Times are tight, so I don't cut too many checks these days. However, if Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf were to solicit a donation from me to help him build his mosque near Ground Zero, I'd write that check.
Why?
Because to support that mosque is to strike a blow for American pluralism and moderate Islam while to oppose it is to strike a blow for American intolerance and radical Islam.
The Imam is as moderate as they come. He has a lifelong history of engaging people of other religions. He is anti-violence (particularly against civilians which he says is a violation of Sharia), he has said that he is "a supporter of Israel," he has written that some Western Democracies are actually more in line with Sharia than many nominally Islamic republics. He is currently overseas on a diplomatic tour of the Middle East sponsored by our own State Department.
From what I can see, some American pundits have two problems with him: 1. that his support for Sharia is somehow anti-American and 2. that he has refused to label Hamas as a terrorist organization. The second point can be answered more quickly: His stock in trade is his ability to talk to as many people and factions as possible; his use of the terrorist label on Hamas would close off too many lines of communication, lines that are not in his or our interests for him to lose.
The first point is more central. The contention is that because the Quran includes what might be construed as some extreme content, it is impossible to be a good Muslim and a good American. There is pretty barbaric content, such as the law stating that disrespectful children should be put to death, that those who work on the day of rest should be put to death, that slavery is acceptable, that...hold it, sorry, all of that content is from the Bible, not the Quran, so I guess we're too barbaric to be allowed to open a house of worship near Ground.....never mind.
We've been told that locating a mosque that close to Ground Zero would be Insensitive. Insensitive to whom? This argument isn't exactly sensitive to the families of American Muslims killed in the 911 attacks, nor is it sensitive to the families of Muslim American servicepeople killed in action while protecting the United States. How would the brass at the Pentagon feel about a mosque there? Actually, there have been Muslim services held inside the Pentagon for years in their nondenominational chapel - they get that when you're prepared to die for your country, it's past the time to question your patriotism.
The sensitivity issue is based on an assumption: That all of World Islam (with roughly a billion and a half adherents) is somehow responsible for 9/11 or, at the very least, approved of it. Given both the enormous diversity within Islam and the actual historical record regarding 9/11, this assumption amounts to slander. There isn't evidence to support it and there's plenty of evidence against it. Do you remember anti-American reactions among the Muslim populations of India or Indonesia? They're the two largest Muslim populations in the world. How about Turkey? Bosnia? Let's look at a more interesting example:
I assume you remember that in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, there were spontaneous pro-American sympathy demonstrations around the world, with Europeans carrying placards that said "Today we are all Americans." Perhaps the most interesting of these demonstrations took place in Tehran, in a Muslim theocracy with whom we had awful relations. In spite of the fact that the Muslim clerics had no love for the U.S., they found the 9/11 attacks so religiously offensive that they permitted public displays of support for us. If I say "moderate Islam," the Iranian mullahs aren't going to be the first picture that comes to mind for the average person. Frankly, it's not likely to be the first picture that comes to mind for the average Iranian. If those guys didn't approve, how much of World Islam can we assume did?
Of those who approved, why would anyone assume that said population includes, of all people, American Muslims???American Muslims were killed in those attacks. We're not seeing a whole lot of protests, let alone terrorism, coming from the American Muslim population of a couple of million. Have you heard of a lot of violence and protests emanating from Dearborn, Michigan, where America's largest Muslim population lives? Trust me, if it were happening, you would; it would be news. Why would there be? We integrate immigrants of all religions better than just about any other nation on Earth. For what it's worth, there have been at least two Muslims in Congress. You'll notice that the 9/11 terrorists were guys who'd spent years in Europe, where they don't do nearly as good a job at integrating immigrants and so do a far better job at fostering resentment. I know there are people in America who think "terrorism" and instantly link it to the word "Muslim." If you belong to this group, I think you need to have a few conversations with people who live in Oklahoma City.
Aside from the facts that resistance to the building of this mosque is both misguided and rude, it's also dangerous. We already know that this resistance is providing a great propaganda tool to anti-American Muslim organizations like Al Qaeda and that it could potentially lead to a lot of recruitment like Abu Graib did. That may not be the worst of our problems.
How would you feel if you were a seventeen-year-old American from a Muslim family? Perhaps an older sibling served in the military (or still is). You've been told all your life that you live in a country that exercises religious tolerance like no other. Suddenly, that tolerance seems to extend to everyone but you. It makes zero sense to you that you're being held responsible for the actions of crazy terrorists - your imam teaches you about charity, ethics, and justice, not this. If a radical Muslim comes to your community, you might suddenly be inclined to listen, because he can show you evidence of how Muslims are being treated like enemies in America from any major newspaper or news source of any kind in the country. How much evidence are (presumably impressionable) you prepared to argue against? There's an awful lot of it. Imam Abdul Rauf is being raked over the coals, and this is a guy who wrote a book about how American and Muslim values are mostly congruent - if a conciliatory guy like that is catching flack, what hope is there? How many horrible things are you hearing prominent people say about your religion? Do you feel safe? Do you feel you live in a country that supports justice?
Let's please not radicalize our own kids. They don't deserve it and we don't want the consequences. Moderate Islam should be supported, not undermined; too many Americans are undermining it too effectively.
Support the mosque. Support moderate Islam and undermine radical Islam. Undermining radical Islam is the best possible way to honor the dead.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Deborah Méndez Wilson
SpiritManSF
Eljekar
OS Readers' Picks
Hesham A. Hassaballa
Chauncey DeVega
Salon.com
Comments
1) Nick Kristof had a great op-ed in the Times on Sunday about how the anti-mosque protesters are actually taking the same side as Osama bin Laden.
2) Ted Olson, the former Bush Solicitor General whose wife died in one of the 9/11 planes, supports the right to build the mosque.
3) Dave Ross on WCBS Radio had a piece about how we treat the "hallowed ground" of Civil War battlefields where thousands of Americans died - we perform Civil War reenactments on them!
4) Building the mosque there would be a powerful statement of American's acceptance of freedom of religion and rejection of xenophobia.
the facts are, as I understand them, it isn't a mosque. (so some headlines are now calling it instead a "mosque"...whatever a "mosque" is). And oh yea, it's not at ground zero either. Maybe it's at "ground zero."
!@!
I mean in some countries people would absolutely be banging their heads against the wall for this discussion to even go on the way it has....seemingly endlessly......
But thank-you kosher for your smart and compassionate take. the world needs moderation rather than fundamentalism when it comes to religion. amen, I say, to that.
With respect, the problem you are discussing is no more open to discussion than would be a “Memorial” plaque at Auschwitz from the Aryan Brotherhood. How much ice do you think it would cut for the Brotherhood to explain that they really regret that their ideological brethren murdered all those subhumans, but, gee, we aren't like that anymore, so please accept our apologies and let's forget the whole thing, OK?
That's what's being asked not only of those who lost loved ones on 9/11, but of all Americans who were outraged by the infamy of the Muslim Terrorists ( Last recording going into the Towers “Allah Akbar!) cowardly attack. You would as well have asked the American public of 1942 to forget “Pearl Harbor” and be kind to their inoffensive Japanese neighbors. (Many of whom went on to serve in Nisei units in Europe with great distinction)
There are some “Acts” which simply cannot be apologized for. That isn't Logic, it isn't reason, it may not even be “Right” , but I can tell you it is the way it is. Words and feelings have power. If the Imam truly wanted to “Build a Bridge of Reconciliation” , he has been sadly misadvised as to how to construct it. The answer he has resoundingly received is ,sorry chief, theres no shore on this side that will hold you, too many people are still too pissed off to even think about it. Try again in another 10 years.
My take is that, were he truly interested in “building a bridge”, he would say, I'm sorry I so misunderstood your culture and your feelings, we will naturally at this point sell our property at 51 park at a large profit and locate our mosque further up Manhattan. We continue to wish for reconciliation.
The plot thickens when one realizes that the building at 51 Park has been closed since 9/11 because the landing gear of Atta's airplane came through he roof and several floors of the building this turned a building that was offered for $19 million pre 9/11 into a bargain for the Imam at $5 million. (granted the real estate blowout contributed some of the reduction)
My bet is that he will eventually let someone persuade him to sell the building for about $19 mil, or trade him a property of about that value somewhere else. Net profit, $14 million.
Bottom line, had he truly any desire to make the Mosque a place of reconciliation and not a symbol of the a victory of Islam ( What do the Muslims do on the site of a great victory? Build a mosque) or a way of making profit by enraging the American public, he would have never let it come this far. He has advisers, he knew what the reaction would be. He would at the first hint of resistance, cancelled the project before any more animosity built up. Instead he calls the American public “Bigots” and insists on his “RIGHTS”. Way to build a bridge, guy.
mosque_of_dreams_if_you_build_it_they_will_come
Dolores, sorry if I'm mislabeling the facility.
Al, your point about the rationality of extremism isn't lost on me - that's the sort of thing I was referring to when talking about alienating American Muslim teenagers.
Cuss, thanks for both the endorsement and the information.
Scanner, I agree, we haven't come as far as we think.
Token,
Where I disagree with you is that the Muslims responsible for 9/11 aren't related to the Muslims who want to build. Not the same sect, not the same philosophy, not the same priorities, not the same loyalties, not the same anything. It's not that these Muslims have reformed, it's that these Muslims are a completely different kind of Muslim. The size of the Muslim tent in terms of population is roughly 3/4 the size of the Christian tent. Blaming the Sufi congregation trying to build for what the Al Qaeda guys did would be sort of like blaming Quakers for something done by Catholics. Accepting this building by peaceful, conciliatory American Sufis doesn't help Al Qaeda; in fact, it takes away a propaganda tool ("See? The Americans hate all Muslims!") and increases the American influence of an extremely moderate Muslim voice. This isn't analogous to Nazis and the Aryan Brotherhood at all.
Please understand this first.
There are two actual mosques in the area of Ground Zero. But there is not going to be a new mosque build at Ground Zero or near Ground Zero. They are talking about a basketball court for moderate muslim kids to shoot some hoops.
It makes me so ANGRY that a bunch of idiots on fox news can hijack any issue they like. They can rename it (George Orwell style). They can pretend that a community center is a mosque and pretend that there is no difference between a moderate and an extremist muslim.
The problem, as kosher says, is once you begin to let religious intolerance happen--it hurts everyone.
One fifth of the world's population is muslim. Do you really want the US to go to war with all of them? Do you want a new war with Iran?
Where does it ever end?
The extremists who caused 9-11 wanted a war that would backrupt the US economy...they wanted a war between the west and the east...they wanted hate to flourish.
If you want to honor the victims who died in 9-11, by all means, let us honor them with our way of life continuing. We are a pluralistic nation. We are a nation where bigotry does not and cannot last.
Two questions:
1. Where does the bigot quote come from? Who said it?
2. Assuming that the Imam is an American citizen, why should he be expected to act as a guest?
No, I haven't. I got most of my information on the Imam from a front page article on him in this past Sunday's NYTimes.
Thank you
2. I'm not arguing what should be-- I'm trying to get some recognition for what is. Just as the thought of a vaguely fascist American group wanting to make amends about the Holocaust touches a nerve in you, so 9/11 touches a nerve in most American conservatives. It is NOT a question of reason or rights, it's a question of propriety. You can't tell someone not to be offended any more than you can tell a black man that there's no reason for him to be upset by being called N****., or a gay that they should settle for "Civil Union". It's a recognition of the realities of the situation. My point is that for someone who claims to be seeking reconciliation, the Imam is sure stirring the pot. If he really is that politically out of touch with reality, he's not a good candidate for a "Bridge" to begin with.
Why should an Imam behave according to your (or whoever else's) "ifs"?
I can say play the same "IF"s game.
I can say IF we want to stop being at war for John McCain's 100 years we have to stop attacking moderate muslims with our expectations that they do exactly what we order them to do.
I can say IF this is a free country, no one has the right to dictate to other people what constitutes religious compassion.
IF Sarah Palin et al actually cared a whit about the victims of 9-11 then she would care about not using a community center for teens (and 9-11 itself) as a political football.
By the way, have you read this?
http://open.salon.com/blog/emily_holleman/2010/08/24/hey_palin_lay_off_of_our_lingering_pain#comment_1840038
that's not fair to say that the holocaust for Jewish people is the same as 9-11 is for conservatives.
what a callous comparison!!
For one thing--4,000 people is not a genocide. It's not a genocide. It's sad but it's not a genocide.
Secondly, were most of the 4,000 people conservatives?
why do they get to own the issue?
That really infuriates me. Maybe if the attack had been in Texas at a Republican convention.
This tragedy belongs to ALL Americans, but especially those who live in New York City, who statistically, are more likely to be liberal than conservative.
It is the conservatives with their fake and callous comparisons of themselves to holocaust survivors (my god) that is offensive and depressing beyond belief.
Isn't it obvious that the same haters who could not get momentum going against gay marriage anymore (thank-you) or against children of immigrants (14th amendment controversy) took a poll on hate and found the one issue that might stick?
How can people not see through their fake sensitivities. It is a dishonor to those who died in 9-11 for Palin or anyone else to use their tragedy to further their own personal agendas of power accumulation and bigotry to any who don't bow down to their fake, corny, cooked up dictates....
by the way what you heard on the radio from the Imam was probably spliced together by the same haters who found just the right quotes to cook up hatred against Reverend Wright to try to drum up hate against obama in the general election...
same clowns. new day. new fake sensitivities. new hate. new drama.
so so so so wrong.
I have to run. this issue is too upsetting for me to talk about at this point. But let me repeat that I think any comparison by conservatives of themselves to victims of the holocaust is at the very least a horrendous disgrace to metaphors.
To Token's point, saying "that's just the way it is" or "that's just the way it's going to go down" does nothing but perpetuate wrong-headedness. It reminds me of another argument that drives me crazy; i.e., outlawing guns will not happen because "gun lovers will never give them up."
Congratulations on your first Editor's Pick!
Lezlie
Frankly, I think our own politicians could learn some true diplomacy from Rauf. The only problem is, that they don't believe anyone is up to their standards. Sadly, it's the other way around.
This silly shit going on with the media and the right wing religious nuts is way out of hand and very disturbing.
If I didn't agree, I wouldn't have posted this.
With respect, and not trying to be offensive but-
According to the Politically Correct Dictionary (I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong) what is “Offensive” is not defined by the Offender, but by the “Victim” of verbal(Emotional) abuse. Therefore, Though I Know that “N*****” is simply the Latin adjective “Black” and I cannot in any way imagine how it might be offensive to a person of color, I cannot use the term . It is “Inappropriate” . And to compare the Holocaust with 9/11 is apparently”Insensitive” or Inappropriate. I find it Apt, but the “victims” disagree. Inappropriate. And there is no reason in the world that Gays should not be perfectly happy with the States doing away with Marriage Licenses and issuing everyone (Straight, gay, or Mormon) the same legally equal status as “Civil Union”. No, We are apparently not fighting over equal treatment or the right to be legally recognized as civil partners, We need to fight about the actual meaning of the term “Marriage”.
So be it. I simply tell you that If it was the Imam's intent to “Build a Bridge”, the opportunity for him is passed. It is always interesting that Knee Jerk emotional issues for the left are always the result of real and human sensitivity, while human emotions on the right are always the result of hatred, false outrage and cynicism. Humans have reactions. Knee- Jerk reactions. If the Imam wanted to build a bridge, he failed,. He has some several million people very upset with him
If he's merely manoeuvring for enough outrage that someone will buy him out for 4 times what he paid for the building, he's doing fine. Be consistent people
@L
You Betcha. Those of us who know how will continue to make guns, explosives, and destructive devices as long as there is a need and we will pass the skills down to our children. And people will continue to be pissed about the "Mosque" until the Imam sells out at a profit and the next news cycle brings more horrors and outrages to be outraged about.
Instead of illuminating or desiring to celebrate what is great about moderate islam (that they, according to you, don't really support terrorism) how about illuminating and celebrating what is great about moderate America? Namely, that this Imam can (and most probably will) go ahead and build his mosque-that's-a-comunity-center where he wants to build it and legally and constitutionally has the right to build it.
And then those people you forgot to mention -- moderate Americans -- will go about their business picking up the pieces left when no one listens to them because you're so busy worrying if you are being tolerant enough of moderate islam.
We don't need the mosque at ground zero to show to ourselves or anyone else how wonderful and moderate we are. We need you to realize that we are that way in spite of the mosque at ground zero, and in spite of whatever the next thing is we will need to do to prove how moderate we are so another three thousand people (or more) don't lose their lives.
He's an Imam. He KNOWS that the mark of conquest for the Muslim conquerer is to build a mosque on the battlefield ( if he didn't before, he does now) let me make another analogy.
Suppose somehow a Torah fell into the hands of a Klansman, by due legal process, no doubt it is his. And suppose that he didn't know what it was, but he decided that it looked like it would burn real well for torch lighting. So as he's getting set to light his cross, one of the Jewish protesters notes what he's tearing sheets from to start his fire and wrap his cross and points out to him the sacrilege of what he's doing. He decides, naturally, that since he owns it, it's his right to demonstrate that he wont be cowed, and goes ahead and uses it.
This is precisely analogous to to what the Imam is doing at this point. ( And realize that the cross burning is every bit as much a sacred ritual to the Klansman as the erection of this mosque is to the Imam.)
Well said
If I didn't agree, I wouldn't have posted this"
sounds sensible to me, had you posted it and disagreed with it things would have been a little awkward, would it not.
How about a little equal treatment of the two?
I don't suppose you could flesh out your comment with a little background. What Church are you talking about? What is the City of New York doing to stop them from rebuilding? What hand stands are being done by the City of New York for the "Mosque"? Your vagary makes analysis of your comment impossible.
An AP news story yesterday stated, "Pataki, who as governor promised that St. Nicholas would be rebuilt after the 2001 attacks, said Monday that the Port Authority needed to reach out to church officials. "It's just wrong that the rebuilding of St. Nicholas Church, which was there, which was part of the master plan ... has basically been ignored," he said."
In addition Gov. Paterson offered public land to build it on if they wanted to move it.
There was no controversy until a extremist right wing blogger spewed her hatred (her name is lost in the cobwebs of my mind). Fox News saw a chance to stir the pot and jumped right in as usual.
The true irony of the situation is that the Saudi Prince who invested in the Community Center (not a Mosque) also has invested in Fox News. So, is Fox News now to be considered a terrorist group?
Retablo,
As a moderate American (I guess by your definition), I see no reason to pat myself on the back, nor do I see any reason to compare us to moderate Muslims. As regards leaving young American Muslims feeling disenfranchised: The issue is not that they might have trouble building the facility near Ground Zero but why. Their religion is being vilified like mad as part of this process and it's abundantly clear that if the facility isn't built on the proposed site it will be the result of that vilification. Yes, I think that's a dangerous and ultimately unAmerican process that sets nasty precedents all the way around.
Token,
I have been corrected a couple of times in the course of this - the structure in question is apparently not a mosque but a community center (where young terrorists will be trained to hurl spherical grenades into hoops ten feet off the ground - did you know that terrorists wear baggy shorts?), meaning the issue of marking the land as conquered by erecting a mosque apparently doesn't apply, even if it were a characteristic of all Muslim sects (which I'd only bet on after I researched, which I haven't). In terms of the Imam being conciliatory, it depends on concerning what. Stressing that his Muslim values are in line with American values makes sense; giving up the rights of his community so that people can erroneously identify that community with terrorists is something else altogether. Just because there are people who want to lump one and a half billion Muslims together as somehow monolithic doesn't mean his community should have to live with the results - in at least one respect, that would almost be a tacit admission that his community is legitimately tied to that act of terrorism, which it isn't. Why should a community of Americans allow themselves to be tainted with such an association? I don't know if he lost congregants in the WTC attacks; what I do know is that there seems to be way too much focus on Muslim perpetrators and none on American Muslim casualties. There are Muslims on both sides of this equation but only one is being acknowledged; this particular community has no association with the perpetrators but may very well with the casualties and the sympathies of the Imam have clearly been with the casualties rather than the perpetrators from the very beginning.
Catnlion,
Firstly, I was not aware of the church and, secondly, I don't think the issue of the church is quite the political football that the issue of the Muslim community center (which I apparently erroneously called a mosque) has become; I sincerely doubt that the church is running into objections from anyone on religious grounds. I am not in a position to address what is most likely a bureaucratic issue about which I am not informed.
Moneya,
Your comment makes my day.
Thank you to you all for responding.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, http://www.asharq-e.com/news.asp?section=2&id=21980
To me it simply means that moderate muslims have work to do, and it shouldn't be surprising that many question just how moderate they really are. If they want to demonstrate this moderation, one good way to do it would be to move the mosque. I don't think it will happen, but that would go a long way toward expressing moderation.
As a christian I can tell you if I were building a church and felt resistance, I would not hesitate to place it in the place of least resistance, because I believe the message of christianity is what should be the focus, not church placement, and that message is just as able to reach people from the back row as the front.
There's a desire to be in the spotlight here that I do find troubling, and when I hear muslims themselves convey some confusion because there isn't even a strong muslim community in the Park 51 area I have to wonder what it is about that site that's so important.
The bottom line is that you see this as potentially bringing us together but it's just as likely it further magnify why we don't get along.
rated.
i did a similar one last week.
we all need to stand up to these bullies.
With respect, the problem you are discussing is no more open to discussion than would be a “Memorial” plaque at Auschwitz from the Aryan Brotherhood.
Yet another bogus analogy from the mosqueophobes. For starters -- as has already been pointed out a zillion times already! -- Park51 is not "at" Ground Zero, it's about THREE BLOCKS AWAY. Here, let me take YOUR analogy and make it less idiotic: if the Aryan Brotherhood wanted to set up a plaque three blocks away from the outermost perimeter of Auschwitz, on land the Aryans owned, visitors to Auschwitz would probably not even see the plaque, let alone be hurt by it.
That's what's being asked not only of those who lost loved ones on 9/11, but of all Americans who were outraged by the infamy of the Muslim Terrorists...
Nothing is being "asked" of them that isn't being "asked" of everyone else in the USA: respect the rule of law, and respect for others the same rights you claim for yourself. Trust me, you'll be able to go to Ground Zero without even seeing Park51.
And besides, who are you to pretend to represent the feelings and interests of "those who lost loved ones on 9/11?" Which of these people do you represent? How many? Have they explicitly designated you as their representative? And why are their feelings more important than, say, mine? (Oh, and I know you don't represent ALL of "those who lost loved ones on 9/11." There's at least one OS blog post by such a person directly opposite to your assertions. You certainly don't represent MUSLIMS who lost loved ones on 9/11.)
You would as well have asked the American public of 1942 to forget “Pearl Harbor” and be kind to their inoffensive Japanese neighbors.
Well, people who opposed herding Japanese-Americans into concentration camps DID ask Americans to be kind to inoffensive people who had done no wrong. You got a problem with that?
There are some “Acts” which simply cannot be apologized for.
Well, they certainly can't be apologized for by people who aren't responsible for them.
That isn't Logic, it isn't reason, it may not even be “Right” , but I can tell you it is the way it is.
What do you even mean by that, exactly? "That's just the way it is!" is just a pretentious, fake-macho, tough-sounding non-statement that explains nothing, justifies nothing, and contributes nothing to any discussion. "The way it is" isn't always right, and sometimes it can, and should, be changed.
The plot thickens when one realizes that the building at 51 Park has been closed since 9/11 because the landing gear of Atta's airplane came through he roof and several floors of the building this turned a building that was offered for $19 million pre 9/11 into a bargain for the Imam at $5 million. (granted the real estate blowout contributed some of the reduction)
So what? Dust and debris fell on roofs ALL OVER NEW YORK CITY on that day. What's so special about the building that got hit by landing-gear? (What if it had been a toilet instead of landing-gear?)
I'm not arguing what should be-- I'm trying to get some recognition for what is.
In your mind.
Catnlion: your attempt to link Park51 with that Orthodox Church is either ignorant or dishonest. For starters, park51 is owned by the people who want to build on it, while the Orthodox church is on land owned by the Port Authority. Furthermore, the Orthodox site really is AT Ground Zero, which means it's tied up with at least a dozen other rebuilding projects. This is why it hasn't been rebuilt. It's not religious discrimination, it's just a much more complicated situation combined with bureaucratic inertia. Your lame attempt to portray it as "persecution of Christians" or "favoritism for Muslims" is beneath contempt.
Retablo: your posts are simply not coherent enough to merit a reply. They're noting but non-sequiturs, and it's perfectly obvious you're arguing from pure emotion. Engaging with this nonsense would be no more fruitful than reasoning with a teenage girl in the midst of a temper-tantrum.
I don't know the extent to which moderates have won the hearts and minds of congregations in the 100 NY mosques; all I know is what I've read and heard about this particular Imam, who must be awfully moderate if our State Department is sponsoring his current tour of the Middle East. I'm not stating that all Islam is moderate, I'm stating that this guy is and that it makes no sense to treat known moderates like they're associated with terrorists.
Retablo,
I don't know which came first here, the chicken or the egg. It seems to me that plans for this site preceded any known controversy. In terms of moving a church, I suppose you would move it, though that might depend on why you were being asked to (or screamed at to through a whole bunch of accusations).
I have a real problem with why the move is being requested. I've seen the building characterized as a sort of Muslim gesture of victory; this characterization makes zero sense, as the Imam in question (like many others) doesn't view the 9/11 attacks as a victory for anyone other than Al Qaeda, of whose brand of Islam he doesn't approve. I'm trying to think of a good analogy. This isn't a great one, but it would be a little like citizens of Nagasaki fighting the location of a church on the grounds that the 1945 American bombers were Christians. The statement is true, the grievance is real, the justification of sensitivities is obvious, but the direction of those sensitivities would be pretty seriously misplaced.
Boko,
I half agree with you, the very-wealth-vs.-the-rest-of-us conflict has headed in a direction that makes me take it more seriously than I ever thought I would, but I'm by no means convinced that anyone is coordinated enough to organize a disinformation campaign to keep us at each others' throats.
Radio presenter Rush Limbaugh compared the mosque with the idea of putting a Hindu shrine at the USS Arizona memorial at Pearl Harbor, later correcting himself to make clear he meant a Shinto shrine.
1. It figures he blew the religion, but I guess it's petty of me to split hairs.
2. It would be more akin to putting a Shinto shrine at the USS Arizona memorial if a few of the sailors who went down with the ship were Japanese-American. That's the part everyone seems to be leaving out - American Muslims were killed in the 9/11 attacks. Their families are catching this at both ends - on one hand, as victims of the attacks and on the other, paradoxically, as somehow responsible for the attacks by association. That has to be a horribly rough position to be in. I'm not inclined to make it any rougher.
Not one person mentioned that the only reason why this became an issue was that Karl Rove's group decided they needed a cheap shot to gin up their side for the November election, and that the right wing idiots responded on cue like Pavlov's dogs.
0.000001% "sensitivity, 99.999999% bigotry and cheap politics.
And, wasn't it sensitive of the troll to talk about his knowledge of explosives?
Thanks. I hadn't followed the issue for that long.
A Concordance to Comments on the Mosque at Ground Zero
“Let's talk about what actually happens instead of what should happen in a world inhabited by us intellectual elites. “
1.My assumption here is that the bloggers on OS are at least thinking about issues, and not basing their actions and opinions on Knee-Jerk, Gut level, uninformed assessments My language may sound a little snarky, but I've had to learn the hard way that I AM one of those who not only stops to analyze WHAT I am told, but the reliability of what I am told. I continually make the mistake of assuming other people of sense do the same. Like it or not, those who write on OS ARE a sort of intellectual elite- I always appreciate it when people behave that way.) ( and when they don't , I don't mind occasionally flaming someone who is being particularly insulting or irrelevant)
“With respect, the problem you are discussing is no more open to discussion than would be a “Memorial” plaque at Auschwitz from the Aryan Brotherhood. How much ice do you think it would cut for the Brotherhood to explain that they really regret that their ideological brethren murdered all those subhumans, but, gee, we aren't like that anymore, so please accept our apologies and let's forget the whole thing, OK?”
2.Analogies are one of the very few ways open to sharing experiences. Some analogies are good, because the link the “correct feelings”, and some are bad, because of a failure to correctly interpret the feelings evoked on either side. Let me simplify my analogy. If you do not feel strongly about 9/11, you couldn't care less for the feelings of those who do ( an overstatement, but you “sympathize” while wondering what they are so “Worked up” about) It is an event that inspires strong feelings. Your average Chinese worker in Beijing may have no particular feeling, but the average American does. Though many couldn't care less, those Americans who do feel, tend to have strong feelings, (very few will have a feeling of “Wasn't that a shame?” Some may even feel it was a great victory. But it will be a strong feeling.
3.To make an analogy, one says” The feelings of X about Y, are essentially the same as the feelings of A about B.
4.X = “Those people OUTRAGED by 911” Y=”Building a Mosque at “Ground Zero”
A -= “Those people OUTRAGED by the Holocaust” B = “ The Aryan Brotherhood sending a Wreath to Auschwitz”
So the analogy reads The “OUTRAGE” inspired by the “sacrilege and profanation of a site sanctified by the blood of martyrs” (“Ground Zero” and “Auschwitz” respectively) of X / Y = the OUTRAGE of A / B
5.For purposes of the analogy, I am assuming that readers at OS possess at least a reserved sense of OUTRAGE about both 9/11 and the Holocaust. Levels of outrage will vary.
I'm certain there are bloggers on OS for whom the Holocaust “never happened” or “was a step in the right direction” as well as some who believe “Bush staged 9/11” or that 9/11 was well deserved payback. If you recognize yourself in either of those groups, have a good life, I have nothing more to say to you.
6. Please note that I did not ask for nor will I engage in a discussion of how “Horrendous” was “9/11” vs “The Holocaust” on the “Atrocity Scale” . It is sufficient to say both were “outrages sanctified by the martyrdom of innocents by the embodiment of evil” For analogy purposes they are equivalent among and between the groups who feel strongly. ( I realize that there are those out there who would put the same moral equivalency to “Hunting and eating Animals” or “Burning an American Flag” but let's try to keep our thoughts somewhere near the middle of the pack, ok?)
7. ON hearing such an analogy put forth, The proper response is either:
You accept that the person making the analogy has a good sense of the feelings involved about and among the parties and events discussed, and adjust your perspectives accordingly
eg. You say to yourself, “I did not realize how strongly so many people feel about this issue, that they feel about 9/11 as I feel about “The Holocaust” I need to bear that in mind when I assess their actions and desires.” (This is called Empathy, something sorely lacking in todays politics- not Compassion, not Sympathy, EMPATHY)
OR:
A disputation of the credentials of the person making the Analogy. I listen both to Fox news and Msnbc, read worldnetdaily and the daily Kos, I belong to OS ( vaguely leftist), and read the blogs here, I have travelled extensively within the US and have friends of all political stripes, and I live right smack dab in Ohio, the heart of it all-when it comes to T party and what upsets the average American individualist. I am an American Individualist. I am not now and never have been an “Average” anything. I don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows. I may not “Agree” with which way the wind blows, But I'm pretty sure about 2 things
1. I can feel where it's going.
2. I can't do much about it except warn people before the storm gets here. ( to be honest, the Mosque thing is not more than a tempest in a teapot, and will be gone with the next Obama scandal, never to be heard of again until the opening of the Mosque.)
3. The “Butterfly Effect” seldom works in reverse. It's been said a butterfly flapping it's wings can start a hurricane. It's a very foolish butterfly who tries to stop one.
A response of “Then THEY'RE STUPID if they
feel that way!!!” only demonstrates the
the stupidity of the speaker.
“That's what's being asked not only of those who lost loved ones on 9/11, but of all Americans who were outraged by the infamy of the Muslim Terrorists ( Last recording going into the Towers “Allah Akbar!) cowardly attack. You would as well have asked the American public of 1942 to forget “Pearl Harbor” and be kind to their inoffensive Japanese neighbors. (Many of whom went on to serve in Nisei units in Europe with great distinction)”
8.Rationality and thought very seldom have anything to do with how masses of people behave whatever their political affiliation or religion. Steak doesn't sell, “Sizzle” does
Witness our current crop of “Leaders”. (on either side)
As to the motives of the Imam? You and I will never know. There are enough troubling aspects to his acquisition of the property, his recorded quotes about America's role and complicity in 9/11 and his response ( actually his wife's) characterization of the people who feel that a mosque at Ground Zero ( and anywhere struck by the airplanes is Ground Zero, 51 Park was rendered condemned after the landing gear of Atta's plane crashed through the roof)(Trust me) as “Bigots” to allow me to think of him as a compassionate and empathic “man of God”. He is involved in making money by use of his faith, which to me makes him a religious leader on the order of Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell, not more, not less. He certainly is NOT a crusader for religious freedom. But so what, neither am I.
As to this particular tempest. It will blow over. I personally don't see anything particularly offensive to me about building a Mosque at 51 park. I simply tried to explain to you how “My friends and Neighbors” of the T party and Conservative Christian America feel about the issue, so that you can be unsurprised when they take back the House and Senate this fall. Weather is predictable. Doesn't mean you either have to like it or that you can change it. You shouldn't need a weatherman to tell which way the wind blows. But what the heck, I don't get paid either way and your responses are interesting to read.
Yours Truly
Your Weatherman on the Right
Rated.
Thank you
Token,
I am answering for myself only here - you will notice that I expressed no offense at your analogy. My objection to your analogy is a very simple one: I don't believe that A/B is as X/Y in this instance because I don't believe that the Aryan Brotherhood occupies an analogous position to the New York Sufis. The presumable point of joining the Aryan Brotherhood is to express support with Nazi views of various kinds of non-Aryans. There is no good reason to assume that the Sufis in question shared the hostility of Al Qaeda and many reasons to assume that they didn't. The fact that Al Qaeda used their interpretation of Islam to justify their attack doesn't mean that they get to represent other Muslims. That's a privilege they want and are deluded enough to expect, but they're not entitled to it and it makes no sense to give it to them, which is precisely what opponents of this particular construction project are doing. This is not a case where a major national/ethnic actor like Germany or Japan in WWII can be assumed to represent most of their people (though certainly not Americans with origins there) - Al Qaeda is a tiny actor that doesn't represent a worldwide plurality of Muslims. My problem with opposition to this construction project is precisely that I disagree with the validity of your analogy and that I think that accepting its validity is counterproductive in a whole lot of ways, one of which is that it supports Al Qaeda, which I'm not inclined to do.
re: analogies, we reject your analogies here because they grossly oversimplify the facts of this case, and completely fail to account for some very relevant differences in geography, property ownership, zoning laws, who represents what, etc., between Park51 and your fictional hypotheticals. Here's just one example of where you and those you claim to represent go wrong: park51 is owned by SUFIS; Sufis had NOTHING to do with 9/11.
Oh, and if you're such an above-average individualist, why are you parroting, word for word, all of the same talking-points the teatards are parroting, with little or no added thoughts of your own?
You've admitted that objections to Park51 are based on irrational feelings that you admit you're not trying to defend as "right." And that's precisely our point: if we allow capricious irrational feelings and uninformed meltdowns to dictate policy, then all of our rights go out the window along with the basic concept of consistent justice and rule of law. This is why we are opposed to letting all these "sensitivities" and "perceptions" override the proper decisions of the NYC government, made through proper channels and procedures. This is why we HAVE proper channels and procedures -- to stop arbitrary emotion from trampling justice.
As to the motives of the Imam? You and I will never know.
Speak for yourself. YOU may never know, but that's probably because you refuse to do any honest research.
There are enough troubling aspects to his acquisition of the property, his recorded quotes about America's role and complicity in 9/11 and his response ( actually his wife's) characterization of the people...
None of that would be at all "troubling" if you actually took the time to learn the facts, and try to educate your friends in turn.
Your attitude is noted, and I will respond in kind
Screw off
If you want to propagandize "My friends", do so on your own dime.
I'll still be voting republican this fall
@Koshersalaami
We think too much, such men are dangerous. Neither you nor I are merely faces in the crowd. We make and enjoy nuances and fine distinctions. National power politics is essentially public relations and advertising. What's the favorite beer of America? Budweiser or Millers in any given week. Put that into the perspective of of “Republicans” and “Democrats” or “leftist” or “Rightist” and I wouldn't be able to find a Negra Modelo to bless myself with. As an individualist, I look with horror upon any “Popular Movement” Left or Right. But people like you and me are as butterflies in a wind storm. Our actions only matter in “swarms”, and since we don't fit in precisely anywhere ( nor would we want to ) “getting where we want to go” many times involves following the “swarm” that seems to be headed most nearly in that direction.
The “swarm” I was born into, and currently mostly fly with is more or less Christian deist individualist.
They are too busy meeting the everyday problems of their lives to analyze anything that is not immediately dangerous to their existence. They would not know a Sufi from a Krishnan and could not care less. ( Be fair, what left winger bothers to know (or care about) the tremendous difference between a Fundamentalist and a Pentecostal Christian? )
To Him, Muslim is Muslim.
Muslim Terrorists Piloted Planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
Those are facts. It cuts no ice to try to mitigate it, He doesn't care. ( Should He? Of course
But then Horses should floss more often) ( And opponents of Spirituality in public undertakings should be aware that establishing “no religion” is establishing a State Religion of Secular Humanism- ie Atheism ) (You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him shave - and before you tell me that he should stretch himself and try to learn, I'd say he needs to work on the opposable thumbs thing first)
Do I know the difference? Doesn't really matter.
I don't view people as “Swarms” unless they insist on it.
Even then, “Swarms” are such Non-homogeneous bodies that you cannot pin down any one postulant individual and make him be responsible for all the crazy things that have been said and done and are “Supposed to be Believed” in order to be a member.
I prefer to take my people one at a time. I love People
I can't stand “Mankind”
“Mankind” is usually some Jacked up Jackass and his cronies pretending to represent the “Collective” group of all ( Think Napoleon the Pig) “it's for the Public Good!” is the usual cry.
I digress
Some people insist on “Swarming” ( imagine that )
I don't approve of the practice, but who listens to me?
The Swarm I'm currently hiding out with is mildly ruffled by “news” that “The Muslims” are trying to build a “Victory Mosque” at “Ground Zero”
To be completely honest, the amount of time any one of them spends being outraged about it would probably average out to 15 minutes a year.
Which only counts if that fifteen minutes is the period directly before he goes in to cast his ballot on election day.
Trust me, there will be “Issues” enough between now and election day.
But before you on the left congratulate yourselves too much, let's be honest and think about the number of backers in your “Swarm” who voted for Obama because he was gonna write them a check for free money. ( Don't tell me such people don't exist or are few- I know them)
My sole goal in engaging in discussions like this one on OS is to promote EMPATHY
( and yeah, peoples reactions are fun to watch)
Empathy is not compassion, which is “I feel your pain”
It is not sympathy, which is I feel sorry for you.
Empathy is “I know why you feel or think that way” ( whether I agree or not, I understand )
My personal feelings on the “Ground Zero Mosque” are irrelevant to what I was trying to convey
(For what it's worth, my personal feeling is that the whole issue is irrelevant)
I was attempting to explain the perfectly valid reasons why people who oppose the ground zero mosque do so. And yes, valid reasoning can be and in fact most often is, based on incorrect or unproven information.
It all depends on what the reasoner believes to be true.
More LIGHT and Less HEAT make for the “coolest” discussions.
Among Individuals
You cause us all to suffer from your superiority complex. As you point out the pack of asshats that care about "The Mosque At Ground Zero" will have forgotten by November because it really doesn't matter to them at all, but they have been whipped into a frenzy by news dolts. When this disappears from the news cycle only to be replaced by some other silly lie that will be the outrage of the moment.
I realize that at this point a lot of the "common sense" money is ridding on big Democratic Party losses in the upcoming election. For my part I will believe it when I see it, but you keep on counting your chickens it becomes you.
So your suggestion is what? That we shut up and move over because some idiot made an issue where there was none? I'm not sure I buy into the concept that political apathy is all that makes sense because we can't be effective. If you believed that, you wouldn't be here, but you are.
Is the question how to move masses? I have some ideas, though I will freely admit that listing them here is an exercise in spinning wheels - here I reach a few people at a time.
There are a couple of ads I could think of. One would be a camera slowly shifting around a military cemetery, starting with wherever the American flag is flying so the nationality is obvious, with a mix of headstones - mostly crosses, maybe a Star of David if you could find one and a few Crescents. Taps is playing softly in the background on a bugle. A script something like this (this is off the cuff and I'm no scriptwriter):
"Each Crescent represents a Muslim American soldier who gave his life for his country - Our country. They and their families deserve our undying gratitude. Here's the kind of gratitude they're getting: [cut to a picture within picture, a quick cut of, say, Glen Beck saying something nasty about Islam and Muslims, another few of other political commentators saying the stuff we know they say.] Who made the sacrifices here? Who are the real Americans?"
We all know that American Muslims were killed in the 9/11 attacks. We just need to remind a few people that that's true.
Ultimately, though, you're right, this too shall pass. I'm glad I'm witnessing it because it's telling me things about a lot of people, emphatically including President Obama and Harry Reid, who are turning out to be way more spineless than I figured. Bloomberg, on the other hand, is getting more of my respect.
I cannot tell you how deeply sorry I am that I have caused you such a painful experience as reading through my ramblings. I'm sure it must trouble you deeply when you stop to ponder how people of good will might seriously hold any opinion that differs from yours. It just does not seem possible, does it? They must all be ASSHATS!!!. I've tried to give you an opportunity to understand the thoughts and feelings of people who oppose you, but you prefer to grumble about being inconvenienced.
Well, as usual, we seem to be in total agreement about the truth of 2 statements:
1.I am Right
2.Anyone who disagrees with me is an asshat
I'm a diehard liberal but I think his count isn't very far off. Our guys haven't had the courage of their convictions, with the result being that they neither accomplished what they needed to nor were conciliatory enough to the Right to do any good with them (which, frankly, would be physically impossible, but they should have been able to figure that out a long time ago). I am often frightened by the stupidity of my allies. We have horrendous enough income polarization that sooner or later it will probably sink our economy and, with it, a lot of the world's, and growing corporate influence hastening that process because these geniuses aren't bright enough to figure out that they're making their own customers go broke, and we weren't able to turn that around with a former urban community organizer Democrat in the White House and majorities in both Houses. If not now, when? It sure as Hell wasn't now. When we lose all those seats, the result will be even worse, because these guys have way more ideology than sense. They think small government is the answer when, in actuality, government regulation has saved businesses' asses time and time and time again, but when reality conflicts with an opinion, opinion wins. The trouble is that opinions don't create jobs, help the economy, or help much of anything.
I have never in my life felt quite as screwed nationally as I do at the moment. I feel like we're being swept in a cloud of lemmings straight toward a cliff. I'll come here and hold up the occasional STOP sign because I want to have done something. You know, Repairing the World is a big Reform Jewish religious obligation, so I can't do nothing.
I believe you have misspoken, at no time have I talked about being inconvenienced. While amazingly self-important windbags such as yourself pontificate I like to point out that you really aren't all that or a bag of chips.
I am not at all suggesting political apathy. I'm suggesting that we be aware of what is happening and not spend our selves in pointless railing at each other ( even if it is fun) . I'm not prepared to get too worked up about the Mosque at Ground zero either way, it smacks of politics as usual, and none of the players is being completely open about what is going on.
Your Idea of a commercial for understanding is excellent and if you know of someone who can produce such a commercial I would be delighted to contribute to it.
My point is that it is really easy to get involved in what amount to meaningless hate sessions over basically unprovable beliefs. My God can build a Mountain bigger than your god can lift.
What matters is INDIVIDUALS who say, I'm tired of all the nonsense as usual. Let's sit down and see what we have in common. My point was that it isn't going to happen over a manufactured for news issue like the Mosque. People on both side's reaction WILL BE “KNEE JERK”. We need issues like the one you raise. Such a campaign promotes a feeling of community without desecrating anyone's “sacred ground”
Yawn
I agree with you that it is disappointing how quickly and easily Democratic leadership has been cowed. It seems they can't turn their backs quickly enough from anything that might be contentious. That said, anytime I start to be really upset about what President Obama is or isn't doing I just think about the other possibility we had, President McCain. As bad as things are right now do you think they would not be considerably worse if Senator McCain were in the Oval Office at this time?
Truly I do not believe that this "Mosque" is going to be an election issue there will be too many other "outrages" before then. Not being a Nostradamus I try to avoid much prediction about elections and find it even more ridiculous to claim victory or defeat in the summer before an election in the fall.
Now you made me cry you big meany. Please don't turn any more of your rapier-like wit on me I cower at your superior rhetorical skills.
Oh shoot, not even just a itty bitty bit, for all that we've meant to each other?
Just a little, for old times sake.
Oh thank you so much, I hope we can always stay friends XOXOXO
And for folks jumping on Token, maybe take a step back and a breath or two - don't 'read his words', hear what he's *saying*. If you like consider him a 'devil's advocate', he has filled that niche beautifully here.
Unfortunately much of the reaction to his commentary has just as beautifully illustrated his point with regards to 'knee jerk reaction' :-/.
I myself agree with the building of the center, if only because something needs to break this 'chain' that we're all bound up in, act and react, usually without considered thought.
If the center is built, life will go on as usual. If the center is not built life will go on as usual.
It *is* serving a purpose presently by pointing up the fact that 9/11 taught America to fear - and America clearly hasn't yet learned how to deal with that fear.
Rated for the far-off-yet light at the end of this tunnel.
Delighted to see you back. As usual, you seem to "get it"
Thank you and glad you're here.
Anthony,
I don't think we'd have been better off with McCain; that's not my point at all. My point is that I'm amazed (in a bad way) that this is the best we could do with the White House and both Houses. About the only person in Washington who isn't disappointing me is Nancy Pelosi.
Actually, I think we might have been better off with McCain ca. 2000, before he got upended by Bush in South Carolina and turned from an independent-minded no b.s. patriot into the extremely cynical politician he's become. He reminds me of what happened to Bob Dole, another guy who started out with brains and sense and deserted both in an effort to get elected President.
Token,
I'm both surprised and pleased by your reaction to my ad idea. Thank you.
I am humbled and ask for forgiveness.
-R-
Of course. Glad to see you. Don't know if you've noticed, but I've backed you up on a couple of other blogs lately.
When I am wrong, I usually am WAY WRONG.
One thing, I am unafraid of is admitting my errors.
You are a Mensch (the highest compliment in my book), and if I've said things that You agree with, it pleases me to know this.
When the time comes to disagree, I will, as with others whom I respect, respectfully agree to disagree.
By the way, you don't need to assume what I think about something. Just ask. Trust me, I'll tell you.
Always with respect,
Ks
My point here has never been that “T Party/Middle America/Conservatives” SHOULD hate Muslims. It IS that they often DO have an antipathy and distrust of “Muslims” ( Most don't know any-and don't trust or like anyone they don't know). I understand perfectly why the “Right Wing Media” threw out the “Raw Meat” of the desecration of “Sacred Ground” by a “Ground Zero Mosque”
What completely baffles me is why otherwise rational people attempt to grab that meat and try to take it away, thereby “Enraging the Beast” At best, they get to keep their hand. Why fight over such an obviously manufactured and loaded issue when it's perfectly clear that what will happen is a whole lot of OUTRAGE and not much else. I really am tired of everyone being OUTRAGED.
What you suggest is a wonderful way of emphasizing our community of belief in our country that makes us all Americans. It does not and cannot legitimately be claimed to be insulting or disrespectful to anyone. And it expresses the ultimate truth about Patriotism. Dulce et Decorum est pro Patria Mori ( Which is nonsense, but terribly high sounding and patriotic nonsense- everyone who's ever been on the sharp end knows it's your job to make some foreign SOB “Mori” pro HIS Patria)
I digress
Your commercial is a wonderful Idea. I've been thinking about it and I've worked as a videographer, and I have a Brother who does videos for commercials on Columbus Ohio TV. I can't borrow him, but I can borrow his equipment. It is just a pipe dream, but wouldn't it be interesting for a Leftist Jew like you and a Rightist T partiing Redneck like me to make such a commercial.
http://borepatch.blogspot.com/2008/11/thank-you-veterans.html
Yeah, regarding the video, that would be pretty cool. I don't get to Ohio much (I'm in the Southeast) but I have inlaws there, a little south of Dayton. I spent a few years in Ohio but not in a way that would exactly make me familiar with local conservatives - I'm an Oberlin alum.
Thank you.
Token,
Went to the link. Should have figured that one out: Bibere as in Imbibe. L'Chaim. (Do I need to translate that?)
By the way, I absolutely agree about the phony outrage. As a commentator used to put it: "Shocked - shocked!" as in "I'm shocked - Shocked!" Usually when I receive an e-mail in which people are shocked - shocked! I end up debunking it on Snopes.
Been to a few Jewish weddings, no translation needed
Not only do you hit every relevant point--American Muslims were killed on 9/11 too, the Imam behind the poject is as moderate as they come, most Muslims did NOT support the attacks, etc.--but you hit them quite strongly.
I have nothing to add except that I'll be adding my own two cents to the "sensitivity" argument later today.
I look forward to it.
Let us support American Islam. It would be the smart thing to do.
And Jonathon, I would offer him the evidence in every major world newspaper showing hundreds of thousands of Muslims, hands held high and anger in their voices, against, not Americans, but the leaders of their own countires, the Kings, the despots, the dictators. Most of those demonstrators would give whatever they had for the opportunity to come to America. It's not immigrants who feel as you do, Jonathon, but natural born Americans who do not appreciate the freedoms of our country...to pursue happiness to the best of one's ability,
" Building the mosque there would be a powerful statement of American's acceptance of freedom of religion and rejection of xenophobia."
Excuse me, why does America have to make what you call a "powerful statement" when millions of people, yours, mine and everyone here unless a native, have come to these shores and found religious freedom. This country was settled mostly by people seeking religious freedom, albeit mostly protestant in the beginning.
Doesn't the very existence of America, a country where all of us are or can become Americans, show an example to the world that cannot be matched, much less apologized for as our President did on his tour of Europe and the Mideast.
Assuming you came here legally, if not born here, you can become an American, you will never become a German, a Frenchman, an Italian, or certainly a Saudi.
I am really tired of people in our country who seem to be suffering with a "guilt DNA" that cannot be modified, even by the success of the country.
As far as protesting Christian Churches in Timothy McVeigh's backyard, that was posted, McVeigh did not do what he did in the name of his God. Jesus was a man of peace; under no circumstances would he favor a follower who killed innocents in his name and reward them with 72 virgins. He admonished Peter for cutting off the ear of one of the Roman soldier's who came that night to take him away.
While there are certainly radical Christians, as there are in every faith, they are not welcomed in the community, or given sanctuary.
As you point out, there are millions of Muslims in America, working, raising their children, and living in peace. Would any of them want to trade places with Muslims in France or Germany, or so many other areas of Europe? I don't think so!
Let's celebrate the freedom we all have in this country, and pray that it continues. Leave the apologies for Obama's next European tour.
Thanks for commenting.
Why are you addressing all these comments to "Jonathon"? I'm not sure how far to scroll up to find whoever this is. (If you're under the impression that you're addressing me, that's not my name.)
To try to answer your question, there are two reasons it's important to be vigilant about acceptance:
1. Because of some of our actions overseas, both in terms of our relationship with Israel (of which I approve and support) and in terms of what some of our servicepeople have done in places like Abu Graib, there are some in the Arab world who think we have it in for Muslims. Politically, that's not a healthy image for us to have; it plays into the hands of groups like Al Qaeda when they're recruiting. I'd rather not exacerbate whatever image problems we have by being stupid - an alliance with Israel is necessary and moral; giving American Muslims a hard time for building a mosque is neither.
2. The fact that we're more accepting than most other nations doesn't mean it's time to rest on our laurels. This isn't about guilt, it's about being a better, more moral, and more consistent people. I'm not running around saying Mea Culpa, but I think we should get it right. I don't think it's a good idea to be less than accepting of any minority, including (for example) the GLBT community. Consistency is a good thing. It beats the hell out of hypocrisy.
In terms of Obama apologizing, that says that we're attempting to do better. The people he was addressing are all doing way, way, way worse than we are - figure out how almost all of them treat whatever Jews they have left, if any, and that will be painfully obvious - but that's beside the point. We view it as our responsibility to get our own house in order regardless of what they do in their houses.
I may have a different definition of patriotism than you do, or at least a different way of practicing it. I think it's way less about waving the flag than about fixing what's wrong with the country. Living up to ideals as high as we initially set isn't easy, but part of the point of being an American is giving it a shot. It will never be perfect; nothing ever is, but you get as close as you can.
In terms of Jesus being a man of peace, I agree completely, but I'm also painfully aware of what has been done in his name over time, and it involves a whole lot of killing and persecution. That doesn't mean I hold Jesus or what I'd view as central Christian values responsible for this; however, I have no reason not to extend the same courtesy to Islam. I think Al Qaeda and their ilk represent a corruption of Islam, which is certainly what Imam Rauf would argue (and, I think, has argued).
I have a question: If Imam Rauf (or Adhami, or whoever is in charge) announced that he wasn't going to build near Ground Zero, but further uptown, would many of the Americans who are now so upset be inclined to think that maybe all Muslims aren't such bad people? Would any? In other words, would it be an effective act of reconciliation?
The best way I can think of to put this is that the people who are angry are not the people who are really thinking; they're merely reacting without questioning.
Though this post is nearly a year old, thank you.
I don't know what's causing the reaction of Muslims in Europe, though I have an idea. You might notice that we don't have this issue in the United States, in all liklihood because we're way better at integrating minorities than anywhere in Europe is. The reason for this is largely structural: There is no ethnic definition of American, with the exception of the mostly disenfranchised American Indian/Native American population. If you're Arab and you live in, say, Italy, you can be third generation but would still have a hard time being anything like universally defined as Italian. Here, on the other hand, you can be elected Governor of California if you came over from Austria in your late teens and still have an accent you can cut with a knife. If you are continuously treated as an outsider, rejected, if you have trouble finding employment as a result, you're likely to respond to the adversarial relationship imposed on you by being adversarial.
One of the main reasons I favored the Ground Zero Mosque is that I wanted to avoid creating an adversarial relationship with our Muslim population when they didn't deserve it. The only reason to oppose the Mosque was to apply guilt by association, in this case not a very close association.
Loved this. I agree with you. Except for one thing: Your call to support moderate Islam. I don't support religion, any religion, especially in politics and many Islamic nations are theocracies. India and Indonesia may have majority Muslim populations but they're not theocracies. God and politics don't belong together.
Thanks for coming down the rabbit hole. That definition of pluralism is great.
Margaret,
Thanks for following the link. The reason I call for support of moderate Islam is precisely because it doesn't lead to theocracy. Theocracies come from fundamentalist movements.
In terms of God and politics mixing, it depends what you mean by that. If you mean anything like a state religion, I agree, at least here. However, if your religion tells you we should take care of the poor (which all the major western religions do) and, as a result of listening to God, you support government policies that do just that, I can't object to the influence of religion on civic values. Insofar as religion promotes compassion, its influence on the public sphere is positive. When it involves imposing one's own rules or interpretation of scripture on others, we've reached the area where separation of church and state becomes desirable to protect those who aren't in the majority.
I come from a religious tradition that values (in theory and often in practice) conduct over faith. For various reasons, we are not evangelical about faith, but a lot of us are evangelical about justice, and I can't and don't want to claim that religion has nothing to do with that.