Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson on the “Ground Zero mosque”:
How precisely is our cause served by treating the construction of a non-radical mosque in Lower Manhattan as the functional equivalent of defiling a grave? It assumes a civilizational conflict instead of defusing it. Symbolism is indeed important in the war against terrorism. But a mosque that rejects radicalism is not a symbol of the enemy’s victory; it is a prerequisite for our own. …
There are many reasons to criticize Obama’s late, vacillating response to the Manhattan mosque, and perhaps even to criticize this particular mosque. But those who want a president to assert that any mosque would defile the neighborhood near Ground Zero are asking him to undermine the war on terrorism. A war on Islam would make a war on terrorism impossible.
Meanwhile, Halperin pleads with Republicans:
There are a handful of good reasons to oppose allowing the Islamic center to be built so close to Ground Zero, particularly the family opposition and the availability of other, less raw locations. But what is happening now — the misinformation about the center and its supporters; the open declarations of war on Islam on talk radio, the Internet and other forums; the painful divisions propelled by all the overheated rhetoric — is not worth whatever political gain your party might achieve. …
[A] national political fight conducted on the terms we have seen in the past few days will lead to a chain reaction at home and abroad that will have one winner — the very extreme and violent jihadists we all can claim as our true enemy.
Shockingly, I suspect the GOP will ignore Halperin’s advice.
I don’t get the anti-mosque people at all. Watching Geraldo, and other Fox News programs, you’d get the sense that Islam attacked us on 9/11 not “the terrorists”. Even the Bush Administration tried to differentiate Muslim Americans from Al Queda. I know this is from Fox News, but 70% of Americans are opposed to building the mosque? Why is it even a news story at all? Why is anyone offended at all? Why do the 9/11 families matter now that one is opposed to the mosque? The 9/11 families didn’t matter when they vocally opposed the Bush Administration.
This seems like the wedge issue of the election season to get scared white republicans to the polls to vote for more white republicans in the congress and senate so that they could continue to do nothing to stop the building of the mosque, but say a lot of tough border-line racist, border-line xenophobic rhetoric, and go back to putting themselves and their party first while hurting the country like they did the 12 years before the Democrats took power in 2007.
That’s the same mealy-mouth bullcrap they’ve been trying to feed us since Abu Ghraib and Gitmo. Indeed, ever since 9/11 — “If we enact the PATRIOT Act, the terrorists will have won!” [/rolls eyes]
Obama should never have touched the issue of the mosque with a ten-foot pole. Now that he did, I’m not going to cry that it’s blowing up in his face.
AML, freedom doesn’t disappear all at once, it goes a cut at a time. Religious freedom is a necessary one. I might thing your religion is stupid, that does not mean I have the right to tell you not to practice it.
And as I mentioned, in the “I don’t doubt” thread. This is the neighborhood in question Looks like it could be just about anywhere in Manhattan to me.
What I don’t understand is why Republicans say they are for freedom except when it really matters. Freedom doesn’t matter when it’s easy. What matters is the hard stuff. And the Republicans always break on the hard stuff.
think, not thing. Clearly. I can not type today it would seem…
Have Republicans, or the almost 70% of Americans who agree with them (or who Republicans agree with), actually said that Muslims don’t have the right to practice their religion or have a mosque next to Ground Zero?
Your linky no worky.
And as was stated in the other thread, this isn’t about Muslims having the “right” to build a mosque. The issue is whether it is appropriate given the location. There’s nothing wrong with asking people to refrain from exercising their “right” to do something. This is no different than protesting to have a strip club or liquor store moved a particular distance from a school or park.
lets try this linky http://daryllang.com/blog/4421 Brendan, why linky no worky?
Wait, I’m confused, if they have the right to do this, then umm, what exactly are we talking about? A local zoning debate, or if we should abrogate the Constitution to make people feel better?
And nobody seems to be able to answer the simple question of how far away is far enough?
Wait, I’m confused, if they have the right to do this, then umm, what exactly are we talking about?
Is that a serious question?
A local zoning debate, or if we should abrogate the Constitution to make people feel better?
As PrezBO is so fond of saying, that is a false choice.
And nobody seems to be able to answer the simple question of how far away is far enough?
Probably because there is a simpler and more poignant question of why put a mosque at this particular location.
Yes, its a serious question. Next is actually two questions are we seriously having a national debate about the federal government interfering in a local zoning debate, apparently, and are we discussing ignoring the free exercise clause–either you ignore it or you don’t–you can’t be a little pregnant on this one. Nice job ignoring the operative question with one that possesses a simple and rather useless answer, because that’s where the dude owns land zoned for what he wants to do. So in reply, the answer simply is why not? A point that would be incumbent on you to answer and if not there then where? also a point that it would be incumbent on you to answer.
dcl, this is the neighborhood in question. I think that qualifies as “in the shadow of Ground Zero” to me. (if linky no worky: http://www.aipnews.com/talk/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=16201&posts=1#M42254 )
I dispute the reductive dismissal of anti-mosque arguments as xenophobic. I think most of “the GOP” (if by that you mean the two-thirds of Americans who oppose the mosque) are basically in the camp of Debra Burlingame. (if linky no worky: http://www.911familiesforamerica.org/?p=4829 )
As with a great deal of things, just because you can, it doesn’t mean that you should.
Okay Mike, then where should he build it? For that matter, are you saying that a Muslim chaplain can’t have an office in the wing of the pentagon that was hit, or should we kick him out of the pentagon entirely? For that matter if Scientologists creep me out does that mean I can kick them out of my neighborhood?
“The terrorists practice a fringe form of Islamic extremism that has been rejected by Muslim scholars and the vast majority of Muslim clerics — a fringe movement that perverts the peaceful teachings of Islam…
“…I also want to speak tonight directly to Muslims throughout the world. We respect your faith. It’s practiced freely by many millions of Americans, and by millions more in countries that America counts as friends. Its teachings are good and peaceful, and those who commit evil in the name of Allah blaspheme the name of Allah. The terrorists are traitors to their own faith, trying, in effect, to hijack Islam itself. The enemy of America is not our many Muslim friends; it is not our many Arab friends. Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists, and every government that supports them.
“…Americans are asking: What is expected of us? I ask you to live your lives, and hug your children. I know many citizens have fears tonight, and I ask you to be calm and resolute, even in the face of a continuing threat.
“I ask you to uphold the values of America, and remember why so many have come here. We are in a fight for our principles, and our first responsibility is to live by them. No one should be singled out for unfair treatment or unkind words because of their ethnic background or religious faith.”
— Excerpts (emphases added), President George W. Bush. address to Congress & the American people, September 20, 2001
But your question isn’t operative at all. Contrary to the obtuse ramblings of (thankfully) a distinct minority of Americans, the issue here is NOT religious freedom. Tellingly, you refused to answer the question of whether a meaningful number mosque opponents have actually said that Muslims don’t have the right to practice their religion or have a mosque next to Ground Zero, which means the answer is no. And since most people do in fact have common sense and get that the question is NOT whether Muslims have the right to put a mosque where they choose but rather whether it’s wrong, tasteless, offensive, insensitive, etc. to exercise that right in this way so close to Ground Zero, the simple and likewise useless answer to YOUR question is … far enough away that the mosque actually accomplishes — or at the very least doesn’t hinder — its organizers’ purported goal of fostering understanding between cultures.
Joe Mama #14 – to put what you said a little differently – IF the mosque-builders’ aim is to foster understanding between cultrues, then that can be practised anywhere in NYC – the location doesn’t matter … and one of the best ways to foster understanding is to listen, to pay attention …
It would display understanding between cultures to have the religiously-explicit part of the building keep as low a profile as possible …
It should be easy to convey the cultural understanding involved in this situation by asking those proposing to build it what they woudl think if the situation was reversed – would they support the building of a synagogue or Christian church an equivalent distance away from Grand Mosque in Mecca ? The reasons why that ain’t going to happen are basically the same reasons why a mosque in the proposed location is Not A Good Thing …
I can’t imagine finding optimal real estate is easy in NYC, so acting as if this 12 story building can go just anywhere is a little misleading.
Further, I really don’t get what is “wrong, tasteless, offensive, insensitive, etc.” about putting a Mosque/Community Center/Mecca anywhere short of actually on the site itself. And I’d only stop short of the site itself because in my mind either the site is a memorial or it isn’t. If isn’t, let’s put churches and 7-11s and mosques and all sorts of shit there.
But even right next to the damn thing, who cares?
Apparently Harry Reid cares. So we can now start adding endangered Democratic politicians to the list of those opposing the Ground Zero mosque (previously limited to just wingnut conservatives and, uh, 70% of the public).
if that truly is the position of the Mosque opponents they are doing a poor job of articulating it. But the question remains, where would you have them put it? And if the goal really is to simply have them respect the feelings of those that lost loved one’s on 9/11 they aren’t doing the best job of opening a dialogue.
The first amendment is clear. So to change the plan you must engage those that would build it not demonize them.
New York currently boasts at least 30 mosques so it’s not as if there is pressing need to find space for worshippers. The fact we Muslims know the idea behind the Ground Zero mosque is meant to be a deliberate provocation to thumb our noses at the infidel. The proposal has been made in bad faith and in Islamic parlance, such an act is referred to as “Fitna,” meaning “mischief-making” that is clearly forbidden in the Koran.
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Mischief+Manhattan/3370303/story.html#ixzz0wcZNOGAS
You know what my favorite part of this is, gahrie? If we let them build the mosque, some lunatic fundamentalist fringe of Islam gets to laugh and claim a conquest over the stoopid Americans. If we don’t let them build the mosque, we have violated our constitutional principles and the terrorists will have won.
Folks, the Constitution is not a suicide pact. I am not saying we should stop this Islamic center even if it means violating the First Amendment, but it’s an argument in bad faith to say we have to let this small group of NYC Muslims antagonize 70% of Americans so we can better sleep at night knowing we’ve hewed consistently to our constitutional principles. Heaven forbid the bad guys not like us and accuse us of being hypocrites!
Personally, I agree with William Kristol…the mosque will never be built because no contractors are going to be willing to do the work.
Any of you have any idea how many Churches are in New York City? I’ve tried Googling it and as best as I can tell the number is well over 1,000 and probably more like 7,000 – 10,000. Though it’s rather difficult filtering out the tri-state area on the search. Still 30 seems pretty paltry in comparison, NYC is a big f*n’ place.
I say build it right there, but put a bunch of strip clubs and gay bars all around it.
If the people behind the mosque want to exercise their American right to bad taste, surely they won’t oppose others doing the same.
dcl:
It’s not the number of churches compared to the number of mosques that matters.
It’s the number of mosques compared to the number of Muslims in New York, specifically the number of Muslims near Ground Zero who lack access to a mosque that matters.
Folks, the Constitution is not a suicide pact.
Are you fucking shitting me? Really? Here, in this conversation, that’s a relevant statement? They aren’t putting a nuclear fucking bomb in the middle of the mosque.
we have to let this small group of NYC Muslims antagonize 70% of Americans so we can better sleep at night knowing we’ve hewed consistently to our constitutional principles.
No, it’s an argument in bad faith to say that those supposed 70% of Americans shouldn’t go get bent. I mean really. Why do they care? Who gives a shit?
Sorry, language. :/ Feel free to edit or delete that comment as you see fit Brendan.
I say build the mosque. I bet 70% of Americans also enjoy listening to Lady Gaga. Clearly, the unwashed masses shouldn’t be trusted. /elitism
I think Jim has used the appropriate language. This is one of those issues, like gay marriage, that really comes down to racism, homophobia, xenophobia, bigotry, contrived into some kind of argument based on emotions only. This is exposed when the anti-mosque people say it’s worth violating the 1st amendment to prevent it from being built. ‘Those people’ need to ask themselves some serious questions and do some soul searching, maybe kiss Al Sharptons feet or do an apology tour.
THIS is what the 1st amendment is for. This is what the Bill of Rights is for. It’s tasteless to build a mosque blocks away from Ground Zero? Aren’t Republicans suppose to be for less regulation? Aren’t republicans suppose to be for getting the government out of business and religious decisions? Republicans are a bunch of phonies, if Terry Shiavo didn’t expose them as petty and wanting to micro-manage everyone’s life, this sure does.
Aren’t Republicans suppose to be for less regulation? Aren’t republicans suppose to be for getting the government out of business and religious decisions? Republicans are a bunch of phonies,
Either you haven’t bothered to read our posts, or you haven’t understood what we have said.
None of us wants a government regulation.
None of us wants the government to intervene in a business or religious decision.
We agree they have the right to build the mosque.
That doesn’t mean it is the right thing to do.
“None of us wants a government regulation.”
So I can walk up to you and kill you tommorow and the government should do nothing?
Or, to be more buisness oriented, I should be able to put rat poison in the food I sell and not tell anyone about it?
How about led paint in toys?
How about I can fire you for being black? Or muslim?
Anyone who thinks that some level of government regulation in society isn’t a good thing is completely and utterly unaware of history and the abuses that have happened. Its one thing to argue over where the line should be drawn, but to decry all government regulation altogether is to expose oneself as an idealogue with no actual understanding of the issues involved or the entire history of human society. No government regulation is about as desireable as complete government regulation.
That doesn’t mean it is the right thing to do.
What makes it the wrong thing to do?
Why would you begrudge your fellow Americans the opportunity to exercise their freedom of religion?
reread that one part, your fellow Americans.
These aren’t some scary boogey men from Saudi or Waziristan (not that it necessarily makes a difference, but I’m making a point here). These are Americans, just as much as you are, hell, probably more so, since you don’t have to put up with shit like this.
It is only in poor taste if you believe that being Muslim links directly to being violent. If you believe there are Muslims who are violent who have grudges against American and there are Muslims who are not who do not, then there is nothing tasteless about it.
And the whole “do they even need it” is a bit of a smoke screen too. This is a city where, like most cities, I can stand in front of a Starbucks and see two more within my field of vision without straining. We don’t get to decide, via a mathematical equation, if the population of NYC Muslims is overserved. The invisible hand of the market/NYC zoning board(s) get to do that.
“None of us wants a government regulation.”
So I can walk up to you and kill you tommorow and the government should do nothing?
You have to be trolling here. I refuse to believe you are that stupid.
I was obvious referring to the question of the Ground Zero mosque, and not attacking all regulations everywhere.
“If we let them build the mosque, some lunatic fundamentalist fringe of Islam gets to laugh and claim a conquest over the stoopid Americans.”
If you actually care about that, you’ve conceded far more than the building of a mosque. Why should I give a shit what some lunatic fundamentalist fringe of Islam thinks? You’re actually letting that kind of bullshit intimidate you? I happen to think the principles of our country can withstand something like that.
“it’s an argument in bad faith to say we have to let this small group of NYC Muslims antagonize 70% of Americans so we can better sleep at night knowing we’ve hewed consistently to our constitutional principles”
So this small group of NYC Muslims is really going to antagonize 70% of the country? Give me a break. This wouldn’t even be news if people like you didn’t huff a special brand of right-wing-implosion paint over it.
All of you arguing against this mosque: you’ve completely lost it on this issue. All of this talk just smacks of desperate posturing. You’re beat on the facts, you’re beat on the law, and you’re beat on the principle of the thing. You have nothing but an “ick” factor on which to base your argument and that’s just NOT good enough.
It is only in poor taste if you believe that being Muslim links directly to being violent
Go read my link in comment #19.
Truly moderate Muslims recognize the Ground Zero mosque for what it is, a deliberate provocation.
Why should I give a shit what some lunatic fundamentalist fringe of Islam thinks?
Because they are the ones killing us.
What makes it the wrong thing to do?
Are you fucking shitting me? Really? You can’t possibly be that obtuse.
No, I’m not shitting you. What’s wrong with peaceful Americans worshipping somewhere?
In regards to the article you linked on #19, the authors have decided it is meant as a provocation, they have no specific insight or knowledge that it is. An alternate explanation might be that these Muslims are hoping to demonstrate that Islam can exist as a peaceful, pro-America faith by building a cultural center with a prayer space a few blocks away from an area where some people that claimed to follow the same faith but perverted did something awful. It could be an attempt to redeem, not provoke.
What’s wrong with peaceful Americans worshipping somewhere? All things being equal, nothing at all. Of course, things are so friggin’ far from being equal in this situation for such painfully obvious reasons that that question is utterly ridiculous.
In regards to the article you linked on #19, the authors have decided it is meant as a provocation, they have no specific insight or knowledge that it is
…except the whole “Muslim reporters covering the issue ” thing…….
So does that mean that a random Catholic on the street has special insights into the conflict in Northern Ireland, or are you just blowing smoke out your bum?
Joe Mama: No, I don’t think they’re painfully obvious. It wasn’t painfully obvious to anyone that we shouldn’t build christian churches in Atlanta after the olympic bombing, because everyone recognized that it was the work of an outlier, and wasn’t representative of the larger religion.
So does that mean that a random Catholic on the street has special insights into the conflict in Northern Ireland,
No….but a Catholic reporter covering a story on Northern Ireland might……
I had no idea that Eric Rudolph set off the Olympic park bomb in the name of his religion, whatever it might be, and I suspect that not that many other people do either, probably because (among a great many other things) religion was tangential at best to his professed reasons for the bombing, in stark contrast to 9/11.
No, actually it wasn’t tangential at all. It appears you aren’t familiar with him or his motives at all. You are aware he also attacked abortion clinics, aren’t you? You are also aware that he said,
the purpose of the attack on July 27th was to confound, anger and embarrass the Washington government in the eyes of the world for its abominable sanctioning of abortion on demand.
Yeah… it was definitely tangential. ::rolls eyes::
So does that mean that a random Catholic on the street has special insights into the conflict in Northern Ireland, or are you just blowing smoke out your bum?
Oh please. These aren’t “random” Muslims — the authors of the article gahrie (and I) linked to sit on the Muslim Canadian Congress. I’m not familiar with that particular body, but I think it’s pretty safe to say that gives them at least a little more insight or knowledge than dcl or Tim Stevens, who appear to have even less insight or knowledge about Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf and his motivations (and exactly how building a mosque next to Ground Zero will “demonstrate that Islam can exist as a peaceful, pro-America faith” remains a mystery). Seriously, do you guys even read what other people are saying or linking to before spouting off about it?
Huh? Somehow Canadian Muslims have some magical insight into another human beings motivations?
Please. You are really grasping at straws here.
Yes Jim, it was tangential. Roll your eyes all you like, but being a radical pro-lifer (which was only one of his professed reasons for the bombing) does not equate one with any particular religion.
Somehow Canadian Muslims have some magical insight into another human beings motivations?
Muslims are likely to have more insight (“magical”…nice touch) than non-Muslims into the motivations of other Muslims, absolutely. Let me guess, this is another non-obvious insight to you…
You’re comparing Eric Rudolph to 9/11 and I’m that one grasping at straws here? That’s adorable.
JoeMama: Perhaps one could be a radical pro-lifer without being a christian, but you aren’t a radical pro-lifer who isn’t a christian who quotes the bible in your writings on why you did what you did.
And no, Muslims do not have some special insight into other Muslims, especially not what their motivations are in a particular situation. That’s preposterous. Really, I’m not trying to be mean here, but you are making a fool out of yourself to try and prove a point.
Do I know what the motivations of other atheists are in different countries? Of course not. Seriously, this is laughable on its face.
JoeMama: Oh, I see, so at a certain cut off we should suddenly care about the religion of the perpetrators. Hahahahahaha!
If a Christian group wanted to build a church to honor Eric Rudolf at Olympic Park…I would oppose it.
How about we prevent any churches from being built in Oklahoma City? How about we prevent the NRA from having any offices there? How about the Republicans? Timothy McVeigh” was motivated by his political and other beliefs to do what he did, shouldn’t we hold all people who hold similar affiliation to the same standard?
Gahrie: the mosque is neither at ground zero nor is it in honor of the 9/11 terrorists.
Jim Kelly #54 … actually, yes …
As Thugee or Hashshashin or when the religion has as one of its proud tenets taqiyya … or even, closer to home, <b.Tlaloc worship …
Jim:
So you think the site was picked at random?
So do you guys think the Catholic church should have gone ahead and left the convent at Auschwitz?
I think I don’t care if there is or is not a Catholic convent at Auschwitz. Just like I don’t care if someone builds a Mosque 2 blocks away from Ground Zero next to a strip club.
Assuming you know what motivates another person can be folly. I don’t know if the Imam’s motives are pure or not. No idea. But it doesn’t matter, he has the right to do it. If you want him not to do it you will need to engage him in a dialogue about it, not vilify him, throw up a smoke screen and howl until the government decides to abrogate the Constitution to make you feel better.
Whether Rudolph was actually a Christian is beside the point. His written statement that you quoted from is far more political and moral than religious, and he in fact denied that his bombings were religiously motivated.
And no, Muslims do not have some special insight into other Muslims, especially not what their motivations are in a particular situation. That’s preposterous. Really, I’m not trying to be mean here, but you are making a fool out of yourself to try and prove a point.
It’s of course not preposterous at all, and that you insist it’s not true without any basis is hilarious. Would non-Muslims be familiar with Fitna? Would non-Muslims know that mosques are often exclusive places of worship for Muslims that do not allow outsiders? Would non-Muslims be familiar with the rhetoric employed by imams in mosques? Would non-Muslims be more likely than Muslims to know about Islam’s past? I agree with you though that you probably don’t know the motivations of other atheists, but atheists aren’t bound by a belief system based on religious texts, culture and tradition, so that analogy is silly. I’m not trying to be mean here either, but your repeated insults just show how weak your argument really is.
Oh, I see, so at a certain cut off we should suddenly care about the religion of the perpetrators. Hahahahahaha!
Were you trying to make a point?
I can’t answer for Jim, gahrie, but my guess would be that the site was not picked at random. Rather it was picked because it was available.
And in #60, do you mean the convent that nuns were ordered to leave in ’93? The one that nuns were asked to leave for another convent in the area or their previous convent? If so, a couple of thoughts. 1.) They were asked to leave a convent actually on Auschwitz’s grounds, not two blocks away and 2.) they were invited to move to a convent that would be the equivalent of two blocks away.
Additionally, this issue was the result of an agreement the Catholic Church struck in ’89 and then did not honor regarding a new Christian-Jewish Community Center (there are those two words again).
Third, to engage in a debate about a Catholic (or Christian) presence in or near Auschwitz requires a deep understanding of the decades old jockeying for position that has occurred in Poland including this convent issue and the so-called War of Crosses which I doubt either of us has. Particularly because Catholicism is dominant in Poland (thus not something that, arguably, needs to be protected) and Judiasm and its practicioners are far more few (thus a people who might need some consideration and protection from the government).
Fouth, Poland is not the US and I dare say we live by different rules and ideals.
Finally, I am always uncomfortable with the idea of comparing the Holocaust to 9/11 as while both are tragedies, I think we can all agree that to compare one to the other as if they are equivalent does a disservice to what a monstrous, horrific event the Holocaust truly was.
But to treat your question at face value: I do not purport to know how the Polish government or the Catholic Chuch should act towards Auschwitz; I do feel, that as the dominant religious force in the country, the Catholic Church did the right thing in recognizing the Jewish people’s minority status and respecting Auschwitz as a place to be protected for them. I again point out that the nuns were free to go to the nearby convent. I then draw a parallel between this and the fact that the Cultural Center would be built not on Ground Zero but rather two blocks away.
Additionally, I reject your question as being the worst kind of strawman. I applaud everyone for waiting 60 comments before going the Holocaust route.
I am not sure about the whole “outsiders not allowed in mosques” thing. I am about as WASP-y as they come (and I shave my head!) and I’ve been into mosques a half a dozen times or so and never once been asked to leave. Additionally, I’ve never been threatened, heard the Muslims there being incited to attack America or Christians or our ways of life. Muslims, like Christians or Jews or Hindis, etc etc do not all subscribe to a monotholic faith system. They are bound by basic principles (There is no God but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet) but differ in many real ways. Just as a Catholic believes in transubstantiation but a Lutheran does not or an Orthodox Jewish person will not drive on the Sabbath but a Reformed Jewish person would, so too do Muslims differ in the way they believe their basic faith principles should be practiced.
I agree with Tim that comparing 9/11 to the Holocaust does a great disservice to the latter. Comparing 9/11 to the Olympic park bombing does a similar disservice to the former.
Alasdair, #58: Huh? What does any of that have to do with the idea that we require a certain body count before caring that religion was part of a motive? Further what does it have to do with the conversation at all? I’m honestly asking, it all seems completely unrelated, other than for one of the items you seem to be bashing Muslims because they are okay with concealing their religion in order to avoid persecution. We’ve never heard of that in other religions, no sir.
JoeMama, #62: If it has nothing to do with it, then why does the religion of the 9/11 terrorists have anything to do with this? A bit of a double standard, it seems. Osama bin Laden is more than happy to rattle of secular foreign policy goals in his reasoning for his terrorism, but I see you suddenly lack nuance when it doesn’t suit you. But sure, let’s sit here and pretend the guy that quotes the bible when trying to justify his bombing of abortion clinics and the olympics isn’t religiously motivated. Yeah, let’s do that.
you insist it’s not true without any basis is hilarious.
Except I don’t have to provide a basis. You are asserting something to be true, I am not. I am simply saying your assertion is wrong, and it’s based on the fact that you’ve provided no evidence aside from, “yuh huh! it is so true!” And you can’t, because the idea that people can ascertain the motives of others without personal knowledge of them or ya know, actual specific evidence, is laughable.
And what do any of the things you mention have to do with this? Is the rhetoric of all Imams the same? Is Islam’s past monolithic? Are these two groups (the NYC one and the Canadian one) even part of the same sect of Islam? I don’t know, but I would wager you probably don’t either. Yet suddenly these Canadian’s opinions on what the motives of those supporting the NYC project are suddenly so worthwhile.
It’s a bit of a catch-22 though, isn’t it? If these Canadians know muslims the world over to be such devious little bastards, then obviously they themselves are devious little bastards, right? So what’s their angle. Who is funding them?! My god, it’s a conspiracy! Your thought process is wholly illogical.
So we can either believe this group of yahoos who to my knowledge has no personal knowledge of the project or its founders, or we can look at Rauf’s track record. He seems to have dedicated his life to building bridges, creating organizations that promote positive integration between muslims and the United States. But I guess all that has just been a plant for his real goal, pissing people off by practicing his faith.
Oh, and re: allowing non-Muslims to enter mosques. I’ve entered mosques and holy sites in Afghanistan, unarmed, without any sort of military or UN escort, with out a problem in a city where those in my party were the only westerners we saw the entire time we were there. I’m not claiming that any westerner can enter any mosque the world over without a problem, but it certainly would appear, from my experience, that being barred from a mosque is not the rule.
In opposition to that, I can’t enter the Mormon temple sitting just outside the DC beltway because I’m not a Mormon.
Jim, point at 68. Thanks, I just had a thought… What if I’m offended to see the Mormon temple every time I drive west around the beltway from 95… The Mormons won’t say who, but they pray dead people into their faith, and it bugs me that they might have tried to do this wacky stuff to my relatives without my knowledge or consent. And the person to whom the book of Mormon was “revealed” was a also a convicted con artist in the state of New York. So lets say I’m deeply offended by the Mormon faith and they could be actively doing naughty stuff to my dead relatives! And now I have to see their Temple just outside my Nations Capital all the time! Does that mean that I get to force them to tear down their Temple and tell them to go practice somewhere else, after all there are plenty of Mormon churches around.
Get real, the answer to that is obviously hell no. And he Mormon Temple is many many many orders of magnitude more obvious than the cultural center that is being proposed.
Build a bridge, get over it, and put on your big boy and girl pants kids.
Where is this supposed double standard? It is undisputed that the 9/11 terrorists killed in the name of their religion, whereas Eric Rudolph did not — he killed because he was radically pro-life. I don’t have to pretend that he wasn’t religiously motivated becausehe friggin’ said so. Rudolph stated very clearly that his bombings were targeted at people “for what they did” (or what he thinks they did, i.e., committed abortion), NOT because of who they were or what their religion is (or is not). That is in very stark contrast to the 9/11 terrorists. Further, I suspect that OBL’s “foreign policy goals” that you refer to are not nearly as secular as you think.
You are asserting something to be true, I am not. I am simply saying your assertion is wrong, and it’s based on the fact that you’ve provided no evidence aside from, “yuh huh! it is so true!” And you can’t, because the idea that people can ascertain the motives of others without personal knowledge of them or ya know, actual specific evidence, is laughable.
You’re full of it, Jim. I’ve explained my utterly unremarkable assertion that Muslims could have insight into the motivations of others of the same religion (particularly where those motivations are religiously based), but you just ignore it, keep insisting it’s “laughable” (sort of like “yuh huh!” actually) and answer my questions with irrelevant ones of your own. The rhetoric of all Imams obviously need not be identical, and all Muslims need not be from the same sect, for published Muslim authors who sit on the board of a Muslim organization to have worthwhile opinions of other Muslims’ religious motivations.
It’s a bit of a catch-22 though, isn’t it? If these Canadians know muslims the world over to be such devious little bastards, then obviously they themselves are devious little bastards, right? So what’s their angle. Who is funding them?! My god, it’s a conspiracy! Your thought process is wholly illogical.
I see that you know something about lacking nuance when it doesn’t suit you. Don’t be stupid, Jim. No one is making anything like those straw man arguments.
So we can either believe this group of yahoos who to my knowledge has no personal knowledge of the project or its founders, or we can look at Rauf’s track record. He seems to have dedicated his life to building bridges, creating organizations that promote positive integration between muslims and the United States. But I guess all that has just been a plant for his real goal, pissing people off by practicing his faith.
LOL…those “yahoos” (nice disparagement there) obviously know a lot more about Rauf’s track record than you do.
Some choice quotes from WSJ and NYT op-ed pieces today:
Meanwhile, Ross Douthat has a great article on the dichotomy at play here (quoted in its entirety — yes, it is that spot-on):
Back to Taranto for a second, I wholeheartedly endorse his commentary on this sad dispute:
In that vein, the 70% of us Second Americans say, go fuck yourselves; you can take that high horse you rode in on and stick it where the sun don’t shine. We know exactly why we don’t like this particular mosque in this particular place, and none of your distortions about our character changes that. The false, opportunistic barbs about being racist, xenophobic, and benighted simply don’t sting anymore — all we care is that we get our way in the end.
“all we care is that we get our way in the end.”
Spoken like a true conservative.
Its not about whats best, or whats right, or even what the law or constitution says, its about getting your way.
I don’t have to pretend that he wasn’t religiously motivated becausehe friggin’ said so.
He did? Because I missed that. I’d like to see a quote, because yesterday you seemed pretty unfamiliar with the whole thing. Perhaps a day of study has enlightened you.
Either way, it’s pretty hard to believe he isn’t religiously motivated.
– He quotes the bible in his justification for the bombings
– He blew up abortion clinics
– He blew up a gay bar.
– He is associated with (was suspected by the FBI to have sent letters on behalf of and after being sentenced was sending letters from prison to) the Army of God.
But hey, he’s a secular guy, isn’t he!
Further, I suspect that OBL’s “foreign policy goals” that you refer to are not nearly as secular as you think.
I actually can’t find (and haven’t been able to for years, I’ve had this conversation before) a good example of what I’m talking about. In college I came across a pretty interesting set of speeches by OBL that lay out a pretty secular set of goals. This isn’t to say that his reason for being drawn towards these goals wasn’t secular, but that the goals themselves were. This is precisely true for Rudolph, actually. Rudolph does indeed also create a rationalized, secular argument for his acts. Yet what drives him to those conclusions was religion, and the same is true of bin Laden and many terrorists.
It’s irrelevant however, to my broader point, so I’ll withdraw it (the point about OBL’s goals being secular). It’s not a distinction we really need to make here, his motives were clearly religious and that’s good enough to equate what he did with the 9/11 terrorists.
I’ve explained my utterly unremarkable assertion that Muslims could have insight into the motivations of others of the same religion
No, you never have. You’ve simply asserted it to be true. What does a Pakistani Muslim know about the motivations of a Kuwaiti one? Are they even of the same sect? I don’t know. Do you? You probably don’t. Does a German lutheran somehow have some insight into the motivations of a Born-again Texan? Probably not.
Certainly if we were discussing Rudolph’s intentions I wouldn’t give more credence to a European Catholic than anyone else.
No one is making anything like those straw man arguments.
I don’t think that was an argument, it was meant to mock your position. Sorry, I forgot that you like to pretend we’re at debate club and that I can’t poke fun at your position.
LOL…those “yahoos” (nice disparagement there) obviously know a lot more about Rauf’s track record than you do.
What is his “track record” exactly? Are you going to question the man’s character because he has a balanced view of US foreign policy? Because He happens to say a lot of things that I think.
Does that make me a terrorist JoeMama? Because I think the United States should recognize that its actions have consequences? Should we ignore the fact that I’m a patriotic American because I disagree with many of our foreign policy choices over the years? Because that’s essentially what those who are questioning Rauf’s character are doing. They are saying despite his clear statements that he does not support violence, his statements that the United States’ foreign policy leads to terrorism against us somehow disqualifies everything else he says or does.
In truth, the left favors a mosque near Ground Zero simply because most Americans find the idea obnoxious.
Get bent (both him for writing it and you for repeating it).
I’m pretty sure I haven’t questioned anyone’s motives here for believing what they believe, so don’t question mine.
Jim Kelly:
Let’s start with a simple admission that Hamas is a terrorist organization?
Will you admit that?
Because Rauf won’t.
The idea that sticking to the ideals of our country makes us bad people is just…infuriating. To paraphrase a quote who’s author I cannot recall, what’s the point of principles if you abandon them when there is something on the line or they become incovenient. Standing up for things despite the fact that you find them upsetting or distasteful is to be applauded not to be, if you will, stuck up our asses. Why would I embrace something I think Americans would find obnoxious unless I believed it meant something?
And to speak to Doughat’s point, the point of America, in my eyes is to triumph over that cultural history that has seen us be cruel to Catholics or freed slaves or gays or whomever. The “well we’ve done it this way before” argument is not acceptable to me because what we’ve done before has not always been right or just. We are given opportunities to learn from our mistakes in the past. I fail to see how embracing them does anything to further our country’s quest to become that shining city on the hill.
The idea that sticking to the ideals of our country makes us bad people is just…infuriating.
Bullshit. What a complete strawman.
No one is asking or expecting anyone to deviate from the ideals of our country. How many damned times do we have to say it.
WE KNOW THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO BUILD THE MOSQUE!!!
However we have the right to oppose the mosque and do everything we legally can to either get the project moved or canceled.
You got some land in Manhattan you are willing to trade? Knowing Manhattan real-estate, my guess for why he is building where he is is because that’s where he owns the land to do it.
gahrie, #75: No, sorry, Hamas is a political organization with a paramilitary wing, at least as it exists now. In the past I’d agree with you, but not now. Specifically, Hamas is not a terrorist group by the State Department definition because it is not a subnational group. Whether you recognize their legitimacy or not is irrelevant, they are the de facto governing party of Gaza. We could get into further reasons, but that alone is irrefutable and is sufficient to support the position.
No one is asking or expecting anyone to deviate from the ideals of our country. How many damned times do we have to say it.
I think you need to understand the difference between ideals and rights.
dcl, the NY governor appears to be trying to broker a land swap. I wholly support that effort as a reasonable way to resolve the dispute.
Tim, the point Douthat was making is that there has to be some cultural force towards the unum; e pluribus on its own will not endure. There is inevitably some xenophobia, racism, you name it — fear of the other — that manifests itself as part of this cultural force, and while that must be addressed and called out for what it is, that does not negate the legitimate concerns that underlie and propel the unifying cultural force in question. Douthat is making a very Hegelian argument — that this dialectic interaction or struggle between the First America and the Second America are what make us a Great America, since the principles and imperatives of the First Americans nor the Second Americans are sufficient to make us great without the opposing influence of the other.
AHA! Now we’re really getting to the heart of the issue (or at least the “rights” portion of the issue, separate and apart from the “bigotry” portion of the issue). Your words, gahrie, but my emphasis:
What exactly do you mean, “do everything we legally can”? What exactly do you mean, “moved or canceled”? Moved or canceled by whom?
If you mean moved or cancelled voluntarily by the developers, without government pressure or interference, and if “do everything we legally can” simply encompasses things like engaging the developers in dialogue, and/or trying to change their minds through the use of boycotts, protests, promises to build a gay bar next door, and the like, then I absolutely agree, you’re simply promoting the exercise of your First Amendment right to oppose someone else’s First Amendment-protected actions, while acknowledging their right to take those actions. We can have a separate debate about whether the substantive stance you’re advocating is motivated by legitimate concerns or by bigotry (or by some combination thereof), but it’s not a “rights” question — you aren’t infringing on anyone’s rights, if that’s all you’re advocating.
But that isn’t all that’s been happening, and you know it. Instead, the primary tactic of those opposing the mosque has been, in various ways, using the power of government to try to “get the project moved or canceled.” Opponents have tried to get the zoning commission to step in. They’ve tried to get the landmarks commission to stop the project. They’ve pressured the mayor, the governor, congressmen, senators, etc. etc., to intervene.
Now, in a certain narrow sense, using the power of government to stop the exercise of someone else’s constitutional rights falls within the umbrella of “do[ing] everything we legally can.” You’re petitioning the government for a redress of grievances — itself a core constitutional right. But the question isn’t whether you have the legal right to petition, the question is whether the relief your petition seeks is respectful of your opponents’ constitutional rights, or not. I could write a letter to President Obama asking him to send the New Black Panthers to your house and rip the Republican bumper stickers off your car, and I’d have every legal right to do that. But I’d be asking him to do something illegal and unconstitutional. Similarly here, the question is whether, by asking various governments boards and officials to step in and prevent the construction of this cultural center, you are asking them to infringe on the rights of the folks who want to build it. You say no. You say, “WE KNOW THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO BUILD THE MOSQUE!!!” But then why are you, or at least your conservative comrades-in-arms on this issue, invoking the power of government to try to stop them? That’s a complete contradiction. By definition, if you’re invoking the power of government to stop a project, you are NOT acknowledging that the builders have the “right” to do what they’re doing. You are, in fact, taking the exact opposite position, saying they don’t have that right.
Now… maybe you, gahrie, were and are personally opposed to all efforts to alter the developers’ plans through government action. Maybe you rejoiced when the zoning and landmarks commissions didn’t stop the project. Maybe you believe the only proper way to approach this issue is through dialogue and/or boycotts and/or protests and/or building gay bars nearby, etc. If so, bully for you. But that certainly hasn’t been the position of the Right generally. I’ve missed the vast numbers of principled conservatives who have, ahem, “refudiated” the heavy-handed, government-centric tactics deployed by the front-line opponents of this project. Instead what I see is a total lack of attention to the crucial distinction you are pretending is central to the opposition’s position. As such, you’re simply deluding yourself.
does not negate the legitimate concerns
Except there aren’t legitimate concerns.
From my perspective there is only one legitimate argument that a person wishing they would move the location can advocate for, and that is that the people of Manhattan and the family members of those killed who are opposed are irrationally against the location of the project because of their still raw feelings over the tragedy, and despite the lack of real reason, we should respect the feelings of those still mourning.
That is at least a reasonable position. I disagree, but I can’t argue with it.
P.S. A gray area, lying somewhere in between “using the power of government to try and stop the project” and “exercising your own First Amendment rights to try and convince the developers to change their minds, without resorting to government coercion,” is the tactic of pressuring government officials to themselves put pressure on the developers to “change their minds.” I say this is a “gray area” because there’s a big difference between “pressure” applied by a private citizen (or a group of private citizens) and “pressure” applied by government officials. The latter arguably carries with it the implicit threat of government intervention if they don’t toe the line — I urge you to not build here, or else. Government has all sorts of powers to make people’s lives difficult, which is why we generally don’t want government officials, acting in their official capacities, going around “pressuring” private citizens in ways that implicate those citizens’ core constitutional rights. Even if, ostensibly, they’re doing nothing more than applying moral pressure, there’s definitely an implicit (or sometimes explicit) coercive element that doesn’t exist when you or I apply moral pressure. This sort of thing is not always necessarily wrong, but as I said, it’s certainly a gray area.
@Jim: I’ve become enlightened alright … there is a grand total of ONE bible verse quoted by Rudolph in his April 2005 statement — Matthew 23:28 — which he cites in his criticism of the Republican Party for not being sufficiently pro-life (go figure). That’s not surprising given that his statement is almost entirely about abortion, with a little homophobia thrown in, and religion really as nothing more than an afterthought. Like I said, tangential at best. I’m a little embarrassed that I took your word that he repeatedly used bible verses as his justification for the bombings when that doesn’t appear true at all. I came across some religious websites that include bible verses before and after the text of his statement, but those don’t appear to be part of the statement itself, and even those relate only to eye-for-an-eye retribution (I’m guessing for abortion). I also saw the letter to his mother in which he said:
Sounds like he could just as well be an atheist.
Anyway, I’ve followed you down this rabbit hole far enough. Even if we were to assume that Rudolph killed in the name of his religion (which he did not), your comparison fails for another very important reason: As I mentioned above, comparing the Olympic bombing to 9/11 makes about as much sense as comparing 9/11 to the Holocaust … each comparison shows a startling lack of appreciation for how awful the latter really was. The only thing Rudolph has in common with the 9/11 terrorists is that both had an agenda and like to kill people. I suppose Rudolph could be characterized as a Christian terrorist, but then so would all serial killers.
No, you never have. You’ve simply asserted it to be true.
Bullshit, and I’m not going to repeat myself. You’re smart, track back and find it.
I don’t think that was an argument, it was meant to mock your position. Sorry, I forgot that you like to pretend we’re at debate club and that I can’t poke fun at your position.
You can say whatever you like, but stupid is stupid.
What is his “track record” exactly? Are you going to question the man’s character because he has a balanced view of US foreign policy?
That very much depends on what you mean by “balanced.” I don’t dispute that our foreign policy actions have consequences, but I question the character of anyone who thinks OBL was “made in the USA.” The same goes for anyone who does not recognize Hamas as a terrorist organization. Whether it is a “subnational group” according to State Department definitions is a lame technicality and a dodge. If you can’t condemn the “paramilitary wing” of this “political organization,” then yes, I absolutely question your character.
Because He happens to say a lot of things that I think. Does that make me a terrorist JoeMama?
I’m sure he does. That doesn’t make you a terrorist, just misquided.
From my perspective there is only one legitimate argument that a person wishing they would move the location can advocate for, and that is that the people of Manhattan and the family members of those killed who are opposed are irrationally against the location of the project because of their still raw feelings over the tragedy, and despite the lack of real reason, we should respect the feelings of those still mourning.
From my perspective, 68% of the American people have it right — building a mosque so close to Ground Zero, while legal, is inappropriate.
Brendan @ #83, you’ve more or less finally figured it out. When the controversy is of national interest at the level of anything 9/11-related, politicians are going to get involved. It’s like flies on dogshit. And when you think about it from a negotiating tactic, if I (and the other 70% of Americans who don’t want this mosque near Ground Zero) am going to be petitioning the mosque builder to change locations and/or give up his plans entirely, how best to accomplish that? Certainly I want to send in Scott Boras to negotiate on my behalf, not some low-level Joe Shmoe. Again, my objective is to get my way — even if it means relying on a lame-duck, incompetent Democratic governor and a no-good, double-talking Senate Majority Leader to do my bidding.
JoeMama, #84: Wow. Really reaching here, aren’t we? So on one side we have a bible verse quoting, abortion clinic bombing, gay bar bombing, army of god affiliated christian and on the other we have sixteen muslims whom I’d wager you’ve never heard specifically from on their reasoning for participating. I’m not claiming necessarily that it’s unreasonable assumption that those terrorists were religiously motivated, but the smart money is on the idea that you have less evidence for that belief than you are being presented about Rudolph, yet you refute Rudolph’s motivations, and why?
To your first specific refutation of the idea. Ha! Sounds like you need a little reading comprehension help here. He’s referring to what people should be sending him. He says that born-again Christians are sending him books and money. What books are they sending him? Bibles of couse. So he’d prefer they send him Nietzsche than a Bible, because he isn’t interested in what they are selling.
The man explicitly says he was born and will die a Catholic, which I’m sure you read (if not I’ll find a reference), so somehow I’m guessing your reading of what he’s saying is just a wee bit off. Let’s pretend, for a moment, however, that he is an atheist now, that has nothing to do with what his motivations were. And those were quite clear, from his justifications, to his targets, to his association with the Army of God. It appears to me you are learning about all these things step by step, as we go along. Perhaps in light of that you should reevaluate your position. I apologize, you put up a front that you knew all about it, so I didn’t consider it necessary to lay it all out on the table. But it’s essentially irrefutable, the FBI is pretty sure he sent letters as the Army of God. I mean, you could hold out the outside hope that they’re wrong, but you are going against the body of evidence. It’s an irrational position. Certainly though, if you insist on continuing with this drivel, please lay out what you do know. Because, uh, I may have to fill in the rest of the holes.
As far as your idea of a comparison… who said anything about comparing the scope of the two events? What does that have to do with anything? Does the scope influence whether we should care about the feelings of those affected? If people were against the placement of a church near centennial park would you tell them to get over it because it’s no 9/11? I doubt it. You’d more likely (and correctly) point out that Rudolph isn’t representative of the religion, and those who share a religion in name only shouldn’t be punished for his perverse deeds.
I suppose Rudolph could be characterized as a Christian terrorist, but then so would all serial killers.
Really dude? Because all serial killers quote the bible and attack traditional Christian foes, and are associated with the Army of God? Right…
Bullshit, and I’m not going to repeat myself. You’re smart, track back and find it.
Link to it. You needn’t repeat yourself, but either you never did or it was so piss-poor I don’t count it. At least tell me what you think was you justifying this position.
I question the character of anyone who thinks OBL was “made in the USA.”
Why would you question their character? I’m going to go out on a limb here and assume you’ve read the text of the interview that the quote you reproduce is from. What he says is not objectionable. He specifically says the United States did not deserve what happened, but simply stated that the policies of the United States have given rise to bin Laden. That’s an easily defensible, logically consistent position.
You might disagree, but the very fact that it evokes such a visceral reaction from you indicates that you aren’t considering the situation rationally.
From my perspective, 68% of the American people have it right — building a mosque so close to Ground Zero, while legal, is inappropriate.
If all we were after here was the results of a popularity contest this (and all other threads) would be pretty short. We’d await the pronouncement of victory based on polling, and the only debate would surround the validity of the poll.
Instead, I’d like to think that intelligent people can have discussions about the relative merits of various positions.
Scrolling through this thread, who knows where the hell I got that stupid idea.
Actually re: my comments in #87, ignore paragraph two. For the sake of argument I’ll accept your claim that he is no longer religious (despite the fact that he continued to send letters to am Army of God associate) because it’s irrelevant to the broader point questioning what his motives were at the time.
And at the time, his religious fanatacism isn’t in question, as I demonstrated above.
Perhaps we can try a different tack … another hypothetical …
A mosque (perhaps even the Ground Zero Mosque) is in rented high-rise building space … the building is sold to new owners … the new owners want to remodel the building space for other purposes (possibly even tear it down and build a different structure) … they give the mosque whatever is the legal advance warning of legal termination of lease …
Will those who currently insist that the GZM isn’t a problem for anyone because the Constitution and laws allow people to build it be anywhere near as vocal in support of the plans of the new owners of the building ? (grin) Especially if it is the Glenn Beck Foundation wanting to build a new Glenn Beck Foundation World Centre for Peace and Understanding ?
Jim #88 – (an interesting choice of comment number, by the way – symbolic of your interests in life ? (grin))
If you actually take the time to go look at the Army of God website, you will find that it is in no way either a Christian nor is it a Jewish website … instead, it is the website of a group of people who are channeling their disgust at abortion and using the Bible as support for their beliefs … there is an amazing *lack* of the central Christian tenets of Love and Forgiveness … your comment number being 88 is *just* as real a link to you being a neo-Nazi as the Army of God’s arrogation of Bible verses link them to being Christian …
No new Catholic Churches adjacent to play grounds!
Comment at #90, did you even read that? It’s simply disingenuous to say that a group that is called army of god and quotes the Bible is secular. They are clearly a Christian group. If I used your hair brained logic then the 9/11 terrorists weren’t acting because of their warped view of the Muslim religion and were not religiously motivated at all–they just happened to use the Koran but that;s not a link to their religious beliefs… Seriously you can’t be serious? That comment is just basically ridiculous. Though more ridiculous would be to attempt to argue that Army of God is representative of all Christians, which is what you are trying to do when you try and argue Al Queda’s views are representative of all Muslims. It’s bullshit. Something you seem to be throwing a lot of around today.
You know how we really let the terrorists win? By spending time commenting on this post instead of on the college football posts.
I think Obama should invite all of us to the White House for a beer.
dcl #91 – where can you find me saying anything about Army of God being secular ? I said, and I maintain, that they are *not* Christian … most of the planet is non-Christian without having to be secular …
I don’t know the Christian groups with whom you interact, but the ones I know do their best to practice the teachings of Christ – complete with Love and Forgiveness – and that ain’t the Army of God … (yeah, they/we all fail from time to time, but at least they/we try) …
The 9/11 folk hijacked planes into buildings to the cry of Allahu akbar as part of mainstream Islam … just as Rauf is part of mainstream Islam …
So, Mr Projective, who is spreading the BS around ?
kcatnd #93 – given Mr Obama’s tin ear for such things, I could see him inviting the Imam and others over for a beer … of course, since under Islam and sharia law, Mr Obama, having been born to a Muslim father, is considered to be Muslim himself, that heritage would hopefully manage to save him from being so culturally-insensitive …
Alasdair, plenty of “Christian” groups do a piss poor job of actually living up to Christs example. Neo-Nazi’s, the KKK, Westboro Baptist Church, etc. all claim to be Christian. Most rational people differentiate between them and the rest of Christendom, yet you aren’t wiling to do the same between the terrorists and the rest of Islam?
David K:
The difference is, the terrorists are living up to Mohammed’s example……..
Well if prayer space == mosque, then I think the Pentagon wins the award as the worlds largest mosque:
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/08/18/muslim-prayers-welcome-at-pentagon-chapel/?hpt=T2
Apparently someone forgot to tell the MIlitary that all Muslims were complict in the 9/11 attacks and they are out to kill us and force us to follow Sharia law.
Really? I must have missed the part where Mohammed commanded the people to crash planes into buildings…
David K #99 – I suspect you also missed :-
This aspect of Islam
Or these ones
So your first article talks about how Islam isn’t required to be forced on non-Muslims, and your second one has to do with hiding behind trees.
Ok?
Again I will point out that millions of Muslims live in this country leading peaceful lives and respecting the faiths of their friends and neighbors with not one inkling that they are somehow obligated as part of some Grand Islamic Conspiracy to convert or kill us all. I don’t know how many times people need to say it, but maybe one more time will get it through your thick skulls:
Not all Muslims are the same. Some are peaceful, some aren’t.
Opposing this community center on the grounds that all Muslims are the same is bigotry, plain and simple.
David #101 – and keeping repeating that so many folk in this country are “Opposing this community center on the grounds that all Muslims are the same is bigotry, plain and simple.” is self-serving stupidity, plain and simple …
And the first article actually concerns paying ‘protection money’ to the state-established church … something which is supposedly anathema in this country …
And the second article has to do with the well-established active anti-semitism (ironically, given that Islam is itself a semitic religion) of Islam currently being practised by millions of Muslims and being denounced by remarkably few Muslims …
Did those two sites use words with two many syllables ? Or grammar that is too hard ? Is David being anti-semantic ? (grin)
Whatever the merits of the issue end up being, it is interesting that this is yet another case of liberal elites versus the American people…..
Ummm … liberal elites versus the American people and legal immigrants …
I consider legal immigrants to be Americans…
“And the first article actually concerns paying ‘protection money’ to the state-established church … something which is supposedly anathema in this country …”
Were you dropped on your head as a child? In many countries where there is a State Church taxes go to support it, how is that news? We don’t have that HERE, Muslim, Christian, or anything else. No where is anyone even suggesting that, yet you bring it up because why? Easy, you are a bigot.
“And the first article actually concerns paying ‘protection money’ to the state-established church … something which is supposedly anathema in this country …”
You mean people who respect the Constitution and the freedoms it stands for vs. the confused, the upset, the ignorant, and the people like you gahrie (the bigots).
Or do you suggest that we start making decisions based not on what is right, or just, or Constitutional, but on what is popular? With your attitude you probably would have told Rosa Parks just to ride at the back of the bus so she didn’t upset anyone.
With your attitude you probably would have told Rosa Parks just to ride at the back of the bus so she didn’t upset anyone.
No..that was the Democrats…….
The bottom line is this: Islam is a proselytizing, intolerant religion. Its aim is to institute Sharia as the “sole reference point for . . . ordering the life of the Muslim family, individual, community . . . and state.” That is the end. The means are multifarious. Steering commercial aircraft into American skyscrapers is only one tactic. Using and abusing liberal democratic freedoms in order to promulgate an ideology that is neither liberal nor democratic is less ostentatious but may in the end be more effective precisely because it is less dramatic. This is the lasting significance of the case of the Ground Zero mosque. It represents another step on the march to Islamize the West. As Nancy Reagan put it, just say No.
http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerkimball/
Read the whole thing.
Now, here’s the question: if Al Azhar scholars are fully aware of how detrimental the erection of a 9/11 mosque can be, why are American Muslims (such as of the Cordoba Initiative) still relentlessly pursuing it?
Much of this, I believe, has to do with the differing mentalities of Western, as opposed to Middle Eastern, or “indigenous,” Muslims. The latter, who have had little experience of the West, simply cannot believe that Muslims would be so foolhardy as to pursue such an obvious affront to their host nation; put differently, they cannot believe a non-Muslim nation would tolerate such effrontery. Used to seeing, and treating, “infidels” as second-class citizens, it is only natural that the indigenous Muslim mentality expects reciprocity when on infidel soil.
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/top-muslims-condemn-ground-zero-mosque-as-a-%E2%80%98zionist-conspiracy%E2%80%99/
This is not a humble Islamic statement. A mosque such as this is actually a political structure that casts a shadow over a cemetery, over hallowed ground. 9/11 was the beginning of a kinetic war, it is not an opportunity for cultural exchange. It was the beginning of a conflict with those who want to destroy our way of life,” Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, president and founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, told The Daily Caller.
http://dailycaller.com/2010/08/18/moderate-muslims-oppose-location-of-cordoba-mosque-%E2%80%94-on-religious-grounds/
Are you afraid they are going to come and turn you into a Muslim in your sleep? Good grief, you are insane. This is the same line of reasoning we had back in the 50’s and 60’s… Can’t let the Catholics get elected to anything the Pope will control them and with them the country… they’ll make us all Catholics in our sleep…. Booogdy booogdy booogdy boooooooooo……….
David K:
The difference again is that the Catholics were saying that they would be able to render unto Caesar, ie they recognized the separation of church and state. Muslims and Islam make no such distinctions, Islam is both the religion and the state.
You seem to think that Islam is just some weird version of Christianity.
Are you afraid they are going to come and turn you into a Muslim in your sleep
No, I am slightly worried that they will make my grandchildren convert at gunpoint.
@gahrie
Um, no, in many cases through out history the Church and the State were quite intertwined, and again I point out that there exist today countries in Europe (and in the past) who had state churches that were funded through tax payer contributions. Mandatory contributions, regardless of ones own faith. This is no different than having to pay a tax in a country where Islam is the state religion.
Everyone agrees that there are some Muslims who are violent and some who want to convert us, but if conversion were the problem then we should really get back to killing Mormons because damn, they are converting people all the time (or trying).
You have nothing to base any of your criticisms on beyond your bigotry and ignorance. You have no proof whatsoever that the Muslims involved with this center are involved in violent acts against others or were in any way involved with 9/11. Nothing. Zip. Zilch. Nada.
Again, you are equating SOME Muslims with ALL Muslims. Which means I should be able to freely associate SOME Conservatives with ALL Conservatives. You think thats fair dont you gahrie? I should be able to ascribe your views to Alsadair, and Joe Mama, and random racist dude at Tea Party rally? I mean if you’ve seen one Muslim/Conservative you’ve seen em all!
It’s honestly frightening to see you continue on and on with your hate filled views. It’s no different than the attitude that led to internment camps during World War II to thousands of Americans who just happened to be (or look kinda like) Japanese. It was wrong then, and its wrong now. YOU are wrong gahrie, these people have done nothing to hurt anyone, they just happen to follow a holy book you don’t, yet you wish that they wouldn’t build this community center near, not at but just near Ground Zero because its hallowed ground? Then why the hell aren’t you up in arms bout the strip club located near by? Why aren’t you DEMANDING that the Pentagon stop allowing Muslims to pray in the chapel located near that building?
“No, I am slightly worried that they will make my grandchildren convert at gunpoint.”
And I’m slightly worried that Republicans we’ll run this country into the ground, but you don’t see me demanding they stop voting do you?
Again you keep comparing Islam to things that have nothing to do with it.
The Republicans are not dedicated to to “run(ning) the country into the ground”
Islam does demand that Muslims convert the world to Islam, by any means necessary.
The pentagon is not dedicated to the victory of 9-11.
“The pentagon is not dedicated to the victory of 9-11”
Huh. What does that even mean?
You know what would help us be less susceeptable to terrorist attacks? Getting out of the Middle-East. Pulling all our troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Making it absolutely clear that the US will not get into a war with Iran, period. That, more then any other course of action, is our best defense against terror.
We are currently doing what bin Laden wanted us to do: attack Islamic nations, provoking more enemies then we can ever kill. We are much safer staying out of the Middle-East then getting tied up in it. Our involvement in that region is what created bin Laden to begin with.
American should, as Joe Scarborough quotes on his twitter avatar, “Keep calm and carry on.”
And what actual evidence do you have that park 51 is? What evidence do you have that Muslims in America palm to convert us all? And given that the Qur’an explicitly says not to attempt to convert other people of the book where is your evidence that converting the world is the goal of Islam? Especially given the number of vatriants of the faith, some of which really do not get along with each other?
There is no universal agreement in Islam that the later passage of the Qur’an takes precedence by the way, it’s actually an argument employed by extremists that also use a questionable definition for jihad. That’s right, the word jihad possesses qutie a bit of nuance (just like belief does, if you’d bother to study your own religion) Holey war is the only definition we recognize in the US. But Jihad does not just mean holey war, it means struggle, and not specifically an external one, in other words it can legitimately be translated as an internal struggle to find your own faith without having anything to do with anyone else. It can be translated as an internal personal spiritual quest. Certainly that’s not the only definition that’s used by manu Imams, but the point is there is a lot of nuance to Qur’an that you seem to know nothing of. Your interpretation is shallow. There exist different sects in Islam because the interpretation of the Qur’an is far more complex than that. Just like the interpretation of the Bible. To take only the literal sense is to likely miss 90% of what a given passage has been taken to mean through its history. And it’s why people argue about what the Bible or the Qur’an means.
In short you are scared of the boogy man. Your being xenophobic and bigoted.
Islam is really not substantively different in behavior towards those of other faiths from any other religion, nor are all Muslims the same, just as not all Christians or Jews the same. (both of which have words for the “other” just like Islam. Or are the words goy and barbarian new to you?)
Gahrie you are a very small man that lacks the stregth of his convictions if you think some how Muslims are going to manage to establish Islam as the state religion of the US when the Church of England (mandatory tax supported in the UK even if you are a member of a different faith, like say, Islam) failed to do so at the our founding. It simply will not happen, just like if we allow gay marriage does not mean we are suddenly allow marriage to sheep.
In short boooogdy boooogdy boooogdy booooooooooooooooo……….
Energy independence and stop playing cop to the world. Seems like a good idea to me, and saves a lot of money. Most of which we spend tying to protect our energy intreats in unstable parts of the world that then leads to increased instability.
dcl, you are singing my tune! And I don’t say that very often. Although the weirder the Republicans get, the more we start harmonizing.
Really, I’m just sick of both parties, neither who are willing to face up to the real problems, so they create these kabuki acts for people to get upset about. Then, they use these as a way to say “Look, we’re doing stuff! We’re solving the problems (that we made up)!”
The whole system is broken, and I have no clue how to fix it.
Well, it’s hard to argue with you when you say something that makes sense.
I’m not really sure how to fix “it” either. It has something to do with money, and finding leaders willing to think past the next election cycle…. Right now I don’t even think they can think past the next news cycle.
Though people have often lamented that the nation has lost its way, it really does seem apt for the present economic, political, and social climate in this country. That, or I’m getting old.
One last and final point on this thread.
At least according to what Roger Ebert has found on this issue, https://twitter.com/ebertchicago/statuses/21672941098 Those that would build Park51 are Sufis (Well, he wrote Sifi, but I’m not aware of a Muslim Si-Fi sect, so I’m guessing it’s a typo.) Al-Qaeda is a militant Wahhabi group. Wahhabi being a marginalized militant sub sect of Sunni Islam.
If it is true that then the argument against Park51 is analogous to saying that a group of Lutherans shouldn’t build a YMCA two blocks away from the site of an IRA bombing.
Like OMG, FACTS!! Can’t let those get in the way of my meme…
S[c]i-fi Muslims? Are they Trekkies, or Star Wars types?
Star Wars, there is no way those tight fitting outfits in Star Trek would pass muster under Sharia law 😉
As long as we’re not talking about the slave Princess Leia outfit!
I am SO impressed by the theological depths shown here … Roger Ebert, in particular, has long been known for his expertise and study of comparative religion, as has dcl …
“Islam is really not substantively different in behavior towards those of other faiths from any other religion” – so the requirement to convert by any means, including force and taqiyya, which is a basic part of Islam is not substantially different from the Jewish requirement that Jews are not permitted to proselytise ? And neither of those substantially different from Mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses who go around witnessing to anyone who is willing to listen while they proselytise ?
OY ! No wonder you believe that Mr Obama is The One !
kcatnd – the cinnamon buns on either side of Leia’s head were the true abomination, not the slave outfit !
“OY ! No wonder you believe that Mr Obama is The One !”
No one thinks Obama is “the One” except apparently Conervative idiots like yourself.
Alasair: I don’t think taqiyya means what you think it means.
I don’t really think much of anything means what you think it means, but you keep repeating this. What do you think it means, and why do you believe whatever wrong thing you believe?
Jim K #131 – please feel free to show me where I am wrong, with corroborated citations …
Off the top of my head, taqiyya is the concept whereby a believer may utter untruths in support of Islam and followers of Islam without committing an offence/sin/wrongdoing … taqiyya takes lying from being munkar (a forbidden wrongdoing, like a Mortal Sin) to being maroof (an encouraged Good Thing) …
From Google searches, in addition tot he URL I already gave, you can look here and here – the latter cite contains “Additional Notes:
Muslims are allowed to lie to unbelievers in order to defeat them. The two forms are:
Taqiyya – Saying something that isn’t true.
Kitman – Lying by omission. An example would be when Muslim apologists quote only a fragment of verse 5:32 (that if anyone kills “it shall be as if he had killed all mankind”) while neglecting to mention that the rest of the verse (and the next) mandate murder in undefined cases of “corruption” and “mischief.”
Though not called Taqiyya by name, Muhammad clearly used deception when he signed a 10-year treaty with the Meccans that allowed him access to their city while he secretly prepared his own forces for a takeover. The unsuspecting residents were conquered in easy fashion after he broke the treaty two years later, and some of the people in the city who had trusted him at his word were executed. “ …
What does taqiyya mean to you ?
“so the requirement to convert by any means, including force and taqiyya, which is a basic part of Islam is not substantially different from the Jewish requirement that Jews are not permitted to proselytise ?”
First, taqiyya means HIDING ones own beliefs, not sure how that helps convert someone. Second it is NOT a basic part of Ilsam to convert by any means including force.
Second it is NOT a basic part of Ilsam to convert by any means including force.
Says who?
Cite please
Alasdair: Perhaps if you weren’t getting your views of Islam from anti-Islamic sites you’d have a better understanding of it. Taqiyya is the practice of hiding your religion to avoid persecution. That’s the definition you’ll find nearly anywhere.
I think the problem here is that you are seeking out the most extreme interpretations of the Quran, instead of leaning about it for yourself. I’m an atheist, but I read the bible because while it was fun to talk about all the crazy evil shit in the bible I felt like I was being a little disingenuous if I didn’t read about it for myself. When you read a work in its entirety you get a better perspective on what it’s meant to mean.
Although even then you do not necessarily get a full picture of Islam. Islam is very much a religion guided by layers of interpretation, the most important of which is the interpretation offered by the imam. They have not had a Martin Luther, and to be sure it is true that this is one small part of what leads to radicalization, that people aren’t expected to interpret it themselves.
gahrie: http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/quran/002.qmt.html#002.256
Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error
The closest thing I know to institutionalized conversion is jizya, which is a tax on non-believers. It’s not forced, but it’s an economic incentive. Other than that the Ottomans instituted the devshirme system, which was essentially forced conscription and conversion. The children pulled into this system actually fed into the Janissaries.
gahrie, it would actually be up to you to prove that it is a tenant of Islam to convert by any means necessary. What with it not actually being possible to prove a negative.
Personally, I don’t subscribe to any faith tradition–I find them all to be wanting in one way or another. But this doesn’t mean I haven’t studied the subject. From the looks of things on this thread quite a bit more than either gahrie or Alasdair.
Personally I find Islam to be flawed. However, your characterization of it shows a complete lack of understanding, so far out of line with reality that I have no idea where you’ve come to it from.
Islam is not some monolithic thing that is all the same. Like Christianity there are different beliefs, approaches and interpretations. I know this has been said before, but some how it does not seem to get through.
Regardless, the response to the kafirun Described as those with a “braying, offensive manner to others, [… possessed of] pride, self-importance, chauvinism, and inability to accept criticism.” (Karen Armstrong, The Case for God Knopf, 2009, page 100). This would be the word we generally translate simply as infidel. Regardless, the Response to the Kafirun should be “forbearance” and quiet courtesy (ibid). Really, I just recommend reading her book. Which doesn’t have a lot to do with Islam, but is extremely interesting.
But this doesn’t mean I haven’t studied the subject. From the looks of things on this thread quite a bit more than either gahrie or Alasdair.
Bet you haven’t.
Muslims are commanded to fight unbelievers until they are either dead, converted to Islam, or in a permanent state of subjugation under Muslim domination. Allowing people of other faiths to live and worship independently of Islamic rule is not an option.
(emphasis is mine)
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/013-forced-conversion.htm
gahrie #134 – David K speaks truth (as far as I can tell) when he says “Second it is NOT a basic part of Ilsam to convert by any means including force.” – {my emphasis} … I think that’s an example of kitman since David omits use of the word “Islam”, while replacing it with the word “Ilsam” …
Back to basics … taqiyya is expressing something about a belief which is different from one’s true/core beliefs … *how* that is then used is what makes the difference …
Historically, Islam conquers territories by force, either directly wiping out prior rulers or, as in Lebanon comparatively recently, by killing off and driving off the opposition … in Lebanon, so far, they have succeeded in driving out or killing off so many Christians that Lebanon is now a majority-Muslim country … Israel, on the other hand, is a LOT more tenacious …
Jim Kelly and dcl – This animated map shows the spread of the world’s major religions … if you don’t think Islam spread by force, what happened to the Christian Kingdoms of the Middle East ?
Why did this country found the Marine Corps ?
The historical list goes on and on …
gharie, at # 138, are we now on a third grade playground? Given a third grader that’s been taught comparative religion from a pop up book would have a better grasp of the subject and its nuances than yourself; I suppose we are indeed on a playground. In point of fact I’ve spent rather a lot of time on the subject (If I thought it economically viable, I would quite happily pursue a PHD in Comparative Religion, it’s probably one of the most singularly fascinating topics I can think of, but there is not much market for an atheist with a theology degree). I suspect Jim has also put a significant investment of time into the topic. And I know David has as well (Though he is Catholic not atheist) he possesses a commendable desire to understand those with whom he disagrees. Generally to get to the point where you reject all religious traditions takes quite a bit of thought, research, and study. It is not a point reached lightly, nor is it, generally, a point held onto tightly, there is always a quest to better understand philosophy, life is a quest of deeper understanding. To follow the religion of your father takes no thought, no contemplation, and no reason. Simply blindness. Clearly, you’ve not even remotely studied the subject or you would have know the standard counter argument to a citation of Karen Armstrong.
Socrates thorough Plato, described a fool as someone who thought they knew everything but in fact knew nothing. The difference between himself, and a fool, said Socrates, was that he accepts (knows) that which he does not know, and only in that sense would he permit himself to be called wise. In the Socratic tradition, there are only fools and those that accept what they do no know. Deeper knowing can only be approached through discourse engaged with a willingness to change one’s mind. In short, gharie, your comment at #138 shows you to be a fool.
At comment #139, and how do we think the blue on the map got there? Sunshine and puppies? Your bolded comment is true of ANY society with a state religion. The point applies equally to the UK, France, Spain. etc. At least Muslims permit them to worship, the only place I can recall that actually went to the point of convert or die was the Spanish Inquisition. Which was part of this “reformation” you keep trying to tell us made Christianity better than Islam. Neither is better, neither is worse, neither is “Right”.
Alasdair, The Marine Corpse and Navy were formed to avoid paying a bribe to the Barbary Pirates that controlled a choke point to trade with Europe. This whole episode is related in a wonderful book called Six Frigates by Ian Toll. By the way the Conservative party of the time opposed building a Navy, favoring paying the bribes.That the Barbary Pirates happened to be Muslim is irrelevant, they, and the Ottoman city states that provided for their support, were following a traditional method for making money at the time. Something that those that lived in NYC until recently know quite a bit about–the protection racket. This has a long and ignoble tradition in the region in question, and predates it becoming Muslim, dating at least until Roman times, probably before. Religion was utterly irrelevant to the debate or the issue at the time, and it had nothing to do with trying to convert American seamen.
The historical list goes on about Christianity too. All Christians are not the same nor are all Muslims. Your rhetoric and position is, seriously, equally extremist as your own characterization of Islam. This would be hilarious if it were not so sad. We even had AML arguing we should force prayer back into schools–to wit, in the US it’s not the Muslims but the Christians, more specifically the Protestants, I fear when it comes to the imposition of orthodoxy on all. You have little to fear from the Muslims, you have much to fear from yourselves.
Enough, Gharie and Alasdar, I leave you to your foolish ignorance.
Generally to get to the point where you reject all religious traditions takes quite a bit of thought, research, and study
I spent over twenty years exploring religions before becoming a deist, and I’ve taught courses on comparative religion.
Deeper knowing can only be approached through discourse engaged with a willingness to change one’s mind.
I once hosted a radio show called Discourse, and the only reason I continue to tolerate the constant ad hominen I receive from some of the posters on this site is because I have learned from some of the other posters on this site.
n short, gharie, your comment at #138 shows you to be a fool.
So, you aren’t a fool when you claim you know more than me, but I am a fool when I say you don’t?
Enough, Gharie and Alasdar, I leave you to your foolish ignorance.
So now who is rejecting discourse?
by the way..the name is gahrie, not gharie…surely someone of your obvioudly superior intellect can read and spell?
dcl #141 – ABSOLUTELY BREATHTAKING !
“Alasdair, The Marine Corpse and Navy were formed to avoid paying a bribe to the Barbary Pirates that controlled a choke point to trade with Europe. “ – the “Marine Corpse” ??? Is dcl actually Mr Obama in drag ?
The US Navy *already* existed at that point (albeit it wasn’t a very big navy) … and the “Barbary Pirates” weren’t just running a “protection racket” … by the 1700s, the Barbary States were full-fledged Islamic slavers over whom the Ottoman Empire had effectively no control … after the US had payed tribute to the Barbary States for some time, eventually, when Jefferson became President, he chose *not* to pay – and the Marine Corps (not the “Marine Corpse”) was formed to fight off the Barbary Pirates …
Next, dcl, you’ll be telling us that “The Halls of Montezuma” refers to an unprovoked imperialist attack on a small Roman Catholic place of worship in Central America – you know, “Chapel Tepec” …
Also – “Generally to get to the point where you reject all religious traditions takes quite a bit of thought, research, and study.” – I suspect that gahrie doesn’t reject “all religious traditions “, but rather doesn’t accept any single tradition as Gospel, instead learning from the Teaching Tales of many different countries and cultures and creeds, taking the best from each … I know that that is the way it is, for me …
And lest dcl simply go davidkian and dismiss without refuting, this article addresses the specifics quite nicely …
This article also goes into the subject in good detail …
Hmmm…..
I personally see no harm in Rep. Ellison using the Koran to get sworn in on, especially the particular one used. Do Jews use a Bible when they get sworn in, or just a New Testament? I don’t know, and as far as I know it has never been an issue.
I know I can be a bit of a fool. I’ve come to terms with that, but running about in un-reality land (Or whine incessantly about typos land) isn’t really all that helpful for actual understanding. And is deeply frustrating.
Gahrie, having taught comparative religion I would guess that you know full well not all Muslims are the same. Which honestly, just makes it more frustrating that you are willing to paint them all as the same.
but just a pair of thoughts:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/22/opinion/22kristof.html?_r=1
and
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/22/nyregion/22imam.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=all
The Imam that wants to build this, essentially, YMCA is Sufi. This is like… I dunno, a African American Church getting upset at a group of Mennonites trying to build a YMCA two blocks away from where their church use to be because the KKK burned it down. The logic there just does not make any sense to me. Perhaps you can shed some light on this portion of the issue?
And on top of that we are willing to ignore the first amendment to do it, which seems like a horrific precedent if we really are worried about having our religious freedoms curtailed. Given that Al Queda has a professed hate for Sufi Mysticism I don’t really think that imam Feisal would fair much better than you are I were he to run across a group of Al Queda militants. I can’t see them seeing a center for cultural understanding and dialogue as a big win.
Unfortunately the center has already failed in its purpose. But not through the intolerance of Muslims. No, it is our own intolerance that has caused the goal to fail. And the goal of mutual respect and understanding, of dialogue is a noble one.
And Al, I must ask the question, why is it that the evils of nominally Christian states is blamed on politics where as the evils of nominally Muslim states is blamed on religion? I’m not aware of the Barbary Pirates being a particularly religiously motivated protection racket. The costs constantly going up is another feature of such a racket. Though I do apologize for the most unfortunate typo in my discussion of the issue. I do think it is an outrageous mischaracterization to attribute that conflict to religion. (Of course the Marines were also involved in the revolution, and the Quasi-war with france following the XYZ affair, but I was assuming you were talking about the Barbary wars. And I do agree that using the military of the US in that case to stop the molestation of US shipping was the right course of action. But that doesn’t make religion the primary mover in that conflict. Any more than the revolutionary war primarily about religion).
Islamic fundamentalism is relatively new. So for that matter, is Christian fundamentalism. David would argue there is also atheistic fundamentalism, and I fear he might have quite a valid point there. But as far as I’ve been able to tell fundamentalism is a bastardization of the original ideals upon which the religion was founded. Fundamentalists tend to get rather off the wall. And it is true that it is unfair to argue against an entire abrahamic branch based entirely on the utterances of its extremists and fundamentalists. Arguing against the extremists is, indeed, much easier. But to does not encompass the entirety of the issue.
Further, as far as I can tell the original philosophical idea of pre modern religions (everyone, save the Mormons and Scientologists as far as I know off the top of my head, and have a different history) stated based on the ideals of peace, tolerance, transcendent understanding and help for the oppressed. Theses high and laudable ideals are indeed bastardized and subverted. But I don’t think any more so or less so when it comes to a comparison of Christianity to Islam.
dcl #148 – if you would like to try reading the cited articles, you would find the representative of the Barbary Pirates giving what is, by now, to educated folk, a fairly classic example of Islamic thinking …
“The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the laws of their Prophet [Mohammed] – that it was written in their Koran that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners; that is was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners; and that every Musselman [Muslim] who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.” …
Seems sorta clear-cut to me ? How about you ?
Islam is a Religion of Peace – as long as *everyone* submits to Islam … it speaks to help for the oppressed – mostly when it is a Muslim being oppressed by a non-Muslim … and it just flat-out *isn’t* a religion of tolerance … its recent (by Jewish/Christian/Buddhist standards) history is full of one follower of Islam killing/murdering/otherwise oppressing one or more other followers of Islam – with the occasional snack on the kufr for a little variety … and that goes back all the way even unto the life and times of the Prophet (pbuh) …
If you want to see how tolerant Islam is, do some research on the current Jewish population in each Islamic country, as compared to only a century ago … then do some research on which countries *currently* have active slavery going on in them – and compare how many of those countries are Islamic versus how many are non-Islamic …
If nothing else, I would suggest that a good measure of the sincerity of anyone proposing such a positioning of a mosque is simple … Will the building which contains the mosque be able, at any time of day, to cast a shadow on any part of the hallowed-by-tragedy/atrocity part of New York City ? If the answer is “Yes”, the person is performing taqiyya – the concealment of true belief, done in the interests of Islam …
(grin) It would not surprise me one bit, if the building goes ahead with the intent of part of it containing a mosque, to hear that the workforce laying the foundations has had someone slaghter a pig and bury a quarter pig at each corner of the foundations … given how easily inconvenient folk were disposed of in foundations in New York, what’s a pig amongst friends ?
gahrie: Where have you taught comparative religion at?
Alasdair: So let’s get this precisely straight. Do you think the Muslims here in the United States are biding their time for the right time to force conversion of US citizens to Islam?
Middle school.
Do you think the Muslims here in the United States are biding their time for the right time to force conversion of US citizens to Islam?
I don’t. But I do think if the United States ever hits 50% or more Muslims, they will move to institute sharia law.
Middle school.
That doesn’t really support the case that you know anything about the subject matter then.
I don’t. But I do think if the United States ever hits 50% or more Muslims, they will move to institute sharia law.
Why? If all Muslim countries aren’t practicing sharia law, why would you expect it to be practiced here?
BTW, please tell me you at least have the common sense not to say any of this shit to the kids you teach.
What majority Muslim country isn’t practicing sharia law?
Actually, unlike the majority of my lefty colleagues, I behave in a professional manner and do not interject my private politics in the classroom. I teach the California state standards,
^ Good for you.
As far as your question… uh… Turkey?
As far as your question… uh… Turkey?
Up until about the last six months, the military has kept Islam in check in Turkey…check back with me in six more months…
Okay… Azerbaijan?
Indonesia?
Indonesia is not an example I’d cite. It has family courts based on Sharia, which I wouldn’t necessarily argue is a big deal, but I’m sure the bar for Gahrie is going to be completely secular.
Besides, parts of Indonesia had Sharia criminal courts in the first half of the last decade. Not sure if they still do though.
I already pointed out Kenya. Pretty sure Egupt isn’t under Sharia either, heck they even recognize Israel!
“I don’t. But I do think if the United States ever hits 50% or more Muslims, they will move to institute sharia law.”
Given the danger that conservatives like you already present to this country and you are far more likely to reach 50% population than Muslims in America sounds like we should kick you out first right? I mean if we are basing our decisions on what we fear might someday possibly happen that’s just as valid a conclusion to draw?
I feel sorry for the students you teach gahrie. No matter how hard they try a bigots hate will always seep through, just ask Mel Gibson.
David K:
I still think you are performance art..no one can be that dense.
Don’t you get the irony in post #162?
You spend half the post attacking conservatives as a group and the other half calling me a bigot…………
Islam is only at 10% in Kenya.
Egypt does not have full sharia law. However their constitution demands that all legislation conform to Islamic law (sharia) and religions other than Islam, Christianity and Judaism is effectively banned.
To the googles…. So the approximately 12 to 16 million Christians in Egypt don’t exist (as a percentage, as much as 20% of the population of Egypt, depending on who does the accounting)? Or is it that most of them are Coptic, breaking away from the before the Great Schism (1054) at the council of Chalcedon in 451 so they don’t really count as Christians?
You still haven’t responded to Azerbaijan. If you are familiar with Azerbaijan, there is a rebuttal, but it would force you to concede your overarching argument, so it’s fun example. 🙂
Might also require some understanding of the Persian Empire… Or is this just me being a classics major and thinking that everything goes back to the basic conflict between the Greeks and the Persians? Damn that Hellen… Cause of all war and heart ache she was…
Also, I don’t see how Indonesia is that bad of an example. It’s the largest Muslim country in the world and the constitution is very clear about religious freedom. Then again, I thought the U.S. constitution was clear about that too…
It occurred to me to look up US stats on religion. Islam represents between .6% and 1.6% of the population (depending on accounting). Does this mean that Islam is effectively banned in the US. Especially since people are shitting a brick over them trying to build a community center? Is Judaism banned because it makes up only between 1.2 and 2.2 percent of our population? Christians in Egypt have roughly the same percentage as Catholics in the US. Is Catholicism banned in the US?
Reductionist logic often bites one in the ass rather hard.
Sorry Kenya was an error, I meant Nigeria which is 50% Muslim.
kcatnd: I don’t think it’s a bad example per se, but Gahrie has clearly set an incredibly high bar for what he will accept. So rather than argue about sharia’s involvement in family court in Indonesia or about a couple provinces, I just chose predominantly muslim countries that have 100% secular legal systems.
Turkey is the immediate and obvious choice, but most of Central Asia (and the one Muslim country in the Caucasus) are all obvious examples of secular states that are predominantly Muslim.
That way we don’t even have to argue. It’s settled.
Jim #171 – back to something being “settled”, are we ?
So you proffer Azerbaijan as a shining example of a secular Muslim state – while you withhold the information that it was secular during the 60+years that it was a Soviet Socialist Republic under a brutally-effective ATHEIST-based governmental system which suppressed religion as best it could, given that religion is the opiate of the masses … since its independence from the Soviet Union, how peaceful has exemplary Azerbaijan been ?
I notice that, while proferring Azerbaijan, you carefully ignore the recent history of Lebanon – the Christian country that was forcibly converted to Islam in the second half of the 20th century … how are Jews and Christians doing in lebanon, under now-majority Muslim control ?
kcatnd # 168 – Indonesia is indeed a good example of what a modern Muslim state *should* be able to be …
Unfortunately for its usefulness as an example of peaceful Islam, Indomesia gained its current set-up as a result of WW II, when the Netherlands East Indies was invaded by Japan, and in the aftermath of that situation, gained its independence … it narrowly escaped a requirement in its constitution that the President would be required to be Muslim … all that took place back in the 1940s …
Contrast that with what happened with Lebanon in the 1970s and more recently …
@Alasdair – Settled in the sense that the assertions of you and gahrie that all Muslims are alike is wrong. No one is claiming taht there aren’t brutal governments around the world. No one is claiming that all Muslims are perfect, or that all majority Muslim countries are. Then again there are plenty examples of non-Muslim countries doing horrible things through out history, so basically what you are proving is that people do horrible things? Governments can be brutal and oppresive?
What you haven’t (and can’t) do is probe that ALL Muslims are the same, that they are ALL out to get “us” and that ALL countries with Muslims in the majority are forcing Sharia down the non-believers throats with violence galore! None of that you can prove because its not true and we have pointed to numerous examples of such.
Only a complete idiot would continue to assert something that is so obviously wrong. Only a bigot would treat a complex and diverse religion like Islam as a single unified monolithic presence. Only a fool would continue to ignore the evience to the contrary of their bigoted, flawed, belief.
Also, only an asshole points to spelling errors as some sort of proof of their argument.
Turkey is the immediate and obvious choice, but most of Central Asia (and the one Muslim country in the Caucasus) are all obvious examples of secular states that are predominantly Muslim.
Up until the last year or so, Turkey would indeed have been an example of a Majority Muslim state with a secular government. The military was thoroughly secular and kept the religious leaders in check. However there are now clear indications that Turkey’s military is becoming radicalized, and I have serious fears that turkey will soon have an Islamic government, which spells trouble for NATO.
Sorry I didn’t respond about Azerbaijan this morning…I was getting ready for work and Kenya and Egypt were quick and easy.
As Alasdair noted above, the Central Asian states have been dominated by communist governments that persecuted all religion for sixty years. For the most part those countries are now led by thugocracies that are largely made up of the ex-communists who used to run them. Azerbaijan has in fact been called the most irreligious country in the world. IMO, it is only a matter of time before these governments are toppled by Islamic revolutions, but only time will tell.
, so basically what you are proving is that people do horrible things? Governments can be brutal and oppresive?
No.
Do try and do a better job of following along. The point is, Islam demands the eradication of all non-biblical religions, and discriminates against Christians and Jews. You must covert, submit to persecution, or die.
As the percentage of Muslims in a countries population increases, the demands for sharia law increase. Once a country becomes majority Muslim, sharia law is introduced
I believe I have already covered Nigeria, which is really two separate countries, one half Muslim with sharia law and one half Christian.
David K #174 – neither gahrie nor I are sufficiently arogant as to claim all-knowledge about any religion … and I have yet to see either gahrie or myself use terms like “ALL” as we discuss the effect Islamofascism has on countries and policies … that pecadillo is peculiar to your side of the discussion …
(grin) Sometime, look up “Freudian Slip” – sometimes, spelling errors aren’t spelling errors …
Wait, what is this?!?
Who are these right-wing knuckleheads who think a mosque two blocks from Ground Zero is inflammatory? Racists! Bigots!!!!
“The point is, Islam demands the eradication of all non-biblical religions, and discriminates against Christians and Jews. You must covert, submit to persecution, or die.”
No it doesn’t. Your an idiot and a bigot.
Actually Alasdair, both you and gahrie have claimed repeatedly to know what Muslims think and believe. Since its easy to show thats not the case, if you continue to assert it over and over, you must be an idiot. Simple as that.
As for Freudian slips, um, no, its got nothing to do with Freudian anything and everything to do with the fact that sometimes people misstype things. This is a blog not a research journal. I dont’ care enough to correct my spellng all the time, and frankly the fact that you have to latch on to such trivial things in order to desperately try and keep your “arguments” alive is pathetic.
Andrew, it doesn’t take a bigot to see that the issue has inflamed people on many sides of the argument. However bigotry is CLEARLY involved in this debate as is evidenced by both gahrie and Alasdair in this thread.
Incidentally isn’t it usually Conservatives who rail against being politically correct and government/society going to too great lengths not to offend people?
Shouldn’t conservatives be the ones arguing for and defending the individuals right to build what they want on their own land within the framework of the law?
David, if we’re going to go by stereotypes, then the more accurate gauge is Conservatives as Hawks who wouldn’t dare allow symbolism associated with our enemies on 9/11 be sited so close to Ground Zero. Actually that has nothing to do with hawkishness, it is just plain common sense — another strong suit of conservatives that is sorely lacking in their liberal counterparts.
1) FOR THE LAST FREAKING TIME!!!!!! YES THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO BUILD THE MOSQUE ON THEIR OWN LAND WITHIN THE LAW
But just because you have the right to do something, doesn’t mean it is the right thing to do, something you on the left seem to never be able to figure out.
2) If you do not acknowledge that a central tenet of Islam is the eradication of all other religions except an extremely proscribed tolerance of Christians and Jews, you are the ignorant one. You do realize that any non-Muslim found at the Ka’aba in Mecca will be executed right? Name any other religion that would kill you for going to one of their temples.
As far as Alasdair and gahrie, I hesitate to label them bigots. I don’t agree with their broad-brush view of Islam and Muslims; the vast majority are not fanatical and are great neighbors and citizens, as you are wont to repeatedly point out. But the reality is the West is in a civilizational clash with Islam, and gahrie and Alasdair are not misspeaking about the basic tenets of Islam which are preached and adhered to by millions around the world. All religions are not created equal. There’s a reason the West has repeatedly clashed with its Muslim neighbors throughout history — far more frequently and bloodily than with its Confucian, Hindu, or Buddhist encounters. Islam has bloody borders, and we must take that context into account when discussing things like building mosques near where thousands perished at the hands of Muslim extremists.
I do not belive our attackers on 9/11 were Sufis. So we are not talking about our “enemy” from 9/11 building anything. As I’ve said before, this is like trying to equate the Quakers with the IRA, it just makes no sense, and is a very short sighted view.
As a side note, if you don’t want people to be pissed off at you, generally leaving them the fuck alone helps. To wit, let’s become energy independent and leave them alone.
As a side note, if you don’t want people to be pissed off at you, generally leaving them the fuck alone helps. To wit, let’s become energy independent and leave them alone.
What happens to Israel?
You want an honest answer to that question? The short version is, that’s Israel’s problem not ours.
A bit longer, in terms of neighboring states geo-poltical conflicts in the area, there is a limited amount we can do to bring peace, for a number of reason, one of which is one of the sides doesn’t really trust us. I think we should work to bring peace to the region in what ways we can. But we must be honest and realistic about what we can accomplish alone. Though honestly, to a certain extent leaving the Middle East helps our cause in helping Israel and the Palestinians reach an accord as it’s possible that the Arabs will stop seeing us as a neo-post-colonial power, though what this might mean in the rising neo-post-national world http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/08/16/beyond_city_limits I don’t really know.
gahrie – it appears that dcl #189 is trapped in some sort of time-loop distortion corny-kinda-Voyager-scenario … “neo-post-colonial” ? Really ? “neo-post-colonic” would be just as accurate a description …
As someone who is from one of the most successful colonial empires on this planet, I can confirm that the US is a mere innocent when it comes to imperialist colonialism, never mind “neo-post-colonial” …
And *especially* in Islamic terms, the US is a mere piker in forcibly-taking-over-and-then-keeping-other-folk’s-territory … cf Japan, Germany, France, etc … true, I have to grant Hawai’i as supporting dcl’s side … even if it was a commercial takeover more than a forcible takeover as such things go …
For those scoring at home, the same dude funding the Mosque also funds Fox News. Therefore by Fox logic Fox is an extremist terrorist organization that is warping the facts and trying to get us all to convert to Islam. Oh wait… hang on I’m confused… That’s because the argument against the Mosque is bullshit.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-august-23-2010/the-parent-company-trap
And for our friend Al. Really, your decision to be obtuse required a whole comment?
dcl #191 – seems like you have been consuming too much of the 7% solution !
“According to the report from Yahoo!’s John Cook, Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal, who owns seven percent of News Corp., “has directly funded [Imam Feisal Abdul] Rauf’s projects to the tune of more than $300,000.”” – from here …
I realise that the concept can be complicated – but ownership of stock in a company doesn’t *necessarily* correlate directly with control of that company – especially when the other 93% probably would not necessarily agree with the philosophies and goals of the 7% owner …
As for this being news, it was discussed more than 3 years ago here … and it doesn’t look like the fears expressed back then materialised …
Now, if those who crashed the planes into the Twin Towers did so while proclaiming the Fox News Mission Statement, there might be cause for concern … given the reality of what happened, ehhhh not-so-much …
I do have to commend your perception (unless it was an accidental cuteness shot) … I do actually have to *choose*, to decide, to be obtuse … how does it feel to be, as you obviously are, genetically gifted with that innate skill ?
You are the one that told us to follow the money. It’s your on f*n logic. Bites you in the ass don’t it.
The state of the arguement:
As far as Alasdair and gahrie, I hesitate to label them bigots. I don’t agree with their broad-brush view of Islam and Muslims; the vast majority are not fanatical
So..today we read:
This is exactly the problem, isn’t it? Anyone who takes the sacred texts of Islam seriously can see that Islam commands death for both Salmaan Taseer and Asia Bibi. And thus there is a Darwinian effect in Islamic socieities as the unbelievers and the moderates are slaughtered, those who perpetrate jihadist violence are celebrated as heroes, and doubters are intimidated into silence.
Yet anyone in the West who points out these disturbing truths about Islamic culture is denounced as an intolerant bigot, as if Islam’s peaceful critics were more dangerous than Islam’s murderously faithful practicioners.
http://theothermccain.com/2011/01/04/pakistani-official-who-opposed-sharia-law-killed-by-his-own-bodyguard/
There you go again, gahrie – trying to be rational with the d-list folk …
Happy New Year !
The cheers and tears across the country Wednesday underscored Pakistan’s journey over the past several decades from a nation defined by moderate Islam to one increasingly influenced by fundamentalists willing to use violence to impose their views.
Even so-called moderate Muslim scholars praised 26-year-old Mumtaz Qadri for allegedly killing Punjab province Gov. Salman Taseer on Tuesday in a hail of gunfire while he was supposed to be protecting him as a bodyguard. Qadri later told authorities he acted because of Taseer’s vocal opposition to blasphemy laws that order death for those who insult Islam.
As Qadri was escorted into court in Islamabad, a rowdy crowd patted his back and kissed his cheek as lawyers at the scene threw flowers. On the way out, some 200 sympathizers chanted slogans in his favor, and the suspect stood at the back door of an armored police van and repeatedly yelled “God is great.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40923917/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/