Abu Muqawama: Post
Abu Muqawama retains its autonomy and the views and beliefs expressed within the blog do not reflect those of CNAS. Abu Muqawama retains the right to delete comments that include words that incite violence; are predatory, hateful, or intended to intimidate or harass; or degrade people on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. In summary, don't be a jerk.
On Mosques
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
This staff editorial in the National Review -- like so much of the rhetoric deployed in opposition to the proposed mosque near Ground Zero -- is disgusting. The passions expressed in it -- and it is, fundamentally, an argument based on emotion and not reason -- are a threat to American values and freedom. On the one hand, you would think "conservatives" would be pretty clear on matters related to the freedom to practice one's religion -- not to mention private property rights. But when that religion is Islam, what passes for "conservativism" these days apparently takes a vacation.
Writing as a Christian, I am firmly within the majority in the United States. As a Protestant Christian, I am also within the majority. And as an Evangelical Protestant Christian, I belong to the largest subset of all Christians in the United States. I treasure the way the 1st Amendment protects my rights to worship. But I also understand that the 1st Amendment -- the "first draft" of which was written by one of my ancestors -- exists more to protect religious minorities than those of us in the majority. It's an amendment written with Huguenots and Quakers and Catholics in mind. Where the Bill of Rights really has its value is as a check against the tyranny of the majority. It's for times like these when the passions of Americans -- stoked by the memory of September 11th -- cause us to do and say things that spit in the face of the freedoms we claim to cherish.
Defending America starts with defending our values. "We" are America. And "we" are Christians and Jews and Muslims and Athiests. A movement to restrict the freedom of one of us to worship -- and a corresponding move to demonize a minority religion -- is an affront to us all.
As the Republican mayor of New York put it yesterday, "I believe this is as important a test of the separation of church and state as any we may see in our lifetime - and it is critically important that we get it right."
Update: Kevin D. Williamson of the National Review is quite right that his editorial board never called for government action. That doesn't mean the stance offered by the National Review isn't an affront to the principle of freedom of religion as enshrined in law through the 1st Amendment -- which is why I led with that text. This about more than doing the legal thing; it's about doing the right thing by way of American values. Demonizing a minority sect is not the right thing. Neither is seeking to restrict their right to free assembly through a public campaign of intimidation. (Also, I don't the sense that Mr. Williamson has ever stepped inside a mosque, but I'm sure most mosques in the United States would welcome the debate he suggests. Just take your shoes off, guys.)
"the passions of Americans
"the passions of Americans -- stoked by the memory of September 11th -- cause us to do and say things that spit in the face of the freedoms we claim to cherish"
We spit in the face of the freedoms we cherish unless we let an alien creed spit in the face of the freedoms we cherish!
Yeah, that makes sense.
Islam is not just ANY religion. The vicinity of the WTC is not just ANY place in America. Is there really no other place they could build a mosque in NYC? Or is there some other point they're trying to make?
I respectfully disagree, Mr.
I respectfully disagree, Mr. Exum. The article states: "We will not appeal to the official powers to use the machinery of government to stop this project." That, I believe, would be a violation of the Constitution. Instead, I interpret the article as a call to be respectful of those who died there that day and not to rub salt in the wound.
"Islam is not just ANY
"Islam is not just ANY religion." Yes, it is. "The vicinity of the WTC is not just ANY place in America." Oh, yes, it is. There is not a single place on these shores -- save U.S. military bases -- where the U.S. Constitution applies any more or less than elsewhere.Hear, Hear!! A REAL
Hear, Hear!! A REAL American!!
(Now, let's investigate all the others...) ;-))
The 1st Amendment, H
The 1st Amendment, H Armstrong, enshrines the principle of freedom of religion in U.S. law. That principle is endangered by this kind of rhetoric, even if the law is not. Those agitating against the construction of this mosque are sacrificing American values on the alter of populist appeal. (Thank you, though, for your indeed respectful dissent.)When did this country become
When did this country become so xenophobic and full of hatred of other cultures? It seems like it's gotten really bad since 2008, coincidentally with the rise of Sarah Palin and her "mainstream America" values.
While I agree that we should
While I agree that we should not discriminate against Islam, we should not give them a pass either. Catholicism resembles Islam in that both run a judicial system. But Islamic courts do not respect national borders as limits on their jurisdiction. And their judgments include physical punishments for things that are not crimes in the USA, like wearing shorts and a tank top. Catholicism's judicial system has a maximum punishment of aggressive non-association, something that is never a crime in the US.
There is also the waqf problem. Eminent domain of a waqf property is going to be much more difficult, what with the international condemnations and possible rioting. There seems to be no way to end the islamic character of a waqf property. This is a legitimate concern for the secular government.
Islam is not just another religion. It has specific characteristics that are problematic if applied in the US and if a local jurisdiction doesn't want to buy that sort of trouble, they historically have been able to use the zoning code to keep it outside their municipality or to limit it to certain zones.
"There is not a single place
"There is not a single place on these shores -- save U.S. military bases -- where the U.S. Constitution applies any more or less than elsewhere."
Not to quibble, but this isn't quite right. The fourteenth amendment only has been held to incorporate certain of the amendments constituting the bill of rights as applicable against the states. Further, that incorporation has been uneven. For example, to date only the Second Circuit has applied the Third Amendment to the states (Engblom v. Carey, 1982). Thus, it is arguably unconstitutional for a state government to order the quartering of soldiers in private houses in New York, Connecticut, and Vermont, but there is no legal authority rendering that an unconstitutional act by any other state. It would, of course, be unconstitutional if ordered by the federal government, but absent incorporation in other circuits or by the Supreme court, it would not be an unconstitutional state governmental act. There are a number of similar discrepancies as to portions of the First, Fifth, Seventh, and Eighth Amendments. McDonald v. Chicago recently settled this issue decisively as to the Second Amendment, as my readers of this blog probably are aware.
That being said, I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment in your blog post. I just wanted to correct one slight over-generalization.
Mr. Exum, the First
Mr. Exum, the First Amendment also protects the right of private citizens to "agitate" as they please. As long as NR doesn't call for gov't interference in the mosque construction, they can raise private boycotts all day long without falling afoul of the US Constitution. It may not be in according with US values-but it doesn't violate the constitution either, which was the point of your original post.
Chris P, I stand corrected;
Chris P, I stand corrected; Visitor 4:38, I agree that the National Review's editorial board is not the same thing as the Congress. But again, as I said to H Amstrong, The 1st Amendment is what enshrines the principle of freedom of religion in U.S. law. I used that as an introductory text because I am criticizing the National Review's editorial board for a stance that I believe runs contrary to our freedom to worship.Please keep up the good
Please keep up the good work; although I don't always agree with you, I really enjoy this blog.
Exum's right, doesn't mean
Exum's right, doesn't mean people have to like having a mosque blocks away from Islam's greatest modern single-day victory.
My sister went to Hawaii for her honeymoon and visited the USS Arizona. She said that the serious and respectful atmosphere was shattered by a group of smiling and picture taking Japanese tourists at the site. There are no laws to stop these types of actions either.
Philadelphia's oldest Catholic church, Old St. Joseph's @ south of 3rd and Market, is an interesting analogy to this mosque being built.
The church was built in 1733 and the citizens of the city did not want to visually see a Catholic church every day. If you walked by the church and failed to see the sign, one would not even know a church was there. The entrance to the church is thru a gate and in a courtyard.
The Quakers allowed the church to be built, but they did not want a grand building and made sure that the church was sort of hidden.
Instead of pointlessly protesting a mosque's construction, conservatives should push for more restrictions of muslim immigration to our country. Less muslims, less mosques, less Major Nidal Malik Hasan's, less terrorists attacks in America.
But that would be racist.
Visitor 4:51, thanks for the
Visitor 4:51, thanks for the historical analogy from the 215. Your policy suggestion is slightly problematic, of course, not least because Islam, like Christianity, is an evangelical religion. Being a Muslim is a personal decision.It's worth reading the
It's worth reading the entirety of Bloomberg's remarks, which were moving and eloquent. The history of the Flushing Remonstrance to which Bloomberg alludes, is also something regrettably unfamiliar to most Americans.
http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/2010/08/bloomberg-stands-...
I also think it's possible to support the right to build the mosque and still express understanding for the conflicted feelings of those who lost loved ones at the Twin Towers and at the Pentagon. I was down there that day, and I'm still unresolved about the experience.
Let them have a mosque.
Let them have a mosque. There is no more direct way of demonstrating the foolishness of organized religions than to let it be practiced.
While I would agree that
While I would agree that this is certainly passionate rhetoric, I don't find that troublesome any more than I would if the rhetoric came from an opposing viewpoint, thus preserving other language from the 1st Amendment on free speech. :-)
What do you think of those who purport that this may be a "victory" mosque ? See this link: http://www.hudson-ny.org/1200/mosque-at-ground-zero-equals-victory
look.....you guyz completely
look.....you guyz completely don't get al-Islam.
no wonder you fail so badly in MENA.
Muslims like me and Ibn Arabi and Tariq Ramadan subscribe to islamic pluralism. (FT link!)
and i doubt that it is even possible for muslims to proselytize christians or jews— we all believe in the same god.
The people of the book are already “saved”.
The truth is, the great majority of muslims don’t give a shit about what xians believe….we just care that xians want to make us believe it too (evangelicalism and proselytizing) …..eg, we would just be thrilled for them to extend the same respectful courtesy of not giving a shit about what we believe to us.
yours is better for you, mine is better for me
Another popular misconception about muslims is Goldberg’s assertion that OBL would describe liberal muslims as apostates. That is false. He thinks we are maftoons , like kapos for jews and uncle toms for black folk.
So...AQ attacked us under
So...AQ attacked us under the banner of Islam, killing thousands of Americans in America's most iconic city. In response, we went to war in Afghanistan and Iraq, where, respecting Muslim sensibilities, we forbade any sort of religious proselityzation. Now we should let Muslims build a mosque on top of the grave of those Americans killed by AQ in the name of Islam? Yeah, I get it, it's the Cordoba Initiative, to commemorate that happy time when Christians and Jews coexisted in Al Andalus under Muslim domination. Brilliant. I'm sure that the news of our magnanimity and commitment to peace will spread all across the Muslim world, and won't be taken as a sign of weakness, submission and as an encouragement to kill more of our civilians.
I am not surprised that you support this. You should have stayed in, Andrew-would have made general for sure.
@jawbreaker Jawbreaker asks
@jawbreaker
Jawbreaker asks when did this country become so xenophobic, something he says began around 2008. I'd put that year back some, say roughly 1607 or so. We've always had another to hate on, because they want to hurt us and take away our stuff- Shawnees, French Jesuits, British, Hessians, Commies, Masons, the poor, non-whites of all descriptions, and now Muslims. There was a vacuum of hate in the US starting around the 1990s. Of course there was some residual griping about blacks on welfare, but that had died down. Thankfully, 2001 gave us a new enemy to hate, the Muslims. Being from the South, it was interesting growing up in the 1990s as the good folk searched around for something to hate. The hate for blacks was going down, the commies were gone, Latin immigration still wasn't an issue, all this explains the heartland's singular hatred focused on Clinton. They literally had nobody to blame for their own failures and to project their own Freudian fears onto. Ok, Clinton is a sleaze bucket, but that's not why these people hated him.
After 2001 this country was howling for blood, we wanted revenge for those who "hurt" us. The sick thing is the loudest yells came from those who normally hate New Yorkers, but that contradiction is just one of many in the Bush years. You see, we have to be the good nation, a bunch of harmless melting pot types who can't understand why anyone wouldn't like us. The hypocrisy hit new heights after the 1960s and it just keeps on. Did you know Martin Luther King was a Republican whose legacy is best understood by pudgy, angry, suburban white males?
These days we don't hate openly, hence the contradictory messages, like when Dubya celebrated Islam all the while gleefully ordering the destruction of thousands of Muslims, and telling Jacques Chirac about the dangers of Gog and Magog (Muslims from the East) or when we non-Muslims arrogantly tell Osama et al that they have perverted Islam. Ok, sure, and I'll have some Sufis go lecture Alabama Baptists about how they got the Gospels all wrong.
The denizens of Walmart-land could keep up the charade for only so long. For Archie Bunker, during the Bush years it was tough enough saying that he wanted to free Iraqis, but not say what he really wanted- Islam is evil and we will all die in an Islamic-inspired mushroom cloud, OMG, unless we kill many of them first!
Personally, I'm not surprised hearing the same people who go on about Obama being a Muslim plant, lecture nihilists like myself about how we need to free the Iraqis, and help the little Afghan girls. I'm not sure, however, whether it is a case of post-Civil Rights heartland hypocrisy or idiots who can't stand back and approach the issue rationally. The sort of people whose approach to the world is primarily emotional and violent.
AM is a product of town and the middle-class, hence his mild why can't we get along. He doesn't understand po white rage.
Visitor @ 5:01, As a
Visitor @ 5:01,
As a rationalist I believe that all forms of superstition are basically a form of vice.
However as a libertarian, I believe we should tolerate private vice.
I would no more shut down a "place of worship", than I would shut down a bar or a casino.
I am indifferent to the form of worship, as I am indifferent to blackjack versus roulette.
My friend posted this on
My friend posted this on facebook so I had to repost.
http://mobius1ski.tumblr.com/post/898922966/opposition-mounts-against-lo...
Obviously there's no total analogy. Any thinking person will be able to point out that madoff and co didn't claim to be speaking for Judaism, nor was the financial crisis caused primarily by jews, nor were the latter working as any sort of unit, etc. but the satire makes the obvious points nonetheless. But I enjoyed the satire anyway.
Anyway, Mayor Bloomberg isn't gonna let the nonsense go on for much longer. the Islamic Center will go up, last I heard, with a memorial inside to 9/11 victims.
I thought this made the necessary points in response to Abe Foxman, who as usual speaks for himself in the name of all Jews, to the embarrassment of most of us: http://www.ibishblog.com/blog/hibish/2010/08/01/abe_foxman_wrong_sufferi...
Visitor who said this: "AM
Visitor who said this:
"AM is a product of town and the middle-class, hence his mild why can't we get along. He doesn't understand po white rage."
Maybe you haven't been to Lower Manhattan recently. My dorm's thereabouts. If I find any poor white people there among the protestors, I'll give them my wallet.
it's not "po white rage". The ADL statement is "rich and middle class Jewish islamophobia", not "po white rage". 9/11 victim's families, well, that's just normal victim's rage. The noise in the neighborhood under discussion is not being made by po' white people.
i think the issue here is
i think the issue here is not so much as its a mosque being built... but where they are trying to build it.
Religion....is
Religion....is F----ED...like Protestant Christian's...who are German, most of who have roots back to Nazi Germany...
Catholics "This is one race of people for whom psychoanalysis is of no use whatsoever." .... HA!
Most Muslims... just hate everyone who isn't Muslim...and they don't care who they hurt. At least a good Protestant would let the Irish warm themselves by their furnaces.
Witchcraft is pretty much what being a Muslim is like in the United States in current pop culture today... What happened in Salem, MA could happen anywhere in the United States right now.
D.B. - don't even try to protect them...the DOWNFALL is coming. You can't stop it and your interference is already compromised your own position.
:-) come see me if you want a resolution
So I guess this is where I
So I guess this is where I tell you what I learned - my conclusion, right? Well, my conclusion is: Hate is baggage. Life's too short to be pissed off all the time. It's just not worth it. Derek says it's always good to end a paper with a quote. He says someone else has already said it best. So if you can't top it, steal from them and go out strong. So I picked a guy I thought you'd like.
'We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory will swell when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.'
If you can't learn from these words, WE all shall perish...................................................
What seems to be missing
What seems to be missing from the comments so far is the IO victory that AQ is winning whereby the West equates their radical terrorist ideology with Islam. Anwar al-Awlaki isn't building a mosque near Ground Zero. The mosque is being built by Feisal Abdul Rauf, a Sufi who has written that American democracy may represent the ideal Islamic society, and whose wife has won an award for "promoting peace and interfaith understanding." It is just possible that Rauf does intend for the mosque to be a symbol--a symbol that AQ is not Islam, and Islam is not AQ.
Xenophobia thrives in ignorance. What Visitor 5:35 describes is essentially ignorance. And I don't mean ignorance as in dumb. I mean it as in lack of knowledge. Nine years after 9/11, does the average American have even a rudimentary understanding of terms like Sunni, Shia, Sufi? Rabi'a reminds this blog almost everyday that we have it wrong and we keep getting it wrong. I no doubt have it wrong, too. But it seems like building the mosque may be a good place for us to start.
Kevin, It would be nice if
Kevin,
It would be nice if knowledge would dispell hatred, but I don't hold out much hope. Sometimes people know that they really have wronged the object of their hate, and they don't care. It becomes a case of us vs. them (think slave rebellion scares in the Antebellum South; Chicago race riots involving Poles and Irish against black migrants). Ideology and time goes along way to obfuscation and making people feel better, but people aren't entirely that dumb or ignorant.
I think that people will accept others when they don't feel threatened. And therein lies the problem both heartland folks and the middle-class Jewish NYers that Alex Schindler mentioned feel threatened. Of course they or their grandparents might have put themselves in a place to be threatened, but they ain't gonna worry about that now. Watch and see, all the Native American-philism (a common idea regardless of social status in this country) and kiss up stuff would stop overnight if all the N. Americans actually were capable of getting their land back. Then out with the stereotypes. I'm a reductionist, it boils down to things and the fear that those things might get taken away.
Thanks, Andrew - great post.
Thanks, Andrew - great post.
All I need to know about
All I need to know about Muslims, I learned in 9/11.
Let them build it somewhere else, I suggest somewhere in Alabama or Mississippi.
The First Amendment! What's
The First Amendment! What's especially hilarious is that if Mayor Bloomberg announced his intent to erect a Crusader megachurch on the exact same spot, garishly adorned with red crosses on a white field and other such blatant Templar imagery, to commemorate New York's sacrifice in the War on Islam, Mr. Exum and his new Journolista friends would no doubt cite the exact same noble Amendment. With the opposite outcome, of course.
Frankly, from the acolytes of the Living Constitution, talk about Amendments doesn't mean a whole lot. It's like having a snake lecture you on baby and child care. If a snake ever tries this on you, have a baseball bat handy.
Now, churches, mosques - who cares? These kinds of silly antiquated symbols don't matter to me. I'm a Communist atheist, at least by descent. The dead of 9/11 are dead; nothing will bring them back; and Americans, at least in the 20th century or even the early 21st, have a lot of nerve complaining about the bombing of cities. Mr. Exum, who is not a Communist atheist by descent but rather by conversion, shares my prejudices - possibly excepting the last.
However, he seems to feel it is good public policy for the United States to broadcast the following message to about a billion not-quite-so-civilized who, like all people everywhere, are excited by the thrilling feeling of power and victory, and become more violent and dangerous when they see prospective victims perform what they perceive as spectacular acts of weakness, pusillanimity and self-abasement: "Uncle Sam has nothing under his blue jeans - just clean, baby-smooth skin. Kill his women and children, and he'll put up a monument to you. He is a fat sheep, waiting to be raped, conquered and devoured by the strong, noble Ay-rab of the desert." In fact, he considers it good security policy. What an expert! The quack always doubles down - if a gram of Laetrile didn't cure your cancer, a kilogram will.
Fortunately, yesterday has no shortage of real, uncut men. For the despairing, I present the story (courtesy of General Brooke) of Major Waudby at Dubbrai. Never trust a man who tells you he understands the native, but disagrees with Major Waudby. Some day, men will learn his trade again.
Luke 19:27, based on your
Luke 19:27, based on your scripture reference, I'd imagine you'll join us when we take back America from the sins of no-fault divorces, usury, and tax evasion. It's tough living according to the Word, you know, not breaking bread with unbelievers and sinners unless for the purposes of conversion, staying a virgin until marriage, and refraining from gratuitous violence and praising the rich. Thankfully so many Americans live exactly as demanded by the Gospels and don't hypocritically pick at verses to support their positions.
Also, it symbolizes the
Also, it symbolizes the shocking historical ignorance of American young people today that anyone can discuss this issue without so much as mentioning the Altar of Victory controversy.
How can anyone call AM a traitor to Christianity? Why, he takes exactly the same line as St. Ambrose. And you'll note that after Gratian removed the Altar, Rome's wars with the barbarians soon ceased forever and for good. Thank you, Jesus! John Lennon: older than you thought.
Sorry, link lost the page
Sorry, link lost the page number. Here is Major Waudby at Dubbrai. Rumor is that the Major only had 12 bullets. The other 4 Ghazis found shot through the head? His balls were too big to fit in the musket.
Ah, Mencius Moldbug: how
Ah, Mencius Moldbug: how consistently disappointing to see such obviously broad education harnessed to such a ludicrous ideology. Power for its own sake, how gratifying! What an incredible blowhard.
I'd be a little more
I'd be a little more sympathetic to the Ground Zero concerns if this BS wasn't happening in places like Murfreesboro, TN as well. Tip of my hat to Exum for showing that his state can produce civilized human beings as well as prejudiced fools.
Moldbug wields no power. I'm
Moldbug wields no power. I'm not sure he even wishes to. If he did, he's certainly chosen a poor path to gaining it (openly espousing reactionary and colonialist imperialism isn't going to get him hosted on a policy institute blog, much less even further up the slippery pole of power). On the other hand, some have the power to get the Papacy to tear down a convent near Oswiecim because it offended sensibilities, and now instruct us that the sensibilities of those who object to the construction of a Mosque near Ground Zero by an Imam who says we had it coming is naked intolerance. If MM wanted power, he'd do better as some variant of a Progressive, or at least conventional conservative.
Power-worship? Ask Rabia some time about the inevitable triumph of al-Islam, too. She joined its bandwagon on that basis ("evo theory of culture" is just a mask for bandwagoneering on what she perceives as the Strong Horse; she obviously has as much belief in Allah as Moldbug does). Oh, and she's some variant of a Progressive, and likely has a bright future in our academic institutions, perhaps a future Professor of Curriculum & Instruction with a special focus on the teaching of Islam. Even Elf's children and grand-children will probably go to schools influenced by the mighty Rabia's work. (Elf - a good enough reason not to have any, perhaps).
To be fair, both agree on where all this is headed. They barely disagree at all on the future, except that one (MM) disfavors it and is combating it with blog comments, which is sort of like fighting Godzilla with a spitball gun, and the other (Rabia) has decided to join the aforementioned Strong Horse, albeit it's non-violent PAO/propaganda wing.
Of that odd couple, MM isn't the one who has embraced power for it's own sake.
While we're at it, bull doze
While we're at it, bull doze the White House, put a big Mosque there, and we'll all start calling the President, Sayed Hussein and put him there for life.
We're smarter than
We're smarter than this.
Americans know what the Muslim agenda is.
We've seen it in Amsterdam, London, Paris, etc.
Read Suras 8 and 9, Allah doesn't mince words.
Look where the money to build the mosque is coming from.
Americans are smarter than this, we know when our face is being spit on.
"The passions expressed in
"The passions expressed in it -- and it is, fundamentally, an argument based on emotion and not reason -- are a threat to American values and freedom."
I followed the link th that NR Editorial, and it consisted of facts that either are or are not correct and reasonable arguments based on the claimed facts. They just happen to be ones you disagree with, as you're free to do. But there was more passionate, emotion-based demonizing in your response to it than there was in the editorial itself.
And I write this as someone who thinks the Mosque is going to be built, right where they want to build it, and it will probably be completed faster than the new WTC or Freedom Tower or One World Tower or whatever they're calling it these days.
But I do wonder if Calvin Klein will put billboards across the street from it that might offend Muslims, or if the same people who protest outside Catholic Churches in NYC periodically about the treatment of, say, gays will also parade by the Mosque when it's built, or if it will be argued that tolerance demands that the beliefs of attendees there be respected, that it would be more in keeping with building intercommunity understanding to not do such things near the Mosque.
Hmmn....
Here are three simple
Here are three simple questions you can ask yourself about Cordoba House. Please note, however, that this formula is patented. Licensing: if the formula makes you change your mind, you have to read one book of my choosing.
The questions are:
1. If the persons or institutions sponsoring this project are connected, in any way, to Islamic terror, should the city of New York allow the project to proceed?
2. Are the persons or institutions behind this project connected, in any way, to Islamic terror?
3. Have I satisfied myself personally of #2, or have I just allowed myself to be convinced by omission? That is: have I assumed that if the answer to #2 is "yes," Journolist would have told me and everyone about it, and the project would never have happened? Or have I actually looked into the matter myself?
("Connected, in any way" means you apply the same standard of guilt by association that you'd apply to the KKK and John McCain. How many degrees of separation are there between the KKK and John McCain? However many it may be, it's not enough for John McCain. Who would rather not be connected, in any way, with the KKK. Surely one can at least imagine this standard being applied, by normal people who do not shoot moose or froth at the mouth like Hitler, to a new 13-story mosque in lower Manhattan.)
If your answers to 1, 2, and 3 are not "no," "no" and "yes" respectively, yet you are pro-mosque, the scanning procedure has detected signs of potential epistemic closure. Please adjust your instruments, and recheck. If the finding is confirmed, the conditions of your license require you to read this book.
Can't believe I'm slumming
Can't believe I'm slumming in the comment section here.
I really don't care if this mosque is built one, two, or three blocks from ground zero or right on top of it. Most of the opposition to it is stupid. But if the city has a zoning regulation that passes Constitutional muster, and the building of said mosque violates that regulation, then the city can deny it. And that's kosher. Or Halal. Or whatever.
Your commentary on politics is about as sophisticated as a Sarah Palin speech. Yes, conservatives are evil and hate Muslims. Thanks for that insightful update. If Keith Olbermann wrote at the 8th grade level, he'd write something similar to your commentary. STFU.
Abu M, well done. A couple
Abu M, well done.
A couple of points:
* Everybody is screaming about the feelings of those who lost people to AQs attacks on 9/11. Yet if you look at the AQ deathtoll on a global scale, the vast majority of its victims are Iraqi and Pakistani civilians. Dont they deserve some dignity too? Or the muslims who fight side by side with US troops in both theatres?
* Its funny how the haters seem unable to realize that their position is exactly in line with the AQ long term strategy. Further, it is weird to see so many folks claiming 9/11 to be a "islamic victory". It directly resulted in the death of thousands of muslims, the invasion of two muslim countries and the almost complete eradication of the AQ leadership. Yet still the loonies state that this would be a triumphalist monument over Islams victory? Wtf?
* What is really sad is that this campaign was started and funded by Pamela Geller and Robert SPencer, two open bigots who see arabs as subhuman and believes Barack Obama is Malcolm Xs kenyan lovechild. That they have been able to get even the ADL behind them in their agenda of hate is a proof that something is very wrong ont he pro-Israel side of the fence in US politics.
And a big shoutout of respect to jewish republican Bloomberg for his principled stand. Yay.
Unfortunately, I have to
Unfortunately, I have to disagree with you on this issue, sir. First of all, the term “ground zero mosque” is somewhat of a misnomer. There has been a prayer room at the site for some time and no one has complained. The controversy only arose when the Cordoba Initiative decided to tear down the previous building and construct a 13-story center with a swimming pool, restaurant, and bookshop. Of course Muslims have a right to worship as they please near ground zero, just as they do anywhere else in America, but I do not see how keeping it a more modest place of prayer violates anyone’s first amendment rights.
Secondly, Imam Raouf would not go to these great efforts to build Cordoba House if it were at any other location. The symbolism of the location is the most important part and the intent is to build bridges between cultures. Surely this is a noble goal and we should applaud the Imam’s intentions, but then we must ask ourselves: Is Cordoba House really achieving its objective? A cultural center is not meant for your, or me, or anyone else who has spent time in the Middle East or larger Muslim world. It is meant for people who are not familiar with Islam and do not feel comfortable around Muslims. Will Cordoba House make hesitant New Yorkers feel more comfortable around Muslims? It seems, from initial reactions, that the opposite is occurring.
Real trust between groups cannot be built when one person takes a provocative action and calls anyone who disagrees with them a racist. Understanding cannot be based on forced political correctness. Cordoba House, for all its good intentions, is more likely to be a step backwards in interfaith relations than forwards.
AM, you might like this
AM, you might like this piece by Ben Gidley - words on the "impossible necessity ... of fighting a war in a spirit of forgiveness and irony" brought your blog to mind.
http://dissentmagazine.org/atw.php?id=211
Mencius al-Rabia's selfless
Mencius al-Rabia's selfless decision to argue with hirself until the troops are out of Af/Pak has successfully turned the comments section into one long Encyclopedia Dramatica scripted debate between Victor Davis Hanson and his thirteen year old daughter. Congrats.
How does this affect the
How does this affect the strategic calculus? Our whole strategy is to convince Muslims that we're against the terrorists, and not the Muslim world as a whole. This totally undercuts the strategy.
Why does the right wing hate the troops so much?
One thing I did appreciate about Bush was that he kept a lid on this kind of horseshit.
One thing I did appreciate
One thing I did appreciate about Bush was that he kept a lid on this kind of horseshit.
Then you were utterly fooled too. Bush spent his tenure in office trying to replace islamic culture with judeoxian culture. He SAID he wasn't hatin' on al-Islam, but muslims saw right through that. Lip service. He fooled you dumbass americans is all.
Bush perceived al-Islam as the problem-- that is what the Bush Doctrine is all about, trying to stand up a western-style democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan. Now we are seeing a buncha press about how al-Islam oppresses women.
So what? Sure its terrible, but nothing can be done except pouring more blood and treasure into a bottomless hole.
But the truth is that even if western culture chauvinists are right about about the intrinsic superiority of judeo-xian/western morality, there is nothing they can do about it.
We have been trying to stand up western-style democracy in MENA for a decade, and failing utterly.
It can't be done, because of one simple fact; muslims will vote for islam when they get to vote.
So decide....if you really believe in the core premise of the Bush doctrine and COIN, that western style democracy in Afghanistan and Iraq will prevent terror attacks.......then go full frontal occupation and reconstruction....or genocide and reconstruction.
This half-assed shit is simply never going to work.
Yes, Bush was the master of
Yes, Bush was the master of p.r. when it came to the Islamic world. It was only in 2008 that things started going South, before that the Islamic world erupted into spontaneous dances whenever the word America was mentioned, almost like a Bollywood movie. I saw it myself, it was crazy, old people and little ones dancing themselves into a frenzy at the thought of thegoodness of Amrika.
There has been a mosque near
There has been a mosque near the site for some time (or at least as close as Cordoba will be). And I have not heard anything about zoning violations. It isn't New Yorkers who give a damn about it, it's outside agitators. As far as I'm concerned, that makes their opinion worthless. Here's hoping NYC declares independence as Mailer suggested. They can import as many Mussulmen as they like, and if the city is bombed to rubble the remainder of America can take heart that the judgment of God is unavoidable even for modern Sodoms.
Funny Rabia accusing anyone else of being fooled. The only people who believe that nonsense about strong-horse Islam "fastest growing religion" are duped Muslims themselves and pants-wetting Andy McCarthy readers (sort of like claims about the "incredible growth" of Christianity in China). And since occupation and reconstruction were explicitly undertaken, I thank you for your helpful suggestion of genocide. As Randy Newman said, they all hate us anyhow.
I don't think Bloomberg still calls himself a Republican. He switched from Dem to GOP when he first ran for Mayor, but I think he is now an independent. I don't think you can be a Republican if you don't love fried chicken (hell, can you even be human?) and he's all about banning trans-fats or whatever the health-Nazis are blaming these days.
I think you owe NRO an
I think you owe NRO an apology.
You have badly misrepresented their editorial.
They explicitly say "We will not appeal to the official powers to use the machinery of government to stop this project. We appeal, instead, to the sense of decency of the American Muslim community, and to its patriotism."
Therefore, this is not a case of government intervening in religious affairs at all.
Add your comment