August 14, 2010

Overstatements of the left and right.

From the left: "Obama Strongly Backs Islam Center Near 9/11 Site."

From the right: "The President Stands with Sharia."

Antidote: here.

87 comments:

ironrailsironweights said...

I enjoy ridiculing people who are afraid of Muslims.

What's the first thing they teach new recruits in Muslim military training academies? How to say "Don't shoot, I surrender!" in 25 different languages.

Did you hear about the new tanks being sold to Muslim armies? In addition to five reverse gears, they have one forward gear ... in case of an attack from the rear.

Peter

Scott said...

It's amusing and a little sad that when you want to cite the view of the right, you quote a small opinion journal.

When you want to cite the view of the left, you quote the nation's newspaper of record.

Michael Haz said...

Althouse, do you believe moderation is the correct approach to take toward a religion that advocates killing homosexuals, stoning women who have been raped, destruction of all art and music, and the practice of female genital mutilation?

The Drill SGT said...

Scott said...
It's amusing and a little sad that when you want to cite the view of the right, you quote a small opinion journal.


Its worth noting 2 thnings about the NRO piece.

1. McCarthy was the NYC Fed to got convictions on the first WTC bombing. He knows the NYC Muslim community well.

2. His piece wasnt about the Mosque, it was about the types of immoderate (from his POV) American Muslims that Obama invited to the WH

ricpic said...

Muslim Americans are the most equal Americans of all.

Didn't AL or HDhouse or Mundane Mundane tell us over and over again that if you're not a New Yorker to butt out on this issue? Well, shouldn't that apply to the prez?

Dead Julius said...

Actually here is a better antidote.

Rialby said...

Althouse - let me ask you a question. Do you think the Prince of Wales stands with Sharia?

Rialby said...

"I enjoy ridiculing people who are afraid of Muslims."

Yeah, all those pussies who ran screaming from two 110 story buildings as they crashed into the streets of America's biggest city are so fun to fuck with.

I suggest you go to Brooklyn, find yourself a firehouse and tell them they're a bunch of weaklings for being afraid of what the next Muhammed Atta is going to do.

Martha said...

We should consider the heartfelt statement of the families most affected by 9/11:

http://www.911familiesforamerica.org/

They are tragically the most distressed by the President's statement.

Rialby said...

"Actually here is a better antidote."

I'm all for demeaning my enemies and laughing in their face. Unfortunately, unlike our own culture which chews up and spits out celebrities faster than Michael Moore with steamed spinach, Islamic culture is BIG on symbolism. This is a hugely symbolic victory for them.

You probably do not care because you think that anything that raises the hackles of Sarah Palin is worthy of supporting.

vet66 said...

I have my doubts the mosque will be built assuming Rauf doesn't own all the land yet and his P.R. victory of raising the hackles of Americans by insulting the memory of the WTC and 9/11. He will use this as an example of the Great Satan's intolerance on his "We Are The World Tour" of muslim countries.

This was predictable from BHO. Anyone remember his display of irreverence when he and McCain visited the reflection pond on the site of the WTC during the Presidential election? McCain was solemn and respectful as he laid the flower on the surface of the water.

By contrast, BHO winged his flower into the pond with nary a second thought and arguably a note of impatience on his countenance. At that moment it became clear to me that he was going to be the Whiner-In-Chief and the "Apology-In-Chief" to the Muslim world. In his heart of hearts I believe he thinks we had it coming.

If they do build the mosque we will have the opportunity to surveil a who's who of radicals using the Cordoba House to celebrate victory and plan their mischief.

Dead Julius said...

and oh, by the way, I love that National Fascist headline...

The President Stands With Sharia

Nevermind that NRO has, ever since 9/11, encouraged the American administration to everything Al-Qaeda wanted. Al-Qaeda wants us to invade Afganistan and get bogged down in an unwinable war? NRO says do it! Al-Qaeda wants us to destroy our freedom in the face of fear? NRO says good riddance to freedom! Al-Qaeda wants our political corruption to overtake the ability of our government to function, thereby crippling it? NRO says go for it, let's make the government bigger, and let's open the money trough to the contractor pigs!

If you take a fresh look at it, you start to get the impression that the National Fascist organization is entirely on Osama bin Laden's side.

ricpic said...

The Prince of Wales is the dimmist dhimmi of them all.

AllenS said...

Seriously, I don't know what to think about the Obamas. Both of them. They are absolutely tone deaf on how their messages/behaviors come across to the country. They just don't seem to care. Do they want to continue this presidency into another term? I don't think so. Another vacation is just around the corner. What is his support amongst other blacks? Is it still 90% positive?

Rialby said...

AllenS...

I believe you are correct. At some point, I think Obama said to himself, "all those other Presidents had to have 8 years to get done what they wanted to do. I am so brilliant and talented, I only need 4. Oh, and I hate having a real job that requires something other than 'organizing the disenfranchised'".

Scott said...

@The Drill Sgt: You're digging a little deep. My only point was that "the nation's newspaper of record" is, politically, not anywhere near the center.

Michael Haz said...

Presume, for a moment, that a cultish fundamentalist Christian church wanted to build a church near ground zero. Or maybe just in your neighborhood.

And presume for a moment that the members of that church believed women should not drive, attend school, see a physician when ill or pregnant, be tortured to death for showing a flash of skin at their ankles or going to the store unattended by a male.

And that the church believed in killing all who didn't share its beliefs, by any means necessary. And believed in forcing 13 year old girls to marry 40 year old men. And denied that laws other than their own beliefs applied to them.

Would you liberals be so tolerant of this "church" as your are of islam? Would you be all warm and happy happy that the president of the US welcomed them to the White House for dinner and supported their plans to open a church?

It is a mystery why those on the left are so tolerant of a religion that espouses everything the left hates. Hate Bush, okay; hate those who hold a philosophy fully contradictory to everything the left believes, suuuure, no problem.

Scott said...

You want cognitive dissonance? How about if the Church of Scientology builds a welcome center there.

wv: smulards

Maguro said...

Not sure where the overstatement is in McCarthy's piece. Dalia Mogahed is indeed a sharia apologist and Obama has chosen to stand with her. Are we all supposed to avert our eyes and not notice?

roesch-voltaire said...

He said they had a right, according to the constitution, to build, but he did not say they should.This puts us on a higher ground than Islam which condemns what it finds objectionable. But if it is to be build, I think the struggle should be to insist that it be open to other voices than Saudi Wahhabism and include Bahai, Sufi and current scholars off the Koran etc.

c3 said...

Allen;
They are absolutely tone deaf on how their messages/behaviors come across to the country.

Yes, my thoughts also (although I'd leave out the "absolutely"). I appreciate the President's Ramamdan dinner. And I appreciate his message of religious freedom; it is a core value of the US. But if he just had a better appreciation of "middle America" and its sensibilities. He doesn't need to pander to them he just needs to modify his speech a bit to not (?inadvertantly) offend them.

My hunch is a large swath of middle America is uncomfortable with the mosque/community center but not adamantly against it. The sign of a great communicator is the ability to speak to a particular audience (in this case prominent American muslims), speak to their concerns AND at the same time consider the wider audience not in the room.

This is just another example of the "clinging to their guns and religion" speech. (And as I write that I understand how ironic or "wingironic" that is.)

c3 said...

our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there’s not evidence of that in their daily lives. You go into some of these cities in Egypt or Pakistan, and like a lot of cities in the Middle East, the jobs aren't there. And each successive dictatorship has said it will make this better and it hasn't. So it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to bombs or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-American sentiment or anti-technology sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

edutcher said...

Since The Zero certainly doesn't stand with the Constitution and is, by birth and early education, a Moslem, NRO may be closer to the truth than we dare think.

ironrailsironweights said...

I enjoy ridiculing people who are afraid of Muslims.

Thus spake one of the crowd most afraid of Moslems.

Scott said...
...

When you want to cite the view of the left, you quote the nation's newspaper of record.

Ann didn't quote the Enquirer.

Fred4Pres said...

If it turns out these mosque promoters are up to no good, the President will eat those words.

Fred4Pres said...

I am against the mosque. But I do believe it is wrong to violate the first or fifth amendment (I was thinking property protections, but due process to) to do so.

It is not wrong to criticize it openly. That is part of the first amendment too. You can debate this thing is wrong.

Michael Haz said...

I enjoy ridiculing people who are afraid of Muslims.

I'm sure Theo Van Gogh would have enjoyed your humor, if he were still alive.

Perhaps Ayan Hirsi Ali will dig your wicked wit.

jr565 said...

Yet again Obama falls on the side of the minority position on yet another issue. He seems to always wind up in the 30% for position as opposed to the 70% again position.
Perhaps there's a misread or disconnnect going on on his part?

fartCloud said...

This is another unforced error. Nobody asked him for comment.

Most people stop making these errors after they leave their first job....oh, wait.

Fred4Pres said...

The Cordoba House reminds me of this POS. That was stopped by public outcry led by victims' families.

Fred4Pres said...

This Cordoba House project is up to no good. Krauthammer is cirrect--why there?

HDHouse said...

Hey all you geography people, the proposed Mosque isn't exactly in the midst of ground zero......

HDHouse said...

c3 said...
" And I appreciate his message of religious freedom; it is a core value of the US. But if he just had a better appreciation of "middle America" and its sensibilities".


Oooops there. It can be a value but first of all in is a "right". You might not like "rights" but they are here and have been here and hopefully will always be here and they apply to everyone equally.

There is no debate about "rights". You can like and dislike some of them all you want but they apply to you and your neighbors equally.

EQUALLY.

Christopher said...

How is "Obama Strongly Backs Islam Center Near 9/11 Site" an overstatement from the left? That's what he did.

Odd post.

wv = kilsin. If only we could.

Fred4Pres said...

Darleen @ PW

and

Dan @ POWIP

traditionalguy said...

To understand the 100 million dollar monumental building for lower Manhattan, one has to learn what a Muslim considers a victory. The victory for a Muslim includes spoil and loot for the rulers, but that is not the Muslims asserted goal. The ONLY goal of Islam is worship of allah. That means you prostrated on your face in the dirt bowing and chanting. Until that happens, you are a legitimate target. Just ignoring the god allah will never suffice. Being good to muslims is also meaningless, because allah hates them. Incidentally allah is a black meteorite in a stone building in Mecca who originally represented the moon god. Mohammed threw out all the other gods represented by various stone and wood idols when he picked allah as his sole god. The prayer rooms in mosques are not for prayer. They are for worship of allah by shouting out chants about his greatness over all other gods, such as the claims of Jesus to be God. The saying of muslims is that 'God has no need of a son". They plan to eliminate Jews first and Christians second, but only after they have eliminated the animists, (animal spirit worshipers) and atheists.

Fred4Pres said...

Muslims are more free in the United States than any Muslim country.

Fred4Pres said...

Krauthammer is right.

sorry for misspellings above, new keyboard.

peter hoh said...

Being good to muslims is also meaningless, because allah hates them.

Another example of what passes for scholarship among the right.

jeff said...

I wonder what the reaction would be should the Phelps family decided to leave Topeka and build their church at this location?

peter hoh said...

Fred @11:37 -- right, and I think that many Muslims are aware of this.

I believe in the power of liberty.

Beth said...

Michael,

Muslim women drive. They attend school. They not only see doctors, they are doctors. They shop and go out in the world alone. They don't all wear veils, much less the full-scale pup tents. Thirteen year old girls can't be made to marry in America. Muslims in America are governed by American laws.

I'm not sure what you're arguing. Are you saying we should expel Muslims from America? Not allow Muslims to worship in America? Certainly we should not allow any incursion of sharia law, but what else? I'm not being facetious, I want to know what you're proposing.

AJ Lynch said...

I think it is accurate and fair to say "Obama strongly backed it". In the video I watched, Obama showed his now-typical arrogance and condescension towards those who disagree with him.

sunsong said...

Obama is pretty late to the party. As he often does, he lectures us.

How hard would it have been for him to say that yes, there is a right to freedom of religion. Yes absolutely, and :

for a religion to show kindness and understanding to others is beautiful ideal as well. And that he is certain all Muslims in America agree with that?

Kansas City said...

Ann is wrong here. Someone can parse the words and argue there are qualifications or escape hatches, but anyone looking at the video will conclude that Obama strongly backs the building of the mosque at the ground zero site. He spoke with force.

peter hoh said...

Sunsong, I am certain that nearly all Christians in America would agree that "for a religion to show kindness and understanding to others is beautiful ideal as well."

That doesn't stop the Phelps clan from protesting at the funerals of soldiers.

Maguro said...

Being good to muslims is also meaningless, because allah hates them.

Another example of what passes for scholarship among the right
.

Tradguy is right. In Islam you're either a believer or a kaffir, there's no special category for unbelievers who are nice to Muslims. It's all laid out in the Koran, which you should probably thumb through before snarking about someone else's "scholarship". It's a very manichean worldview, orders of magnitude less nuanced than Bush's much-derided "with us or against us" comment, but devout Muslims take it very seriously indeed.

edutcher said...

Fred4Pres said...

Muslims are more free in the United States than any Muslim country.

Excellent point and most of them came here to get out from under what the psychos (and their fellow travelers on the Left) would impose here. Most are good Americans, but they need to get out front in the fight against fanaticism.

peter hoh said...

Maguro, it all depends on the meaning of "them."

In the sentence, as written, "them" refers to "Muslims."

Unless words only mean what you want them to mean.

-----

Edutcher: How are American Muslims supposed to "get out front in the fight against fanaticism" if they are all lumped together with the fanatics?

Pastafarian said...

Beth said: "Are you saying we should expel Muslims from America? Not allow Muslims to worship in America?"

Now, you addressed this to Michael Haz, and I'm sure he'll have a good reply, but here's my moron's take:

I'll put this in football terms, since you're a Saints fan: Do you remember that time that Terrell Owens did the celebration on the star in Dallas? I'm no fan of Dallas, but even I sat there in amazement and said "What an asshole -- someone should knock his block off."

That's what this "cultural center" is. It's the jihadists' taunting endzone dance on the graves of our dead. No one here is saying that we should round up Muslims and put them into camps. But we shouldn't allow them to raise a victory flag over Ground Zero.

You'll recall that the second time Owens tried this, a Dallas safety decked him. I don't recall anyone branding that safety a racist.

And freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and property rights are all very important rights, but I think I'll allow those to be suspended for agents of entities against whom we are at war. (And if we're not at war with them, they sure as hell are at war with us, and I'll take them at their word).

sunsong said...

peter hoh,

That doesn't stop the Phelps clan from protesting at the funerals of soldiers

I agree. What I was trying to say was that, instead of lecturing us, Obama could have shown empahy with those who feel it is unkind and lacks understanding to build a Mosque there.

Obama didn't need to lecture us, imo. We *know* about the first amendment. In fact, he could have kept his mouth shut :-) - he is way late in taking a stand on this.

My point isn't that there are no other religious groups who are unkind and don't seem to value understanding. My point is - how hard would it have been for Obama to point out tha - t just because you can do something hurtful - doesn't mean it should be encouraged? Obama could have done that very subtly - imo - without saying what *ought* to be done.

HDHouse said...

AJ Lynch said...
"Obama showed his now-typical arrogance and condescension towards those who disagree with him."

Obama took an oath to defend and protect the constitution of the United States. He is doing just that.

I wish you would take that oath AJ and if you swallow one amendment you have to swallow all of them. You can't be "gun rights" and against freedom of religion...you can not like it but you take all of it or you take none of it.

If you don't like one part of the constitution then work to 1. change it or 2. get out and find someplace else...but this country isn't founded on selective rights...not for one second.

AJ Lynch said...

Too funny Hdhouse. Obama is the one who chooses to defend only those parts of the constitution he likes. The rest he ignores or elects to not enforce.

Btw I thought you left the country and moved to Thailand or was that Downtown Lad? I get the two of you mixed up.

traditionalguy said...

@Peter Hoh...The fact that allah hates muslims is excellent scholarship. Where in the koran does allah ever love anyone? Allah is only a condemning judge of human conduct who punishes the wicked people and only tolerates "good" people who keep every law all of the time.

Anglelyne said...

peter hoh: Edutcher: How are American Muslims supposed to "get out front in the fight against fanaticism" if they are all lumped together with the fanatics?


American Muslims' ability to do anything about fanaticism is dependent on some lumper's opinion of them? People who deplore fanaticism will support fanaticism out of pique toward lumpers? American Muslims, unlike everybody else, can't be expected to make distinctions among members of large groups, or act out of moral conviction rather than merely react emotionally to the opinions of others? (Assuming the obligation to "do something" exists for any given individual going about his life minding his own business.)

You (like Jeffrey Goldberg quoted above) really appear have the most astonishingly condescending, if not downright contemptuous, attitude toward Muslims.

gk1 said...

I just presume the fix is in and Cordoba house will bow out soon. Obama knows this and has a cheap issue to win back his base. I mean, obama never sticks his neck out on principle, there must be an angle.

peter hoh said...

Anglelyne, have I gone out of my way to misrepresent anything you have written?

The effort to lump all Muslims together is a stupid one, in my opinion. Neither I nor Goldberg argued that the lumping will drive moderate Muslims to become fanatics.

Revenant said...

The NYT's article is simply wrong; Obama didn't back the Islamic Center, he backed their right to build it if they wanted to.

The National Review article is accurate but misleading. It refers not to Obama's comments, but to the people who were invited to it. Several of them are sharia supporters.

HDHouse said...

AJ Lynch said...
" Obama .. chooses to defend only those parts of the constitution he likes. The rest he ignores or elects to not enforce."

Oh this is going to be a hoot. Name the parts of the constitution that he has elected not to enforce (and idiot boy, if you say something about immigration please note that he is doing more about it than Bush did or Clinton did or Reagan did - who gave out blanket amnesty if you remember...you do remember Reagan doing that don't you? You don't?) So bright boy, cite the amendment in the constitution that mentions immigration....

Waiting.

Trooper York said...

"HDHouse said...
I wish you would take that oath AJ and if you swallow one amendment you have to swallow all of them. You can't be "gun rights" and against freedom of religion...you can not like it but you take all of it or you take none of it."

This from a man who recently posted on his blog that people who criticize President Obama should be tried for treason. Seriously he said that.

He would treat the First Amendment like his feces ridden Depends and he presumes to lecture us on the Constitution.

Since he is a Hero of the Soviet Union I would expect that hd would side with the religion of peace and those who would destroy our country and the American way of life.

It is no surprise the President Obama would do the same.

AJ Lynch said...

His AG did not prosecute voting rights / NBP idiots in Phila.

The DOJ has been quoted as saying they will not comply with the law to purge voter lists in contradiction to the law because they "seek to add voters not reduce the number of voters".

He has not done his job in securing our borders. Just because prior presidents did not either does not excuse the current president.

And some people claim he has failed to provide his full and certified birth certificate. Heh.

dick said...

When the Muslims speak out against the fanatics then I think we can assume that they are not supporting them. Until then how do you differentiate those who are moderate and not supportive of the fanatics from those who are supportive. Unless they speak out, you really can't know.

Issob Morocco said...

It is not an overstatement to say that such a terribly timed message from a 'suspect' Democratic President, the Party's defacto leader, will do anything positive for his elected followers. They now will be spending the next two weeks explaining the statement back in the districts to folks who don't like what they heard or see from the hard leftists who are ramming this through. Then two weeks after that is the anniversary of the terrorist attack on the U.S.

This issue cuts across the political landscape and the Party leaders know it. Think Andrew Cuomo is feeling breezy right now? Or maybe some of those so called Blue Dog Democrats?

The One is indeed a curious fella, not many outside of Chicago area understand what motivates him. but they are beginning to get a sense of it and when his party abandons him, it is over.

In Sh'Allah, Bukrit Malesch!

AJ Lynch said...

And Obama is trying to obliterate the concept of states rights. He wants to ram every state and every American into his cookie cutter idea of universal dependency on the bountiful but insolvent fed govt.

wv = dectols with boughs of holly

Anglelyne said...

peter hoh: Anglelyne, have I gone out of my way to misrepresent anything you have written?

I apologize if I am misrepresenting your views, but I assure you it is not deliberate. I may have either misunderstand you or have made mistakes in what I thought were rational inferences from your statements.

The effort to lump all Muslims together is a stupid one, in my opinion. Neither I nor Goldberg argued that the lumping will drive moderate Muslims to become fanatics.

So taking care to avoid the stupidity of lumping will "prevent future Ground Zeros" by a mechanism that has nothing to do with anybody being ticked off and radicalized by lumping.

OK, I can almost - almost - see a thought being developed here. People don't necessarily have to be radicalized themselves by outsider attitudes to be alienated by them. One can find lumping stupid for many reasons apart from thinking it will promote terrorism in previously moderate folk.

But the phrase "preventing a Ground Zero" by not lumping implies "causing a Ground Zero" by not refraining from lumping, which implies that the act of lumping must be pushing people to more active sorts of collusion than mere alienated indifference. But if neither you nor Goldberg is implying that anybody is either made a fanatic or pushed out of moderate convictions by "lumping", than how does avoiding lumping "prevent future Ground Zeros"?

Unless you or Goldberg has in mind some other response to non-lumping here that eludes me.


(Here is the Goldberg reference: "One of the ways to prevent future Ground Zeroes is to encourage moderation within Islam, and to treat Muslim moderates differently than we treat Muslim extremists."

I'll leave aside for the moment the question of whether it is not condescending to assume that it is in the power of non-Muslims to control, er, "encourage" Islam - a real religion of real people with real beliefs, not a set of reactions to external stimuli - in the direction preferred by non-Muslims, to their own "moral and strategic" ends.)

peter hoh said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Palladian said...

"It is a mystery why those on the left are so tolerant of a religion that espouses everything the left hates."

Because the enemy of the left's enemy is their friend. The enemy, in this case, being America.

Also, lefties get tingly when they have an exotic "other" to champion. It makes them feel good about themselves, and superior to "average Americans". And those are the two things that really matter.

peter hoh said...

Anglelyne, if we ostracize American Muslims -- and all other moderate Muslims -- we will help create more radicals. Not immediately -- but over time, and we will make it harder to prevent the radicals from doing us harm.

That's not the same as arguing that pissing off moderates will turn them into radicals.

Constructive engagement works.

IIRC, the UK liquid explosive plot was foiled when relatives of the accused told authorities of their suspicions. The underwear bomber's father warned authorities about the threat his son posed.

America's Politico said...

This is a non-issue. Obama/Biden will *easily win* in 2012. Don't waste your time and energy and money. One can build a Church every where. So, let us support this center.

c3 said...

Peter;
That doesn't stop the Phelps clan from protesting at the funerals of soldiers.

I hope you can appreciate that Phelps church fewer than 100 members. I have not heard any Christian condone or excuse Phelps. So to suggests he's the "Christian" equivalent of any of the radical muslims groups is a stretch.

Don't get me wrong, I do believe that Islam needs to grow and strengthen it moderates. And so in one sense that's why I find this mosque/community center ironic. The outreach needs to be within Islam not to the US. They are living proof of the religious tolerance in America.

Palladian said...

"This is a non-issue. Obama/Biden will *easily win* in 2012. Don't waste your time and energy and money."

Yeah! Uh, don't even bother voting! The win is assured, إن شاء الله! Forget about even opposing it! Just stay at home and keep sending those tax checks.

Oh, and since that win is so super-duper assured, support the Cordoba/September 11th Victory Center and Mosque, إن شاء الله

Palladian said...

الموت لامريكا

إن شاء الله

اعادة انتخاب باراك أوباما

Anglelyne said...

peter hoh: Anglelyne, if we ostracize American Muslims -- and all other moderate Muslims -- we will help create more radicals. Not immediately -- but over time, and we will make it harder to prevent the radicals from doing us harm.

That's not the same as arguing that pissing off moderates will turn them into radicals.


You're just quibbling about phrasing now. "Ostracizing American Muslims will help create more radicals which is absolutely nothing at all like saying that pissing off moderates will turn them into radicals. How dare you so misrepresent my statements!"

Oh good grief. One gets the impression that you're a bit unsure with your own opinions or maybe a little bit embarrassed, so you don't want to think them through too carefully, and so distract yourself from thinking with little quibbles about paraphrasing. (Hint: Being reduced to the Phelps defense is also a diagnostic of having lost your way.)

Constructive engagement works.

Now think about this, peter. "Constructive engagement" is a term that used be restricted to foreign policy and long-term diplomatic strategies. Something has gone deeply screwy if Americans - citizens and law enforcement - are being told that they must "constructively engage" a specific subset of Americans, and be careful not to ostracize, criticize, or disapprove of them in any way, or else they might blow you up. Which would make perfect sense if we were talking about Americans rattling around in a foreign country among foreigners

Well, this is my ranch, bud, and if these people are my fellow Americans, I goddamned well ought to be able to tell them I think their mosque project is a provocation, or in very poor taste, or wonder out loud if it's funded by jerks, without having to worry about "constructively engaging" my fellow citizens as if they were hostile foreigners instead of goddamned fellow citizens whom I can trust not to blow me up if they don't like what I have to say.

Good God. Will you listen to yourself?


IIRC, the UK liquid explosive plot was foiled when relatives of the accused told authorities of their suspicions. The underwear bomber's father warned authorities about the threat his son posed.

Yeah, the UK. Now there's a model. I guess if only the bloody natives weren't such dreadful ostracizers of Islam, they probably never would have had to call for Constructive Engagement in the first place.

Peter, are you sure you aren't really taking a virtuoso turn here to show Tidy Righty how it's really done?

Ritmo Brasileiro said...

Rialby regales us with a sadly unsurprising look into his racism:

"I enjoy ridiculing people who are afraid of Muslims."

Yeah, all those pussies who ran screaming from two 110 story buildings as they crashed into the streets of America's biggest city are so fun to fuck with.


You know. Because it wasn't the whole crashing airplanes into buildings and killing thousands of people that matters so much as the fact that they followed a guy who wears a turban.

You guys are all nuts. But it's good to know that your fear of one religion is greater than your respect for the core American values of religious liberty for all who live here and their right to do with private property what they wish.

The right has offered itself up to become willing hostages to the jihadist desire to shake America of its purpose in the world.

Nice going, guys. Keep up the stupid and keep encouraging America to shirk from its responsibilities to its people and to civilization.

Ritmo Brasileiro said...

"It is a mystery why those on the left are so tolerant of a religion that espouses everything the left hates."

I'm sure Palladian will find a way to confuse tolerance of a religion with tolerance of an American's right to practice and believe that religion.

Because the enemy of the left's enemy is their friend. The enemy, in this case, being America.

All right! There. He did it. He confused a religion with the people who follow that religion. Awesome.

Also, lefties get tingly when they have an exotic "other" to champion. It makes them feel good about themselves, and superior to "average Americans". And those are the two things that really matter.

Surely empires have gone more wrong by tolerating xenophobia, but he has yet to get around to absorbing that little lesson from the history of Western civilization.

Sixty Grit said...

America's politico - if you really want to pass yourself off as "American" you should learn to write using English. No idea where you are originally from, but it's not the U.S.

Scott said...

Alinsky's Rules for Radicals, #4:

"Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity."

The people of the United States are militant Islam's enemy. The rule at play is the First Amendment.

No matter what happens, Islam wins. Oh well.

Michael Haz said...

Beth,

You have heard of the honor killings in America, right?

Don't be deceived. There aren't two forms of Islam, a horrible one for overseas and a nice cuddly one for the US. It's all the same; it comes from the same book. Islam does not have orthodox and reformed sects.

I am amazed by your tolerance of Islam. Do you not know, surely you must know, what Islamists do to gays and lesbians?

Wahhabist teaching does not stop at water's edge. It is well funded in America, especially in private schools and in mosques.

Beth said...

Michael, I don't tolerate honor killings. They should be prosecuted - like all murders, and forms of domestic violence. Muslim women in America have all the rights of any woman in America, and our institutions should enforce those rights.

We also ensure that people aren't subject to religious practices that violate our laws. We intervene when religious rites threaten the lives of minor children, for example. We don't allow forced marriages. We don't allow the execution of gays and lesbians. You know that. And Islamic people live here, and have for generations, without doing any of those things, despite your assertion that all Muslims hold the same radical beliefs.


We have freedom of religion in America, so yes, we all tolerate the existence of different faiths. What are you proposing we do otherwise? You haven't answered that question.

What are you proposing? I have asked that already, but you didn't answer.

Beth said...

Michael, I didn't mean to ask that twice in the end of that post - bad editing.

peter hoh said...

Anglelyne, yes, I am thinking aloud. And yes, my use of constructive engagement was completely ignorant of the background of the term.

You would make a good editor.

Perhaps it would have been more helpful had I specified that I was talking about a generational shift when I talked about creating more radicals.

Indeed, the U.K. and the rest of Europe offer a model in which Muslim immigrants often found themselves separated from the mainstream. Disengaged youth are ripe for someone to come along and radicalize them.

I'm not prepared to blame bigotry -- from what I've read, it's partly due to different economic systems and other structural realities in Europe. There are other factors, too. Indeed, it may be that the Europeans were too tolerant -- creating few incentives for these immigrants to assimilate.

Historically, Muslim immigration to the U.S. has been rather small, and a large percentage were university-educated professionals. I'm not sure that European immigration followed that same pattern.

I also recognize that someone who grew up in parts of Michigan might see things differently. Where I grew up, Muslim immigrants were few and far between, and very much assimilated into the mainstream culture.

------

Yes, you have every right to say that you are offended by the plan to build a mosque in this location. You have every right to ask that the leaders of this project reconsider the location. And you have every right to demand more financial transparency.

And I get to ask if there's some acceptable boundary around Ground Zero, given that I've never heard a peep of objection to the strip club that's 3 blocks away.

And I get to call bullshit on this idea that the mosque is being favored over the Greek Orthodox church.

And I get to object when some opponents of this plan make sweeping claims about all Muslims.

And you get to object when I say something stupid.

I'm good with that.

peter hoh said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Beth said...

peter at 9:53 - overall a good summary.

Anglelyne said...

peter hoh: Yes, you have every right to say that you are offended by the plan to build a mosque in this location.

I, personally, am not "offended" by any of this. I'm way too old and cynical for that.

Paco Wové said...

"I've never heard a peep of objection to the strip club that's 3 blocks away."

And we all know about the carnage visited upon American soil by terrorist strippers.

Paco Wové said...

I'm not saying that all strippers are terrorists, of course. Most just want to live their lives, lap-dancing in peace, like the rest of us.

HDHouse said...

@Trooper....yes I did but in the context of those who compare or make the President out to be Hitler...you knew it was of a broader context.

Don't pull the typical republican tricks here. pls.

peter hoh said...

Paco, if the whole neighborhood is "hallowed ground," then there ought to be some objection to the strip clubs.

And besides, (tongue in cheek) iirc, didn't the 9-11 terrorists spend a lot of time in strip clubs leading up to the attack?

Heck, I bet Atta, et al, spent more time in strip clubs than they did in mosques in the year leading up to the attack.