David Horowitz: What's wrong with the GOP
David Horowitz is a symbol of what’s wrong with the Republican Party, and why polls continue to show public approval (PDF) of the Democratic Party higher than the GOP. Horowitz writes a plea for donations to the Freedom Center to stop the new Mosque in New York City. He opens his plea in an email sponsored by GOPUSA, with the following line: “Dear Fellow Conservative, I am sure you’ve heard about the mosque they want to build on the sacred soil of Ground Zero in New York City.” He begins with a bald faced lie, and builds his pitch from there.
Republican sheep of course, won't be able to see the lie in Horowitz' opening line, because their primary source of information is the likes of liars like David Horowitz. Thus, a self-fulfilling prophecy is brought about. Uneducated Republicans, fearing looking stupid and uneducated, believe things which are stupid and uneducated espoused by master manipulators like David Horowitz who takes advantage of their uneducated state. The lie is easily discerned by anyone whose sources are broader than GOP deception artists. The place for the mosque they want to build is three pedestrian blocks away Ground Zero, and not even in a line of sight from Ground Zero. It might as well be three thousand miles away for all the practical difference its location makes.
But, then, the Mosque, and America's peaceful, United States loving, Islamic communities are not, and were never the issue for Republican manipulators of the facts. The issue was, from the beginning, how to motivate conservatives to the polls in November to vote for Republicans. The Mosque and its location are simply tools to that end. The lie was necessary to make the tool work on the fears of stupid and uneducated Republican voters. A great many Republicans are neither stupid nor uneducated, however. And therein lies the war taking place inside the GOP, that is going to cost them in November's elections, despite all other political conditions being ripe for their taking back the House of Representatives and Senate majorities.
This is not, however, a problem only for Republicans. There is a deeper and more threatening reach to this story for all of America. The bigger issues are about philosophy, principle, and leadership. The Democratic and Republican Parties are undermining the best of these in the name of political warfare and manipulation of voters with deceit, propaganda, and the best sophistry money can buy. America has a long and shameful history of making enemies out of their fellow countrymen, beginning with the Revolutionary War. Yet, America's founding principles speak to equality and unity as the strengths that could underwrite a long and prosperous future for our new nation.
From the Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
From our U.S. Constitution:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
If those making decisions for many, err or become corrupt, the consequences for all those living with their decisions can be enormously negative. To neglect the welfare of individuals in a society can, and will, produce very costly consequences like Charles Manson, Timothy McVeigh, the Uni-bomber, the urban rioters of the 1960’s and early 1970’s, and organizations like the the KKK, Aryan Nation, Weathermen, Black Panthers, or, on an even larger scale, the Confederacy, threatening to tear our nation apart.
A society is only as great as the least of its own citizens. A society that ignores and neglects the plight of its members, has neither peace nor civil order in its future. A concept many Republicans and conservatives cannot, and will not, subscribe to the wisdom of, unless, and until, they perceive themselves becoming the neglected and ignored. This extremist activism by the Right has many factions, but, none as large as the Fundamentalist Right Evangelical Christians, who have watched their agenda on abortion, stem cell research, marriage, and an unconstitutional concept of America as a Christian nation get moved to the back of the political bus. The Mosque lie, is hitting all the right FREC emotional buttons to reactivate and re-energize their political participation for the November elections.
The GOP is very divided. In May of 2009, some leaders in the Party set out to reshape their public image. That image however, is as fractured as the Party's ranks are. As the above referenced poll indicates, the general public holds a very poor opinion of the GOP as the Party to manage government, with only 24% holding a positive rating, compared to 33% positive for the Democratic Party. Reshaping the Party's image, put the cart before the horse. First, the GOP had to reshape their platform and internal unity around that platform. They didn't. As the poll shows, their public image has not improved.
The N.Y. Mosque protesters don’t realize the potential consequences of their actions in the potential for erosion of civil and religious liberty, let alone their growing role in aiding and abetting our enemies, the Taliban and al-Queda, by giving credibility to our enemy's propaganda of the U.S. engaged in war against the religion of Islam. The consequences of such ignorance by Mosque protesters can only be mitigated by a national rebuke of such ignorance. Seems the GOP is not willing to step up to the challenge and defend our nation’s future, even in this. They myopically focus on manipulating their base, instead of remaking their party.
Evil will grow in strength when good people stand silently and fearfully by is one of the great lessons of Hitler's Germany. America’s great potential rests upon taking care of the least and most vulnerable, insuring dignity and liberty for even these. But, it also rests upon its courage to denounce those within it, who would subvert that potential with cowardly and aggressive prejudices and bigotry that would cast all of a skin color, or religion, or economic class in the same mold as the derelicts within those groups.
Now is the time for all good folk of the Republican and Democratic parties to rise united in denunciation of those who would take us back to our darker history of civil war, deprivation, and inhumane treatment of each other: the thinly veiled agenda of Glenn Beck's 'divine' oratory this last weekend. Our political parties have ample common enemies of our nation and ideals, to unite around. The offer to do so has been made by President Obama, repeatedly. None from the GOP have risen from the prepubescent shame of election defeat, to become great again in accepting the offer, proud and good American to proud and good American. Where are the GOP’s Ronald Reagan protege's, who would put nation and future first; rising above politics, to tend to our common enemies in united fashion? Debt, ignorance, lies and propaganda, lack of accountability and responsibility, ideological extremism and the corrupting influence of money in our political process are all enemies of America seeking to destroy her future.
If the GOP wants to resurrect their Party, they could do no better than to make addressing these real enemies of America the foundation of their platform and election campaigns..Resentment over having lost the majority in government, and internal warfare between moderates and far right conservatives within the Party, keep the short sighted GOP leaders and its potential great leaders from rising to the occasion. Such petty and small minded rivalries will likely cost the GOP in November any majority.
Our nation continues to suffer the consequences of the GOP’s inability to bring forth great American leaders. They fight pettily over the paltry prize of Party leadership instead. The David Horowitz' and Glenn Becks have become the public face of the GOP and such faces will never rally a majority of consent and unity from the American public. Stop the lies and rally around defeating our nation's enemies, without, and within. That is the path forward for the GOP, should they depose David Horowitz and find new leaders to embrace this agenda for America's future.
(Parts of this article are reprinted here from another at PoliWatch.Org.)
Posted by David R. Remer at August 31, 2010 06:15 AMWhile Ronald Reagan was probably a decent man (except for his episode with the Hollywood blacklist, and his bigoted remarks as Governor of California) I frankly saw him as a part of the genesis of the change of the party from a party of substance to a party of imagery. I realize this piece is an appeal to Republicans and invokes one of their idols, but to me Reagan was part and parcel of the decline of the Republican Party. I voted for Ford, but no Republican since.
Republicans need a leader of substance, not a better version of Palin, which is what Reagan was in my mind.
Posted by: gergle at August 31, 2010 11:57 AMDavid, you say there is a decline in support for the Republican Party, but your link shows an increase decline in support for Reid and Pelosi, who are the leadership of the democratic congress. Can you explain this disparage?
You spend the next 2 paragraphs talking about how stupid republicans are. You also promote voting out incumbents. My question is, if republicans are so stupid, on what basis do they determine whether to vote out incumbents. Do they vote them out, because you tell them to, or do they vote them out because they are not representing their constituents? If the answer is because you tell them to, then they are no than sheep, obeying you. On your analysis, they are not able to vote them out for not being represented, because the republicans do not have enough intelligence to determine if they are being represented or not!
“This extremist activism by the Right has many factions, but, none as large as the Fundamentalist Right Evangelical Christians”
So, you are saying these people are the threat to America?
“The GOP is very divided.”
It is not republicans who are telling constituents, in their political re-election commercials, that they voted against Obama, Pelosi, and Reid’s Bills. I would say the division is in the Democratic Party. Of course you don’t really care about that, because you are an independent, yea right. I have some swampland in Florida for sale…
“the general public holds a very poor opinion of the GOP as the Party to manage government, with only 24% holding a positive rating,”
Guess what, the republicans have a very poor opinion of the Republican Party, including myself. When they called me last for a donation, I told them to not call me again until they get rid of the RINO’s, and I don’t think I am the only one. I sure this is why so many Republicans have re-registered as independents.
“If the GOP wants to resurrect their Party,”
I love the way liberals like to advise the republicans how to become successful as a party. Guess what, I think we have everything under control. Let’s wait until November and if we don’t beat the crap out of the Democratic Party, then we will have to take David’s advice. Of course, David Remer doesn’t really care, because he is an independent.
Why is it that all liberals start with one subject and always end up bashing republicans, Bush, evangelical Christians, and telling how divided the Republican Party is? Guess what, there is a conservative movement in politics today; it is part of the TP movement and they are changing the face of politics….
gergle:
Ford was the last republican I voted against. Up till Carter, I was a registered democrat and have never voted for a democrat presidental candidate since.
Posted by: Beretta9 at August 31, 2010 12:03 PMI found Mr. Remer’s comments to be simply party bashing. Frankly, as a conservative I don’t care what happens to either party. It is the conservative message that is resonnating today. I attended a campaign event for the dem candidate for Texas governor recently. He did not mention obama or the dem congress achievements once. He even refused an appearance with obama recently.
When TV personality Glen Beck can attract 500,000 or more to talk about conservative values in DC Saturday, that should draw some attention from the White House. But obama casually mentioned that he didn’t even watch the event. Too busy, uninterested, or whatever, this president and congress should clearly understand that American’s are really angry.
I believe conservatives from both parties, including independents, will carry the day in November and immediately get to work addressing sane and sensible ways to get this country going again. The days of big spending government will come screeching to an end.
Unlike obama who repeatedly says “I won’t rest until I fix things” between vacation jaunts, the new congress will indeed be restless until they do fix things.
Posted by: Royal Flush at August 31, 2010 12:54 PMRoyal Flush, you are absolutly right.
I might also say, a conservative win in November is not the end; the left and the republicans have awakened a sleeping giant and we will hold our respresentaive’s and senator’s feet to the fire to correct wrongs that have been done. For too long, bought and paid for politicians have been running this country into the ground and their time is finished.
Posted by: Beretta9 at August 31, 2010 01:41 PMYes indeed B9, the pandering, greedy, traitorous (yes, traitorous) arrogant, self-promoting and generally unsavory political types from both parties are going to get their asses kicked out of Washington. The few that survive and remain will be so chastised that they will fear continuing the game as usual. They will go wimpering and slinking back into that dark hole and reside temporarily with the devil that spawned them.
Electoral history will be made in November and the results will be breath-taking.
Posted by: Royal Flush at August 31, 2010 01:59 PM
Many conservative politicians, like many of their counterparts, are in the pocket of the corporations so I can imagine how they will change things.
Voters just can’s seem to learn from their mistakes. The people wanted change when Bush came into office, they got more of the same. They switched to the Democrats for change, they got more of the same. It doesn’t matter who is running the Congress next year, the voters are going to get a healthy dose of more of the same.
Royal Flush, or Beretta9, do either of you have a list of the great new ideas for the future or are they going to stick to, going back to the golden age before the progressive movement that was started by conservatives?
I’ve heard that Republicans plan to shut down the government to prevent Obama from destroying the country.
Posted by: jlw at August 31, 2010 02:35 PMFrom what I have seen, conservatives seem determined to follow through on the Bush agenda, and plunge the US into an even worse economic situation than we already see, a full blown economic depression. They believe weird, bizarre, and patently untrue things about the President being a Muslim and not a US citizen, and some seem intent on creating a ‘Christian’ nation actively at war with Islam. Conservative GOP Senate candidates want to privatize Social Security, even after witnessing the comlete melthdown of the private sector in 2008, even if all indications are that privatization of Social Security will eventually doom a generation of retirees to poverty and destitution. Everything about the conservative agenda seems calculated to benefit the rich and corporations by destroying the modifying effects of a government by ‘we the people.’
It’s a terrifying agenda. The conservatives want Obama to fail at all costs. I think the conservatives just might pull it off, regain power, and destroy the country through a crazy campaign of misinformation.
Posted by: phx8 at August 31, 2010 02:37 PMjlw asks; “Royal Flush, or Beretta9, do either of you have a list of the great new ideas for the future…”
Thank you for asking. We don’t need a list of new ideas, but have a great list of old ideas that work (ie); Fiscal sanity, balanced budgets, minimum regulations, courts that follow the constitution, individual rights, not group rights, education that teaches what is needed to find a job and become a good citizen rather than liberal/socialist, atheist claptrap, incentives to grow business not government, strict border protection, and more.
Should one be interested in more details, go to www.heritage.org
I have to list jlw and phx8’s remarks as silly.
Posted by: Beretta9 at August 31, 2010 03:17 PMMr. Remer wrote; “David Horowitz is a symbol of what’s wrong with the Republican Party, and why polls continue to show public approval (PDF) of the Democratic Party higher than the GOP.”
Hmmm…I went to the link and read the polling results. Not much there for dem/libs to crow about. Lots of other polls show results that are quite different.
Posted by: Royal Flush at August 31, 2010 03:31 PMSimple question for Mr. Remer and others of the dem/lib persuasion.
Would any dem/lib change positions with the rep/cons with regard to current polling and expected results for the November election?
Posted by: Royal Flush at August 31, 2010 03:37 PM
In the end, I don’t believe the mosque will get built. (sic) The Imam is on a taxpayer paid sojourn to collect monies from the Saud’s and the oil patch, possibly including Iran. Has to be some quid pro quo there, IMO. A grant from the UN might be a different animal.
The source of the money will be a problem. And, there is the perception, based on one well known case, of the Islamist’s building mosques on top of their adversaries religious symbols, Jerusalem. That perception is closer to real intent with many people.
Aside from that, whether the mosque does or does not get built, the corpocracy, based purely on global trade, has set the stage for an east-west confrontation within the states that will play out over decades, IMO. We have
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/08/elena-kagan-pro-sharia.html
‘harmonized’ administrative law, security law, trade law and are now working on judicial law in striving for globalization. Banking harmonization:
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62253R20100303
Comparison between the Constitution and Sharia:
http://islaminaction08.blogspot.com/2009/10/sharia-law-and-us-constitution.html
The rep/con don’t have to come up with any ideas, the dem/libs are doing a good job of making themselves unemployed.
Posted by: Beretta9 at August 31, 2010 04:06 PM(cont) Just as we are competing with state owned trading partners we are trying to accommodate a state owned religion. We realize that we can abide by the Constitution and allow mosque to be built in any number and any place. But, in doing so we realize that there will be a continual problem in trying to control the low level warfare, similar to the two Yemeni’s removed from a flight between the US and Netherlands this morning. We realize that some mosque will, and are, harbor(ing) malcontents and the U.S. will never send investigators into a mosque to check it out. The Imam the US is trying to get a ‘shoot to kill’ order against would be best served by beatfeeting it to the nearest US mosque he could get into where he would be safe and perhaps well fed.
The Corpocracy may be thinking in terms of one or two centuries. I’m more in tune with one or two millennia. Either way, we nor the corpocratists will see the end of it. For example: it took a couple of hundred years to get slavery right. For some, it’s not done yet. But, in the interim it will serve the corpocratists well.
Roy Ellis, here’s one:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/08/027122.php
Posted by: Beretta9 at August 31, 2010 04:33 PMComparison between the Constitution and Sharia:
http://islaminaction08.blogspot.com/2009/10/sharia-law-and-us-constitution.html
Posted by: Roy Ellis at August 31, 2010
Thanks for the link Roy, very interesting.
Posted by: Royal Flush at August 31, 2010 04:35 PMB9, thanks for the link. Just imagine, our tax dollars support this organization. Disgusting.
Posted by: Royal Flush at August 31, 2010 04:53 PMThank you Baretta9 and RF for demonstrating the truth of what I wrote about Republican supporters and defenders. I appreciate the verification.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 31, 2010 04:54 PMRoy, I am surprised you are buying into the Islamaphobia lies of the Right.
Our courts have ruled that religious buildings are not safe havens for those who pose a threat to public safety. Our authorities have entered Christian religious enclaves to serve warrants. Mosques were not excepted by those court rulings. If they harbor enemies of the U.S. or criminals, they will not find safe haven in a Mosque.
In fact, Christian organizations have produced far more criminals and murderers of Americans than any Mosque in America. Those are facts. To project some special evil into the recesses of Mosques in America is bigoted, prejudiced, and UnAmerican. It is the same kind of atttitude that produced the shameful Red Scare in the McCarthy era, illegally interred so many Japanese Americans, depriving them of their property and liberty without due process, and created the post-Civil War Segregation era complete with all manner of illegal paranoid actions like poll taxes, and literacy tests to vote. All these shameful acts in America were fostered by self-professed American Christians.
Nothing like this collection of shameful periods have ever been fostered by American Muslims. And yet, you choose to fear your fellow Americans who worship in Mosques. To be sure, there will be crimes committed in America by Muslims. But, every religion acts as host to criminals who subscribe to that religion. One of the purposes of religion is to help turn criminals away from their choice of crime. That is as true of American Islam as it is American Catholicism or Southern Baptists.
We have clergy from every religion working in our prisons. Should that clergy be demonized for associating with known criminals. Come on man, don’t let Right wing paranoia and hallucinations steer you away from common sense and the best of American principles set down in our founding documents.
Mr. Remer wrote; “And yet, you choose to fear your fellow Americans who worship in Mosques.”
Perhaps my eyes and ears deceived me when I watched the video and Mr. Remer detected some worship going on along with the terrorist collection plate being passed around. And then, to have the speaker remind his auidence that all money donated was tax deductible really put the icing on the cake.
Gee Mr. Remer, I can’t recall the last time we passed the plate in my Christian church to collect money for arms for what our own government has called terrorist organizations.
It makes me wonder when or if these funds to purchase weapons will be used against our own military. How would you feel about that?
Posted by: Royal Flush at August 31, 2010 05:27 PMLike the liberal posters on WB who didn’t get the memo that the Beck rally was not what it was predicted to be, David failed to view the links before he said the mosques would not be used for terrorism…
Posted by: Beretta9 at August 31, 2010 06:00 PMobama…I oppose the surge, I support the surge, I won with the surge.
Posted by: Royal Flush at August 31, 2010 06:32 PMRoyal Flush,
Gee Mr. Remer, I can’t recall the last time we passed the plate in my Christian church to collect money for arms for what our own government has called terrorist organizations.
You realize of course Sadam Hussein was not listed as a terrorist when we supported him against Iran, not do I believe Libya is still listed as a terrorist state. That designation is mostly a political label without much basis in morality.
The history of the Christian Church is also stained with blood all over the world. They have funded wars and continue through today. Witch burnings in Africa have been promoted by evangelical churches, as well as backing some of the mineral wars there.
In our own country Christian churches did fund the IRA and some of the killing squads in Central America, not to mention the KKK and the anti abortionist who advocate killing doctors.
People often fail to look at their own passionate beliefs in the same way they look at others. I find it ironic that “do unto others” is one of the most ignored tenets of Jesus.
Posted by: gergle at August 31, 2010 06:38 PMDavid:
In fact, Christian organizations have produced far more criminals and murderers of Americans than any Mosque in America. Those are facts.
Obviously. In the USA Less than 1% of americans identify themselves as Muslim. 70% or so identify themselves as Christian.
Not sure what your point is on this one.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_prac2.htm#aris08
In America Christians also eat more popcorn than muslims.
I will place gergle’s name in the column that agrees that the link shows a mosque in Florida collecting tax deductible money for organizations our government has called terrorists.
Posted by: Royal Flush at August 31, 2010 07:02 PMIn America Christians also eat more popcorn than muslims.
Posted by: Craig Holmes at August 31, 2010
Great response Craig and thanks for the laugh.
Posted by: Royal Flush at August 31, 2010 07:04 PMWe probably should get on to another topic as we will have a couple of thousand years to debate this one.
Posted by: Roy Ellis at August 31, 2010 07:13 PMYou on the left need to study your History of the variuos churches or Religions because each has it’s share of blood on their hands. Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus and whatever else you can name are not without a history of blood letting.
Posted by: MAG at August 31, 2010 07:20 PMFrance is paying the piper for their cheap labor, or immigration with no assimilation. Recently, the National Assembly passed a law banning use of full=face Islamic veils in public. Camps comprised of mostly Bulgarian and Romanian immigrants are being dozed. The Interior Minister has prepared legislation that would strip French nationality from the French born children of immigrants who are conicted of attacks on police and firement.
Providing security in such an environment is critical to an otherwise peaceful society. It’s gone real bad in Mexico of recent. Cops don’t know who cops are, Officials don’t know who cops and security people are as the cartels are disguising themselves to be whatever you can imagine. I get the impression the entire Northern part of the country is in anarchy. In today’s Wash Post it is reported that Mexico’s Federal Police Agency has fires 3200 officers or 10% of their workforce for failing lie=detector and other tests.
Druggies are “disguising their couriers and assassins in phoney uniforms and vehicles, passing them off as mail handlers and oil field workers or as Mexican soldiers and Texas sheriffs.” The Mexican military has changed the design of their uniforms to cut down on identity incidents.
I thik I’ll run out and buy my stash before the price goes up.
Posted by: Roy Ellis at August 31, 2010 07:52 PMMag,
Maybe there’s a message in that. You seem to almost have it.
Royal Flush,
I guess that importing your desires on a post that makes no agreement or disagreement adds to the power of your argument? Perhaps it speaks to the weakness.
I simply disagreed that Christians haven’t funded terrorism. I won’t make the rather dumb argument that you agree. If fact, I fully expect you to disagree. However, the facts are not with you.
Frankly, when we start taxing churches, and stop treating these organizations as something other than coalitions of like minded people, I’ll be happy.
Posted by: gergle at August 31, 2010 09:12 PMFor some reason I get the idea that there are some who would like to start burning churches and hanging Christians.
Posted by: Beretta9 at August 31, 2010 09:29 PMFor some reason I get the idea that there are some who would like to start burning churches and hanging Christians.
B9, for some reason, that statement coming from you is not a surprise…..
Posted by: jane doe at August 31, 2010 10:15 PMBeretta9,
It has happened before, burning churches and hanging Christians. Review the Civil Rights Movement in the Deep South.
“It’s a terrifying agenda. The conservatives want Obama to fail at all costs. I think the conservatives just might pull it off, regain power, and destroy the country through a crazy campaign of misinformation.”
>>>>> This.
When I was young (60’s) I was told the “Russian Empire” was evil. They threw dissenters in prisons. Quashed all criticism. Used ‘propaganda’ extensively to achieve their goals. (“What’s propaganda, Daddy?”… “That’s telling lies through the newspapers and radios, Son.”)
Nothing good can come of using lies and misinformation to achieve your ends.
God help us all.
Posted by: LibRick at August 31, 2010 10:40 PMWell this ought to be good news for David; another incumbent bites the dust. Lisa Murkowski was taken out by the Tea Party with Sarah Palin’s help. First incumbent Bob Bennett and now Murkowski. A great day for conservatives.
Funny how none of you libs talk about Palin in 2012 anymore. I said a year ago, Sarah is going to do what Sarah does best, and that is cause democrats and RINO’s a lot of trouble.
Posted by: Beretta9 at August 31, 2010 11:36 PMI think Sarah Palin ought to be made an honorary member of VOID. Nobody is working any harder than her to vote incumbent RINO’s out…
Posted by: Beretta9 at August 31, 2010 11:38 PMRoyal Flush said: “Gee Mr. Remer, I can’t recall the last time we passed the plate in my Christian church to collect money for arms for what our own government has called terrorist organizations.”
That’s because you CHOOSE to selectively filter out all history and information which contradicts your ideological defenses. Research the topic, if you dare, and you will find Christian organizations passing the plate for mass murder, mass sanctioned suicides, and all manner of other crimes.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 1, 2010 12:49 AMCraig said: “Not sure what your point is on this one.”
Then you are as blind as a bat. Perhaps “disproportionate fear and paranoia” will restore your sight. Probably not, though. Political partisan ideology is very blinding.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 1, 2010 12:52 AMBaretta9 and Royal Flush
Like pulling out a metal sliver, the cure may be painful, but, healing then follows. That is the way of VOID. We would all prefer to have responsible and accountable leaders acting in our and our nation’s best interest. But, the fact is, we don’t. Voting out incumbents is the cure for that. I have always known that the challengers who win against incumbents could be better, the same, or worse. If the same or worse, that is pulling out the metal sliver. It hurts, but, health will follow when enough incumbents of both parties have no choice but to put the common concerns of anti-incumbent voters ahead of the wealthy special interest campaign donors and legal blackmailing lobbyists, in order to get reelected. ,
Sarah Palin’s average is worse than a coin toss, if you take into account the number of candidates she spoke for who lost.
But, as I have already dedicated an article to, I do indeed welcome the efforts of the Coffee Party and Tea Party in the anti-incumbent movement. Together, we can achieve VOID’s ends.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 1, 2010 01:01 AMLibRick,
I just wonder where this all will end. Large numbers of Americans believe Obama is a Muslim, not a US citizen, and that he sympathizes with radical Islam. What on earth? How can a society function when a large number of its members believe weird, made-up stuff? You’d think people in the media would feel a responsibility to knock down the crazy, yet the crazy keeps growing, and some members of the media actively encourage the crazy and the weird, especially conservative commentators; apparently they believe that fanning the flames of ignorance will give them more power, and give their corporate backers even more profits.
The other night I watched a few minutes of a FOX show where Kurdrow was interviewing Frank Gaffney. They carried on a discussion about waging a war on Iran and its effect upon the price of oil, as if that were a completely reasonable topic for discussion.
Ummm… guys? You’re, uh, talking about the United States launching an unprovoked attack upon a sovereign country.
And this outrageous discussion was given air time, and it didn’t even raise the slightest protest.
Posted by: phx8 at September 1, 2010 02:12 AM
phx8, why should it raise a protest. I mean, we have Christian terrorists burning private property and intimidating and terrorizing American Muslims to the point of the police providing them protection in Murfeesboro, Tenn. and all in the name of defending against terrorists.
When you commit crimes claiming to be defending against the very acts you yourself commit, and a majority of the nation understand and empathize with you, well, you have a country that is in the throes of madness, founded upon a gross neglect of rational and empirically based education as an institution. We are reliving the onset of a new McCarthyism.
In other words, we have a failing attempt at a democracy.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 1, 2010 03:05 AMphx8:
“The other night I watched a few minutes of a FOX show where Kurdrow was interviewing Frank Gaffney. They carried on a discussion about waging a war on Iran and its effect upon the price of oil, as if that were a completely reasonable topic for discussion.”
I believe it is The Kudlow Report, and it is on CNBC, not FOX. This one little mistake changes the whole premise of your argument.
You said, “You’d think people in the media would feel a responsibility to knock down the crazy, yet the crazy keeps growing, and some members of the media actively encourage the crazy and the weird, especially conservative commentators; apparently they believe that fanning the flames of ignorance will give them more power, and give their corporate backers even more profits.”
But now it becomes the liberal commentators who are fanning the flames. It has always bee the liberal media who was pushing this idea that Obama is a Muslim. It is called reverse physiology; the liberal media has always believed, by constantly talking about it, they would cast the light on conservatives and make them look like the guilty party. But, from the beginning, it has backfired.
“And this outrageous discussion was given air time, and it didn’t even raise the slightest protest.”
In light of recent discoveries, do you still believe this?
Posted by: Beretta9 at September 1, 2010 10:33 AMRemer, There are nut cases in every religious organization including your Buddists. Your statements make it out to be all Christians are bad over a few idiots. As I said in an earlier post all religious organizations hacve blood on their hands, and yes even your Buddist faith.
Posted by: MAG at September 1, 2010 11:30 AMMAG, I haven’t heard any stories of American Muslims burning equipment at a Christian Church construction site, or Christians getting police protection from Muslims for wanting to expand their church, or Christian cabbies being cut and stabbed for saying they are Christian by an American Muslim. All these have been in the news in reverse over the last week.
I wrote that all religions have their derelicts, and it is BIGOTED, STUPID, IGNORANT, and COWARDLY to go after an entire religion because of some derelicts who say they belong to it. Stop repeating what I already wrote as if you are offering something new to the discussion. All you have to offer is defenses and apologies for the Mosque protester cowards and bigots. We get that. Thank you for chiming in.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 1, 2010 12:34 PMMr. Remer writes; “When you commit crimes claiming to be defending against the very acts you yourself commit, and a majority of the nation understand and empathize with you…”
Could you please identify a few of these “crimes” the majority empathizes with?
Posted by: Royal Flush at September 1, 2010 12:34 PMYou don’t read a newspaper or watch evening news, Royal Flush? I am not hear to be your reader. Look it up. Three incidents in the last week against innocent American Muslims or groups. I cite them above. Look it up. Last poll I saw several days ago indicated more than half of Americans believe the Muslims should NOT be allowed to use their property to build a community center with a modest Mosque in it. That was in the news too.
Look it up!
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 1, 2010 12:40 PMBeretta9,
The interview between Kudlow and Gaffney was on FOX Business News.
The liberal media is pushing the idea that Obama is a Muslim? The polls show it is mostly Repubicans who believe Obama is actually a Muslim, and sympathetic to Islamic fundamentalists. It makes no sense to see this idea as some sort of reverse psychology. That is a perfect example of the ‘crazy’ I am talking about. When called on the issue, you present an idea which is simply preposterous. Where did the idea come from, Beretta9? Please make it known. Is it your own idea? Did it come from Beck or Limbaugh or some other pundit? Links?
Remer then why do you claim Christians did all those things to Muslims? Could it be just angry citizens, even a buddist like you could get angry and do something stupid. You told phx8 that Christian terrorist burned buildings and intimidated Muslims in Murfeesboro. The point I’m making is your Lable of Christian doing these things. Maybe the media calls them that but a true Christian would NOT do those those things as would a peace loving and tolerant Buddist like yourself.
Posted by: MAG at September 1, 2010 01:28 PM
They stir up the hornets nest and when some of the hornets do bad things, they proclaim no responsibility for damages done. They also proclaim no empathy for the criminals, but their rhetoric says otherwise.
They are a group that is scared to death about the changes occurring in this country and around the world, while proclaiming that they fear nothing and nobody.
They claim they want to stop these changes, restore American values, American honor and return America to its greatness, in the name of GOD and country. IMO, they are trying to lead us down a path towards a modern day version of the Dark Ages.
That is what some Islamic leaders want to do, keep the Muslims in a fundamentalist imposed dark age.
Posted by: jlw at September 1, 2010 01:30 PM
MAG asked: “Could it be just angry citizens, even a buddist like you could get angry and do something stupid.”
Odds and history say NO! I get angry. I NEVER allow my anger to move me to crime or hateful acts of violence against others. NEVER! And the vast majority of Americans don’t either. Buddhists have nothing to fear from Mosques being expanded or erected in America. Neither do Hindus, or Seiks. It is White Christians in America whose Republican talking heads and political leaders are stoking their passions, hate, and bigotry with lies and deception, exemplified by Horowitz, that causing such hateful crimes to occur.
The GOP embraced the KKK and Aryan nation types exiting the Democratic Party in the 1960s and 1970s, Republican leaders and talking heads now have decades of expertise manipulating them to do their dirty work for them. That is what is going on here, and it is as plain as day. Sen. Orrin Hatch has publicly denounced these tactics against Muslims in America and said he defends their 1st Amendment religious rights. Republicans seeking office would do well to follow Hatch’s lead on this, or face a backlash that will shame them out of any chance of winning elections for their Party.
Republicans are going to wear these acts of violence right into the ballot box. Hatch knows this. So, do the rest of us who can’t be suckered into hate and supporting acts of violence for, ironically enough, the hope of winning over voters. Its Iraq thinking all over again. Its wrong, but some lies will insure no one ever knows. Dumb. Just plain politically stupid and suicidal.
McCarthy tried this back in the 50’s and it backfired big time. Southern Democrats tried these tactics and ended up forced out of their positions of power in a Democratic Party that would no longer respond to their demands for segregation, poll taxes, literacy tests, and intimidation of black persons seeking to exercise their Constitutional right to vote. I swear the GOP is truly ignorant of, and unable to learn from history because they think history is something you rewrite as needed to win elections. DUMB! VERY DUMB! Repeating the mistakes of the past is the dumbest thing people can possibly do.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 1, 2010 01:52 PMjlw, the Republican talking heads and leaders know there is no more threat from American Mosques than there is from the churches McVeigh and Nichols attended, or the Texan who flew his Cessna into the Federal building in Austin Texas last year. Republican agents started these lies and misrepresentations in the hopes of energizing their fundamentalist right-wing evangelical Christians to show up at the polls in November. Well, it will work. But, they are going to lose an awful lot of independent voters as a result, and they can’t retake the majority without the Independent voters.
It was a dumb move. Very DUMB! At least one Republican has denounced these tactics and come out in defense of the NY Mosque builders. His name is Hatch. He knows Mormons will be next on the list of religious targets if these GOP stokers of hate are not stopped now. Hatch is old enough, educated and intelligent enough to have learned the lesson of the German people’s refusal to stop these type of political tactics while they could be stopped.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 1, 2010 02:07 PMLeft Vandalizes Walmart!!!
I wager that there is more vandalism and Walmart stores by the left than at mosques by the right.
Here is a “terrorist” who was arrested for vandalism against Walmart because of Walmart’s enviromental practices.
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/crime/judge-sets-bond-for-woman-charged-with-setting-863876.html
Google Walmart Vandalism
http://www.rickross.com/reference/animal/animal68.html
So what does it say about the future of the Democratic Party that the left vandalizes Walmart?
Remer, I as a Christian do not have anything against Muslim, or any other religious group. They worship their god I worship mine. I have no qualms about them wanting to build Mosques. The only time I questioned one is the community center near ground zero and the wisdom of it. If it were a radical Christian group that did the deed I would question the wisdom of building a Cathedral at the site. Talking heads are just that talking heads no matter what side of the spectrum they are on. The left talking heads are just as detrimental to Democrats as the right talking heads are to Republicans.
Posted by: MAG at September 1, 2010 02:37 PMCraig, and there is more theft of public money from Republican supporters in corporations than any crimes committed by all of Muslims in America. Can you say, Madoff? How about that Republican laundering money and stealing from the Indians a few years ago. Kinda puts Wm. Jefferson’s freezer cash in the category of misdemeanor by comparison. Or how about 3/4 of a trillion rip-off of future tax payers spent on a war without cause or necessity in Iraq just to repay defense contractors for their invaluable election contributions in 2000.
Give it a break, Craig. There is no comparison. Criminal acts are as non-partisan as greed is. And that is pretty damned universally non-partisan. Fueling hate against fellow Americans to energize one’s election base is a whole other ballywick.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 1, 2010 03:00 PMMAG said: “Remer, I as a Christian do not have anything against Muslim, or any other religious group.”
If that is true, then you are in a clear majority in America. The majority of Christians respect other religions and racial groups attending them. Glad to hear it.
MAG said: “If it were a radical Christian group that did the deed I would question the wisdom of building a Cathedral at the site.”
But, there’s that lie, again. NO ONE is proposing to build any kind of religious oriented center at the 9/11 attack site. If you are sincere, quit giving currency to the lie that this is an issue at all. It isn’t. What difference does it make if the proposed Mosque site is three blocks away or 3 thousand miles away? None! NADA. The proposed Mosque site has no physical connection with the Ground Zero site. None, whatsoever. That is why the LIE had to be created to make this an issue at all. The lie Horowitz gave and so many other Republicans gave currency to.
MAG said: “The left talking heads are just as detrimental to Democrats as the right talking heads are to Republicans.”
Sorry, but that is empirically and verifiably UNTRUE. Left talking heads are not stoking passions to the point of violence against innocent fellow Americans. They used to. They aren’t now. Republicans are. That is a difference that cannot be lied away.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 1, 2010 03:09 PMIt is sad to read comments from a writer I respect when he resorts to flummery.
Mr. Remer was asked to show that a majority of American’s empathize with the crimes of a few. Simple request, not?
Instead, he relates the crimes of a few with American opposition to the mosque in NYC. And from that, declares that a majority of American’s are empathetic with those crimes. If that’s not flummery, what is?
Posted by: Royal Flush at September 1, 2010 03:25 PMRoyal Flush, you are a DUMMY if you think I am going to do your research for you gratis. Throw a Ben Franklin my way, and I will fetch the polling which you SHOULD be already aware of since you take such an interest in politics.
Funny how you ignored the polling in your comment, referenced as evidence of my statement that a majority of American empathetic, NOT with those crimes as you deceptively assert, but, with the Mosque protesters in NYC, which is what I actually said, not what you wish I had said.
Laziness in doing one’s research never gets a high rating from me. Your response gets a D-. You did respond and that has to be worth something.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 1, 2010 03:54 PMRemer, We now have a Buddist terrorist holding hostages at the Discovery TV headquarters in Silver Springs, MD.
Posted by: MAG at September 1, 2010 04:04 PMDavid said a boo-boo”
“MAG said: “The left talking heads are just as detrimental to Democrats as the right talking heads are to Republicans.”
Sorry, but that is empirically and verifiably UNTRUE. Left talking heads are not stoking passions to the point of violence against innocent fellow Americans. They used to. They aren’t now.
“Actor John Cusack went on a caustic Twitter rampage Sunday evening, attacking former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Fox News.
“I AM FOR A SATANIC DEATH CULT CENTER AT FOX NEWS HQ AND OUTSIDE THE OFFICES ORDICK ARMEYAND NEWT GINGRICH-and all the GOP WELFARE FREAKS,” Cusack tweeted.”
I guess he’s not really a liberal democrat…
Posted by: Beretta9 at September 1, 2010 04:17 PMHave any of you guys actually researched the time line of this “mosque”?
from the smirking chimp;
“2009: A Muslim organization having arranged to purchase an abandoned Burlington Coat factory on Park Place in Lower Manhattan plans to build a 13-story Islamic community center. It will feature a culinary school, conference hall, basketball court, swimming pool, and place of worship among other things and while principally servicing the Muslim community be open to all. It is to be called the Cordoba House, an apparent allusion to Muslim Spain in which Islam flourished alongside Christianity and Judaism from the eighth century up to the “Reconquest.”
In its mission statement the group says the center “will be dedicated to pluralism, service, arts and culture, education and empowerment, appreciation for our city and a deep respect for our planet. [It] will join New York to the world, offering a welcoming community center with multiple points of entry. With world-class facilities, a global scope and strong local roots, [the center] will offer a friendly and accessible platform for conversations across our identities…”
“In December 2009 the New York Times runs an article on the project. It is generally positive, citing two Jewish leaders and the mother of a 9-11 victim in support. In the same month conservative commentator Laura Ingraham, guest-hosting FOX News’ “The O’Reilly Factor,” interviews Rauf’s wife, Daisy Khan. The interview is as Salon’s Justin Elliot later notes “remarkable for its cordiality.” “I can’t find many people who really have a problem with [the project], declares Ingraham. “I like what you’re trying to do.”
Fast forward to May 2010;
“On May 6, 2010, after a public hearing in which New Yorkers express strong feelings pro and con, the New York City community board committee unanimously votes to approve the project. Enter Pamela Geller, who maintains a blog called Atlas Shrugs. She has written a book about Barack Obama in which she alleges his real father was Malcolm X. She leads an apparently tiny wacko group called Stop the Islamization of America. Seeing the opportunity to have her moment in the sun (and she is soon interviewed by FOX News and CNN), she lashes out at Cordoba House. She declares on her blog, “this is not about religious liberty. No one has suggested abridging the First Amendment to stop the mosque, and to oppose the Ground Zero mosque is not to oppose the First Amendment. There are hundreds of mosques in New York, thousands in America. This is not a religious issue. This is an issue of national dignity and respect for those who were murdered at that site in the name of Islam.” She begins to organize a protest at the Park Place site…”
All of a sudden the rats start to come out of the woodwork.
Newt thinks that there should be churches in Saudi Arabia. Curious that he thinks that American freedoms should be compared to Saudi Arabian freedoms.
“On July 16 Sarah Palin weighs in. Addressing not Muslims specifically but “Peaceful New Yorkers,” Sarah Palin twittered: ” pls refudiate [sic] the Ground Zero mosque plan if you believe catastrophic pain caused @ Twin Towers site is too raw, too real.” She adds two days later (after ammending “refudiate” to “refute”), “Ground Zero mosque is UNNECESSARY provocation; it stabs hearts…”
After this it just gets weirder, and weirder;
“By innuendo they assert that Rauf is linked to international terrorism. That seems unlikely since he’s been hired by the FBI since 2001 to offer sensitivity training to agents and has also just been asked by the State Department recently to tour the Middle East to “foster greater understanding” about the U.S. and its Muslims.
The charge seems based solely on the fact that in a June 2010 interview with Aaron Klein of New York’s WABC Radio, he declined to say whether he agreed with the listing of Hamas as a “terrorist organization.”
He declined to do, replying, “I’m not a politician. I try to avoid the issues. The issue of terrorism is a very complex question…. I’m a bridge builder. I define my work as a bridge builder. I do not want to be placed, nor do I accept to be placed in a position of being put in a position where I am the target of one side or another.”
Now surely there are those among you that believe that the placement of this center is insensitive. After reading all that I can on this issue I don’t think that a center with the goals of Cordoba House could be any more sensitive.
What could possibly be better than a “bridge” between cultures/religions?
I am curious why what Laura Ingraham, a darling “talking head” of the right, thought was a good idea only 9 months ago, has become this flame war.
Also I am sure that there are those of you that have closed their minds and cannot be swayed.
I would ask those people if they felt the same way last December.
Rocky
Mr. Remer wrote; “Laziness in doing one’s research never gets a high rating from me.”
From one “dummy” to another, there was no need to research anything. Without a rewrite, your cause and effect comments stand in error. What I read from your post was a clear statement that since a majority of American’s empathize with those who wish the mosque to be relocated, they must therefore support the criminal acts against muslims.
Sorry, you get an F-
Posted by: Royal Flush at September 1, 2010 05:49 PMToday’s latest poll shows 70% of American’s do not want the Mosque to be built at the tower site. Since 20% of Americans claim to be liberal, then I would have to say, almost 100% of the 70% are either conservatives or moderates. So almost 100% of conservatives and moderates are against the mosque, which means almost 100% of conservatives and moderates are supporting criminal acts against muslims. Which means the 20% of Americans who are liberals are true Americans and the other 70% are just fake Americans. Which means the 20% who are liberal should get ID cards that show they are American citizens and the other 70% should get green cards, and since it is the 70% that are paying the taxes for the 20% to spend,and the green cards will allow the 70% who are not real Americans to stay in the country and work and pay taxes…..Is that clear???
Posted by: Beretta9 at September 1, 2010 06:02 PMI think I deserve a 100% or in other words an “A”, because coming up with those percentages was almost as difficult as understanding a WB liberal’s post.
Posted by: Beretta9 at September 1, 2010 06:06 PMRocky:
I would separate out a few issues in your well written post above.
As a moderate conservative, I really don’t care much about religious buildings and where they are located unless there is a very strong reason. I think it says something about a groups intentions where they choose to locate a house of worship.
For instance, If Phelps decided to build a church next to Arlington national Cemetery, my assumption would be that he was doing so to make it handy to protest at funerals. I don’t have a problem with blocking that action because, common sense would tell me that they are hiding behind religious liberty for political purposes.
We as Christians are taught (but seldom practice) to flee the appearance of evil. Because the sight is at ground zero, it appears that this group is building this mosque for political reasons and hiding behind religious liberty.
(Don’t have a clue whether they are or are not, but stand by that it LOOKS like they are).
I believe they should work with the community and find another sight, because they “appear” to be abusing religious freedom. As a religious organization that is not a good approach.
I also believe that when we find people that are using religious freedom as a front to promote politics it’s ok to call them out on it. The IRS correctly has rules where a church’s 501(c)3 status can be revoked for exactly this reason.
I also believe as a christian that I need to stay away from the issue. I would rather have them have the mosque there, (wrongly for illustration purposes) than to now have the government in the business of telling me where I can put a church.
My advice to Christians would be to tread very carefully.
Craig,
Thank you for your moderate response.
“Because the sight is at ground zero, it appears that this group is building this mosque for political reasons and hiding behind religious liberty.”
I am 58 years old this month. I have been out in the world since the late ’60s, early ’70s. I have seen over the last few decades a growing cynicism in this country.
Call me naive, but I am willing to take a man at his word until he shows me otherwise.
I have read nothing that would show me that this man, the Iman, is other than what he says he is, and I have read a lot of unsubstantiated crap, innuendo, and outright lies against him.
We here in America are at a crossroads, and our fate rests in our own hands.
We either believe in what our Constitution says, unequivocally, and act accordingly, or stop spouting off about how groovy the Founding Father’s ideas were, and how tolerant America is.
Fred Phelps, no matter how abhorrent we find his message, must be allowed to say that message, or America is not really what we say it is.
Rocky
Rocky, what is so difficult to understand. No one denies muslims the right to built the mosque in NYC. The rights afforded us in our founding documents do not require that we don’t disagree. We are following the constituion and will continue to object. There will be no court case on this issue as the law is clear. They have the right to build and we have the right to object.
Got it…Good
Posted by: Royal Flush at September 1, 2010 07:03 PMFlush,
“They have the right to build and we have the right to object.”
Do we have the right to lie about their motives?
Rocky
Craig, I don’t believe the mosque will get built for a number of obvious reasons. But, I agree with you that Christians should tread lightly on this issue, again for obvious reasons.
In so doing, it’s kind of like letting the suspect bank robber finish the job before interceding, not the normal way things get done. But, one more mosque can not a difference make. It’s a given that some mosque are serving as militant platforms and that over time some will draw critisism for that. Federal agencies will figure out who to keep track of, much like the two Yemeni’s that were released in the Netherlands today.
Way better to to steer clear of this one than take a chance of the Courts working ‘judicial activism’ magic on the 1st amendment. IE, corporations are human, money is free speech, etc.
Otherwise, we have the Corpocracy we deserve.
Posted by: Roy Ellis at September 1, 2010 07:13 PMRocky asks, “Do we have the right to lie about their motives?”
NO, no one should lie. However, I beleive you may be confusing lying with speculation. A lie is a deliberate untruth. Since we aren’t getting the answers to questions being asked about financing of the mosque, there is much speculation. When questioned about the possible support of terrorist organizations we get waffeling and spin. That fuels speculation which some may confuse with lies.
Now Rocky, my question for you. Have you heard an explanation of why it is imperitive to build the mosque at this particular site? Is there something about this location that precludes the mosque from being built elsewhere? There must be something of extreme importance other than just standing on principle that would justify an unwillingness to compromise when it is clearly harming their image of a peaceful and accomodating religion just wanting to be good neighbors.
Posted by: Royal Flush at September 1, 2010 07:31 PMFlush,
“Have you heard an explanation of why it is imperitive to build the mosque at this particular site? Is there something about this location that precludes the mosque from being built elsewhere?”
Had you checked out the link I provided you could have read this;
“In its mission statement the group says the center “will be dedicated to pluralism, service, arts and culture, education and empowerment, appreciation for our city and a deep respect for our planet. [It] will join New York to the world, offering a welcoming community center with multiple points of entry. With world-class facilities, a global scope and strong local roots, [the center] will offer a friendly and accessible platform for conversations across our identities.”
It will be four big city blocks away from where the World Trade Center once stood (“Ground Zero”). But since there are already about eight mosques in Manhattan, and a significant Muslim population in that highly diverse section of New York City, there is nothing remarkable about the group’s application to tear down the old factory building and construct the center.”
Rocky
Rocky, the mission statement is not an “imperative”. The same can be accomplished elsewhere…not?
Posted by: Royal Flush at September 1, 2010 07:55 PMRocky:
We either believe in what our Constitution says, unequivocally, and act accordingly, or stop spouting off about how groovy the Founding Father’s ideas were, and how tolerant America is.Fred Phelps, no matter how abhorrent we find his message, must be allowed to say that message, or America is not really what we say it is
In general yes, but there are some fine points. For instance the one I mentioned before where the IRS can rightly take away a church’s tax exempt status if they deem that the “church” is simply a front for political activity.
With Phelps for instance, I have no problem with giving him his free speech rights. But should he decide to put up a church next to Arlington, and hide behind freedom of religion and claim religious persecution, I would have a hard time siding with his contention.
Reading some articles about the building, it seems that some other muslims have the same concerns that I do. Maybe it is in the wrong location.
But even at least one Muslim in Dubai wondered whether Rauf had selected the right site for his cultural center.Mishaal Al Gergawi, a prominent local writer and analyst, said, “Maybe it’s just creating another battle. Maybe it’s too early. Maybe it should come in five years. I’m really on the fence.”
Why not bring it together there?
Muslims died in the towers as well, do they not deserve to be memorialized as well?
Is a Burlington warehouse also to be considered “hallowed” ground?
The planned building doesn’t have minarets or domes, and is dwarfed by the surrounding buildings.
You won’t be able to see it from where the towers stood. This is valuable commercial property. Those that chose to build the Center there believe that it fits their needs.
Why should they be forced to look else where, and how far is far enough?
And who truly are the people being insensitive here?
Rocky
Posted by: Rocky Marks at September 1, 2010 09:09 PMCraig,
“Maybe it should come in five years.”
Ten years, twenty years, how long is long enough?
There exists a hatred for Muslims in this country that has been re-ignited by the “speculation” yet again, of what they stand for. These people are Americans just as surely as you and I are.
How many times must they answer the same questions before we believe the answers?
Here in the Phoenix area, in the days after Sept. 11th, there was a Sikh murdered simply because he wore a turban, and his assailant believed that Middle Easterners wore turbans. The man was shot 5 times at his place of business.
http://www.realsikhism.com/index.php?subaction=showfull&id=1210886825&ucat=8
“Balbir Singh was known by friends and neighbors as a quiet, gentle man. He practiced the Sikh values of help other and share with others. Children told reporters how Balbir Singh would let them buy candy from his store, even if they didn’t have enough money. The homeless shed tears as they recounted tales of his generosity to them. And neighbors came by the hundreds with candles, flowers, pictures and words to honor his noble memory. The neighborhood response to Balbir Singh’s passing has galvanized the entire Phoenix community.”
I am truly sorry, but 9 years is long enough. I thought America was bigger than this.
Rocky
RF, you extrapolate what was not written or intended by what I said. That is your prerogative as a reader. As the author of my own words, I stand by them. I never said the majority of Americans stand by the violent criminal acts perpetrated against Muslims this last week. Those are your words, not mine.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 1, 2010 10:59 PMBaretta9 said: “because coming up with those percentages was almost as difficult as understanding a WB liberal’s post.”
Ahh, it was over your head. I hear you.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 1, 2010 11:00 PMCraig illogically wrote a straw man argument: “For instance, If Phelps decided to build a church next to Arlington national Cemetery… “
The proposed Community Center with Mosque is NOT “NEXT” to Ground Zero, nor adjacent, nor even in the line of site of Ground Zero. Your analogy fails, as in comparing apples to oranges.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 1, 2010 11:04 PMRF, some of those sharing your objections are terrorizing Muslims having nothing to with the NYC mosque. That is the issue. Your objections, calmly and rationally raised, are not a problem. But, when YOU LIE as David Horowitz did, to create passions without factual basis to be acted upon with emotional revulsion, violent acts are and will be the consequence, and that should be rebuked and denounced, which my article more than adequately does.
Objection noted. Move on. But, no. The true objection did not incite. So, lies had to be introduced to incite uncontrollable passions of bigots, uneducated, and miscreants from the far Right, many of whom have lost faith the GOP. Such lie based incitements are intended to bring them back into the political fold, and that is both dangerous and reckless.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 1, 2010 11:11 PMRocky, I am going to be in Phoenix on Friday evening for a couple days. Any chance of connecting over the weekend? If so, contact me through the VOID website’s Contact link, and I will respond before leaving in the morning.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 1, 2010 11:13 PMLook VERY CAREFULLY at who is protecting OIL PROFITS and FUNDING the Tea Party, Republicans, and your elections.
1. Koch-Funded Organizations Launch New Campaign To Protect Big Oil Profits
http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/09/01/koch-funded-organizations-launch-new-campaign-to-protect-big-oil-profits/
2. Corporate Billionaire Koch Brothers Fund Tea Party and Right Wing War on Government, Obama, Progressives,
Article: Covert Operations: The billionaire brothers who are waging a war against Obama. The New Yorker, August 30, 2010.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer?currentPage=all#ixzz0xfxJXs9S
3. Voter Beware: Concentrated Corporate Power Is Creating Deceptive Elections
http://dissidentvoice.org/2010/08/voter-beware-concentrated-corporate-power-is-creating-deceptive-elections/
PLEASE DISSEMINATE THIS INFORMATION EVERYWHERE! You won’t see it in the traditional media. Please cross post this information everywhere — Facebook, Twitter, blogs, all of your contacts, etc.
Rocky:
There exists a hatred for Muslims in this country that has been re-ignited by the “speculation” yet again, of what they stand for.
I am not sure about all the muslim hating. Take a look at this:
http://www.pollingreport.com/religion.htm
Reading down further into the polls, it looked like muslims are about as popular as mormons.
Actually, I really don’t think Americans give a rip what religion a person is. I do however think they were touched deeply by the events of 9/11, and believe it is the wrong place for a mosque.
Posted by: Craig Holmes at September 1, 2010 11:54 PMDavid:
I do believe there are rational limits on these rights. As stated above I believe the IRS is correct in threatening to take away tax exemption from religious organizations who are simply using their religion as a front for politics. Of course free speech is fine.
For instance as stated above, should Phelps build a “church” right next to Arlington, I would assume he was doing so for political reasons, and his “church” should be viewed through a political lense.
In this particular case, it the mosques tax exemption would be determined by already established IRS regulations. It’s nothing to be concerned with because tax law/regulation is well established.
However their motives are being called into question by their choice of location. I am glad to see they are thinking through their options on the location of the mosque.
As you can see from the post to Rocky there is polling data that shows muslims are about as popular as mormons.
Posted by: Craig Holmes at September 2, 2010 12:15 AMCraig,
Read this;
http://islam.about.com/od/currentissues/p/Background-Of-The-Ground-Zero-Mosque-Issue.htm
“There has actually been a “Ground Zero” mosque for 30 years, since before there was even a World Trade Center. Masjid Manhattan was established in 1970 just four blocks from what would later become the WTC. In early 2009 they lost their lease and moved to temporary quarters (also in lower Manhattan). The new space can only hold a fraction of worshippers at a time.
The tiny Masjid Al-Farah has also been located here for decades, a few blocks from Ground Zero. This mosque holds worship services for the mystical branch of Islam, Sufism. Manhattan is a diverse cultural and religious community, and has been for many years.”
“Reading down further into the polls, it looked like muslims are about as popular as mormons.”
And I am sure the Mormons are thrilled to death about that.
This is a poll from 1 year ago;
http://pewforum.org/Muslim/Muslims-Widely-Seen-As-Facing-Discrimination.aspx
Rocky
Craig,
I went through your linked poll, and when asked the question;
“Do you think that a Muslim should be allowed to run for President of the United States?”, 32% of respondents said no.
Curious…
Rocky
“The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy: a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship.”
“It is now no more that toleration is spoken of as if it were the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights, for, happily, the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.”
The above quotes are from a letter written by George Washington to a jewish congregation in Rhode Island that had expressed concerns about religious tolerance.
Posted by: Rich at September 2, 2010 09:38 AM“The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy: a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship.”
“It is now no more that toleration is spoken of as if it were the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights, for, happily, the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.”
The above quotes are from a letter written by George Washington to a jewish congregation in Rhode Island that had expressed concerns about religious tolerance.
Posted by: Rich at September 2, 2010 10:09 AM
I think this ties in pretty well with the 32% I noted in post 307546.
http://www.theonion.com/articles/man-already-knows-everything-he-needs-to-know-abou,17990/
“I almost gave in and listened to that guy defend Islam with words I didn’t want to hear,” Gentries said. “But then I remembered how much easier it is to live in a world of black-and-white in which I can assign the label of ‘other’ to someone and use him as a vessel for all my fears and insecurities.”
The truly sad thing is some people find fiction more interesting than fact.
Rocky
I never said the majority of Americans stand by the violent criminal acts perpetrated against Muslims this last week.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 1, 2010
Thank you for the clarification.
Posted by: Royal Flush at September 2, 2010 12:48 PMRocky:
These things have a way of working out over time. I still think this is like a ham sandwich at a bar mitzvah.
Posted by: Craig Holmes at September 2, 2010 04:18 PMCraig,
As I said, I will not deny anybody their opinion, that said, I also don’t think any body’s opinions, including my own, are sacrosanct.
I do however believe that virtually everyone that is opposed to this project is viewing the issue emotionally.
The logical thing, IMHO, would be to judge this gentleman, and this project, by his actions, and his words, and not speculate on what some third party that has an axe to grind thinks.
As I said weeks ago, I didn’t care about this issue until the bulls**t started to get piled up. I began to educate myself and found that 99.99% of what this man was being accused of was merely lies and overt election year speculation, meant to stir up the “base” with bulls**t.
Rocky
Rocky:
In this case the emotions are justified. 3000 dead Americans. Emotion is very reasonable and understandable.
I also would come back and say that it might say something about your side of the issue that they are not willing to undertand this deep emotion enough to move a building to another location.
Posted by: Craig Holmes at September 2, 2010 05:59 PMCraig,
“In this case the emotions are justified.”
Are justified?
Islam is not responsible for this tragedy. 1.5 billion Muslims are not responsible for this tragedy. The Iman is not responsible for this tragedy.
19 lunatics were responsible for those 3000 dead people.
In the link I provided it showed a need for a place of worship for the Muslims in this area of New York City. If anything this project, by bringing diverse cultures together should help to heal whatever wound that needs healing.
Polls showed that residents of New York City didn’t have a problem with this project. The overwhelming objection to this project has been from people that don’t live anywhere near New York City, let alone anywhere near the project.
Moving this project isn’t going to heal anything if the healing hasn’t started already.
A memorial commercial building dedicated to the Gods of Capitalism will be built and people will get on with their lives.
Here’s an idea. Lets tell all the residents of New York City they have to move out and make the whole damn island a memorial.
Rocky
Rocky:
Of course it is justified.
When a woman is raped my a man, do you tell her that her attitudes toward the rest of men, should not be altered? After all it was just one!!
Or if a child is killed by a drunk driver that they should have no ill feelings toward the alchohol industry? After all it was just one person who misused the product. They should be able to separate their emotions.
It is very understandable that people cannot separate their emotions.
Look how long it has taken Germany to live down Hitler.
Jews who lost family and friends in the holocaust should be way beyond all of this. After all, it was not the average German that did anything to them.
Native Americans should be way past the fact that their grandparents land was taken away. After all, the people now a days were not here back then.
Blacks should be over slavery right?
Deep emotions are understandable when events like 9/11 happen.
Just saying “get over it, it was only 19 men” doesn’t work.
Out of sensitivity to these deep wounds the people promoting the mosque should sit down with victims of 9/11 and hear them out.
I think Craig got it right in a previous post when he said “My advice to Christians would be to tread very carefully.”
It is a slippery slope when we begin to exhort and sanction the use of public pressure to control the manner in which a particular religion can exercise its lawful rights. The very purpose of including Constitutional protections for free expression of religion was to remove such questions from the public debate.
Craig,
“Deep emotions are understandable when events like 9/11 happen.
Just saying “get over it, it was only 19 men” doesn’t work.”
So what you’re saying is that despite the fact that America has spent the last 8 years raining “shock and awe” on Muslims that don’t believe as we do, America needs a time out, for maybe 50 to 100 years?
Iman Abdul Rauf, an activist whose stated goal is to improve relations between the Muslim world and the West. He has founded two non-profit organizations whose stated missions are to enhance the discourse on Islam in society. He has condemned the 9/11 attacks as un-Islamic. He has spent the last 8 years teaching FBI agents sensitivity.
This guy Iman Abdul Rauf is the bad guy here because he dared to show his insensitivity by trying to build a community center who’s entire aim is to try to pull our cultures together in an abandoned Burlington warehouse a mere 2 blocks away from the “hallowed ground” where a commercial building will be built albeit a “memorial” commercial building.
Please allow me to take a minute and absorb the breathtaking irony of it all…
Rocky
Rocky, there will never be an understanding of just what make a lot of Republicans tick. Not when a major faction of them have jumped the tracks into some absurd world of pure, unmitigated hate! Conservativism ….
con·ser·va·tism (kn-sûrv-tzm)
n.
1. The inclination, especially in politics, to maintain the existing or traditional order.
2. A political philosophy or attitude emphasizing respect for traditional institutions, distrust of government activism, and opposition to sudden change in the established order.
3. Conservatism The principles and policies of the Conservative Party in the United Kingdom or of the Progressive Conservative Party in Canada.
4. Caution or moderation, as in behavior or outlook.
Nowhere in that definition do I see the word HATE. FEAR. PARANOIA.
Anyway, it appears that the process is nearly finished and there is a green light to proceed with the building. See: con·ser·va·tism (kn-sûrv-tzm)
n.
1. The inclination, especially in politics, to maintain the existing or traditional order.
2. A political philosophy or attitude emphasizing respect for traditional institutions, distrust of government activism, and opposition to sudden change in the established order.
3. Conservatism The principles and policies of the Conservative Party in the United Kingdom or of the Progressive Conservative Party in Canada.
4. Caution or moderation, as in behavior or outlook.
Anyway, it looks like the final hurdles have been conquered and approval is all but granted.
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/03/mosque-near-ground-zero-clears-key-hurdle/
Posted by: jane doe at September 2, 2010 11:01 PMjane,
Down near the middle of the story you link is a comment from an opponent that shows why I feel that there is a lot of lying taking place in the opposition to this project.
The quote “One woman carried a sign reading, “Don’t Glorify Murders of 3,000; No 9/11 Victory Mosque.”” is pure hatred for what the center stands for, and is a blatant lie. This woman has no idea what what is happening here and is protesting just to protest.
Her level of ignorance is appalling.
Rocky
BTW, Craig,
In your post to illustrate your point you noted criminal acts, acts of war, and acts Americans did to other Americans.
Sept 11th was a criminal act perpetrated by lunatics that had nothing to do with everyday American Muslims .
Think about that… American Muslims.
And from your point of view these American Muslims have to step aside, be sensitive, and become second class American citizens because of a criminal act they had nothing to do with.
Rocky
Craig said: “When a woman is raped my a man, do you tell her that her attitudes toward the rest of men, should not be altered? After all it was just one!!”
Yes, Craig, when she is ready, that is exactly what a therapist MUST tell her, and what she must accept, IF she is to heal from her injury.
For the woman to retain a phobia of men for the rest of her life would constitute a counterproductive impediment to her healing and living a normal healthy life. The point of therapy after such an incident is the same as that after an appendectomy, to heal, and return to a normal state.
For Americans to fear ALL Muslims after 9/11 at this time, only reflects an unhealthy and unfinished healing process on their part. The problem with psychological trauma is that many people will deny they have been altered by one, even when they have been injured by it. Hence, they do not heal.
David:
Yes, Craig, when she is ready, that is exactly what a therapist MUST tell her, and what she must accept, IF she is to heal from her injury.For the woman to retain a phobia of men for the rest of her life would constitute a counterproductive impediment to her healing and living a normal healthy life
Of course you take it to the extreme case of a phobia.
Not wanting to go on a date at the sight of the rape scene would be more accurate analogy than a woman having a phobia.
It brings back memories that she is trying to put behind her.
Asking the Muslim community to chose another location for the mosque is not a phobia. Phobia would be demanding no mosques be built.
70% of New Yorkers are asking the muslim community to do this for them, and I hope they listen.
Craig said: “Phobia would be demanding no mosques be built.”
Which is in fact what some organizations on the Right are calling for, and the news media is covering it. Phobia.
It is phobic to project hostile intent in the actions of American Muslims. You miss this fact entirely. Same as White Democrats reaction to the Civil Rights Act, that blacks out from under the thumb of whites would wreak havoc and revenge against whites for the way they were treated for centuries. Phobia, irrational fear.
The Mosque protesters are phobic.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 3, 2010 01:02 PMDavid:
The Mosque protesters are phobic.
Quite a generalization coming from someone arguing for inclusion.
Care to clarify?
What “hostile intent” is there in asking the NY Muslims to consider another sight in New York further away from Ground zero?
Posted by: Craig Holmes at September 3, 2010 04:15 PMCraig,
“Asking the Muslim community to chose another location for the mosque is not a phobia.”
This whole thing smacks of demanding they choose another location, not ashing.
Rocky
Craig,
What hostile intent is there to asking colored people to drink from a separate fountain?
Posted by: gergle at September 3, 2010 04:44 PMgergle:
So you are saying that asking the muslim community to choose another location other than the one where 3000 americans were killed,
is equal to what happened to blacks in our country?
Posted by: Craig Holmes at September 3, 2010 06:32 PMRocky:
I think the very nature of protesting is to demand action.
Why else protest?
Craig,
Are you saying “separate but equal” discrimination against an entire group because of their religion isn’t discriminatory?
Are you saying mob rule trumps religious freedom?
Posted by: gergle at September 3, 2010 09:21 PMgergle,
“Are you saying mob rule trumps religious freedom?”
No, I think what is being said here is more insidious than even that.
What I think is being said here is that emotional baggage trumps religious freedom.
We aren’t grown up enough to handle our emotional pain so screw religious freedom.
Rocky
Gergle:
Not at all. First of all, separate but equal was the law. I would oppose any legal action to stop the mosque.
As a Christian we are taught if you live by the sword, you will die by the sword.
I fear our government, but do not fear any religion.
At the same time, I believe it is wrong for the mosque to be built over the objections of the 9/11 victims. It is very wrong.
If I lived in New York, I would be one of those protestors David calls “phobic”, even though I have no fear of islam.
(I might be a bit phobic of government intrusion into religiuos affairs but I think that is called being an ‘American’)
Craig,
Albert Einstein said, “Fear or stupidity has always been the basis of most human actions”.
Much fear and stupidity has been injected into the debate over this community center. I find it curious that those opposing the Muslim center feel the Muslims must negotiate with them rather than the other way around.
I also find it curious that your only response to any of my points has been the obstreperous mantra of “they have to go somewhere else”.
Reading between the lines of the “I am all for the First Amendment, and I am all for religious freedoms but…”, is the unveiled threat of “if you do this I will make your life miserable forever…”.
Yep, that’s some kind of religious freedom you guys advocate there.
Rocky
Not wanting to go on a date at the sight of the rape scene would be more accurate analogy than a woman having a phobia.
If this is the analogy you want to use, it’s more like not wanting to go on a date several blocks away from the “rape scene” nine years later, after the person who raped her is long dead. Actually, if you want a more accurate analogy, it’s more like not wanting anyone else to go on a date there, since they people objecting are not the ones who are going to be using that house of worship.
It brings back memories that she is trying to put behind her.
After nine years, it doesn’t seem like she is trying very hard if she can’t consider a “date” with someone who’s only connection to her rapist is their gender (religion) over two city blocks away from the place she was once “raped”. Doubly so if she can’t let others go on a “date” there that in no way involves her.
Asking the Muslim community to chose another location for the mosque is not a phobia. Phobia would be demanding no mosques be built.
And what location would be acceptable? The Muslim community in that area of Manhattan needs a place of worship. The mosques already in the area are full to overflowing, to the point of having to rent out abandoned warehouses to hold their parishioners. Now, they are seeking to renovate the warehouse they have been renting, and you tell them that it is “insensitive” to build a mosque there. Two blocks from World Trade Center 7 is “too close”. A tenth of a mile is “too close”. So where would you have them build it? Four blocks away? Eight? Ten? Still too close? Twenty, then, a full mile from the site? More? How far does it need to be to satisfy this demand for “sensitivity” on the part of American Muslims? It sounds like the people making this demand would like it to be far enough away that it can’t possibly serve the community it’s intended for. The entire borough is only 23 square miles, and at its widest point is less than three miles wide.
And hey, if mosques are “insensitive” just because they share the same religion as the 9/11 terrorists (even if their relationship with that branch of Islam is about as close as the relationship between Catholicism and Mormonism) what else is “insensitive” too? Halal butchers and groceries and restaurants? Islamic nonprofit groups? Hell, do we let any Muslim businesses serve that entire community? At what point does “sensitivity” become a code word for making Muslims in that area into second-class citizens, even a way to subtly pressure them into leaving?
70% of New Yorkers are asking the muslim community to do this for them, and I hope they listen.
And as of June, 46% of the people who live in Manhattan itself support the project, with only 36% opposed. As of August 5th, support in Manhattan itself has become even stronger, with 53% in support of the mosque and 31% opposed. Yet nobody seems to be listening to the community where the mosque will actually be located. New York City is a big place; how much should the opinions of those in Staten Island (where opposition is strongest) count in considering this issue compared with those who are actually in the borough?
Posted by: Jarandhel at September 5, 2010 08:30 PMRocky:
Yep, that’s some kind of religious freedom you guys advocate there.
Are you really down to “you guys” kind of generalization arguments?
Posted by: Craig Holmes at September 5, 2010 11:08 PMCraig,
“Are you really down to “you guys” kind of generalization arguments?”
Your sidestepping and not addressing any other point!
Rocky
Posted by: Rocky Marks at September 5, 2010 11:15 PMJarandhel:
If this is the analogy you want to use, it’s more like not wanting to go on a date several blocks away from the “rape scene” nine years later, after the person who raped her is long dead. Actually, if you want a more accurate analogy, it’s more like not wanting anyone else to go on a date there, since they people objecting are not the ones who are going to be using that house of worship.
If you think she should be over all of this, try taking down the Pearl Harbor War memorial, after all it’s been 70 years. Also, let’s take down the brandenburg gate in Germany. Not going to happen.
We will not out live strong emotion of 9/11, it is with us for the rest of our lives.
What is obvious is that the site means different things to different people.
I can tell you, many people will never get over what happened on that day.
Posted by: Craig Holmes at September 5, 2010 11:19 PMCraig,
“I can tell you, many people will never get over what happened on that day.”
And that’s much to their detriment.
Oh, and BTW, when you tell someone that they are free to worship as they please, but you’re only copmfortable with it if they do it somewhere else, what kind of freedom is that?
Rocky
You know it’s conditional, Rocky. And Muslims are todays whipping boys, and the “R”s are delivering the blows.
Posted by: jane doe at September 5, 2010 11:40 PMJane,
“You know it’s conditional…”
Yeah, it’s conditional on them not being Muslims.
It’s a good thing they’re not Mexicans.
Rocky
If you think she should be over all of this, try taking down the Pearl Harbor War memorial, after all it’s been 70 years. Also, let’s take down the brandenburg gate in Germany. Not going to happen.
Sorry, but no, you’re shifting goalposts here. Nobody is talking about taking down a memorial for the victims of 9/11, we’re talking about building a mosque two blocks away from the site of 9/11. A mosque for American Muslims who have about as much connection with 9/11 as Japanese Americans had with Pearl Harbor. Maybe we should get rid of all the Japanese restaurants within a mile of the USS Arizona memorial? Holding all Muslim Americans responsible for the acts of the 9/11 terrorists is irrational, and represents a clear phobia towards the Muslim religion.
We will not out live strong emotion of 9/11, it is with us for the rest of our lives.
Strong emotion, certainly. But I would hope we do outlive irrational reactions towards Muslim Americans over it, as earlier generations outlived irrational reactions towards Japanese Americans during World War II.
What is obvious is that the site means different things to different people.I can tell you, many people will never get over what happened on that day.
One would hope that, at least, they would come to blame the correct people for what happened. Al Qaeda. Not generic middle easterners, not Islam in general, Al Qaeda. Unfortunately, they don’t seem interested in making those distinctions.
Posted by: Jarandhel at September 5, 2010 11:46 PMBtw, Craig, you still didn’t answer my question: how far is far enough? How far do the Muslims in that community have to relocate their Mosque to satisfy these demands for sensitivity? And what about all the other Muslim businesses and organizations in that area, or which may be built in that area in the future? Do they need to move as well, in order to be sensitive?
Posted by: Jarandhel at September 5, 2010 11:49 PMJarandhel:
That would would be up to the 9/11 victims and the muslim leaders to figure out.
Posted by: Craig Holmes at September 6, 2010 12:36 AMJarendhel:
Strong emotion, certainly. But I would hope we do outlive irrational reactions towards Muslim Americans over it, as earlier generations outlived irrational reactions towards Japanese Americans during World War II.
This sounds a big judgmental. I would hope that we would be understanding of the families who lost loved ones and not judge them for “not being over it” because we are on a certain side politically.
I really am getting tired of a lack of concern from the minority that is in favor of the mosque being built in it’s current location for what happened to individuals on 9/11. To dismis their emotions as irrational is trying to put them into a box to get ones own way politcially.
These are real people with real losses. They need to be listened to, not dismissed and bulldozed over, and having their legitimate trauma minimized.
You asked me a direct question and I answered it. Here is my direct question back. What is the correct amount of time when we should demand that the 9/11 victims be “over it?”
Posted by: Craig Holmes at September 6, 2010 12:43 AMCraig:
In your answers, you seem to be trying to turn this into the Families of the Victims vs the Insensitive Muslims. You’re using the people who died on 9/11 and their families as a shield. But the families of those who died are NOT uniformly against this, as you try to paint them. Many support the project.
You say that “dismissing their emotions as irrational is trying to put them in a box to get one’s own way politically”. No, the emotions of those opposed to Park51 are irrational because they are directed against people who had nothing to do with the attacks. It has nothing to do with getting our way politically. It has to do with protecting the rights of all our citizens.
See, the thing you seem to forget is that the Muslims of Manhattan are also real people with real losses who need to be listened to, and not dismissed or bulldozed over. Their loved ones also died in the attacks. They were the victims of 9/11 as much as anyone in Lower Manhattan, and have also been victims of the backlash against Islam which has taken place in our country since then. This current opposition is part of that backlash, as illustrated by the rhetoric of “Victory Mosques” which has been raised in opposition to the Park51 community center and mosque.
And no, you still have not answered my question. “That would would be up to the 9/11 victims and the muslim leaders to figure out.” is not a real answer. You have thrown your personal support behind those who oppose the mosque being built there. How far away is far enough for you? How far would they have to move it before you personally would no longer oppose it? Could the individual families of 9/11 victims which oppose the mosque demand it be built outside the borough entirely and still have your backing, or is there a point where you would ever start seeing these demands as unreasonable?
Regarding your question back: how about two and a half years? That’s how long it took us to come to our senses as a nation after Pearl Harbor and close the interment camps in which 120,000 Japanese Americans were imprisoned. If the US could learn not to hold Japanese Americans responsible for that attack after two and a half years, I’d think it could learn not to hold Muslim Americans responsible for September 11th after the same amount of time. Certainly after three times that period we should be seeing some progress towards “geting over” the irrational need to blame all Muslims for the actions of Al Qaeda, shouldn’t we?
Posted by: Jarandhel at September 6, 2010 03:09 AMJarandhel,
“In your answers, you seem to be trying to turn this into the Families of the Victims vs the Insensitive Muslims.”
I have tried virtually every tact and this is the position that Craig and the others have fallen back to. That it isn’t logical doesn’t matter.
We have become a nation of weenies. We can’t seem to see beyond the tragedy of September 11th to the future and these Americans wish to wallow in victim hood they now feel they are entitled to.
There are even those wishing to build yet another memorial instead of the building that would house the center.
What happened to the America that, when faced with adversity, pulled itself up by it’s bootstraps, dusted itself off and got on with life?
Rocky
Posted by: Rocky Marks at September 6, 2010 12:23 PMRocky:
At the moment, I’m choosing to view Craig and the others arguing against this as products of the rhetoric that has been used. Many people, even some actual family members of 9/11 victims, have used the rhetoric that building this mosque at this location represents some sort of victory for radical Islam and a deliberate slap in the face to America, the people of New York, and the families of the victims. The fact that there is absolutely no connection between the mosque being built and Al Qaeda seems to be ignored, and we are told that expecting people to acknowledge that simple truth is being insensitive to their emotions. We’re told that the only reason the Muslims would want to build there is for some sinister “political” reason, and that they are hiding behind religious freedom to do it. But the truth is, the only reason others would not want Muslims to build there is out of an irrational need to paint all Muslims as responsible for September 11th and that truth is being hidden behind a facade of “sensitivity to the victims”.
These Muslims have been part of this community for decades, they have already been using this building as an overflow prayer hall for over a year, and they just want to build a mosque which can serve the growing needs of Muslims in Lower Manhattan. Currently, there are only two other mosques in lower manhattan… one can hold 65 worshippers, with the overflow being redirected to the Park 51 site; the other lost its lease in May 2009 and has moved to a nearby basement which is so small that it has to hold its services in shifts to accomodate all of its members.
Frankly, this controversy would not even exist if it were not for the coverage of conservative bloggers Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer, cofounders of the group Stop the Islamization of America. These bloggers, who first sparked off the firestorm of controversy around the Park51 project, aren’t just against the building of mosques near Ground Zero. They’ve opposed mosques in Staten Island, Brooklyn, Tennessee, and Wisconsin, and are affiliated with the group Stop the Islamization of Europe which has the motto “Racism is the lowest form of human stupidity, but Islamophobia is the height of common sense”.
I wonder how many of the people who have fallen for their rhetoric, even if hearing it second-hand through other media, realize that this is who they are allying themselves with in working against the Muslim community in Lower Manhattan?
Posted by: Jarandhel at September 6, 2010 02:19 PMJarandhel,
“I wonder how many of the people who have fallen for their rhetoric, even if hearing it second-hand through other media, realize that this is who they are allying themselves with in working against the Muslim community in Lower Manhattan?”
The answer to that question would be none of them.
I have been having these discussions here at WB for months, and the reply from the conservative side is always the same, “The Muslims need to be more ‘sensitive’”.
Curiously the Conservatives have never been sensitive to anything unless it’s in their own selfish political self interest to do so.
Frankly, I am growing a bit weary of all the hyperbole.
I am curious why people refuse to see the ironic twist that it is OK to build a “memorial” commercial building to worship the almighty dollar right on the very “sacred, hallowed ground, etc”, spot where the Towers stood, yet it’s sacrilege, insensitive, and provocative, to build a community center a few blocks away.
“At the moment, I’m choosing to view Craig and the others arguing against this as products of the rhetoric that has been used.”
While you are welcome to view this ignorance anyway you choose, I am long passed surprised that these people haven’t actually taken the time to think about what they are protesting against, and how they choose to view their fellow Americans.
Rocky
Jarandhel:
You don’t need to be condescending and inform me that I am forgetting Muslims are real people. I am fully aware of such things. I am fully aware that Muslims have suffered as well.
And no, you still have not answered my question. “That would would be up to the 9/11 victims and the muslim leaders to figure out.” is not a real answer. You have thrown your personal support behind those who oppose the mosque being built there. How far away is far enough for you?
Yes I have answered your question. Just not in a manner that works for you. I believe they should work within the New York community to come to another location.
Regarding your question back: how about two and a half years? That’s how long it took us to come to our senses as a nation after Pearl Harbor and close the interment camps in which 120,000 Japanese Americans were imprisoned. If the US could learn not to hold Japanese Americans responsible for that attack after two and a half years
Can you try again? Imprisoning 120,000 Japanese is a bit different than asking a group to choose a different sight for a building.
Now putting a Japenese Temple right near the Pearl Harbor Memorial in 1950 would be a better analogy. Would not have happened!!
You guys on this side of the argument all seem very extreme on the left.
Posted by: Craig Holmes at September 6, 2010 05:11 PM
“You guys on this side of the argument all seem very extreme on the left.”
Not at all. In fact, it is a very conservative argument. Religious freedom is inviolate of public opinion. It is not an issue for public debate. It is our Constitution and historical practice. Attempting to exert majority opinion on a minority religion is the very antithesis of our heritage.
Posted by: Rich at September 6, 2010 07:32 PMRich:
Religious freedom is not the issue. The Majority of New Yorkers believe muslims have a right to build at ground zero.
However a majority of those who have an opinion want Muslims to build the mosque some where else.
It is the minority on the left (35% of New Yorkers) support the building of the Mosque.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iHWLWP2iKgFG8mJcfiVmJ4H6x0TAD9I0K9GO0
If you are on the left in New York you are pretty far to the left.
So it’s not a religious rights issue. A clear majority including me fully accept their right. It’s the minority who support the mosque and right about it here, that I think are pretty far to the left.
Posted by: Craig Holmes at September 6, 2010 08:15 PMRich:
Here is an updated poll:
http://www.christianpost.com/article/20100905/poll-2-in-3-new-yorkers-want-mosque-moved/
Basically two thirds of New Yorkers support the Muslim groups right to build
But also two thirds now want them to build somewhere else.
It is the supporters of the mosque being built near ground zero that are in the extreme position. They are trying to characterize it as a religious liberty issue which it is not. An overwelming majority support their right to build.
I think we should reject the fear and character assasination tactics of this minority who want to label now two thirds of New Yorkers as Islamiphobes simply because of an honest disagreement.
The race card from the left is getting a bit old as well.
Posted by: Craig Holmes at September 6, 2010 09:10 PMCraig,
Jarendhal pointed out that 53% who live in Manhattan support the project. It is not a minority opinion in the actual area where 9/11 is located.
Of course it is a religious freedom issue. Accepting a right but opposing the exercise of the right is farcical. You have a Constitutional right but it is subject to public opinion. Some right!
Posted by: Rich at September 6, 2010 09:11 PMRich:
The polling I read from Jarendhal was from June. That data I gave you was released yesterday.
A strong super majority of New Yorkers stand with muslims in their rights as I showed you with the above reference.
At the same time a strong super majority (two thirds) want the mosque built somewhere else.
It is obvious from these numbers that something else is at work besides religious freedom.
Posted by: Craig Holmes at September 6, 2010 09:29 PMCraig,
You are incorrect. A Marist poll released August 10th showed that the residents of Manhattan favor the Community Center. Fifty three percent (53%)supported the Center with 31% opposing. You are correct that the majority of all boroughs opposed the Center but not those in Manhattan.
I ask you. What is the value of a right if it is subject to majority approval?
Posted by: Rich at September 6, 2010 10:05 PMCraig,
This a quote from the 9 11 families for a safe & strong America one of the groups that protested in New York on August 22nd.
http://www.911familiesforamerica.org/
“Protesters will tell President Obama, the Hamas terrorist organization, Mayor Bloomberg and Imam Rauf: No Cordoba Mosque at Ground Zero and Stop Shariah and jihad mosques in America!”
Now if you can say that you support what these people stand for I can understand why you refuse to answer any of my recent posts and why you won’t back down from your current position on this issue.
“It’s the minority who support the mosque and right about it here, that I think are pretty far to the left.”
Really? This is a right or left issue?
I thought this was about wrong or right.
Rocky
Rich:
The polls I quoted from were released September 3 and done by the New York Times
I ask you. What is the value of a right if it is subject to majority approval?
It is an irrelevant question since I am not advocating a right be subject to majority approval.
It is the left that is trying to make this about religous rights. It is not. That is simply a tactic of the left to mis characterize the motives of the opponents.
As part of their strategy, the left will find some who are opposed to Islam and then try to broad brush to all who oppose the mosque. That is a common strategy of the left.
Posted by: Craig Holmes at September 6, 2010 11:04 PMRich:
Here is another poll from August 31st.
Posted by: Craig Holmes at September 6, 2010 11:27 PMRocky:
Read my post from 11:04pm. Here is my quote:
As part of their strategy, the left will find some who are opposed to Islam and then try to broad brush to all who oppose the mosque. That is a common strategy of the left
Jarandhel:
You don’t need to be condescending and inform me that I am forgetting Muslims are real people. I am fully aware of such things. I am fully aware that Muslims have suffered as well.
Then perhaps you’ll consider not being condescending by informing us that the families of 9/11 victims are real people who have suffered? We’re fully aware of that as well. But being real people and having suffered does not give those families, individually or collectively, the right to hold American Muslims responsible for 9/11.
And no, you still have not answered my question. “That would would be up to the 9/11 victims and the muslim leaders to figure out.” is not a real answer. You have thrown your personal support behind those who oppose the mosque being built there. How far away is far enough for you?
Yes I have answered your question. Just not in a manner that works for you. I believe they should work within the New York community to come to another location.
No, you haven’t. You’ve found a way to deflect the question, a way not to have to state what you personally would consider a reasonable concession for the muslim community in lower manhattan to make. You called on them to work with the “9/11 victims”, now you call on them to work within the “New York community”. But the actual community where they want to locate this mosque, Manhattan itself, favors the mosque being built by a ratio of nearly 2 to 1 (55% to 32%) as of August. So this isn’t about the community they’ll be located in. And it’s not about the “9/11 victims” as a group either, since many of them also support the building of this mosque. It’s about some people wanting to draw a false connection between these Muslims and the perpetrators of 9/11.
Can you try again? Imprisoning 120,000 Japanese is a bit different than asking a group to choose a different sight for a building.
Yes, it is different. And to our credit, we didn’t imprison Muslim Americans this time. But if we can get over an overreaction of that level in just 2 and 1/2 years, I’d think we could also get over the smaller overreaction that makes us falsely link Muslim Americans to the events of September 11th in the same amount of time.
Now putting a Japenese Temple right near the Pearl Harbor Memorial in 1950 would be a better analogy. Would not have happened!!
You mean like the Aiea Hongwanji Mission (Japanese Buddhist Temple) located less than a mile from the USS Arizona memorial, on a mountain literally overlooking the site? It’s been there since 1907, and never had to move in order to show “sensitivity” to the victims.
You guys on this side of the argument all seem very extreme on the left.
This isn’t about left or right. What’s “left” about thinking it’s a bad idea to let people’s misplaced emotions continue to use American Muslims as scapegoats for 9/11?
Posted by: Jarandhel at September 6, 2010 11:32 PMJarandhel:
But being real people and having suffered does not give those families, individually or collectively, the right to hold American Muslims responsible for 9/11.
Agreed.
No, you haven’t. You’ve found a way to deflect the question,
Supporting a process is a perfectly fine answer.
But the actual community where they want to locate this mosque, Manhattan itself, favors the mosque being built by a ratio of nearly 2 to 1 (55% to 32%) as of August. So this isn’t about the community they’ll be located in. And it’s not about the “9/11 victims” as a group either, since many of them also support the building of this mosque. It’s about some people wanting to draw a false connection between these Muslims and the perpetrators of 9/11.
Your Poll is dated. Recent polls support the opposite conclusion.
I’d think we could also get over the smaller overreaction that makes us falsely link Muslim Americans to the events of September 11th in the same amount of time.
You are the one that is over reacting. A solid majority of New Yorkers SUPPORT the groups RIGHT to build the mosque, and at the same time another majority oppose it’s building.
It is YOU that is tying the debate to religious liberty not New Yorkers.
All three of you are wrongly tying opposition directly to anti muslim feelings. Of course it is there. There is always some bigotry. However it’s not necessarily the driver.
Let me give you an example. Above somewhere David was talking about a mosque in Tennessee that was an example of religous bigotry.
Here is a link:
Listen for a minute to my counter argument.
the proposed facility is 50,000 square feet.
Here is an article about Walmart:
http://www.rickross.com/reference/animal/animal68.html
Big stores/mosques create a target. Targets attract attention from extreme groups. I don’t think there is a Walmartphobia spreading across America. And I also don’t believe there is an Islamic phobia spreading across America as the left seems to be fearing.
In this case, I think there are some people out there that certainly are bigoted against Muslims. However I think you on the left are magnifying them to make your political point.
I think New Yorkers have it right. A super marority support their right to build, and at the same time another majority wish they would build some where else.
I just think you guys are flat out wrong on this one. I support the majority position of New Yorkers on both counts.
Posted by: Craig Holmes at September 7, 2010 12:17 AMCraig:
But being real people and having suffered does not give those families, individually or collectively, the right to hold American Muslims responsible for 9/11.Agreed.
If you agree, then why are you supporting the people who want this mosque built elsewhere? The only connection between the mosque and Ground Zero is Islam. If you don’t think American Muslims should be held responsible for 9/11, what then justifies the idea that they should build their mosque elsewhere? This demand, at its core, is a suggestion that they *are* responsible for 9/11.
You personally have even gone further in making this link, suggesting that the location near Ground Zero has been chosen for “political purposes” and that the Muslims of Lower Manhattan are simply hiding behind religious freedom. This rhetoric, suggesting that they have some sinister hidden purpose for this mosque, is identical to the “Victory Mosque” rhetoric also widespread on your side of the argument.
Supporting a process is a perfectly fine answer.
No, it’s not. It’s a deflection, for the reasons I’ve already outlined. Saying you support this process doesn’t actually tell us ANYTHING about how far away the mosque should be moved in your opinion, or at what point you’d find demands to move the mosque even further away unreasonable. Which is, of course, the point. It avoids giving any specifics of what you would personally consider a reasonable compromise. Because reasonable compromise is not what this is about.
Your Poll is dated. Recent polls support the opposite conclusion.
No, they do not. Your cited poll is a poll of all of New York City, not just the borough of Manhattan. My poll is also from August, and gives its results broken down on a per-borough basis, which yours does not. Again, polls in Manhattan from June through August have shown an increase in support over time (53% in August vs only 46% in June). The community most affected by 9/11 has made itself very clear: they support this mosque.
You are the one that is over reacting. A solid majority of New Yorkers SUPPORT the groups RIGHT to build the mosque, and at the same time another majority oppose it’s building.It is YOU that is tying the debate to religious liberty not New Yorkers.
And yet, why oppose the mosque in any way if it’s not about religious liberty? The only connection between a mosque and Ground Zero, the only reason this is an issue at all, is the religion of Islam. Your side is saying that the religion of Islam is not welcome near Ground Zero. You may not be trying to make it illegal for them to build there, but you are trying to use public pressure to force them to leave the area.
To address your points about the Tennessee mosque, you might want to realize that it also isn’t just a mosque. It includes a school with a gym and pool, so yes it’s going to be pretty big. But more to the point, perhaps, are the comments by those opposed to it in the article. Did you read them? They weren’t about the size of the facility. “We have a duty to investigate anyone under the banner of Islam”, said one. “We are fighting these people, for crying out loud, we should not be promoting this”, said another. “They seem to be against everything I believe in, and so I don’t want them necessarily in my neighborhood”, said a third. A fourth went so far as to say: “Our country was founded through the founding fathers — through the true God, the Father and Jesus Christ.” This isn’t about the size of the facility, it’s about their religion.
And, of course, this opposition has now increased to arson:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g5uMD_g6Rij3AU0eZRK2bhi6Z7zwD9I0P9N00
Still want to claim it’s not Islamophobia?
Posted by: Jarandhel at September 7, 2010 02:05 AMFurther evidence that this anti-Muslim attitude is getting out of control. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703713504575475500753093116.html
The US military is fighting a war against radical Islam. In doing so, it requires the assistance and cooperation of moderate Muslims. Categoriziing all Muslims as the “enemy” jeopordizes that effort and endangers our troops.
Posted by: Rich at September 7, 2010 08:55 AMCraig,
“the proposed facility is 50,000 square feet.”
That’s just over an acre on a 15 acre site.
There are “Mega-Churches” in this country that are twice that size and more, and nobody bitches about them.
As far as groups trying to make political points one only has to look at the ideology of those who are screaming the loudest against this issue, and those who stirred it up in the first place.
You see the polls saying 62% believe they have the “right” to build as a good thing. I see 38% believing they don’t have the right to build as a bad thing, and yes, I count the other 10% as “not believing”.
Rocky
Posted by: Rocky Marks at September 7, 2010 11:14 AM“the proposed facility is 50,000 square feet.”That’s just over an acre on a 15 acre site.
And to put it even more into perspective, that’s a school, a gym, a swimming pool, and a mosque inside a building that’s smaller than a football field (including end zones). Sounds like a pretty economical use of space. Most of the schools I’ve been in, including the small Catholic grade school I attended, have been larger than that even with a gym that also doubles as both cafeteria and auditorium. And they had a church across the road, rather than one built into the facility.
Posted by: Jarandhel at September 7, 2010 01:30 PMThis is a warning that we should all take seriously. Do you think the naysayers would consider that? Then who would we lay the blame on if what Pataeus warns of, actually happens?
http://www.politico.com/politico44/perm/0910/fiery_issue_63e1b213-7801-4a3f-a804-a878aca5308c.html
Posted by: jane doe at September 7, 2010 02:36 PMJane,
These guys in Florida are morons.
And to think they are “praying” for guidance as to whether or not to burn Korans.
While I would defend their right to do so, IMHO this is the First Amendment run amuck. I can’t see this as some form of protest, and I would almost consider this the equivalent of yelling “fire” in a crowded building.
Rocky
Jarandhel:
Here is what the very bottom of the link you site for polling data reads:
August 2010 Marist Poll New York City Registered Voters “N=696 MOE +/- 4%”. Totals may not add to 100 due to rounding.
I am taking that to mean that this is another New York City poll, and that the difference in findings is that your poll was taken earlier.
Posted by: Craig Holmes at September 7, 2010 04:27 PMRocky:
Sadly you are wrong here.
There are “Mega-Churches” in this country that are twice that size and more, and nobody bitches about them.
http://www.carlchinn.com/Church_Crime_History.html
There are simply too many examples to show you. I would suggest simply googling “church vandalism”.
In large churches it is not uncommon for there to be some trained church members carrying concealed weapons.
Security is churches is an increasing problem in America.
Craig:
I am taking that to mean that this is another New York City poll, and that the difference in findings is that your poll was taken earlier.
Again, that is incorrect. The overall poll was of New York City, yes. And over the entire city, the poll agreed with yours: 50% of voters believed it offended the memories of the 9/11 victims and their families, while only 34% did not. That is almost identical to the results of the New York Times poll you have cited. But when you scroll down to the final section, “NYC Boroughs”, which breaks the poll results down for each of the five boroughs of New York City, you’ll see the results are almost precisely the opposite: 55% favor the mosque, while only 32% think it is offensive. Your poll does not break its results down into results for each individual borough. That is the difference between the two, not when they were taken.
Posted by: Jarandhel at September 7, 2010 04:49 PMCraig,
“Security is churches is an increasing problem in America.”
Security in America is an increasing problem.
I read the website you linked and found stories recounting random acts of violence, but not stories about people protesting (or bitching about) “mega-churches”.
Even the page he links to, showing the statistics of the random acts, doesn’t mention anything about protests.
“I would suggest simply googling “church vandalism”.”
Church vandalism isn’t necessarilly a part of a protest.
So, nice try, but it doesn’t disprove the statement I made above.
Rocky
Jarandhel:
I see what you are saying. The figures you are using is based on a polling of 696 people total multiplied by 20% The population percentage of Manhattan or about 130 people were polled in the area. So that portion is more a survey than a poll, but I accept your basic point that the 20% of New Yorkers nearest ground zero are more favorably disposed than New Yorkers as a whole.
What is also interesting to me in the poll is that New Yorkers are the reverse of the nation in Liberal verse Conservative with about 40% liberal 20% conservative.
Of that group of New Yorkers a majority do not what the mosque there.
Posted by: Craig Holmes at September 7, 2010 05:37 PMRegarding the polls, let me qoute a commentator to a NYT article about the controversy:
“As someone who lives and works in lower Manhattan, I’ve noticed that one’s hysteria over Park51 seems to be inversely proportional to one’s proximity to it.”
Posted by: Rich at September 7, 2010 06:59 PMRich:
That is why I hope those trying to build the Mosque will be open to sitting down with their fellow New Yorkers and come up with a place where the community can support it’s placement.
Posted by: Craig Holmes at September 7, 2010 09:21 PMCraig Holmes asked: “What “hostile intent” is there in asking the NY Muslims to consider another sight in New York further away from Ground zero?”
Not going to fall for your straw man using the words “hostile intent”. But, I will turn the question around on you:
What harm is there in all non-Christians asking Christian organizations to observe their Not In My BackYard policy, even if the Christians have been there for years and own the property?
Shoe wouldn’t fit on the other foot, and therefore, it doesn’t fit on the first foot, either.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 7, 2010 09:27 PMDavid:
I have no problem at all with non-Chritians “asking” Christian organizations to observe their Not In My BackYard policy.
Since it fits on the other foot, it fits on the first foot!
Posted by: Craig Holmes at September 7, 2010 10:17 PMDavid, Rich, Rocky, Jarandhel,
I actually think the burning of the Quran is potentially more serious.
Although I respect their right to do this in our country, it is so wrong to put the lives of our military at risk to make some point that appears to be important to them.
Same principle different situation.
Just as I think building the mosque near ground zero shows disrepect for what happened on 9/11 and the families that lost loved ones,
I also feel even stronger that to burn the Quran is showing unbelievable disrespect to those of Muslim faith around the world.
It is because of how some hold somethings sacred. I think we should respect those things, and voluntarily not excersize what we have a right to do.
Craig, this is a classic study in ethics. Just because a person has a right, does not necessarily mean its exercise is just. What make its exercise as a means just, is the cause or end to which its exercise is applied. In this case, the end is the promotion of bigotry, religious hatred and fear, and intimidation of fellow Americans defined ONLY by their religious subscription.
No amount of exercising their RIGHT to burn Q’urans which they purchased, will make their act, just. Just as no amount of cross burning in Jew’s or black’s front yards could be justified by the ends the KKK sought, the subjugation and intimidation of a people for their religion or race.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 8, 2010 01:11 AMCraig:
I really think you’re looking at the situation from the wrong perspective if you can equate intentionally desecrating a religion’s holy book with building a house of prayer two blocks away from the site of a tragedy.
David is exactly right in equating this book-burning with the cross-burning once used as a form of intimidation, as a way to tell Jews and Blacks that they weren’t wanted in a community. That is exactly the message that is being sent to American Muslims with this book-burning: that they are not welcome here. But that is ALSO the message that is being sent to American Muslims with the idea that it is somehow wrong for them to build a mosque two blocks away from the site of Ground Zero. The message is being sent, loud and clear, that they are not real Americans. That they have more in common with the terrorists than they do with other Americans. That their religion is responsible for what happened on 9/11.
It’s a shame that in the case of the mosque, you are siding with those who are attempting to intimidate the Muslims of Lower Manhattan into leaving the community and building elsewhere. If you really want to follow the same principle in both situations, you may want to try standing up against those doing the intimidation in both cases.
Posted by: Jarandhel at September 8, 2010 10:13 AMJarandhel,
“That is exactly the message that is being sent to American Muslims with this book-burning: that they are not welcome here.”
It’s not just this, although this would be bad enough.
The message from this bozo pastor and his congregation is that Muslims are devil worshipers and as such they are not only not welcome but should be driven out of this “Christian” nation, by force, if necessary. The truly sad thing is, because of the media frenzy surrounding this issue it may bring even more weak minded morons out of the woodwork.
As far as I am concerned we are now seeing a true evil in this country.
Rocky
Rocky:
“That is exactly the message that is being sent to American Muslims with this book-burning: that they are not welcome here.”It’s not just this, although this would be bad enough.
I was intentionally understating the point. I thought the comparison with cross-burning as employed by the KKK would make it obvious that the message in both cases goes further than a simple “you’re not welcome here” and into more dangerous and de-humanizing territory, but you’re absolutely right. I’m sorry if I was unclear.
Posted by: Jarandhel at September 8, 2010 12:30 PMJarandhel, David:
Holy and Sacred of course is personal. Ground Zero is very sacred ground to many not all Americans.
Unilaterally making a decision by any group about how to “bless” an area that many consider sacred is wrong. If the motive is to promote understanding, and to build bridges between the various community parts effected deeply by 9/11 then the process should reflect the intended outcome.
I share your value that the buring of the Koran is more offensive. It is more offensive to me personally that building a community center near ground zero by muslims.
However, if I had watched my son jump from a window to his death, on 9/11, I would probably care more about the location of my loved one’s death than a book burning.
The point is respecting what is considered sacred to some.
Respect means listening and consulting with those who find our actions offensive, and working to find a third way. Sometimes a third way cannot be found, but there is still value in the effort.
With a unilateral action, there will be a unilateral reaction. Get ready for the Glen Beck community center.
Craig:
1. The site is not at Ground Zero. It is several blocks away from Ground Zero already, and yet your side still claims that it is not far enough. And, as I’ve already asked multiple times, if two block is “too close” for them to build a mosque to the site of 9/11 (despite Muslim Americans having literally zero connection with 9/11) then how far away do you think they should be expected to move? What is a reasonable concession from them in your mind?
2. They’re not “blessing” Ground Zero, they’re building a mosque in an abandoned Burlington Coat Factory two blocks away from Ground Zero. The idea that they are unilaterally doing ANYTHING to Ground Zero itself is a straw man.
3. What have they done that is in any way disrespectful? The only thing they’ve done to offend anyone seems to be being Muslim and wanting to build a house of worship in their community, which happens to be near Ground Zero. How do you compromise when what people are offended by is not your actions but your very religion? How do you compromise when people are using you and your entire religion as scapegoats for the actions of terrorists? As a commenter put it elsewhere, “compromise” in this situation is akin to taking a plea bargain for a crime you didn’t commit. Accepting the idea that building a mosque near Ground Zero is in any way “insensitive” or “offensive” only serves to bolster the false connection between the Muslim faith and 9/11.
Posted by: Jarandhel at September 8, 2010 01:58 PMCraig,
“Ground Zero is very sacred ground to many not all Americans.”
Then why is an office building being built on that site? I have asked this question many times, and yet you refuse to answer.
How is an office building exempt?
Why is and office building on that site, in an area that hardly needs another office building, less sacrilege than a Muslim community center blocks away?
Rocky
By the way, as long as we’re on the subject of how “unilaterally making a decision by any group about how to
‘bless’ an area that many consider sacred is wrong”, did you know that a christian church (River NYC) has moved into WtC7 itself? I think that should help provide some additional perspective: this controversy isn’t about fears of a unilaterally sectarian “blessing” on a shared non-denominational sacred site, it is specifically about excluding Muslim houses of worship from the area.
Rocky:
Then why is an office building being built on that site? I have asked this question many times, and yet you refuse to answer. How is an office building exempt? Why is and office building on that site, in an area that hardly needs another office building, less sacrilege than a Muslim community center blocks away?
Because the vast majority of the people killed on 9/11 were office workers, so an office building would not be offensive to them would be my guess.
Posted by: Craig Holmes at September 8, 2010 03:19 PMJarandhel:
We are obviously talkig around each other.
Let me tell you a bit of my background. I am a former pastor, Republican. And I spent ten years on a local School Board. I loved it. Obviously, I worked with mostly Democrats the entire time. We got alot accomplished that we are all very proud of.
How do you get things done in a community? Well if you take unilateral action against a minority, there is going to be a reaction. Some polls have said that as many of 70% of New Yorkers oppose this action.
So here is what is going to happen. Go ahead and watch in the future. The 70% are going to react. What do you think they are going to do? Something bigger than this mosque is the answer.
You keep thinkig linerally like here:
As a commenter put it elsewhere, “compromise” in this situation is akin to taking a plea bargain for a crime you didn’t commit.
That commentator is thinking in a closed box.
I hear you point about Manhattan people being supportive. But they are only 20% of New York. If you could skip or suspend the right verses wrong, and move to wise verses unwise for a minute, this is unwise because it risks triggering the majority who have a lot of power to action within the same template that has been established.
So what should be done? The effort should be channeled. I live in the mountains a week a month. If you have a cabin in the mountains in a canyon, and the snow is high, but it is warm and raining there is going to be a flood. That can’t be prevented. But you can sand bag you house so that the flood goes by.
The majority who are opposed are going to react. There is going to be a flood.
Posted by: Craig Holmes at September 8, 2010 03:40 PMI hear you point about Manhattan people being supportive. But they are only 20% of New York. If you could skip or suspend the right verses wrong, and move to wise verses unwise for a minute, this is unwise because it risks triggering the majority who have a lot of power to action within the same template that has been established.
To this, I can only respond with some words from Martin Luther King’s Letter from a Birmingham Jail:
I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.” Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
Compromise is never “wise” if what you are being asked to compromise is justice. And justice, true justice, is never “unwise”.
You’re most likely right, there will be a backlash against this mosque. Unlike you, I doubt it will take the form of a Glenn Beck Community Center; in my experience, people caught up in this kind of mindset rarely set out to build anything. I suspect it will take the form we’re already seeing in Tennessee: vandalism, graffiti, arson, and other attempts at illegal intimidation. But I’m hopeful that when the public sees the true face of what they have allied themselves with, they will backlash against it with far more vigor and permanence than any backlash against the mosques.
You should take a good look at your flood analogy, btw: you sandbag the house and take your chances with the flood. You don’t compromise with the flood and move the house.
Posted by: Jarandhel at September 8, 2010 04:05 PMJarandhel:
I think the backlash will come from the 70% of New Yorkers who oppose this Mosque.
I don’t accept the Martin Luther King analogy. I would if there was 60% of New Yorkers opposed to their right to build a mosque at all. But it’s not about rights, that is settled. They have the rights. I support their right to do so.
On your side, you have to accept responsibility for taking on the risk of confronting a large majority on a non rights issue.
Remember New Yorkers stand by them on their right to build, but oppose it’s building. And yes I understand the 130 people questioned in Manattan support it’s buiding.
Craig said: “I have no problem at all with non-Chritians “asking” Christian organizations to observe their Not In My BackYard policy.”
And therein lies the intolerance of your position on this issue. Religious freedom in America means being able to subscribe to religious observance wherever in American one owns one’s property, regardless of the religious affiliation of those about that property.
Your statement does NOT subscribe to religious freedom.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 8, 2010 04:28 PMCraig wrote: “Unilaterally making a decision by any group about how to “bless” an area that many consider sacred is wrong.”
Red herring. The NYC Muslims are not intending ANYTHING at ground zero. Their intentions are blocks away and not even in line of sight of ground zero.
To equate blocks, miles, or state boundaries as geographically the same as ground zero is illogical, and false, and therefore intimating another agenda for the argument, which is obviously to influence a conservative voter base months before an election ON false premises. You seem to be buying into this not so hidden agenda based on false premises. The site of the Muslim Community Center is NOT on the premises of ground zero or even adjacent to those premises.
Ergo, the entire premise of the protesters is INVALID, logically, and highlights the political intent, instead.
Your defenses subscribe to David Horowitz’s lie, “Dear Fellow Conservative, I am sure you’ve heard about the mosque they want to build on the sacred soil of Ground Zero in New York City”, or, your defenses subscribe to the political intentions of ever having raised this issue in the first place. In either case, your position is without merit or fact based foundation.
The only appropriate thing to do at this point as a rational human being is to admit the error, and change one’s position. Ahh… but, we are all sinners, and what’s one more minor sin of vanity and pride if it achieves my political agenda, eh? Is that your final position on this?
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 8, 2010 04:35 PMI don’t accept the Martin Luther King analogy. I would if there was 60% of New Yorkers opposed to their right to build a mosque at all. But it’s not about rights, that is settled. They have the rights. I support their right to do so.
Saying that they have the right to do something, but then objecting to them exercising that right, is just a way to try to do an end-run around constitutional protections.
Imagine a slightly different situation: a gay couple wants to rent a home in a random town. It happens to be next to a school. A conservative blogger gets wind of it and starts writing about how children need to be protected, and the gays need to move further away from the school. The community, when polled, says that the gays have a legal right to move there but question the “wisdom” of doing so. After all, they can move elsewhere… why would they refuse to unless they were secretly pedophiles after all?
This is the kind of thing you’re advocating: that community wishes should trump rights, even when those wishes are based on false premises. That minorities should bow to the wishes of the majority and allow themselves to be pressured out of a community. But I suspect you know that, since you *still* refuse to make a direct statement of how far you would consider it reasonable for them to have to move in this supposed “compromise”. It’s also funny that you keep calling it that, since the majority making the demands that the Muslims move their community center don’t seem to have to give anything up in order to compromise. Only the Muslims are being asked to.
On your side, you have to accept responsibility for taking on the risk of confronting a large majority on a non rights issue.
Sorry, but as much as you would like to frame it as a non-rights issue, it remains one. Acknowledging a vague theoretical right to freedom of religion but objecting to the actual exercise of it on specious grounds is not really supporting someone’s rights.
Remember New Yorkers stand by them on their right to build, but oppose it’s building. And yes I understand the 130 people questioned in Manattan support it’s buiding.
If they “stand by their right to build” but oppose its actual building, all that means is that they’re choosing to use methods outside of the legal system to block the exercise of their rights. Such as slandering them in the court of public opinion with the “victory mosque” rhetoric.
Posted by: Jarandhel at September 8, 2010 05:45 PMJarandhel:
If they “stand by their right to build” but oppose its actual building, all that means is that they’re choosing to use methods outside of the legal system to block the exercise of their rights. Such as slandering them in the court of public opinion with the “victory mosque” rhetoric.
So the mosque is a civil rights issue, but people who support their right to build, but use their free speech rights peacefully are bad.
Posted by: Craig Holmes at September 8, 2010 06:09 PMDavid:
And therein lies the intolerance of your position on this issue. Religious freedom in America means being able to subscribe to religious observance wherever in American one owns one’s property, regardless of the religious affiliation of those about that property.Your statement does NOT subscribe to religious freedom.
Not sure what your game is here. I was obviously responding to your post.
No one in this thread is denying muslims the right to buy property and build even at ground zero. So I have no idea where you are coming from in accusing someone of denying religious freedom.
Shooting from the hip?
Posted by: Craig Holmes at September 8, 2010 06:13 PMJarandhel:
Imagine a slightly different situation: a gay couple wants to rent a home in a random town. It happens to be next to a school. A conservative blogger gets wind of it and starts writing about how children need to be protected, and the gays need to move further away from the school. The community, when polled, says that the gays have a legal right to move there but question the “wisdom” of doing so. After all, they can move elsewhere… why would they refuse to unless they were secretly pedophiles after all?
This is the kind of thing you’re advocating:
No that is not at all what I am advocating.
Let me rewrite it.
In a random town two gays are shot, and dragged behind a car for a miles and left dead. This becomes a national point for gays to illustrate something very difficult for them that needs to be addressed. There is a large amount of press coverage. Gay people from around the country stop by and stop in silent reverence as a place to remember these two dear ones and the injustice of their murder.
A conservative Christian group who has a few members who are violent towards gays buys the property and decides to make a community center out of it. They have the right to do so, but I wish they wouldn’t.
Even though the organization was not involved in the murder, if they were going to buy the building I wish they would consult and work with the gay community to make sure the gay communities wishes were listened and included in the process before they built their building.
It’s a matter of respect not rights.
Posted by: Craig Holmes at September 8, 2010 06:29 PMSo the mosque is a civil rights issue, but people who support their right to build, but use their free speech rights peacefully are bad.
Again, please see the analogy I made with a gay couple being pressured to build away from a school in the name of “protecting children”. If a community supports something like that, falsely equating law-abiding citizens with criminals (ie, gays with pedophiles or American Muslims with the 9/11 hijackers) as an excuse to pressure them into moving away, then it’s not a “peaceful” use of their free speech rights. In fact, historically it has quite a bit in common with blood libel.
How’s this for another comparison: imagine if Christians started demanding that Jews move out of Jerusalem because of their supposed connection with the death of Christ. They acknowledge the legal right of Jews to occupy Jerusalem, they just question the “wisdom” and the “sensitivity” of doing so, and intimate that if they don’t leave that shows a lack of compassion and that they aren’t really sorry for being “Christ Killers”.
Are any of these comparisons showing you why it’s a bad idea to give into this type of intimidation through “compromise”, and why it IS a rights issue?
Posted by: Jarandhel at September 8, 2010 06:34 PMNo that is not at all what I am advocating.
Whether you realize it or not, it is.
Let me rewrite it.In a random town two gays are shot, and dragged behind a car for a miles and left dead. This becomes a national point for gays to illustrate something very difficult for them that needs to be addressed. There is a large amount of press coverage. Gay people from around the country stop by and stop in silent reverence as a place to remember these two dear ones and the injustice of their murder.
Ok, I’m with you so far on the rewrite.
A conservative Christian group who has a few members who are violent towards gays buys the property and decides to make a community center out of it.
And here’s where you start to go off the rails in a big way. First, they did not buy the property at Ground Zero. They bought a property two blocks away. So, in your rewrite, the “conservative Christian group” should have bought a property a few blocks away from the site of the murder, that’s not even in sight of the visitors. Second, none of the people involved in the mosque project are in any way violent towards US citizens. Not one. So there is no comparison with “a conservative Christian group who has a few members who are violent towards gays”. In fact, it’s a lot more like a liberal Christian group which welcomes gays buying the property a few blocks away after an attack by conservative Christians. Oh, and did we mention the little fact that it would have been nine years after the attack and after having already used the building they’re buying as a prayer space for a year without any visitors to the site noticing let alone complaining?
As such, the rest of your analogy really falls apart.
It’s a matter of respect not rights.
As many times as you repeat that, it’s not going to magically make it so. Asking people to “respect” rhetoric that directly equates them with the people responsible for 9/11 shows that it is about rights. It’s about the right to be treated like every other American and not lumped in with terrorists by people who are too ignorant to be able to understand that Islam is no more a unified religion than Christianity and that the attackers on September 11th did not speak for American Muslims or the Muslim faith.
Posted by: Jarandhel at September 8, 2010 06:50 PMJarandhel:
I think you and I both have a “heart” for different victims. I have a heart for the families who died on 9/11. You have a heart for good honest muslims who have been harmed by being falsely connected to 9/11.
I once spent several years on a gay/lesbian forum. I understand the gay community for good reason is very sensitive about housing issues.
I see the point of your illustration.
So lets use your illustration but let me add something.
Let’s say that this is an area where pedophiles have had their way. And there are many who lost their children do to gay pedifiles in the past and are still living there. (Just for clarification, I think the overwelming number of pedifiles are straight. Don’t want to start a new debate topic).
Gay men of course have a right to move in. However they will have no benefit of the doubt because of previous history. How they move into this neighborhood that is still in pain will be critical to their success in the community.
The way to move in is with respect. If they come in saying “we have a right to be here get used to it” People will back off. However if they come in humbly and say, wow, what happened here is terrible, we would like to live here, what would you suggest as how that might happen?” they will have a far greater chance of living their successfully.
In this case the innocent gays are equal to the presumed innocent Ismamic group. Right now, they are ticking off 60% of the greater NY area that is a democratic area!!
It is how they are coming in.
It’s ok. They will be there, but like my addition to your analogy, they will be viewed with suspicion needlessly because of how they are doing this. And there will be a needless pushback which will fuel the their victim status.
But they will be inflaming opposition by their lack of sensitivity to the greater New York community.
They will be bringing it on.
Posted by: Craig Holmes at September 8, 2010 08:24 PMI think you and I both have a “heart” for different victims. I have a heart for the families who died on 9/11. You have a heart for good honest muslims who have been harmed by being falsely connected to 9/11.
I have a heart for both, but having a heart for the families does not mean that I will allow them to vilify another group unjustly. That does no honor to the memory of their loved ones, and if they were thinking clearly they would see that too.
The way to move in is with respect. If they come in saying “we have a right to be here get used to it” People will back off. However if they come in humbly and say, wow, what happened here is terrible, we would like to live here, what would you suggest as how that might happen?” they will have a far greater chance of living their successfully.
That *might* be a reasonable argument, if they were new to the area and just moving in. It may, in such a case, be reasonable for people to be somewhat suspicious until they got to know them and their intentions. Only, that’s not the case. They’re not new to the area. Imam Rauf has been working at the Masjid al-Farah mosque, just twelve blocks north of Ground Zero, since 1983. It can’t be about how they are “coming in”, since they came in three decades ago. They’re just moving to a new building.
They are being viewed with suspicion needlessly not because of how they “came in”, or any lack of sensitivity to the community they’ve been part of for so long, but because of anti-Muslim rhetoric started by Geller and Spencer and echoed by others who either have their own anti-Muslim agenda or who fell for the narrative Geller and Spencer were trying to create.
Posted by: Jarandhel at September 8, 2010 10:17 PMCraig said: “Not sure what your game is here. I was obviously responding to your post.”
Then you are feigning ignorance for convenience. Thanks for abdicating this debate.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 9, 2010 09:34 AMCraig:
They will be there, but like my addition to your analogy, they will be viewed with suspicion needlessly because of how they are doing this. And there will be a needless pushback which will fuel the their victim status.
But they will be inflaming opposition by their lack of sensitivity to the greater New York community.
They will be bringing it on.
New York Times Op-Ed: Building on Faith
By Feisal Abdul Rauf
Quote from the link:
At Cordoba House, we envision shared space for community activities, like a swimming pool, classrooms and a play space for children. There will be separate prayer spaces for Muslims, Christians, Jews and men and women of other faiths. The center will also include a multifaith memorial dedicated to victims of the Sept. 11 attacks.I am very sensitive to the feelings of the families of victims of 9/11, as are my fellow leaders of many faiths. We will accordingly seek the support of those families, and the support of our vibrant neighborhood, as we consider the ultimate plans for the community center. Our objective has always been to make this a center for unification and healing.
Cordoba House will be built on the two fundamental commandments common to Judaism, Christianity and Islam: to love the Lord our creator with all of our hearts, minds, souls and strength; and to love our neighbors as we love ourselves. We want to foster a culture of worship authentic to each religious tradition, and also a culture of forging personal bonds across religious traditions.
Jarandhel, Rocky, David,
Many excellent comments in this thread.
I read this this morning and think it is a good interview.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/09/imam-feisal-abdul-rauf-ground-zero-mosque.html
He comes across as a man of good will who has a tiger by the tail and doesn’t know quite how to let go.
I am hopeful because he appears willing to sit down and talk to the other side.
He has a legitimate concern that any change will appear world wide to give in to radicals from both sides.
He says he says:
Had he known in advance the mosque would create such tensions, Rauf would have …… gone elsewhere: “We would not have done something that would create more divisiveness. … If I knew this would happen, this would cause this kind of pain, I wouldn’t have done it. My life has been devoted to peacemaking.
I have learned in bargaining training that when both sides have the same interest, a solution can be found.
In this case I imagine moderate minded people are making approaches to him to negotiate a way that keeps their key interest and resolves the issue of the majority.
For instance he says they “NEED” a place to pray in the area. That seems easily done.
I agree with Gov. David Paterson that this good man has opened a path to resolution. Assuming such a path develops, I will be hopeful that they will be successful.
Jarandhel:
I have a heart for both, but having a heart for the families does not mean that I will allow them to vilify another group unjustly. That does no honor to the memory of their loved ones, and if they were thinking clearly they would see that too.
I agree with you on this. I would add that we shouldn’t allow supporters to throw the word Islamopobe around on an issue where 70% of Americans agree.
Maybe we should put our broad brushes away.
I would add that we shouldn’t allow supporters to throw the word Islamopobe around on an issue where 70% of Americans agree.
Why would you think that? In 1967, 72% of Americans agreed: mixed-race marriages were wrong. In March of 1996, 68% of Americans agreed: gay marriage was wrong. Now, 70% of Americans agree: building a mosque near Ground Zero is wrong.
Just because a large percentage of the U.S. holds a certain position does not mean it is not based in xenophobia, homophobia, or Islamophobia.
Posted by: Jarandhel at September 9, 2010 01:29 PMJarandhel:
Why would you think that?
I don’t believe that 70% of Americans are Islamophobic.
Do you?
Posted by: Craig Holmes at September 9, 2010 01:41 PMCraig:
When 70% of Americans think a house of worship should be moved based solely on the fact that the 9/11 hijackers and the builders of the mosque both fall under the broad category of “Muslim”, I’m afraid I do have to think that 70% of Americans are Islamophobic.
Posted by: Jarandhel at September 9, 2010 02:10 PMWow that’s narrow!!
Glad you have us all figured out in your tidy little box.
Posted by: Craig Holmes at September 9, 2010 02:20 PMCraig:
It’s pretty simple to figure out: if people take Islamophobic positions or actions, they are Islamophobic. It may not be on a conscious level, they may not want to be, they may just not know any better, but that doesn’t change the fact that they are. Just like the 70% of Americans who opposed mixed-race marriages were being racist, and the 68% of Americans who opposed same-sex marriages were being homophobic.
Seriously, we’ve been over this and over this: can you provide *any* non-Islamophobic reason for people to demand this mosque be built further away from Ground Zero? Any reason at all which does not attempt to associate American Muslims with the 9/11 terrorists in some way? I’d love to hear it if you do. But the “sensitivity” argument that’s been made hinges solely on the idea that there is something offensive about the building of a Mosque by American Muslims near the site of an attack by foreign terrorists who were members of a completely different sect of Islam and who had literally no connection to the American Muslims other than being Muslim. The connection between the two groups is literally as tenuous as trying to hold Quakers responsible for the Catholic Priest scandal on the basis that they’re both Christians.
Posted by: Jarandhel at September 9, 2010 02:39 PMActually, make that as tenuous as trying to hold American Quakers responsible for Irish Republican Army bombings on the basis that both groups were Christian. That’s probably an even better analogy.
Posted by: Jarandhel at September 9, 2010 02:42 PMJarendhel:
Where do you feel you get the right to call someone who has lost a loved on on 9/11 an Islamophobe?
Who are you, that you feel empowered to have that right?
WOW!!
Posted by: Craig Holmes at September 9, 2010 05:26 PMCraig Holmes, are you really suggesting that a person who lost a loved one on 9/11 could NOT be an Islamaphobe?
Get real. The probability goes way up for a person becoming an Islamaphobe if they have lost a loved one to an Islamic Terrorist, or Christianaphobe if losing a loved one to a Christian Terrorist.
Losing a loved one does not insure that a person will become phobic to certain defining characteristics of the assailant, but, it does increase the probability. Any Sociology or Psychology 101 course will cover such research bearing this out.
David:
Craig Holmes, are you really suggesting that a person who lost a loved one on 9/11 could NOT be an Islamaphobe?
No I am not.
Posted by: Craig Holmes at September 9, 2010 06:49 PM
David:
Do you support this statement by Jarandhel?
When 70% of Americans think a house of worship should be moved based solely on the fact that the 9/11 hijackers and the builders of the mosque both fall under the broad category of “Muslim”, I’m afraid I do have to think that 70% of Americans are Islamophobic.
Posted by: Craig Holmes at September 9, 2010 06:55 PM
Craig:
Where do you feel you get the right to call someone who has lost a loved on on 9/11 an Islamophobe?
If they are holding all Muslims responsible for 9/11, then they are Islamophobes whether I call them that or not. Again, can you list even a single reason for American Muslims to have to move their mosque away from Ground Zero that does not falsely associate them with the 9/11 hijackers? Every argument that has been made so far reduces to the fact that both the 9/11 hijackers and the people building the mosque are Muslim. That is the only thing they have in common. That is the only reason that has been cited for being against them building at Ground Zero. Even your own question here implicitly makes that connection: if American Muslims had nothing to do with the events of 9/11 why should someone losing a loved one on 9/11 matter with respect to whether or not their treatment of American Muslims is Islamophobic?
Who are you, that you feel empowered to have that right?
I’m someone who is apparently keeping a clearer head than these 9/11 families you keep referencing, who is not allowing their emotions to get the best of them, and who is not falsely associating American Muslims with the 9/11 hijackers.
Now, instead of trying to deflect the issue with a purely emotional argument expressing outrage that I would even consider accusing people who have lost loved ones on 9/11 of Islamophobia, how about you try making a sound logical argument that shows how they’re not being Islamophobic by pressuring American Muslims not to build near Ground Zero? I’ve asked you to make a single argument for moving the mosque that does not falsely associate American Muslims with the 9/11 hijackers on the basis that both are Muslim. Have you thought of one, or is this outrage gambit the only response you have left? I’m wagering the latter, because the simple truth is there is no logical reason for moving the mosque that doesn’t make that false association.
Posted by: Jarandhel at September 9, 2010 08:05 PMBy the way, Craig, as much as you keep trying to turn this into a dichotomy between “the families of the victims/the community” and “the muslims”, you seem to keep forgetting that these Muslims have been members of the Lower Manhattan community for three decades. Their friends, their neighbors, their loved ones died on 9/11. They ARE families of the victims.
Posted by: Jarandhel at September 9, 2010 08:10 PMJarandhel:
Sorry, you are the one who said 70% of Americans are Islamophobic. Back it up!!
Craig:
Sorry, you are the one who said 70% of Americans are Islamophobic. Back it up!!
You said yourself, 70% of Americans do not want the mosque to be built at the tower site.
Those who do not want the mosque built at the tower site, including yourself, have offered no reason for this other than the fact that both the 9/11 hijackers and the builders of the mosque practice Islam. Not one. I contend that, in fact, it is impossible to offer one because there is no other connection between American Muslims and the events of 9/11. So far, you have been either unable or unwilling to even attempt to refute that contention by offering an alternate explanation why reasonable people would want American Muslims not to build a mosque near Ground Zero.
Opposing something solely on the basis that it involves Islam is clear evidence of a prejudice against Muslims. Which is literally the definition of Islamophobia.
So if you accept that 70% of Americans do not want the mosque built there, and if you cannot offer any reason for building it elsewhere other than “the mosque builders are Muslim just like the 9/11 hijackers”, then logically those 70% of Americans ARE Islamophobic. It’s basic logic.
Posted by: Jarandhel at September 9, 2010 11:19 PMBtw, if basic logic isn’t enough to persuade you, how about statistics? Currently, only 30% of America polls as having a favorable opinion of Islam. That pretty neatly matches up with your statistic that 70% of America doesn’t want the mosque built near ground zero.
Posted by: Jarandhel at September 9, 2010 11:24 PMOh, one last thing? According to that poll, it’s actually 51% of Americans that oppose the mosque being built near Ground Zero, not 70%.
Posted by: Jarandhel at September 9, 2010 11:34 PMJarandhel,
Show me a bandwagon and I will show you 51% of the American population ready to jump on it… especially if it has emotional connotations.
There is no logic involved in these protests. This is pure unadulterated emotion.
Craig,
I won’t claim, as Jarandhel has, that 70%, or even 51% of Americans are Islamophobic, however that is the emotion driving this issue.
Listen to the words of those screaming the loudest. Listen to the venom spewing forth. Read the signs the protesters carry.
Open your mind and look around you.
I, for one, am ashamed at the way my fellow Americans are acting. This is not the America we claim it is. This is schoolyard bullying of the worst sort.
These protesters are treating their fellow Americans as pariahs simply because an insane minority are criminals.
Rocky
The land to build the Muslim Center upon, was a simple business deal. Seller put land up for sale. Buyer negotiated a price, and seller agreed. Title to land transferred.
Which suggests a simple business solution as discussed by Donald Trump this morning. Make the owner of the site a better offer. Trump said he would, but, only if the owner were not enriched by the deal. Rather ironic coming from Donald Trump.
If Christians don’t want that center built there, raise the money to meet the owner’s selling price, whatever it is. If the price is too high, then Christians simply don’t think preventing the center from being built there, is worth the price to prevent it; in which case, its not that big a deal. Which it never was in the first place.
There are no conflicts of law, ethics, or derangement involved. A simple business solution, one way or the other, and the issue is resolved. What’s it worth to Christians? Surely a $5 spot from half the Christians in this country would generate an attractive offer. What’s more important to Christians, $5 or having a Muslim Community Center a few blocks from Ground Zero. Assuming 200 million Christians, if half ponied up $5, an offer of 1/2 billion dollars could be made to buy the property. An offer the owner would surely find appealing.
A simple matter of putting one’s money where one’s phobic mouth is.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 10, 2010 03:19 PMRocky:
won’t claim, as Jarandhel has, that 70%, or even 51% of Americans are Islamophobic, however that is the emotion driving this issue. Listen to the words of those screaming the loudest. Listen to the venom spewing forth. Read the signs the protesters carry.Open your mind and look around you.
I, for one, am ashamed at the way my fellow Americans are acting. This is not the America we claim it is. This is schoolyard bullying of the worst sort.
These protesters are treating their fellow Americans as pariahs simply because an insane minority are criminals.
I agree. I would only add that the media is inflaming the issues.
I don’t think now is a time for solutions. It seems wiser to let the storm blow over, and wait until the media has moved on to another subject.
This pastor is a nut case. If someone threatens me, the answer is always no. The reason is that it’s not the last threat. If you give in, there is only another threat because you have taught the others what works.
I would have rejected Trump’s offer as well, even if it is well intended. There is not control over what happens next.
It’s better to hold the property in lieu of inflaming the issue more.
There are plenty of solutions to this issue that respect what happened on 9/11 and respect the faith and concerns of Islam.
Jarandhel:
I have given plenty of reasons in our debate simply none that you will accept.
When you believe you totally understand why people disagree with you to the extent that you call ALL of them a Homophobe or Isamophobe, there really is no point in going further.
You are a fringe person who sees the world in very black and white terms. A solution will be found and I am certain is being worked on that respects the concerns of Americans deeply effected by 9/11 and respects the need for respect and religious exression on the part of Islam.
When you label 70% of the country with words like you do, you can’t possible hope to get to 50% on an issue to get it passed. So you are by definition ok with being a fringe player in society. That is ok. We need those too!!
Posted by: Craig Holmes at September 10, 2010 04:05 PMJarandhel:
Thought you might like to read an opinion from a fellow Islamophobe!!
He is a muslim. He gets it.
http://www.aina.org/news/2010091014559.htm
Posted by: Craig Holmes at September 10, 2010 04:47 PMCraig, the reason opinions are so cheap, is because everyone has one. Opining is not the same as defensible argument.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 10, 2010 05:57 PMCraig:
I have given plenty of reasons in our debate simply none that you will accept.
All of the reasons you’ve offered for them to move have either been demonstrated false or reduce to the fact that both they and the hijackers are Muslim. No, I’m not going to accept either flawed logic or a patently Islamophobic reason as valid. You shouldn’t either.
When you believe you totally understand why people disagree with you to the extent that you call ALL of them a Homophobe or Isamophobe, there really is no point in going further.
I understand why they disagree based on the arguments they themselves make. Again: not one argument has been made, not one, which is both truthful and does not reduce to the fact that both they and the 9/11 hijackers are Muslim. That shows me that yes, their position is based on a prejudice against all Muslims. Also known as Islamophobia. Similarly, not one argument has ever been made against homosexual marriage that is both truthful and does not reduce to the idea “it’s not what God intended”. Which shows me, again, that position is based on homophobia.
You are a fringe person who sees the world in very black and white terms.
No, I’m someone capable of employing logic. If someone is taking a position on an issue, and the only justifications they can give for that position are either untruthful or Islamophobic, then logically Islamophobia is the reason they are taking the position. I’m not saying they’re bad people, but they are Islamophobic. It’s perhaps understandable, to some degree, after the events of 9/11 but it’s something our country should be working on moving past rather than embracing.
A solution will be found and I am certain is being worked on that respects the concerns of Americans deeply effected by 9/11 and respects the need for respect and religious exression on the part of Islam.
I’m sorry, but in this instance the two positions are simply incompatible. You cannot “respect the need for respect and religious expression on the part of Islam” and simultaneously demand that they not build in a certain area because of “concerns” that they are Muslim. It’s like saying you respect African Americans but asking that they also respect your “concerns” by drinking at a different water fountain. Or saying you respect gays, but asking them to respect your “concerns” by not asking for equal access to civil marriage. The fact that you would ask this shows you are not showing the respect you claim.
When you label 70% of the country with words like you do, you can’t possible hope to get to 50% on an issue to get it passed. So you are by definition ok with being a fringe player in society. That is ok. We need those too!!
A) 51%, not 70% My previous statement was based on your claim that 70% of the country was against the mosque being built there, which proved false.
B) There’s nothing to be “passed” in this issue, not by 50%, 51%, or 70%. There is no way to stop the mosque from being built using the legal system, ergo nothing to vote on.
C) It’s funny that you’re lecturing me on being “fringe”… I’m actually in the majority for my age group. I’m 29, and among those 18-29 polling shows that 50% support the mosque, and only 36% object to it. Far from being “fringe”, my side represents the future of American politics. In this issue, as with most issues based solely on prejudice, time is not on your side.
Thought you might like to read an opinion from a fellow Islamophobe!!He is a muslim. He gets it.
If you actually read his words, he’s not arguing that the opposition isn’t based in Islamophobia. In fact, he specifically says that it is based on a negative opinion Americans have formed of Muslims:
For the last few decades almost all that Americans have seen from those of us who take our religion literally is violence, conspiracy, intimidation, gender-discrimination and terrorism. Meanwhile, those of us who consider ourselves moderates have mostly stood silently by, watching open or stealth intolerance in the name of Islam from the sidelines.
It’s true that you’ve found one Muslim who thinks that this Islamophobia should be capitulated to in order to build bridges, but it’s patently false to claim that he’s saying it’s not based on a prejudice against Muslims, although he does seem to think that prejudice is justified by the supposed silence of moderate Muslims. Funny, then, that he is standing against a project where moderate Muslims are explicitly not standing by but condemning the violence committed in the name of Islam.
He does seem to have brought up one other argument against the mosque: “Building of the mosque next to Ground Zero will send the wrong messages to terrorist groups and autocratic and theocratic Muslim dictators” This is only the case if people naively assume that terrorist groups and autocratic and theocratic Muslim dictators believe that all Islam is equivalent. This is patently not the case when one considers the fighting between Shiite and Sunni alone, let alone every other division within Islam. A progressive mosque where both Christians and Jews are given space to worship alongside Muslims would not be viewed as any sort of victory by the type of radical Islamists we are actually fighting.
Posted by: Jarandhel at September 10, 2010 08:22 PMJarandhel:
Let me give you a simple example. We live part time in Wallowa County Oregon. There is this “newer” state park at the north end. Recently there was a local controversy because some were not leashing their dogs.
On a bike ride today, we stopped by. Now it is the perfect place to let a dog run. Tall grass up to ones knees, big boulders, surrounded by a fence. Without knowing the significance of the place, I would easily of picked up a stick and threw it and had my dog fetch and had a great time.
Today I read the inscription. This is where the Nez Pierce gathered to say good bye to their holy ground before their famous trip of over 1000 miles before being captured 30 miles from Canada. It is sacred to the tribe.
Now this happened before my family arrived from England. It has been 130 years since this trip took place. Oh and Chief Joseph is buried their. My dog is passed away, but if she were here, I would love to take a walk there but my dog would be leashed as they request out of respect.
I can understand that a native american seeing me with an unleashed dog would be angry. Even though they might have racial feelings, I am not going to in this situation call them a racist. I am white and being disrepectful on ground they deem as holy.
It is very disrespectful to use the words like Islamophobe when discussing people who have lost so much. It would be like me calling the Nez Pierce racist because they have racial feelings near their “holy” sight.
This whole thing for me is not about rights, it’s about respect. I believe the muslims in the area innocently let their dogs run on grounds many if not most Americans deem sacred. In reading what the is said, I don’t believe they had a clue about the term sacred because of culture difference. I heard one of them ask how it could be considered sacred with adult book stores there? That is most likely a culture difference.
In addition, your language is insulting to me because you choose flame thrower terms to decribe the emotions. That is your choice. But when you use Islamophobe to describe widows who lost husbands you are out of bounds. Just as I would never call “in that context” the Nez Pierce racist because they had racial feelings toward me on their sacred area, well, you are just offensive to me.
On behalf of the victims of 9/11 you offend me. You believe if the victims of 9/11 disagree with you about the mosque they are Islamophobes.
I think the way you frame your arguments is disrepectful
and painful and shows a great deal of arrogance and self righteousness.
I understand you want to talk logic. The key to talking logic with me on this subject is for you to learn how to be respectful to the families of the dead on 9/11.
David:
My only comment to you with this post is:
The land to build the Muslim Center upon, was a simple business deal. Seller put land up for sale. Buyer negotiated a price, and seller agreed. Title to land transferred.Which suggests a simple business solution as discussed by Donald Trump this morning. Make the owner of the site a better offer. Trump said he would, but, only if the owner were not enriched by the deal. Rather ironic coming from Donald Trump.
If Christians don’t want that center built there, raise the money to meet the owner’s selling price, whatever it is. If the price is too high, then Christians simply don’t think preventing the center from being built there, is worth the price to prevent it; in which case, its not that big a deal. Which it never was in the first place.
There are no conflicts of law, ethics, or derangement involved. A simple business solution, one way or the other, and the issue is resolved. What’s it worth to Christians? Surely a $5 spot from half the Christians in this country would generate an attractive offer. What’s more important to Christians, $5 or having a Muslim Community Center a few blocks from Ground Zero. Assuming 200 million Christians, if half ponied up $5, an offer of 1/2 billion dollars could be made to buy the property. An offer the owner would surely find appealing.
A simple matter of putting one’s money where one’s phobic mouth is.
Lots of phobia in these remarks.
“I heard one of them ask how it could be considered sacred with adult book stores there? That is most likely a culture difference.”
Now, you are getting absurd. Adult bookstores, off track gambling, strip bars, abandoned buildings, etc. do no violate the “sacred” nature of the ground zero environs but a Muslim community center does? What cultural difference are you talking about?
I have a simple solution to this problem. Opponents of the community center should petition Congress for designation of a definitive area of the ground zero environs as a national memorial subject to strict building and use standards. Everybody would then be on notice as to the specific geographic boundaries of the area and what is permissible within those limits.
Posted by: Rich at September 11, 2010 06:56 AMI might add that my suggestion of a national memorial designation for the ground zero environs would essentially resolve the religious controversy since all religions would be prohibited from building on a federal memorial under the “separation” clause.
Posted by: Rich at September 11, 2010 07:12 AMCraig, that was a feeble reply.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 11, 2010 11:09 AMCraig:
It seems that all you have left is appeals to emotion, and false appeals to authority (in this case the moral authority of 9/11 survivors). And ridiculous comparisons to leash laws. Hint: the leash laws at the state park aren’t because it’s sacred ground, they’re not based on racism, and they’re not applied only to non-natives. There is literally no analogy with the situation at Ground Zero that can be made.
On behalf of the victims of 9/11 you offend me. You believe if the victims of 9/11 disagree with you about the mosque they are Islamophobes.
You asked me before who I thought I was to call these people Islamophobic. Let me ask you, who the hell do you think you are to speak on behalf of the victims of 9/11? You keep trying to make this about Muslims vs the victims of 9/11, but as I have repeatedly pointed out these Muslims have lived in Lower Manhattan for three decades and ARE victims of 9/11 themselves. And many other victims of 9/11 DO NOT AGREE WITH YOU. Many have specifically said they feel it would honor their loved ones. You refer to “cultural differences” between these Muslims and the rest of America as a supposed reason that they would not understand how a mosque would violate the sacredness of the area but the strip clubs presently in it do not; but their culture is as American as yours as is the culture of the others here who have posed that question to you. You’re purposely trying to cast these Muslims as outsiders in this debate. They’re not.
But when you use Islamophobe to describe widows who lost husbands you are out of bounds.
Why? Because you think someone who lost their husband can never be Islamophobic? If she holds all Muslims responsible for that act, then *yes* she is Islamophobic. She is pre-judging all Muslims based on the actions of the 9/11 hijackers. That is literally what it means to be prejudiced, and *is* Islamophobia. It’s no different than holding all white people responsible if your husband was shot by a white guy in a holdup.
Again, as I keep saying: unless you can provide a truthful reason for American Muslims not to build near Ground Zero that isn’t just a restatement of the fact that both they and the 9/11 hijackers were Muslim, then any demands that they move the mosque *are* rooted in prejudice against all Muslims. Aka Islamophobia. Whether they come from some of the families of the victims or not. That’s simple logic, and if that’s “out of bounds” for you then I have to assume you’re more interested in emotional rhetoric than logical debate.
The key to talking logic with me on this subject is for you to learn how to be respectful to the families of the dead on 9/11.
Translation: don’t call them out on blatant prejudice, and let them have their way even at the expense of American Muslims. Sorry, but no. As I said before, it does no honor to the memories of their loved ones to allow them to treat all Muslims as if they were responsible for their loved ones deaths.
Posted by: Jarandhel at September 11, 2010 11:10 AMAnd just because it seems especially appropriate in light of Craig’s replies:
Bruce Wallace, whose nephew died as he rushed in to help the victims, says “the media seems eager to trumpet the feelings of those hurt by the idea of the center. They mostly ignore my feelings and those, like me, who feel the center is an important step for Americans.”
From the same source as the link in my last reply.
Posted by: Jarandhel at September 11, 2010 11:13 AMCraig:
In reading what the is said, I don’t believe they had a clue about the term sacred because of culture difference. I heard one of them ask how it could be considered sacred with adult book stores there? That is most likely a culture difference.
These people are Americans who are Muslim. They have lived in that neighborhood for many, many years. Claiming they don’t understand the culture, or the term sacred, is completely ridiculous.
The above question about adult bookstores is a perfectly valid one. How sacred is this land to those objecting to this cultural center when the adult bookstores, strip bars, and gambling businesses in the same area aren’t being objected to or protested against?
For that matter, why isn’t anyone up in arms over the fact that the ground zero “memorial” is being designed to include a “Freedom Tower” comprised of office space, and a gigantic 55,000 square foot shopping mall literally in the ground designated as Ground Zero? Does it seem “respectful” to the victims and heroes of 9/11 (whose remains are mixed into that very soil) that people will shop at Abercrombie and Fitch and Victoria’s Secret and then go for a bite at Hooters or Cinnabon? Why is it that we don’t see anyone protesting and freaking out about this?
I write this as a person who had a close friend who died in the World Trade Center on 9/11. I know that my friend would be so disgusted and angered over so much of what has happened in this country ever since his death. Including this recent display of bigotry and intolerance being shown by so many of our citizens towards these people in their own neighborhood.
Clearly this is about prejudice and bigotry. Because an abandoned Burlington Coat Factory becoming a community center for Muslims two blocks away from where the towers stood has been ginned up as an outrage, while it’s considered a perfectly fine state of affairs that the God Of Capitalism can reside directly in the supposedly sacred ground of Ground Zero.
Posted by: Adrienne at September 11, 2010 12:10 PMJarandhel:
As you have said, you believe the 70% of Americans who oppose the mosque being built new ground zero or Islamophobic.
You have also said those who do not believe in gay marriage are Homophobic.
These are extreme black and white opinions.
I think there is more to be gained from me, by working with moderate muslims. I have been doing some reading over the weekend, and there are some great people out there who are muslim and don’t use inflamatory words to discribe those who disagree with them.
They are like the majority of Americans opposed to this Mosque and do not believe it is a civil rights issue.
David:
I understand why you think my response is lame. However you can really shoot from the hip in your responses.
One of you favority tactics is to say something like,
If you believe this means such and such,
(Which of course I don’t)
Then you take off on some sermon. It gets old with time.
In addition there is a great deal of, either hatred or animosity that is pretty ugly towards Christians and Republicans in your posts. That gets old as well.
Maybe you are just in a bad mood.
Posted by: Craig Holmes at September 13, 2010 11:11 PMAdrienne:
There is bigotry on both sides.
These people are Americans who are Muslim.
I don’t think I have heard anyone in this debate say they were not! Obviously they are Americans.
Clearly this is about prejudice and bigotry. Because an abandoned Burlington Coat Factory becoming a community center for Muslims two blocks away from where the towers stood has been ginned up as an outrage, while it’s considered a perfectly fine state of affairs that the God Of Capitalism can reside directly in the supposedly sacred ground of Ground Zero.
Do you think I am a bigot because I disagree with you?
Craig, excellent dodge of each and every one of my points of debate. I accept your concession.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 14, 2010 09:58 AMAs you have said, you believe the 70% of Americans who oppose the mosque being built new ground zero or Islamophobic.
Again, 51% of Americans not 70%. And I believe that because not one reason has been presented for why American Muslims should not build a mosque near Ground Zero that is both truthful and does not simply restate the fact that both they and the 9/11 hijackers practice Islam. Not one. Since your side of the argument has utterly failed at articulating *any* truthful support for your position that does not equate these Muslims with the hijackers and by extension blame all of Islam for the events of September 11th, yes I have to conclude that your side’s position is rooted in Islamophobia. And it would remain so even if it was 70% of America who felt that way, or 90%, or even 100%. The numbers of people who believe something do not speak to the validity of that belief. That is a basic logical fallacy: argumentum ad populum.
You have also said those who do not believe in gay marriage are Homophobic.
Again, those who are against gay civil marriage have utterly failed to provide any arguments which are both truthful and are not simply restatements of the religious argument that it is against God’s will. They have had ample opportunity to do so, even arguing their case in court. Yet even in front of the most sympathetic audience possible they simply have no case for why they are against same-sex civil marriage. So yes, I do have to conclude that their position is rooted in Homophobia.
These are extreme black and white opinions.
Not really. It would be black and white if I then concluded that being Islamophobic or Homophobic somehow made them bad people, certainly, but I have not made that leap. Frankly, you are the one who seems to be working from a more black and white picture of the world. For instance: You describe my view as someone who disagrees with you as “extreme”, but your next paragraph describes “moderate muslims” who just happen to agree with you on not building the mosque near Ground Zero. One can’t help but think the only reason you describe them as moderate is their agreement with you. That seems to be a pretty black-and-white view of the world to me.
I think there is more to be gained from me, by working with moderate muslims. I have been doing some reading over the weekend, and there are some great people out there who are muslim and don’t use inflamatory words to discribe those who disagree with them.They are like the majority of Americans opposed to this Mosque and do not believe it is a civil rights issue.
Just because they are Muslim and agree with you does not make your position right nor them “moderates”. In 1980, a poll was taken in Boston which said that 71% of Blacks would choose an integregated school over a segregated one. The reason that is relevant to this discussion is that it means that fully 29% of Blacks in Boston in 1980 either had no opinion or favored a segregated school. You can always find some members of a minority who will side with those who want to take away their rights.
I don’t think I have heard anyone in this debate say they were not! Obviously they are Americans.
Then why have your arguments attempted to paint them as differing culturally from other Americans, after 30 years of being here, to the point that they simply do not understand what other Americans mean when they say the word “sacred”? Why have you consistently tried to paint them as the outsiders, as if they were just now “coming into” the community? And, most importantly, why do you think they and they alone should be treated differently from their fellow Americans who have been allowed to build places of worship not just near Ground Zero but in WtC7 itself with no protest of any kind?
Do you think I am a bigot because I disagree with you?
I can’t speak for Adrienne, but personally I don’t think you’re a bigot because you disagree with me. I think you’re a bigot because of the specific arguments you’ve made in the course of disagreeing with me; the way you’ve tried to use the victims of 9/11 as both weapon and shield as if you speak for them and they speak with one voice on this issue, the way you’ve tried to paint the Muslims in Lower Manhattans as outsiders time and time again, the way you’ve tried to say it’s about unilaterally making a decision about how to “bless” a site many consider sacred but have had no response whatsoever to the fact that there were no protests over a Christian Church already having “blessed” the area by moving into WtC7 itself, the way you’ve consistently refused to state what you think a reasonable distance for these Muslims to move would be, and last but certainly not least the way you’ve refused to articulate any reason whatsoever why American Muslims who have nothing to do with the events of Ground Zero and no connection with the hijackers other than being members of a completely different denomination of Islam should keep their distance from the site. You keep saying that it’s about respect for the families of the victims: Well, why are the families of the victims offended by the proximity of American Muslims? Is it just because they are Muslim? If so, their argument and yours is firmly rooted in Islamophobia. I welcome you to prove me wrong. I’ve asked you to over and over again. But your repeated refusal or inability to make such an argument, while stubbornly sticking to your position, leads me to only one conclusion.
Posted by: Jarandhel at September 14, 2010 10:28 AMJarandhel, when folks quack like ducks, waddle like ducks, and argue like ducks, cognitive dissonance allows them to rationalize that they are people nonetheless, not ducks. Their emotions move them to a position, and then they spend all their time trying to use their mind to defend that position as a rational one. It fails, all too often, but, they are blind to the failure. Because they feel the way they do, they cannot be wrong, they believe their emotions don’t lie, and no amount of logical critique will dissuade them from their emotively based position.
No one knows this psychology better than capital punishment attorneys arguing before a jury. Peer group pressure can cause such ducks to retreat from their position temporarily, but, only to escape the peer group pressure. Their thinking and position does not change, only their behavior while in the room with all that peer group pressure. The movie 12 Angry Men, exemplifies these dynamics perfectly, mirroring real life situations and psychology of bigoted, and prejudiced people governed by their emotional responses to life events.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 14, 2010 03:56 PMDavid:
While that’s certainly true in some cases, there’s also other psychology at play here.. A poster over on Newsvine put it very well, in this comment.
Posted by: Jarandhel at September 14, 2010 05:38 PMJarandhel, no question, there is other psychology at play, security issues in belonging to a team or group, identification issues, and a host of others, including organic brain activity differences. At the heart of it all, however, is the approach to position, emotively based or rationally and empirically based. There is a hard-wired organic component to which approach individuals take, along with experiential factors, as some really ingenious research recently conducted demonstrates.
(google brain activity liberal conservative, and brain activity rational emotive decision making)
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 15, 2010 02:58 PMDavid: I’ve seen those studies. I’m not sure how to take them, though. If that’s the case, wouldn’t it be literally impossible for those who base their position on emotion to ever provide or withhold informed consent on any issue since their argument would merely rationalize their position rather than reveal how they arrived at it?
Posted by: Jarandhel at September 16, 2010 01:27 PMDavid:
Craig, excellent dodge of each and every one of my points of debate. I accept your concession.
Quite frankly I didn’t realize you and I were debating.
Craig Holmes, are you really suggesting that a person who lost a loved one on 9/11 could NOT be an Islamaphobe?Get real. The probability goes way up for a person becoming an Islamaphobe if they have lost a loved one to an Islamic Terrorist, or Christianaphobe if losing a loved one to a Christian Terrorist.
Losing a loved one does not insure that a person will become phobic to certain defining characteristics of the assailant, but, it does increase the probability. Any Sociology or Psychology 101 course will cover such research bearing this out.
My response was that, no that was not at all what I was suggesting.
If you want to go back and make a response to what I was suggesting, I will certainly respond.
Posted by: Craig Holmes at September 16, 2010 06:10 PMJarandhel:
On why you call everyone who disagrees with the mosque Islamophobes.
Again, 51% of Americans not 70%. And I believe that because not one reason has been presented for why American Muslims should not build a mosque near Ground Zero that is both truthful and does not simply restate the fact that both they and the 9/11 hijackers practice Islam.
First of all many answers have been given to you, just none that you will accept.
You do understand direct verses indirect right?
I read this research on bigotry. A researcher created a machine that measured brain waves when a member of a certain group’s picture was shown. They could show by the brain’s functions if it created certain emotions. Of course the answer was yes. The surpize finding to this researcher was that even as a liberal man, he had the same response! By that he meant that no matter what he did in prethought when a picture came up of certain ethnic groups his brain reacted in a certain way.
In the end he concluded that we all have a reaction to different groups based on image. As I understand research of brain function and how you are using the term phobe and bigot, we are all phobes and bigots.
In this particular situation, because of the trama, and the number of people involved EVEN THOUGH THEY RATIONALLY DO NOT HOLD ALL MUSLIMS ACCOUNTABLE FOR 9/11, there will be an emotional reaction to the placement of the mosque near ground zero. It will trigger memories of that terrible day.
So then why go forward? Why “do that”? Why create a situation that will cause pain for others when it can be moved?
You say that I am faulted because I wont name a certain amount of blocks for it to me moved. That is because I don’t have that reaction. I am not a good one to measure because I was not as deeply effected as some others. So instead I point to a process and say work it out with those that are deeply effected and I would accept their joint conclusion.
You can label (and will) my view point all you want, but that in fact is my view. It is not my call, it should be the call of those deepest effected. IE, the victims of 9/11 and the muslim community.
Then why have your arguments attempted to paint them as differing culturally from other Americans, after 30 years of being here, to the point that they simply do not understand what other Americans mean when they say the word “sacred”?
This one maybe I can explain and actually get to a point of understanding.
I was referring to when the Iman said that the area could not be sacred because it has adult book stores. He is thinking in religous terms. In his frame of reference a sacred place would never have those things. But those opposed to the building do not think of ground zero as sacred in a religous sense. They think of it as “sacred” in a national sense. Like Gettysburg or something like that. He can’t figure out the use of the other side’s terms. I don’t think he is different because he is muslim, but more because he is thinking in religious terms.
the way you’ve consistently refused to state what you think a reasonable distance for these Muslims to move would be,
I dealt with this above
and last but certainly not least the way you’ve refused to articulate any reason whatsoever why American Muslims who have nothing to do with the events of Ground Zero and no connection with the hijackers other than being members of a completely different denomination of Islam should keep their distance from the site.
I don’t believe Muslims should keep their distance from the sight.
You keep saying that it’s about respect for the families of the victims: Well, why are the families of the victims offended by the proximity of American Muslims?
I have not heard that they are. It’s the Mosque, the building that I have heard is offensive.
I have not heard anyone articulate being offended by Muslims being at or near the area. And i would agree that if someone were articulating that view it would be Islamophobia.
Posted by: Craig Holmes at September 16, 2010 06:45 PM
“But those opposed to the building do not think of ground zero as sacred in a religous sense. They think of it as “sacred” in a national sense. Like Gettysburg or something like that.”
OK, make the area a national monument. That will end the debate. There will be no religious institutions in the area.
Posted by: Rich at September 16, 2010 07:15 PMFirst of all many answers have been given to you, just none that you will accept.
I’ve addressed every answer you’ve attempted to give. None of them have been both truthful, and not just a restatement of “well, they’re Muslims”.
You do understand direct verses indirect right?
Yes, I do. Though what you’re referring to in your example is not “indirect” but “subconscious”. You do understand the difference, right?
I read this research on bigotry. A researcher created a machine that measured brain waves when a member of a certain group’s picture was shown. They could show by the brain’s functions if it created certain emotions. Of course the answer was yes. The surpize finding to this researcher was that even as a liberal man, he had the same response! By that he meant that no matter what he did in prethought when a picture came up of certain ethnic groups his brain reacted in a certain way.
Would you care to cite this supposed research?
In the end he concluded that we all have a reaction to different groups based on image. As I understand research of brain function and how you are using the term phobe and bigot, we are all phobes and bigots.
Sorry, but no. We’re not. If we were, we wouldn’t be having this discussion, now would we? My side would be just as prejudiced against Muslims as your side. But that’s not the case. It just makes you more comfortable to believe it is.
In this particular situation, because of the trama, and the number of people involved EVEN THOUGH THEY RATIONALLY DO NOT HOLD ALL MUSLIMS ACCOUNTABLE FOR 9/11, there will be an emotional reaction to the placement of the mosque near ground zero. It will trigger memories of that terrible day.
Why? Was a mosque involved in 9/11, or the events of ground zero? What about a mosque, specifically, triggers that mental association? Oh, yes, the fact that both the people in the mosque and the hijackers were MUSLIM. And yet you’ve been claiming that this isn’t about prejudice towards their religion, or holding them accountable for 9/11?
So then why go forward? Why “do that”? Why create a situation that will cause pain for others when it can be moved?
Because confronting that implicit prejudice is an important aspect of the healing, the bridge-building, that they are trying to do. To quote Dr. King again: “Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, so must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood.”
You say that I am faulted because I wont name a certain amount of blocks for it to me moved. That is because I don’t have that reaction. I am not a good one to measure because I was not as deeply effected as some others. So instead I point to a process and say work it out with those that are deeply effected and I would accept their joint conclusion.
Yet wouldn’t someone who isn’t as deeply affected as others be a good person to judge what a reasonable distance would actually be? Wouldn’t that place you in a better position to say “No, asking them to move further than x blocks would be unreasonable”?
You can label (and will) my view point all you want, but that in fact is my view. It is not my call, it should be the call of those deepest effected. IE, the victims of 9/11 and the muslim community.
And yet, you continue to ignore those victims of 9/11 who say they want the mosque exactly where it is planned.
I was referring to when the Iman said that the area could not be sacred because it has adult book stores. He is thinking in religous terms. In his frame of reference a sacred place would never have those things. But those opposed to the building do not think of ground zero as sacred in a religous sense. They think of it as “sacred” in a national sense. Like Gettysburg or something like that. He can’t figure out the use of the other side’s terms. I don’t think he is different because he is muslim, but more because he is thinking in religious terms.
Seem many adult bookstores at the Gettysburg battlefield lately? Or actually, since that’s in the middle of a national park, how about around the Pearl Harbor memorial? From what I can tell from a quick google search, the nearest one seems to be over ten miles away. We don’t tend to have them directly adjacent to places our nation considers sacred.
I don’t believe Muslims should keep their distance from the sight.
Then why are they, and they alone, the ones you don’t want to see building a house of worship there? That is asking them to keep their distance. You’ve literally said building the mosque there is “too close”.
I have not heard that they are. It’s the Mosque, the building that I have heard is offensive.
Please stop pretending there’s a difference. The Mosque is only considered offensive because it is a Muslim place of worship. Ergo, they are offended by the proximity of Muslims.
I have not heard anyone articulate being offended by Muslims being at or near the area. And i would agree that if someone were articulating that view it would be Islamophobia.
So individual Muslims are ok, but Muslim houses of worship are somehow a step too far? Trying to claim that objecting to one is Islamophobia but objecting to the other is not is like saying that banning all Catholic Churches in America isn’t prejudicial because it doesn’t ban the Catholics themselves. Are you seriously going to continue to try to play this semantic game?
Posted by: Jarandhel at September 16, 2010 07:23 PMRich:
OK, make the area a national monument. That will end the debate. There will be no religious institutions in the area.
Or just do the same thing the Moslem community wants only tern the thing over to and interfaith board to run.
Or just do the same thing the Moslem community wants only tern the thing over to and interfaith board to run.
Yeah, sure. As soon as every other religious institution inside whatever this unspecified protected area is (2 blocks? 10 blocks? 20 blocks? Still not saying, huh?) does the same. Starting with RiverNYC since they’re actually on Ground Zero itself. See that happening? No? Then why should the Muslims, and ONLY THE MUSLIMS, be expected to do this?
Posted by: Jarandhel at September 16, 2010 07:55 PMJarandhel:
Because confronting that implicit prejudice is an important aspect of the healing, the bridge-building, that they are trying to do
I agree with confronting implicit prejudice and that it should be done. And that it is an important part of healing.
I might have a disagreement with the word “bridge-building”.
Where I would disagree strongly is this venue where you choose a venue that uses widows and orphans (victims of 9/11) to accomplish this task. This in my opinion is insensitive and disrepectful.
I agree with your goal and purpose. Count me as for increasing the safety and freedom of muslims in our country.
In other venues we would probably be on the same side of this issue.
let me give you an example. The Mosque in our area is the only church building that I know of that has a cyclone fence with barb wire on top. That deeply troubles me. I know some people who I think worship there. They own some convenience stores near where we live. They have been very good to our children. It would bother me greatly (and I do mean greatly) if they worshiped in fear.
Now I also need to tell you that all churches are struggling with this issue and security is going up in churches across america. So I really want to talk to them personally to see what the deal is before I draw conclusions.
Where I would disagree strongly is this venue where you choose a venue that uses widows and orphans (victims of 9/11) to accomplish this task. This in my opinion is insensitive and disrepectful.
The venue was because it was available, and close to their old mosque. But it’s also a very good location for just such a project, because m uch of the prejudice against Muslims in this country is directly because of 9/11, because people don’t understand (consciously or subconsciously) that not all Muslims are terrorists. That’s not “using widows and orphans”, that’s making a stand against the prejudice at the place where it started.
And, again, it’s neither insensitive nor disrespectful unless you think it’s reasonable to associate these Muslims with the 9/11 hijackers. If you don’t, then people being offended by their presence or the presence of their mosque are displaying an unreasonable prejudice in making that association, whether they are victims of 9/11 or not. Exactly what they’re trying to address.
Posted by: Jarandhel at September 16, 2010 08:11 PMJarandhel:
What I am hearing you say that I can support is that their interest is to deal with prejudice against Muslims because of 9/11.
It is certainly perceived as disrepectful and insensitive by most victims of 9/11.
Do you have any polling data of what Muslims believe about the mosque? I read one artcle that said Muslims are against it. They didn’t provide any back up.
One thing that I have not heard is data that shows the level of support among Muslims.
Posted by: Craig Holmes at September 16, 2010 11:32 PMCraig:
Do you have a poll of “most victims of 9/11”? If not, how do you know how the majority of them view the project? And, again, if their perception of Park 51 as disrespectful and insensitive is based on a subconscious prejudice against all Muslims based on falsely associating them with the actions of the September 11th terrorists, why should such a perception be catered to?
At the moment, I can’t find polling data specifically for Muslims. The best I can find is a poll by the Siena Research Institute which breaks things down by Religion into Catholic, Jewish, and Protestant, and then places all other religions together into the category No Affiliation. This combined No Affiliation category, which would include Muslims, supports the building of the mosque by 47% to 35%; but that doesn’t really tell us where the Muslims specifically fell. Most of the polls I’ve seen do not include any data on religious affiliation.
Posted by: Jarandhel at September 19, 2010 05:42 PMJarandhel:
And, again, if their perception of Park 51 as disrespectful and insensitive is based on a subconscious prejudice against all Muslims based on falsely associating them with the actions of the September 11th terrorists, why should such a perception be catered to?
Key word in the above sentence is “IF”.
What we KNOW, is that these people lost loved ones or were terribly hurt.
You are right there are no polls that I am aware of, on either side. But what we do KNOW is that many victims have serious issues.
So we KNOW many lost loved ones, and we KNOW many of these have strong objections to the building.
What you believe or think is conjecture on your part right? You have no proof. So it if your side if you wnat to judge widows and orphans on their true motives without proof. Not sure of what the point would be other than going too far with politics.
And then we are of course debating rights verses sensitivity. Might show a lack of sensitivity to judge widows and orphans motives without proof in order to score policical points.
It seems to me to look for a third alternative that would not be an “in your face” to the widows and orphans but would also demontrate America is open to muslims.
I have been trained that when both sides have a mutual interest and agreement can usually be reached that both sides can live with. I certainly believe that in this case.
No, Craig, it is not “just conjecture” on my part. You yourself already admitted the reason behind the view that the mosque is offensive: “In this particular situation, because of the trama, and the number of people involved EVEN THOUGH THEY RATIONALLY DO NOT HOLD ALL MUSLIMS ACCOUNTABLE FOR 9/11, there will be an emotional reaction to the placement of the mosque near ground zero. It will trigger memories of that terrible day.”
The reason it’s being seen as offensive is because of a false association between all Muslims and the September 11th hijackers. You yourself admitted it. There is no other reason to ask Muslims, and only Muslims, not to build houses of worship near Ground Zero. I have both your previous admission, and the simple fact that no other truthful reason has been presented by your side.
Any solution that asks American Muslims to move their house of worship because of the actions of terrorists they have no connection with explicitly does not demonstrate that “America is open to Muslims”. You can’t say you’re open to a group, and simultaneously associate them with terrorists by asking them (and only them) not to build near a site where a terrorist act took place. It just does not work that way.
Posted by: Jarandhel at September 19, 2010 10:43 PMJarandhel:
Any solution that asks American Muslims to move their house of worship because of the actions of terrorists they have no connection with explicitly does not demonstrate that “America is open to Muslims”. You can’t say you’re open to a group, and simultaneously associate them with terrorists by asking them (and only them) not to build near a site where a terrorist act took place. It just does not work that way.
Of course not the way your frame the issue. There are multiple other ways of framing the issue.
One solution is money. There are lots of well meaning Americans who realize that the current formula where one side wins the other looses wont work. Either solution if done now is dangerous.
I can see how ensuring that the new mosque was bigger and grander than the one currently proposed would be important.
I can also see how helping them fund the newer bigger better mosque could be important as well.
I’m not suggesting that as a solution, because the key would be to work with both communities to find a third alternative that repects the legitimate histories and rights of both groups. It would need to be a solution that both parties could live with.
Jarandhel, like I said, “Their emotions move them to a position, and then they spend all their time trying to use their mind to defend that position as a rational one.” And of course, because their position is logically indefensible, their arguments must, of necessity, contradict themselves, as Craig’s now do. The rationalization that takes place as a result of cognitive dissonance is truly a wonder of human inefficiency and repetition of fallibility, to study. So, is the educational process by which one rescues oneself from such cognitive dissonance through the admission of error, and the reward of pride and sense of confidence in having successfully hurdled it. There is something immensely rewarding in learning to overcome our ignorance and lack of self-awareness regarding the basis for our decisions, and that is what we should be teaching in our schools today.
There is no shame in being proven wrong due to insufficient or flawed information. The shame comes from refusal to accept the proof. A dead giveaway that cognitive dissonance and rationalization are at play.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 20, 2010 05:55 PMCraig:
If there are multiple other ways of framing the issue, then please present a valid one. So far, all of your attempts at reframing the issue have tried to blame Muslims by painting them as insensitive outsiders who are oppressing the victims of 9/11 by threatening to build their mosque “too close” to Ground Zero.
“Money” is not a valid solution. Building a bigger and grander mosque than the one currently proposed is neither necessary, nor a way of actually addressing the underlying issue: that they are being asked to move their mosque in the first place for no other reason than the fact that they are Muslim. At best, an offer of money like that would be an attempt at buying absolution for such a prejudiced demand.
David
At least we’ve reached the point where we have a direct admission that the demands the mosque be moved are based on subconscious prejudice…
Posted by: Jarandhel at September 20, 2010 06:37 PMJarandhel:
When there is a disagreement and both parties have the same interest, there are always multiple solutions to problems.
It doesn’t matter what you think is a valid solution. It only matters what the muslim community as well as the widows and orphans think is a valid solution.
You have said this is important to you because of a political purpose.
In terms of a “valid” way to frame the issue there aren’t any that you would accept. There are many that many on both sides would agree to.
Craig:
But both parties in this case do NOT have the same interest. One party is interested in pushing the other party away, in keeping the area around Ground Zero free from Muslim houses of worship. How is that “the same interest”?
I have not said that this is important to me because of a political purpose, and I challenge you to find a quote where I have said anything even close to that. I’ve specifically said: “It has nothing to do with getting our way politically. It has to do with protecting the rights of all our citizens.”
A valid way to frame the issue *cannot* start from the premise that the presence of a Muslim house of worship in the area of Ground Zero is naturally offensive. Doing so paints them as aggressors, whose mere presence in the area menaces the community and the families of the victims, and unjustly associates them with the terrorists. How do you expect both sides to ever agree to that as a frame?
And please, don’t try to play semantic games again and argue that it’s the mosque people object to rather than their presence. A mosque was in no way involved in the events of September 11th. A mosque was not flown into the twin towers. There is nothing about a mosque which would evoke any memories of 9/11. The mosque is being protested solely because it is a physical structure associated with the religion of Islam, which makes this all about Muslim presence in the area.
Posted by: Jarandhel at September 21, 2010 10:18 AMJarandhel:
Thank you for your reminder that all muslims were not responsible for 9/11.
You have said that all who do not back the building of the mosque near ground zero are Islamophobes.
Here is another one:
Ask C. Lee Hanson, who lost his son, daughter-in-law, and granddaughter on Sept. 11. He said to the New York Times, “The pain never goes away. When I look over there and see a mosque, it’s going to hurt.” Other Sept. 11 families who have opposed the construction in offensive words are not taken seriously, but their pain is real.
What possible good is a viewpoint so insensitive and disrepectful as to add to this man’s pain by labeling him with a term like Islamophobe?
I listened to the Imam being inteviewed and speaking of his willingness to compromise now that he understands the pain this has caused. I am hopeful for a good resolution with time.
But both parties in this case do NOT have the same interest. One party is interested in pushing the other party away, in keeping the area around Ground Zero free from Muslim houses of worship. How is that “the same interest”?
We all have the same interest in reducing violence. If one side unilaterally gets their way the risk of violence will greatly increase. I don’t want to push them away as you say. I have a son in the military. Disrespecting this group increases the risk of another terror attack. At the same time going ahead full speed ahead risks the same against this building. The offense against the victims is great.
The situation must be diffused with great care.
I will get you the quote about politics.
Here is a quote:
Posted by: Craig Holmes at September 21, 2010 11:07 AMJarandhel:
Here are a couple more Islamophobes:
http://aawsat.com/english/news.asp?section=2&id=22393
http://www.mzuhdijasser.com/7942/imam-rauf-american-muslim
Posted by: Craig Holmes at September 21, 2010 11:34 AMWhat possible good is a viewpoint so insensitive and disrepectful as to add to this man’s pain by labeling him with a term like Islamophobe?
The good is in standing up against someone trying to take out his pain on all Muslims. Look at his quote: “When I look over there and see a mosque, it’s going to hurt.” Why? Did a mosque kill his son, daughter-in-law, and granddaughter? Did the people in the mosque kill them? Did the religion itself kill them? No, foreign terrorists killed them. Terrorists who have *nothing* to do with the mosque or the people in it. What good is done in acting as if he is being reasonable by connecting these American Muslims with the foreign terrorists who killed his family? What possible good is a viewpoint so prejudiced against all Muslims that it ignores the fact that these are Americans who have been members of the Lower Manhattan community for over 30 years and who lost their own loved ones in the attacks?
We all have the same interest in reducing violence. If one side unilaterally gets their way the risk of violence will greatly increase.
Yes: the risk of violence will greatly increase if your side gets its way and makes it acceptable to pressure Muslims not to build near Ground Zero. That will clearly demonstrate to Muslims around the world that the American people have decided the religion of Islam as a whole is responsible for 9/11, and that we do not distinguish between moderate Muslims and extremists. This will happen if your side manages to get the mosque moved even one foot further way from Ground Zero. I’m sorry you still seem to have trouble seeing that.
I don’t want to push them away as you say.
And yet, you’re trying to pressure them into moving their mosque… literally pushing them away from Ground Zero.
I have a son in the military. Disrespecting this group increases the risk of another terror attack.
So why do you keep advocating that it’s alright to cast them as outsiders, that it’s alright to associate them with terrorists, that it’s alright to say that it is offensive for them to build their house of worship anywhere near Ground Zero? This despite explicit warning that your side is aiding our enemies:
“By preventing this mosque from being built, America is doing us a big favor,” Taliban operative Zabihullah tells NEWSWEEK. (Like many Afghans, he uses a single name.) “It’s providing us with more recruits, donations, and popular support.”
At the same time going ahead full speed ahead risks the same against this building.
Only if your side continues to use rhetoric painting the Muslims as evil outsiders who must be stopped. Your side has been inciting violence already:
At one point, a portion of the crowd menacingly surrounded two Egyptian men who were speaking Arabic and were thought to be Muslims.“Go home,” several shouted from the crowd.
“Get out,” others shouted.
In fact, the two men – Joseph Nassralla and Karam El Masry — were not Muslims at all. They turned out to be Egyptian Coptic Christians who work for a California-based Christian satellite TV station called “The Way.” Both said they had come to protest the mosque.
“I’m a Christian,” Nassralla shouted to the crowd, his eyes bulging and beads of sweat rolling down his face.
But it was no use. The protesters had become so angry at what they thought were Muslims that New York City police officers had to rush in and pull Nassralla and El Masry to safety.
And that’s without even getting into the arsons and vandalism that have taken place at mosques and mosque building sites around the nation since the start of the “Ground Zero mosque” rhetoric. Or the anti-Muslim stabbing in New York.
The offense against the victims is great.
Why? Because American citizens who are Muslim dared to want to build a house of worship in their community, near the site of an act of foreign terrorism? What is, in any way, offensive about that unless you think they, as Muslims, somehow share some blame for 9/11?
The situation must be diffused with great care.
Actually, if you remove the rhetoric your side has been using, the situation pretty much defuses itself. That’s why there wasn’t a controversy until the founders of Stop Islamification of America invented one. On December 29, 2009 Fox News did an interview with Imam Rauf’s wife. At that time, host Laura Ingraham reported: “I can’t find many people who really have a problem with it.”, as well as saying “But I like what you’re trying to do, and Ms. Khan, we appreciate it.”
You may want to take a look at just how opposition to this project evolved. ">Here’s a report from Salon with a timeline.
Posted by: Jarandhel at September 21, 2010 01:36 PMJarandhel:
Here are a couple more Islamophobes:http://aawsat.com/english/news.asp?section=2&id=22393
“>http://www.mzuhdijasser.com/7942/imam-rauf-american-muslim
You do realize that this argument is logically equivalent to “Look, I’ve got black friends, I can’t be a racist!”, don’t you?
As I’ve already pointed out, you can always find some members of a minority group who will side with those wanting to take away that group’s rights.
Posted by: Jarandhel at September 21, 2010 01:46 PMJarandhel:
No not at all. You have said twice that all who do not support building the mosque as planned are Islamophobes.
I am showing you Muslims who have the same position that I do who are muslim. Either these muslims who share my position are Islamophobes are you are wrong.
You have consistantly asked for proof that a position exists where someone could oppose the building of the mosque and not be an Islamophobe. Clearly even if you don’t understand it one exists because there are people who could not possibly be Islamophobes, (Muslims in good standing) who hold such positions.
So maybe, just maybe you do not measure the world after all.
In addition, you have said no compromise is possible. And yet the Imam believes one is possible. It would be hard for you to label the Imam an Islamophobe. I agree with him, compromise is possible.
So here is my thesis:
People who do not support the building of the mosque near ground zero are not Islamophobes if they hold such beliefs for substancially the same reasons as muslims who share the same beliefs.
Sorry, just realized the last link in my comment from 1:36pm did not post correctly. It should be to this:
http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/08/16/ground_zero_mosque_origins
Craig,
You’ve still failed to provide any reasons not to support the mosque that aren’t based in Islamophobia. The links you provide to Muslims who don’t want the mosque built aren’t it.
In your first link, Mr. Al-Rashed argues that building the mosque “humiliates” Americans because it is “near the site of the crime committed by Muslims against others”. He subscribes to the guilt-by-association theory; that because Muslims committed 9/11, other Muslims who had nothing to do with it need to stay away. How is that not Islamophobic? He also claims that it is not an issue for most Muslims, when we have Taliban operatives on record saying the opposition to the mosque is helping them.
Your second link is even worse… it claims that what “what American Muslims most need” is “an open call for reformation that unravels the bigoted and shoddy framework of political Islam and separates mosque and state.” How is that what American Muslims need? Mosque and state are already separate in America, and the “political Islam” he describes is not a hallmark of Islam in America.
He also tries to cast the mosque as “a towering Islamic edifice that casts a shadow over the memorials of Ground Zero”, when it is two blocks away from Ground Zero and is the same size as both the YMCA and the Jewish Community Center.
He also claims that Imam Rauf has not denounced Hamas, which we know is false, and tries to paint him as an extremist himself despite his work with the U.S. State Department under multiple administrations.
How is fearmongering like this not Islamophobic, whether it’s done by someone who claims to be Muslim or not?
Imam Rauf is a man currently under a great many attacks from your side. It’s not surprising that he’s caving under the pressure of these attacks. That doesn’t mean that his capitulation represents a real compromise. After all: what exactly is your side giving up? Compromise is the settlement of differences through MUTUAL concessions. Yet the Muslims are the only ones being asked to make any concessions here.
Here’s my thesis: You’re trying to use any Muslims on record as being against the mosque as a shield for your beliefs, much as you already have used the victims of 9/11 and their families. You’ve acknowledged that your beliefs are based not on reason, but on supporting prejudice that you claim is subconscious and involuntary. Yet when that prejudice has been pointed out, when you’re already aware of it, you seek alternative reasoning to justify keeping your position exactly the same.
Posted by: Jarandhel at September 21, 2010 03:57 PMJarandhel:
Here’s my thesis: You’re trying to use any Muslims on record as being against the mosque as a shield for your beliefs, much as you already have used the victims of 9/11 and their families. You’ve acknowledged that your beliefs are based not on reason, but on supporting prejudice that you claim is subconscious and involuntary. Yet when that prejudice has been pointed out, when you’re already aware of it, you seek alternative reasoning to justify keeping your position exactly the same.
No I am just shooting holes in your belief that all who do not support the mosque are Islamophobic.
Let me challenge you on what I am aware of because you mischracterized something that I said earlier.
What I said earlier that research shows that all are prejudice. They do this by tracking brain waves. They put up pictures of people of different groups and measure how the brain responds.
You are prejudice as well. We could prove it by putting you one the machine. it is in that context that I made the remarks that the events of 9/11 would likely cause a person to feel pain when they see the mosque.
However they are exactly like you. When you see certain images they react as well. We all do it.
That is very different from your use of the inflamatory term “Islamophobe” to describe widows and orphans which is insensitive at the least and hypocritical at the maximum.
So I am not admiting that my beliefs are not based on reason. When a person has experience severe trauma, reason dictates that sensitivity is in order. Reason also dictates that ones approach to a group yields different results.
Let me isolate this comment:
but on supporting prejudice that you claim is subconscious and involuntary.
I would support that research demonstrates that this is true of all mankind. By that I do not mean that all prejudice is subconscious and involuntary. I believe that all humans have subconscious and involuntary prejudice. It is hard wired into our brains and can be measured.
In your language we are ALL PHOBES!!
Posted by: Craig Holmes at September 21, 2010 04:25 PMNo I am just shooting holes in your belief that all who do not support the mosque are Islamophobic.
That may be what you’re trying to do, but you’re failing quite dramatically. Your thesis that because you can find Muslims who agree with you, you can’t be Islamophibic relies on the premise that it is impossible for Muslims to be Islamophobic. Effectively, that it’s impossible to be prejudiced against any group of which you are part. Simple reasoning, given the number of closeted homosexuals who have been behind anti-gay legislation, should show you the error of this supposition. But if that’s not enough for you, try looking up “internalized racism”.
Let me challenge you on what I am aware of because you mischracterized something that I said earlier.What I said earlier that research shows that all are prejudice. They do this by tracking brain waves. They put up pictures of people of different groups and measure how the brain responds.
You are prejudice as well. We could prove it by putting you one the machine.
You’ve said this has been proven, but you still have not provided a citation for the claim. And you have not addressed my previous refutation: “If we were, we wouldn’t be having this discussion, now would we? My side would be just as prejudiced against Muslims as your side. But that’s not the case. It just makes you more comfortable to believe it is.”
it is in that context that I made the remarks that the events of 9/11 would likely cause a person to feel pain when they see the mosque.
I fully understand that context. It does not change the fact that feeling pain when they see the mosque is based on associating all Muslims with terrorism. That’s prejudice.
However they are exactly like you. When you see certain images they react as well. We all do it.
Even if it were true that we all react when we see certain images, we do not then act on that reaction by trying to pressure other groups into leaving an area. Those who are against the mosque are trying to pressure Islamic groups to leave the Ground Zero area.
That is very different from your use of the inflamatory term “Islamophobe” to describe widows and orphans which is insensitive at the least and hypocritical at the maximum.
Will you please stop trying to use their status as widows and orphans to excuse prejudice? Being a widow or orphan does not automatically make you immune from being Islamophobic. You’ve said before that you weren’t trying to claim that it did, but you keep taking offense at anyone actually pointing out the position you’re ascribing to these widows and orphans IS Islamophobic.
So I am not admiting that my beliefs are not based on reason. When a person has experience severe trauma, reason dictates that sensitivity is in order. Reason also dictates that ones approach to a group yields different results.
Yes, you have admitted your beliefs are not based on reason. You have admitted that they are based on the unreasonable reactions of trauma victims who have developed a prejudice against all Muslims because of September 11th. It is not reasonable, by any stretch of the imagination, to support such prejudice in the name of “sensitivity”.
I would support that research demonstrates that this is true of all mankind. By that I do not mean that all prejudice is subconscious and involuntary. I believe that all humans have subconscious and involuntary prejudice. It is hard wired into our brains and can be measured.In your language we are ALL PHOBES!!
Any citations for this? Any at all? And even if it were true, how do you justify the fact that you are consciously and voluntarily supporting such prejudice? “Sensitivity” doesn’t cut it unless you posit that sensitivity to 9/11 victims should trump sensitivity to Muslim Americans. And the only reason to posit that would be if you think Muslim Americans are less important because they are Muslim.
Posted by: Jarandhel at September 21, 2010 05:19 PMJarandhel
It’s true.
Any citations for this? Any at all? And even if it were true, how do you justify the fact that you are consciously and voluntarily supporting such prejudice?
Here is one. There are many such sources.
http://www.medicineonline.com/news/12/4472/Brain-Scans-Get-at-Roots-of-Prejudice.html
Well, if I didn’t I wouldn’t write here. Every writer here has prejudice. To be human is to have prejudice.
Is this news to you?
Craig:
You may want to read the whole article you cite:
But Phelps also believes that we might be able to override our ingrained “dorsal” response to strangers. “I imagine that you can think compassionately, highlighting similarities between you and another person that will change your interpretation of their actions,” she said.Mitchell agreed. He said a new set of fMRI experiments will soon get under way to see if that neural switch can easily occur. But, he said, there are limits to empathy, of course.
I ask again: How do you justify the fact that you are consciously and voluntarily supporting prejudice against Muslims rather than trying to overcome that response, even if it is instinctive as these researchers theorize?
To be human is to be able to overcome instinctual responses, to rise above our animal nature. Is that news to you?
Posted by: Jarandhel at September 22, 2010 01:23 AMCraig:
By the way, while I still haven’t been able to locate polls which break down their results by religious affiliation and include Muslims as a unique category, it appears that the Muslim community is rallying around the Park51 project:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/21/nyregion/21mosque.html?_r=2&hpw
Posted by: Jarandhel at September 22, 2010 11:24 AMJarandhel:
I ask again: How do you justify the fact that you are consciously and voluntarily supporting prejudice against Muslims rather than trying to overcome that response, even if it is instinctive as these researchers theorize?
Well first of all, I do not accept your premise. I don’t have to justify what I am not doing.
What I am doing is confronting a debate opponent who is stuck in one size fits all generalizing on inflamatory issues. You have widows, orphans and now muslims under the inflamatory banner of “Islamopobe.”
When you are able to take the log out of your eye, let’s look at the speck in mine.
Jarandhel:
I want to give you a bit more reading:
http://nyp.org/news/hospital/1107.html
More than half (56.8 percent) of the young children studied suffered from some sort of anxiety disorder, including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), which affected nearly three in 10 bereaved children.
Three in ten of the bereaved children of 9/11 (orphans) have PTSD.
These are the ones you and David believe should “just get over it.”
So my question to you again is, are bereaved children who have mental illness directly tied to 9/11 which causes a reaction when they see the mosque Islamophobes?
In other words, do you include the mentally ill children in your generalization?
Posted by: Craig Holmes at September 23, 2010 12:13 AMWell first of all, I do not accept your premise. I don’t have to justify what I am not doing.
You may reject it, but you’ve already admitted that you’re doing it. You say that your concern is showing sensitivity to the victims, who you admit are displaying prejudice. When you want to show sensitivity by accommodating prejudice, that’s direct and conscious support of prejudice.
What I am doing is confronting a debate opponent who is stuck in one size fits all generalizing on inflamatory issues. You have widows, orphans and now muslims under the inflamatory banner of “Islamopobe.”
And so far, you haven’t presented a single rational argument about why any of these people are not Islamophobic. You’ve relied on pure emotion in the case of widows and orphans (an appeal to pity, a basic logical fallacy), and the false premise that it’s impossible for someone to be prejudiced against groups of which they’re part in the case of Muslims.
When you are able to take the log out of your eye, let’s look at the speck in mine.
Thanks, but my vision’s fine.
Three in ten of the bereaved children of 9/11 (orphans) have PTSD.These are the ones you and David believe should “just get over it.”
So my question to you again is, are bereaved children who have mental illness directly tied to 9/11 which causes a reaction when they see the mosque Islamophobes?
In other words, do you include the mentally ill children in your generalization?
So far, I haven’t seen any evidence that children are the ones against the mosque. Just you using them as a shield for your point of view. But assuming they were against the mosque, because they connect all Muslims with 9/11, then yes that is Islamophobia. PTSD or not.
And, btw, I know a little something about PTSD, having helped my boyfriend recover from it. PTSD doesn’t work like that: it’s not the PTSD causing them to have a reaction when they see the mosque. PTSD flashbacks are triggered by similarity… a sight, a sound, a smell, something that triggers them to relive the memory as if they were still there. A mosque wasn’t involved in 9/11, so seeing a mosque would not be triggering. Even seeing Muslims or Arabs would really not be triggering unless they directly witnessed the hijacking. Explosions might be triggering. Demolitions of buildings might be triggering. Aircraft flying low overhead might be triggering. But what about a mosque would actually remind them of that day?
Please don’t use PTSD as a shield for prejudice. Don’t pretend, like the cabbie-stabber, that anyone… kids or otherwise… having PTSD somehow makes it ok to lump all Muslims in together and treat American Muslims like outsiders and terrorists.
Posted by: Jarandhel at September 23, 2010 11:05 AMJarandhel:
You are stereotyping. You are the one using the word “all”.
Certainly some who have PTSD lets say “one” has PTSD and the mosque triggers a flashback.
Is that person an Islamophobe?
You say you have a boyfriend. Is it ok then that I start stereotyping you with inflamatory language?
And what possible purpose would it serve in creating a better world?
So far, I haven’t seen any evidence that children are the ones against the mosque. Just you using them as a shield for your point of view. But assuming they were against the mosque, because they connect all Muslims with 9/11, then yes that is Islamophobia. PTSD or not.
So you will also use inflamatory language against people with PTSD who disagree with you. AND make your own diagnosis.
So now we have widows, orphans, muslims and people who suffer from PTSD as Islamophobes.
Please don’t use PTSD as a shield for prejudice. Don’t pretend, like the cabbie-stabber, that anyone… kids or otherwise… having PTSD somehow makes it ok to lump all Muslims in together and treat American Muslims like outsiders and terrorists.
You are describing yourself in this quote. You are the one who is generalizing and stereotyping.
Posted by: Craig Holmes at September 23, 2010 05:25 PMCraig:
It’s not a stereotype to say that everyone opposed to the mosque is Islamophobic. It’s a syllogism:
1. It is Islamophobic to connect all Muslims with terrorists.
2. Asking Muslims to move their mosque away from Ground Zero is connecting them with terrorists.
3. Anyone asking Muslims to move their mosque away from Ground Zero is Islamophobic.
Certainly some who have PTSD lets say “one” has PTSD and the mosque triggers a flashback.Is that person an Islamophobe?
The mosque CANNOT trigger a PTSD flashback. No mosque was involved in the events of September 11th. Nobody who even saw Muslim hijackers survived. Ergo, nothing about either the mosque or the Muslims in it would trigger memories of the event for anyone to flash back to.
You say you have a boyfriend. Is it ok then that I start stereotyping you with inflamatory language?
No, it wouldn’t be. So one wonders why you think it’s ok to stereotype Muslims as being connected to 9/11, so that it’s alright to say that it’s offensive for them to build houses of worship anywhere remotely near the site of a national tragedy. You still don’t see how that’s far more inflammatory language than any mere name you could call them?
And what possible purpose would it serve in creating a better world?
I’ve already explained the purpose in pointing out Islamophobia. Preventing people from taking their pain and prejudices out on innocents does create a better world.
So you will also use inflamatory language against people with PTSD who disagree with you. AND make your own diagnosis.
They’re not disagreeing with me. You are, and claiming that it’s on their behalf. Yet you haven’t even quoted the source where you got the statistic 3 in 10, let alone quoted any of these children with PTSD saying they are against the mosque being built. But if they did have PTSD still, and if they were actually against the mosque being built, it would not be because of their PTSD. That’s not a diagnosis, that’s a basic understanding of how PTSD triggers work. Something that was not involved in the event they witnessed *cannot* trigger a PTSD flashback.
By the way, I seriously doubt the veracity of the 3 in 10 claim, given that only 4% of children who witnessed the events of 9/11 first-hand at Ground Zero themselves still had PTSD symptoms 15 months after the attack.
So now we have widows, orphans, muslims and people who suffer from PTSD as Islamophobes.
And we still have you failing to present a rational argument for why members of any of these groups could not be Islamophobic. In fact, when David previously asked you “Craig Holmes, are you really suggesting that a person who lost a loved one on 9/11 could NOT be an Islamaphobe?” you said “No I am not.” So why do you keep complaining about people calling them Islamophobes as if their status as family members of the victims should somehow automatically exclude them from being considered Islamophobic?
You are describing yourself in this quote. You are the one who is generalizing and stereotyping.
No, the people who are saying a mosque should not be built near Ground Zero are generalizing and stereotyping Muslims based on the actions of terrorists. It’s really sad that you still refuse to let yourself see that fact.
Posted by: Jarandhel at September 23, 2010 07:58 PMBtw, this is an interesting read:
http://www.salon.com/life/feature/2010/09/07/we_are_not_experts_on_park_51/index.html
Posted by: Jarandhel at September 24, 2010 11:12 AMSorry, one more thing. A comment that I just came across elsewhere that I think makes a very eloquent point about this controversy:
And that’s very important, because New York is a thriving, active city full of all sorts of businesses and people. They live, work, and go to strip clubs in areas that were directly affected — but they do not live in “Ground Zero.” They don’t have to be “holy,” or “sacred,” or a “memorial” — they can just live.But now there’s an effort to redefine a huge chunk of downtown as Ground Zero. As a New Yorker, the answer to that has to be no. We want a sacred space to remember in our community, but we do not want our thriving community — the busiest place on Earth — turned into a “memorial district.”
Full comment here.
Posted by: Jarandhel at September 24, 2010 12:01 PMHTML Formatting Tips:
<strong>bold text</strong>
<em>italicize text</em>
<u>underline text</u>
<strike>strike text</strike>
<a href="http://domain.com/link">link text</a>
<blockquote>quote text</blockquote>
By clicking the "Post" button you agree to abide by the Rules For Participation. Please report abuse and inappropriate behavior to editor@watchblog.com.
