which makes you wonder about the goodwill behind Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf’s proposal. This is a man who has called U.S. policy “an accessory to the crime” of 9/11 and, when recently asked whether Hamas is a terrorist organization, replied, “I’m not a politician. . . . The issue of terrorism is a very complex question.”
Oh this is the same Feisal Abdul Rauf that George W Bush praised? Oh and as for that accessory bit…are you going to say that about Glenn Beck? Because..guess what…he said the same exact thing.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677
Watch Keith’s Worst Person’s of the World. You’re also ignoring the context in which Mr. Rauf said that. He was referring to our habit of allying ourselves with oppressive regimes and such. You can sit there like a dimwit and pretend the United States has never done anything wrong, Lower, but a little honesty is in order. Did we deserve what happened on 9-11? No. And thats not what Mr. Rauf said either. But a little acknowledgment that we have made decisions that those in the Middle East don’t like and weren’t the best decisions for them might be in order. Like…turning a blind eye to Saddam Hussein killing his own people during the 80′s? Just for example.
Sorry, Lower, you’re not engaging in this “guilty until proven innocent” bulldrek either.
Find your brain, find your morality and quit defending hate mongering morons.
Oh and yeah..terrorism is a complicated thing. Would you like me to list all the times that the United States supported groups that we called “freedom fighters” and others called terrorists? Because…guess what..one of them was…wait for it…Osama bin Laden. Just like we supported Saddam Hussein because he made a convenient buffer against Iran.
Do you have actual legal grounds to oppose that mosque? No? Then shut up because without that you and your fellow jackanapes can claim whatever you want but it’s irrelevent.
If you want to surrender to the terrorists, Lower, kindly leave the country.
I can’t think of a good reason why it shouldn’t go in at the planned address at Park Avenue. Can you?
Unlike the poor taste protests of the Westboro Baptist folks, I see nothing fundamentally objectionable in that siting.
LL,
What you’re encountering here is the basic technique by which liberals declare what it is they loathe, and then systematically become it.
They defend these fundamental rights we “all” are supposed to have, and then champion the enjoyment of those rights among the “least” among us. The idea is supposed to be that if Westboro Baptist Church, for example, has the right to speak freely and peaceably assemble, then it is assured we will all have this right. But before you know it, they’re championing special rights, not equal rights. You want them to differentiate between the *can* and the *should*? Not gonna happen. Their goal is that the “can” is in fullest force when we are grappling with a “should NOT”; the theory being, if someone who shouldn’t do something, can do it, then it’s doubly assured that the guy who should do it will be able to do it.
But it doesn’t work out that way. Forces of decency are isolated, alienated from sympathy and support, while forces of indecency prosper. Witness the systematic deprivation of the Boy Scouts from United Way funding back in ’03, in the wake of the Supreme Court’s Boy Scouts vs. Dale decision. My own question about the Christians building a site that somehow offends local sensibilities, on a level equivalent to the situation with the Ground Zero Mosque — it still goes unanswered.
Ed asked me to re-state the question. I did. That comment is still holding in moderation.
Here’s a good op ed article by Charles Krauthammer on the SHOULD, as quoted from the Washington Post.
Sacrilege at Ground Zero
A place is made sacred by a widespread belief that it was visited by the miraculous or the transcendent (Lourdes, the Temple Mount), by the presence there once of great nobility and sacrifice (Gettysburg), or by the blood of martyrs and the indescribable suffering of the innocent (Auschwitz).
When we speak of Ground Zero as hallowed ground, what we mean is that it belongs to those who suffered and died there — and that such ownership obliges us, the living, to preserve the dignity and memory of the place, never allowing it to be forgotten, trivialized or misappropriated.
That’s why Disney’s 1993 proposal to build an American history theme park near Manassas –Battlefield was defeated by a broad coalition that feared vulgarization of the Civil War (and that was wiser than me; at the time I obtusely saw little harm in the venture). It’s why the commercial viewing tower built right on the border of Gettysburg was taken down by the Park Service. It’s why, while no one objects to Japanese cultural centers, the idea of putting one up at Pearl Harbor would be offensive.
And why Pope John Paul II ordered the Carmelite nuns to leave the convent they had established at Auschwitz. He was in no way devaluing their heartfelt mission to pray for the souls of the dead. He was teaching them a lesson in respect: This is not your place; it belongs to others. However pure your voice, better to let silence reign.
Even New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who denounced opponents of the proposed 15-story mosque and Islamic center near Ground Zero as tramplers on religious freedom, asked the mosque organizers “to show some special sensitivity to the situation.” Yet, as columnist Rich Lowry pointedly noted, the government has no business telling churches how to conduct their business, shape their message or show “special sensitivity” to anyone about anything. Bloomberg was thereby inadvertently conceding the claim of those he excoriates for opposing the mosque, namely that
Ground Zero is indeed unlike any other place and therefore unique criteria govern what can be done there.
Bloomberg’s implication is clear: If the proposed mosque were controlled by “insensitive” Islamist radicals either excusing or celebrating 9/11, he would not support its construction.
But then, why not? By the mayor’s own expansive view of religious freedom, by what right do we dictate the message of any mosque? Moreover, as a practical matter, there’s no guarantee that this couldn’t happen in the future. Religious institutions in this country are autonomous. Who is to say that the mosque won’t one day hire an Anwar al-Aulaqi — spiritual mentor to the Fort Hood shooter and the Christmas Day bomber, and onetime imam at the Virginia mosque attended by two of the 9/11 terrorists?
An Aulaqi preaching in Virginia is a security problem. An Aulaqi preaching at Ground Zero is a sacrilege. Or would the mayor then step in — violating the same First Amendment he grandiosely pretends to protect from mosque opponents — and exercise a veto over the mosque’s clergy?
Location matters. Especially this location. Ground Zero is the site of the greatest mass murder in American history — perpetrated by Muslims of a particular Islamist orthodoxy in whose cause they died and in whose name they killed.
Of course that strain represents only a minority of Muslims. Islam is no more intrinsically Islamist than present-day Germany is Nazi — yet despite contemporary Germany’s innocence, no German of goodwill would even think of proposing a German cultural center at, say, Treblinka.
Which makes you wonder about the goodwill behind Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf’s proposal. This is a man who has called U.S. policy “an accessory to the crime” of 9/11 and, when recently asked whether Hamas is a terrorist organization, replied, “I’m not a politician. . . . The issue of terrorism is a very complex question.”
America is a free country where you can build whatever you want — but not anywhere. That’s why we have zoning laws. No liquor store near a school, no strip malls where they offend local sensibilities, and, if your house doesn’t meet community architectural codes, you cannot build at all.
These restrictions are for reasons of aesthetics. Others are for more profound reasons of common decency and respect for the sacred. No commercial tower over Gettysburg, no convent at Auschwitz — and no mosque at Ground Zero.
Build it anywhere but there.
The governor of New York offered to help find land to build the mosque elsewhere. A mosque really seeking to build bridges, Rauf’s ostensible hope for the structure, would accept the offer.
Jim,
Good. Now we’re getting somewhere. Most Americans, like myself, agree with you on this point of rights and freedom. However, you’re defending the CAN, not the SHOULD. That’s the territory that people are upset about with the mosque. They understand that this mosque near ground zero is a sacrilege to an American tragedy in a similar way to a Japanese cultural center at Pearl Harbor. No one has a problem with Germany or Japan anymore…but location is important because of a tragic event that happened in history. So, they wonder if there is anything they CAN do to stop it. The question though, is SHOULD it be stopped? If so, why? If not, why? The defense for it being there shouldn’t just be because of their rights to put it there. No one seriously disputes that a legal case can be made for their 1st ammendment rights, but they also resent being told to “shut up” because there is no real legal case at this point. They simply believe it is not about what the Muslim’s CAN do, it is what they SHOULD do in this particular situation. Doing some research on the subject, that’s where a lot of the comments are going in news articles and commentary – on the ethics of the situation, not the legality.
If someone wanted to put a strip club right next to a school, what would be the objection? It’s not appropriate – it SHOULDN’T go there. Sometimes local laws do stop things like this from happening. Why? Because they’re trying to limit people’s rights? No, because sometimes people want to do things that are simply inapropriate. SHOULD the mosque be so close to ground zero? That’s the question you haven’t answered.
Obama in some ways looked like he was answering that question – he said the mosque had the “right” to be built. He then backpedaled on what was taken as an apparent endorsement and said that he wasn’t commenting on the “wisdom” of the mosque, just on “fundamental religious freedoms.” Apparently, he was just commenting on the “CAN” which everyone knows already.
Harry Reid has come out and said that the mosque “should be built somewhere else.” Is he a fear mongerer who wants to end religious freedom as well? Come on guys – get real!
So, really, where do you guys stand on the SHOULD? Obama – refuse to comment on the should? Reid – shouldn’t? Pelosi and most other Democrats – it’s a local matter (yeah, that’s why the President of the USA commented on it! Hello!)? Most Republicans – can, but shouldnt?
Regarding your thoughts on Westboro: You know you just called them hateful and stupid? Should I call you an intollerant bigot? Fear mongerer?
Hi Lower!
I’m glad you brought up Westboro Baptist Church. I have always supported their Constitutional right to express their own stupidity and lack of theological understanding. I have always opposed legal attempts to prevent them from spewing their hate. (Presuming they cooperate with local ordinances and safety regulations…that is…getting permits, keeping at whatever distance is prescribed by local ordinance, etc.)
I also support the right of the Ku Klux Klan, the Christian Identity Movement and the various Hatriot Groups like the Hutaree Militia and the Tea Partiers to protest and gather.
I’m glad I live in a country where James Dobson, Fred Phelps and Gary North enjoy the right to worship and express themselves as they see fit. Aren’t you?
I’m also glad we live in a country where the Black Panthers, extremist Islamic groups and radical Communists can express themselves, too.
This is a big frustration with both the left AND the right – everyone wants to talk about what CAN be done, not many people want to engage in the discussion of what SHOULD be done. All you guys who are saying that it is hogwash, I’ll be looking for your posts defending Westboro Baptist next time people are upset with them picketing the funerals of dead soldiers, ok? My roots are Baptists but you would never catch people like me defending these nut jobs. Defending their liberty? Sure…but again, what CAN be done and what SHOULD be done are two different things. I’d just as soon defend the porn industry than defend them.
You want me to go away? Fine. I’ll take that as a consession that you agree with me and now want me to take my leave because you don’t want to talk about what constitutes virtue – you want to talk about what can and cannot happen legally and call people names. Be my guest, all of you. What a waste of time if what is right is not discussed. Why try to discuss an issue if when the right time to offend and when is it the wrong time to offend is not on the table. Like it or not, this mosque issue is simply a symptom of a much greater discussion that most people aren’t willing to have. Sorry to find that discussion not welcome on this blog by either side.
The fact that this discussion is going on – that the left and right are split even more on this issue – both are politicizing it, is an indication that those who desire to build the mosque do not have the county’s unity in mind. Both right and left are pointing to the other side saying “foul!” Both are trying to score political points. I say shame on both! Shame on Newt if he called for the freezing of the mosque until religious freedom is granted in Mecca. Shame on Obama for using it to score political points and stooping to beltway politics, and then going back on what he initially said! Whose fault is it? I blame both. Keep pointing fingers to the other side if you want…but you’re only contributing the problem and not working towards a real solution. Have fun in the mucky bathwater…
Ed,
I’m trying to pose a hypothetical about Christians placing themselves in the same situation as the people trying to build the Cordoba Center. There is difficulty involved in posing the hypothetical because we haven’t had any offshoots of Christianity resulting in nineteen Christian hijackers taking control of passenger jets and flying them into three buildings to kill 2,996 people. In living memory, something like this has not happened…so we’re going to have to wing it. You’re going to have to imagine
1) Some Timothy McVeigh type presents himself as following a Christian religion;
2) Offs himself, along with thousands of innocent people;
3) The Christian sect wants to erect a “fellowship center”;
4) It’s on private property;
5) It is sufficiently close to “ground zero” of the atrocity that many people think the center’s purpose is to gloat over the attack;
6) Because of 5, there is significant local opposition to building the center and there is difficulty involved in acquiring the permit as a result of this.
I want a straight answer to the question: Could the Christians count on your support? On Nick’s support?
It’s my way of calling bullshit on the whole “bringing people together” thing. I notice lots of social tinkering from the liberal side has this in common: In packaging/marketing, it’s all supposed to “heal divisions,” “find common ground,” “overcome our differences,” “build a society that works for everybody” — but in substance, it seems there’s always some bad guy who’s supposed to be told he has to learn to live with something insulting/destructive to him. Someone always has to be told to stick it up their ass…invariably, whichever group is perceived as being more affluent, more white, more male, more straight.
James Taranto said it more politely today:
If the intent of the Ground Zero mosque is “to bring Muslims and non-Muslims together,” it is already a failure on its own terms. But the Times betrays its own lack of interest in conciliation by urging the president to “push back hard.”
By using the metaphor of physical assault, the Times makes clear that it views the placement of the proposed mosque as an assault on the sensibilities of what Times columnist Ross Douthat calls “the second America”–and that it is eager to see those sensibilities assaulted.
Could these white, straight, male, hetero Christians, who very probably are affiliated with real terrorism, count on your support? As they march down to city hall to face off against your liberal, secularist friends who are convinced, and repeat often, that organized religion is the cause of ALL the world’s problems…
…or are the two of you going to join up with those who “are eager to see those sensibilities assaulted”?
I’ll be honest with you, Ed. The more I find out about this project, the more that seems to be what it’s about. You’re a big part of reinforcing that impression I have. People like me keep going on and on about how offensive this must be to the families of the slain; you keep responding with a bunch of legal mumbo-jumbo about “they have the right” and everyone has to learn to deal with it because hey, it’s their right.
In situations like this, where the thing they want to do is so offensive, to so many, for such a good reason…it comes off like a great big ol’ Fuck You. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, it isn’t a good foundational layer for a fellowship center. Not my idea of one, anyway.
For a number of years, I’ve been noticing this about The Left: They/you are, and have been for a very long time, exuberantly enthused about winning over the fifty-first percent but not the fifty-second. Every single election, just enough ballots to win…so that the remaining forty-nine percent can be told to piss up a rope. There’s a big difference between trying to win a majority and trying to win a consensus. I haven’t seen a liberal try to win a real consensus in a very long time. They just want to win. So they can start telling white male straight Christian people to go fuck themselves.
Nick, I’m not entirely sure how to respond to you. That semi-apocryphal quote from Napoleon continues to get in the way. And you’re doing a wonderful job of proving my point (see above). All these enemies you have, all this drive you have to beat people, to win. Now you’re even mixing up your replies & comment threads, because it seems you’ve been making a habit out of this…
I’m not going to answer. Just carry on. Keep telling people to choke on things. Continue proving my point.
Can someone in the thread give me a call when someone wants to build a real fellowship center?
Forgot to give the link:
http://www.nationalreview.com/agenda/243752/very-long-post-cordoba-house-josh-barro
And this is from Josh Barro who writes for the NRO:
A Very Long Post on Cordoba House
August 15, 2010 4:09 PM By Josh Barro
I complained last week about conservatives urging bureaucrats in New York City to throw up roadblocks to the construction of a mosque at 51 Park Place in the name of “historic preservation.” Landmark preservation schemes like the one that now covers 16% of Manhattan below 96th Street are an affront to property rights and should be used sparingly, if at all. The last thing we should want are new, pretextual landmark designations designed to serve political goals unrelated to preservation.
I disagree with the NR Editors’ conclusion that a boycott of mosque contractors is appropriate (more on that below) but I appreciate their statement that they will “not appeal to the official powers to use the machinery of government to stop this project.” Unfortunately, other conservative figures have continued to push creative ideas to throw red tape at the mosque.
Earlier this week it was discovered that the mosque’s developers do not technically own half the site they plan to develop. Instead, they hold a lease on the property that runs through 2071. They have a right to buy the property at current market value (as determined by an appraisal) and are exercising that right. They also, as I understand it, have the right under their lease to tear down the structure on the property. Development on ground leases, which can be preferable to fee simple ownership for tax or other reasons, is not uncommon in Manhattan.
The developers’ landlord is ConEdison, the power utility serving New York City. While ConEd is a private company, it is subject to regulation by New York’s Public Service Commission. Republican candidate for Governor Rick Lazio has pledged to appoint PSC members who would block the sale of the property.
Of course, a private firm should not ordinarily need approval from political appointees to sell its property. We accept greater regulation for utilities like ConEd because their monopoly position could allow them to exploit consumers—so the PSC is supposed to oversee ConEd with an eye toward protecting ratepayers. The goal is not French-style state capitalism where the regulated firms are used to achieve all kinds of policy goals.
Set aside the fact that ConEd appears to be contractually obligated to sell. A PSC decision to block the sale would not be about protecting ratepayers’ interests. (Indeed, the fact that ConEd agreed to a century-long lease on the property demonstrates that it is not essential to serving customers.)
Meanwhile, the Washington Examiner has run a couple of pieces promoting the idea that the federal government should act to prevent construction of the mosque, for example by “legislation to make Ground Zero a historic preservation site.”
It’s not clear to me exactly what this means. First of all, Ground Zero is a construction site. Four huge office towers are in development there. The general sentiment across the political spectrum seems to be that it’s taken too long to rebuild, not that the area should somehow be “preserved” (other than by construction of a memorial.) Indeed, the government has thrown a ton of money at financing the redevelopment, which had been stalled in part by weak demand for office space Downtown.
Second, the proposed mosque would not be located “at” Ground Zero, but two blocks north of it. So, any federal overlay that restricts development would have to cover not just Ground Zero but an area around it. Again, it is hard to come up with a policy rationale: this area is part of one of America’s busiest office districts, characterized by over a century of high-rise development and redevelopment, which we hope to see continue.
It’s hard to see a justification for “preservation” other than as a pretext to interfere with the mosque. But the use of allegedly broad zoning restrictions to prevent a single project is inconsistent with the rule of law. (Besides which, when zoning or similar restrictions are used as a pretext to block a religious institution, that violates the First Amendment.)
Conservatives rightly bristle at the federal government’s micromanagement of land in the American West, with the highest profile example being the closure of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling. So why should we invite the feds into land use review in Manhattan? What New York allows to be built in its Financial District is not the federal government’s business.
What I find bizarre about some of the conservative response to Cordoba House is not just the objection to the construction of the mosque, but the conviction that it should be stopped by any means necessary—even if that means violating conservative principles about property rights, rule of law, and federalism.
Part of supporting limited government is understanding that sometimes, things you don’t like will happen, and the government (especially the federal government) won’t do anything about it. Getting to do what you want comes at the price of other people getting to do what they want—including build mosques where you’d prefer they didn’t.
As an aside, I think that some of the concern over this mosque, especially among people who do not live in New York City, is based on a misunderstanding of the geography of Lower Manhattan. This is an area that had significant high-rise development before New York imposed setback requirements and floor-area ratio maximums (limits on how many square feet of building you can put on a lot). As a result, the area is denser and more canyon-like than Midtown.
This means you can be two blocks away from something without any sense that you’re near it. City Hall is four blocks from Ground Zero, but you’d never stand there and think “I’m right near Ground Zero.” There is even a strip club three blocks south of Ground Zero, but nobody seems to have noticed that it is sullying the memory of the place.
In most cities, including Washington, 13 stories constitute a very tall building. But in the environment of Lower Manhattan, Cordoba House will be just another structure—which is not exactly consistent with the view that it is a Towering Monument to Jihad. In short, people are overestimating the extent to which this building will interact with, or be noticeable from, the World Trade Center site.
And this brings us to why I disagree not only with those who would use the power of government to stop the mosque, but also with the NR editors and others who urge private anti-mosque action. In general, my presumption is that it’s OK for people to build what they want on their property, with the burden on opponents to show why that’s such a bad thing. The proper question is not “Why here?” but “Why not here?”
So much of the complaint about the mosque has centered around the idea that, because hijackers acting in the name of Islam attacked the towers, Muslims should maintain a respectful distance. But the developers of Cordoba House (why do I even need to say this?) are not terrorists and did not attack the towers. Placing a burden on all Muslims to keep their institutions out of the Financial District is unfair.
Furthermore, since Islam has 1.2 billion adherents and is not going away, it is important to set reasonable guidelines that promote harmony with Western society—such as, it’s okay to build a mosque in the Financial District, and it’s not okay to blow up buildings in the Financial District. A general policy of exclusion is unworkable.
That said, I would be more open to location-specific objections to the mosque if I believed they were actually location-specific. But opposition to mosque development this year has not been contained to Lower Manhattan. Neighborhood activists in Staten Island were riled this June when they found out the local Catholic diocese planned to sell a vacant convent to a mosque developer.
While some protesters raised the usual pretextual concerns about parking and traffic, others were not so politic. “We just want to leave our neighborhood the way it is—Christian, Catholic,” declared one protester. Another alleged that “mosques breed terrorism” and a third that “the city has had enough terrorism and everything else.” The protest wrapped up with chants of “USA! USA!” The protesters were successful in convincing the Catholic Church to cancel the sale.
The expansion of a mosque in Murfreesboro, Tennessee became an animating issue in primary elections in that state. The Lieutenant Governor of Tennessee declared that he was unsure whether the First Amendment applies to Islam, which might be a cult or a nationality rather than a religion. Lower-profile mosque controversies have also been seen in California and Wisconsin.
If it were generally the case that Muslims are being welcomed into our communities, and allowed to build their houses of worship without public hostility, then it would be possible to condemn the Cordoba House’s site without worrying about alienating and excluding Muslims generally. But unfortunately the complaints about Cordoba House are just the highest-profile example of a wish that Muslims would stay out of our neighborhoods—the trouble being that everywhere is somebody’s neighborhood.
In addition to being morally objectionable, undermining the integration and acceptance of Muslims in American society is a huge strategic error. Newt Gingrich doesn’t want mosques in Lower Manhattan until churches are allowed in Mecca—making the bizarre case that our level of religious liberty is fine so long as it is no worse than in Saudi Arabia. But Cordoba House presents an opportunity to show how we are better than Saudis—and that it is no skin off our back when mosques are built in America, even in the Financial District of Manhattan.
Ignore the “To Beaten and the other right wing hatemongers, have fun arguing against the Cato Institute. Because last time I checked the Cato Institute was a right wing “libertarian” think tank” part. I copied the post from one I put on another blog and forgot to remove that part.
Oh. Okay. Alright.
Ignore the “To Beaten and the other right wing hatemongers, have fun arguing against the Cato Institute. Because last time I checked the Cato Institute was a right wing “libertarian” think tank” part. I copied the post from one I put on another blog and forgot to remove that part.
“It is the same ignorance that has led many to the outrageous conclusion that all Muslims advocate hatred and violence against non-Muslims.”
The majority of Muslims most likely don’t, even though there are verses in Qur’an and hadiths that suggest otherwise, which isn’t surprising as any religion intent on dominating for thousands of years has to choose either a stick or a carrot.
“Do they have the legal right? Yeah. SHOULD they do what they are doing? Absolutely not!”
Nonsense, especially if you are a proponent of political correctness standards often misguidedly imposed by the left. I have a saying, if someone said it before me, then great minds think alike. You can’t have everyone like you because some will hate you simply because others like you. Offending the sensibilities should never be a motivating factor for supporting something. I believe that freedom of speech and freedom of expression allows us to see many for what they truly are. As such, even if you think someone’s actions are offensive (with a caveat there is no physical or practically demonstrable harm), they should act in that manner rather than hide their true motives. If they are, in fact, in the right, their actions will be judged as such, perhaps in time, but almost certainly as such.
Oh and Morgan…do read the part where it says that George W Bush said that quite a number of Muslims died in the 9-11 attacks.
Oh and no…he wasn’t referring to the terrorists.
Lower, Morgan, this is only a provacation in your mind. You want to believe that the Muslims are doing it to be offensive and lo and behold…you think they’re doing it to be offensive. Despite there not being one shred of evidence to back that opinion.
Lower, if you acknowledge that the Muslims have the right to build that mosque…then its time for you to shut up. You’ve said your opinion, go away now.
Don’t you mean the right trying to capitalize on a religious matter?
Morgan, Lower, this is from the CATO Institute. Just in case you don’t know who they are…they’re a right wing “libertarian” think tank.
Have fun choking:
To Beaten and the other right wing hatemongers, have fun arguing against the Cato Institute. Because last time I checked the Cato Institute was a right wing “libertarian” think tank:
(Oh..have fun choking, btw)
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2010/08/16/the-gop-and-the-ground-zero-mosque/
By: Christopher Preble
Some leaders within the Republican Party seem to have fixed on a useful club with which to bludgeon the president and his fellow Democrats — Cordoba House, aka the “Ground Zero” Mosque. Over the weekend, Republican strategist Ed Rollins explained how the party would use the issue in the coming months:
ROLLINS: Intellectually, the president may be right, but this is an emotional issue, and people who lost kids, brothers, sisters, fathers, what have you, do not want that mosque in New York, and it’s going to be a big, big issue for Democrats across this country.
“Face the Nation” Host Bob SCHIEFFER: So you see it as an issue that’s going to continue?
ROLLINS: Absolutely. No question about it. Every candidate — every candidate who’s in the challenge districts are going to be asked, how do you feel about building the mosque on the Ground Zero sites?
This strategy, exploiting still-raw emotion and implicitly demonizing Muslims, threatens to trade short-term political gain for medium-term political harm to the party. And it most certainly will translate into long-term harm for the country at large.
Opposing the construction of a mosque near the Ground Zero site plays into al Qaeda’s narrative that the United States is engaged in a war with Islam, that bin Laden and his tiny band of followers represent something more than a pitiful group of murderers and thugs, and that all American Muslims are an incipient Fifth Column that must be either converted to Christianity or driven out of the country, else they will undermine American society from within.
It isn’t a political slam-dunk, either. Though 64 percent of Americans think a mosque near Ground Zero is ”inappropriate“, 60 percent of all respondents in the same survey, including 57 percent of Republicans, believe that the organizers have a right to build in that location, and presumably would not favor a government prohibition on this activity. (h/t Nate Silver at fivethirtyeight) If anyone were to show evidence that the parties building the center were in any way linked to the 9/11 terrorists, or funded by or funding these same terrorists, then the issues at stake would change. But they haven’t done so, and are unlikely to do so. In the meantime, those GOP leaders who oppose the mosque betray a basic inability to discern public attitudes, even as they propel this country on a ruinous course, headlong into a civilizational war which pits all Americans against all Muslims.
A number of public officials and commentators, not all of them Obama supporters, have staked out a position that walks this country back from that precipice. NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s courageous and eloquent statementon this issue should be read by all, not just Republicans. But Bloomberg is unlikely to swing opinion within the GOP base. So too with Fareed Zakaria, who nonetheless deserves enormous credit for distancing himself from any organization that would adopt a public position of thinly veiled bigotry, especially one whose mission is “to put an end forever to unjust and unfair discrimination against and ridicule of any sect or body of citizens.” Dan Drezner’s take is aimed squarely at right-of-center readers, and sprinkled with a tone of sarcasm; but he is a pointy-headed intellectual, so he’ll have a hard time convincing the most skeptical of the lot.
A more convincing spokesman for sensible voices on the Right is former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson, who wisely opposes a short-sighted and cynical political strategy to exploit anti-Muslim sentiments. Likewise, Mark Halperin recognizes the political salience of an anti-mosque stance, but advises party leaders to steer clearof that position. Josh Barro at National Review Online renders a devastating refutation of all the dubious arguments erected to block the mosque.
Indeed, George W. Bush himself set the tone in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 atrocities, counseling against retaliation against innocent Muslims who had nothing to do with the attacks, and noting that a number of Muslims were killed on 9/11. Other conservative organizations and institutions took notice of Bush’s leadership, and wisely sacked the few voices who preached violence against all Muslims because nineteen of their coreligionists had perpetrated the attacks.
Not quite nine years later, we’ve come full-circle. With Bush enjoying retirement in Texas, who within the GOP will affirm the party’s position that declaring a war on Islam does not advance our nation’s security?
Please tell me again, simply, just what your question is.
So say your piece and move on. Since they have a legal right, there’s not much you can do that’s legal, right?
Gingrich and others are calling for illegal action against the permit. Why aren’t you concerned about that? Maybe I’m more sensitive because I grew up in areas where Mormons were numerous — but have you ever noticed that those who call for the restrictions of religious rights of others tend not to have the best interests of the suppressed in mind?
Right! How crude and wrong of Newt Gingrich to fail to support the reconstruction of St. Nicholas, and how rotten of him to draw attention away from that reconstruction.
Ask those, like Sarah Palin, who think it’s more important to say false and hateful things about Islam than to help the Eastern Orthodox rebuild. Why did Palin refuse to help out the Greek Orthodox? Ask her.
(I’ve never heard of the problem, Joe. Why do you assume that failure to know of a problem is a refusal to help? Why do you not blame those who distract from that problem, thereby preventing its solution?)
Oops – I hit “submit comment” :-)
Point three – if this really is about religious tolerance, etc. and not the left trying to capitalize on a religious matter, why isn’t anyone here upset on behalf of St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church that was destroyed in 9/11 that still hasn’t been rebuilt? Why are they being ignored by the Port Authority, even though Bloomberg is trying to help them get things going? Almost nine years now and they can’t get their church rebuilt? Come on. Why are people defending the Mosque not outraged over this beaurocratic mess?
Three thoughts:
1) No one here on either side opposes religious freedom. It is false characterization to say that anyone here does. Please stop.
2) Even though Muslims have a legal right to do so, it does make it the right thing to do. Did anyone catch the news that Westboro Baptist Church won another lawsuit? Anyone here going to stand up and say that they support taking signs to soldier’s funerals saying “God Hates the USA” and “Thank God for Dead Soldiers”??? Do they have the legal right? Yeah. SHOULD they do what they are doing? Absolutely not!
No Ed, it’s an exercise in turning the question around in order to avoid it.
Isn’t this a direct answer to your query, Morgan?
http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2010/08/14/michael-kinnamon-on-cordoba-house-and-mosque-at-ground-zero/#comment-103745
Maybe you’re right: Since the militant, “kill the Americans” Muslims agree that the mosque shouldn’t be there, how will Newt Gingrich change his position to reflect his condemnation of anything they may say?
Still no direct answers to my inquiry. We’re coming near to the point, if we’ve not passed it already, that this is all about targeting certain classes. There’s discrimination going on, yes, but it isn’t being done by the people opposing the mosque, it’s being done by the people in favor of it.
This is not an issue that has anything to do with religious liberty.
Good afternoon, Brett!
Thank you so much for making this point…>>”“…frightfully near…” I think that’s the point. Many right-wing talking heads seem to be fomenting fear. Why? Why should we be afraid of a mosque/comm center that is not even in sight of the WTC?”<<
You're spot on. It was the radical right that began referring to this as the "WTC Mosque". It's two friggin' blocks away from the WTC site.
To the others in this thread, I am sincerely heartened to hear you saying you are NOT opposed to the construction of new mosques in America per se. That puts you well ahead of Newt Gingrich, who continues to foment hate and bigotry by openly calling for a moratorium on ANY mosque or Islamic center construction anywhere in the United States.
Evidently, Newt definitely wants the U.S. to be as religiously bigoted as Saudi Arabia.
Hope we can all, regardless of varied positions on the NYC mosque, agree to condemn Gingrich's position on this issue.
You know, I was going to respond to Likwid’s stupidity but Thomas did it far better then me.
Though I’ll ask Likwid this question.
Where in the 1st Admendment and 14th Admendments does it say “This does not apply to Muslims”?
Oh and as for your claim that Islam was born in hate, Likwid…well that’s funny coming from you since you are demonstrating pure hatred.
Freedom of and from religion in the US is an absolute and it has been enshrined in our national conscience since we adopted our constitution. It is patently ridiculous to make a statement such as “…save the tolerance BS for those who earn it.” In the United States one is not required to earn tolerance or equality or justice. These are ours because of the rule of law and our constitution.
I served in the USAF and served honorably. I have been very proud of my country for many reasons over the years. I also have been ashamed of the wars of aggression, including Vietnam, but especially the immoral and illegal war against the people of Iraq, launched by Bush and his Neocon backers, in the name of the American people. The war mongers, when launching that war, played on fears and used patriotism and religion to stoke the fires of uber-nationalism to a shameful degree, in my view. They even lied about the real basis for the war.
Many right wing Americans lack understanding as to the historical context and the complexities of the issues surrounding religion vis a vis the state, in the US or elsewhere. European Social Democracies have generally developed that relationship in a thoughtful and sane manner. Religion exists for those who want its solace and comfort. Religion (any specific church)is not seen as an aggressive, driving force compelling its followers to proselytize and to “bring souls to jesus” as some American Evangelicals and Dominionists persist in doing. The state or nation is christian, they believe, and Their goal, and there are some on this thread, is to shatter separation of church and state in the US. They are not content to practice their religion or faith peacefully and in a manner that is respectful of others.
That is why so many right wing fundamentalist christians cannot begin to understand how a Mosque would not be a subversive and dangerous place. Honestly, and I was raised Roman Catholic and hold great love for the nuns and priests who taught me a compassionate and Liberal Catholic Theology, I am far more concerned about the anti-american activities of many Evangelicals/Dominionists in the US than I am about most who practice Islam here.
This controversy is political chicanery, fear mongering and playing to the base of the right wing conservatives in the US. They have gained power over recent decades. I think their peak is over and they are losing support in many circles. That is why they are becoming more shrill and louder. Their radical christianist beliefs and their refusal to accept the law of the land and separation of church and state, in addition to their opposition to social justice and equality for all, including gays and lesbians – all of those beliefs fly in the face of history evolving toward more inclusion and expansion of the rights of men and women, rather than regressing to more restriction and exclusion (a kind of tribalism).
The constitution cannot be read in any way as allowing a state religion (christianity, islam, roman catholicism) in the Uninted States. Some, with twisted minds and no sense of history or law may believe it does. It does not. Moreover, despite what some wish for and pray for, the US is not a Christian nation. When I served in the US miltiary there was absolute separation of church (religion) and state (USAF). Absolute. This was long before the rise of the right wing christians in the US. Chaplains were there for those who needed or wanted their help. However, there was zero tolerance for any intrusion of religion into the day to day functioning of the military mission. Since US Fundamentalists infiltrated the USAF Academy within the last two decades, there have been horror stories that indicated the lines were blurred and that separation was breached. Fortunately, a Jewish Airman has filed suit which is resulting in an end to that nonsense. One video I watched during the Iraq war showed US combat soldiers praying before going into battle – they prayed to avenge their “faith” and their country. They prayed for vengeance against the Muslims. It was disturbing
Islam was born in hatred (by Muhammed, noted child molester) and remains in hatred to this day. It preaches death to those who don’t believe and every single land that is under Muslim rule is a backwards bloodshedding wasteland.
It brings up the thought: maybe the supporters really hate America and New York City. Why ELSE would you invite such chicanery in?
And save the tolerance BS for those who earn it.
Isn’t it interesting that none of the critics wishes to address Dr. Kinnamon’s powerful arguments based on U.S. History?
It’s a sore for Islam that the U.S. State Department picks at constantly. The Saudi family argues, with great justification, that they could not contain the rebellion were they to grant religious freedom in contradiction to the mullahs of the Wahabi group — this is the same issue that puts the Egyptian government over a barrel.
You appear to assume the U.S. government has not already protested to the Saudis. Once again, the State Department is well ahead of you:
And, the government remains ahead of you. (See the formal report here.)
Which is not to say the U.S. has not brought it to the attention of the governments in that area, nor to promise action soon. One of the best things we can do is set an example. One more mosque in the U.S., to be overshadowed by the redevelopment of the WTC site, is no threat to us, but is instead the sort of example one would expect of the benevolent and superior form of government we have in the U.S., which we think others should emulate.
What a macabre standard for decision making.
Can we count on you to call for the Cathedral de Notre Dame to be torn down? (It was built on a pagan holy site, as were several of the great cathedrals of Europe). How about the destruction of the mine on Black Mesa, which is a Navajo holy site? What about the destruction of Bryan University, on the site of Clarence Darrow’s smiting of William Jennings Bryan? How about the destruction of Indiana Wesleyan University, in the town where the last Klan lynching in the north took place, Marion, Indiana?
And by your macabre standard, must we not hold Christianity to account for every Klan lynching, for isn’t all of Christianity to blame for the sins of the most militant and stupid arm?
Here’s a standard maybe you could live with. It makes as much sense as any you’ve proposed — which is to say, it makes no sense at all.
The greater the banned distance, the greater the avoidance of offense, right?
Nic,
1) Didn’t say the president wanted to get rid of religious freedom. Who is putting words in whose mouth? You’re a legend at it, my friend…
2) Didn’t say we should force the Muslims not to put up the mosque. My point – bad form on their part. Especially if they know how extremists will react to it…bad form. They could be much more sensitive to the situation if they were truly a religion of peace as Bush suggested. It certainly isn’t the “Christian” thing to do. :-) But hey…can’t expect them to be, can I?
3) Regarding the riots and church history: I’m not a Protestant…I don’t really belong to any denomination, though I am Baptistic in doctrine. If you combined the “Protestant” denominations (and included the Baptists) they would far outnumber Catholics. Also, the point was not to simply jab at Catholics but to point out what happens when any fallible humans gain all the power. Sorry, your church isn’t perfect…that title would belong to Jesus. That’s the beauty of our system – laws, checks and balances, etc. Lastly, regarding the riots, there is a far cry difference between something that happened over the period of a couple days by a mob and the official dictates of a religious ground that is killing in Jesus’ (or Allah’s or whoever’s) name.
4) Never said I was in favor of the mosque being built…just for difference reasons than Morgan. It’s not that we should force them not to build it, but that it’s bad form on the part of Islam. Very offensive, especially understanding how Islamic radicals will perceive it as a victory over the US. However, if our colective position really is based on religious freedom, be consistent and ask those who demand it of the US but refuse to give it to others to stop being so hypocritical!
5) You can’t force anyone to obey the US’s desires, but we could actually work towards energy independence so that we don’t have to keep our mouths shut at the atrocities that are taking place over there. We used to have sway in the world. We actually used to be a country that other nations wanted to be like and emulate…Not Obama’s fault, but this isn’t going to help at all, especially among the nations of Islam – it will unfortunately be perceived as weakness.
“…frightfully near…” I think that’s the point. Many right-wing talking heads seem to be fomenting fear. Why? Why should we be afraid of a mosque/comm center that is not even in sight of the WTC?
Hi, me again.
I’d just like to point out I’m still waiting for an answer to my question.
Can the Christians who are in exactly the same position, wanting to erect a monument to Christianity frightfully near some bulls-eye of Christian aggression, if you can find one — count on your support?
Just a straight yes or no from Ed and/or Nick, please. An up or a down.
All the rest is bullshit. But you didn’t need me to point that out. Thankew.
Wow, Lower, you sure did engage in a big fat round of delusion.
Tell me..where did the President say we need to get rid of religious freedom? Indeed it is your side that is arguing that one. It is your side that is arguing that “its okay if we block mosques from being built because other countries block churches from being built.”
What possible reason would you have to bring up what middle eastern countries do with regards to Christian churches if not “See, they do it too. We should do it to them”? Or have you missed the fact that there are those in this country who are indeed arguing that because those countries are not exactly tolerant towards Christians means the United States should be intolerant towards Muslims?
As for the history lesson about my church, Lower, I don’t need it. I am well aware of the history of my church..that is why I am so against the bullshit spouted by Morgan and his fellow right wingers with regards to that Mosque. I am also equally aware of the intolerance and violence conducted by Protestants against my Catholic church. Because I find it real curious that quite a few Protestants so love to harp about the misdeeds of the Catholic church in the past…but turn such a blind eye to the fact that their churches are equally guilty of that. Perhaps you should look up the Philadelphia Bible Riots of the 1860′s? You know..the ones where a bunch of protestants burned down two Catholic churches and a nunnery because they were ticked off that the Catholics objected to Bible instruction in the Philly public schools.
At any rate, stop blaming Obama for things you’re pretending about him.
I just love how you used this as an opportunity to say you’re for religious freedom..but then to turn around and use this topic to attack President Obama…who is on the same side as you if you’re actually for religious freedom. Or did you miss that he came out in support of that mosque?
And the United States does press for religious freedom in those countries, Lower. But the problem is that..well two fold now. 1: You can’t bully other countries into doing it. They’re not going to listen if they don’t want to and you can’t force them to obey. 2: Because of people like Morgan and their positions regarding those mosques those other countries can go “Why should we? You’re not.”
So perhaps next time you should lay off the stupid attacks against the President, yes? Because you just put words in the President’s mouth, Lower, and then tried attacking him based off the words you put in the President’s mouth.
The point, Lower, that I was making with my statement that unless Morgan is a Catholic in this country he is a member of the minority and therefor he should be real careful of pulling the argument that the majority can deny equal rights to the minority just because it is the majority. See, despite your delusion to the contrary, I really actually don’t want to use my being a member of the majority to drive Morgan’s church into the ground. But I am willing to use my membership in the majority in this country to teach Morgan a lesson about the warning “Be careful what you wish for…lest you receieve it.”
Or to put this another way..Morgan should pay more attention to the idea that “What is fair play to use against Muslims because they are the minority is fair play to use against minority groups that Morgan may belong to.”
jsojourner,
As I’ve said before on other posts, my preference would be that this would be a nation of Christians, not a “Christian nation.” I’m not in favor of a religious state by any stretch, though I’m not in favor of the state banning all things religious either (i.e. the Ten Commandments). If we (Christians) have to resort to just politics to advance our agenda of sharing Jesus’s good message, that means we’re losing the war for ideology and truth because we’ve lost our focus on where it needs to be. I don’t believe Christians should be excluded from politics, but I also don’t believe that just changing laws is the answer…only Jesus can really change people’s hearts and lives.
I do admit to wanting Jesus to be in charge of this country…but only because the country is full of people who have chosen to place their trust in Him. Big difference. Will that happen? Probably not anytime soon. But at least there are some who see that they need Him.
Nic,
Perhaps I’m radical here…but I was actually suggesting that more countries should be LIKE the US, rather than the other way around. Is that insulting to other countries? If they’re chopping off other people’s heads for their religious beliefs, then perhaps a strong offence should be in order! Perhaps religious freedom is part of the arrogance of the US that Obama believes we need to discard. What I was saying that instead of JUST defending the legality of this mosque, why not defend the rights of religious freedom to those who have none in Muslim controlled countries? “Everyone is given religious freedom here. Give it the minorities in your Muslim countries!” Muslims are demanding what they themselves do not give when they are allowed control. This is one sided and I would really like to be able to see people worship in Saudi Arabia without fear of death.
Nic, as a Catholic, you should remember your history that it wasn’t just Muslims that persecuted those of other faiths. It was the Catholic church that had political control over Europe for centuries and killed off those who were ‘heretics’ for believing in such radical concepts as having the Bible in your own language and teaching people to read, baptism occuring after beliving in Christ rather than just after birth, and singing to God in a different language than Latin. Even the Reformers were slow in learning religious freedom. Shoot, even in the New World Anglicans and Puritans persecuted Quakers and Baptists (thus you have the founding of Rhode Island). I say all that to say that no religion should be allowed to have political control of this country. It’s been demonstrated in history what happens and is demonstrated in Muslim/Hindu/communist and tyranical countries what happens when there is no religious freedom.
The platform of the constitution guarantees the right of religious freedom. I don’t think this mosque is smart…but I don’t know what the answer would be otherwise. What a wasted opportunity though to send a strong message to nations that surpress religious freedom: We will afford religious freedom in our country…even when it hurts. Instead…we are given a “well, I guess we have to because there’s no law that says they can’t. All faiths have a right to exist.” To me…what is happening spells radical Islamic victory rather than victory for freedom.
Evening, Lower!
In your post, you conclude…>>”while I am a huge supporter and a believer in protecting religious freedom, I also believe that this commitment comes with the obligation to protect our citizens from those who have us be under shariah law, which is the end game in the minds of radicals in Islam.”<<
Read much Gary North, David Chilton or Rousas Rushdoony? There are those who are every bit as eager to place under a Christian form of Sharian as the extremist Muslims you are (rightly) concerned about. My hope is that the moderate and loving Muslim voices — there are many — will drown out the militant ones.
I would love to believe the same would be true in Christian circles. I'm less than convinced. Fred Phelps may be a cartoon. But he is no abberration.
Oh and by the way, Lower, in this case what the law says is the only thing that matters.
Unless you or Morgan there can come up with an actually legal valid reason to oppose that mosque….none of your arguments mean a damn thing.
So…put up or shut up.
Lower writes:
You do realize that those countries aren’t the United States right? Or should we start acting like every other country on the planet? Weren’t we supposed to be better then them? I also wasn’t aware the US Constitution said “If other countries don’t follow this, neither do you.”
Besides if those other countries tried telling us what to do, Lower, you would be among the first to flip out.
Sorry, this “Mom! He hit me first defense” is nothing but childish bulldrek.
By the way, Morgan, the only thing we are “bullying”, and that is using the term at its broadest possible reason, you into is obeying the laws of the United States.
Whereas you and others are trying to bully a group of people because you don’t want to follow the laws much less the ideals of this country. Because you think if the “majority” whims it the majority can ignore the law and the US Constitution.
Sorry, this is not a pure democracy. We are a democratic Republic…the majority doesn’t get its way just because its the majority. The majority is bound to obey and respect the rights of the minority in this country.
Oh…and by the way…argumentum ad populum is an logical fallacy.
Want your rights to worship respected? Then respect the rights of others to worship how they please. Because I’ll point out, Morgan. In this country when it comes to religion…unless you are Catholic you are a member of a minority religious group. So if I were you I’d be real careful of trying to set up the precedent that the minority religious group has to get permission of the majority religious group before it can build a place of worship.
Because speaking as a Catholic I would have no problem in using my majority status to steamroll your particular brand of Christianity into the ground just to teach you an object lesson. I would consider it a warning to the next ten generations of right wing ********* to be careful what they ask for…lest they be the ones to pay the price for it.
I’m not going to get into a legal debate because I look at that as a moot point. What you CAN do legally and what you SHOULD do are sometimes two different things. Let me just put a couple religious/culture perspectives in view here of why I believe this is…well, just sad.
One, according to Time magazine, in Muslim controlled countries like Saudi Arabia, no Christian church is allowed to be errected…well, anywhere. If you are caught sharing the Gospel (or any other religion other than Islam) in Saudi Arabia…you’ve just signed your own death warrant (i.e. having your head chopped off in the Deera Square for blaspheming the ‘prophet’). Qatar didn’t have one church (at least legally) in it until 2008! Defending religious freedom is a huge priority for our country, so perhaps a request for freedom of religion in Muslim countries should be a priority for our country (and the Obama administration) rather than a one sided defence of their practically state controlled religion here.
Two, Muslims for centuries have errected mosques on the sites of military victories to celebrate triumph over their religious enemies. That’s why the Dome of the Rock was built over the site of the Temple in Jerusalem and why its existence is so offensive to Israel – it signifies victory over the Jews. The Ground Zero Mosque may not mean much here in the States more than just religious tolerance, but around the world it will be a loud rallying cry for radical muslims that 9/11 was a great victory over the evil USA. It will also signal that the US is soft, confused, and almost asking for another attack. Not smart on our part!
Three, while I am a huge supporter and a believer in protecting religious freedom, I also believe that this commitment comes with the obligation to protect our citizens from those who have us be under shariah law, which is the end game in the minds of radicals in Islam. This building of the mosque at ground zero will only embolden such teachings of hatred against the US.
Morgan writes:
But let’s just call out what you’re trying to bully me into, directly: Permits for religious sites on public property must be granted, if said sites are meaningfully offensive to large
You’re forgetting one simple fact, Morgan.
That proposed mosque in NYC is proposed for a lot that is private…I repeat…private….not public property.
Furthermore, what then are the supposedly legitimate reasons for the opposition of mosques being built in other parts of the country. What is the reasons that are “logical” and “common sense” and “sensitive to people’s feelings.”
After all, to quote the New York Times:
In Murfreesboro, Tenn., Republican candidates have denounced plans for a large Muslim center proposed near a subdivision, and hundreds of protesters have turned out for a march and a county meeting.
In late June, in Temecula, Calif., members of a local Tea Party group took dogs and picket signs to Friday prayers at a mosque that is seeking to build a new worship center on a vacant lot nearby.
In Sheboygan, Wis., a few Christian ministers led a noisy fight against a Muslim group that sought permission to open a mosque in a former health food store bought by a Muslim doctor.
Then there is this, quoting from the same article:
A smaller controversy is occurring in Temecula, about 60 miles north of San Diego, involving a typical stew of religion, politics and anti-immigrant sentiment. A Muslim community has been there for about 12 years and expanded to 150 families who have outgrown their makeshift worship space in a warehouse, said Mahmoud Harmoush, the imam, a lecturer at California State University, San Bernardino. The group wants to build a 25,000-square-foot center, with space for classrooms and a playground, on a lot it bought in 2000.
Mr. Harmoush said the Muslim families had contributed to the local food bank, sent truckloads of supplies to New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, and participated in music nights and Thanksgiving events with the local interfaith council.
“We do all these activities and nobody notices,” he said. “Now that we have to build our center, everybody jumps to make it an issue.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/08/us/08mosque.html
Yes. Religious organizations may not be forced to go elsewhere if they meet the zoning rules. Once a group, or a single person, has demonstrated that rules have been met, the permit is granted. If the permit does not issue, the person requesting it may sue for a writ of mandamus, and then the judge orders the zoning board or commission or whatever the body is, to issue the permit.
Building is not a majority vote sort of thing. Under U.S. zoning law, zoning boards set rules designed to prevent public nuisances. When those rules are met, the permit issues, no voting allowed.
You don’t want a WalMart in your town? Tough luck. You can’t vote it out. You don’t want your neighbor to have a nicer house than you? Tough luck. You don’t want a gas station in the small strip mall just 1,000 feet from your house? If it’s zoned for gas stations, you’re out of luck.
I noted those legal cases and the legal descriptions in a recent comment so you could get a crash course in zoning. I can’t force you to read the stuff, of course. But if you read it, you may bet a better understanding of why protests against the mosque are rather pointless, and why such protests, directed solely at one faith’s worship building, smack of bigotry.
Had you called for a ban on all religious buildings within two miles of ground zero, you’d at least be non-partisan, non-sectarian, and democratic. Nor would you run afoul of the First Amendment, and the Fifth Amendment, and the Fourteenth Amendment.
It doesn’t matter how offended you are at Catholic torturings during the Spanish Inquisition, you don’t get to vote against a Catholic Church near Ground Zero. It doesn’t matter how offensive or illegal you think Baptist-backed lynchings were, you can’t oppose a Baptist church close to Ground Zero. Your views on Joseph Smith don’t allow you special heckling privileges against a Mormon ward house, your opinion of Mary Baker Eddy doesn’t allow you to oppose even a Christian Science Reading Room. Your contempt for Tom Cruise and all of his films don’t allow you to oppose a Scientology office near Ground Zero.
Got it yet?
Over the front door to the Supreme Court, on the West Portico, are engraved these words: “Equal Justice Under Law.” It doesn’t matter how much money one has, or whether one completely lacks money. It doesn’t matter whether you’re Jewish, Catholic, Zoroastrian, Protestant, Mormon, Seventh-Day Adventist, Buddhist, Taoist, Hundu, Sikh or Moslem — you still get a fair shake under U.S. law.
A few years back the people now protesting the mosque in Manhattan protested the City of Boerne, Texas, telling the local Catholic diocese they could not raze an historic chapel, and that case went to the Supreme Court. To make it clear that cities had to cut extra regard for all religions in such cases, Congress first passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), and when part of that was struck down, the RLUIPA, which has survived contest. Curse those people who passed those laws.
Two years ago (or so) many of those same people complained when a Connecticut city condemned a few homes to make a complete parcel of land for economic development designed to help the city keep jobs and keep families together an in the city limits. So, many localities and a few states passed laws limiting governmental powers to condemn land to take that land away from rightful owners.
Now you have the gall to complain you were wrong before, but only in the case of Moslems? Green light hypocrites.
What is it you have against private property all of a sudden? Have you ever read the warnings of Hayek and von Mises about people who have a low regard for private property rights?
Oh and Morgan, as for your question of “Where’s the $100 mil coming from, anyway?”
Do you have any proof that its coming from anything other than legitimate sources?
Sorry, this is not Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union. In the United States the rule is “Innocent until proven guilty.”
Do bother to remember that next time.
I wrote:
masses against Islam just like the Nazi’s did to Jews to gain that party.
Sorry, that should be “..masses against Islam just like the Nazi’s did to Jews to gain that power.”
Morgan writes:
Suffice it to say, after much discussion that has ensued, I do not have an answer to my question but I have lots of evaluations about my personal character, or lack thereof, from people who do not know me.
Tell me, Morgan, did the hypocrisy you were engaging in occur to you when you wrote that?
Or did the fact that you and your fellow members of the right wing hysteria fest were doing exactly that to…well…pretty much every Muslim in the entire country not occur to you? And especially the ones in New York City. There are citizens of this country who are Muslim..indeed there are members of our military who are Muslim. Do they not deserve the same rights and respects as the rest of us?
Part of what the terrorists like Al Qaeda want is to convince the west that the entirety of Islam is the enemy..that Islam is the enemy. They also want to convince their fellow Muslims that the West…and especially the United States hates Islam.
What would you call giving Al Qaeda exactly what they want if not “surrender” and “cowardly”? What would you call the actions of people who think that the right to religious expression only belongs to some and not to others if not bullying and fascist?
You say “this is an issue on which we nay-sayers are arguing not just from a position of logic and common sense, but of sensitivity to feelings as well.”
No..you are not arguing from logic or common sense at all. And as for “sensitivity to feelings” you’re rather forgetting one simple fact…not all of the families of the victims of 9-11 oppose that mosque. You’re also forgetting that there are two mosques there already, that it is not on the WTC site, that the site they want to build on is private property. You and yours are arguing from fear, from hatred and from paranoia. Because if you haven’t bothered to notice..the mosque in NYC isn’t the only one being opposed. Or are you going to say that the WTC site includes Wisconsin, New Jersey and Tennessee?
You and your party are doing this out of cold calculated desire to gain political power at any cost…even if you have to throw out the ideals of this country to do so. And your party is willing to whip up the masses against Islam just like the Nazi’s did to Jews to gain that party. You and your party don’t give a damn about the families of the victims of 9-11 or the people that rushed into the fire to save people. After all…your party just voted against funding health care for those people for the health problems they’ve developed because of 9-11.
Logic says the law is the law and that things are decided on the law and not public passion. Logic says everyone in this country has the same rights and is due the same protection under the law. This has nothing to do with logic for you. You are trying to punish an entire religious group for the actions of a few extremists. But I am perfectly willing to bet that if the WTC had been attacked by Christian terrorists you would be the absolute last person to object to there being a church near the WTC site.
If you were so “sensitive to feelings” then why aren’t you being sensitive to the feelings of the hundreds of thousands if not millions of Muslims in this country who had nothing to do with 9-11?
Sorry, I am not willing to let this country become something akin to pre-WW2 Germany just because your side of the political spectrum wants to act like a bunch of hateful cowards and give in to the terrorists. Quit blaming the entirety of Islam just because on 9-11 you got scared. We’re supposed to be better then other countries. We’re supposed to be against paranoia, against fear, against bigotry, against prejudice, against tyrrany. Against the denial of rights to people just because they’re a minority.
Give into fear and cowardice or stand up for what this country stands for, Morgan. Make your choice.
Oh and by the way, I didn’t make up the claim about the two that bombed the Federal building being members of the Christian Identity movement. That is established fact. They were Christians and they were terrorists. Just like the guy who shot Dr. Tiller was Christian and a terrorist. Are you willing to subject Christianity to the same little rules you are oh so eager to subject Islam to?
Tell me, Morgan, where in the 1st Admendment or the 14th Admendment does it say “these rights don’t apply to Muslims”?
Pity that your side is so scared ******** that you’re willing to deny people their rights out of fear and hatred.
Projecting much?
From the House of Eratosthenes:
I noted that, statistically, that’s likely to be accurate. You said there’s a list of names somewhere (but you don’t say or indicate where), then you leap to the conclusion that someone should be able to accurately calculate the faiths of all the dead. Then you attack me for your assumption that it’s been done already, and I’m hiding it from you.
Oy.
[...] perfect example of this exists at Ed Darrell’s place. I took great exception to the statement so breezily included in a piece he embedded… No one [...]
Under U.S. law in every state, no permit can be denied for “whatever reason.” Permits for development of private property must be handled within a reasonable period of time, and refusals must be for cause.
How relevant this would be, Ed, if this were a discussion about why the permit is about to be denied. But it isn’t; it is a discussion of why people would want to see the permit denied. It has been made into a discussion of that, by yourself and many others, who have insinuated nefarious and/or racist and/or hypocritical motives on the part of persons like me who see something wrong.
As you know, Ed, there is great error in confusing a discussion of what’s morally right, with a discussion of what the law does/doesn’t require. Why you persist in repeating this error is a mystery to me. But let’s just call out what you’re trying to bully me into, directly: Permits for religious sites on public property must be granted, if said sites are meaningfully offensive to large numbers of persons who are permanent fixtures in the surrounding community? There’s no precedent for such offense rising to the level of “cause,” none whatsoever, is that what you’re trying to say?
The problem with your argument, Morgan, is the WTC is not private property. Different rules apply regarding religious expression on public and private property. They want that cross there on the WTC site? Then they’re going to have to allow symbols from every other religion there. (blah blah blah)…So grow some balls for once.
Okay, then let’s adjust the hypothetical. The church wants the cross on private property a few feet away from the World Trade Center. You’re a bright fellow, Nick, I’m sure you could have made that adjustment on your own. Now why don’t you grow some balls and answer my query? You’d be for it?
In fact, it’s interesting neither of you — none of you — have directly answered it. You can’t be accused of being inconsistent because you won’t ‘fess up to what you really are. My critique about white-guilt-on-steroids may have been indelicate, but it seems to stand.
You know what I do see a whole lot of, here, though? I’m seeing a whole lot of excoriation, a whole lot of speculation about what is personally wrong with me, the effluence of those who do not personally know me. Bigoted, hypocritical, a whole lot of speculation about what I would do in my own hypothetical…more than interesting, since nobody has directly answered it.
All right. I’ll answer my own, since Ed’s worried I’m a hypocrite. But first, I’d like to point out what is not being said: “I have this opinion, but I can see how someone of adequate intelligence and fine character can have a different one.” Liberals, today, cannot do this. They are the reason we cannot discuss politics. They — you — have formed the proper opinions around the proper issues, to demonstrate what wonderful people they/you are; this means anyone who has a different opinion is a bad person. Such people must be silenced. Because they’re/we’re bad.
You don’t need to figure out what kind of person I am. You shouldn’t. If your argument were stronger, this wouldn’t be relevant. Grown-ups know that wonderful, decent, intelligent people have the wrong idea all the time; stupid rotten stinkers have the right idea quite often. It’s always better to debate the ideas. Liberals nowadays have to keep being reminded of this, and even when they’re reminded they don’t catch on. It’s an ugly trend we see, lately, and this is why I blame liberals for our incendiary discourse. Really, how can you have an enlightened discourse about anything if one side says “my position makes me morally superior and the other guy’s position makes him an awful person”?
Now, this is a difficult hypothetical to reverse since the situation doesn’t exist in the reverse — I cannot come up with a “Ground Zero” of some atrocity committed by Christians, in a current holy war, on which Christians would want to erect a great big cross. I would say then, that if there were some reason that others would be offended by such a display, some tangible reason as to why it would be construed by a meaningful representation of permanent fixtures in the community as an icon of Christian aggression — they should move the damn thing. Of a facility that is supposed to heal a divide, I would expect nothing less. I would expect they’d already be making plans to do this before I would suggest it.
So Ed, you’re saying you hate the smell of hypocrisy. I’m with ya.
You’re both beating around the bush that is the central issue: You can’t engage in the tired old leftist argument of “Here’s our rationalization of why your objections are irrelevant and you should just shut your mouth, now go away” — and then claim to be doing the work of outreach, fellowship, healing, more open communication, et al. The Cordoba center, if it proceeds, would have to be built on such a foundation. You cannot casually dismiss, and then claim to be healing a divide.
And you’re not casually dismissing just my objections. Not personally knowing anyone who perished on 9/11, I would not claim to be a superior representative of those who have the objections. And so, no, you have not given me any solid arguments that would nullify the objections those people, surviving friends & relatives, would have. The objections they would have, seem to me to be entirely legitimate and you haven’t given me a reason to think otherwise.
Maybe you’d care to try again. I’m not finding the sneering disdain, the rationalizations for condescending dismissal, terribly persuasive.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Dave (UBB) Hill, Alltop Education. Alltop Education said: Michael Kinnamon on Cordoba House and mosque at Ground Zero http://bit.ly/c12yKy [...]
Gee, Nick — got any non-wishy-washy views? You might want to tone down the near-profanity a bit — we’re just a week away from the start of school, and kids are coming back to the site.
Under U.S. law in every state, no permit can be denied for “whatever reason.” Permits for development of private property must be handled within a reasonable period of time, and refusals must be for cause (and “just cause,” by law).
Plus, the RLUIPA gives religious bodies even greater rights against rejection by government permitting bodies.
Extensive law exists on this stuff; while it helps to spend a semester or more studying the law, you don’t have to go to law school to understand it. And while there might be reasons to fail to grant the permit, you’ve not come close to mentioning any that would be legal, or moral.
Consequently, that’s not an adequate answer to the question of on what basis you would deny a permit to build a mosque — anywhere.
The problem with your argument, Morgan, is the WTC is not private property. Different rules apply regarding religious expression on public and private property. They want that cross there on the WTC site? Then they’re going to have to allow symbols from every other religion there.
Whereas that proposed mosque is on private property two blocks away from the WTC site. Furthermore there is already two mosques within several blocks of the WTC site. the proposed one is just them wanting more space because the two mosques there already are little one room things. They also want space for community events.
And there you sit along with your fellow right wingers trying to pretend that a group doesn’t have the same rights as you because you don’t like them. Sorry, Morgan, despite your sides fervent wish to the contrary..this is not Nazi Germany and you don’t get to play favorites.
Furthermore what you are doing in effect is pissing your pants and acting like scared little children surrendering to the terrorists. Because above all else what they want is for the West to view all of Islam as the enemy..they want to turn this into a war against the entirety of Islam. And there you sit…giving them exactly what they want like a scared little child.
And there the right wing sits…once again thinking that they’ll protect the United States by giving up everything the United States says it stands for. Your side is a bunch of weak willed, unintelligent, xenophobic, fascistesque, scared shittless cowards, Morgan.
The worst thing you can do yourself to the terrorists, Morgan, is to refuse to give them what they want. To refuse to let them make this a war against the entirety of Islam. The worst thing you can do to them, Morgan, is to refuse to let what they did make you hate and fear 1 billion people for no reason other then they exist.
So grow some balls for once.
The issue with the permit process cuts to the very basis of a permit process. What’s being conveniently neglected here is that “permit” is a verb as well as a noun. Any homeowner who’s ever applied for a permit can describe this issue to you.
You can be denied for whatever reason. You can see your application simply dropped into a memory hole, so that it’s never denied OR approved. That’s what is so odious about a permit process. So all these protestations from you, President Obama, and the others that there’s some “right” to an affirmative outcome of this process are just silly, which is why so few are actually stating this outright.
You don’t have a right to have a permit approved. If you did, it wouldn’t be a permit.
Are you saying the RLUIPA does indeed create such a right? Links, please, to the cases in which it had this kind of an impact. First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech — you can attend a public hearing about a permit, putting a voice behind the objections of the community. And if this results in a negative outcome, then so be it. See, this gets back to my original point — this mindset continues to paint itself into the same corner, time and again, where the “rights” of some people are honored and the rights of others are not.
So you hate the smell of hypocrisy. Glad to see you’re on my side!
Regarding this other matter, the list of 2,996, that’s a simple equation involving logic, common sense, and set arithmetic. The insinuation is that nobody knows the size of some set, which is a subset of a larger set, well established. The number of the subset (Muslim victims of 9/11) has been placed as high as 1,200, roughly 40%.
Your bullshit detector should be going off at the idea that this statistic is shrouded in such mystery, because the only way this could be so is through uncertainty about the denomination of the 2,996. Now, how much uncertainty could there possibly be? Seriously.
I’m unaware of any credible, public list of the faiths of the victims. I’m unaware of any such list at all.
As Dr. Kinnamon noted, Moslems performed valuable public service, and gave their lives trying to aid the victims of the attack. Those facts about Salman Hamdani were unknown until his body was found.
About 7% of Americans are followers of Islam. Are you willing to wager a smaller percentage of a heterogeneous group of people in the World Trade Center were? 7% of about 3,000 would be 210. Got different figures?
Let’s make it a more realistic hypothetical, Morgan.
Let’s say the group bought the land, recorded the deed, has the building drawn up and ready to go, and now the construction company has asked for a permit to build.
On what basis can anyone deny the permit, without trampling the First Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalize Persons Act (RLUIPA). That last law, by the way, was passed to frustrate local governments’ ability to put restrictions on churches, for example, by preventing a church from demolishing a building considered extra valuable because it is an historic building. It was passed by people who share your antipathy to government, exactly to frustrate government doing things like telling the Xyzzy group they can’t build in Oklahoma City, or any group of Moslems they can’t build near Ground Zero in New York City.
Your argument suffers from a lot of missing fact and nuance. McVeigh professed to be a bit of a Christian. He showed profound sympathy for some of the Aryan Nation and white supremacy groups who claim to be following religious dictates of the Bible. Were your hypothetical to be more realistic, you’d present it as a general ban on Christian churches withing hailing distance of the old Murrah Building.
And, were your hypothetical more realistic, you’d be going ballistic over any proposal to put up a huge cross close to Ground Zero.
I hate the smell of burning hypocrisy in the morning (or any other time).
Yeah, you know what? I’ve come across some more documents.
A Christian Fellowship center has applied for a permit, once the WTC has been rebuilt, to erect a huge marble cross right over the main entrance. It will stretch from twenty to eighty feet off the ground, with a life-like sculpture of The Savior nailed to it, it will cost $8 mllion to erect, and $1 million a year to maintain. That center will pay for all of this. They just want to be given the green light.
As for rights, there is a “free expression” clause in the First Amendment.
Slam dunk, right?
Morgan,
I think you’re missing one important point: it’s not one group’s feelings being more or less important than another group’s feelings. It’s about one group’s RIGHTS versus another group’s feelings.
The feelings vs feelings arguement is about being good neighbors, while this issue is about how is legally allowed to be your neighbor. Two quite different things.
Brett
Hey Nick,
You may be interested to know I’ve come across some documents that prove Tim McVeigh was in fact quite religious, and belonged to a church called Xyzzy. Now, it hasn’t made the news lately but the Xyzzy church has stepped forward and requested a permit to build a shrine to the Xyzzy religion close to where McVeigh bombed the Federal Building in Oklahoma City. Their plans call for a $100 million Fellowship Center.
They’ve provided many assurances that this is not about a poke-in-the-eye directed at the Federal Government, or at the victims of the 1995 bombing. But nobody knows where their $100 million is coming from, to say nothing of the funds that will be required to maintain it. It’s all a complete mystery. Can they be granted the permit, pretty-please?
No, none of that’s true; I just pulled it out of my ass, as you can easily figure out.
But it’s a legitimate hypothetical case. You’d completely back them on this right? Because if it happened, most of the people I know, like me, would be consistent. We’d tell them to piss up a rope.
This is nothing but white guilt on steroids. A legitimate extension of feelings of togetherness, diversity, healing, communication — would recognize the issue and relocate the center.
And like it or not, the argument of “shut up & give it a green light” is unsustainable because it is self-contradictory; this is an issue on which we nay-sayers are arguing not just from a position of logic and common sense, but of sensitivity to feelings as well. Those who say shut up and go ahead, therefore, are placed in the absurd position of arguing that some peoples’ feelings should reign supreme, and the feelings of others do not matter.
And Nick K, I agree that the demonization of Muslims in the US by right wing whackos is just like… well, it’s not even necessary to finish that sentence if one has half a brain.
fanatic white christianists know nothing about anything other than:
jesus is my personal lord and savior.
god opens doors for me.
the united state’s constitution is based on the bible.
the united states is a christian nation.
homosexuals are damned to eternal hell.
obama is a communist.
that’s it.
thank you very much.
And once again the right wing, pardon the vulgarity, has pissed its pants like scared children since 9-11 and insists on surrendering to the terrorists who attacked us and giving them what they want.
Would some right winger here like to try and explain how the protest against that mosque in New York City and the protests against all the other mosques, the demonizing of all Muslims, isn’t like what the Nazi’s did to the Jews before the Holocaust?
Where does it say in the 1st Admendment “but not Muslims”?
Ed,
I’ve seen you talk many times before about your “Hemingway Bullshit Detector.”
In view of the fact that the complete list of 9/11 victims has been well established, for nearly all of the 8y11mo since the attacks, and pegged at 2,996, I wonder what statements like “No one knows how many Muslims died on 9/11 but they number in the hundreds” does to that detector. How is it that no one knows?
And how come the feelings of those who were friends or relatives of this unknown number — and therefore, we cannot know how many friends+relatives there are, therefore we don’t know who they are, exactly…are so legitimate that we need a $100mil center to extend the honors thought necessary. But the feelings of the person who would be offended, are not legitimate at all?
I’ve noticed this seems to be a constant when we try to make a world that works for “everybody”; we’re constantly leaving some people in and some people out.
Where’s the $100mil coming from, anyway?