August 1, 2010

"If I read the press release correctly, the ADL is opposing the building of the mosque because bigots also oppose it."

Jeffrey Goldberg reads the Anti-Defamation League's press release and opines.

126 comments:

RuyDiaz said...

If I read Jeffrey Goldberg's sentence correctly, you don't have to listen to anything you don't like, as long as you label somebody a bigot.

rhhardin said...

Armstrong and Getty (34 minutes in) say it's by intention and by name a deliberate symbol of the Muslim conquest of America.

They promise more on the topic Monday.

It struck me as the right words.

SMGalbraith said...

That's a pretty unfair reading by Mr. Goldberg.

I think the ADL is terribly wrong here and, as Goldberg correctly points out, we need to distinguish among those Muslims at war with us, those who are not, and most important, those who haven't quite made up their minds. If we fail to make that distinction we may wide up with what we fear: a clash of civilizations.

Still, the ADL is pretty clear as to why they oppose the building of the mosque at that location.

rhhardin said...

Moderate Islam seems to depend on the Muslim population percentage for its character, according to this.

It might be nice to ask the moderates why that is.

edutcher said...

Dorothy Parker wrote a piece (which I cannot find, damn) about who would or would not be a Nazi if the US were Germany, and describes a Jew much like this.

Almost Ali said...

As a practical matter, a Muslim is a Muslim - first, last, and always. There is no middle ground.

Fred4Pres said...

You know something, the supporters of this Cordoba Mosque are up to no good. This is just another attempt at the Soros backed International Freedom Center, which I also opposed.

The Cordoba Islamic Center is backed by people who either think 9/11 was a good thing or that there are two sides of the story. Sorry. I disagree. It is BS and I support Geller, Palin, and the ADL calling them on it.

That said, I support first amendment and property rights. So if they did their zoning properly and own the property, they should be allowed their short term propaganda center two blocks from Ground Zero. But free speech is free speech, which means we can all talk about the Cordoba Mosque and do not have to pretend to be all PC about it. Nor am I anti Islamic in not liking it. I have nothing against Islam, per se. I have a lot against Jihadis attacking us.

SMGalbraith said...

As a practical matter, a Muslim is a Muslim - first, last, and always. There is no middle ground.

That's ridiculous.

Muslims, first, are human beings. Flesh and blood, real live people.

Second, there are all types of Muslims, some devote followers, some not, and everything in between.

That's because, y'know, they're human beings and not robots.

Fred4Pres said...

Let me clarify. The International Freedom Center and the Cordoba Islamic Center are not connected (at least as far as I know).

The IFC was a secular, PC, sort of museum that was intended to put 9/11 in context of other crimes against humanity such as slavery in America and Native American genocide. Thanks George Soros, but no thanks.

The Cordoba Islamic Center is about putting 9/11 in context with other crimes such as U.S. Support of Israel and other perceived Islamic slights through the centuries.

holdfast said...

The very name "Cordoba" reveals everything you need to know. It is all about "conquest", or perhaps "reconquest" if you believe Islamic doctrine that we are all naturally Muslims, but that some have just strayed.

If these Muslims gave a wet fart about understanding or reconciliation, they would never build this thing by Ground Zero - but it's all about demonstrating Islamic Supremacy and using our own laws and customs against us to make us look weak and make them look ascendant.

At any rate, if they do build the monstrosity, I plan to picket it at every opportunity, to call out the leaders and to otherwise exercise MY 1st Amendment Rights to their fullest. And I have never protested anything in my life. I would also encourage boycotts of any construction company that works on building it, and anyone who has any economic or other dealings with it whatsoever.

Paddy O said...

I like the idea of openness and toleration and whatnot.

But, there's this tiny voice in the back of my head that is whispering, "I wonder if this was how the mosque in Jerusalem first got built. Soon, New York will be the fourth holiest city."

I don't particular agree with that small whisper... but it's still there.

c3 said...

Wow the left doubts the ADL and the right doubts the NAACP.

These are not good times for old-line civil rights groups.

As for the Muslim Center, I believe moderate Americans should pool their resources and build an interpretive and information center on American history and ideals in the heart of Sadr City. That will go a long way to healing the wounds.

Maguro said...

Tolerance is when we submit to whatever it is the Muslims want.

Sensitivity is when we understand what the Muslims wouldn't want and don't go there.

Somehow, tolerance and sensitivity only work one way in this context.

Alex said...

If this wasn't about supremacy, Muslims would never attempt to build THIS mosque on THIS site. How can liberals not see this?

traditionalguy said...

The Franks were teutonic blue eyed blondes from around present day Belgium who had conquered present day France by 732 by converting to Roman Catholic under Clovis. And then the wave of Mohammed's conquests swept from Spain towards Paris 80 miles to the north of Tours. The Frank's knights hammered them there and ended their conquest of the known world. The Muslims retreated for the first time in Muslim history. To this day the Muslims call all western European teutonic people Franks who come from Frankistan. The Muslim memory never forgets a conquest of a territory or a loss of once conquered territory in which their martyrs died for Allah. They also blame the Franks for the crusades. North America was settled by the French and later the English, to muslims both part of Frankistan. The Muslim immigration push is now into France and England and over into the former colonies here. ALL Muslims are a part of an Army of conqueest all of the time. Therefore we should say hell no to erection of a new Muslim military headquarters in lower Manhattan Island. It would be like allowing a Japanese Navy headquarters to be built overlooking Pearl Harbor in 1942 because they claimed it was a Church of Nippon Emperor worship. It is not a religion at all...it is a band of military raiders setting up here for their final Solution to us Infidel Franks.

SMGalbraith said...

Sorry, I keep reading all of these posts here about "the Muslims" as if they're some sort of monolithic religion or group.

Yes, I understand we all use shorthand when posting - e.g., the liberals, the conservatives - but this repeateed use of "the Muslims" as some sort of single entity is, in my view, overly simplistic and leads to some generalizations that are troubling.

Instead of attacking "the Muslims" for this initiative why not refer specifically to the people behind it?

ricpic said...

SMGalbraith sincerely believes that our words or actions can quell the clash of civilizations. Ever try dealing with someone bound and determined to get you, SMG? There's no alternative to putting up a fight. Either that or be humiliated. The problem is the huge number of nice people out there who will accept humiliation. as long as the thug lets them live. That's all they want.

holdfast said...

Sorry, I keep reading all of these posts here about "the Muslims" as if they're some sort of monolithic religion or group.

Well they're not, except sometimes when they are. Like the Muslim FBI Agent who would not wear a wire during a terror investigation, because "Muslims don't record other Muslims". Or when even so-called moderate Muslims repeat blood libels or insist that the Mossad took down the WTC.

And if the specific group of Muslims trying to build this Conquest House were anything but arsehole Muslim supremacists, they would not insist on building it there.



http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,54070,00.html

traditionalguy said...

SM... My point is that the whole block of Muslims is very united by memorising the Koran and by chanting submission to one god of world conquest and his first Field Marshall Mohammed 5 times every day for 1400 years. Neither you nor me can wish that entity into many conflicting parts and differing religious points of view except for the Shia schism early on about true or false heirs of Mohammed. Towards outsider infidels there is no disunity. A Muslim that comes in peace is like the Mars Attack martians: he is lying or he is not a Muslim at all.

SMGalbraith said...

SMGalbraith sincerely believes that our words or actions can quell the clash of civilizations.

No, I sincerely believe that Muslims are human beings and that they come in a wide range of, if you will, types.

Some are good, some are bad, and, like all of us, most are in between.

We see in the news every day - once again, every day - radical Muslims killing the moderates. And moderate Muslims, not wishing to live under such people, fighting the radicals.

That's because, as I said, not all Muslims are the same.

If they weren't different, they wouldn't be fighting one another, would they?

Alex said...

I mean fuck I know some people that allow themselves to be humiliated by a fucking rogue peacock, it goes without saying that Muslims cow most people.

Quayle said...

I just want to know, by what law or authority can we rightfully stop them from building it?

All these Palin and Glenn Beck types hyperventilating about Obama and the Dems ignoring and laying waste to the Constitution.

They're doing a pretty good jog of it themselves on this issue.

traditionalguy said...

SM... If you refuse to renounce Christianity the Muslims may kill you later so long as you will submit to an inferior status in public and pay them a Tax. But if you are an atheist and refuse to worship Mohammed's god,then they must immediately cut off your head from whence such an evil thought arises. You have a dilemma!

SMGalbraith said...

... If you refuse to renounce Christianity the Muslims may kill you later so long as you will submit to an inferior status in public and pay them a Tax.

Sorry, there's not such thing as "the Muslims."

Just as there's no such thing as "the Jews". Or "the Christians."

Second, there are many Muslim nations where those practices are not imposed.

I'm just stunned that people who can see that there's no such thing as "the Jews" but Jewish people embrace this view that there is something as "the Muslims."

As I said, we see news every day where radical Muslims - the Islamists - slaughter a bunch of innocent Muslims in a marketplace or school.

If all Muslims were the same, why is such infighting taking place?

Quayle said...

trad-guy writes, ".....the Muslims may kill you later ...."

One billion people, and you feel you can characterize what "they" will do.

The Muslim religion is absolutely identical in structure to protestant and evangelical Christianity.

It is organized ground up around a self-designated interpreter of the written word, with scattered larger 'leaders' with reputations but not direct authority.

Just as with evangelical and protestant sects, there is a wide spread across the spectrum of interpretations and belief.

But you want to lump them all into one group and say "they" want to kill you.

My daughter lived 10 weeks in Jordan, living in a small university town up by Syria and nobody ever tried to kill her.

In fact, some of the women became her very good friends. She reports them to be very humble, devout, chaste and modest women devoted to live a life in keeping with God's word.

And we're supposed to be the intelligent and educated people in the world, and we group a billion people into a stereotype? Why?

traditionalguy said...

Acting more broadminded is not an answer. Pres Bush told a crowd on a rubble heap of more square feet of office space than all of Atlanta's downtown and suburban offices combined that he heard the crowd and that the people who did this would here from us. Well the airplane terrorist teams were all Saudi Arabians and the attack planners were Egyptian. So we attacked some local tribe called the Taliban in east nowhere who did not immediately renounce Al-Qaida. Finally to better send a message of our intention to use our power, we attacked Saddam Hussein. The WE was not each individual American citizen but a coordinated force of committed Americans. The THEY I refer to is not each individual Muslim worshiper, but a coordinated force sent with Saudi money committed to kill Americans. The Muslim world plans to reorganize as a single theocracy as soon as they agree to who will become Caliph. Then THEY will come for Americans living in and around NYC whether or not you know any sweet Muslim friends now. In Kite Runner the sweet Muslim treatment of male tribal members is real. But THEY will not let you join.

holdfast said...

"I just want to know, by what law or authority can we rightfully stop them from building it?"

Denunciation, protest, public pressure, etc. The same things that would happen if a white supremacist group tried to open a church on the spot where MLK was killed (what? you think the government might step it to stop their free exercise of religion, even though it was not a white supremacist from THAT group who shot MLK).

I don't expect the government to take extra-constitutional measures to stop it, but I do expect the people's voices to be heard on this one. And if the Muslims currently planning it care anything for the feelings of other groups of Americans, they will choose to relocate it. And if they don't, then their mission to offend and to gloat is laid bare for all to see.

Florida said...

"Armstrong and Getty (34 minutes in) say it's by intention and by name a deliberate symbol of the Muslim conquest of America."

It is.

So?

Muslims are winning the battle for America (they've helped to elect the first president who chooses to use his Muslim name, after all) and we have a Constitution that guarantees their right to the freedom to say so. This mosque will remind everyone of what many Muslims regard as a great battle won by them in the Long War.

The destruction of American buildings, and the rising of Islamic ones in their place.

Our Constitution guarantees freedom of religion and speech - even of that is a religion of beheading and genital mutilation and forcing women back into the stone age.

Islam is either a religion - protected by the Constitution - or it's not a religion.

My opinion is that the Supreme Court had better hurry up and decide which is it. Last time I checked, the Court itself has an image of Muhammad adorning their building - and that's a crime worthy of beheading the court according to many Muslims.

somefeller said...

Jeffrey Goldberg is a writer with a pretty strong history of support for Israel and opposition to jihadism. If anyone thinks that he is some sort of shallow "why can't we all just get along" thinker on this or other related topics, they are sadly mistaken.

It seems to me the key issue is who is behind the building of the mosque. Manhattan is an incredibly crowded place, so you're going to have pretty much anything within a few blocks of something else there, including Ground Zero. If the people behind the Cordoba Mosque have jihadist ties, the mosque should not be built. If they don't, it should. To do otherwise would single them out for being nothing more than Muslims. But if they are something more than Muslims, it's a different conversation, and since the ADL has a lot of credibility on such issues, I'm taking their point seriously.

Dorothy Parker wrote a piece (which I cannot find, damn) about who would or would not be a Nazi if the US were Germany, and describes a Jew much like this.

Oh, look, little edutcher got to to call someone a Nazi today. He got his tingle for the weekend.

Cedarford said...

It's been 9 years. It was a successful attack by a faction of Muslims that wanted the USto stop meddling in the ME and get out altogether.
A group of Muslims wants to take a small building 2 blocks away from the Pit and convert it into a Mosque.

I would not have a problem with this if Muslims were open-minded and tolerant of Westerners wanting to build churches or Hindi temples or have Jewish-owned businesses in their lands, but they are NOT TOLERANT of others in lands they have supremacy in - with rare exceptions like Syria and some of the once-Soviet Stans. (and some can add Malaysia and Indonesia as tolerant in some ways, intolerant in others)

If they were, then our pretense of any place we are attacked becomes some sort of Holy Site would appear pretty ridiculous in context of once enemy foreigners, icluding us, having been accepted into having a regular presence in places like once-rubblized St Petersburg, Nagasaki, Tarawa, Hamburg, Atlanta Georgia.

Because Islam is intolerant, aside from the jingoists, a problem exists and it is not enough to have belligerant Muslims waving the 1st in our faces and demanding tolerance here while supporting jihad or 2nd class status of infidels over "there".

And if some say Muslims WILL tolerate us, what better place to start than by linking building permits here to those "moderate Muslims" calling for Jews to be allowed in KSA or churches to be built in Iraq and Christian missionaries tolerated in Pakistan or Palestine?
Ask then to sign letters saying so, as something that would facilitate building permit approval. They won't sign. Not even moderates. Calling for such tolerance betrays Islam. Not on their lives and souls would they
sign a letter saying infidels should be free to have equal lives to Muslims and be free to spread their satanic creeds.
=================

In their papers, the people who made up the 1st Amendment or voted it's passage wanted the US to be a Protestant Christian nation. They considered Muslims dangerous and alien and not to be allowed to gain a foothold ANYWHERE in the New World. They wanted to limit Jews. They wanted to limit Papists (Catholics) and were the heirs of the Glorious Revolution where things like right to keep and bear arms was to keep people loyal to the Popes temporal powers suppressed. (The Founders would be OK with Catholics, I bet, after the Italian Civi War when Popes gave up claims of final authority to order Catholics in matters outside the spiritual realm).

Revenant said...

"Moderate Muslim" a term I always view with suspicion, since "moderate Muslims" tend to be more religiously extreme than "conservative Christians". But even if the Cordoba group is truly moderate, it is still poor taste. Building a mosque at ground zero strikes me the same as the decision of Catholic nuns to set up shop on the groups of Auschwitz back in the early 90s.

Thousands of people were killed by Muslims acting in the name of their religion. This is not a teachable moment for us to learn that Islam really isn't that bad.

Trooper York said...

Wow. You appoligists get me furious. This mosque is a direct insult and poke in the eye to every family who lost someone in 911.

Why don't we put a mosque in your town? You can display your openmindness and liberal piety there while they plot the next move in their determination to impose their perverted values on our society. There is no moral equivalence. They are wrong and we are right. You better decide what side you are on pally.

What a load of bullshit. How much do we have to take. This is still a free country and we don't have to bow down to political correctness and allow this horror.

What a load of crap.
I have my doubts that our coward politicians in New York will stand up to this nonsense.

Cedarford said...

SMGalbraith said...
... If you refuse to renounce Christianity the Muslims may kill you later so long as you will submit to an inferior status in public and pay them a Tax.

Sorry, there's not such thing as "the Muslims."

Just as there's no such thing as "the Jews". Or "the Christians."

Of course there are! There are differences between Christians. But like Jews and Muslims and Han Chinese they exist as a largely coherent "force" in most matters. We are conditioned presently by PC to claim that there is NO SUCH THING as Christians or Jews as a force..but it sticks in our craw when others like the Chinese and the Muslims demand we also stifle ourselves into willfull blindness in matters about them "There is no such thing as a Chinese or Muslim worldview nor do such people act as Hans or Muslims typically do!!"

Second, there are many Muslim nations where those practices are not imposed.

few. If you have visited Muslim countries, you understand about lines not to be crossed that spring from the Qu'ran. All Muslim nations have them, to some extent. Even Syria and 99,9% Muslim but western in some aspects, Turkey.

I'm just stunned that people who can see that there's no such thing as "the Jews" but Jewish people embrace this view that there is something as "the Muslims."
There is such a thing as "the Muslims" as a force with organization, norms and customs and common goals - and such a thing with "the Jews". Both seek to transform the "Others" to their will. Muslims historically by force, Jews by subverting the majority or at least the Ruling Elites. The Christian way, historically, is to arrive waving swords or on warships - saying "we will uplift and improve you" or else!" (a variation on the Muslim tactic).

As I said, we see news every day where radical Muslims - the Islamists - slaughter a bunch of innocent Muslims in a marketplace or school.

If all Muslims were the same, why is such infighting taking place?

Because unlike us, the Muslims still care enough about their faith to fight doctrinal sectarian wars. THe heyday of the Christian wars between factions went on for 1600 years, longer than Islam has "blessed us" with their followers antics. The whole time the HRCC was killing heretics, Orthodox after the Schism, then Protestants - there was no dispute that it was "we Christians" - only who were the more spiritually and doctrinally correct Christians. And sometimes even with the Christian religious wars - the factions stopped bloodshed in order to engage a dangerous non-Christian enemy.
Christians at odds with each other bonded to fight Muslims on the Crusades, Mongols, to boot out Jews if they became too powerful or were collaborating with the Muslims.

rdkraus said...

A small bit (and that's what I know) of history tells you what this is about. From the Peloponnesian War, through the wars in Ireland and Europe over the last 1000 years, invader/conquerers, after victory, built a castle, or a fort, or a monument to celebrate and mark "their" new territory.

That is what this mosque is.

And most of the world, certainly the Islamic world, will get the message.

Period.

Lisa said...

The ADL opposes the location of the mosque because it is hurtful to those left behind after 9/11.

Any other reading of this is dishonest.

Now, let me ask, what sensible, moderate Muslim interested in solid interfaith outreach would be stupid enough to build their mosque where a building hit by part of the plane once stood? Given that throughout Islam's history, Muslims have built mosques over the sacred ground of those they have conquered, what reasonable assumptions might we have about the intention of this mosque?

Cedarford said...

Trooper York - If New Yorkers really cared about the "Sacred Soil of the Heroes" or similar such blather:

1. They wouldn't have allowed 9 years to pass and the attack site still be a mostly vacant Pit, surrounded by several abandoned buildings.
2. They wouldn't have tolerated NYC lawyers taking the lead for advocacy of "precious enemy rights", and blocking trials of the enemy attackers that violated laws of war for 9 years.
3. They wouldn't have given up all dignity, still begging the nations taxpayers for billions in extra perks, money, and bennies for NYC's "victim stakeholders" 9 years after an enemy attack.
4. They would have acted more like grown-ups in Europe, Asia, even the destroyed South of the Civil War - who had little time or inclination to stay emotionally trapped in the day after the war ended. Other war victims just couldn't indulge in prolonged self-pity and victimhood and saying anywhere someone died in enemy action was "Holy Ground" of immense "symbolic and therapeutic significance".

(Japanese guy I know said of his Dad, who died in 2008 - "He was amazed that the America he thought so capable couldn't rebuild. He was one of those people who had worked 60-70 hours a week then had Hiroshima rebuilt by 1950. And honestly believed until the year before he died that America would be better than Japanese at such things..)

mark said...

It seems pretty clear that Jeffrey Goldberg deliberately misreads ADL. The point ADL makes has nothing to do with tolerance or intolerance towards Muslims or Cordoba Center - it's about the 9/11 victims and their families, friends, etc. They are the ones who feel the enormous pain of the loss, and the mosque will make this hurt worse.

Isn't that enough to make most people take a step back and respect their feelings without labeling it or dissecting it in some way?

Florida said...

"This mosque is a direct insult and poke in the eye to every family who lost someone in 911."

Yes, Trooper, it is. Exactly. That's precisely what it is.

What is your point, exactly?

The Klan wear white hoods for a reason. It's to provoke. Muslims are gloating over their victory. They want you to know that you lost.

As Barack Hussein Obama would say: "They won."

You live in a country which has deemed Islam a religion and therefor granted it certain freedoms. You live in a country that has decided that Islamic teachings supersede our Constitution. That Islam overrules the Constitution.

You should get used to that fact. You lost.

Accept it; it won't chafe so much.

SMGalbraith said...

Once again: Muslims did not perpetrate 9/11. Some Muslims did.

Sorry, if you can't see the difference between those two statements, I'm at a loss to explain it.

I just am flabbergasted as to how the good people here (and that's not a line, I mean it) can see the difference between Jews and Jewish people and know darn well that those are two entirely different things but simply cannot see that same distinction between Muslims and Muslim people.

SMGalbraith said...

cannot see that same distinction between Muslims and Muslim people

That should read "the Jews" and "Jewish people" and "the Muslims" and "Muslim people".

The definite article "the" in "The Jews" and "The Muslims" - is the problem.

As I see it.

The fact that our colleague Cedarford agrees with you on this should cause you pause.

Florida said...

"Once again: Muslims did not perpetrate 9/11. Some Muslims did."

Japanese didn't perpetrate Pearl Harbor. Only some Japanese did.

Lisa said...

SM,

So many on the left seem to think of Muslims as the new Jews. Its a false analogy.

Jews do not have a history of conquering people, forcing those conquered to convert or hope their dhimmitude will protect them until the next time a Muslim leader gets pissed, and building temples over their holy sites.

Clearly America doesn't have a problem with mosques. We have many. The objection is the location.

Why would a Muslim who supposedly is interested in building good interfaith relations even consider building a mosque at Ground Zero? On the other hand, given Islam's history of conquest, what kind of Muslim would think of building a mosque here?

Tolerance, respect go both ways. If this center was really about tolerance, it would have been proposed elsewhere.

Kirby Olson said...

It seems like a reward for blowing up the Twin Towers.

Will it appease them?

Or will it be like granting amnesty to twenty million Mexicans and expecting them then to go away?

Churchill said appeasement never works.

Tidy Righty said...

Folks, this is a Christian country built on a Christian foundation. The jews and the Muslims are just different sides of the same coin-they are both trying to tear down and destroy America. The Muslims are agressively doing so while the jews are more coniving. We need to fight for our Christian country before it is too late!

Lisa said...

Did Tidy Righty just accuse me of being conniving and taking over America? Damn, I wish someone had told me.

I wonder if he doesn't understand that Christianity was built upon Judaism and not the other way around.

Revenant said...

Lisa, he's just a moby. He gets off on pretending to be an over-the-top reactionary.

Joe said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
SMGalbraith said...

Japanese didn't perpetrate Pearl Harbor. Only some Japanese did.

The Japanese are a nationality; Islam is a religion practiced by more than 1 billion people in over 40 countries.

You do know that there are Muslims right now fighting alongside our troops in Afghanistan?

You do know that AQ and the Islamists are killing Muslims throughout the Islamic world?

You do know that there are Muslims fighting back against those radicals?

The Islamists who attacked us on 9/11 say that they are the true adherents to Islam and that the hundreds of millions of Muslims who don't follow their brand of Islam are apostates.

Sorry to sound snarky but the evidence is all around that something called "the Muslims" as a single entity simply doesn't exist.

Joe said...

Building a mosque in that location is tacky, but so is the worship of the ground--if we turned every location where someone died through the fault of another, there would be no place left on earth to live.

Frankly, they should just discard all this memorial shit and just build a usable structure and get it over with. THAT would be the biggest poke in the eye to those who perpetrated and/or supported 9/11.

Paddy O said...

SMG, I get and appreciate your points here.

But the reality is that understanding cultures and contexts is not a one way street.

Understanding the sensitivity of the contexts seems to be the prerequisite for being truly moderate.

Even as those behind this particular mosque idea may not be equated with the types of Muslims who committed the terrible acts of terror, the reality is that those latter Muslims did act in the name and for the cause of Islam. So there is inherently a religious issue involved.

As a symbol, it seems pretty obvious that despite the motives of those involved there is a fairly clear triumphalism involved that would become such to a wide variety of different Muslims. Even if the particular Muslims behind this mosque may not be triumphalists, you can't tell me that this mosque would become a sort of pilgrimage place for the kinds of Muslims who do want and even seek the downfall of the US.

Muslims are not a poor, ignorant people who must be coddled. They are participants in a global society and as such bear the burden of being as sensitive to our contexts as we are of theirs.

Whatever their underlying motives, this location is at the very center of very troubled intercultural and interreligious issues in this country and any moderate would be both aware and sensitive to this reality.

That they are not is very suggestive.

Cassie said...

And we're supposed to be the intelligent and educated people in the world, and we group a billion people into a stereotype? Why?

It's called 'irrational fear'. I'd always hoped we'd take the high road in these kind of things, but I'm beginning to accept that, as a group and from the other comments, that we're no up to it. Thanks SM and Q for standing in and trying to present that ideal that I'd like us to be.

Youngblood said...

SMGalbraith wrote:

"If they weren't different, they wouldn't be fighting one another, would they?"

Who is the imam behind this project fighting against, exactly? And what is he fighting for?

Well, he's not fighting against terrorism, which he flat out refuses to define.

Maybe he's just a muddle-headed peacemonger?

Well, no, see... He recognizes terrorism when it's American planes dropping bombs on Germany and Japan. It's when Hamas is involved that he refuses to define it.

This is a real blindspot for him, actually. When Muslims started firebombing Catholic churches in Malaysia, he took the Catholics to task for their provocation!

See, they were trying to convert Muslims, so the firebombing was understandable.

So get this straight: Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf is not fighting the bad guys; he's fronting for them. And he's naming his Islamic super-center two blocks from Ground Zero "Cordoba House" to invoke Islam's glorious history of conquest.

He is a wolf in sheep's clothing, which anyone can plainly see because the outfit fits so poorly and it doesn't hide the fangs at all.

But you'll never see what you're unwilling to see, so his disguise works on you.

phil said...

I find it hilarious that if you speak of Muslims as a monolithic group and take a racist approach towards them then you are considered in the mainstream here at Althouse. But if you do the same thing towards BOTH Muslims AND Jews then you are branded either deranged or a moby.

Many of you maybe only half as nuts and racist as Tiddy Righty, but you are still racist nuts.

Youngblood said...

Phil wrote:

"I find it hilarious that if you speak of Muslims as a monolithic group and take a racist approach towards them..."

Islam isn't a race. Thanks for playing, though.

Hombre said...

It is customary for invading Muslims to build mosques (e.g., "coincidentally", La Mesquita de Cordoba) or other buildings important to Islam (e.g., Dome of the Rock) on sites considered holy by non-Muslims.

The significance of the custom is evident to all but the dimmest of bulbs. Ground Zero, no doubt, qualifies for this treatment.

Hombre said...

SM Galbraith wrote: If they weren't different, they wouldn't be fighting one another, would they?

So, if the Shiite and the Sunni Muslims are fighting each other, it's because one group is moderate and the other is not. Right?

I'll bite, SM, which is which?

SM also wrote: In fact, some of the [Syrian Muslim] women became [my daughter's] very good friends. She reports them to be ... devoted to live a life in keeping with God's word.

And we're supposed to be the intelligent and educated people in the world, and we group a billion people into a stereotype? Why?


Maybe because their holy book ("God's word" to you) directs them to kill or enslave us.

Are you more intelligent for choosing to ignore this based on anecdotal evidence provided by your daughter?

SMGalbraith said...

So, if the Shiite and the Sunni Muslims are fighting each other, it's because one group is moderate and the other is not. Right?

But the Shi'a and Sunnis aren't fighting one another.

Some Shi'a and Sunnis are fighting one another. Many Sunni and Shi'a live in peace. And the ones that do fight do so for a wide variety of reasons, not all of them religious (e.g., Saddam Hussein repressed the Shi'a for mostly secular reasons).

Because, once again, all Muslims don't think alike. They are not a monolithic group.

As to the second quote, that was not me. I'll let him or her respond.

John Burgess said...

First, I'm truly amazed at the number of bigots commenting on this post. I truly thought Althouse attracted a better sort of thinker!

Second, having lived and/or worked in 22 countries which were either Muslim or had a significant minority of Muslims, I'm damned if I can say what 'the Muslims' think about anything, including the Quran.

There are as many variations on the theme as there are within Christianity. Some are more concerned about eschatology than others, but nearly all of them are most concerned about putting food on the table and educating their kids so they have better lives than their parents.

Third, at least according to the thought patterns of some here, they've been put in a no-win situation. If Muslims decry violence and extremism, then it's all taqqiya. If they are violent or extreme, then it's "What else did you expect?"


WV: Almost Cotton! baunwall

SMGalbraith said...

There are as many variations on the theme as there are within Christianity. Some are more concerned about eschatology than others, but nearly all of them are most concerned about putting food on the table and educating their kids so they have better lives than their parents.

Good post.

These are human beings first who happen to be Muslims.

Why people here can't see this mystifies me. They can see it when it's about Judaism. Or Christianity. But for Islam? They can't.

I don't know many Muslims but I've learned a great deal from my readings, mostly Bernard Lewis. Lewis is able to explain how a religion more than 1,500 years old is able to attract the following of more than 1 billion human beings from a wide variety of cultures and nations and continents.

These people - real live human beings who go to work each day, raise families, live and die and bleed and grieve and are happy and sad - find solace in this thing called Islam.

And it's not because of hate.

Yes, we must fight those that do hate. We can't shirk from that. There is no way of compromising with them.

But those that hate us do not constitute all of Islam.

Hombre said...

@ SM: Sorry. The anecdotal evidence was offered by Quayle, not you.

Nevertheless, I would be interested in your examples of "some" Muslims fighting "some other" Muslims to prevent the imposition of the terms in the Koran and/or Sharia law on non-Muslims.

That is the issue. The issue is not whether the article "the" is being used properly.

traditionalguy said...

SM...With all due respect, you are delusional if you are seeing any happy Muslims. Get out more often. Muslims are miserable from living under an iron legalism that only gives judgement upon them and especially their women. That is why they need to go apeshit and kill something in hopes that maybe, or maybe not, they will somehow please the dark force over their lives called Allah. Why do they brag continually that they will beat us because they love death while we love life? Islam's motto calls itself the Religion of the Sword. Open your eyes. Islam despises you as a weakling. Mercy to non-muslims has never been a part of Islam, but instead there is a sacred duty of revenge for 700 years ago crusades and for cartoons of Mohammed today. Ask Major Hassan how happy his life was was until he got his chance to murder for Mohammed.

SMGalbraith said...

I would be interested in your examples of "some" Muslims fighting "some other" Muslims to prevent the imposition of the terms in the Koran and/or Sharia law on non-Muslims.

The government in Egypt fights the radicals (e.g., the Muslim Brotherhood) to prevent the imposition of radical Islam on the Egyptian people including the Coptic Christians.

The Jordanian monarchy has fought the Islamists as well.

To be sure, they fight them more to save their own power than to prevent non-Muslims from being persecuted.

Anglelyne said...

SMG: Yes, we must fight those that do hate. We can't shirk from that. There is no way of compromising with them.

So, wanting to build the Cordoba Islamic Center at this site is a dick move. Yes or no?

James said...

I get that the location of this offends decent people as well as the bigots. I just wonder, where is the line going to be? Two blocks is too close, so four blocks? One mile? Five miles? Ten miles? What is the borderline for the "holy ground" exception to where you can build mosques?

Of course, the bigots use much of the same language in their opposition to mosques in many areas. In this case however, the location of the mosque is sensitive enough to make some normal people uncomfortable.

You hear the same "Muslims build their mosques as signs that they conquered the area" in the protests in Murfreesboro, TN and Temecula, CA. The truth is, there isn't a place in America where a proposed mosque won't bring out all the same talking points.

Also, every time something like this comes up, you get the same people saying things "Well, as soon as they let build churches in Mecca, we'll be fine with their mosques here." Apparently, the solution for these people is to become more like Saudi Arabia, and less like the USA.

SMGalbraith said...

Here's an example of the solace that Muslims find under Islam: The Mount of Mercy.

These are real human beings; not cartoons.

Almost Ali said...

Time for today's affirmation:

"Fight and slay the pagans wherever you find them. Seize them. Beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them" (Qur'an, Surah 9:5)

Paddy O said...

First off those using "bigots" and such. Stop playing your rhetorical games. That use of the word suggests you're trying to score points not actually engage.

SMG, you are making very good points so I'm going to turn this around.

I'm a Christian. Educated as such and probably could be considered professional at it.

I am a Protestant who tends to the more radical sides of this tradition -- Baptist, Quaker, Pentecostal, postmodern, etc.

There are immense differences not only between Protestants and Catholics and Orthodox but also between groups within these two camps.

I realize, however, that Christian history, recent and ancient, has reflected certain trends I do not want to identify with.

There is a history of triumphalism, of anti-semitism, of gross corruption, etc. and so on. None of which I personally approve of.

So when I say Christians have been anti-Semitic I'm speaking of a generalized trend to be sensitive about.

More recent. When I say Christians supported slavery I say this as someone whose specific traditions not only did not support slavery but fought against it. But I am aware of the history and the trends.

Christians used their Christianity to support slavery, to support subjugation, to support anti-Semitism. That's a reality that I was not part of, but one that I have to bear as part of my religions history. I don't feel guilt for it, and I am not to blame. But I am aware of a special sensitivity especially in terms of symbols, language, and suggestions of triumphalism.

Symbols mean something to people, and true multiculturalism involves a mutual respect for each other's symbols and responses.

Religion was injected into this by the terrorists, and even if others disagree with such people, by sharing their religion they bear the weight of showing why and how the religion itself is not what the terrorists says it was.

Merely telling us is not enough. Just as it is not enough for Christians. Rhetoric is cheap.

Our use of symbols and our actions is a profound statement, and it is not moderate to ignore the symbolism of a mosque at such a place. It would be symbolic, however, a gesture of true peace to say they respect the symbols of the location, they respect the sensitivity of the people, and as a gesture of true peace they will find another location.

They would fully expect us--as Americans or as Christians--to respect their feelings. If they want our respect, they should offer some in return.

Quayle said...

[Hello this is the daughter speaking.] Sorry, but 10 years study of Arabic language and doctoral work in the Middle East on Sharia law is hardly anecdotal.

"It is customary for invading Muslims to build mosques (e.g., "coincidentally", La Mesquita de Cordoba) or other buildings important to Islam (e.g., Dome of the Rock) on sites considered holy by non-Muslims."

Actually, I would point out that Christians did the same thing to Roman holy sites. They also built plenty of churches as an invading force during the Crusades. The Haggia Sophia used to be a church and was turned into a mosque. As you yourself point out, the Cathedral in Cordoba used to be a mosque.

Jerusalem was the holy city of the Jews and then it became holy to the Christians but nobody finds that suspect. It's only when the Muslims find Jerusalem holy that everyone calls it a conquest.

But this is all really beyond the point. We can fight all day about what Muslims are or aren't. What I want to know is what radius of respect you think would be appropriate for the World Trade Center site? Clearly a few blocks distance within a rather small geographic island is upsetting. So how far away should the mosque be? 10 blocks? 1 mile? 10 miles? New Jersey?

Paddy O said...

"The truth is, there isn't a place in America where a proposed mosque won't bring out all the same talking points."

Maybe this is a good distinction to make.

The bowling alley I grew up going to was turned into an Islamic Learning Center--a private school and more. A mosque was built nearby.

I think its a much better use of the property than the shoddy bowling alley.

Turning the bowling alley into a Learning center and mosque is a great thing, as are so many mosques throughout the world.

Turning the Hagia Sophia into a mosque was an act of symbolism. Putting a mosque on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem was an act of symbolism.

Putting a mosque at ground zero is an act of symbolism because no matter how many different kinds of Muslims are out there, that is what it now is because some Muslims justified mass murder because of their faith. And many Muslims around the world cheered. And many still do.

It is a symbol. And it is a symbol of cultural and religious war. There is no getting around that.

We must acknowledge that.

People should not exacerbate it.

Otherwise they are showing they do not care about the surrounding culture of New York, and as such show they are moderates in rhetoric only.

Paddy O said...

"It's only when the Muslims find Jerusalem holy that everyone calls it a conquest."

A close example but not quite right.

There was not a Cathedral on the Temple mount. Christians could claim Jerusalem as a holy city along with Judaism because there are different holy sites within the same city. Muslims co-opted the most holy spot in Judaism, and made it their holy spot. That is profoundly different, as it is both historically tenuous and purposefully triumphalistic.

Similarities of situations do not make them equivalent and can, in fact, mask radical differences.

Quayle said...

"
Merely telling us is not enough. Just as it is not enough for Christians. Rhetoric is cheap.

Our use of symbols and our actions is a profound statement, and it is not moderate to ignore the symbolism of a mosque at such a place. It would be symbolic, however, a gesture of true peace to say they respect the symbols of the location, they respect the sensitivity of the people, and as a gesture of true peace they will find another location.

They would fully expect us--as Americans or as Christians--to respect their feelings. If they want our respect, they should offer some in return."


It is complete blaspheme! How can these barbaric Muslims so desecrate Wall Street - the great shrine of American Christianity to which we turn daily in earnest and solemn attention and prayer.

Can't anyone here see that from a Muslim perspective, George Bush was a Christian and led a Christian army to the middle east to destroy?

But wait, that is different, you say.

Well, we may think so, but do others?

And is it really different?

Did Christ say, "Blessed are the peacemakers, except when someone knocked down one of your buildings, then you should bomb them back to the stone age."

Tidy Righty said...

Quayle, the nearest desert would be too close.

James said...

Wow, Ali can find some violent quotes in the Quran. I guess that proves your point.

This can be fun, let's see here.


"3 Then the LORD said to Moses: 14 "Take the blasphemer outside the camp. All those who heard him are to lay their hands on his head, and the entire assembly is to stone him. 15 Say to the Israelites: 'If anyone curses his God, he will be held responsible; 16 anyone who blasphemes the name of the LORD must be put to death. The entire assembly must stone him. Whether an alien or native-born, when he blasphemes the Name, he must be put to death."

Oops, that's Leviticus.

"That whosoever would not seek the LORD God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman."

Oops, that's another Bible one.

Point being, using violent passages from old holy books to try to disparage all the current followers of the religion is asinine. Of course, you know that, you're just a jackass.

Paddy O said...

"How can these barbaric Muslims so desecrate Wall Street - the great shrine of American Christianity to which we turn daily in earnest and solemn attention and prayer."

Sarcasm doesn't help your cause.

Indeed it undermines it because if you cannot show respect for the symbolism and emotions that people like Trooper York feel then you show you are playing a rhetorical game and know precisely what the key symbolism is and what it is intended to mean.

Islam is a religion which is extremely tuned in to symbols and their use. Just like Christianity is.

Muslims are too smart and too aware to be given defenses like you are giving.

If all you have is rhetorical games then that's just sad.

AC245 said...

They also built plenty of churches as an invading force during the Crusades.

There are probably few ways to more quickly piss away any credibility you might have on this particular topic than to claim that the Crusades were an invasion of Muslim lands by Christians...

Jerusalem was the holy city of the Jews and then it became holy to the Christians but nobody finds that suspect. It's only when the Muslims find Jerusalem holy that everyone calls it a conquest.

... but I see you're willing to make a go of it.

Jerusalem: sacred to Christians because it's the birthplace of their Lord.

Jerusalem: sacred to Muslims because after they attacked and conquered the city, they built a mosque on the rubble of one of the city's landmarks.

Hmmm.

What was the issue that started this whole discussion, again?


It is complete blaspheme! How can these barbaric Muslims so desecrate Wall Street - the great shrine of American Christianity to which we turn daily in earnest and solemn attention and prayer.


Oh. Pardon me. I didn't realize you were completely looney tunes and just out on a day pass visiting your dad. Have a great time!

Paddy O said...

"using violent passages from old holy books to try to disparage all the current followers of the religion is asinine"

Is it asinine to use locations of very recent violent acts?

Quayle said...

"Islam is a religion which is extremely tuned in to symbols and their use. Just like Christianity is.

And what is the great symbol that Christ established?

By this shall men know ye are my disciples.

Either you believe Him, or you don't.

But He has made Himself very clear how He wants us to respond.

Youngblood said...

Quayle (or Quayle's daughter),

The old "Christians did it too" defense really only flies is Middle-Eastern Studies classrooms and in the communiques of Islamic radical organizations.

Ancient Rome is ancient history. So are the Crusades and al-Andalus. Everyone could just let bygones be bygones if not for the fact that there is a holy war being waged by a militant strain of Islam today.

This strain of Islam is burning down Christian churches in Malaysia and Africa. This strain of Islam is bombing clubs in Iraq and Bali. This strain of Islam is fighting a guerrilla war along pretty much every border that Islamic populations share with non-Muslims.

Today's holy warriors are not Christians putting pagan barbarians to the sword. They are Muslims detonating themselves in supermarkets and turning passenger planes into cruise missiles to slam into buildings.

I know that there are "good" Muslims -- my First Sergeant was a Muslim, and he loathed the terrorists for perverting his religion. I learned Arabic under an Iraqi Muslim woman who was about as far from an extremist as it's possible to get. When I was stationed in Iraq, I worked alongside Iraqi Muslims who were committed to the fight against Islamic terrorism.

Feisal Abdul Rauf, a supposed moderate who supposedly stands with America against terrorism is not like any of the "good" Muslims I have come across.

When called upon to condemn terrorism, they could do so in clear and unequivocal language. They don't hem and haw over the definition of terrorism. They don't call peaceful Malaysian Christians provacateurs in an attempt to deflect blame from the Islamic terrorists who are killing them and burning down their churches.

The people for whom the memory of the middle ages are strongest are the Islamic radicals. Even today, they pepper their communiques with longing references to al-Andalus and ancient Islamic conquests.

Rauf is fronting for them, which is why his Cordoba Initiative is seeking to build a super-center called Cordoba house two blocks from Groung Zero.

You are so "smart" that you refuse to see this.

WV: mywar -- No kidding!

Hombre said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Quayle said...

"The old "Christians did it too" defense really only flies is Middle-Eastern Studies classrooms and in the communiques of Islamic radical organizations."

After my daughter typed, we both wondered here how many post it would take for someone to bring out this old saw.

It wasn't very many.

All I can hear you saying is Christian/West good - Muslim/Middle East bad.

I don't see any finer point on your argument.

James said...

Here's part of an interview with the CEO of the company in charge of the center:

"Imam Feisal has been a champion of pluralism and tolerance. He fully understands the enormity of 9-11. In fact his own congregation was only blocks away from Ground Zero. He works very hard, day in and day out, to fight extremism and radicalism.

More to the point, this is going to be a community center. Park51 is not a political organization. We do not have a political agenda, and we will be open to all New Yorkers. What we do not have room for are extremist views and opinions. Radical and hateful agendas will have no place in our community center or in the mosque. We are building this center for New York City, because we’re New Yorkers. We’re Americans. We have families here and futures here."

But he must be a liar, because he's a Muslim! (At least, according to some of the posters here).

Personally, I don't see it as a symbol of "Islamic conquest." I see it as a very misguided attempt at your typical display of "multiculturalism and tolerance, blah blah blah" crap, and they didn't correctly anticipate the reaction that a community center that includes a mosque located 2 blocks away would get.

On the one hand, part of me wishes that they would move it farther away. On the other hand, I also wish that the types of bigots that protest against mosques regardless of where they are don't get there way.

In the end, they're within their rights to build it, and they're going to be the ones dealing with all the death threats and bomb threats that will come from the nuts (Irony anyone?).

Trooper York said...

How many fireman's funeral's did you go to you cocksuckers?

How many Thanksgiving Tables do you visit where there is an empty chair? Missing a father, a brother, a son, a daughter?

You got to be kidding me with your politically correct bullshit.

Nine years ago is just like yesterday to me.

Almost Ali said...

By now everyone here knows that the Koran is to be taken literally, word for word, command for command. Which renders all other comparisons as spits against a violent wind.

Therefore, the distance from Ground Zero should be no further than a stone's throw from Mecca. And not a single throw more.

Hombre said...

Quayle's daughter wrote: 10 years study of Arabic language and doctoral work in the Middle East on Sharia law is hardly anecdotal.

I think you misunderstand the meaning of anecdotal, but I'm sure we would be pleased to have you outline your research on the specific topic at hand rather than offering the "some of my best friends are Muslims" anecdotal material.

Q's daughter also wrote: What I want to know is what radius of respect you think would be appropriate for the World Trade Center site? ... So how far away should the mosque be? 10 blocks? 1 mile? 10 miles? New Jersey?

Are you having some trouble following the discussion? Isn't the proposal to build a mosque virtually at Ground Zero, not a mile, etc., away?

Do you actually claim that, despite history, it is unreasonable for us to argue that building at Ground Zero is, as Paddy O put it, "purposefully triumphalistic," or at least apparently triumphalistic, and therefore offensive?

BTW, why Cordoba? Wasn't Cordoba the site of an Islamic caliphate?

Youngblood said...

"All I can hear you saying is Christian/West good - Muslim/Middle East bad.

"I don't see any finer point on your argument."

Then you're just stupid, I guess. I mean, there were several finer points, which you were unable to address. Not one of them could be characterized by as "Christian/West good -- Muslim/Middle East bad". I'll lay them out so even a moron like you can figure them out:

1.) Feisal Abdul Rauf is on record fronting for Islamist terrorists. He is the mover and shaker behind the Cordoba House Islamic super-center.

2.) You are drawing a moral equivalence between ancient history and current events, which is the same sort of bullshit that al-Qaeda pulls in its communiques.

3.) Islam has bloody borders. Today. This is a fact, and it is not an "Islam and the West" thing, either, and generally speaking, it is militant Muslims who are killing nuns over cartoons, firebombing Malaysian churches, and trying to blow shit up in NYC.

As I said, I know that there are Muslims who oppose these things. I've met them and I admire their bravery.

But your attempts at moral equivalency are nothing more than hot air.

SMGalbraith said...

Al Qaeda attacked us on 9/11.

Muslims didn't.

Radical Muslims are waging war on us.

Not all Muslims.

If you can't - or don't want to - see the difference, at this point I guess there's nothing to say.

Elliott A said...

If those who wish to build the mosque were kind, thoughtful and moral, they would never consider building in that location. That they do is really a confirmation that on many levels this is more than a house of prayer.

Tidy Righty said...

I just wish the jews and the towelheads would just go back to their desert in the Middle East and do what they do best-kill each other.

Youngblood said...

SMGalbraith,

Feisal Abdul Rauf is unable to define terrorism when it is practiced by Muslims, let alone condemn it. And he is on record as saying that the militant Muslims who were firebombing Catholic churches in Malaysia weren't at fault -- they were just responding in a predictable fashion to Christian provocation.

Combine that with his claim that the United States, while not at fault on September 11th attacks, was an "accomplice" to the attacks.

Whose side is he on? Is he on the side of the Muslims who fight against Islamic extremists, or is he fronting for the extremists themselves?

There are good Muslims. Got it.

Is the mover and shaker behind the Cordoba House project one of them?

Hombre said...

Quayle wrote: By this shall men know ye are my disciples.

Either you believe Him, or you don't.

But He has made Himself very clear how He wants us to respond.


Are you implying that Christian forgiveness requires that Christians not oppose the building of this mosque at this site?

Wow! Are you ever confused.

traditionalguy said...

SM...You used Egypt as an example. In Egypt the Arab Muslims are still favored over the ethnic Egyptians they conquered. Egyptians had become Christian under John Mark in 80 AD and were a vibrant culture as evidenced by St.Augustine's work. The few who have stubbornly remained Christian after 641 and have refudiated a submission to Mohammed's god are called the Coptics. They are orthodox Christians and they are still persecuted and killed freely although it suits the Muslim's needs to keep some of them around to use their superior brain power to run the country. These Egyptians are the guys who did a number on Israel in 1973, and they also planned the 9/11 attack. Yet the head of all Islamic jihad conquests has been and still is the Saudi Arabian Kings over Mecca. They are directly funding the moves of mosques into England, France and the USA. They are successors to the 3 of the 4 Caliphs who were descendants of Mohammed, while the 4th called Ali was murdered by them in a Caliph succession turf war... and no mercy has ever been asked or given for that murder. The resistance in Egypt has been Mubarak's doing to keep non-Egyptian Muslims from running Egyptian life that was stolen from Egyptians by the Saudi Arabian raiders 1400 years ago. Go live in Egypt among Coptics and see what real fear and real courage means, and then come plead against "Bigots" telling the truth about sweet Islam.

Almost Ali said...

Separating Al Qaeda from Islam is to ignore their common pathology. For Islam is a pathology - from which all Muslim pathologies begin, unite, and strive to prevail.

James said...

Trooper:

I think the site is a bad idea, and I can't pretend to know what you went through and continue to go through to this day. However, I don't know what you mean by "politically correct bullshit."

Do I think it is stupid and insensitive to build the center there? Yes. But they have the right to do so. It would seem to me that the side here that is closest to the typical "political correctness" side is the one that would argue that Constitutional rights be abridged if people would be offended or if it would reopen old wounds, no matter how strong the offense or terrible the psychological wounds.

In an ideal world, they would move the project. At this point however, with whatever money they have already dumped into this (starting with the $4.85 million purchase price of the building), that would appear unlikely, and I doubt that the people who oppose the building would be in favor of paying them back for all their costs in order to get them to move.

Quayle said...

"Are you implying that Christian forgiveness requires that Christians not oppose the building of this mosque at this site?

Wow! Are you ever confused."


Yeah. That's pretty much what the people told Christ when he said they should no only give a Roman centurion their coats, but also their cloaks.

Our Constitutional values require that we protect religions that don't break the law. What law will the Imam break by building a mosque?

Forgiveness requires that we don't lump one billion other Muslims into the same camp as those that flew the planes into the WTC.

And for the record, Trooper, my father worked in the World Financial Center, and was in the WTC concourse in the book store just outside of one WT when the 93 bomb went off in the parking garage.

One of my dearest friends worked in 2 WTC on the 90th floor.

I myself used to work in 4 WTC.

So 9/11 isn't miles away from my consciousness or imagination.

I grief for all the loss, and for all your loss.

But it isn't "Muslims" that did it.

As SM (is that S for Seth?) Galbraith is reminding us, it was SOME Muslims that did it.

So let's oppose it by all persuasion, and by all lawful means. But let's be us, and not become them.

Anglelyne said...

Quayle to Youngblood: "The old "Christians did it too" defense really only flies is Middle-Eastern Studies classrooms and in the communiques of Islamic radical organizations."

After my daughter typed, we both wondered here how many post it would take for someone to bring out this old saw.


Perhaps you could point out for us where else this alleged old saw does fly, then.

I'm afraid that sort of recursion doesn't really work as a rhetorical device. You don't turn hackneyed and spurious rhetoric into a sound argument by claiming that noticing your hackneyed and spurious rhetoric is hackneyed and spurious. But I think you know that. You're just churning up dust here.

But let me see if I've got you straight: are you objecting to several commenters' blanket characterizations of Muslims, as distinct from the argument about the chosen CIC site, or are you arguing that there are no legitimate objections to siting the CIC there, and that accusations of so much as a certain crassness and insensitivity in that choice of site are completely unfounded?

I was assuming the former, but after your (or your daughter's) stupid and hysterical comment @6:55, it appears to be the latter. So, you believe that under no circumstances can any Muslims of any kind be guilty of insensitivity in their behaviors toward non-Muslims? 'Cause you (or your daughter) do appear to have worked yourself into that corner.

As SM (is that S for Seth?) Galbraith is reminding us, it was SOME Muslims that did it.

Yeah, and we still don't know what he thinks about Feisal Abdul Rauf, either.

Cedarford said...

AC245 - "Jerusalem: sacred to Christians because it's the birthplace of their Lord.

Jerusalem: sacred to Muslims because after they attacked and conquered the city, they built a mosque on the rubble of one of the city's landmarks."

No, numbnuts, Jeusalem is sacred by the Qu'ran.

==================
Paddy O - "Sarcasm doesn't help your cause (SMG).
Indeed it undermines it because if you cannot show respect for the symbolism and emotions that people like Trooper York feel...."

For 5-6 years, the problem was NYC residents revelled in symbolism and emotions, rather than work on rebuilding and recovery. It just felt too good basking in victimhood, year after year after year demanding billions each outing, and talking about how special NY and its unique hero-victims, and it's "Sacred Holy Spot of the Heroes" was.

Maguro said...

Do I think it is stupid and insensitive to build the center there? Yes. But they have the right to do so. It would seem to me that the side here that is closest to the typical "political correctness" side is the one that would argue that Constitutional rights be abridged ...

No, there is no "Constitutional right" to build a Mosque at that particular site. Good lord, is everything some oppressed group wants a constitutional right now?

For example, the KKK has a constitutional right to free speech, they do not have a constitutional right to build a white supremacist community center next to an MLK memorial. That is a local land use issue, as is the Mosque.

See the difference?

Trooper York said...

What I mean by politically correct bullshit is all the excuse making for the fact that this is a deliberate provocation to stick a finger in the eye of everyone who lost someone in New York. They are trying to stop a mosque in Staten Island. That is wrong as PaddyO has said. Many churchs and convents have turned into mosques. That's fine, demographics have to be served. But this is the wrong place for this project. The city would be perfectly within it's rights to use eminent domain to condemn this site for 10 cents on the dollar. If they can do it for the fucking Nets they can do it to stop this abomination. The fanatics who are bankrolling this provocation have plenty of money. The idea that the people behind this are moderates is total bullshit. Moderates do not stick a finger in the eye of the people they want to find common ground with.

The fact that anyone who is opposing this travesty is called a bigot doesn't impress me in the least. This is an evil and disqusting attempt at sticking it to us. Again.

The real problem is our pussy politicans like Andrew My Boy Cuomo will fold like a cheap suitcase and kiss the ass of these
people who know what they are doing and laughing at us.

SMGalbraith said...

Paddy O - "Sarcasm doesn't help your cause (SMG).

Let's get the comments right, please: That wasn't me who used the Wall Street as shrine comment.

I've respected every person who has given a different view than mine re Islam.

Youngblood said...

Quayle (or Quayle's daughter),

In much the same way that certain specific Muslims were responsible for the September 11th attacks, Faisal Abdul Rauf is the chairman of the Cordoba Initiative and he appears to be the primary mover and shaker on this project.

"The Muslims" aren't building Cordoba House; some Muslims are.

Is it OK to object to the project on those grounds? Or is it (as you and SMGalbraith keep harping on), pure bigotry?

Quayle said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Youngblood said...

SMGalbraith,

You're still refreshing the thread.

I agree that there are good Muslims, and I agree that we must work with them to defeat militant Islamic extremism.

What's your take on Feisal Abdul Rauf? Is he one of the good guys, or what?

Quayle said...

To Angelyne:

1. Muslims have a Constitutional right to freely practice their religion. I'm appalled at how many Americans, who say they love the Constitution, want to trash that principal. What good is a Constitution that protects freedom of religion if only applies to popular religions. It exists expressly and specifically for the unpopular ones.

2. This particular Imam has a legal right, and NYC has no legal right, to build a church where he has purchased land. It is a little thing called RLUIPA - Religious Land Usage and Institutional Persons Act. The city may not legally zone it out.

3. It is unhelpful at best, disgusting at worst, to lump a billion Muslims into the same pot as the radical ones that kill.

4. We claim to be a Christian nation, then let's act like it and turn the other cheek and pray for our enemies. We betray our own faith in the strength of our tenants and theology when we abandon it at first sign of trouble, or fear-monger that we'll be overrun. Why don't we just naturally think that Islam will come up against Christians principals and the Christian principals will prevail?

(Could it be because we don't really believe in them, but we do believe in the strength of our army. And, if so, are we any better than Al Queda on that specific point?)

5. As far as us being stupid or what not, I'm sorry for our shortcomings. We're just trying to find our way. We know you are also.

SMGalbraith said...

What's your take on Feisal Abdul Rauf? Is he one of the good guys, or what?

Sorry, I'm not going to give such a definitive judgment of a person based on one or two comments and 30 minutes on Google.

I need to know more about the man.

From another commenter above he and his supporters seem to wish to use this project in a sort of moral equivalency/multicultural cause where US injustices such as slavery or other acts will be placed alongside 9/11.

That would be unacceptable to me but he has the right to engage in such outrages.

Beyond that, I'm just not going to make any definitive judgments.

Sorry, that sounds like I ducking the question but I'm not.

BTW, I've nowhere expressed my support for or against this construction. Certainly, he has the right (zoning regulations et cetera being satisfied) to build this but there's a difference between the right to do something and the right thing to do.

Just as not all Muslims are bad, not all Muslims are good.

holdfast said...

Elliott A nails it exactly - this cannot be said enough:

If those who wish to build the mosque were kind, thoughtful and moral, they would never consider building in that location.

But for course they aren't - they are from the "yes, but" Muslim demographic - the ones without the stones to actually commit acts of terror, but who provide a safe environment and moral/rhetorical cover for those that do.

As to Quayle and its offspring - how come Islam has no peaceful borders? Christians, Jews, Animists, Hindus, Han Chinese, Filipinos, blacks, whites, browns and yellows - nobody can share a border or a country with a large Muslim group without a fight breaking out - so clearly it is all the fault of 1,000 year dead zombie Crusaders.

Yes, Christianity was an arsehole, conquering religion once (though the Crusades were generally more of a counterattack against the initial conquests of Islam), and so was Judaism back in the biblical times - but really, so what? That's interesting to study in school, but TODAY there is one faith preaching and practicing murder for fun and prophet.

Youngblood said...

SMGalbraith wrote:

"Sorry, that sounds like I ducking the question but I'm not."

I genuinely appreciate your response.

The thing that I'm confused about is that way up at the beginning of the thread you were quite comfortable with making a definitive judgement about the ADL (they are "terribly wrong here"), but you're unable to make the same kind of judgement with respect to Feisal Abdul Rauf, the Cordoba House, or the Cordoba Initiative.

And you were quite happy to set up the "people who oppose this project are anti-Muslim bigots" argument.

You're full of definitive judgements when it comes to opposition to the project, but somehow the project itself and its primary mover and shaker seem to be above definitive judgements. And, frankly, I don't get that.

Quayle said...

"but TODAY there is one faith preaching and practicing murder for fun and prophet."

See, but that's just not true. You'd have to speak Arabic and travel around to the different mosques to know what they are preaching.

The fluent Arabic and Persian speakers will tell you that there is a great and heated debate going on right now inside Islam about what it means to be true to Islam.

And there are many, many sides that reject the violence.

(They claim that the violent one's aren't true Muslims - so why should they have to apologize for violence when they consider the perpetrators excommunicates or outside the bounds of the Muslim religion? Aren't they allowed to say, "yeah, but those aren't true Muslims?", just as we would say it about Timothy McVeigh?)

But, again, you'd have to speak Arabic to know the debate is going on.

Quayle said...

just as we would say it about Timothy McVeigh?....i.e. that he's not a true American patriot?

AC245 said...

(Could it be because we don't really believe in them, but we do believe in the strength of our army. And, if so, are we any better than Al Queda on that specific point?)


I wondered how long it would take the Angry Studies major to drop the "America is just like Al Qaeda!" turd into the thread.

holdfast said...

they claim that the violent one's aren't true Muslims - so why should they have to apologize for violence when they consider the perpetrators excommunicates or outside the bounds of the Muslim religion? Aren't they allowed to say, "yeah, but those aren't true Muslims?"

Except there is no central authority in Islam, so how can anyone be excommunicated?

How about some of these famously moderate Muslims helping to shut down the mosques that are centers for extremism, like some of the more famous ones in the UK? Oh wait, they can't do that because there is no central authority in Islam, and therefore no accountability - and almost perfect deniability.

Anglelyne said...

Quayle: "To Angelyne:"

If you're going to address a comment "to Angelyne", it might be nice if you engaged with what Angelyne wrote, and at least make some effort at correct logical inference therefrom.

I think Jesus would want you to do that. (See, e.g., your point #1, which implies I was making some argument in favor of denying anybody's constitutional rights. I guess you're just very pleased with that bit for some reason, and keep throwing it in regardless of its lack of relation to anything I actually wrote.)


Oh, by the way: We claim to be a Christian nation, then let's act like it and turn the other cheek and pray for our enemies.

For somebody who's claiming to be so punctilious about protecting people's constitutional rights to freedom of religion, you're pretty damned presumptuous in even suggesting that other Americans, whose religious affiliations you do not know, have some kind of obligation to adhere to the tenets of your own faith. (Hey, not that God commissioned you to tell other American Christians how to interpret their faith, either.) Sheesh, who the hell do you think you are?

(Not that the above had squat to do with anything in my comment, either.)

holdfast said...

Not sure what McVeigh has to do with anything - the only thing I shared with him is perhaps a pallid skin tone. Now, you could say that McVeigh had a lot in common with Obama's buddy Bill Ayers, except that Ayers was better educated and McVeigh was way more competent.

Anyway, there are plenty of mainstream Muslims and Muslim groups (and other Democrat sub-groups) who question the culpability of the Islamic 9/11 terrorists. Does anyone outside the complete lunatic fringe question McVeigh's guilt (though I think Nichols got off too easy).

James said...

Part of the reason I think this is just an extremely stupid, misguided attempt at all that "tolerance, multiculturalism, healing" and all that crap instead of a deliberate poke in the eye of all those hurt, is the business side of this.

If that was their goal, I believe a simpler, less expensive mosque/center would have been just as offensive, instead of spending a proposed $100 million (likely to be a lot more), building all the crap like a 500 seat auditorium, performing arts center, fitness center, art gallery, bookstore, etc. I think at this point, it is clear that this is going to lose tons of money. There will probably be endless protests when/if it opens, making even those people who aren't offended think twice about going. If I had to guess, if this even makes it to the construction stage (which, given the possibility of massive financial loss, is an iffy prospect), it would probably fail within a few years time.

I just think that these people somehow did not recognize the reaction this would get.

rhhardin said...

Islam is run like organized crime. The thugs, in the end, rule.

So the peaceful Muslims aren't fighting for peace but laying low. You don't see much denouncing.

You get a few Imams making ambiguous remarks that might be on either side.

The only real action is the laying-low ones who are also informers against thuggery; a dangerous occupation for them.

Certain Western ideas about human rights have not yet entered the conversation.

Hombre said...

Cedarford wrote: No, numbnuts, Jeusalem is sacred by the Qu'ran.

Really. Where, exactly, is Jerusalem mentioned by name in the Koran?

Hombre said...

Quayle wrote: Yeah. That's pretty much what the people told Christ when he said they should no only give a Roman centurion their coats, but also their cloaks.

Will you please stop with the phony Christian bit. Jesus never said that. (See Matthew 5:40.)

Hombre said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
JAL said...

Wow.

I've been busy today.

And so have y'all.

First and foremost: Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf

Goldberg: The organization behind the project, the Cordoba Initiative, is a moderate group interested in advancing cross-cultural understanding. It is very far from being a Wahhabist organization

Right. Why do we just believe whatever junk comes out of people's mouths? Sure, Faisal has been around for 25+ years. But ...

"Cordoba?" "...advancing cross-cultural understanding?"

(Well, yeah, that's a yes ... now more people are googling Cordoba... that's helpful in understanding this foreign culture and it's style.)

Here are some quotes:

From wiki:
Oct 12, 2001 In a 60 Minutes interview shortly after the September 11 attacks Imam Rauf said, "Fanaticism and terrorism have no place in Islam" and went on to say, "I wouldn't say that the United States deserved what happened, but the United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened."

Sept 30, 2001 When the interviewer asked Rauf how he considered the U.S. an accessory, the Imam replied, "Because we have been accessory to a lot of innocent lives dying in the world. In fact, in the most direct sense, Osama bin Laden is made in the USA.

March 2004 The Islamic method of waging war is not to kill innocent civilians. But it was Christians in World War II who bombed civilians in Dresden and Hiroshima, neither of which were military targets.

He also said that there could be little progress in Western-Islamic relations until the U.S. acknowledged backing Middle East dictators and give an "American Culpa" speech to the Muslim world, because there are "an endless supply of angry young Muslim rebels prepared to die for their cause and there [is] no sign of the attacks ending unless there [is] a fundamental change in the world".

(Did President Obama visit his mosque? Read this article? Is that why he made his All American Apology Tour?)

May 26, 2010 Throughout my discussions with contemporary Muslim theologians, it is clear an Islamic state can be established in more than just a single form or mold. It can be established through a kingdom or a democracy. The important issue is to establish the general fundamentals of Sharia that are required to govern. It is known that there are sets of standards that are accepted by [Muslim] scholars to organize the relationships between government and the governed.

When questioned Abdul Rauf continued: Current governments are unjust and do not follow Islamic laws.... New laws were permitted after the death of Muhammad, so long of course that these laws do not contradict the Quran or the Deeds of Muhammad … so they create institutions that assure no conflicts with Sharia.

UndatedSharia, or Islamic law, is designed to 'protect and further life, religion, property, family and mental well-being'

Tell me Muslim scholars -- how many "Muslim" countries, counties, districts, cities -- whatever -- are abandoning Sharia law versus instituting it these days? Mmmm?

Bury the adultresses alive. Beat your women.

Nice.

And yes, currently there is this question:Where In The World is Imam Faisal?

As for "Cordoba" -- Infidels weren't supposed to get the inside joke.

JAL said...

Jerusalem: sacred to Christians because it's the birthplace of their Lord.

Not.

Bethlehem, you pagans.

;-)

JAL said...

I think the deal on the Muslims and Jerusalem, besides being a case of real estate envy, is that the "tradition" is that Abraham was going to sacrifice Ishmael there...

I know, I know...

The Jews obviously got the story wrong ... /s

(For the pagans in the crowd, Araham was going to sacrifice Isaac, his son by his wife, Sarah. The Muslims think it was Ishmael, the son he had with Hagar, Sarah's servant. Long story. Google it. Some people think this whole Middle East mess is a result of that unfortunate coupling.)

JAL said...

@ SMG The Japanese are a nationality; Islam is a religion practiced by more than 1 billion people in over 40 countries.

The Japanese worshipped the emperor. Kind of a bonding thing. Not a good comparison. The Muslim is bound to Allah through Mohammed. The call of the muezzin 5 times a day reminds the devout who their allegiance is to. Political boundaries come and go. The call of the muezzin ... (is memorable according to our president).

@Quayle' daughter Can't anyone here see that from a Muslim perspective, George Bush was a Christian and led a Christian army to the middle east to destroy?

I can't believe you, an educated woman, wrote that. (But I guess the evidence is you did.)

Why did George Bush "lead" a Christian Army to the middle east to destry? (Which George? The one who helped deliver one Muslim Nation from the attack and destruction by another -- with the ok of the UN? Or the second George Bush who was seeking the leader of a violent horrendous attack on the United States?)

{While we're at it, what is the number of Christians and Jews who serve in the armies of the middle eastern / Islamic countries? Mmm? Just askin' as they say.}

@ Quayle's daughter again But it isn't "Muslims" that did it

So who was it? Oh! SOME Muslims .....

Gotcha.

wv calethi
Italian for caliphate mobster

JAL said...

Where's Lem?

I am off to bed. I thought Lem would be watching this ...

Sophie said...

Apologies if someone also posted this, I didn't read through all the comments.

it wasn't Dorothy Parker, it was Dorothy Thompson. Who was a communist, but a lot of good people were in those days (1941). It was called Who Goes Nazi?

It's excellent, and yes, there is a Jew in it very reminiscent of our J-Street types, but I would not put Goldberg in that category. He is a very thoughtful writer and although too Lefty for me, I respect his opinion and I would not tar him with that brush. (I agree with the ADL on the GZ mosque)

Gary Rosen said...

"No, numbnuts, Jeusalem is sacred by the Qu'ran."

Jerusalem is mentioned nowhere in the "Qu'ran". C-fudd lied, Jews died.

Almost Ali said...

Islam is determined to have the last word. And it's up to everyone out here in Pussyland to see that they get it.

JAL said...

Deciding to beat a dead horse for breakfast -- I was wondering about this:

Cordoba Man: It is known that there are sets of standards that are accepted by [Muslim] scholars to organize the relationships between government and the governed.

Yeah, there is a lot of confusion about that these days, even in America.

You see, in America it is supposed to go:

We the People, in order to form a more perfect (but not 'perfect perfect', I might add, WeThePeople knowing that is impossible, really) Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

because the people who started this place -- the United States -- had a distinctly different version the relationship between the government and the governed.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Hisorically, for most of us here pagan, infidel, theist of various stripe, atheist, agnostic, the rights this creator above -- whoever and even if ever -- (or some similar version of him/it) "bestowed" are a lot more appealing and liberating than Sharia law offers.

The sound of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness is sweet in ears and hearts.

And now that more of us are becoming aware that our trust in the government we authorized has been consistently and repeatedly violated, we plan some course corrections.

Sharia law isn't even on the long list.