Dit onderwerp is gemarkeerd als "slapend"—het laatste bericht is van meer dan 90 dagen geleden. Je kan het activeren door een een bericht toe te voegen.
2DeusExLibrus
We need to get over ourselves. Anybody with brains should be able to figure out by now that muslim=/=terrorist. There are thousands of Muslims in America right now. If all muslims are terrorists as Islamophobes seem to insist, why have we not seen terrorist attacks within American borders skyrocket?
3eley
>2 DeusExLibrus:
That statement rings true to my very core, and as melodramatic as that might sound, I mean it.
That statement rings true to my very core, and as melodramatic as that might sound, I mean it.
4codyed
If the United States is in a protracted war with Islam in general, then it may be reasonable to prohibit a Muslim house of worship from being built on the site of destroyed World Trade Center towers. Building a mosque there would be like building a mosque in Malbork circa 1250.
Since we are not in a protracted war with Islam in general, rather, as some claim, we are at war with radical or fundamentalist Islam, I would be curious for any reasons given for why a mosque built by non-fundamentalist Muslims on the site of the former World Trade Center should be prohibited.
Since we are not in a protracted war with Islam in general, rather, as some claim, we are at war with radical or fundamentalist Islam, I would be curious for any reasons given for why a mosque built by non-fundamentalist Muslims on the site of the former World Trade Center should be prohibited.
5eley
>4 codyed:
Thank you! It doesn't make any sense and it shouldn't be happening. Mayor Bloomberg is right;
"Islamophobia" is spreading. The opposers to the mosque are acting like it's a nuclear power plant. I guess you've already answered the question of why people are upset at the idea of a mosque for Islamic people, specifically, yet it makes me feel sad for Daisy Khan and her husband. It's like coming from a worldwidely exposed family of murderers-everyone thinks you're one,too.
Thank you! It doesn't make any sense and it shouldn't be happening. Mayor Bloomberg is right;
"Islamophobia" is spreading. The opposers to the mosque are acting like it's a nuclear power plant. I guess you've already answered the question of why people are upset at the idea of a mosque for Islamic people, specifically, yet it makes me feel sad for Daisy Khan and her husband. It's like coming from a worldwidely exposed family of murderers-everyone thinks you're one,too.
6OldSarge
If the "church" of Scientology was allowed at Ground Zero, then a mosque can damn well be established in downtown Manhattan.
I'm a born and bred Noo Yawkuh and so sick of the 9/11 survivors/relatives who think they're sacred cows whose opinions are the final word.
It's called the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Guaranteed to all.
I'm a born and bred Noo Yawkuh and so sick of the 9/11 survivors/relatives who think they're sacred cows whose opinions are the final word.
It's called the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Guaranteed to all.
8Jesse_wiedinmyer
Sarah Palin disagrees.
9theoria
As long as it isn't a Frank Gehry design, no problem.
As for Palin, she's partial to witch doctors.
As for Palin, she's partial to witch doctors.
10Lunar
I'm issuing a fatwah on the dolt who thought that Sarah Palin's twitter message against muslim property rights bears any semblance to a news blurb.
11codyed
>9 theoria: Eeeek! We agree on something!
12timspalding
I think there are two questions here.
The first is the legal one—should people be able to stop a mosque, or any other religious structure, for content reasons? (I say content reasons as opposed to, say, possibly neutral reasons, like whether the structure is too high or will strain parking too much.)* On those grounds, it's pretty clear a mosque should be allowed, and if it weren't the argument would be about boring little details of zoning in New York—hardly the stuff Palin should be getting into.
The other is one of taste. I haven't looked into the motives enough here, and I suspect if I tried it would be a morass of claims and counter-claims, but it seems the people who want the mosque are attempting to tie it in some public way to ground zero itself. That is t they're not merely interested in the modest goal of providing a place for observant muslims to pray in contemplation of such a horror. Rather, it seems to me there's an element of wanting to glom onto and leverage the meaning and significance of the place, to assert the value of their religion to others. This I find vaguely distasteful, very much like handing out religious literature outside of a funeral—even if well-intentioned, it's tacky. You're leveraging the emotional charge of a terrible event in an icky way.
I should add that I would find this equally distasteful if the Scientologists opened a 9/11 Center near ground zero, atheists a "Center for the Contemplation of How Religion Caused 9/11," or—to give my own beliefs—a big Catholic center was newly planted, offering the "Catholic take" on 9/11.
I think it's fairly interesting that the direct neighborhood had only one church before, St. Nicholas, a tiny Orthodox church completely obliterated by the fall of the south tower. Despite being directly involved in the attacks, with regular visitors dying during it, as well as holding land key to any future rebuilding plans, the church is apparently willing to give up their land and move four blocks away—farther than the proposed mosque.
So, to repeat, nobody should stop anyone from building any otherwise zone-conforming religious building at ground zero. That would certainly be illegal, and the politicians who advocate for that are doing something profoundly unamerican. That doesn't building one is the right thing to do.
*FWIW, I take a very dim view of these rationales too, as they are frequently used non-neutrally. Besides, I don't want the government to have the sort of control that would allow them to veto any place where people assemble--whether it's a mosque or a atheists debating society.
The first is the legal one—should people be able to stop a mosque, or any other religious structure, for content reasons? (I say content reasons as opposed to, say, possibly neutral reasons, like whether the structure is too high or will strain parking too much.)* On those grounds, it's pretty clear a mosque should be allowed, and if it weren't the argument would be about boring little details of zoning in New York—hardly the stuff Palin should be getting into.
The other is one of taste. I haven't looked into the motives enough here, and I suspect if I tried it would be a morass of claims and counter-claims, but it seems the people who want the mosque are attempting to tie it in some public way to ground zero itself. That is t they're not merely interested in the modest goal of providing a place for observant muslims to pray in contemplation of such a horror. Rather, it seems to me there's an element of wanting to glom onto and leverage the meaning and significance of the place, to assert the value of their religion to others. This I find vaguely distasteful, very much like handing out religious literature outside of a funeral—even if well-intentioned, it's tacky. You're leveraging the emotional charge of a terrible event in an icky way.
I should add that I would find this equally distasteful if the Scientologists opened a 9/11 Center near ground zero, atheists a "Center for the Contemplation of How Religion Caused 9/11," or—to give my own beliefs—a big Catholic center was newly planted, offering the "Catholic take" on 9/11.
I think it's fairly interesting that the direct neighborhood had only one church before, St. Nicholas, a tiny Orthodox church completely obliterated by the fall of the south tower. Despite being directly involved in the attacks, with regular visitors dying during it, as well as holding land key to any future rebuilding plans, the church is apparently willing to give up their land and move four blocks away—farther than the proposed mosque.
So, to repeat, nobody should stop anyone from building any otherwise zone-conforming religious building at ground zero. That would certainly be illegal, and the politicians who advocate for that are doing something profoundly unamerican. That doesn't building one is the right thing to do.
*FWIW, I take a very dim view of these rationales too, as they are frequently used non-neutrally. Besides, I don't want the government to have the sort of control that would allow them to veto any place where people assemble--whether it's a mosque or a atheists debating society.
13Jesse_wiedinmyer
You're leveraging the emotional charge of a terrible event in an icky way.
Sums up about the past, what, ten years of U.S. government to me pretty succinctly.
Sums up about the past, what, ten years of U.S. government to me pretty succinctly.
14krolik
>12 timspalding:, 13
Yes, the leveraging is a key and very disagreeable aspect done by people all over the place, but most destructively by U.S. policy makers. 9/11 has become a miniature founding myth, a poor man's manifest destiny or whatever.
Nice use of "glom", though...
Yes, the leveraging is a key and very disagreeable aspect done by people all over the place, but most destructively by U.S. policy makers. 9/11 has become a miniature founding myth, a poor man's manifest destiny or whatever.
Nice use of "glom", though...
15timspalding
I think the left gloms onto the meaning of 9/11 as much as the right. I guess I feel that sort of spin—which is natural and to a degree, healthy—should not intrude upon the site itself. Thus, I don't think people should either protest or support US foreign policy next to and therefore leveraging the place where 3,000 people were burned or crushed, with none but the hijackers having any idea why.
16Essa
You're leveraging the emotional charge of a terrible event in an icky way.
Yes, but it seems (to me) that part of Abdul Rauf, et al.'s goal may be to use the leveraging to send a message to other Muslims, particularly the radicalist type who engaged in acts such as 9/11. I.e. "We are Muslims, we are Americans, and there is no conflict between the two. In America, you can be a good Muslim. Also, we're not violent like you, and we don't condone your violence or your views."
Of course, the anti-Muslim pundits say that Feisal Abdul Rauf and his wife Daisy Khan, despite their pleasant demeanor, upbeat books, and Cordoba Institute, are actually violent jihadists who conceal their true nature behind a mask of niceness and false ecumenicism. But, those pundits say that about every Muslim, so ... {shrug}
Yes, but it seems (to me) that part of Abdul Rauf, et al.'s goal may be to use the leveraging to send a message to other Muslims, particularly the radicalist type who engaged in acts such as 9/11. I.e. "We are Muslims, we are Americans, and there is no conflict between the two. In America, you can be a good Muslim. Also, we're not violent like you, and we don't condone your violence or your views."
Of course, the anti-Muslim pundits say that Feisal Abdul Rauf and his wife Daisy Khan, despite their pleasant demeanor, upbeat books, and Cordoba Institute, are actually violent jihadists who conceal their true nature behind a mask of niceness and false ecumenicism. But, those pundits say that about every Muslim, so ... {shrug}
18krolik
>17 codyed: Grover? Who could make this stuff up? (Well, Pipes...) But step aside, Onion.
19deeannl
I dont mind if they have a mosque a few blocks away but not at ground zero. It offends me and others. It will always be offensive. This was a mass murder due to influence of radical Islam. If they muslims to make peace they will offer to help build a church and memorial there and to teach in their mosque to speak out against jihad murders and protest in the streets for peace.
20timspalding
Again, I think any legal efforts against the mosque are profoundly unamerican, and should be illegal.
I do think, however, on the issue of taste and tact, the situation is not unlike efforts to erect Christian shrines at Auschwitz.
Or, since that situation is more complicated, let's imagine that Christian groups wanted to erect a church very close to the site in Srebrenica where Serbian forces killed and dumped some 8,000 Bosnian Muslims. That would not necessarily involve bad intent—as this too does not (to me) involve bad intent. But it would still be rather tacky.
I do think, however, on the issue of taste and tact, the situation is not unlike efforts to erect Christian shrines at Auschwitz.
Or, since that situation is more complicated, let's imagine that Christian groups wanted to erect a church very close to the site in Srebrenica where Serbian forces killed and dumped some 8,000 Bosnian Muslims. That would not necessarily involve bad intent—as this too does not (to me) involve bad intent. But it would still be rather tacky.
21lilithcat
> 19
If they muslims to make peace they will offer to help build a church and memorial there
Why a church? Jews, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, atheists alike were all killed on 9/11. I ask again, why a church?
If they muslims to make peace they will offer to help build a church and memorial there
Why a church? Jews, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, atheists alike were all killed on 9/11. I ask again, why a church?
22MMcM
The site is, in fact, a couple blocks away.
23deeannl
Because most of the people who died were Christian and received Christian burial services. All peoples are invited to churches as well. Let the memorial which they erect include a dedication to all the represenative religions and peoples and their cultures. The church would be for spiritual needs of the majority religion of Christianity. It is the peaceful religion of the majority of Americans. True Hope is not in man but in God. In God we trust. Remember how many banners of God Bless America there were?
24Essa
> 17 I didn't really have any specific names in mind, but yes, that's the sort of thing I was thinking of when I wrote #16.
> 20 I understand the point about taste; I can also sympathize with what Abdul Rauf et al. may be trying to do.
If three blocks away (from the WTC site) is too close, how far away should such a center be? What are the (literal) boundaries of good taste in this situation?
> 20 I understand the point about taste; I can also sympathize with what Abdul Rauf et al. may be trying to do.
If three blocks away (from the WTC site) is too close, how far away should such a center be? What are the (literal) boundaries of good taste in this situation?
26Jesse_wiedinmyer
Well, given that you just described Islam as an evil ideology, that might count as Islamophobia.
Not sure what in your post is flaggable, though.
Not sure what in your post is flaggable, though.
27Jesse_wiedinmyer
Or mayhap you don't fear evil, you just want to snuggle and cuddle with it.
28Jesse_wiedinmyer
Oh, I get it. Muslims aren't evil if they are Muslims in name only. Or only apparently adherents.
29Jesse_wiedinmyer
I mean, I'm just saying is all.
30Jesse_wiedinmyer
You know, like Muslims aren't evil just so long as they aren't really Muslims.
31theoria
"King Louis also spoke to me of a great assembly of clergy and Jews which had taken place at the monastery of Cluny. There was a poor knight there at the time to whom the abbot had often given bread for the love of God. This knight asked the abbot if he could speak first, and his request was granted, though somewhat grudgingly. So he rose to his feet, and leaned on his crutch, asked to have the most important and most learned rabbi among the Jews brought before him. As soon as the Jew had come, the knight asked him a question. 'May I know, sir,' he said, 'if you believe that the Virgin Mary, who bore our Lord in her body and cradled Him in her arms, was a virgin at the time of His birth, and is in truth the Mother of God?'
The Jew replied that he had no belief in any of those things. Thereupon the knight told the Jew that he had acted like a fool when -- neither believing in the Virgin, nor loving her -- he had set foot in that monastery which was her house. 'And by heaven,' exclaimed the knight, 'I'll make you pay for it!' So he lifted his crutch and struck the Jew such a blow with it near the ear that he knocked him down. Then all the Jews took to flight, and carried their sorely wounded rabbi away with them. Thus the conference ended.
The abbot went up to the knight and told him he had acted most unwisely. The knight retorted that the abbot had been guilty of even greater folly in calling people together for such a conference, because there were many good Christians there who, before the discussion ended, would have gone away with doubts about their own religion through not fully understanding the Jews. 'So I tell you,' said the king, 'that no one, unless he is an expert theologian, should venture to argue with these people. But a layman, whenever he hears the Christian religion abused, should not attempt to defend its tenets, except with his sword, and that he should thrust into the scoundrel's belly, and as far as it will enter.'"
Joinville, "The Life of Saint Louis", in Joinville and Villehardoun: Chronicle of the Crusades, p. 175
The Jew replied that he had no belief in any of those things. Thereupon the knight told the Jew that he had acted like a fool when -- neither believing in the Virgin, nor loving her -- he had set foot in that monastery which was her house. 'And by heaven,' exclaimed the knight, 'I'll make you pay for it!' So he lifted his crutch and struck the Jew such a blow with it near the ear that he knocked him down. Then all the Jews took to flight, and carried their sorely wounded rabbi away with them. Thus the conference ended.
The abbot went up to the knight and told him he had acted most unwisely. The knight retorted that the abbot had been guilty of even greater folly in calling people together for such a conference, because there were many good Christians there who, before the discussion ended, would have gone away with doubts about their own religion through not fully understanding the Jews. 'So I tell you,' said the king, 'that no one, unless he is an expert theologian, should venture to argue with these people. But a layman, whenever he hears the Christian religion abused, should not attempt to defend its tenets, except with his sword, and that he should thrust into the scoundrel's belly, and as far as it will enter.'"
Joinville, "The Life of Saint Louis", in Joinville and Villehardoun: Chronicle of the Crusades, p. 175
33Jesse_wiedinmyer
I believe that's referred to as succinctness.
34Jesse_wiedinmyer
Or whatever.
35Jesse_wiedinmyer
#31
That's so fucking insane, it's brilliant. Given that the story started with a poor Christian knight, I thought that it was going to be a story of charity. This was a story they used to tell of/to themselves?
That's so fucking insane, it's brilliant. Given that the story started with a poor Christian knight, I thought that it was going to be a story of charity. This was a story they used to tell of/to themselves?
36Jesse_wiedinmyer
Oakes, by the way, could you please tell me the thesis point of that bottom half of #25? I can't find one. If there is one, I'd love to hear it. And if this lack of seeing it is due to my idiocy, forgive me for failing to see it.
As far as I can tell, we have a few options...
1) Muslims aren't evil. Islam is. Islam is the philosophy that causes people to fly planes into buildings. The vast majority of people that say they're Muslim don't fly planes into buildings, therefore they're not true Muslims. Hence, all true Muslims are evil. This leads us where? Please tell me.
2) "Muslims" aren't evil. Islam is. Islam is the philosophy that causes people to fly planes into buildings. The vast majority of people that say they're Muslim don't fly planes into buildings, therefore they're not true Muslims. Hence, all true Muslims are evil. This leads us where? Please tell me.
If we posit that the people that ascribe to a religion can not be counted on to adhere to the religion and if we posit that people of that ascribe to a religion may not be "true practictioners" of the religion, than what right have we to judge anyone by the religion they state?
As far as I can tell, we have a few options...
1) Muslims aren't evil. Islam is. Islam is the philosophy that causes people to fly planes into buildings. The vast majority of people that say they're Muslim don't fly planes into buildings, therefore they're not true Muslims. Hence, all true Muslims are evil. This leads us where? Please tell me.
2) "Muslims" aren't evil. Islam is. Islam is the philosophy that causes people to fly planes into buildings. The vast majority of people that say they're Muslim don't fly planes into buildings, therefore they're not true Muslims. Hence, all true Muslims are evil. This leads us where? Please tell me.
If we posit that the people that ascribe to a religion can not be counted on to adhere to the religion and if we posit that people of that ascribe to a religion may not be "true practictioners" of the religion, than what right have we to judge anyone by the religion they state?
37lilithcat
> 23
I waited overnight to respond to your post, because, quite frankly, if I'd responded when I first read it, I'd likely have violated the TOS.
You may find a mosque offensive. I find your insistence that non-Christians bow down to the needs and desires of Christians offensive. Fortunately, in this country, the majority cannot legally force minorities to kowtow to their wishes.
There is, I note, an inconsisteny between your statement that a memorial would "include a dedication to all the representative religions" and that it would "be for the spiritual needs of . . . Christianity." Make up your mind.
All peoples are invited to churches as well.
As they are to mosques and synagogues. I suggest you visit both, and learn something about religions other than your own.
I also dispute your claim that Christianity is, or has historically been, a "peaceful" religion. But that's another subject.
I waited overnight to respond to your post, because, quite frankly, if I'd responded when I first read it, I'd likely have violated the TOS.
You may find a mosque offensive. I find your insistence that non-Christians bow down to the needs and desires of Christians offensive. Fortunately, in this country, the majority cannot legally force minorities to kowtow to their wishes.
There is, I note, an inconsisteny between your statement that a memorial would "include a dedication to all the representative religions" and that it would "be for the spiritual needs of . . . Christianity." Make up your mind.
All peoples are invited to churches as well.
As they are to mosques and synagogues. I suggest you visit both, and learn something about religions other than your own.
I also dispute your claim that Christianity is, or has historically been, a "peaceful" religion. But that's another subject.
38Makifat
We either have freedom of religion in the US or we don't.
I love how our latter day "patriots" are immediately willing to push the founding principles of the country to the gutter whenever something doesn't suit their interests.
I love how our latter day "patriots" are immediately willing to push the founding principles of the country to the gutter whenever something doesn't suit their interests.
39Makifat
Disclaimer: I happen to think Islam is an evil ideology. As with some evil ideologies, many nominal or apparent adherents of it are often among it's greatest victims.
Disclaimer: I happen to believe that a religion that aids and abets child rapists is an evil ideology. And many of its nominal or apparent adherents are among its greatest victims.
Disclaimer: I happen to believe that a religion that aids and abets child rapists is an evil ideology. And many of its nominal or apparent adherents are among its greatest victims.
40StormRaven
Disclaimer: I happen to believe that a religion . . . is an evil ideology. And many of its nominal or apparent adherents are among its greatest victims.
This is where I stand.
This is where I stand.
42Jesse_wiedinmyer
"Well, we can do you blood and love without the rhetoric, and we can do you blood and rhetoric without the love, and we can do you all three concurrent or consecutive. But we can't give you love and rhetoric without the blood. Blood is compulsory. They're all blood, you see."
43alaudacorax
My first thoughts were in sympathy with the Islamic centre. Then I thought about it a bit more.
The article referenced by the OP says that this has been in process 'for a number of years'. Am I right in assuming this idea was first started after 9/11? I mean, it isn't something that's been tied up with whatever planning procedures there may be since before 9/11?
Assuming a post-9/11 conception, I find it a bit difficult to believe that the imam and his wife didn't anticipate the bad feeling this would arouse. That has me scratching my head a bit.
The article referenced by the OP says that this has been in process 'for a number of years'. Am I right in assuming this idea was first started after 9/11? I mean, it isn't something that's been tied up with whatever planning procedures there may be since before 9/11?
Assuming a post-9/11 conception, I find it a bit difficult to believe that the imam and his wife didn't anticipate the bad feeling this would arouse. That has me scratching my head a bit.
44Jesse_wiedinmyer
Assuming a post-9/11 conception, I find it a bit difficult to believe that the imam and his wife didn't anticipate the bad feeling this would arouse. That has me scratching my head a bit.
Mayhap you can offer a justification for the "bad feeling" that arises from this...?
Mayhap you can offer a justification for the "bad feeling" that arises from this...?
45alaudacorax
#44 I don't justify it.
46alaudacorax
#44 On looking at it again, I'm not sure that I understand your post.
Are you asking me to literally justify the antagonism that the article cites? I don't - I merely observe it.
Or are you asking me to justify my assumption that the bad feeling actually exists? I was taking the article to be as truthful as these things usually are (however much that may be).
Perhaps you didn't like my assumption that the imam and Ms Khan must have anticipated some sort of backlash; but, frankly, it beggars believe that they didn't. They'd have to be incredibly naive, otherwise.
But having got that far, I really can't go any further - I did say that it has me scratching my head.
An edit. Just to make one thing clear: in #43, I didn't intend to give the impression that I was first in sympathy with the centre and then turned against it - I was in sympathy, then realised it wasn't as clear-cut as I thought and retreated to neutrality - that is, head-scratching.
Are you asking me to literally justify the antagonism that the article cites? I don't - I merely observe it.
Or are you asking me to justify my assumption that the bad feeling actually exists? I was taking the article to be as truthful as these things usually are (however much that may be).
Perhaps you didn't like my assumption that the imam and Ms Khan must have anticipated some sort of backlash; but, frankly, it beggars believe that they didn't. They'd have to be incredibly naive, otherwise.
But having got that far, I really can't go any further - I did say that it has me scratching my head.
An edit. Just to make one thing clear: in #43, I didn't intend to give the impression that I was first in sympathy with the centre and then turned against it - I was in sympathy, then realised it wasn't as clear-cut as I thought and retreated to neutrality - that is, head-scratching.
48timspalding
if I'd responded when I first read it, I'd likely have violated the TOS
Maybe we should have a waiting period, like hand guns.
Maybe we should have a waiting period, like hand guns.
49theapparatus
I wouldn;t have a problem with a Mosque there.
My concern is reading about this is that it sounds like a lot more than just a Mosque:
http://www.cordobainitiative.org/?q=content/cordoba-house-new-york-city
"a 500-seat auditorium, swimming pool, art exhibition spaces, bookstores, restaurants"
Bloomberg is supporting it. (Forgive me for not giving a link. While I don't have a problem with the mosque, I do have a problem with the host that they choose to host their blog. I'm sure a quick google will find it quick enough for folks.)
My concern is reading about this is that it sounds like a lot more than just a Mosque:
http://www.cordobainitiative.org/?q=content/cordoba-house-new-york-city
"a 500-seat auditorium, swimming pool, art exhibition spaces, bookstores, restaurants"
Bloomberg is supporting it. (Forgive me for not giving a link. While I don't have a problem with the mosque, I do have a problem with the host that they choose to host their blog. I'm sure a quick google will find it quick enough for folks.)
50timspalding
So, what's your objection? If a mosque is bad, isn't a not-mosque okay? :)
51theapparatus
I don't have an objection. I do feel though that it seems more than just a Mosque. Sounds more like a community center.
For example, we have a Jewish Community Center here in Charlotte. It would be like calling that a Temple:
http://www.charlottejcc.org/
I'm also curious to know if there are any other Mosques in the area. I know one of the points raised in support of this was the area was lacking any. Haven't had a chance to see if they was correct or not. We have two libraries here in Charlotte that were built in "undeserved areas" when in actuality both are within a mile of other branches.
For example, we have a Jewish Community Center here in Charlotte. It would be like calling that a Temple:
http://www.charlottejcc.org/
I'm also curious to know if there are any other Mosques in the area. I know one of the points raised in support of this was the area was lacking any. Haven't had a chance to see if they was correct or not. We have two libraries here in Charlotte that were built in "undeserved areas" when in actuality both are within a mile of other branches.
53timspalding
Or whoop-ass.
54jahn
So, how much respect should be shown on earth? In the 1938 Olympics, a lot of non-Nazi participant from different countries gave the Heil Hitler salute, just to show respect for the German head of state, and the Swastika, which was the German national flag. I believe it has to be admitted that the reasons for many to show their respect in this way, would be no different if the 38 Olympics were held somewhere else, for example in… good old Norway (hah, fooled you there!).
If this is admitted as being a reasonable supposition, one may perhaps ask whether respect should not be treated with somewhat less than respect? (All puns intended.) The ignorantly respectful are they really particular in the form of their respect?
Considering good idols and bad in the context of respect, I saw this German television program on the SS, with lots of interviews with those who had served in it. It was claimed there that work in the death camps was not considered a good job by anyone, so that those who volunteered did so as a sacrifice – for Germany, the Arian blood, the Leader, the Nazi ideology, the fallen heroes, whatever, at least something else than merely “please give me the job to satisfy my sadistic selfishness.”
I can’t get rid of the thought that however much this might have been an actual lie in the specific circumstances; there is nothing in my knowledge that stops me from considering it possible that the death camp guards saw themselves as the good boys and girls, the evidentially deserving of the uppermost authority’s favours.
So, thinking so, as I really do, that the elevation of authority, be that father, teacher, boss, king, or god, is not something you choose, but something you let yourself be steered into, in the lack of mental self dependency, and with the door therefore open, so to speak, for any sort of ideology, even an evil suicide-bomb-passenger-plane one - should I still have shown respect for the Christians, Moslems, or US patriots, or believers in contact with dead family at gravesites, who may now be in the close vicinity, aiming to show their respect for the dead and the firemen at Ground Zero, and have avoided this surely provocative contribution? Should I act on my conscience or theirs, and on what reasoning?
If this is admitted as being a reasonable supposition, one may perhaps ask whether respect should not be treated with somewhat less than respect? (All puns intended.) The ignorantly respectful are they really particular in the form of their respect?
Considering good idols and bad in the context of respect, I saw this German television program on the SS, with lots of interviews with those who had served in it. It was claimed there that work in the death camps was not considered a good job by anyone, so that those who volunteered did so as a sacrifice – for Germany, the Arian blood, the Leader, the Nazi ideology, the fallen heroes, whatever, at least something else than merely “please give me the job to satisfy my sadistic selfishness.”
I can’t get rid of the thought that however much this might have been an actual lie in the specific circumstances; there is nothing in my knowledge that stops me from considering it possible that the death camp guards saw themselves as the good boys and girls, the evidentially deserving of the uppermost authority’s favours.
So, thinking so, as I really do, that the elevation of authority, be that father, teacher, boss, king, or god, is not something you choose, but something you let yourself be steered into, in the lack of mental self dependency, and with the door therefore open, so to speak, for any sort of ideology, even an evil suicide-bomb-passenger-plane one - should I still have shown respect for the Christians, Moslems, or US patriots, or believers in contact with dead family at gravesites, who may now be in the close vicinity, aiming to show their respect for the dead and the firemen at Ground Zero, and have avoided this surely provocative contribution? Should I act on my conscience or theirs, and on what reasoning?
56jahn
The maddest delusions are potentially understandable: if words are stringed, some purpose will be behind the sequence. But ability to understand is limited by ones own parameters of value, insofar as one automatically searches for meaning within those parameters, and when others speak outside them, their possible meaning disappears.
A simple example is the claim that you can not not-do something, as for example not elevate an authority. Those who do, who attempts to live according to the demands of someone given authority beyond demonstrated ability in a singular project, must by necessity see in this claim an attempt to replace this authority with another, or else they must move their parameters and become another person.
(Frédéric Bastiat wrote that it would be strange for God to give humans conflicting interests. I’ll say it would be strange for gods to exist without such conflicts - what is the point in having gods for but for preferential treatment?)
I don't know that this is so, I don't say it on behalf of any authority, it is merely the most likely explanation to me.
A simple example is the claim that you can not not-do something, as for example not elevate an authority. Those who do, who attempts to live according to the demands of someone given authority beyond demonstrated ability in a singular project, must by necessity see in this claim an attempt to replace this authority with another, or else they must move their parameters and become another person.
(Frédéric Bastiat wrote that it would be strange for God to give humans conflicting interests. I’ll say it would be strange for gods to exist without such conflicts - what is the point in having gods for but for preferential treatment?)
I don't know that this is so, I don't say it on behalf of any authority, it is merely the most likely explanation to me.
58theapparatus
I see Godwin's law still holds true.
59jjwilson61
I think he doesn't like authorities.
60timspalding
See this Wikipedia passage on the Olympic salute
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympic_symbols#Olympic_salute
I don't know who's right. I had read somewhere an interpretation like that one—that it was the olympic salute, and indeed that they were counterposing it to the Nazi salute—but I don't know.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympic_symbols#Olympic_salute
I don't know who's right. I had read somewhere an interpretation like that one—that it was the olympic salute, and indeed that they were counterposing it to the Nazi salute—but I don't know.
62Makifat
Having taken a gander at the illustration on jahn's profile page, it all now makes perfect sense.
63Essa
To respond to the question in #25 -- I didn't use the term "Islamophobe" and it's not a term I care for too much, so I have no answer on that point.
By "anti-Muslim pundits," I was thinking of folks like Pipes, Spencer, et al., and their followers, who, at least from what I have seen, never have anything good to say about any Muslim. E.g., I can admire Nobel Peace Prize winner Shirin Ebadi even though I don't agree with her religion. And I can respect the attempts at reform by women like Asra Nomani and wish them well, even if, again, I don't hold to their beliefs.
But reading about such people on, say, Spencer's blog years ago, I saw, not tolerance or constructive criticism, but rather a litany of griping and the usual comboxes full of terms like "dumb bitches" and "sand niggers" and so on. I'm sorry, but I don't think terms like "dumb bitches" or "sand niggers" represent any kind of thoughtful discourse.
Some of these folks also harp on the term taqiyya and assert that because of taqiyya, it is impossible to ever really trust anything that any Muslim says or does. To me, that sounds very similar to people who claim that non-theists (like me) are immoral by default, and incapable of ever being good people. And it makes about as much sense as asserting that because of the terrible things done by the Catholic Church hierarchy, we should repudiate all Catholicism generally fear and loathe all individual Catholics (a position with which I would disagree).
As for the charges against Abdul Rauf specifically, I was mainly thinking of a post by conservative and Eastern Orthodox convert Rod "Crunchy Con" Dreher ("Ground Zero mosque imam a closet Islamist?"), whose blog I read regularly, although from what I recall, there are similar charges laid against Abdul Rauf by other bloggers and thinkers. I'm sure a quick Google search will turn up some of those.
Are the charges true? Maybe. I don't know, and have not spent a lot of time on Abdul Rauf aside from two books of his that I have read. If he is as he says, then he's a valuable asset to both the Muslim and the larger communities. If he actually is some sort of "stealth jihadist," then that sucks and he's a reprehensible person. But I don't think that simply being Muslim means that one is automatically also a violent jihadist, and I'm wary of those who think that.
I hope this was clear, and helps to address your question(s).
Edited for clarification (removal of a vague pronoun).
By "anti-Muslim pundits," I was thinking of folks like Pipes, Spencer, et al., and their followers, who, at least from what I have seen, never have anything good to say about any Muslim. E.g., I can admire Nobel Peace Prize winner Shirin Ebadi even though I don't agree with her religion. And I can respect the attempts at reform by women like Asra Nomani and wish them well, even if, again, I don't hold to their beliefs.
But reading about such people on, say, Spencer's blog years ago, I saw, not tolerance or constructive criticism, but rather a litany of griping and the usual comboxes full of terms like "dumb bitches" and "sand niggers" and so on. I'm sorry, but I don't think terms like "dumb bitches" or "sand niggers" represent any kind of thoughtful discourse.
Some of these folks also harp on the term taqiyya and assert that because of taqiyya, it is impossible to ever really trust anything that any Muslim says or does. To me, that sounds very similar to people who claim that non-theists (like me) are immoral by default, and incapable of ever being good people. And it makes about as much sense as asserting that because of the terrible things done by the Catholic Church hierarchy, we should repudiate all Catholicism generally fear and loathe all individual Catholics (a position with which I would disagree).
As for the charges against Abdul Rauf specifically, I was mainly thinking of a post by conservative and Eastern Orthodox convert Rod "Crunchy Con" Dreher ("Ground Zero mosque imam a closet Islamist?"), whose blog I read regularly, although from what I recall, there are similar charges laid against Abdul Rauf by other bloggers and thinkers. I'm sure a quick Google search will turn up some of those.
Are the charges true? Maybe. I don't know, and have not spent a lot of time on Abdul Rauf aside from two books of his that I have read. If he is as he says, then he's a valuable asset to both the Muslim and the larger communities. If he actually is some sort of "stealth jihadist," then that sucks and he's a reprehensible person. But I don't think that simply being Muslim means that one is automatically also a violent jihadist, and I'm wary of those who think that.
I hope this was clear, and helps to address your question(s).
Edited for clarification (removal of a vague pronoun).
66codyed
Daniel Larison:
Anti-jihadists keep making the same errors over and over. Instead of exploiting differences between jihadists and non-jihadists, among different kinds of Islamists, and between different groups of jihadists, anti-jihadists have been perfectly content to roll all of them into a single “Islamofascist” menace. That artificially inflates the strength of actual jihadist enemies by lending credibility to their propaganda, and as a result it makes jihadist causes more appealing. In this case, anti-jihadists are compounding their error by confusing the equivalent of Muslim ecumenists with hard-line Islamists. That is exactly what Gingrich does when he claims that the project is a “a test of the timidity, passivity and historic ignorance of American elites” in the face of demands from aggressive Islamists. It’s not just that anti-jihadists are conflating any and all Muslims together here, but they are vilifying as aggressors some of the least aggressive Muslims around.
67StormRaven
67: Salient points. I think another criticism of Gingrich's stance is that he misreads the conflict between the principles embodied in the U.S. Constitution and the repressive thrological tyranny represented by the Saudi exclusion of Christian churches and Jewish temples from their territory. The difference in the approach outlined in the Constitution and the approach mandated by the Koran is the difference between and ideology that the secure and strong, and an ideology that is weak.
It is the Koran that is weak. If you have to force people to stay by threatening them with death, and have to keep competing viewpoints from your people, then you have simply demonstrated your own weakness and the bankruptcy of your ideology. We should argue that Saudi Arabia (and other Islamic states) should allow sites of worship of competing religions to be built in their country, but if they don't, that should not be an impediment to us applying our own ideals in our nation.
It is the Koran that is weak. If you have to force people to stay by threatening them with death, and have to keep competing viewpoints from your people, then you have simply demonstrated your own weakness and the bankruptcy of your ideology. We should argue that Saudi Arabia (and other Islamic states) should allow sites of worship of competing religions to be built in their country, but if they don't, that should not be an impediment to us applying our own ideals in our nation.
68AsYouKnow_Bob
There's a federal law on the books - the "Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act" (passed back in 2000, under Clinton (of course); see http://www.justice.gov/crt/housing/housing_rluipa2.php )
that says, in part
that says, in part
(1) Equal terms
No government shall impose or implement a land use regulation in a manner that treats a religious assembly or institution on less than equal terms with a nonreligious assembly or institution.
(2) Nondiscrimination
No government shall impose or implement a land use regulation that discriminates against any assembly or institution on the basis of religion or religious denomination.
(3) Exclusions and limits
No government shall impose or implement a land use regulation that—
(A) totally excludes religious assemblies from a jurisdiction; or
(B) unreasonably limits religious assemblies, institutions, or structures within a jurisdiction.
69Jesse_wiedinmyer
Isn't there a federal law about being tacky?
70Makifat
66
Interesting piece.
67
One similarity between Christianity and Islam is that they are both absolutist ideologies. Condemned to death on earth or condemned to hell in an afterlife for transgressions against the faith - same difference. Broadly speaking, both have operated for centuries by utilizing fear as a means of control.
Interesting piece.
67
One similarity between Christianity and Islam is that they are both absolutist ideologies. Condemned to death on earth or condemned to hell in an afterlife for transgressions against the faith - same difference. Broadly speaking, both have operated for centuries by utilizing fear as a means of control.
71jahn
Message 55: theoria
I search for a coherent point and find none.
Message 57: lilithcat
What #55 said.
Message 58: theapparatus
I see Godwin's law still holds true.
Message 59: jjwilson61
I think he doesn't like authorities.
Message 62: Makifat
Having taken a gander at the illustration on jahn's profile page, it all now makes perfect sense.
When asked to consider the necessity of showing respect for something somewhere, I automatically will ask: what is respect? And will, as an anti-authoritarian individualist, consider such questions as: Does it have a homogeneous meaning, or does it change character according to what is respected? If it is at times something bad, can we then get rid of it piecemeal, or is the whole respect syndrome, even at its most innocent, stuck to a common base - as for example the elevation of authority, or the fear of loosing ones connection to the past, and therefore ones continued production of this? Is fear of death the driving force behind respect, and payment for protection what one performs in showing it? And so on.
Of course I know such questioning can be confusing and even provocative to one for whom respect is both indefinable and of great importance. Though even if the possible need for consideration (respect?) on my part because of this is observed, I dont see how I can avoid writing as I think.
The list of posters above are indeed not alone in such reactions as as they here present to my postings. Over at Marieke’s Israeli supporters versus Palestinians supporter thread I just asked whether the two sides not both shared the same difference of opinion, and the ones to be supported were those indifferent to this difference; those prone to let dead bodies lie buried as if it was completely strange families’ bodies. This did not go down well at all. I was likened to a Hitler with Alzheimer’s and asked to go start my own thread.
Here comes the part when you can roll your eyes with absolute certainty of doing so in good company:
The conflict I believe I may have with the whole Pro and Con group, is that I believe that angry disputants support what raises their anger. It can be observed that you don’t scream “thief” when someone makes off with pure trash, or pin medals on someone who finds gold and spends it all on foreign tarts.
You can not in fact make distance to any subject in your mind, or shorten it, because there is no space there. Replacement is the only option for change in our thought world.
Zeno’s paradoxes do not demonstrate a fault with logic (in that there is no thinkable middle stage between contact and its absence), but its faulty use when what is really bodily function, such as separation and establishment of contact, is attempted where there is no space.
In a group identity mind you are surrounded by the defining contrasting group, and have a diaphragmatic mind function – like a tree. If you think you see better alternatives in the periphery, for which you need a separated identity, then you are really in disagreement – and not angry.
I do think so as a radical apriorist, someone with a bit of contempt for the archaeology of knowledge, for searching for life’s fire in the cold ash of history instead of where life appears and decisions are made. But as such I must admit to knowing no stupidity but what is clearly recognisable as my own.
I search for a coherent point and find none.
Message 57: lilithcat
What #55 said.
Message 58: theapparatus
I see Godwin's law still holds true.
Message 59: jjwilson61
I think he doesn't like authorities.
Message 62: Makifat
Having taken a gander at the illustration on jahn's profile page, it all now makes perfect sense.
When asked to consider the necessity of showing respect for something somewhere, I automatically will ask: what is respect? And will, as an anti-authoritarian individualist, consider such questions as: Does it have a homogeneous meaning, or does it change character according to what is respected? If it is at times something bad, can we then get rid of it piecemeal, or is the whole respect syndrome, even at its most innocent, stuck to a common base - as for example the elevation of authority, or the fear of loosing ones connection to the past, and therefore ones continued production of this? Is fear of death the driving force behind respect, and payment for protection what one performs in showing it? And so on.
Of course I know such questioning can be confusing and even provocative to one for whom respect is both indefinable and of great importance. Though even if the possible need for consideration (respect?) on my part because of this is observed, I dont see how I can avoid writing as I think.
The list of posters above are indeed not alone in such reactions as as they here present to my postings. Over at Marieke’s Israeli supporters versus Palestinians supporter thread I just asked whether the two sides not both shared the same difference of opinion, and the ones to be supported were those indifferent to this difference; those prone to let dead bodies lie buried as if it was completely strange families’ bodies. This did not go down well at all. I was likened to a Hitler with Alzheimer’s and asked to go start my own thread.
Here comes the part when you can roll your eyes with absolute certainty of doing so in good company:
The conflict I believe I may have with the whole Pro and Con group, is that I believe that angry disputants support what raises their anger. It can be observed that you don’t scream “thief” when someone makes off with pure trash, or pin medals on someone who finds gold and spends it all on foreign tarts.
You can not in fact make distance to any subject in your mind, or shorten it, because there is no space there. Replacement is the only option for change in our thought world.
Zeno’s paradoxes do not demonstrate a fault with logic (in that there is no thinkable middle stage between contact and its absence), but its faulty use when what is really bodily function, such as separation and establishment of contact, is attempted where there is no space.
In a group identity mind you are surrounded by the defining contrasting group, and have a diaphragmatic mind function – like a tree. If you think you see better alternatives in the periphery, for which you need a separated identity, then you are really in disagreement – and not angry.
I do think so as a radical apriorist, someone with a bit of contempt for the archaeology of knowledge, for searching for life’s fire in the cold ash of history instead of where life appears and decisions are made. But as such I must admit to knowing no stupidity but what is clearly recognisable as my own.
72jahn
Message 60: timspalding
See this Wikipedia passage on the Olympic salute
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympic_symbols#Olympic_salute
I don't know who's right. I had read somewhere an interpretation like that one—that it was the olympic salute, and indeed that they were counterposing it to the Nazi salute—but I don't know.
I actually remembered a passage from one of the English yachtsman Uffa Fox’s books, where he explained his salute of Hitler – it might have been in a pre-war regatta in Germany and not the Olympics – as courteously showing respect for a country’s national leader. I didn’t mean it as more than an example of the show of respect being more or less automatically performed. I vaguely remembered that there had been a discussion of the whole Olympics as a show of respect for Hitler and that many saluted him, and I put it in as such.
I am nowhere near attempting to emulate Stormraven in handling history (that guy is good at that!), it’s just attempts at illustrative examples. But of course they should preferable be certifiable as facts when presented as such. So if the salutes shown that I remembered from photographs were actually Olympic salutes, I’ll apologise. (The argument remains, see above.)
See this Wikipedia passage on the Olympic salute
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympic_symbols#Olympic_salute
I don't know who's right. I had read somewhere an interpretation like that one—that it was the olympic salute, and indeed that they were counterposing it to the Nazi salute—but I don't know.
I actually remembered a passage from one of the English yachtsman Uffa Fox’s books, where he explained his salute of Hitler – it might have been in a pre-war regatta in Germany and not the Olympics – as courteously showing respect for a country’s national leader. I didn’t mean it as more than an example of the show of respect being more or less automatically performed. I vaguely remembered that there had been a discussion of the whole Olympics as a show of respect for Hitler and that many saluted him, and I put it in as such.
I am nowhere near attempting to emulate Stormraven in handling history (that guy is good at that!), it’s just attempts at illustrative examples. But of course they should preferable be certifiable as facts when presented as such. So if the salutes shown that I remembered from photographs were actually Olympic salutes, I’ll apologise. (The argument remains, see above.)
73Makifat
No offense intended, but for some reason I am reminded of this guy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxtN0xxzfsw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxtN0xxzfsw
74timspalding
No government shall impose or implement a land use regulation that discriminates against any assembly or institution on the basis of religion or religious denomination.
It's nice to have it in a law. Presumably the law sets out various edge cases and procedures, but this sentence is basically unnecessary. If the Constitution does anything at all it prevents the government from favoring or disfavoring a particular religion when it comes to building a place of worship.
In general I think Conservatives have a much better claim to being right on Constitutional issues, but this issue, and the proposal in Arizona to deny citizenship to children of illegal immigrants born on US soil, shows some limits to that claim.
It's nice to have it in a law. Presumably the law sets out various edge cases and procedures, but this sentence is basically unnecessary. If the Constitution does anything at all it prevents the government from favoring or disfavoring a particular religion when it comes to building a place of worship.
In general I think Conservatives have a much better claim to being right on Constitutional issues, but this issue, and the proposal in Arizona to deny citizenship to children of illegal immigrants born on US soil, shows some limits to that claim.
75MMcM
> 73
Since this is a book site: Professor Irwin Corey performed (I think that's the right word) the Gravity's Rainbow 1973 National Book Award acceptance speech.
ETA: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-NBPpM--pY
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2005/11/08/books/13scot.html
Since this is a book site: Professor Irwin Corey performed (I think that's the right word) the Gravity's Rainbow 1973 National Book Award acceptance speech.
ETA: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-NBPpM--pY
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2005/11/08/books/13scot.html
76theoria
Makifat,
that reminds me of the "debate" between Chomsky and Foucault, during which Chomsky seems beholden to, and lost in, political jargon. Foucault's subtle putdown of Chomsky ("My approach is far less advanced than Mr Chomsky's") is classic.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WveI_vgmPz8
that reminds me of the "debate" between Chomsky and Foucault, during which Chomsky seems beholden to, and lost in, political jargon. Foucault's subtle putdown of Chomsky ("My approach is far less advanced than Mr Chomsky's") is classic.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WveI_vgmPz8
77AsYouKnow_Bob
#74: In general I think Conservatives have a much better claim to being right on Constitutional issues, but this issue, and the proposal in Arizona to deny citizenship to children of illegal immigrants born on US soil, shows some limits to that claim.
It's interesting how quiet Conservatives have gotten here on the inviolate rights of property owners to dispose of their property as they see fit.
It's interesting how quiet Conservatives have gotten here on the inviolate rights of property owners to dispose of their property as they see fit.
78krolik
>76 theoria:
Thanks, I hadn't seen this one. When Chomsky mentions decentralized free associations, he might be describing himself more accurately than he intends.
Thanks, I hadn't seen this one. When Chomsky mentions decentralized free associations, he might be describing himself more accurately than he intends.
81margd
> 20 I do think, however, on the issue of taste and tact, the situation is not unlike efforts to erect Christian shrines at Auschwitz.
I don't think it's wrong to have a convent outside Auschwitz or to erect a cross when John Paul II came to visit. After all, Christians died there, and even if not so, it is a site of interest to Christians as well as Jews, given sad history. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auschwitz_cross
However, making the Pope's large cross permanent and the landowner subsequently planting a field of crosses (now dismantled) in sight of Auschwitz cell block is not the most tasteful or tactful symbol of Christian support. John Paul II's visit to a Polish community in Detroit area is commemorated by a rough stone monument (in a parking lot!) which the locals bedeck with candles, symbols of prayers rising to heaven. That, or a garden for reflection, meditation, and prayer, might have been a better Auschwitz-choice than a cross, which could be seen as triumphant.
So, too, mosque-planners would be smart to think about the face presented near ground zero--and take pains to ensure that initial good intentions are not undone by those who come later.
I don't think it's wrong to have a convent outside Auschwitz or to erect a cross when John Paul II came to visit. After all, Christians died there, and even if not so, it is a site of interest to Christians as well as Jews, given sad history. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auschwitz_cross
However, making the Pope's large cross permanent and the landowner subsequently planting a field of crosses (now dismantled) in sight of Auschwitz cell block is not the most tasteful or tactful symbol of Christian support. John Paul II's visit to a Polish community in Detroit area is commemorated by a rough stone monument (in a parking lot!) which the locals bedeck with candles, symbols of prayers rising to heaven. That, or a garden for reflection, meditation, and prayer, might have been a better Auschwitz-choice than a cross, which could be seen as triumphant.
So, too, mosque-planners would be smart to think about the face presented near ground zero--and take pains to ensure that initial good intentions are not undone by those who come later.
82timspalding
>81 margd:
Right. These things are rather situational. And, as Seneca said, you can't argue about taste.
Right. These things are rather situational. And, as Seneca said, you can't argue about taste.
83eley
>26 Jesse_wiedinmyer:-30
Jesse, you totally had it right. I mean, seriously. If you look at it OBJECTIVELY, Oakesspalding, you would see only minor discrepancies in the levels of controversy and uniqueness the Muslim religion has compared to others. If you're looking for comedy, the arguments Islamaphobes have to turn us against Muslims are extremely funny.
>36 Jesse_wiedinmyer:
The reason it was totally flagged, is because, the HONEST individuals in this thread cannot let a lie go unpunished, so suck it up.
>45 alaudacorax:
Rankamateur. If your head was itching, perhaps your subconcious was politely offering you an excuse to stop typing and...wash your hair. The reason this innocent, happy couple hadn't anticipated this uproar is because they weren't expecting their religion, which is apparently their livelihood, to be attacked by a bunch of uninformed, blame-hungry, Muslim-hating Americans near the proposed site.
>69 Jesse_wiedinmyer:
No, Jesse. There is no federal law against being tacky; however, I'm sure if there was, most of the country would be in prison.
Jesse, you totally had it right. I mean, seriously. If you look at it OBJECTIVELY, Oakesspalding, you would see only minor discrepancies in the levels of controversy and uniqueness the Muslim religion has compared to others. If you're looking for comedy, the arguments Islamaphobes have to turn us against Muslims are extremely funny.
>36 Jesse_wiedinmyer:
The reason it was totally flagged, is because, the HONEST individuals in this thread cannot let a lie go unpunished, so suck it up.
>45 alaudacorax:
Rankamateur. If your head was itching, perhaps your subconcious was politely offering you an excuse to stop typing and...wash your hair. The reason this innocent, happy couple hadn't anticipated this uproar is because they weren't expecting their religion, which is apparently their livelihood, to be attacked by a bunch of uninformed, blame-hungry, Muslim-hating Americans near the proposed site.
>69 Jesse_wiedinmyer:
No, Jesse. There is no federal law against being tacky; however, I'm sure if there was, most of the country would be in prison.
84torrey23
I agree with your views. I oppose the mosque in princple, but I oppose more vociferously the idea that government can dictate where religious structures can be built, or what religion can build in a certain place. I will never support the mosque being built there, but I wil support there right to build there.
85Jesse_wiedinmyer
The reason it was totally flagged, is because, the HONEST individuals in this thread cannot let a lie go unpunished, so suck it up.
Not a TOS violation, nonetheless.
Not a TOS violation, nonetheless.
86timspalding
Nor was it flagged for very long. Ah, LibraryThing oppresses again.
87alaudacorax
#83 eley,
The whole point of my post was that I was bemused as to why they didn't expect "to be attacked by a bunch of uninformed, blame-hungry, Muslim-hating Americans". Expecting just that seemed to me to be a 'no-brainer'.
As I made clear, I retreated to neutrality on the matter, intending to find out more about the couple in question. As it happened I never got round to it - so I'm still neutral.
By the way, 'uninformed' is an ideal word to describe the decision to make offensive comments on the personal hygiene of someone who is only an online username to you.
The whole point of my post was that I was bemused as to why they didn't expect "to be attacked by a bunch of uninformed, blame-hungry, Muslim-hating Americans". Expecting just that seemed to me to be a 'no-brainer'.
As I made clear, I retreated to neutrality on the matter, intending to find out more about the couple in question. As it happened I never got round to it - so I'm still neutral.
By the way, 'uninformed' is an ideal word to describe the decision to make offensive comments on the personal hygiene of someone who is only an online username to you.
88lilithcat
> 87
To address your original question:
At first glance, their failure to expect these attacks does bespeak a certain naiveté.
On the other hand, they went to the local community board to present their plans (despite the fact that, legally, they didn't need to), and that board and its Financial District committee approved the plans. "Ro Sheffe, chair of the Financial District Committee, reported that there was no opposition from local community members that attended the meeting." (http://www.downtownexpress.com/de_375/contrarytopopular.html)
In that light, their surprise is more understandable, particularly considering the source of the opposition. "According to City Councilmember Margaret Chin, who represents the district, more than 95% of the complaint calls her office receives about the project come from outside the neighborhood, and the vast majority come from out of state." (http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20100725/REAL_ESTATE/100729901)
To address your original question:
At first glance, their failure to expect these attacks does bespeak a certain naiveté.
On the other hand, they went to the local community board to present their plans (despite the fact that, legally, they didn't need to), and that board and its Financial District committee approved the plans. "Ro Sheffe, chair of the Financial District Committee, reported that there was no opposition from local community members that attended the meeting." (http://www.downtownexpress.com/de_375/contrarytopopular.html)
In that light, their surprise is more understandable, particularly considering the source of the opposition. "According to City Councilmember Margaret Chin, who represents the district, more than 95% of the complaint calls her office receives about the project come from outside the neighborhood, and the vast majority come from out of state." (http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20100725/REAL_ESTATE/100729901)
89alaudacorax
#88 lilithcat,
I appreciate the points about the local community's support and about protesters coming from outside the area and, indeed, the state; but the scrutiny of a much wider world was always going to be on the area and will be, probably, for a few generations yet. Given that, groups like eley's 'Muslim-hating Americans' were bound to try to shove into the spotlight.
I have no idea whether the project will lead to greater understanding between Muslims and other Americans or greater antagonism between them, but it seems to me that whatever effects it may have must, surely, take place in a much greater than local context.
Having said that, I'm quite open to arguments that I'm wrong and that the world outside the area will forget all about the project quite quickly. I really have no certainties about all this.
I appreciate the points about the local community's support and about protesters coming from outside the area and, indeed, the state; but the scrutiny of a much wider world was always going to be on the area and will be, probably, for a few generations yet. Given that, groups like eley's 'Muslim-hating Americans' were bound to try to shove into the spotlight.
I have no idea whether the project will lead to greater understanding between Muslims and other Americans or greater antagonism between them, but it seems to me that whatever effects it may have must, surely, take place in a much greater than local context.
Having said that, I'm quite open to arguments that I'm wrong and that the world outside the area will forget all about the project quite quickly. I really have no certainties about all this.
90modalursine
It has been brought to my attention that the mosque at ground zero is not actually a mosque. Its an islamic center which will have, among other things, a room set aside for prayer, much as there might be a chapel or meditation space in, say, a hospital. I suppose its more like a moslem version of a "Y".
Its also not right in or on top of ground zero, its a few blocks away.
Its also not right in or on top of ground zero, its a few blocks away.
91Jesse_wiedinmyer
Yes, and the coalition that is proposing the site is actually predicated on developing interfaith dialog and tolerance.\
The whole point of my post was that I was bemused as to why they didn't expect "to be attacked by a bunch of uninformed, blame-hungry, Muslim-hating Americans"
Mayhap they did. Do you think King's marches displayed a certain naivete?
The whole point of my post was that I was bemused as to why they didn't expect "to be attacked by a bunch of uninformed, blame-hungry, Muslim-hating Americans"
Mayhap they did. Do you think King's marches displayed a certain naivete?
92alaudacorax
#91 Did King express surprise at the antagonism he met?
93DeusExLibrus
>88 lilithcat: One might ask what right people who don't even live in the state have to block such a building? They aren't the ones who will have to live near it and possibly drive by it on a daily basis. I'd understand if it was built on top of ground zero, but that is not and never was the case. We wonder why we are detested by certain people and then we do hypocritical shit like this. Hmm, I wonder...
94timspalding
I don't think it's unexpected in a global context at all. That "community" and political concerns would be relevant in zoning decisions is accepted as completely normal in much of the world. It's the US, with its tradition of private property and absolute religious neutrality that's weird.
Take the Swiss minaret debate, which has been repeated all over Europe, revolved around whether minarets should be banned, not whether the government could ban minarets. In the US, they clearly could not be banned--or rather, their banning would fall under scrutiny over whether it was on religious grounds or not. In the muslim world, of course, Christian religious building is strictly controlled. In Turkey, by far the most moderate of muslim nations, and officially secular, the government has had all Orthodox seminaries closed for decades, and new church building essentially illegal. Turkey now has a single evangelical church, allowed after considerable international pressure.
So, please, let's not speak of a unique American hypocrisy when it comes to religious building.
Take the Swiss minaret debate, which has been repeated all over Europe, revolved around whether minarets should be banned, not whether the government could ban minarets. In the US, they clearly could not be banned--or rather, their banning would fall under scrutiny over whether it was on religious grounds or not. In the muslim world, of course, Christian religious building is strictly controlled. In Turkey, by far the most moderate of muslim nations, and officially secular, the government has had all Orthodox seminaries closed for decades, and new church building essentially illegal. Turkey now has a single evangelical church, allowed after considerable international pressure.
So, please, let's not speak of a unique American hypocrisy when it comes to religious building.
95Jesse_wiedinmyer
So, please, let's not speak of a unique American hypocrisy when it comes to religious building.
I dunno. It would seem to me that half the point of claiming to be better than the rest of the world would be something about being better than them.
I dunno. It would seem to me that half the point of claiming to be better than the rest of the world would be something about being better than them.
96Makifat
94
I think the point is that we (i.e, the United States) claim to possess some unique and enlightened view of "freedom", particularly with respect to ideology and belief, and then we turn around and throw little shit fits when someone actually choses to exercise those freedoms.
I think the point is that we (i.e, the United States) claim to possess some unique and enlightened view of "freedom", particularly with respect to ideology and belief, and then we turn around and throw little shit fits when someone actually choses to exercise those freedoms.
97Makifat
Or to put it another way, if one is inclined to have a fit about the establishment of an Islamic Center in the midst of the most cosmopolitan city in the country, then maybe one ought not be living in the most cosmopolitan city in the country.
98Jesse_wiedinmyer
Yeah, you kind of have to think that part of the point of the whole "American is exceptional" thing would be to actually be an exception to the behavior that everyone else practices, no?
Do 80% of nations believe that they're better drivers than the other nations on the road?
Do 80% of nations believe that they're better drivers than the other nations on the road?
99timspalding
No, I hear your point. But I don't think "We wonder why we are detested by certain people and then we do hypocritical shit like this" is a fair point. Most of the world operates this way. It's not likely that "certain people" (Europeans? Muslims?) detest us because we don't live up to our principles and instead behave just like them.
Nor do we. The mosque is controversial on the far right, but I think most assume it will get built, if the backers stick with it. Any explicitly religious case against it will be viewed very narrowly by US courts. This isn't the case in most countries.
In a way, "they detest us because we're not free but say we are" is the flip side of "they detest us because we're free." Both explanations attract because they don't require understanding how other people think. Instead we project how we feel about the US—we're good, or we're bad, as the politics may be—onto others. Maybe they hate us for reasons that have to do with them and how they see the world, not how we do. As the quote goes, "But enough about me. What do YOU think of me?"
This sort of thinking is a very old tradition. Tacitus wrote about the Germans in just the same way--not as a culture apart from and different from Rome, but as a model of ideal Roman society. There are so many similar examples. Ultimately, it's a very limited, ignorant way of looking at the world, akin to trying to paint someone's portrait by looking at yourself in the mirror and making faces.
Nor do we. The mosque is controversial on the far right, but I think most assume it will get built, if the backers stick with it. Any explicitly religious case against it will be viewed very narrowly by US courts. This isn't the case in most countries.
In a way, "they detest us because we're not free but say we are" is the flip side of "they detest us because we're free." Both explanations attract because they don't require understanding how other people think. Instead we project how we feel about the US—we're good, or we're bad, as the politics may be—onto others. Maybe they hate us for reasons that have to do with them and how they see the world, not how we do. As the quote goes, "But enough about me. What do YOU think of me?"
This sort of thinking is a very old tradition. Tacitus wrote about the Germans in just the same way--not as a culture apart from and different from Rome, but as a model of ideal Roman society. There are so many similar examples. Ultimately, it's a very limited, ignorant way of looking at the world, akin to trying to paint someone's portrait by looking at yourself in the mirror and making faces.
100Jesse_wiedinmyer
The mosque is controversial on the far right,
I'm not sure I agree with that entirely. It seems to be a rather "populist," Fox News type talking point. So I don't think you get to claim that unless you want to claim that Fox is merely a mouthpiece for a certain extreme minority in the U.S. (How does one end a sentence after an abbreviation?)
I think that for a lot of people, the thinking is less that they hate us because we're free, or that they hate us because we're not free, yet claim to be, but rather that we find it understandable that others might find us arrogant and overbearing.
I'm not sure I agree with that entirely. It seems to be a rather "populist," Fox News type talking point. So I don't think you get to claim that unless you want to claim that Fox is merely a mouthpiece for a certain extreme minority in the U.S. (How does one end a sentence after an abbreviation?)
I think that for a lot of people, the thinking is less that they hate us because we're free, or that they hate us because we're not free, yet claim to be, but rather that we find it understandable that others might find us arrogant and overbearing.
101jjwilson61
You don't think that FoxNews is merely a mouthpiece for the far right??
103Jesse_wiedinmyer
Admittedly, the report is about a year or so old, but to say that Fox News has no following except among extremists seems to be less a statement about Fox News and more an insult to its followers. The views espoused through their programs are by no means foreign to the general populace.
104Jesse_wiedinmyer
And admittedly, tuning in to a program doesn't necessarily mean that one agrees with the views espoused, but Fox has a pretty good market share.
105Jesse_wiedinmyer
Although, given Fox's market share, it's kind of funny to listen to them complain about the mainstream media. Given that sort of market share, one would have to say that they pretty much are the mainstream.
106Makifat
Maybe they hate us for reasons that have to do with them and how they see the world, not how we do. As the quote goes, "But enough about me. What do YOU think of me?"
I'm not exactly sure who you're responding to, but my point has nothing to do with how others see us, or how accurate that vision is, but rather the rather cockeyed way we see ourselves.
Still, we do heartily project our ideals and aspirations upon others, along with the deadly assumption that what we want is what they want. (Our misadventures in Iraq and Afghanistan ought to lay that particular myth to rest, but our eternal optimism will no doubt keep it alive until we stumble into the next quagmire.) The gospel of American exceptionalism has been intregral to our self-perception since the beginning. It may be, to use your phrasing, a limited and ignorant way of looking at the world, but I'm afraid we're stuck with it as long as the politicians and evangelists hold sway.
I'm not exactly sure who you're responding to, but my point has nothing to do with how others see us, or how accurate that vision is, but rather the rather cockeyed way we see ourselves.
Still, we do heartily project our ideals and aspirations upon others, along with the deadly assumption that what we want is what they want. (Our misadventures in Iraq and Afghanistan ought to lay that particular myth to rest, but our eternal optimism will no doubt keep it alive until we stumble into the next quagmire.) The gospel of American exceptionalism has been intregral to our self-perception since the beginning. It may be, to use your phrasing, a limited and ignorant way of looking at the world, but I'm afraid we're stuck with it as long as the politicians and evangelists hold sway.
108Jesse_wiedinmyer
No, not LibaryThing, and not "oppresses". I said LibraryThing Talk—at least in certain groups—is toxic
1) Uhhh, I don't believe that comment was even remotely thrown in your direction. I'm guessing that Tim was referencing the thread where someone recently suggested that LT admin recuse themselves from all discussion. But if you'd like to believe everything is about you...
Mayhap you'd like to add this to the list of slights you keep.
1) Uhhh, I don't believe that comment was even remotely thrown in your direction. I'm guessing that Tim was referencing the thread where someone recently suggested that LT admin recuse themselves from all discussion. But if you'd like to believe everything is about you...
Mayhap you'd like to add this to the list of slights you keep.
109Jesse_wiedinmyer
And I can’t resist. A lie is conventionally defined as making a knowingly and intentionally false statement. So is the poster claiming that I know that Islam is not evil but I’m saying it anyway? Or is the “lie” that I know that I don’t even believe myself that Islam is evil, but I’m saying it anyway?
2) To tell you the truth, brother, I'm still trying to figure out what the fuck you were getting at in the post that my ten posts followed. I'm not sure you know either. If you do, feel free to elucidate.
2) To tell you the truth, brother, I'm still trying to figure out what the fuck you were getting at in the post that my ten posts followed. I'm not sure you know either. If you do, feel free to elucidate.
110Jesse_wiedinmyer
Against this, it is poignant and a bit sad to click to the Profile of said poster >19 deeannl:/>23 deeannl: and find that she is quite enthusiastic about the site. Her admirable and genuine enthusiasm about the site as a whole is quite laudable, just as the rude treatment contained in said posts reacting to her post is very sad. I'm sorry she had to come to Pro and Con. Ten to one she won't be back.
3) It's not the poster's enthusiasm for the site that was at question, unless you'd like to work out some pun conflating site (LibraryThing) and site (proposed placement of a new mosque).
3) It's not the poster's enthusiasm for the site that was at question, unless you'd like to work out some pun conflating site (LibraryThing) and site (proposed placement of a new mosque).
111Jesse_wiedinmyer
Really? No one knows why? (Even Bin Laden?) Okay, so I guess, by logical inference >15 timspalding: has no idea why those people were murdered. It was an inscrutable man-caused disaster, or whatever. And the men who caused it are now dead, so that poster, at least will never know. Fair enough. But >19 deeannl:/>23 deeannl: claimed to know why:
This was a mass murder due to influence of radical Islam.
This is an uncontroversial statement that would be endorsed by virtually any sane and honest person, or at least, by any sane and honest person not under the influence of a bizarre form of political correctness, regardless of their feelings about Muslims or Islam in general. But it would appear to be heresy on this thread:
Looks like my
4) &
5) get to go together.
The distinction between Islam and Radical Islam is one that you very rarely make. When you do, you seem to pay it mere lip service. In the original post that I took issue with, you stated that Islam itself was an evil ideology. And you then went on to state that you were sure that there were many "nominal" or "apparent" adherents of the religion who were victims of the ideology. In your conception in the original post, there is no differentiation between Islam and "Radical Islam". Islam, itself, is evil.
This was a mass murder due to influence of radical Islam.
This is an uncontroversial statement that would be endorsed by virtually any sane and honest person, or at least, by any sane and honest person not under the influence of a bizarre form of political correctness, regardless of their feelings about Muslims or Islam in general. But it would appear to be heresy on this thread:
Looks like my
4) &
5) get to go together.
The distinction between Islam and Radical Islam is one that you very rarely make. When you do, you seem to pay it mere lip service. In the original post that I took issue with, you stated that Islam itself was an evil ideology. And you then went on to state that you were sure that there were many "nominal" or "apparent" adherents of the religion who were victims of the ideology. In your conception in the original post, there is no differentiation between Islam and "Radical Islam". Islam, itself, is evil.
112Jesse_wiedinmyer
In conclusion, and I suppose unsurprisingly, I have to express my contempt for the view that “tolerance” or “diversity” consists in sitting around snickering in unison about how they or others are all so intolerant. We’re not, of course (so goes the view). We’re different. We’re so much better. And if one of them actually has the temerity to try to give their own view, then
6) Mayhap if you spent less time giving your own view, and preening about how others are evil, people would think you less intolerant.
6) Mayhap if you spent less time giving your own view, and preening about how others are evil, people would think you less intolerant.
113Jesse_wiedinmyer
According to polls, the Mosque is opposed by as solid majority of Americans, as well as the majority of New Yorkers (though, a slight majority of those in Manhattan do not oppose it). (Sources: google “mosque at ground zero poll”.) Now, I’m always skeptical of these sorts of polls--it depends what is meant by “oppose”, many do not understand where exactly the mosque complex will be built, and under whose auspices, etc. But at a minimum, it is pretty clear that it is a stretch to say that it is merely an issue of the “far right”. (I would say the same, by the way, about the opposite claim that the mosque is “supported” by the “far left”, or whatever.)
7) Seeing how I spent a good chunk of time preceding the post you just made arguing that opposition to the mosque isn't a "far right" view, I have to think this rather redundant. Doesn't mean I think the opposition is any less asinine.
7) Seeing how I spent a good chunk of time preceding the post you just made arguing that opposition to the mosque isn't a "far right" view, I have to think this rather redundant. Doesn't mean I think the opposition is any less asinine.
114Jesse_wiedinmyer
8)
I forget what 8 was for...
I forget what 8 was for...
115Jesse_wiedinmyer
(Or whoop-ass!!!!)
9) Or whatever...
9) Or whatever...
117Jesse_wiedinmyer
10) It just wouldn't have been the same sort of trolling if I couldn't respond with 10 posts. 10 is for everything, everything, everything...
118Jesse_wiedinmyer
It is not an act of hatred against Muslims to point out the depredations of jihad ideology.
Yet we've been continually told that it's an act of hatred against Catholics to point out what we believe are the depredations of Catholicism (equating ordination of women with the abuse of minors by priests).
119Makifat
107/116
You throw down the gauntlet with your "evil ideology" shit, and then act surprised that people react to it.
It is curious that, given your strong belief that LT talk is "toxic" and the posters are "sick" and "contemptible" (or their posts, rather - you've learned from necessity the fine art of playing that game), that you continue to post. I guess some people take the attention wherever they can get it.
By the way, in context it is clear that the "whoop-ass" thing was a joke. One can only imagine why you are beating that dead horse, unless it is some personal grudge against the poster. Nah, couldn't be that!
You throw down the gauntlet with your "evil ideology" shit, and then act surprised that people react to it.
It is curious that, given your strong belief that LT talk is "toxic" and the posters are "sick" and "contemptible" (or their posts, rather - you've learned from necessity the fine art of playing that game), that you continue to post. I guess some people take the attention wherever they can get it.
By the way, in context it is clear that the "whoop-ass" thing was a joke. One can only imagine why you are beating that dead horse, unless it is some personal grudge against the poster. Nah, couldn't be that!
120Makifat
implicitly called one poster (well, me) a liar
As Michelle Malkin would say: "Boo Hoo!"
Given the unusual (even for you) number of implicit insults hurled in your last two posts, you'll excuse me if I fall down laughing.
As Michelle Malkin would say: "Boo Hoo!"
Given the unusual (even for you) number of implicit insults hurled in your last two posts, you'll excuse me if I fall down laughing.
121timspalding
"Or whoop-ass."
This was a humorous aside, building on the concept of "can of worms," which related to the TOS and to handgun waiting periods. It wasn't aimed at you, or anyone else. Your reaction to it is exceedingly strange.
The rest of the post is shot through with misrepresentation, misunderstanding, paranoia and hatred.
This was a humorous aside, building on the concept of "can of worms," which related to the TOS and to handgun waiting periods. It wasn't aimed at you, or anyone else. Your reaction to it is exceedingly strange.
The rest of the post is shot through with misrepresentation, misunderstanding, paranoia and hatred.
122StormRaven
The rest of the post is shot through with misrepresentation, misunderstanding, paranoia and hatred.
This surprises anyone?
This surprises anyone?
124Makifat
I don't think it sends a very good message...
I don't happen to think the banter of your posts is particularly humorous.
Jeebus! Who cares what you think?! I don't think the baiting and inflamatory "evil ideology" statements you post are particularly insightful either.
You obviously have a BIG problem with this site and how it's administered. Maybe it's time for you to start your own site instead of slinking around in the wee hours posting trollish and paranoid messages on this one.
I don't happen to think the banter of your posts is particularly humorous.
Jeebus! Who cares what you think?! I don't think the baiting and inflamatory "evil ideology" statements you post are particularly insightful either.
You obviously have a BIG problem with this site and how it's administered. Maybe it's time for you to start your own site instead of slinking around in the wee hours posting trollish and paranoid messages on this one.
126Jesse_wiedinmyer
Rather, I think it is often childish and dumb,
I think if you made the antecedent on "it" a bit more obvious, people would be a bit less inclined to flag the post. I could be wrong.
Edit - And I very well may be. I seem to spend quite a bit of time counter-flagging posts of yours.
I think if you made the antecedent on "it" a bit more obvious, people would be a bit less inclined to flag the post. I could be wrong.
Edit - And I very well may be. I seem to spend quite a bit of time counter-flagging posts of yours.
127Jesse_wiedinmyer
As for the poster who innocently and sweetly stepped in to post her views, if she doesn't like people objecting to them, she'd best not post in chat. It's a hard-knock forum.
129Booksloth
Just trying to get back to the OP. In a way I feel bad about entering this discussion because my views as an 'outsider' should not count as equal to the views of Americans, especially those who were personally affected by the tragedy (and I'm amazed to see that someone back there - can't remember who and I've no particular wish to waste any time on trying to find the post - actually thought the views of victims and their families should not be taken into consideration).
However, I would just like to point out that if you check your history you'll be hard pressed to find a square foot of land anywhere on earth that hasn't been the site of some massacre or other throughout the years. Each country has the right to come to its own decisions as to what happens with those bits of land (over here we don't have the luxury of being able to leave them untouched for the rest of time - we just haven't got the room) and I believe a lot has to do with the time span involved. But surely, some general consensus shoud have been reached after nearly ten years? Either the site is to be reused (in which case it can be appropriated for any legal building) or it is to be left as a memorial (and the US has a lot more spare land than most other countries if they wish to do this).
To most 'outsiders' I suspect, the most appropriate response is to use the land but to erect some kind of memorial there in remembrance of the dead. I was under the assumption that that was already happening with the Twin Towers' site.
Anyone who has read any of my posts over the years will already know ad nausaeum my views on all religions so I'm not going into that question at any length but it does baffle me the way so many people seem to believe their own religion is all about love and forgiveness, while eveyone else's is about terror and murder. If the site is to be used for the perpetration of any religion then it should be available to all of them. Discrimination and xenophobia were the 'ground zero' of the whole thing in the first place. Wasn't Jesus supposed to have said something about turning the other cheek? At the very least, there's no harm in clinging onto the high moral ground by refusing to respond with the hatred the terrorists were hoping for all along.
However, I would just like to point out that if you check your history you'll be hard pressed to find a square foot of land anywhere on earth that hasn't been the site of some massacre or other throughout the years. Each country has the right to come to its own decisions as to what happens with those bits of land (over here we don't have the luxury of being able to leave them untouched for the rest of time - we just haven't got the room) and I believe a lot has to do with the time span involved. But surely, some general consensus shoud have been reached after nearly ten years? Either the site is to be reused (in which case it can be appropriated for any legal building) or it is to be left as a memorial (and the US has a lot more spare land than most other countries if they wish to do this).
To most 'outsiders' I suspect, the most appropriate response is to use the land but to erect some kind of memorial there in remembrance of the dead. I was under the assumption that that was already happening with the Twin Towers' site.
Anyone who has read any of my posts over the years will already know ad nausaeum my views on all religions so I'm not going into that question at any length but it does baffle me the way so many people seem to believe their own religion is all about love and forgiveness, while eveyone else's is about terror and murder. If the site is to be used for the perpetration of any religion then it should be available to all of them. Discrimination and xenophobia were the 'ground zero' of the whole thing in the first place. Wasn't Jesus supposed to have said something about turning the other cheek? At the very least, there's no harm in clinging onto the high moral ground by refusing to respond with the hatred the terrorists were hoping for all along.
130jjwilson61
Either the site is to be reused (in which case it can be appropriated for any legal building) or it is to be left as a memorial...
As I understand it, the land is actually not at the site but several blocks away.
As I understand it, the land is actually not at the site but several blocks away.
132codyed
There is already a mosque a few blocks from the World Trade Center site. A real one, not a community center.
133theapparatus
>132 codyed:. I was wondering about that. Thanks.
A quick check of the site shows that it's a working Mosque as well. Inner city store front, crammed, etc. Not a "Oh, let's have swimming pools and high and fancy restaurants." one. As some of you know I do a lot of work with the area homeless here in Charlotte. You can tell with churches when they really mean the effort that they put out with lunch twice a week and those "Oh, we're a church with a huge 20 acre parking lot. We're going to take a ride up to uptown and drop off a few sandwiches once a month and feel really proud for what we do" ones.
edit: Watched all the pictures. Seems like they're very crammed and right next to an inner city hospital as well. I liked this bit as well:
"Please be advised that we are by no means affiliated with any other organization trying to build anything new in the area of downtown Manhattan."
A quick check of the site shows that it's a working Mosque as well. Inner city store front, crammed, etc. Not a "Oh, let's have swimming pools and high and fancy restaurants." one. As some of you know I do a lot of work with the area homeless here in Charlotte. You can tell with churches when they really mean the effort that they put out with lunch twice a week and those "Oh, we're a church with a huge 20 acre parking lot. We're going to take a ride up to uptown and drop off a few sandwiches once a month and feel really proud for what we do" ones.
edit: Watched all the pictures. Seems like they're very crammed and right next to an inner city hospital as well. I liked this bit as well:
"Please be advised that we are by no means affiliated with any other organization trying to build anything new in the area of downtown Manhattan."
134codyed
Here's a legitimate reason to oppose the "Ground Zero Mosque":
Yuck. From here
EDIT: You can click the link to view an image of the proposed design of the community center.
Yuck. From here
EDIT: You can click the link to view an image of the proposed design of the community center.
135StormRaven
134: Your picture comes through as a red x, and your link appears to be broken.
137StormRaven
136: Too bad. I'd have liked to see what's on the other side of the link.
138GirlFromIpanema
It's back online, I have just clicked through to the article at Silverstein's site.
139StormRaven
138: Just checked it out. It works for me too. Now if only the ADL was sane.
141Jesse_wiedinmyer
That’s the same website where, ironically enough, a fatwa was simultaneously being issued forbidding a Muslim to sell land to a Christian, because the Christian wanted to build a church on it.
Kind of odd, given how much time you spend talking about how your religion is better than his evil ideology, that you would advocate emulating it.
Kind of odd, given how much time you spend talking about how your religion is better than his evil ideology, that you would advocate emulating it.
142Jesse_wiedinmyer
Oops, I did it again.
143Makifat
It's interesting that you find the Arabic title "weird" and "somewhat chilling". Although you haven't read the book, you seem to be making some assumptions that the book is ...what? Supportive of the attack? Negative about America?
144Jesse_wiedinmyer
Why do I get the impression reading Oakes' posts that his ostensible "cure" really ain't much better than the "disease?"
146Jesse_wiedinmyer
Well, I've been known to complete a verbal portion of a GRE in about five minutes with a perfect score, so it probably doesn't take as long as you think.
148Jesse_wiedinmyer
Essentially, Graduate school entrance exam in the U.S.
149Makifat
The blog I found this on, The West, Islam and Sharia: archly adds of Hadiyul-Islam...
Oh yeah, that blog fairly screams credibility. I imagine "archliness" (is that a word?) is a pretty common feature over there.
Oh yeah, that blog fairly screams credibility. I imagine "archliness" (is that a word?) is a pretty common feature over there.
150MMcM
The title in English is What's Right with Islam : Is What's Right With America : A New Vision for Muslims and the West; the title in Malay is Seruan Azan dari Puing WTC: Dakwah Islam di Jantung Amerika Pasca 9/11.
ETA: Added links to (potential) red-flag words for (parts of) the blogosphere.
ETA: Added links to (potential) red-flag words for (parts of) the blogosphere.
151Makifat
What? An invitation and call to prayer?
What won't those turbaned bastards think up next?!
What won't those turbaned bastards think up next?!
152Essa
(it’s alphabetical if you count Rauf’s last name as “Abdul-Rauf”—is this conventional? I have no idea)
"Abdul" is just a way of writing "abd al- ", which is a common Arab Muslim naming convention. It means "servant {of} the - ", and is added to one of the "99 names of God." And thus we get familiar names such as Abdallah (servant of God); abd al-Rahman, abd al-Aziz, and so on. Abd al-Rauf, or Abdul Rauf -- which functions as this guy's surname -- means "servant of the {One Who Is} Kind" or something along those lines.
"Abdul" is just a way of writing "abd al- ", which is a common Arab Muslim naming convention. It means "servant {of} the - ", and is added to one of the "99 names of God." And thus we get familiar names such as Abdallah (servant of God); abd al-Rahman, abd al-Aziz, and so on. Abd al-Rauf, or Abdul Rauf -- which functions as this guy's surname -- means "servant of the {One Who Is} Kind" or something along those lines.
153theapparatus
The Richard Silverstein link is now working.
155Makifat
Because we have been an accessory to a lot of - innocent lives dying in the world. In fact, it - in the most direct sense, Osama bin Laden is made in the USA.
Not that anyone need agree with this sentiment, but are you telling me that you can't even begin to comprehend why there might be people in the world who think this way? And because of this different perspective, they ought to be prohibited from exercising the rights of any U.S. citizen?
Not that anyone need agree with this sentiment, but are you telling me that you can't even begin to comprehend why there might be people in the world who think this way? And because of this different perspective, they ought to be prohibited from exercising the rights of any U.S. citizen?
157theoria
QM barometer rising indeed! What's really chilling to me is that this guy -- Rauf -- is seeking dialogue, seems open to discussion. This is surely a sign of a wanton terrorist!
158Makifat
157
This is surely a sign of a wanton terrorist!
Don't let him fool you. Any reader of The Arab Mind will tell you that you can't trust these devils any farther than you can throw them.
This is surely a sign of a wanton terrorist!
Don't let him fool you. Any reader of The Arab Mind will tell you that you can't trust these devils any farther than you can throw them.
159Jesse_wiedinmyer
What's really chilling to me is that this guy -- Rauf -- is seeking dialogue, seems open to discussion
Come, now. The guy that's going to stab you in the back isn't going to walk up to you and say, "hey, can I see your back? I want to put a knife in it."
Come, now. The guy that's going to stab you in the back isn't going to walk up to you and say, "hey, can I see your back? I want to put a knife in it."
160timspalding
Here's an article on the upcoming vote:
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/08/02/ny-commission-to-vote-on-landmark-statu...
I just love that the only hope of stopping it hinges on getting a very ordinary building declared a historical landmark. If it goes through it will be a cheap tick, utterly unworthy of any free people, and exactly the sort of petty governmental intrusion Republicans at least should be against.
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/08/02/ny-commission-to-vote-on-landmark-statu...
I just love that the only hope of stopping it hinges on getting a very ordinary building declared a historical landmark. If it goes through it will be a cheap tick, utterly unworthy of any free people, and exactly the sort of petty governmental intrusion Republicans at least should be against.
163timspalding
Good. Let's see if anything else can be dug up.
I'm reminded of a P. J. O'Rourke essay about the citizens of his New Hampshire town (?Dover) trying to stop a golf course, eventually voting against extending the sewer line, so they couldn't have bathrooms.
I'm reminded of a P. J. O'Rourke essay about the citizens of his New Hampshire town (?Dover) trying to stop a golf course, eventually voting against extending the sewer line, so they couldn't have bathrooms.
164prosfilaes
#160: It's weird; growing up in the West, any 150-year old building would be a historical landmark. In any case, making it a landmark wouldn't have stopped them; it just would have made them spend a little more money working around the constraints.
165Jesse_wiedinmyer
In Pennsylvania, when I was growing up, we lived in one house that was roughly two hundred years old. There was no special import attached to the house.
166Makifat
I could give you a long boring lecture on National Register eligibliity requirements.
Of course this is different from any local landmark status any particular building might have. I don't recall hearing what, if any, special significance the NY building might have had, other than being old, which doesn't mean a hell of a lot.
Of course this is different from any local landmark status any particular building might have. I don't recall hearing what, if any, special significance the NY building might have had, other than being old, which doesn't mean a hell of a lot.
167timspalding
>165 Jesse_wiedinmyer:
We got a plaque for 1865 ( http://www.flickr.com/photos/timspalding/sets/72157621814046089/ ). But that's more special in Portland, which burned to the ground in 1775 and again in 1867. (Our house was in an area that wasn't burned in the latter fire.) Still, it wouldn't really rate back in my home town, Cambridge, MA.
We got a plaque for 1865 ( http://www.flickr.com/photos/timspalding/sets/72157621814046089/ ). But that's more special in Portland, which burned to the ground in 1775 and again in 1867. (Our house was in an area that wasn't burned in the latter fire.) Still, it wouldn't really rate back in my home town, Cambridge, MA.
169Jesse_wiedinmyer
Not a problem. Just bear in mind that there are some pretty explicit rules laid out in the TOS about what constitutes a flaggable offense. That ain't it. Unfortunately for every last one of us (or mayhap fortunately), flagging someone because you think they're an asshole ain't within the TOS.
170prosfilaes
#166: Or, you know, you could give us the short interesting lecture if you like.
171Jesse_wiedinmyer
I believe that the short version would be that the only reason anyone's come up with for declaring that building a "landmark" would be to try to make it harder to make it into an Islamic community center.
Interesting enough?
Interesting enough?
172Jesse_wiedinmyer
Or to rephrase, it's kind of asinine to try to argue that the fact that the building wasn't declared a landmark has its roots in political bias, as no one saw fit to try to declare the building a landmark until doing so fit a political agenda.
173eley
Thank you! I'm tired of convenient political interference. If they really want to do something, they should be trying to accomodate Muslim people and their religion and exercise some democracy by encouraging the community to welcome any religious differences.
174Jesse_wiedinmyer
#173
Do you note a certain irony here brother (edit -or sister...)? You're complaining about convenient political interference, yet you've supported using the site's flagging mechanism (TOS enforcement mechanism) as a way to deride someone who has not violated the TOS, yet whose opinions you disagree with.
Just saying, is all...
Do you note a certain irony here brother (edit -or sister...)? You're complaining about convenient political interference, yet you've supported using the site's flagging mechanism (TOS enforcement mechanism) as a way to deride someone who has not violated the TOS, yet whose opinions you disagree with.
Just saying, is all...
175Makifat
170
Interesting is in the ear of the beholder. In brief, National Register evaluation criteria are as follows:
Criteria for evaluation. The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association and
(a) that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or
(b) that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or
(c) that embody distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or
(d) that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
I assume that New York landmark status, or whatever they may happen to call it, somewhat broadly reflect these.
There is more on the criteria here, if you want to go deeper:
http://www.achp.gov/nrcriteria.html
Interesting is in the ear of the beholder. In brief, National Register evaluation criteria are as follows:
Criteria for evaluation. The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association and
(a) that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or
(b) that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or
(c) that embody distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or
(d) that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
I assume that New York landmark status, or whatever they may happen to call it, somewhat broadly reflect these.
There is more on the criteria here, if you want to go deeper:
http://www.achp.gov/nrcriteria.html
176prosfilaes
#175: Thank you, that was what I was looking for.
177ExVivre
>175 Makifat: Interesting and brief (by Pro & Con standards).
178Makifat
From the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission website:
What is a landmark?
A landmark is a building, property, or object that has been designated by the Landmarks Preservation Commission because it has a special character or special historical or aesthetic interest or value as part of the development, heritage, or cultural characteristics of the city, state, or nation.
http://www.nyc.gov/html/lpc/html/home/home.shtml
Note that the National Register of Historic Places is a Federal listing. Individual states, cities, etc., may have their own criteria. The NRHP criteria are generally much more stringent, and it is much harder to designate something historic on a national level. I don't know if they even attempted this with the building in question: I doubt it, because it clearly doesn't meet the Federal requirements, and the only reason that they would be compelled to even seek a determination would be if Federal money was involved in the action.
What is a landmark?
A landmark is a building, property, or object that has been designated by the Landmarks Preservation Commission because it has a special character or special historical or aesthetic interest or value as part of the development, heritage, or cultural characteristics of the city, state, or nation.
http://www.nyc.gov/html/lpc/html/home/home.shtml
Note that the National Register of Historic Places is a Federal listing. Individual states, cities, etc., may have their own criteria. The NRHP criteria are generally much more stringent, and it is much harder to designate something historic on a national level. I don't know if they even attempted this with the building in question: I doubt it, because it clearly doesn't meet the Federal requirements, and the only reason that they would be compelled to even seek a determination would be if Federal money was involved in the action.
180prosfilaes
#179: Have you repudiated the concept of using secular law to deny women abortions, or deny gays the right to marry? You're one of strongest advocates of Christian law to be enshrined in secular law, so I'm not sure the fundamental difference between you and someone who advocates Islamic law.
181Makifat
Oakes I hope you've signed up for your "Action Alerts". You never know who those "tentacles" will reach out to next...
182timspalding
So, let's say you believe that the group has unpleasant ties to radicals... well, what do you want to do? Prohibit the building through legal means, or just be upset about it?
184Jesse_wiedinmyer
there is so much venom, thuggery, childishness and hate directed against anyone who takes one side in the matter--thanks in no small part to the example set by the Administrator's posts--"You're post makes me sick!","We don't have to go hunting for homophobes here!"...
...That doesn't make it any less disgusting or grotesque.
Well, at least I know where Tim gets it from now...
185theoria
Tentacles is so hyperbolic and passe, a relic of Cold War anti-communist conspiracy theory and fairly likely to turn up in Dan Brown's prose (e.g. the tentacles of Opus Dei...). Why can't the paranoid-style, Islamophobocrats among us diversify their metaphors? Perhaps they could give creeping vine -- as in "the creeping vine of hardcore Shariaism" -- a shot: that's chilling to me.
189Essa
> 187 Turn!!!
Seriously, what the heck is that thing? :o
And, on the topic of that mosque, to echo #182, what does one do, exactly? As a non-religious person, I'm not exactly beating down the door to build more mosques, churches, etc. But as a citizen of the U.S., I support neutral, secular laws and the freedom of non/religion.
If we start to say (in legal terms), "Hey, you can't build your {x} because we don't like your religion," then haven't we started down the slippery slope? Couldn't such laws be turned against anyone who is disliked, even including Catholics? What's a good solution, here?
Seriously, what the heck is that thing? :o
And, on the topic of that mosque, to echo #182, what does one do, exactly? As a non-religious person, I'm not exactly beating down the door to build more mosques, churches, etc. But as a citizen of the U.S., I support neutral, secular laws and the freedom of non/religion.
If we start to say (in legal terms), "Hey, you can't build your {x} because we don't like your religion," then haven't we started down the slippery slope? Couldn't such laws be turned against anyone who is disliked, even including Catholics? What's a good solution, here?
190Jesse_wiedinmyer
C'mon, now. It's the Toxic Avenger.
193Makifat
What I object to is the fear-mongering, and the sad attempts to demonize with a broad brush. Now, if al-Qaida was petitioning to open a field office in lower Manhattan, yes, I'd object. But, despite the best efforts of Oakes (and his beloved anti-Muslim hate sites) to portray this center as anything from a mosque at Ground Zero to a Hamas recruitment center, that isn't what it is, and I think it's the height of dishonesty for Palin, Gingrich, and all the other "concerned citizens" at the deceptively named "Coalition to Honor Ground Zero" to revive the politics of fear for demagogic purposes.
The simple fact is that we will have to come to terms with Islam if we hope to make any progress in dealing with Islamic terrorism. The obvious allies are those (oh dreaded word!) moderates, even if there can be no easy agreement as to what constitutes a moderate. In all likelihood, it's going to be a long haul before we can approach some kind of detente, but looking at the issue in terms of absolutes, and attacking those who may help build some middle ground is a loser's game. There are realities that we have to come to terms with, such as what Hamas means to different people.
The fearmongering and demonizing is - to use an overused whine word in these threads - toxic. The Palins, Gingrichs, and their cynical fellow-travellers are selling us down the river, and I daresay that, rather than make us safer, they are piling up the rhetorical powderkegs that just might blow up in our faces.
The simple fact is that we will have to come to terms with Islam if we hope to make any progress in dealing with Islamic terrorism. The obvious allies are those (oh dreaded word!) moderates, even if there can be no easy agreement as to what constitutes a moderate. In all likelihood, it's going to be a long haul before we can approach some kind of detente, but looking at the issue in terms of absolutes, and attacking those who may help build some middle ground is a loser's game. There are realities that we have to come to terms with, such as what Hamas means to different people.
The fearmongering and demonizing is - to use an overused whine word in these threads - toxic. The Palins, Gingrichs, and their cynical fellow-travellers are selling us down the river, and I daresay that, rather than make us safer, they are piling up the rhetorical powderkegs that just might blow up in our faces.
194Essa
Rod Dreher again, with a post today on this very topic.
I am willing to grant, for the sake of argument, the good intentions of those who want to build this mosque as a sign of religious tolerance (I would want to know more about where they're getting their funding, though, and who their partners are). And I certainly agree that they should have the freedom to build this mosque .... it is possible to believe that the Cordoba Mosque people have the right to build their mosque -- as I do -- while affirming (as I do) that it's a pity they're going to build it on that site ....
If it is wrong to assume that all Muslims are malevolent -- and it is wrong! -- then it is equally wrong, and in fact stupid, to adopt a naive and sentimental view of Islam and Islamic groups, especially given the enormously important role the radical, politicized Muslim Brotherhood plays in organizing and funding mainstream American Muslim institutions .... There's enough confirmation bias around this issue to sink both sides.
Edit to fix runaway HTML and italics.
I am willing to grant, for the sake of argument, the good intentions of those who want to build this mosque as a sign of religious tolerance (I would want to know more about where they're getting their funding, though, and who their partners are). And I certainly agree that they should have the freedom to build this mosque .... it is possible to believe that the Cordoba Mosque people have the right to build their mosque -- as I do -- while affirming (as I do) that it's a pity they're going to build it on that site ....
If it is wrong to assume that all Muslims are malevolent -- and it is wrong! -- then it is equally wrong, and in fact stupid, to adopt a naive and sentimental view of Islam and Islamic groups, especially given the enormously important role the radical, politicized Muslim Brotherhood plays in organizing and funding mainstream American Muslim institutions .... There's enough confirmation bias around this issue to sink both sides.
Edit to fix runaway HTML and italics.
195Makifat
For anyone interested, Oakes has taken some time off from complaining about how "toxic" LT talk has become and has tried his hand at poetry:
http://www.librarything.com/topic/96293#2124007
http://www.librarything.com/topic/96293#2124007
196Makifat
194
I spent some time last night reading Dreher's post and accompanying links. I'm interested in knowing more about the Muslim Brotherhood, but it's frustrating that so much of what I've found so far has been filtered through conservative think tanks. The mission statement (for want of a better word) is of particular interest, but it has a whiff of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Is it what it is, or is there an issue of translation and/or emphasis here, perhaps? I also wonder to what degree the influence of the MB may have been overstated.
Granting that the MB may have an agenda of corrupting the US from within, we have to ask ourselves how realistic this goal is. There is a kind of naivete in assuming that American society is so pliable that it would take only a few years of infiltration by Muslim sleeper cells to completely corrupt our society. (I think they ought to just step back and let cable television do the job.)
Anyway, I'd like to know more from sources that may not be so ideologically biased.
I spent some time last night reading Dreher's post and accompanying links. I'm interested in knowing more about the Muslim Brotherhood, but it's frustrating that so much of what I've found so far has been filtered through conservative think tanks. The mission statement (for want of a better word) is of particular interest, but it has a whiff of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Is it what it is, or is there an issue of translation and/or emphasis here, perhaps? I also wonder to what degree the influence of the MB may have been overstated.
Granting that the MB may have an agenda of corrupting the US from within, we have to ask ourselves how realistic this goal is. There is a kind of naivete in assuming that American society is so pliable that it would take only a few years of infiltration by Muslim sleeper cells to completely corrupt our society. (I think they ought to just step back and let cable television do the job.)
Anyway, I'd like to know more from sources that may not be so ideologically biased.
198codyed
From the article MMcM linked to:
Although the Egyptian branch remains the most influential Brotherhood group, offshoots have prospered throughout the Middle East and Europe. But there is no Islamist "Comintern." The Brotherhood's dreaded International Organization is in fact a loose and feeble coalition scarcely able to convene its own members. Indeed, the Brotherhood's international debility is a product of its local successes: national autonomy and adjustability to domestic conditions. The ideological affiliations that link Brotherhood organizations internationally are subject to the national priorities that shape each individually.
Suppressed throughout much of the Middle East, the Brotherhood spread across the Arab world and, via students and exiles, to Europe. In the early 1980s, the Egyptian Ikhwan sought to establish coordination among dozens of national offspring. But opposition was universal. Right next door, the Sudanese Muslim Brotherhood powerhouse Hasan al-Turabi protested, "You cannot run the world from Cairo." When Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, the Kuwaiti Muslim Brothers objected to the acquiescence of the International Organization and withdrew, taking with them their plump wallets. The U.S.-installed government in Iraq is another apple of discord. While Muslim Brothers throughout the Middle East and Europe inveighed against the "puppet" Iraqi government, the Iraqi branch of the Muslim Brotherhood sat prominently in the Iraqi Parliament. More recently, the alliance between the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood and Abdel Halim Khaddam, the dissident former Syrian vice president, has been widely offensive to other Brotherhood branches. The war in Lebanon last summer sharpened that divide, as the Syrian Brothers leaped to denounce President Bashar al-Assad's meddling in Lebanon, while the rest of the Brotherhood rallied behind Hezbollah.
The national branches also have divergent views of the United States. In Egypt and Jordan, even as it has considered a partnership with Washington against "autocracy and terrorism," the Brotherhood, driven partly by electoral concerns, has harshly criticized the United States. The Syrian Brotherhood, meanwhile, keenly supports the Bush administration's efforts to isolate the Assad regime; the kind of inflammatory anti-U.S. statements typical in Jordan and Egypt are rare in Syria.
199Makifat
197/198
Thank you. Seems like a more believable take, considering how large organizations usually operate.
Thank you. Seems like a more believable take, considering how large organizations usually operate.
200Essa
"The" MB has an official English-language Web site.
CS Monitor has a semi-recent article about Egypt's MB, here. Lorenzo Vidino takes a conservative or warning approach against a global MB, in a Middle East Quarterly article. And this article in Foreign Affairs takes almost an opposite view, noting that "U.S. policymaking has been handicapped by Washington's tendency to see the Muslim Brotherhood -- and the Islamist movement as a whole -- as a monolith."
Edit to fix sloppy HTML.
CS Monitor has a semi-recent article about Egypt's MB, here. Lorenzo Vidino takes a conservative or warning approach against a global MB, in a Middle East Quarterly article. And this article in Foreign Affairs takes almost an opposite view, noting that "U.S. policymaking has been handicapped by Washington's tendency to see the Muslim Brotherhood -- and the Islamist movement as a whole -- as a monolith."
Edit to fix sloppy HTML.
202eley
What I'm saying is, these Islamophobic citizens are setting a bad example by persecuting Muslims. Proof: France recently passed a law that prohibits women to wear the traditional burqas(also called niqabs) that veil their faces in France. Bravo and brava to the American Islamophobes who encourage this behavior; now France is doing it too.
Check this out:Click.
Check this out:Click.
203prosfilaes
#202: Setting a bad example? For one, I think the French try not to take examples from us, and for two, France has a lot more Muslims and a lot more history with Islamism and direct Islamophobia than the US does, and I think if you look at the history here, there's a long pattern of French behavior unrelated to American behavior that explains this.
204timspalding
The French example is rather different in that France has a long tradition of state hostility to religious displays, differing substantially from the US tradition of neutrality and non-promotion of specific sects. There is a specifically anti-Islamic element here, of course, but teachers in France have long been prohibited from wearing a cross or a Star of David too and since 2004 schools have prohibited not only scarves, but also Sikh turbans and yarmulkes.
The idea that France is not merely neutral on religion but anti-religion, and must specifically enforce a religion-less social sphere is ultimately an ideal of the French Revolution. (It's spread is why, for example, Turkey prohibits headscarves in universities and most other public buildings.) We had a hand in encouraging the French revolution, but, well, it wasn't our fault!
The idea that France is not merely neutral on religion but anti-religion, and must specifically enforce a religion-less social sphere is ultimately an ideal of the French Revolution. (It's spread is why, for example, Turkey prohibits headscarves in universities and most other public buildings.) We had a hand in encouraging the French revolution, but, well, it wasn't our fault!
205krolik
>204 timspalding:
Some anecdotal nuances, from an employee in French public education:
the ban is on "ostentatious" religious symbols, thus a cross or a Star of David or a crescent moon is OK, providing it is not too visible. (Two centimeters? six? eight? ten?--the law doesn't specify, though it is assumed by most people that any kind of scarf is ostentatious, and thus unacceptable.)
For the historical and cultural reasons that you allude to, strong anti-clerical sentiments make it so that it is largely a moot point among teachers. But these same teachers are largely unquestioning of holidays for All Saints Day, Christmas, Easter, Ascension, and Pentacost. Secular France is much more Christianized, in terms of holidays, than the U.S.
The question of headscarves is a vexed one, but French Muslims do have a strong case when they say that they are being singled out.
Some anecdotal nuances, from an employee in French public education:
the ban is on "ostentatious" religious symbols, thus a cross or a Star of David or a crescent moon is OK, providing it is not too visible. (Two centimeters? six? eight? ten?--the law doesn't specify, though it is assumed by most people that any kind of scarf is ostentatious, and thus unacceptable.)
For the historical and cultural reasons that you allude to, strong anti-clerical sentiments make it so that it is largely a moot point among teachers. But these same teachers are largely unquestioning of holidays for All Saints Day, Christmas, Easter, Ascension, and Pentacost. Secular France is much more Christianized, in terms of holidays, than the U.S.
The question of headscarves is a vexed one, but French Muslims do have a strong case when they say that they are being singled out.
206timspalding
There's a good article in today's NYT about protests against mosques opening elsewhere in the country.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/08/us/08mosque.html?_r=1&hp
As the article puts it, "the gloves are off." Put another way, straight-up religious discrimination is moving from fringe to mainstream on the right.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/08/us/08mosque.html?_r=1&hp
As the article puts it, "the gloves are off." Put another way, straight-up religious discrimination is moving from fringe to mainstream on the right.
208Jesse_wiedinmyer
Jon Stewart offered some interesting thoughts on Muslims, NASA and Mosque building a few weeks back.
210AsYouKnow_Bob
#206: ...straight-up religious discrimination is moving from fringe to mainstream on the right.
That's been one of the few benefits of the Culture Wars: we get to learn just how many of our neighbors are only weakly attached to what I always thought were core American values.
That's been one of the few benefits of the Culture Wars: we get to learn just how many of our neighbors are only weakly attached to what I always thought were core American values.
211modalursine
My first choice is that membership in all the "organized" religions drops to zero; but since that's not going to happen any time soon, by second choice is that all religions should be treated equally and none encouraged or discouraged differentially by government or in the culture generally.
The demonizing of Islam does a great disservice to the
highest ideals of America, though of course it happened to Quackers, Catholics, Jews and so on.
Boom! Speaking of canon, and Jews, the ADL should be ashamed of itself. Anti semitism though not zero, was never so bad in the US as in other places (though it perked up a bit in the early 20th century) and ever since some time after WWII, Jews have been promoted to "real white men". Arguably there's no better place or time in the world to be Jewish than in America today.
The ADL seems to be saying "I'm on the bus Jack, now bang the bell!"
One suspects that at least a part of the anti Islam animus is motivated by an nastily exclusivist strain of Christian Fundamentalism. Religiously "right" congregations are being bombarded with essentially religious anti islamism bogusly packaged as true history or "just the facts ma'am" cultural anthropology.
The demonizing of Islam does a great disservice to the
highest ideals of America, though of course it happened to Quackers, Catholics, Jews and so on.
Boom! Speaking of canon, and Jews, the ADL should be ashamed of itself. Anti semitism though not zero, was never so bad in the US as in other places (though it perked up a bit in the early 20th century) and ever since some time after WWII, Jews have been promoted to "real white men". Arguably there's no better place or time in the world to be Jewish than in America today.
The ADL seems to be saying "I'm on the bus Jack, now bang the bell!"
One suspects that at least a part of the anti Islam animus is motivated by an nastily exclusivist strain of Christian Fundamentalism. Religiously "right" congregations are being bombarded with essentially religious anti islamism bogusly packaged as true history or "just the facts ma'am" cultural anthropology.
212modalursine
My first choice is that membership in all the "organized" religions drops to zero; but since that's not going to happen any time soon, by second choice is that all religions should be treated equally and none encouraged or discouraged differentially by government or in the culture generally.
The demonizing of Islam does a great disservice to the
highest ideals of America, though of course it happened to Quackers, Catholics, Jews and so on.
Boom! Speaking of canon, and Jews, the ADL should be ashamed of itself. Anti semitism though not zero, was never so bad in the US as in other places (though it perked up a bit in the early 20th century) and ever since some time after WWII, Jews have been promoted to "real white men". Arguably there's no better place or time in the world to be Jewish than in America today.
The ADL seems to be saying "I'm on the bus Jack, now bang the bell!"
One suspects that at least a part of the anti Islam animus is motivated by an nastily exclusivist strain of Christian Fundamentalism. Religiously "right" congregations are being bombarded with essentially religious anti islamism bogusly packaged as true history or "just the facts ma'am" cultural anthropology.
The demonizing of Islam does a great disservice to the
highest ideals of America, though of course it happened to Quackers, Catholics, Jews and so on.
Boom! Speaking of canon, and Jews, the ADL should be ashamed of itself. Anti semitism though not zero, was never so bad in the US as in other places (though it perked up a bit in the early 20th century) and ever since some time after WWII, Jews have been promoted to "real white men". Arguably there's no better place or time in the world to be Jewish than in America today.
The ADL seems to be saying "I'm on the bus Jack, now bang the bell!"
One suspects that at least a part of the anti Islam animus is motivated by an nastily exclusivist strain of Christian Fundamentalism. Religiously "right" congregations are being bombarded with essentially religious anti islamism bogusly packaged as true history or "just the facts ma'am" cultural anthropology.
213Jesse_wiedinmyer
, though of course it happened to Quackers, Catholics, Jews and so on.
Tell us how you really feel about the Society of Friends.
Tell us how you really feel about the Society of Friends.
214modalursine
ref #213
Maybe my Freudian slip is showing. Quakers, not Quackers. My bad.
Maybe my Freudian slip is showing. Quakers, not Quackers. My bad.
215Makifat
Just don't make any of those unfortunate slips when writing about the Mormons, or the boys with the skinny ties will be on your ass faster than you can say "Joe Smith".
216Jesse_wiedinmyer
Mormons are overrated, yo...
218Makifat
Welcome to the United States of Arabia
America is surrendering in the war against radical Islam.
Maybe just a wee bit of an exaggeration, Mr. Henny-Penny. Or maybe he just believes that healthy debate, as opposed to knee-jerk reactionism, is simply un-American.
America is surrendering in the war against radical Islam.
Maybe just a wee bit of an exaggeration, Mr. Henny-Penny. Or maybe he just believes that healthy debate, as opposed to knee-jerk reactionism, is simply un-American.
219Jesse_wiedinmyer
Interesting piece, Codyed... Kind of odd trying to parse it.
It will be a symbolic monument to the triumph of Islamism in the United States.
Triumph? I hadn't realised that America was all or nothing about religion. I had thought that people were free to choose which beliefs they held and that that freedom was enshrined in the Constitution. The fact that this mosque will be built somehow abrogates the rights of other Americans to practice religion as they see fit?
an eternal reminder of the atrocity perpetrated by Islamic fascism on U.S. soil.
Is Islamic Fascism redundant?
The Sept. 11 attacks were committed by Muslim extremists in the name of holy war against the West.
Muslim extremists is kind of an odd syntactical construct... Again, is Muslim being used to modify extremists (not all extremists are Muslims, but all Muslims are extremists), is extremist being used to modify Muslims (Not all Muslims are extremists, but look at what extremists the extremists are...), or is this just another redundancy?
Hence, the building of this mosque is a sacrilegious act
"Sacrilegious" is an interesting choice of word for the sentence. If we hold that the building of a mosque is deeply offensive to what is held to be sacred, what sacrosanct idea/principle/trope is being violated here?
The mosque will cast a giant, dark shadow over ground zero, serving as a testament to the Islamist conquest of America. If Islamism can impose its will near the site of Sept. 11, then it can impose its will anywhere.
I hadn't realise that I was being obligated to attend this mosque.
Mr. Rauf is a typical Islamist hypocrite: He uses the U.S. Constitution to demand the exercise of religious freedom while advocating for Shariah law, which fuses church and state and seeks to subjugate non-Muslims. Islamists are using our freedoms in an effort to destroy our freedoms.
As Mr Stewart noted in the piece linked in #208, the fact that we're going to be separating Religion and Politics means that I can marry Maki-Pooh if I'd like, no? I don't see how this any different than Christians who advocate an American law rooted in Judeo-Christian morality. Mayhap Oakes can enlighten me... Are we concerned about religious freedom, or are we concerned that people might actually be free to practice religion as they see fit?
Moreover, much of the $100 million in funding for the mosque is coming from Saudi Arabia. Riyadh has been aggressively supporting the building of madrassas and mosques around the world. The Saudi regime promotes Wahhabism, a particularly virulent strain of Islam. For example, Christian churches and synagogues are banned in Saudi Arabia; religious persecution is rampant. Yet no one - not New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, state Attorney General Andrew Cuomo or any other sanctimonious liberal supporter of the ground-zero mosque - has bothered to investigate the sources of Mr. Rauf's funding. Are Wahhabists behind the mosque?
I'm still a bit confused by the fact that the fact that Saudi Arabia bans Christian churches and synagogues (And really, someone should get this guy a copy editor. Who the hell ever heard of a Christian synagogue?) somehow leads to the fact that we should ban mosques. It doesn't make a lot of sense to argue that our religious freedoms make us "better than them" and then not allow religious freedoms. How are we better than them, if we do exactly what they do?
Instead of addressing these issues, liberals such as Mr. Bloomberg are wrapping themselves in the flag of religious freedom.
Ok, so maybe religious freedom is overrated. Maybe we aren't so much better than them.
Religious freedom is a red herring. Muslims are free to build mosques anywhere else in New York City - or America, for that matter.
Well, but for the fact that you're arguing precisely to refuse that freedom. Red Herring? Or a constitutionally guaranteed right provided in the religion clauses of the First Amendment?
It is a watershed moment: the point at which liberal multiculturalism capitulated to the relentless march of political Islam.
Someone thinks this is an all or nothing affair. Might be the Muslims. Might be the guy writing the piece. One wonders why any of us should...?
It will be a symbolic monument to the triumph of Islamism in the United States.
Triumph? I hadn't realised that America was all or nothing about religion. I had thought that people were free to choose which beliefs they held and that that freedom was enshrined in the Constitution. The fact that this mosque will be built somehow abrogates the rights of other Americans to practice religion as they see fit?
an eternal reminder of the atrocity perpetrated by Islamic fascism on U.S. soil.
Is Islamic Fascism redundant?
The Sept. 11 attacks were committed by Muslim extremists in the name of holy war against the West.
Muslim extremists is kind of an odd syntactical construct... Again, is Muslim being used to modify extremists (not all extremists are Muslims, but all Muslims are extremists), is extremist being used to modify Muslims (Not all Muslims are extremists, but look at what extremists the extremists are...), or is this just another redundancy?
Hence, the building of this mosque is a sacrilegious act
"Sacrilegious" is an interesting choice of word for the sentence. If we hold that the building of a mosque is deeply offensive to what is held to be sacred, what sacrosanct idea/principle/trope is being violated here?
The mosque will cast a giant, dark shadow over ground zero, serving as a testament to the Islamist conquest of America. If Islamism can impose its will near the site of Sept. 11, then it can impose its will anywhere.
I hadn't realise that I was being obligated to attend this mosque.
Mr. Rauf is a typical Islamist hypocrite: He uses the U.S. Constitution to demand the exercise of religious freedom while advocating for Shariah law, which fuses church and state and seeks to subjugate non-Muslims. Islamists are using our freedoms in an effort to destroy our freedoms.
As Mr Stewart noted in the piece linked in #208, the fact that we're going to be separating Religion and Politics means that I can marry Maki-Pooh if I'd like, no? I don't see how this any different than Christians who advocate an American law rooted in Judeo-Christian morality. Mayhap Oakes can enlighten me... Are we concerned about religious freedom, or are we concerned that people might actually be free to practice religion as they see fit?
Moreover, much of the $100 million in funding for the mosque is coming from Saudi Arabia. Riyadh has been aggressively supporting the building of madrassas and mosques around the world. The Saudi regime promotes Wahhabism, a particularly virulent strain of Islam. For example, Christian churches and synagogues are banned in Saudi Arabia; religious persecution is rampant. Yet no one - not New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, state Attorney General Andrew Cuomo or any other sanctimonious liberal supporter of the ground-zero mosque - has bothered to investigate the sources of Mr. Rauf's funding. Are Wahhabists behind the mosque?
I'm still a bit confused by the fact that the fact that Saudi Arabia bans Christian churches and synagogues (And really, someone should get this guy a copy editor. Who the hell ever heard of a Christian synagogue?) somehow leads to the fact that we should ban mosques. It doesn't make a lot of sense to argue that our religious freedoms make us "better than them" and then not allow religious freedoms. How are we better than them, if we do exactly what they do?
Instead of addressing these issues, liberals such as Mr. Bloomberg are wrapping themselves in the flag of religious freedom.
Ok, so maybe religious freedom is overrated. Maybe we aren't so much better than them.
Religious freedom is a red herring. Muslims are free to build mosques anywhere else in New York City - or America, for that matter.
Well, but for the fact that you're arguing precisely to refuse that freedom. Red Herring? Or a constitutionally guaranteed right provided in the religion clauses of the First Amendment?
It is a watershed moment: the point at which liberal multiculturalism capitulated to the relentless march of political Islam.
Someone thinks this is an all or nothing affair. Might be the Muslims. Might be the guy writing the piece. One wonders why any of us should...?
220prosfilaes
Religious freedom is a red herring. Muslims are free to build mosques anywhere else in New York City - or America, for that matter. If Mr. Rauf were truly serious about fostering peaceful religious coexistence,
I don't recall religious freedom extending to only those who believe in religious coexistence. That would exclude quite a number of Christian sects who believe in religious coexistence only until they can convert the non-believers.
If they want to declare the whole area a national historical park, then do so. It'll be a huge undertaking; 500 feet from the old WTC is a huge area of valuable land. Until then, I don't think we have any right to complain about what gets built there.
It is not coincidental that the mosque's name, Cordoba House, takes after the city in southern Spain that marked one of radical Islam's greatest conquests in Europe during the Middle Ages. Cordoba was a major center in the global caliphate being erected by the rampaging Islamists of the time - the very caliphate that Osama bin Laden and his allies seek to restore. A giant mosque was built upon the ruins of a Catholic church.
It's not coincidental that the mosque's name is named after the one of the greatest cities in the medieval Islamic world, though as #33 points out, it's a bit rich calling it "radical Islam". I'm curious what's on the site of that giant mosque right now, because the Christian reconquest leveled Islamic structures, and killed or enslaved many Muslims.
And seriously, the Iraq/Egypt/Syria unification fell through; there's no evidence for a serious movement towards a new Caliphate. The Sunni Islamic states, of their own free will, could unify northern Africa and a large part of the Arabian peninsula. But that seems no more likely than a Canadian/US unification or a Portugal/Spain/Italy unification.
I don't recall religious freedom extending to only those who believe in religious coexistence. That would exclude quite a number of Christian sects who believe in religious coexistence only until they can convert the non-believers.
If they want to declare the whole area a national historical park, then do so. It'll be a huge undertaking; 500 feet from the old WTC is a huge area of valuable land. Until then, I don't think we have any right to complain about what gets built there.
It is not coincidental that the mosque's name, Cordoba House, takes after the city in southern Spain that marked one of radical Islam's greatest conquests in Europe during the Middle Ages. Cordoba was a major center in the global caliphate being erected by the rampaging Islamists of the time - the very caliphate that Osama bin Laden and his allies seek to restore. A giant mosque was built upon the ruins of a Catholic church.
It's not coincidental that the mosque's name is named after the one of the greatest cities in the medieval Islamic world, though as #33 points out, it's a bit rich calling it "radical Islam". I'm curious what's on the site of that giant mosque right now, because the Christian reconquest leveled Islamic structures, and killed or enslaved many Muslims.
And seriously, the Iraq/Egypt/Syria unification fell through; there's no evidence for a serious movement towards a new Caliphate. The Sunni Islamic states, of their own free will, could unify northern Africa and a large part of the Arabian peninsula. But that seems no more likely than a Canadian/US unification or a Portugal/Spain/Italy unification.
221Jesse_wiedinmyer
I'm curious what's on the site of that giant mosque right now, because the Christian reconquest leveled Islamic structures, and killed or enslaved many Muslims.
Great Mosque of Cordoba
Edit, notably - "The most significant alteration was building a Renaissance cathedral nave in the middle of the structure. It was constructed by permission of Charles V, king of united Spain. Its reversion to a Christian church (officially the Cathedral of the Assumption of the Virgin) may have helped to preserve it when the Spanish Inquisition was most active.citation needed"
Great Mosque of Cordoba
Edit, notably - "The most significant alteration was building a Renaissance cathedral nave in the middle of the structure. It was constructed by permission of Charles V, king of united Spain. Its reversion to a Christian church (officially the Cathedral of the Assumption of the Virgin) may have helped to preserve it when the Spanish Inquisition was most active.citation needed"
222Makifat
... the fact that we're going to be separating Religion and Politics means that I can marry Maki-Pooh if I'd like, no?
No. Maki-pooh doesn't like you in that way.
No. Maki-pooh doesn't like you in that way.
223Jesse_wiedinmyer
It's not all about you, Maki-Pooh. If you don't cease this selfishness immediately, I'm cancelling our nuptials.
225AsYouKnow_Bob
To amplify on what I was saying back up at #210: ("That's been one of the few benefits of the Culture Wars: we get to learn just how many of our neighbors are only weakly attached to what I always thought were core American values.")
The unspeakable Newt Gingrich - who still harbors Presidential fantasies - actually said in public There should be no mosque near Ground Zero in New York so long as there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia.
Which translated, means "My vision of America is a place that we can make every bit as intolerant as the worst theocracy on the planet."
I grew up in an America where we prided ourselves on being better than that. (For about anything you could think of.) And ever year, we were striving to bring the blessings of American freedoms to more and more people.
Conservatives apparently grew up in some different America.
The unspeakable Newt Gingrich - who still harbors Presidential fantasies - actually said in public There should be no mosque near Ground Zero in New York so long as there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia.
Which translated, means "My vision of America is a place that we can make every bit as intolerant as the worst theocracy on the planet."
I grew up in an America where we prided ourselves on being better than that. (For about anything you could think of.) And ever year, we were striving to bring the blessings of American freedoms to more and more people.
Conservatives apparently grew up in some different America.
226OldSarge
America is surrendering in the war against radical Islam.
Ummmm.......no. Not the last time I checked. I received no orders to surrender.
an eternal reminder of the atrocity perpetrated by Islamic fascism on U.S. soil.
Again, no. What's a reminder is that hole in the ground where the WTC stood. Not the free exercise of religious belief.
I am so sick of this crap. I lost friends that day and have gone armed against terrorists, but...BUT...I also serve because I believe in something called The Constitution which has this little thing called The Bill of Rights.
Ummmm.......no. Not the last time I checked. I received no orders to surrender.
an eternal reminder of the atrocity perpetrated by Islamic fascism on U.S. soil.
Again, no. What's a reminder is that hole in the ground where the WTC stood. Not the free exercise of religious belief.
I am so sick of this crap. I lost friends that day and have gone armed against terrorists, but...BUT...I also serve because I believe in something called The Constitution which has this little thing called The Bill of Rights.
227barney67
Wonder what will come of this:
"Greg Gutfeld of Fox News Channel and The Daily Gut has proposed the best response yet to Park51, a.k.a. Cordoba House, the 13-story “community center” and mosque two blocks away from Ground Zero: “I am planning to build and open the first gay bar that caters not only to the west, but also Islamic gay men. To best express my sincere desire for dialogue, the bar will be situated next to the mosque Park51, in an available commercial space.”
“This is not a joke,” Gutfeld claims. “I’ve already spoken to a number of investors, who have pledged their support in this bipartisan bid for understanding and tolerance.”
"Greg Gutfeld of Fox News Channel and The Daily Gut has proposed the best response yet to Park51, a.k.a. Cordoba House, the 13-story “community center” and mosque two blocks away from Ground Zero: “I am planning to build and open the first gay bar that caters not only to the west, but also Islamic gay men. To best express my sincere desire for dialogue, the bar will be situated next to the mosque Park51, in an available commercial space.”
“This is not a joke,” Gutfeld claims. “I’ve already spoken to a number of investors, who have pledged their support in this bipartisan bid for understanding and tolerance.”
228Jesse_wiedinmyer
I fail to see what's wrong with that at all, provided that New York doesn't already have existing building codes prohibiting the idea.
230Jesse_wiedinmyer
Would something like this be worth looking at in conjunction with the question?
231timspalding
>227 barney67:
I think it underscores the tackiness of the whole situation. I'm the first to insist property-owners should be able to do what they want with their property, and religious building should be at least as unrestrained as any other. But filling the neighborhood up with opinion outlets and hawk-boxes of this and that opinion and counter-opinion is gross. It doesn't matter who it is. They're all still glomming onto the tragedy and powerful resonances of the place.
I think it underscores the tackiness of the whole situation. I'm the first to insist property-owners should be able to do what they want with their property, and religious building should be at least as unrestrained as any other. But filling the neighborhood up with opinion outlets and hawk-boxes of this and that opinion and counter-opinion is gross. It doesn't matter who it is. They're all still glomming onto the tragedy and powerful resonances of the place.
232Jesse_wiedinmyer
Might be tacky. That doesn't make it illegal. If tacky were illegal, what would become of Southern California?
233lilithcat
> 227
Next to the mosque? I don't think so.
From the New York State Liquor Authority FAQ:
"Are there any restrictions on the location of my premises?
"Applicants for a liquor store license, wine store license and on-premises license cannot be within 200 feet of a school, church, synagogue or other place of worship."
Next to the mosque? I don't think so.
From the New York State Liquor Authority FAQ:
"Are there any restrictions on the location of my premises?
"Applicants for a liquor store license, wine store license and on-premises license cannot be within 200 feet of a school, church, synagogue or other place of worship."
234barney67
Ah, the Islamofascists win again.
You could always put the bar further down, away from the radical mosque that will go up at Ground Zero -- which itself shows a shocking lack of sensitivity to the victims of 9/11 and their families. You think it's the moderates putting up the mosque but most of the mosques in the U.S. are radical or they become radicalized soon enough when the Saudi money starts to flow. And many of these moderates turn out to believe in sharia for the U.S. They just don't say it in a loud voice.
You could always put the bar further down, away from the radical mosque that will go up at Ground Zero -- which itself shows a shocking lack of sensitivity to the victims of 9/11 and their families. You think it's the moderates putting up the mosque but most of the mosques in the U.S. are radical or they become radicalized soon enough when the Saudi money starts to flow. And many of these moderates turn out to believe in sharia for the U.S. They just don't say it in a loud voice.
236theoria
You could always put the bar further down, away from the radical mosque that will go up at Ground Zero
False.
Hysteria.
False.
Hysteria.
237prosfilaes
#233: 200 feet isn't that far away, but I do wish the Grendel's Den decision had gone further and banned all this silliness.
238codyed
There used to be a homosexual outreach center right across from what I think is Anchorage's only mosque. The mosque outlasted the center.
239Jesse_wiedinmyer
Evidence of the pernicious tenacity with which the struggle with Islamofascism will be fought by their side. We must react with an iron will.
240codyed
Actually, the center moved downtown, so it may have been a non-zero sum outcome for all parties involved. My point was that, if those who believe a gay bar some distance from the Islamic center will dissuade its construction or decrease the demand for its use due in part to unseemly neighbors, then they are delusional at best, fucking retarded at worst.
241Makifat
You think it's the moderates putting up the mosque but most of the mosques in the U.S. are radical or they become radicalized soon enough when the Saudi money starts to flow.
deniro floated this line over in Political Conservatives too. He couldn't back it up there either, except with a link to his deep and scholarly collection of tomes written by Fox News commentators and wanna-bes.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...
If he is not interested in giving any credible and specific evidence for his assertions in 234, I wonder if he could elaborate as to why he believes the First Amendment to the Bill of Rights is no longer worth valuing.
(Seriously, for people who rail against "activist judges", it's quite remarkable that there are those on the far right willing to kick the Constitution to the gutter at the drop of a hat - see also the current outcry to trash the 14th Amendment.)
deniro floated this line over in Political Conservatives too. He couldn't back it up there either, except with a link to his deep and scholarly collection of tomes written by Fox News commentators and wanna-bes.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...
If he is not interested in giving any credible and specific evidence for his assertions in 234, I wonder if he could elaborate as to why he believes the First Amendment to the Bill of Rights is no longer worth valuing.
(Seriously, for people who rail against "activist judges", it's quite remarkable that there are those on the far right willing to kick the Constitution to the gutter at the drop of a hat - see also the current outcry to trash the 14th Amendment.)
242prosfilaes
#240: I think it was more of a simple harassment technique suggested out of pique, rather than an actual plan. Especially given the liquor laws, a nice pig-themed BBQ joint might be more effective; the way to man's heart is through his stomach, after all.
243codyed
What is it with anti-Muslims and pigs? If oink is so magical, then they should wear bacon around their necks, maybe even pig medallions, too. Whenever they pass Muslims on the street, they can flash the medallions and watch them hiss and instantly vaporize.
244Makifat
Is pork a weapon of choice for the Muslim-baiters?* I will say that most of the Muslims I have know over the years have a real issue with pork. It is tremendously shunned and reviled on religious grounds.
*Perhaps it is. A quick search led me to this sterling example of religious understanding and tolerance:
http://www.conservativecrusader.com/articles/those-poor-muslims-forced-to-sell-p...
*Perhaps it is. A quick search led me to this sterling example of religious understanding and tolerance:
http://www.conservativecrusader.com/articles/those-poor-muslims-forced-to-sell-p...
245jjwilson61
which itself shows a shocking lack of sensitivity to the victims of 9/11 and their families
And your showing a shocking lack of tolerance for other religions.
And your showing a shocking lack of tolerance for other religions.
246Makifat
Another little thing about how Muslims who won't touch pork will inevitably destroy everything Americans hold dear (the real entertainment is in the comments):
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2007/03/target-shifts-muslims-who-wont-ring-up-pork.ht...
Oakes has most likely seen this story already, as it is from one of his favorite websites....
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2007/03/target-shifts-muslims-who-wont-ring-up-pork.ht...
Oakes has most likely seen this story already, as it is from one of his favorite websites....
247DeusExLibrus
Maybe I'm going out on a limb here, but I find it rather odd that anyone thinks the 9/11 victims should have this much say over this sort of thing. Especially almost a decade after the catastrophe. You'd think these people would want to move on with their lives at some point instead of being reminded every couple of months of the death of their father/mother/husband/wife/sister/brother.
248Makifat
Sorry, just had to post one more, although this one is pork-free:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/changingface.asp
Can you imagine the unmitigated gall (and what other kind is there, really?) of these people practicing their religious beliefs right in the middle of the most cosmopolitan city in North America?! (I'm not clear just how Obama is responsible for this "spectacle" that dates back to 1985.)
I believe it is germane to the argument to note that, yes, there is a significant Muslim population in New York City, and it stands to reason that maybe the proposed Islamic Center is being established to meet the needs of this population, rather than to function as a big calligraphic "fuck you" to the people of New York, as the demagogues on the far right would like us to believe.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/changingface.asp
Can you imagine the unmitigated gall (and what other kind is there, really?) of these people practicing their religious beliefs right in the middle of the most cosmopolitan city in North America?! (I'm not clear just how Obama is responsible for this "spectacle" that dates back to 1985.)
I believe it is germane to the argument to note that, yes, there is a significant Muslim population in New York City, and it stands to reason that maybe the proposed Islamic Center is being established to meet the needs of this population, rather than to function as a big calligraphic "fuck you" to the people of New York, as the demagogues on the far right would like us to believe.
249prosfilaes
#243: I'm sorry, it's not anti-Muslims who made great fuss about the image of a man in a pig suit labeled "Here is the real image of Muhammad"; in my recent experience of the admins on the Aceh Wikipedia making a big fuss over the Muhammad cartoons being on the English Wikipedia, it was that picture that was brought up, not the actual cartoons themselves.
I'd bet it was a Muslim who added the Danish header that turned this innocent picture of someone at a pig squealing contest into a religious attack, but I could be wrong; it is however known fact that it was Muslims who distributed it around the world as a prime example of hatred of Islam.
#248: "it stands to reason that maybe the proposed Islamic Center is being established to meet the needs of this population"
I think there's a serious question about why it was established where it was. Was that particular location so much cheaper or more convenient then one that would have given less offense?
I'd bet it was a Muslim who added the Danish header that turned this innocent picture of someone at a pig squealing contest into a religious attack, but I could be wrong; it is however known fact that it was Muslims who distributed it around the world as a prime example of hatred of Islam.
#248: "it stands to reason that maybe the proposed Islamic Center is being established to meet the needs of this population"
I think there's a serious question about why it was established where it was. Was that particular location so much cheaper or more convenient then one that would have given less offense?
250Makifat
Believe me, I won't deny that each side has their share of self-serving demagogues.
As far as the Islamic Center is concerned, given the real estate values in the area, I doubt cost was much of an issue, and I wouldn't expect wealthy Muslims to be immune to the prestige associated with establishing the center in lower Manhattan, as opposed to Harlem or the Bronx.
If one of the stated goals of the center was to build a bridge, to heal, whatever, I'm not in a position to judge the sincerity of the motives. I would expect that the desire to stir up storms of anti-Muslim sentiments would not have been the primary objective. Perhaps they were taken in by the rhetoric about how "tolerant" we Americans are. They wouldn't be the first.
As far as the Islamic Center is concerned, given the real estate values in the area, I doubt cost was much of an issue, and I wouldn't expect wealthy Muslims to be immune to the prestige associated with establishing the center in lower Manhattan, as opposed to Harlem or the Bronx.
If one of the stated goals of the center was to build a bridge, to heal, whatever, I'm not in a position to judge the sincerity of the motives. I would expect that the desire to stir up storms of anti-Muslim sentiments would not have been the primary objective. Perhaps they were taken in by the rhetoric about how "tolerant" we Americans are. They wouldn't be the first.
251codyed
Right. So Muslim misbehavior gives you license to respond in kind like a 15 year old kid. It certainly has for Gutfeld. I have a better--maybe someone could paint a Mohammed mural on the door of the pig-themed BBQ joint that's right next to the gay bar!
I got bullied by Blacks and Somoans in high school, but eventually, after having learned a few things, I realized that the actions of a few do not necessarily correspond to the actions of a whole, even if the share of negative actions tend to be higher in some groups than others.
Consider that your lesson today. Maybe now you will grow up.
I got bullied by Blacks and Somoans in high school, but eventually, after having learned a few things, I realized that the actions of a few do not necessarily correspond to the actions of a whole, even if the share of negative actions tend to be higher in some groups than others.
Consider that your lesson today. Maybe now you will grow up.
252DeusExLibrus
>248 Makifat: I'm fed up with even the insinuation that Obama is a Muslim. He's not, he was raised Christian, is still Christian, and is apparently raising his daughters in the faith. This is now commonly accepted fact. The only thing the far right is doing by maintaining such ridiculous claims is making themselves look even more foolish.
As for praying in the streets, God forbid we actually practice what we preach and uphold the Bill of Rights, Constitution, etc. The right seems to think that all Muslims are in cahoots to take over America. How many times will these idiots have to learn the lesson before they understand? The beliefs/actions of a few do not equate to the beliefs, practices, etc, of the whole.
As for praying in the streets, God forbid we actually practice what we preach and uphold the Bill of Rights, Constitution, etc. The right seems to think that all Muslims are in cahoots to take over America. How many times will these idiots have to learn the lesson before they understand? The beliefs/actions of a few do not equate to the beliefs, practices, etc, of the whole.
253timspalding
they become radicalized soon enough when the Saudi money starts to flow
I'll defend the notion, although not the prediction. It's certainly true that the Saudis have used their money generously and strategically the world over in building and funding mosques to move Islam toward their brand of islam over others. There is no similar sugar daddy for more moderate Islam, like the Persian and Turkish-centered Sufi islam that has been losing ground in the middle east for a century.
This effort is not some new invention. I recall discussing it at length with the members of the Muslim Student Association, and in Middle East politics classes at Georgetown back in the 90s. I also recall the huge boxes of stuff--literature, mostly, but also absurd numbers of Saudi flags--the Saudis sent the club. Obviously it didn't change them, but Saudi patronage has had a major effect worldwide.
In the great continuum of Islamic thought the Saudis stand much closer to Bin Laden than the mystics of Konya, or those who follow the Hanafi school generally. That doesn't mean they're going to be become terrorist, but if "radical" means anything it applies to the Wahabi movement and its root-and-branch reaction to other Islamic thought.
Of course, none of this means we shouldn't let people spread their religion, by money or otherwise, or indeed build this mosque.
I'll defend the notion, although not the prediction. It's certainly true that the Saudis have used their money generously and strategically the world over in building and funding mosques to move Islam toward their brand of islam over others. There is no similar sugar daddy for more moderate Islam, like the Persian and Turkish-centered Sufi islam that has been losing ground in the middle east for a century.
This effort is not some new invention. I recall discussing it at length with the members of the Muslim Student Association, and in Middle East politics classes at Georgetown back in the 90s. I also recall the huge boxes of stuff--literature, mostly, but also absurd numbers of Saudi flags--the Saudis sent the club. Obviously it didn't change them, but Saudi patronage has had a major effect worldwide.
In the great continuum of Islamic thought the Saudis stand much closer to Bin Laden than the mystics of Konya, or those who follow the Hanafi school generally. That doesn't mean they're going to be become terrorist, but if "radical" means anything it applies to the Wahabi movement and its root-and-branch reaction to other Islamic thought.
Of course, none of this means we shouldn't let people spread their religion, by money or otherwise, or indeed build this mosque.
254OldSarge
Whenever they pass Muslims on the street, they can flash the medallions and watch them hiss and instantly vaporize.
ROFL. I almost spit my coffee out my nose.
ROFL. I almost spit my coffee out my nose.
255barney67
253 -- Why not build a mosque somewhere else? If most of the mosques in the U.S. are radical, why would we want them to "spread their religion." That particular religion (what Daniel Pipes calls militant Islam) has caused a lot of death and destruction.
Some of you seem to confuse profanity with profundity.
re: my sources. I listed a link to them at Political Conservatives. That was my defense. Perhaps I should've add "You read what I've read, then we'll talk" but I thought that would be going too far. Dismissing the entire list as somehow related to Fox News is just childish.
Some of you seem to confuse profanity with profundity.
re: my sources. I listed a link to them at Political Conservatives. That was my defense. Perhaps I should've add "You read what I've read, then we'll talk" but I thought that would be going too far. Dismissing the entire list as somehow related to Fox News is just childish.
256jjwilson61
If most of the mosques in the U.S. are radical, why would we want them to "spread their religion."
Because the US gov'ts don't get to decide which religions are good and which are bad. There's some wiggle room around cults vs. religions, but I don't think anybody thinks that Islam doesn't count as a religion.
Maybe you should re-read the US Constitution.
Because the US gov'ts don't get to decide which religions are good and which are bad. There's some wiggle room around cults vs. religions, but I don't think anybody thinks that Islam doesn't count as a religion.
Maybe you should re-read the US Constitution.
257Makifat
I listed a link to them at Political Conservatives. That was my defense.
Not much of a defense, if you can't get so far as to articulate at least some of the evidence you've come across*. If dismissing this list of books about "Islam" by people that are predominantly biased towards the right is childish, then what is sticking out your tongue and saying "I won't discuss this until you've read these twenty-something book that reiterate a single perspective"?
Some of you seem to confuse profanity with profundity.
And you appear to confuse the compilation of a book list as evidence of deep thought.
*Reminds me of the old Woody Allen joke about taking a speed reading course and finishing War and Peace in 10 minutes. "It's about Russia."
Not much of a defense, if you can't get so far as to articulate at least some of the evidence you've come across*. If dismissing this list of books about "Islam" by people that are predominantly biased towards the right is childish, then what is sticking out your tongue and saying "I won't discuss this until you've read these twenty-something book that reiterate a single perspective"?
Some of you seem to confuse profanity with profundity.
And you appear to confuse the compilation of a book list as evidence of deep thought.
*Reminds me of the old Woody Allen joke about taking a speed reading course and finishing War and Peace in 10 minutes. "It's about Russia."
258Makifat
253
Now that you mention it, I seem to remember similar Saudi "goody baskets" in college, way back in the early 80's. If they were attempting to establish some sort of sleeper cell deep in the heart of Texas, they appear to have missed their wake-up call.
As previously stated, I don't deny the Saudi money or a certain amount of influence (they are the "protectors" of the holy cities, after all). My objection is the vague assertion that the "majority" of Muslims in the US are "radicalized". "Radical" is one of those buzz words used by the far right to describe anyone one-eighth of a degree different from themselves. They don't really do nuance.
Now that you mention it, I seem to remember similar Saudi "goody baskets" in college, way back in the early 80's. If they were attempting to establish some sort of sleeper cell deep in the heart of Texas, they appear to have missed their wake-up call.
As previously stated, I don't deny the Saudi money or a certain amount of influence (they are the "protectors" of the holy cities, after all). My objection is the vague assertion that the "majority" of Muslims in the US are "radicalized". "Radical" is one of those buzz words used by the far right to describe anyone one-eighth of a degree different from themselves. They don't really do nuance.
259OldSarge
I remember a bumper sticker that appeared after the tragedy at Waco.
Is your church gov't approved?
Is your church gov't approved?
260timspalding
There's some wiggle room around cults vs. religions, but I don't think anybody thinks that Islam doesn't count as a religion
I don't think there's much wiggle room. A religion can be prosecuted for certain cult-ish activities, like restraining people against their will, but there's no "cult" exemption in the First Amendment. The cult/religion distinction is more common in Europe, China, etc.
It's worth noting that the First Amendment was written by people with strong opinions about religion. There was a huge gap between sects in colonial America, and a lot of mutual distrust and even hatred. Jefferson, for example, hated priests and called Calvinism "demonism," writing "If ever man worshiped a false God, (Calvin) did." Everything he said about Calvinists can be easily paralleled among conservatives today about muslims.
And guess what? Jefferson favored religious tolerance—indeed he wrote the law on it. It's not clear to me why some contemporary conservatives have betrayed their principles so completely.
I don't think there's much wiggle room. A religion can be prosecuted for certain cult-ish activities, like restraining people against their will, but there's no "cult" exemption in the First Amendment. The cult/religion distinction is more common in Europe, China, etc.
It's worth noting that the First Amendment was written by people with strong opinions about religion. There was a huge gap between sects in colonial America, and a lot of mutual distrust and even hatred. Jefferson, for example, hated priests and called Calvinism "demonism," writing "If ever man worshiped a false God, (Calvin) did." Everything he said about Calvinists can be easily paralleled among conservatives today about muslims.
And guess what? Jefferson favored religious tolerance—indeed he wrote the law on it. It's not clear to me why some contemporary conservatives have betrayed their principles so completely.
263Makifat
And here's another thought. One of the favorite conservative arguments on a plethora of issues - from gun control to abortion rights - is the "slippery slope". You allow this, then this will happen.
So why do they not see the attempt to curtail religious liberty as a slippery slope?
(By the way, I am not suggesting that everyone objecting to the Islamic Center is "far" right. I'm sure that there are some liberals, including some in the JDL, that oppose it as well, for different reasons. My specific issue is with the demagogues, the Gingriches and Palins who are presuming to define this debate on premises that are false and in the long run harmful to our democracy.)
So why do they not see the attempt to curtail religious liberty as a slippery slope?
(By the way, I am not suggesting that everyone objecting to the Islamic Center is "far" right. I'm sure that there are some liberals, including some in the JDL, that oppose it as well, for different reasons. My specific issue is with the demagogues, the Gingriches and Palins who are presuming to define this debate on premises that are false and in the long run harmful to our democracy.)
264barney67
My list of books has a variety of views, but on facts there isn't much disagreement, as there shouldn't be. My link to them was first a defense against your attack and second an offer to you to read what I've read, to educate yourself about those points of view and facts with which you do not seem to be familiar. One of those facts was the Saudi (hence Wahhabi) influence on mosques in America, which you appear to be unaware of. I wonder if you know what Wahhabism is. Or something about the history of the Baath Party.
If I don't call them Islamic radicals, then what do I call them? Victor Davis Hanson calls them Islamofascists. Daniel Pipes uses Militant Islam. There must be some way to distinguish the most lethal and still large sect of Islam. Wahhabists doesn't quite cover it. Jihadists. But then all Muslims believe in jihad, "struggle or striving."
Some of you seem to want to explain away the serious nature of the threat that this sect of Islam presents.
If I don't call them Islamic radicals, then what do I call them? Victor Davis Hanson calls them Islamofascists. Daniel Pipes uses Militant Islam. There must be some way to distinguish the most lethal and still large sect of Islam. Wahhabists doesn't quite cover it. Jihadists. But then all Muslims believe in jihad, "struggle or striving."
Some of you seem to want to explain away the serious nature of the threat that this sect of Islam presents.
265StormRaven
One of those facts was the Saudi (hence Wahhabi) influence on mosques in America, which you appear to be unaware of. I wonder if you know what Wahhabism is. Or something about the history of the Baath Party.
You know, people said the same thing about Catholicism when there were waves of Irish immigrating into the United States. Xenophobic nativism isn't new, nor has it gotten any more attractive.
Either we believe in the principles of the First Amendment and live by them, or we don't. I would choose the First Amendment over xenophobic nativism any day.
You know, people said the same thing about Catholicism when there were waves of Irish immigrating into the United States. Xenophobic nativism isn't new, nor has it gotten any more attractive.
Either we believe in the principles of the First Amendment and live by them, or we don't. I would choose the First Amendment over xenophobic nativism any day.
267jjwilson61
260> but there's no "cult" exemption in the First Amendment.
But it doesn't define religion either. I can't get tax exempt status just by declaring myself a religion.
But it doesn't define religion either. I can't get tax exempt status just by declaring myself a religion.
268Jesse_wiedinmyer
Some of you seem to confuse profanity with profundity.
I learned it from Tim O'Brien. You ever get around to reading The Things They Carried, Sarge?
I remember a bumper sticker that appeared after the tragedy at Waco.
Is your church gov't approved?
I've relayed the story before, but my favorite quote to come out of the incident comes from a patient at the mental hospital where my father worked. It seems the patient had something of a Messianic complex. Turned to my father as they were watching the coverage of the raid and said "You know, it doesn't matter how many times I come back. The fuckers kill me every time."
269Makifat
264
One of those facts was the Saudi (hence Wahhabi) influence on mosques in America, which you appear to be unaware of.
And you appear to be not actually reading my posts. You're still not addressing your conclusion that the majority of American mosques (and by extension, American Muslims) are "radicalized". It's not an argument about the nomenclature, but rather how you (or your authors) define radicalized. It appears that you may believe that every Muslim is radicalized by virtue of the fact that they are Muslim.
268
Jesse, are you familiar with The Three Christs of Ypsilanti?
270Jesse_wiedinmyer
First I've heard of it...
271theoria
I've tried not to pay close attention to this issue, but there appear to be multiple arguments made by the Antis.
1. Offends victims of 9/11
2a. Funded by Saudis
2b. Saudi money will turn people who visit the center into Sharia-ists and terrorists
3. Islam is a murderous ideology
4. Rauf is a trojan horse terrorist
I find:
#1: to be reasonable, but not persuasive. The logical or moral arguments for why this would be the case need to be elaborated. Why are the victims of 9/11 relevant? How and why would they be offended?
#2a: this could be true, yet it could be irrelevant vis-a-vis the proposed center. Presumably, if it were funded by Bill Gates there would be no controversy for the Antis (I don't believe this).
#2b: this would help #2a, but it is conjecture not fact. One would have to spell out how this would happen in the USA.
#3: Whether this is true or false, it is irrelevant to the matter at hand (the location of the center).
#4: There's no evidence for this.
What I would prefer from the Antis is some honesty. I would prefer that they simply, openly state their hatred of Islam and Muslims, because this antipathy is the premise for #1-4, which are rationalizations of it. In fact, #1-4 would be unnecessary if this simple statement of hatred were articulated.
In other words: "We hate Islam and Muslims, that's why we don't want this center to be located near 'Ground Zero."
This is the only "Anti" reason that is compelling, and, although I don't agree with it, it has the merit of being less obfuscatory than the other arguments.
1. Offends victims of 9/11
2a. Funded by Saudis
2b. Saudi money will turn people who visit the center into Sharia-ists and terrorists
3. Islam is a murderous ideology
4. Rauf is a trojan horse terrorist
I find:
#1: to be reasonable, but not persuasive. The logical or moral arguments for why this would be the case need to be elaborated. Why are the victims of 9/11 relevant? How and why would they be offended?
#2a: this could be true, yet it could be irrelevant vis-a-vis the proposed center. Presumably, if it were funded by Bill Gates there would be no controversy for the Antis (I don't believe this).
#2b: this would help #2a, but it is conjecture not fact. One would have to spell out how this would happen in the USA.
#3: Whether this is true or false, it is irrelevant to the matter at hand (the location of the center).
#4: There's no evidence for this.
What I would prefer from the Antis is some honesty. I would prefer that they simply, openly state their hatred of Islam and Muslims, because this antipathy is the premise for #1-4, which are rationalizations of it. In fact, #1-4 would be unnecessary if this simple statement of hatred were articulated.
In other words: "We hate Islam and Muslims, that's why we don't want this center to be located near 'Ground Zero."
This is the only "Anti" reason that is compelling, and, although I don't agree with it, it has the merit of being less obfuscatory than the other arguments.
272Jesse_wiedinmyer
In other words: "We hate Islam and Muslims, that's why we don't want this center to be located near 'Ground Zero."
Well, as Oakes has already stated, he doesn't hate Muslims. He just hates Islam.
Well, as Oakes has already stated, he doesn't hate Muslims. He just hates Islam.
274Jesse_wiedinmyer
Hate the sin, not the sinner.
And as Oakes has already noted, to expect his faith to be logical is to miss the point entirely.
And as Oakes has already noted, to expect his faith to be logical is to miss the point entirely.
275Makifat
Why would you want to put a logician through that?
Of course, I love Christianity, but hate Christians.
KIDDING!!
Of course, I love Christianity, but hate Christians.
KIDDING!!
276theoria
Why would you want to put a logician through that?
Because I hate logicians. Although I truly do love logic. Really.
Because I hate logicians. Although I truly do love logic. Really.
277Jesse_wiedinmyer
That's Gandhi, correct?
“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”
If I recall correctly, the last time that quote was trotted out, Oakes used the occasion to call Gandhi a sanctimonious prig.
“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”
If I recall correctly, the last time that quote was trotted out, Oakes used the occasion to call Gandhi a sanctimonious prig.
279lilithcat
> 271
1. Offends victims of 9/11
Of course, this argument also assumes that the "victims of 9/11" are all of the same opinion, and I would be very surprised if that were the case.
(I put "victims of 9/11" in quotation marks because, frankly, I'm not sure how that's defined. Is it people who were in the WTC and survived, plus families of those who didn't? Does it include people who lived or worked in the neighborhood and were displaced from home or job because of the attack? What about other New Yorkers?)
1. Offends victims of 9/11
Of course, this argument also assumes that the "victims of 9/11" are all of the same opinion, and I would be very surprised if that were the case.
(I put "victims of 9/11" in quotation marks because, frankly, I'm not sure how that's defined. Is it people who were in the WTC and survived, plus families of those who didn't? Does it include people who lived or worked in the neighborhood and were displaced from home or job because of the attack? What about other New Yorkers?)
280Jesse_wiedinmyer
Martin Luther? I thought it was Justin Bieber.
283theoria
279> yes, all those questions would need to be answered.
full disclosure: I live a few miles from 'Ground Zero' and I am not offended.
full disclosure: I live a few miles from 'Ground Zero' and I am not offended.
284enevada
“Because I hate logicians. Although I truly do love logic. Really.”
I think this is true, and I also think you (theoria) have one of the best minds on this forum – usually your logic is exemplary, but in this case you reveal your own illogic, with that emotional plea for the “anti-s” to reveal themselves as haters, to confirm your own bias against them. Why do you need the confirmation? Think whatever you want about them.
I am not an anti- , in this case, but I can see the merit in the argument of the memorial site as ‘hallowed’ – as a monument to the death of thousands, which could/will stand as a memorial, and as with most memorials, a plea against cultural amnesia. It is terrorism, and not Islam, that is the offensive human impulse here.
I have great faith in the people of NY to resolve this – a city where several million people live in one of the most diverse, harmonious, and genuinely tolerant environments in the world. That it is a public and emotional discussion doesn’t devalue the exercise, but I also recognize that no one needs my opinion on the matter and that voicing it shouldn’t really be just another opportunity to behave badly to one another. This one will work itself out, despite the bickering between LT’s best and brightest.
I think this is true, and I also think you (theoria) have one of the best minds on this forum – usually your logic is exemplary, but in this case you reveal your own illogic, with that emotional plea for the “anti-s” to reveal themselves as haters, to confirm your own bias against them. Why do you need the confirmation? Think whatever you want about them.
I am not an anti- , in this case, but I can see the merit in the argument of the memorial site as ‘hallowed’ – as a monument to the death of thousands, which could/will stand as a memorial, and as with most memorials, a plea against cultural amnesia. It is terrorism, and not Islam, that is the offensive human impulse here.
I have great faith in the people of NY to resolve this – a city where several million people live in one of the most diverse, harmonious, and genuinely tolerant environments in the world. That it is a public and emotional discussion doesn’t devalue the exercise, but I also recognize that no one needs my opinion on the matter and that voicing it shouldn’t really be just another opportunity to behave badly to one another. This one will work itself out, despite the bickering between LT’s best and brightest.
285Jesse_wiedinmyer
It is terrorism, and not Islam, that is the offensive human impulse here.
If this is so, then why are we responding by trying to stop the building of a mosque?
If this is so, then why are we responding by trying to stop the building of a mosque?
286enevada
#285: The ACLJ lawsuit, representing firefighters, alleges that the LPC violated its own policies and didn’t follow its own procedures in denying landmark status – especially with regard to public comments. I’m not sure if you’ve ever dealt with these sorts of commissions – but they live and die by their own standards and procedural practices, for better or for worse. When commissions call for extended public commentary, they are implying that such commentary will be given its due consideration. The LPC will have to prove that it did so, in this case.
287Jesse_wiedinmyer
It's an interesting response, even if it doesn't address the question that was asked.
288enevada
Well, I don't see how else to answer the question without speculating on the motives of the firefighters who have brought the case. They want landmark status as a means of commemoration and not exclusion - that's my personal take on it.
289Jesse_wiedinmyer
I'd use the term non sequitur, but I choose not to. This is because I do not want to intimidate anyone, or make anyone feel bad or inferior.
290Jesse_wiedinmyer
That's funny. I don't recall anyone trying to accord landmark status to this building before. Hmmm. Could we possibly speculate on the fireman's motives?
Mayhap we don't even need to speculate on the fireman's motives? We could just go through this thread and figure out what people's stated objections to the building's being used as a mosque are.
Deniro? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?
Mayhap we don't even need to speculate on the fireman's motives? We could just go through this thread and figure out what people's stated objections to the building's being used as a mosque are.
Deniro? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?
292enevada
According to the lawsuit the building was considered or sought to be considered for landmark status twenty years before 9/11.
here's the suit:
http://www.aclj.org/media/pdf/ACLJ_EXECUTED-PETITION_20100804.pdf
here's the suit:
http://www.aclj.org/media/pdf/ACLJ_EXECUTED-PETITION_20100804.pdf
293Jesse_wiedinmyer
If the petition wasn't valid then, why would it be now?
294Jesse_wiedinmyer
Ah, after digging, we come up with this...
After an initial public hearing on the building in 1989, no action was taken and it was added to a growing backlog of buildings that remain under consideration for landmark status, de Bourbon said. The commission said it would hold another public hearing early this summer.
The petition was never heard.
After an initial public hearing on the building in 1989, no action was taken and it was added to a growing backlog of buildings that remain under consideration for landmark status, de Bourbon said. The commission said it would hold another public hearing early this summer.
The petition was never heard.
295prosfilaes
#288: Why? 500 feet from the World Trade Center complex, figuring it's about a square 1000 feet on each side, is about 2 million square feet of territory. More rough figurings lead me to conclude there's several hundred buildings in that area. Are all of them going to get landmark status? Besides the mosque, what's special about this one?
296enevada
The LPC never scheduled a hearing, so we'll have to wait until they answer that question in the law suit.
297Jesse_wiedinmyer
Well, it it's true that this is merely a decades old claim, it just got a jump on being denied status.
Digging around more, we find...
City attorneys are confident the landmarks group adhered to legal standards and procedures, Law Department spokeswoman Kate O'Brien Ahlers said.
Though from the ACIJ web page, we also get...
We're hopeful that the court will nullify the Commission's vote and conclude what most New Yorkers and Americans understand - this site is sacred ground and not the place to build a mosque.
Digging around more, we find...
City attorneys are confident the landmarks group adhered to legal standards and procedures, Law Department spokeswoman Kate O'Brien Ahlers said.
Though from the ACIJ web page, we also get...
We're hopeful that the court will nullify the Commission's vote and conclude what most New Yorkers and Americans understand - this site is sacred ground and not the place to build a mosque.
298Jesse_wiedinmyer
Anyone know how many other projects have been considered and rejected in the area?
And why does the ACIJ represent - Tim Brown, a firefighter and first responder, who survived the 9-11 attacks but lost 100 friends that day.
How does his status as a fire fighter affect whether or not this building should be considered a landmark?
And why does the ACIJ represent - Tim Brown, a firefighter and first responder, who survived the 9-11 attacks but lost 100 friends that day.
How does his status as a fire fighter affect whether or not this building should be considered a landmark?
299Jesse_wiedinmyer
It's also interesting that they keep using the phrase -
This site is sacred ground and not the place to build a mosque.
You'd assume that the part of the sentence after "ground" would be entirely unnecessary.
This site is sacred ground and not the place to build a mosque.
You'd assume that the part of the sentence after "ground" would be entirely unnecessary.
300Essa
I'm more interested in this idea that the explosion site -- and/or nearby areas -- are "sacred ground." Why are they sacred? How are they more sacred than any other ground? Is it because many people died, i.e. does death make a place holy? Is Pearl Harbor sacred ground, also? What about other areas where many people have died? What does "sacred" actually mean? Is it a religious term? Is a secular government able to declare something sacred (or non-sacred)?
301Jesse_wiedinmyer
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
302enevada
“Is it a religious term? Is a secular government able to declare something sacred (or non-sacred)?”
Good questions, Essa. Lincoln agreed that it could commemorate, but not consecrate:
“…But in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead who struggled here have consecrated it far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here.”
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/gettyb.asp
Good questions, Essa. Lincoln agreed that it could commemorate, but not consecrate:
“…But in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead who struggled here have consecrated it far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here.”
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/gettyb.asp
303Jesse_wiedinmyer
Although that's just one man's thoughts on the subject.
304Jesse_wiedinmyer
Haha. You're too slow. ;) Neener.
Edit - And I can obviously be fast simple by typing incorrectly and editing later.
Edit - And I can obviously be fast simple by typing incorrectly and editing later.
305enevada
That's a little eerie.
And my own edit: I think that is what landmark status does: commemorates rather than consecrates - the language in the suit non-withstanding.
And my own edit: I think that is what landmark status does: commemorates rather than consecrates - the language in the suit non-withstanding.
306Jesse_wiedinmyer
Sarah Palin on the landmark status of the mosque -
"Peace-seeking Muslims, pls understand, Ground Zero mosque is UNNECESSARY provocation; it stabs hearts,"
Well, maybe not so much about whether or not the building should be a landmark, but a bit about whether it should be a mosque.
"Peace-seeking Muslims, pls understand, Ground Zero mosque is UNNECESSARY provocation; it stabs hearts,"
Well, maybe not so much about whether or not the building should be a landmark, but a bit about whether it should be a mosque.
307Essa
Thanks enevada and Jesse for the insights and Lincoln quotes. To me, it would seem that decisions about what is or is not sacred (or profane) are up to individuals and/or religions, and not an appropriate area for government decree. Which is different, of course, from declaring an area "historic" or "commemorative" or the like.
On a personal level, it interests me to think about the 9/11 area being "sacred," and why people would think it to be so.
On a personal level, it interests me to think about the 9/11 area being "sacred," and why people would think it to be so.
308jjwilson61
306> But *why* does it stab hearts? To a peace-loving Muslim the idea that the acts of some non-peace-loving Muslims would cause repercussions against them must stab their hearts.
310barney67
"The vast majority of all American Muslims subscribe to the strong Islamic tradition of tolerance and human dignity. Yet for one key reason, the extremists have disproportionate influence. One prominent cleric argued in 1999 that 'because they are active they took over…more than 80 percent of the mosques established in the U.S.' (sourced in note 12 to Sheikh Muhammad Hisham Kabbani, "Islamic Extremism: A Viable Threat to U.S. National Security," an open forum at the U.S. State Department, Jan. 7, 1999).
Although our pluralist ideals tend to view this statement as an automatic exaggeration, the reality is far more sobering. The vast majority of American mosques are funded with Saudi Arabian money, and most of the funders subscribe to the Saudi doctrine of Wahhabism, an 18th C. ideology of extreme purity that supports the spread of Islam through violence. Local imams can be appointed by anyone who chooses to fund and/or found a mosque; hence, the influence of this minority ideology is well entrenched among American clerics."
-- Steve Emerson (former CNN reporter), American Jihad: The Terrorists Living Among us, p. 40-41.
Although our pluralist ideals tend to view this statement as an automatic exaggeration, the reality is far more sobering. The vast majority of American mosques are funded with Saudi Arabian money, and most of the funders subscribe to the Saudi doctrine of Wahhabism, an 18th C. ideology of extreme purity that supports the spread of Islam through violence. Local imams can be appointed by anyone who chooses to fund and/or found a mosque; hence, the influence of this minority ideology is well entrenched among American clerics."
-- Steve Emerson (former CNN reporter), American Jihad: The Terrorists Living Among us, p. 40-41.
311Jesse_wiedinmyer
So you're saying that your objection to the building in question is grounded in the fact that it's a mosque?
312theoria
284>
you reveal your own illogic, with that emotional plea for the “anti-s” to reveal themselves as haters, to confirm your own bias against them. Why do you need the confirmation? Think whatever you want about them.
On reflection, I would exempt #1 (offend victims of 9/11) from my request for an expression of open antipathy. An account of this objection could be given that doesn’t involve antipathy towards Islam/Muslims.
Also, on reflection, it is not reasonable to assume all Antis are motivated by anti-Islam sentiments.
I can see the merit in the argument of the memorial site as ‘hallowed’ – as a monument to the death of thousands, which could/will stand as a memorial, and as with most memorials, a plea against cultural amnesia.
This was my wish for Ground Zero but it will not happen. It is a commercial (i.e.profane) space owned by the Port Authority of NY. It could never have been rebuilt solely as a place of commemoration. I lost interesting in the design of the new building after it dragged out for so long. The last time I did pay attention, I believe there was a plan for a memorial (i.e. sacred) space in the new building. I also believe there was talk of not building on the foot prints of the Twin Towers, as a another way to designate the ground as hallowed. I think one group of “9-11 families” was unhappy with size and location of the planned memorial and complained about being shut out of the design process. I have no idea where this all stands now.
In my view, given the facts on the ground, the Ground Zero is, and will be, a space of virtual memory (and commemoration) given the actual use of the space by a commercial interest. I don’t understand how the Islamic center would interfere with this memory. Finally, I believe that emotional energies could more usefully spent on getting something done at Ground Zero itself, rather than worrying over the perimeter of the area and fighting a symbolic war with Islam (which is what I think some, but not all, of the Antis are doing) that, in my view, only distracts from what Ground Zero should be remembered for: the lives lost and the heroism of the moment. I don't think this memory should be mobilized as a symbolic weapon in geo-political and/or cultural conflict (such an action would be the most profaning one I can think of).
you reveal your own illogic, with that emotional plea for the “anti-s” to reveal themselves as haters, to confirm your own bias against them. Why do you need the confirmation? Think whatever you want about them.
On reflection, I would exempt #1 (offend victims of 9/11) from my request for an expression of open antipathy. An account of this objection could be given that doesn’t involve antipathy towards Islam/Muslims.
Also, on reflection, it is not reasonable to assume all Antis are motivated by anti-Islam sentiments.
I can see the merit in the argument of the memorial site as ‘hallowed’ – as a monument to the death of thousands, which could/will stand as a memorial, and as with most memorials, a plea against cultural amnesia.
This was my wish for Ground Zero but it will not happen. It is a commercial (i.e.profane) space owned by the Port Authority of NY. It could never have been rebuilt solely as a place of commemoration. I lost interesting in the design of the new building after it dragged out for so long. The last time I did pay attention, I believe there was a plan for a memorial (i.e. sacred) space in the new building. I also believe there was talk of not building on the foot prints of the Twin Towers, as a another way to designate the ground as hallowed. I think one group of “9-11 families” was unhappy with size and location of the planned memorial and complained about being shut out of the design process. I have no idea where this all stands now.
In my view, given the facts on the ground, the Ground Zero is, and will be, a space of virtual memory (and commemoration) given the actual use of the space by a commercial interest. I don’t understand how the Islamic center would interfere with this memory. Finally, I believe that emotional energies could more usefully spent on getting something done at Ground Zero itself, rather than worrying over the perimeter of the area and fighting a symbolic war with Islam (which is what I think some, but not all, of the Antis are doing) that, in my view, only distracts from what Ground Zero should be remembered for: the lives lost and the heroism of the moment. I don't think this memory should be mobilized as a symbolic weapon in geo-political and/or cultural conflict (such an action would be the most profaning one I can think of).
313enevada
#312: thanks, for a well-thought out response. There is little I'd disagree with, except for the idea that the most profaning action could be one of political symbolism - I can think of equally profaning actions such as a(nother) Trump Tower or a Casino or another trivializing or commercially exploitative use of what is - for so many, a de facto burial site.
And, to Essa, I think it is this idea of final resting place (an idea that is not unique to the Western, Christian world) more than anything, that serves as the reason for granting the site "sacred" status.
But theoria is correct in noting that the site will be used, and has always been used for commercial purposes. Mixed-use zoning, then, I suppose, in an attempt to do the impossible: please everyone involved.
And, to Essa, I think it is this idea of final resting place (an idea that is not unique to the Western, Christian world) more than anything, that serves as the reason for granting the site "sacred" status.
But theoria is correct in noting that the site will be used, and has always been used for commercial purposes. Mixed-use zoning, then, I suppose, in an attempt to do the impossible: please everyone involved.
314margd
There must have been more than a few innocent Muslim victims among the dead in Twin Towers, Pentagon, and airplanes that day?
315StormRaven
There must have been more than a few innocent Muslim victims among the dead in Twin Towers, Pentagon, and airplanes that day?
This site gives a partial list of Muslim victioms from 9/11 that is (by my count) 59 people long.
This site gives a partial list of Muslim victioms from 9/11 that is (by my count) 59 people long.
316OldSarge
“He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.” Thomas Paine
317StormRaven
316: I love Thomas Paine.
318Makifat
310
"The vast majority of all American Muslims subscribe to the strong Islamic tradition of tolerance and human dignity.""
"The vast majority of American mosques are funded with Saudi Arabian money, and most of the funders subscribe to the Saudi doctrine of Wahhabism, an 18th C. ideology of extreme purity that supports the spread of Islam through violence."
I'm sure that even you can see an obvious disconnect between these two statements. Perhaps the suggestion is that, counter to what tends to happen with immigrants as they become assimilated, these Americanized Muslims are so pliable that they will be quickly turned into terrorists by the influence of those funding their mosques. As previously noted, the Saudis have been attempting to influence American Muslims for a rather long time, and it is not unreasonable to presume that their funding is a matter of emphasizing the prestige of the House of Saud in the Muslim world, rather than a blatant attempt to create a vast network of sleepers. It never hurts to consider a different interpretation.
"The vast majority of all American Muslims subscribe to the strong Islamic tradition of tolerance and human dignity.""
"The vast majority of American mosques are funded with Saudi Arabian money, and most of the funders subscribe to the Saudi doctrine of Wahhabism, an 18th C. ideology of extreme purity that supports the spread of Islam through violence."
I'm sure that even you can see an obvious disconnect between these two statements. Perhaps the suggestion is that, counter to what tends to happen with immigrants as they become assimilated, these Americanized Muslims are so pliable that they will be quickly turned into terrorists by the influence of those funding their mosques. As previously noted, the Saudis have been attempting to influence American Muslims for a rather long time, and it is not unreasonable to presume that their funding is a matter of emphasizing the prestige of the House of Saud in the Muslim world, rather than a blatant attempt to create a vast network of sleepers. It never hurts to consider a different interpretation.
319Makifat
More on Kabbani:
http://www.racematters.org/muslimleadersuddenlysage.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hisham_Kabbani
Apparently there is more controversy than meet the eye regarding his statements referenced in post 310.
http://www.racematters.org/muslimleadersuddenlysage.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hisham_Kabbani
Apparently there is more controversy than meet the eye regarding his statements referenced in post 310.
320Essa
> 319 Kabbani is discussed also in American Islam: The Struggle for the Soul of a Religion, by Paul M. Barrett (mainly in Ch. 5, "The Mystics"). The book is probably worth your while, if you are interested in these issues. It's not entirely about mosque radicalization/Saudi funding -- it's more of an attempt to survey some of the various threads in the modern American Muslim tapestry by way of interviews with eight different Muslims (conservative, reformist, Sufi, feminist, etc.) -- but that topic is certainly discussed, along with many others. An introduction by the author provides statistics and some historical and cultural context.
> 313 Yes, I think you are right about the idea of "resting place."
> 313 Yes, I think you are right about the idea of "resting place."
321Makifat
320
Thank you, I have placed a hold on the Barrett book at my library. Looking forward to reading it.
Thank you, I have placed a hold on the Barrett book at my library. Looking forward to reading it.
322Jesse_wiedinmyer
Jesse, are you familiar with The Three Christs of Ypsilanti?
A simple idea, planted by a single book, led to one man's dream.
And this, child, is how "LibraryThing Talk" was born.
324Jesse_wiedinmyer
A Pepsi, Codyed. I just wanted a Pepsi.
326Jesse_wiedinmyer
No, though there do seem to be some fire engines running down the street.
327marieke54
Doing my morning round on Israel/Palestine news I saw this:
“This might be a landmark moment, in which the Jewish parochialism of the neoconservative gang is taken on by a new universalism among empowered Jews (Peter Beinart et al) who understand their responsibility to a broader society.”
http://mondoweiss.net/2010/08/nyt-bloomberg-lehrer-lead-mainstream-stampede-in-s...
Also: last week in Dutch press we read that the ADL hopes future statesman (my qualification) Geert Wilders will not make his announced speech on 11/9.
The ADL considers Wilders’ Islam critique “indecent” and in “flagrant opposition with the freedom of religion, one of the fundaments / fundamental principles of this country” (Volgens de ADL is Wilders’ kritiek op de islam onbetamelijk en „in flagrante strijd met de vrijheid van godsdienst, een van de grondbeginselen van dit land”)
http://www.nrc.nl/binnenland/article2600274.ece/Joodse_actiegroep_VS_hoopt_dat_W...
“This might be a landmark moment, in which the Jewish parochialism of the neoconservative gang is taken on by a new universalism among empowered Jews (Peter Beinart et al) who understand their responsibility to a broader society.”
http://mondoweiss.net/2010/08/nyt-bloomberg-lehrer-lead-mainstream-stampede-in-s...
Also: last week in Dutch press we read that the ADL hopes future statesman (my qualification) Geert Wilders will not make his announced speech on 11/9.
The ADL considers Wilders’ Islam critique “indecent” and in “flagrant opposition with the freedom of religion, one of the fundaments / fundamental principles of this country” (Volgens de ADL is Wilders’ kritiek op de islam onbetamelijk en „in flagrante strijd met de vrijheid van godsdienst, een van de grondbeginselen van dit land”)
http://www.nrc.nl/binnenland/article2600274.ece/Joodse_actiegroep_VS_hoopt_dat_W...
328Jesse_wiedinmyer
The Supreme Fascist weighs in (No, I don't mean Tim.)
President Obama threw his support behind a controversial proposal to build an Islamic center and mosque near New York's ground zero, saying Friday that "Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country."
President Obama threw his support behind a controversial proposal to build an Islamic center and mosque near New York's ground zero, saying Friday that "Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country."
329JNSelko
Better a mosque than a Sarah Palin campaign office. Moslems don't hate America nearly as much as the Tea Baggers.
331jjwilson61
I think Ms. Palin and many others have already made it more than a local affair.
332Madcow299
Yeah it's always a shame when the president stands up for religious freedom and the basic rights of citizens.
333prosfilaes
#330: And why should he? I don't know that any of us are from the local area, either. The president is a citizen and is allowed to hold and express opinions on whatever he wants.
334modalursine
In theory, americans have freedom of religion. The government may not favor one religion over another, nor may it fail to make reasonable accommodations to the religions sensibilities of its citizens. In practice, this at first meant freedom to be any kind of protestant whatever. Though the constitution barred religious qualification for holding office, until the the 1960' with the election of Kennedy, Catholics, for example, need not apply. There has yet to be a non Christian president.
The attempt to demonize Moslems, to tar them all with the brush of being an actual or potential terrorist or terrorist sympathizer, is not simply a local issue.
A president who does not vigorously oppose any such popular or political movement is being derelict in his duty to uphold the constitution and by his silence or weak defense would in fact be an agent of evil, aiding through inaction the poisons of anger and ignorance.
Even "W" did better than that.
The attempt to demonize Moslems, to tar them all with the brush of being an actual or potential terrorist or terrorist sympathizer, is not simply a local issue.
A president who does not vigorously oppose any such popular or political movement is being derelict in his duty to uphold the constitution and by his silence or weak defense would in fact be an agent of evil, aiding through inaction the poisons of anger and ignorance.
Even "W" did better than that.
335Makifat
Even "W" did better than that.
Indeed he did, to his credit. He did make it clear post 9/11 that the the rights of Muslim Americans, as Americans and as religious persons, should be respected, and was careful not to paint with the broad brush of hysteria.
Unfortunately, this did not always work out in practice, but the sentiment was there, at a particularly crucial time.
Indeed he did, to his credit. He did make it clear post 9/11 that the the rights of Muslim Americans, as Americans and as religious persons, should be respected, and was careful not to paint with the broad brush of hysteria.
Unfortunately, this did not always work out in practice, but the sentiment was there, at a particularly crucial time.
336timspalding
>334 modalursine:
I think this is consistently overstated, in the service of making American history sound unfriendly to religious freedom, when any fair reading would demonstrate the precise opposite. Say what you want about there being no Catholic president before Kennedy, but being a Catholic in 18th century England was actually illegal, a prohibition which extended--and was sometimes acted upon--in the colonies. Five colonies explicitly barred Catholics from the vote and four barred Jews. Nor was the freedom to be any kind of Protestant a small freedom--it was not a freedom Americans had consistently before the revolution.
"Need not apply" is also overstated. Kennedy was the first Catholic president, but Al Smith ran for it in '28, and, obviously, Catholics held office in many states--Al Smith was, after all, the governor of our (then) most important state. The US had its first Catholic senator the first year there were senators (1777), more than fifty years before Catholics were allowed to become MPs, and we had our first Jewish senator in the 1840s.
As for non-Christians, I think there's a fair case to be made for Jefferson. His religious opinions--though not fully known and to some extent shifting in themselves--were raised against him when he ran for president, but he still won.
I think this is consistently overstated, in the service of making American history sound unfriendly to religious freedom, when any fair reading would demonstrate the precise opposite. Say what you want about there being no Catholic president before Kennedy, but being a Catholic in 18th century England was actually illegal, a prohibition which extended--and was sometimes acted upon--in the colonies. Five colonies explicitly barred Catholics from the vote and four barred Jews. Nor was the freedom to be any kind of Protestant a small freedom--it was not a freedom Americans had consistently before the revolution.
"Need not apply" is also overstated. Kennedy was the first Catholic president, but Al Smith ran for it in '28, and, obviously, Catholics held office in many states--Al Smith was, after all, the governor of our (then) most important state. The US had its first Catholic senator the first year there were senators (1777), more than fifty years before Catholics were allowed to become MPs, and we had our first Jewish senator in the 1840s.
As for non-Christians, I think there's a fair case to be made for Jefferson. His religious opinions--though not fully known and to some extent shifting in themselves--were raised against him when he ran for president, but he still won.
337theabbottsmusick
This is an interesting problem - I'm glad I'm not Bloomberg or Obama having to find something to say about it as, from the lawmakers' point of view, there doesn't seem to be much wriggle-room. I just wish that the followers of Islam who thought up the plan could have realised that many Americans would be offended and, solely on the basis of good-neighbourliness, found a less contentious site for their building.
Such consideration often seems to come some way behind the desire of adherents to most theist religions to glorify their god. Understandable, I suppose, if one believes in a god who is into judgement and smiting, but less so if the religion claims to support charity and concern for one's fellow man.
(Sorry for an intrusive comment when I have only read a liitle of the thread.)
Such consideration often seems to come some way behind the desire of adherents to most theist religions to glorify their god. Understandable, I suppose, if one believes in a god who is into judgement and smiting, but less so if the religion claims to support charity and concern for one's fellow man.
(Sorry for an intrusive comment when I have only read a liitle of the thread.)
338timspalding
Modularsine started a new thread about Obama's comments, and today's partial step-back from them here:
http://www.librarything.com/topic/96798
It's doesn't officially continue this topic, but in light of the 337 messages here, maybe we should do so, either there or in a new topic.
http://www.librarything.com/topic/96798
It's doesn't officially continue this topic, but in light of the 337 messages here, maybe we should do so, either there or in a new topic.
339OldSarge
The POTUS is weighing in when it's pointless. The issue has been settled already. The professional and perpetual 9/11 victims cannot stop the mosque. Think he would have learned to stay above it all after the bullshit with that Prof. getting arrested.
340Madcow299
Think he would have learned to stay above it all after the bullshit with that Prof. getting arrested.
You have a point there, although in this situation he was responding to a broader movement against one religious group rather than an individual. There was a wider principle in play here. I think Obama has attempted to speak to the constitutional principle and stay out of the BS this time. He may not succeed but he is trying.
You have a point there, although in this situation he was responding to a broader movement against one religious group rather than an individual. There was a wider principle in play here. I think Obama has attempted to speak to the constitutional principle and stay out of the BS this time. He may not succeed but he is trying.
341jjwilson61
I just wish that the followers of Islam who thought up the plan could have realised that many Americans would be offended ...
That's just it though. To be offended, you must have some idea that all Muslims are responsible for 9-11, which is just wrong. I don't see why we should give in to prejudice just because those holding the prejudiced views are victims.
That's just it though. To be offended, you must have some idea that all Muslims are responsible for 9-11, which is just wrong. I don't see why we should give in to prejudice just because those holding the prejudiced views are victims.
342modalursine
Hypotheses "A":
START
Suppose a Christian group wished to build a YMCA or perhaps a more sectarian Christian community center a few blocks from "ground zero".
END
Now I suppose I could be wrong about this, but I bet the "smart money" would say that would be a big ho hum boring non event. Move along, nothing to see here.
Now wherever you see the word "Christian" in Hypotheses "A", substitute the word "Moslem".
Does that substitution change the political or emotional register of the Hypotheses?
You know it does.
Should it?
Not if we take seriously the proposition that all religions should have equal standing in law and in society.
The very existence of a "controversy" on that issue tells me that something is not correct and in order.
START
Suppose a Christian group wished to build a YMCA or perhaps a more sectarian Christian community center a few blocks from "ground zero".
END
Now I suppose I could be wrong about this, but I bet the "smart money" would say that would be a big ho hum boring non event. Move along, nothing to see here.
Now wherever you see the word "Christian" in Hypotheses "A", substitute the word "Moslem".
Does that substitution change the political or emotional register of the Hypotheses?
You know it does.
Should it?
Not if we take seriously the proposition that all religions should have equal standing in law and in society.
The very existence of a "controversy" on that issue tells me that something is not correct and in order.
343timspalding
>342 modalursine:
I think you're half right. I think it would be a much smaller issue, but it would draw two types of negative reactions: (1) anti-christian (2) the same taste argument made here. I would certainly be against a Catholic 9/11 Center next to ground zero, or indeed any other similar attempt. And I think many others would be to.
I think you're half right. I think it would be a much smaller issue, but it would draw two types of negative reactions: (1) anti-christian (2) the same taste argument made here. I would certainly be against a Catholic 9/11 Center next to ground zero, or indeed any other similar attempt. And I think many others would be to.
344theabbottsmusick
>341 jjwilson61: To be offended, you must have some idea that all Muslims are responsible for 9-11
Do you really believe that? It is arrant nonsense. The facts appear to be, assuming that you don't hold to the conspiracy theories that the CIA was responsible, that a group of Muslim terrorists planned and executed the Twin Towers attack. They were a very small number and they were extremists but they did it in the name of (their) Islam to attack the USA in reprisal for the USA's actions against the Islamic peoples of Iraq and their support of Israel. How can you possibly go from that to talk of "all Muslims" being responsible? I cannot imagine that anyone in their right minds would have any idea like that but I can understand people who saw the attack or lost loved ones feeling very uneasy to see a large Islamic centre being built nearby.
Muslims (apart from the terrorists themselves) died in the Twin Towers and their families and friends should rightly be part of any memorial activty but I don't think this proposal is as ethically neutral as you seem to. As I understand Islam, as practiced by large numbers of its followers around the world, there is little toleration of other religions and almost none to any who seek to leave it for another faith, or none. Many of these people live in poverty in poorly educated, patriarchal societies which influence their attitudes quite as much as the Imams. Muslims living not 50 miles from me have been convicted of 'honour killings' but all the Muslims I have had anything to do with are perfectly good people who were as horrified as the rest by 9/11. I think that, just as in Saudi Arabia or Pakistan I would go along with local customs and sensitivities, practicing Muslims living in Western secular states need to take account of the sensitivities of their neighbours who do not share their faith. They can expect the law to support their proposal to build their centre but would they lose much by choosing another site? I think they would gain friends if they did.
Do you really believe that? It is arrant nonsense. The facts appear to be, assuming that you don't hold to the conspiracy theories that the CIA was responsible, that a group of Muslim terrorists planned and executed the Twin Towers attack. They were a very small number and they were extremists but they did it in the name of (their) Islam to attack the USA in reprisal for the USA's actions against the Islamic peoples of Iraq and their support of Israel. How can you possibly go from that to talk of "all Muslims" being responsible? I cannot imagine that anyone in their right minds would have any idea like that but I can understand people who saw the attack or lost loved ones feeling very uneasy to see a large Islamic centre being built nearby.
Muslims (apart from the terrorists themselves) died in the Twin Towers and their families and friends should rightly be part of any memorial activty but I don't think this proposal is as ethically neutral as you seem to. As I understand Islam, as practiced by large numbers of its followers around the world, there is little toleration of other religions and almost none to any who seek to leave it for another faith, or none. Many of these people live in poverty in poorly educated, patriarchal societies which influence their attitudes quite as much as the Imams. Muslims living not 50 miles from me have been convicted of 'honour killings' but all the Muslims I have had anything to do with are perfectly good people who were as horrified as the rest by 9/11. I think that, just as in Saudi Arabia or Pakistan I would go along with local customs and sensitivities, practicing Muslims living in Western secular states need to take account of the sensitivities of their neighbours who do not share their faith. They can expect the law to support their proposal to build their centre but would they lose much by choosing another site? I think they would gain friends if they did.
345jjwilson61
Then what is there possibly to be offended about (aside from Tim's all religious buildings would be bad argument)? The only reason that I can think of for someone to be offended that a specifically Muslim building being built near Ground Zero is that somewhere in the back of their minds they're blaming all Muslims for the act of a few. What's another explanation?
ETA: And of course I don't believe that all Muslims are responsible for 9-11. I was trying to think why someone might be offended and that's all I could come up with.
ETA: And of course I don't believe that all Muslims are responsible for 9-11. I was trying to think why someone might be offended and that's all I could come up with.
346timspalding
A friend of mine made an argument specifically muslim center that I find at least interesting. His analogy was to imagine that extreme anti-government libertarians decided to set up a center near the Oklahoma City bombing site, to make clear that they differ McVeigh in his choice of violence, and in not being racists.
The rationale is understandable and to an extent even commendable. But it's also tasteless in a special way. Extreme libertarians share something with McVeigh that would make their attempt to horn in on the site's symbolic power particularly unwelcome and therefore icky.
The same applies to any number of other situations--a Catholic Center alongside the mass graves of the Ustaše, a Center for the Celebration of Serbian Culture in Srebrenica, etc.
I mention this argument, but am not entirely persuaded by it. It falters on the greater "normalcy" of Islam, and diversity. American muslims do not really want the same things as the 9/11 hijackers by different method. If the Islamic center is as it says it will be, the 9/11 hijackers would not have visited it, let along agreed with it, and may have considered them apostates, liable to be killed.
The rationale is understandable and to an extent even commendable. But it's also tasteless in a special way. Extreme libertarians share something with McVeigh that would make their attempt to horn in on the site's symbolic power particularly unwelcome and therefore icky.
The same applies to any number of other situations--a Catholic Center alongside the mass graves of the Ustaše, a Center for the Celebration of Serbian Culture in Srebrenica, etc.
I mention this argument, but am not entirely persuaded by it. It falters on the greater "normalcy" of Islam, and diversity. American muslims do not really want the same things as the 9/11 hijackers by different method. If the Islamic center is as it says it will be, the 9/11 hijackers would not have visited it, let along agreed with it, and may have considered them apostates, liable to be killed.
347modalursine
Some other neighbors at or near ground zero:
http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/ground-zero-mosque-name-belies-distance-fr...
http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/ground-zero-mosque-name-belies-distance-fr...
348prosfilaes
#346: Actually, there doesn't seem to be much evidence that Timothy McVeigh was racist, though he certainly had no problem hanging out with racists. ( http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/03/29/profile.mcveigh/ )
349timspalding
On the one side we have ample testimony that he read, loved and recommended The Turner Diaries, which envisions a militia genocide of all Jews and non-white people. On the other hand we have a roommate who said he wasn't racist.
The article you cited is the one cited by Wikipedia. There are lot of others. Another CNN piece notes:
The article you cited is the one cited by Wikipedia. There are lot of others. Another CNN piece notes:
"Back in Kansas, he grew more aloof and alienated from his fellow soldiers. In addition, McVeigh developed a reputation as a racist. At one point, he even signed up for a trial membership in the KKK, although he chose not to renew because he found the Klan too focused on issues of race and not enough on Second Amendment rights, he later claimed to Michel and Herbeck."
350prosfilaes
True. Perhaps it's more fair to say that while McVeigh was racist, his politics and justifications weren't particularly racist; his letter to Fox News justifying his actions never mentions race, for example.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,17500,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,17500,00.html
351timspalding
Wasn't he a muslim?
352OldSarge
There is a Mosque in the Pentagon. There are Moslem Chaplains in our military.
http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/08/05/muslims_infiltrate_pentag...
Those of us doing the actual fighting and dying don't have a problem with this. So as far as I'm concerned, the antis can just STFU.
http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/08/05/muslims_infiltrate_pentag...
Those of us doing the actual fighting and dying don't have a problem with this. So as far as I'm concerned, the antis can just STFU.
354prosfilaes
#351: Yeah, I think McVeigh went to the same mosque as Obama.
Someone over at Pharyngula pointed out that this building has been vacant for two years, operating as rat and roach motel with easy access to the supermarket next door. Living in a city with a fine supply of boarded-up buildings, it's nice to see such buildings being fixed up and used; it definitely makes the neighborhood a nicer place.
Of course, our murine citizens will be terribly unhappy, but there seems to be a general apathy towards their rights. Some animals are more equal than others, I guess.
Someone over at Pharyngula pointed out that this building has been vacant for two years, operating as rat and roach motel with easy access to the supermarket next door. Living in a city with a fine supply of boarded-up buildings, it's nice to see such buildings being fixed up and used; it definitely makes the neighborhood a nicer place.
Of course, our murine citizens will be terribly unhappy, but there seems to be a general apathy towards their rights. Some animals are more equal than others, I guess.
355Essa
> 323 I can't check out anybody's butt after I came home from a trip to a non-functional computer. I'm borrowing time @ the libraries here and there, but I can't follow conversations much. :(
It sounds like OldSarge -- who, if I recall correctly, is a NYC resident? -- has the right of it. It makes for interesting discussion but, ultimately, people who are not residents of NYC have no real say in what NYC does with its buildings (provided that such use is otherwise within the bounds of the law), which is as it should be.
It sounds like OldSarge -- who, if I recall correctly, is a NYC resident? -- has the right of it. It makes for interesting discussion but, ultimately, people who are not residents of NYC have no real say in what NYC does with its buildings (provided that such use is otherwise within the bounds of the law), which is as it should be.
356OldSarge
I'm a born and raised Noo Yawkuh, but cannot claim residency there. I changed it to New Jersey five years ago. My emotional and personal investment in what happened at Ground Zero and the events since are real enough.
I can understand folks supporting or being against a Mosque in that area. I'm just fed up with the shrill tone that seems to overtake every issue in the news these days.
I support it simply on First Amendment grounds. I will be the first to admit I have issues with Islam and some practices I have seen with my own eyes. But I swore an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the US and I consider oaths sacred. Irregardless of my own personal feelings. While I consider the actions of the Westboro Baptist Church loathsome, hateful, and beyond the pale they have First Amendment rights too.
But I've also seen ridiculous behaviour from the other side. Being against the Mosque doesn't automatically make someone a racist or Islamophobe. For some I know, the events of that day are still too raw. I've been to Ground Zero and find myself unable to go back. It hurts, even nine years later.
I can understand folks supporting or being against a Mosque in that area. I'm just fed up with the shrill tone that seems to overtake every issue in the news these days.
I support it simply on First Amendment grounds. I will be the first to admit I have issues with Islam and some practices I have seen with my own eyes. But I swore an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the US and I consider oaths sacred. Irregardless of my own personal feelings. While I consider the actions of the Westboro Baptist Church loathsome, hateful, and beyond the pale they have First Amendment rights too.
But I've also seen ridiculous behaviour from the other side. Being against the Mosque doesn't automatically make someone a racist or Islamophobe. For some I know, the events of that day are still too raw. I've been to Ground Zero and find myself unable to go back. It hurts, even nine years later.
357Essa
> 356 100% agreement from me on all counts (minus the emotional impact, which I sympathize with but have not experienced myself, having not lost people in 9/11 or served in the armed forces).
358modalursine
Old joke:
The police show up at a Communist street protest and start cracking heads and dragging people to the paddy wagon. A man who had showed up to heckle the Communists gets caught up in the dragnet. As the policeman swings his bully club, the man protests--"Don't hit me, officer, I'm an anti-Communist."
"I don't care what kind of Communist you are," the policeman says.
So. Sufi, Wahhabi, some people don't seem to care what kind of a Muslim you are.
Being a moslem is considered "foreign", "un-american" and somehow, just not top drawer.
But if that's not Islamaphobia, then one wonders what would qualify as such?
The police show up at a Communist street protest and start cracking heads and dragging people to the paddy wagon. A man who had showed up to heckle the Communists gets caught up in the dragnet. As the policeman swings his bully club, the man protests--"Don't hit me, officer, I'm an anti-Communist."
"I don't care what kind of Communist you are," the policeman says.
So. Sufi, Wahhabi, some people don't seem to care what kind of a Muslim you are.
Being a moslem is considered "foreign", "un-american" and somehow, just not top drawer.
But if that's not Islamaphobia, then one wonders what would qualify as such?
359timspalding
I can understand folks supporting or being against a Mosque in that area. I'm just fed up with the shrill tone that seems to overtake every issue in the news these days.
Exactly.
The NYT had a good story on local muslims opinion of the whole affair. As you might imagine, they weren't all for the mosque, but they were pretty much all shocked by the nastiness and hypocrisy arrayed against it.
For my part, as I've said, I think the project is in dubious taste. I don't want to see the area filled up with "responses" from various religious sides. It shows a certain crass opportunism that--I think--thoughtful religious people of any stripe should avoid. But whatever my opinion, it can be only that--to oppose the mosque on legal grounds is a dreadful repudiation of American values and American law. And my criticism takes a back seat to disgust at how much of the oppositions is grounded in misinformation, hatred, fear-mongering and breathtaking hypocrisy.
Exactly.
The NYT had a good story on local muslims opinion of the whole affair. As you might imagine, they weren't all for the mosque, but they were pretty much all shocked by the nastiness and hypocrisy arrayed against it.
For my part, as I've said, I think the project is in dubious taste. I don't want to see the area filled up with "responses" from various religious sides. It shows a certain crass opportunism that--I think--thoughtful religious people of any stripe should avoid. But whatever my opinion, it can be only that--to oppose the mosque on legal grounds is a dreadful repudiation of American values and American law. And my criticism takes a back seat to disgust at how much of the oppositions is grounded in misinformation, hatred, fear-mongering and breathtaking hypocrisy.
360codyed
Slate's William Saletan takes on the "sensitivity" argument put forward by opponents of the "Ground Zero" mosque. The targets of his screed are conservative opponents, but even some liberals are getting in on the action, e.g. Howard Dean--a truly bipartisan affair. According to Saletan, the sensitivity argument is based on feelings which cannot be morally justified.
361jjwilson61
Amen.
363krolik
>360 codyed: Oh, for suck's fake. Life was simpler when we liberals had the thensitive monopoly. Excuse me while I go bite my pillow.
365krolik
I've tried but it's so...squishy. And it breathes through its mouth and drools. And it doesn't know how I like to be touched. Excuse me while I reinsert my pillow.
366prosfilaes
#359: "I don't want to see the area filled up with "responses" from various religious sides."
If the current state of the building, as a building unoccupied for a good time and in need of repair, is common in the area, I think anything filling up the area that will keep it from being a home for vandalism, drugs and prostitution is a good thing. If that's what the people of the area can get, they'll probably take it.
If the current state of the building, as a building unoccupied for a good time and in need of repair, is common in the area, I think anything filling up the area that will keep it from being a home for vandalism, drugs and prostitution is a good thing. If that's what the people of the area can get, they'll probably take it.
367timspalding
So, a native New Yorker should answer this, but that area is hardly brimming over with drugs and prostitution. No doubt the loss of the WTC has hit local businesses, but the area is still basically businesses supported by large numbers of well-paid, mostly financial office workers, with a minimal residential population and, except for insider trading, lower-than-average Manhattan crime.
368StormRaven
367: I was there this weekend (took my kids to visit my sister who lives in Brooklyn, we went by Ground Zero). The idea that an area of lower Manhattan would become overrun with "drugs and prostitution" ignores things like the area's proximity to things like Battery Park and the NYSE. It is literally in the commercial heart of the city, and a high rent district.
369Makifat
I think that anyone looking for something to be outraged about ought to consider that, after almost 10 years, the WTC site remains a gaping pit, with no suitable memorial for the dead.
No doubt one of the reasons the Islamic Center is being seen as some sort of victory sign is the fact that the WTC site is still fallow and empty. The contrast is stark, and we can't blame the Muslims for that.
It would be nice if the self-styled patriots would put their collective energy into revitalizing the site itself, rather than cultivate fear and misinformation about a community center two blocks away.
No doubt one of the reasons the Islamic Center is being seen as some sort of victory sign is the fact that the WTC site is still fallow and empty. The contrast is stark, and we can't blame the Muslims for that.
It would be nice if the self-styled patriots would put their collective energy into revitalizing the site itself, rather than cultivate fear and misinformation about a community center two blocks away.
370timspalding
>369 Makifat:
Well, irrespective of the mosque issue, you're dead right. It's emblematic of something. For what it's worth, Shanksville's monument is going to be done this year. That it took 10 years to design and erect a monument in an empty field is sad too.
Well, irrespective of the mosque issue, you're dead right. It's emblematic of something. For what it's worth, Shanksville's monument is going to be done this year. That it took 10 years to design and erect a monument in an empty field is sad too.
371diganwhiskey
I haven't heard any talk in the media; is the potential for violence implicit and is that why no one seems to mention it?
372lilithcat
> 370
And, of course, the loons are out in force on that one, too, claiming it's a giant crescent pointing to Mecca. Seriously. Crescent of Betrayal: http://www.crescentofbetrayal.com/
And, of course, the loons are out in force on that one, too, claiming it's a giant crescent pointing to Mecca. Seriously. Crescent of Betrayal: http://www.crescentofbetrayal.com/
373jjwilson61
371> What do you think all the links people have posted to articles in the media are. Or are you talking about something else?
374Makifat
371
You mean like this?
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/26/nyregion/26cabby.html?_r=1&hp
Another patriot doing his part to keep America safe from the Islamofascist threat.
You mean like this?
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/26/nyregion/26cabby.html?_r=1&hp
Another patriot doing his part to keep America safe from the Islamofascist threat.
375prosfilaes
#374: He sounds insane; I don't mean nutty or looney, I mean clinically seriously mentally ill. I don't think their actions really mean much on the social level; they don't represent anything besides their own problems, unless someone starts adopting their manifestos, like the Society for Cutting Up Men (SCUM).
376Makifat
He sounds insane
Most likely so, but I can't help wondering to what degree the mosque hysteria may have contributed to his decision to "act out". Even crazy people, when they feel somehow tied into a larger movement or prevailing attitude, can feel that they have some validation or justification for extreme actions.
Think of the Ft. Hood shooter, another clearly unbalanced person. To what degree did his exposure/attraction to radical Islam give him self justification for his shooting spree?
Most likely so, but I can't help wondering to what degree the mosque hysteria may have contributed to his decision to "act out". Even crazy people, when they feel somehow tied into a larger movement or prevailing attitude, can feel that they have some validation or justification for extreme actions.
Think of the Ft. Hood shooter, another clearly unbalanced person. To what degree did his exposure/attraction to radical Islam give him self justification for his shooting spree?
377Jesse_wiedinmyer
Obama gives your tax dollars to rebuild Muslim mosques around the world
While millions of Americans struggle to keep their homes and job, President Barack Obama can't give our tax dollars away fast enough.
While millions of Americans struggle to keep their homes and job, President Barack Obama can't give our tax dollars away fast enough.
379Makifat
We should take comfort that our tax dollars have also gone to blowing the shit out of mosques in southwestern Asia.
380MMcM
From the alert:
Now read the actual list of sites it links to.
And can you imagine what the ACLU and others on the secular left would say if these monies had been spent to repair Christian churches?
Now read the actual list of sites it links to.
381codyed
The Cabbie Stabber was embedded with the Marines in Afghanistan for 35 days for a documentary he was filming. From what I gather from this Salon article, Afghanistan may have screwed him up.
382timspalding
And can you imagine what the ACLU and others on the secular left would say if these monies had been spent to repair Christian churches? / Now read the actual list of sites it links to.
Right, six of the projects funded -are to repair Christian churches. Crazy.
It's also amusing that you can Google up the same "U.S. AMBASSADORS FUND FOR CULTURAL PRESERVATION" awards from years long before. The awards were established in 2000, and during most of that time Bush was president, merrily giving money to mosques, churches, and the rest.
Right, six of the projects funded -are to repair Christian churches. Crazy.
It's also amusing that you can Google up the same "U.S. AMBASSADORS FUND FOR CULTURAL PRESERVATION" awards from years long before. The awards were established in 2000, and during most of that time Bush was president, merrily giving money to mosques, churches, and the rest.
385prosfilaes
#221: I ran across a blog that gave more of the history of Cordoba: http://gotmedieval.blogspot.com/2010/08/professor-newts-distorted-history.html
In particular, the Cathedral of the Assumption of the Virgin is a conversion of the Great Mosque, that is based on the site where a Christian Church once stood, on the site where a pagan temple once stood. (The pagans lost, so their crushing never counts for anything.) And the city of Cordoba was a great fount of interfaith learning, a place where Moses Maimonides and the man who was to be Pope Sylvester II studied.
In particular, the Cathedral of the Assumption of the Virgin is a conversion of the Great Mosque, that is based on the site where a Christian Church once stood, on the site where a pagan temple once stood. (The pagans lost, so their crushing never counts for anything.) And the city of Cordoba was a great fount of interfaith learning, a place where Moses Maimonides and the man who was to be Pope Sylvester II studied.
390timspalding
"Great fount of interfaith learning."
It does depend on definition. If a modern were to suppose this sentence meant that Jews, Christians and Muslims were sitting around the Cordoba State faculty club together, exchanging ideas in an atmosphere of intellectual freedom and tolerance, that would not be accurate.
But the record of coexistence was rather better than some other places the three faiths met, the culture was wealthier, and the contact longer lasting. As a result, Islamic Spain was the primary transfer point between the higher culture (especially science and philosophy) of the two/three civilizations. The other places one might imagine--Sicily, the Balkans and the Outremer don't compare. However logical it would seem that the Crusades initiated wide cultural contact, the Crusader states were set in a culturally and economically poor area, the Frankish presence was small and--for obvious reasons--highly military. (A much stronger case could be made for the Greek-Arab-Indian-Syriac translation program of the Abbasids.)
The result in Spain was something of a mixed culture, especially in some subjects, where, for example, Ibn Gabirol (Avicebron) could write philosophy in Arabic, get translated into Latin, and become quite famous and influential in western Europe--and it wasn't until the 19th century that a scholar figured out the author wasn't Muslim, but a Jew. (See Legacy of Islam, p. 427). That doesn't compare with the cross-cultural ferment of a modern university, or even with that of Revolutionary France, when European ghettos were largely torn down and Jews entered the main stream of European intellectual life. But moderns never really understand how hard cultural contact is, or how rarely it happens. In that context, it's pretty important and impressive stuff, and worth commemorating.
I suspect Moorish Spain gets looked at with rosy-colored glasses in part as well because it compares so favorably with what was to come--the expulsion of Muslims, the expulsion (Spain) or forced conversion (Portugal) of all Jews, and the ensuing vicious campaign against Marranos and others.
It does depend on definition. If a modern were to suppose this sentence meant that Jews, Christians and Muslims were sitting around the Cordoba State faculty club together, exchanging ideas in an atmosphere of intellectual freedom and tolerance, that would not be accurate.
But the record of coexistence was rather better than some other places the three faiths met, the culture was wealthier, and the contact longer lasting. As a result, Islamic Spain was the primary transfer point between the higher culture (especially science and philosophy) of the two/three civilizations. The other places one might imagine--Sicily, the Balkans and the Outremer don't compare. However logical it would seem that the Crusades initiated wide cultural contact, the Crusader states were set in a culturally and economically poor area, the Frankish presence was small and--for obvious reasons--highly military. (A much stronger case could be made for the Greek-Arab-Indian-Syriac translation program of the Abbasids.)
The result in Spain was something of a mixed culture, especially in some subjects, where, for example, Ibn Gabirol (Avicebron) could write philosophy in Arabic, get translated into Latin, and become quite famous and influential in western Europe--and it wasn't until the 19th century that a scholar figured out the author wasn't Muslim, but a Jew. (See Legacy of Islam, p. 427). That doesn't compare with the cross-cultural ferment of a modern university, or even with that of Revolutionary France, when European ghettos were largely torn down and Jews entered the main stream of European intellectual life. But moderns never really understand how hard cultural contact is, or how rarely it happens. In that context, it's pretty important and impressive stuff, and worth commemorating.
I suspect Moorish Spain gets looked at with rosy-colored glasses in part as well because it compares so favorably with what was to come--the expulsion of Muslims, the expulsion (Spain) or forced conversion (Portugal) of all Jews, and the ensuing vicious campaign against Marranos and others.
391prosfilaes
#386: If you were to be dropped down someplace in Europe in 1000-1200, and you could pick the place, but whether you were Jewish, Muslim or Christian would be chosen against you, where would you choose? Cordoba's looking pretty good.
"golden age" monuments to interfaith tolerance:
Relative to what? Nowhere in civilized Europe since the Roman Empire could I with my religious beliefs survive. But relative to its time and location, it certainly seems quite liberal; where else in Europe 800-1400 could one find such things?
Richard Fletcher, a moderate to left professor at Tufts University,
You must have him confused with someone else; The UK Times lists him as a professor at the University of York.
"golden age" monuments to interfaith tolerance:
Relative to what? Nowhere in civilized Europe since the Roman Empire could I with my religious beliefs survive. But relative to its time and location, it certainly seems quite liberal; where else in Europe 800-1400 could one find such things?
Richard Fletcher, a moderate to left professor at Tufts University,
You must have him confused with someone else; The UK Times lists him as a professor at the University of York.
393Jesse_wiedinmyer
where I could worship Christ fully and own a weapon.
Have you considered reading the Sermon on the Mount? I hear it's pretty good.
Have you considered reading the Sermon on the Mount? I hear it's pretty good.
395timspalding
It's worth adding that Oakes missed the point--which was to pick the place, not the religion. Obviously, it's much easier if you pick your religion.
However, assuming one were to pick London anyway, what's the answer? For Islam, there's no answer--there were none, although it's likely the situation would not have been pleasant, considering the situation of Jews in England and the passions of the Crusades. Concerning them, things got increasingly hot at the end of the period with sundry massacres and punitive laws culminating in the 365-year expulsion of the Jews in 1290. Oh, from the Assize of Arms (1181) Jews couldn't own weapons either.
However, assuming one were to pick London anyway, what's the answer? For Islam, there's no answer--there were none, although it's likely the situation would not have been pleasant, considering the situation of Jews in England and the passions of the Crusades. Concerning them, things got increasingly hot at the end of the period with sundry massacres and punitive laws culminating in the 365-year expulsion of the Jews in 1290. Oh, from the Assize of Arms (1181) Jews couldn't own weapons either.
396Essa
As a result, Islamic Spain was the primary transfer point between the higher culture (especially science and philosophy) of the two/three civilizations. The other places one might imagine--Sicily, the Balkans and the Outremer don't compare.
One primary transfer point that does compare, even though people might not automatically think of it as readily as they think of Spain, is Iraq. Especially Baghdad, c. 10th-century, was a fertile ground for the (relatively) friendly development, interaction and debate of the three faiths, and Arab Christian philosophers (Yahya ibn Adi, et al.) flourished there. See, e.g., The Church in the Shadow of the Mosque: Christians and Muslims in the World of Islam, by Sidney H. Griffith, S.T., who teaches at The Catholic University of America. I went to see him lecture on the topic at a local college one evening, and he was a very enthusiastic and engaging speaker. The book, too, is quite interesting, and the history may (says Griffith in the introduction) shed some useful light for fruitful Christian-Muslim interactions in the modern day.
Edit: Seriously, what's with touchstones lately? They show up as I type the message, but after I post, they are gone. :/
One primary transfer point that does compare, even though people might not automatically think of it as readily as they think of Spain, is Iraq. Especially Baghdad, c. 10th-century, was a fertile ground for the (relatively) friendly development, interaction and debate of the three faiths, and Arab Christian philosophers (Yahya ibn Adi, et al.) flourished there. See, e.g., The Church in the Shadow of the Mosque: Christians and Muslims in the World of Islam, by Sidney H. Griffith, S.T., who teaches at The Catholic University of America. I went to see him lecture on the topic at a local college one evening, and he was a very enthusiastic and engaging speaker. The book, too, is quite interesting, and the history may (says Griffith in the introduction) shed some useful light for fruitful Christian-Muslim interactions in the modern day.
Edit: Seriously, what's with touchstones lately? They show up as I type the message, but after I post, they are gone. :/
397timspalding
I mentioned that! Another good book—Greek Thought, Arab Culture by Dimitri Gutas.
400Jesse_wiedinmyer
The Onion weighs in.
401timspalding
Is he anti-Israel? I don't doubt it. Did he say antisemitic things? I'd like to see proof. Proof is a thing with quotes, not assertions by political opponents.
More importantly does any of this have anything to do with his work? On his dictionary, for example? On his introduction to Avicenna? On his contributions to the text of Theophrastus? Does it have anything to do with the book cited, an overview of the translation movement, with a special argument that Zoroastrian theology of knowledge influenced the Arab translation effort?
No. But then you obviously have no idea of the contents of the book. Do you have anything to say say on the topic of Islamic culture, except as it supports or doesn't support a paranoid, hateful fantasy?
More importantly does any of this have anything to do with his work? On his dictionary, for example? On his introduction to Avicenna? On his contributions to the text of Theophrastus? Does it have anything to do with the book cited, an overview of the translation movement, with a special argument that Zoroastrian theology of knowledge influenced the Arab translation effort?
No. But then you obviously have no idea of the contents of the book. Do you have anything to say say on the topic of Islamic culture, except as it supports or doesn't support a paranoid, hateful fantasy?
402readafew
400 > unfortunately, that was a scarily accurate standpoint many in the US take, though not quite so honestly...
403Makifat
Sorry to go off topic, but has Oakes renounced the time-honored Spalding name? Will there be some sort of ceremony?
404timspalding
No, I changed it. I was confused with him for the millionth time.
See http://www.librarything.com/topic/97640
See http://www.librarything.com/topic/97640
406DanMat
>367 timspalding:
I spend a lot of time in that area pre and post 911. It's a strange place. It shuts down after 5. Empties out. Most places cater to a lunch and breakfast crowd. There are lots of commercial buildings that are somewhat vacant. South Street Seaport is on the other side, but it's depressing. The streets cut through at angles. You could probably walk by this thing, if it ever gets built, and not know it. It's being built wouldn't necessarily prevent vandalism, drugs or prostitution, as it's not a particular issue. Never once was I offered drugs or sex.
For some reason, I'm more disgusted by the the throng of gawkers who go to the hole and take pictures in front of it. Please don't accuse me of being unpatriotic, but I've always felt it is in very bad taste to do this. I believe the families of the victims need a place to mourn and reflect and I hope something will be built soon to facilitate that process.
I spend a lot of time in that area pre and post 911. It's a strange place. It shuts down after 5. Empties out. Most places cater to a lunch and breakfast crowd. There are lots of commercial buildings that are somewhat vacant. South Street Seaport is on the other side, but it's depressing. The streets cut through at angles. You could probably walk by this thing, if it ever gets built, and not know it. It's being built wouldn't necessarily prevent vandalism, drugs or prostitution, as it's not a particular issue. Never once was I offered drugs or sex.
For some reason, I'm more disgusted by the the throng of gawkers who go to the hole and take pictures in front of it. Please don't accuse me of being unpatriotic, but I've always felt it is in very bad taste to do this. I believe the families of the victims need a place to mourn and reflect and I hope something will be built soon to facilitate that process.
407timspalding
It could almost go either way. If it became a normal part of the city again--if the city just rebuilt the usual crap there, then life could go on and the scene itself could fade into the city in a decent way. New York has seen lot of tragedy. Or it were memorialized, that would be good too (indeed, better). This in-between state, with neither life nor a real memorial is very sad.
408DanMat
I think the footprint reflecting pools, museum, and the plentiful green space are a very good solution. The Freedom Tower seems unnecessary.
409codyed
Opposition to the Mosque has been a propaganda coup for the Taliban. Also, Tim's concerns appear warranted. A "9-11 Christian Center" is being launched.
Disgusting monsters, the whole lot of 'em.
Disgusting monsters, the whole lot of 'em.
410timspalding
Yeah, exactly what I predicted, except that, as I should have predicted, it would be the farthest fringe that took it up. ("Islam is a wonderful religion... for PEDOPHILES!") Seems rather more of a publicity stunt, though we'll see.
411prosfilaes
#409: Opposition to the Mosque has been a propaganda coup for the Taliban.
So what. Maybe I can ascribe that to my proto-Stoicism, maybe I'm just grumpy about being jerked around by the Taliban, but we've got to manage our domestic affairs by our rules, not to amuse those with little appreciation for them.
So what. Maybe I can ascribe that to my proto-Stoicism, maybe I'm just grumpy about being jerked around by the Taliban, but we've got to manage our domestic affairs by our rules, not to amuse those with little appreciation for them.
412codyed
I agree with you. However, if we are going to have men and women tasked with fighting insurgents in far away lands, we should at least take into consideration how American domestic politics affects American foreign policy, especially in regard to American opposition to a religion that is held strongly by the people we are fighting (and the civilians of which we are occupying). Domestic policy is never entirely divorced from foreign policy.
A "so what" can get people killed.
A "so what" can get people killed.
413prosfilaes
#412: Do we have any real knowledge of which Taliban propaganda strategies are successful? All we have attested here is one person whose view of the whole picture is pretty limited, who has absolutely no reason to tell us even the truth as he knows it.
414marieke54
Anne-Ruth Wertheim is a journalist and the author of various books including "De gans eet het brood van de eenden op, mijn kindertijd in een Jappenkamp op Java" (The Goose Snatches the Bread from the Ducks, My Childhood in a Japanese Prison Camp on Java, 1994). An Indonesian translation of the book was published in March 2008.She works with the concepts of exploitation/colonial racism (contempt or condescension) and cultural/competition racism (envy and distrust).
On the quality of the words of my compatriot Wilders, who will speak on 9/11 in the neighbourhood of the so called Ground Zero mosque, she wrote this:
http://www.juancole.com/2009/05/wertheim-wilders-lethal-words.html
Edit: Characteristics of Wertheim's two types of racism:
1. Exploitation or colonial racism
Occurs
Wherever people have others do heavy labour without paying them much
(slavery, Apartheid, in colonies where minorities exploit majorities)
Prejudices put forth
Mentally slow, backwards, childike, lazy (predominantly inborn or physical traits)
Intentions of prejudices
Overtly: to confirm their own superiority, justify exploitation
Covertly: to feel better than someone else
Accompanying violence
Against rebellious individuals, to keep the group in its place, (has to be kept physically healthy enough to work)
Group borderlines
Can be vague
2. Cultural or competition racism
Occurs
Wherever minorities have to compete with an established majority (mercantile minorities all across the globe, Jews in pre-WWII Europe)
Prejudices put forth
Sly, unreliable, love money, loyal to foreign powers, a menacing religion, want to rule the world (mainly acquired traits, cultural)
Intentions of prejudices
Overtly: to express fear and distrust, justify exclusion
Covertly: jealousy and fear of rivals, a need to feel unity against the scapegoated group, it is all their own fault and they have no right to exist
Accompanying violence
Against the entire group, physical elimination of rivals (pogroms, Holocaust)
Group borderlines
Must be sharp, members need to be recognized
See further:
http://www.juancole.com/2010/08/wertheim-modern-day-racism-a-mixture-that-calls-...
On the quality of the words of my compatriot Wilders, who will speak on 9/11 in the neighbourhood of the so called Ground Zero mosque, she wrote this:
http://www.juancole.com/2009/05/wertheim-wilders-lethal-words.html
Edit: Characteristics of Wertheim's two types of racism:
1. Exploitation or colonial racism
Occurs
Wherever people have others do heavy labour without paying them much
(slavery, Apartheid, in colonies where minorities exploit majorities)
Prejudices put forth
Mentally slow, backwards, childike, lazy (predominantly inborn or physical traits)
Intentions of prejudices
Overtly: to confirm their own superiority, justify exploitation
Covertly: to feel better than someone else
Accompanying violence
Against rebellious individuals, to keep the group in its place, (has to be kept physically healthy enough to work)
Group borderlines
Can be vague
2. Cultural or competition racism
Occurs
Wherever minorities have to compete with an established majority (mercantile minorities all across the globe, Jews in pre-WWII Europe)
Prejudices put forth
Sly, unreliable, love money, loyal to foreign powers, a menacing religion, want to rule the world (mainly acquired traits, cultural)
Intentions of prejudices
Overtly: to express fear and distrust, justify exclusion
Covertly: jealousy and fear of rivals, a need to feel unity against the scapegoated group, it is all their own fault and they have no right to exist
Accompanying violence
Against the entire group, physical elimination of rivals (pogroms, Holocaust)
Group borderlines
Must be sharp, members need to be recognized
See further:
http://www.juancole.com/2010/08/wertheim-modern-day-racism-a-mixture-that-calls-...
415Jesse_wiedinmyer
Another internet trope on the matter...
416perdondaris
I am opposed to the building of all Mosques and Churches but this flimflammery debate just shows how hypocritical America's far right is. "Stop oppressing us Christians and ban abortion". Fundamentalist Islam and Fundamentalist Christianity are two peas in a pod--same methods and same goal.
Let's protest every new church that is going to be erected---especially the most reactionary ones---Mormon, Baptist, Catholic and Evangelical.
Let's protest every new church that is going to be erected---especially the most reactionary ones---Mormon, Baptist, Catholic and Evangelical.
417timspalding
That sort of chart is a useful corrective to bigotry and ignorance. It is entirely appropriate to note that American Muslims are overwhelmingly peaceful, law-abiding and so forth. The continual insinuations that they are not is dishonest, bigoted and downright evil.
But I fear this sort of chart can also be distorting, if it's your only take on the issue. Radical Islam is not actually a tiny thing. The number directly engaged in it is small, but far larger (while still small) numbers support it, and absolutely large numbers offer interest and partial support.
Spend a little time with the Pew Global Attitudes Project data, for exampe:
http://pewglobal.org/database/?indicator=19
http://pewglobal.org/database/?indicator=20&mode=chart
http://pewglobal.org/database/?indicator=20&survey=10&response=Confidenc... (2008)
Here are two of the key questions they asked:
To that, 48% of Nigerians said either "a lot of confidence" or "some confidence," 52% of Palestinians, 25% of Indonesians, 23% of Egyptians (and only 2% of Turks).
Now, does this mean that Muslims are all terrorists? Of course not. Does it mean all American Muslims are terrorists? Double of-course-not. It actually means that isn't true. It is, to be exact, false.
But support for radical islam is not a tiny spec on the sentiments of the world's Muslims. It's a powerful, dangerous minority opinion.
But I fear this sort of chart can also be distorting, if it's your only take on the issue. Radical Islam is not actually a tiny thing. The number directly engaged in it is small, but far larger (while still small) numbers support it, and absolutely large numbers offer interest and partial support.
Spend a little time with the Pew Global Attitudes Project data, for exampe:
http://pewglobal.org/database/?indicator=19
http://pewglobal.org/database/?indicator=20&mode=chart
http://pewglobal.org/database/?indicator=20&survey=10&response=Confidenc... (2008)
Here are two of the key questions they asked:
"Some people think that suicide bombing and other forms of violence against civilian targets are justified in order to defend Islam from its enemies. Other people believe that, no matter what the reason, this kind of violence is never justified. Do you personally feel that this kind of violence is often justified to defend Islam, sometimes justified, rarely justified, or never justified?"68% of Palestians answer "often" or "sometimes" justified, 34% of Nigerians, 20% of Egyptians, 15% of Indonesians, 6% of Turks, etc. That's scary, isn't it? Here's another:
"Now I'm going to read a list of political leaders. For each, tell me how much confidence you have in each leader to do the right thing regarding world affairs - a lot of confidence, some confidence, not too much confidence, or no confidence at all. ... Osama bin Laden."
To that, 48% of Nigerians said either "a lot of confidence" or "some confidence," 52% of Palestinians, 25% of Indonesians, 23% of Egyptians (and only 2% of Turks).
Now, does this mean that Muslims are all terrorists? Of course not. Does it mean all American Muslims are terrorists? Double of-course-not. It actually means that isn't true. It is, to be exact, false.
But support for radical islam is not a tiny spec on the sentiments of the world's Muslims. It's a powerful, dangerous minority opinion.
418prosfilaes
#415: I would that it were so. But every single terrorist involved in 9/11 was either in that blue area, or indistinguishable from some one in that blue area, depending on how you define it. The intersection between the red area and the blue area is almost certainly nonempty today. Moreover, the man who left the car bomb in Times Square was certainly in that blue area, and was not in the red area.
And I see Tim has responded to bring up the corresponding issue; the Muslims who hate us is far from a tiny group and the number who don't really like us all that much is pretty big.
And I see Tim has responded to bring up the corresponding issue; the Muslims who hate us is far from a tiny group and the number who don't really like us all that much is pretty big.
419josephx23
#415 ff.: Here is an interesting op-ed piece about the contours of global Islamic communities from yesterday's Wall Street Journal:
http://bit.ly/bjvFw1 ("A Symposium: What is Moderate Islam?")
I don't think that any of the existing anti-Mosque arguments (the argument from good taste or the argument from potential Islamic radicalism) really hold water in the light of the constitutional right of freedom of religion, so I don't see where anyone would get off blocking the construction of the Mosque. Nonetheless, I share the opponents' concern that Islam can be pernicious. I've known a few Muslims, and they seemed decent and law-abiding and civil. But the nations in the world that claim Islam as an official religion seem nasty and brutish. Saudi Arabia (an ostensible ally of the U.S.) does not permit non-Muslims to even enter the city of Mecca, does not grant freedom of religion to its citizens, and is allegedly using the war on terrorism to crack down on would-be reformers of Islam or the Saudi legal system. You see the kind of brain drain that happens in a repressive theocracy like Iran, where they practically have to pay educated expatriates to come back and stimulate the economy. Where is the warm, friendly, "moderate" Islam you hear about in the media? Where do sharia law and some kind of democracy or free state peacefully coexist?
Earlier in this thread, Oakes caught hell for saying that Islam was an "evil ideology" and that decent, law-abiding Muslims are such in spite of and not because of their devotion to the faith (that's how I read his comment, anyway.) The enlightened anti-anti-mosque crowd would presumably say that Oakes' attitude is bigoted and unreflective in that he fails to distinguish between various strains of Islam, as though Sunnis and Sufis and Wahhabists were like members of Christian denominations, slinging good-natured jokes about their sectarian differences over piping Protestant potlucks. But are the mystical or moderate branches of Islam all that well-represented these days? Aren't they among the minority groups persecuted by "orthodox" Islam?
To condemn Islam as an "evil ideology" is a broad claim, sure. One thing you learn in academic religious studies is that religious traditions are rarely monolithic - like other religions, Islam has its mystics and its legalists, its intellectual powerhouses and its simple believers. "Muslim" is not one-size-fits-all. But nor are all religions are created equal. As chronicled by Charles Taylor in A Secular Age, Christianity inspired modernity in some ways and was confronted by it in others. Christian theologians, clergy, and laypeople have had to grapple with issues of biblical interpretation, religious toleration, and the implications of the modern assumption that religion and spirituality are possible options but not necessary for the good life. Christianity (in its various stripes) has gone from being the spiritual lingua franca of ancient and medieval Europe to being one of these options among many others. Christians certainly lobby for varying issues of moral importance, but no one speaks seriously of setting up a Christian theocracy. When I see the example of Islamic republics worldwide or Muslims reacting to modernity with talk of instating sharia law in democratic countries or the "radicals" who strap bombs to themselves or hijack planes, I have to wonder whether they're really ready to play nice. I don't blame Americans for wondering that, either.
http://bit.ly/bjvFw1 ("A Symposium: What is Moderate Islam?")
I don't think that any of the existing anti-Mosque arguments (the argument from good taste or the argument from potential Islamic radicalism) really hold water in the light of the constitutional right of freedom of religion, so I don't see where anyone would get off blocking the construction of the Mosque. Nonetheless, I share the opponents' concern that Islam can be pernicious. I've known a few Muslims, and they seemed decent and law-abiding and civil. But the nations in the world that claim Islam as an official religion seem nasty and brutish. Saudi Arabia (an ostensible ally of the U.S.) does not permit non-Muslims to even enter the city of Mecca, does not grant freedom of religion to its citizens, and is allegedly using the war on terrorism to crack down on would-be reformers of Islam or the Saudi legal system. You see the kind of brain drain that happens in a repressive theocracy like Iran, where they practically have to pay educated expatriates to come back and stimulate the economy. Where is the warm, friendly, "moderate" Islam you hear about in the media? Where do sharia law and some kind of democracy or free state peacefully coexist?
Earlier in this thread, Oakes caught hell for saying that Islam was an "evil ideology" and that decent, law-abiding Muslims are such in spite of and not because of their devotion to the faith (that's how I read his comment, anyway.) The enlightened anti-anti-mosque crowd would presumably say that Oakes' attitude is bigoted and unreflective in that he fails to distinguish between various strains of Islam, as though Sunnis and Sufis and Wahhabists were like members of Christian denominations, slinging good-natured jokes about their sectarian differences over piping Protestant potlucks. But are the mystical or moderate branches of Islam all that well-represented these days? Aren't they among the minority groups persecuted by "orthodox" Islam?
To condemn Islam as an "evil ideology" is a broad claim, sure. One thing you learn in academic religious studies is that religious traditions are rarely monolithic - like other religions, Islam has its mystics and its legalists, its intellectual powerhouses and its simple believers. "Muslim" is not one-size-fits-all. But nor are all religions are created equal. As chronicled by Charles Taylor in A Secular Age, Christianity inspired modernity in some ways and was confronted by it in others. Christian theologians, clergy, and laypeople have had to grapple with issues of biblical interpretation, religious toleration, and the implications of the modern assumption that religion and spirituality are possible options but not necessary for the good life. Christianity (in its various stripes) has gone from being the spiritual lingua franca of ancient and medieval Europe to being one of these options among many others. Christians certainly lobby for varying issues of moral importance, but no one speaks seriously of setting up a Christian theocracy. When I see the example of Islamic republics worldwide or Muslims reacting to modernity with talk of instating sharia law in democratic countries or the "radicals" who strap bombs to themselves or hijack planes, I have to wonder whether they're really ready to play nice. I don't blame Americans for wondering that, either.
420reading_fox
"the Muslims who hate us is far from a tiny group and the number who don't really like us all that much is pretty big."
DOn't forget to correct your 'big' by the %age of people of whatever religion nationality who also don't like/hate you. I'm sure lots of Eskimos/French/Chinese don't like the US. It's a popular world position, and has nothing to do with being Muslim and plenty to do with not living in the US.
DOn't forget to correct your 'big' by the %age of people of whatever religion nationality who also don't like/hate you. I'm sure lots of Eskimos/French/Chinese don't like the US. It's a popular world position, and has nothing to do with being Muslim and plenty to do with not living in the US.
421timspalding
Statistically, "not liking us" has various peaks and valleys. The important thing, though, is that there is a huge difference between not "liking" a country and supporting attacks on its civilians.
So we talk about something with data, here are some Pew numbers on favorable/unfavorable opinions on the US, by country:
http://pewglobal.org/database/?indicator=1&survey=12&response=Favorable&...
So we talk about something with data, here are some Pew numbers on favorable/unfavorable opinions on the US, by country:
http://pewglobal.org/database/?indicator=1&survey=12&response=Favorable&...
422Helcura
421> Dang! What are we paying Kenya? They like more than we like ourselves on everything.
423timspalding
We're paying them in having a half-Kenyan President. Before Obama, they were at 80%, not 96%.
I think we have the answer: A half-Palestinian, half-Nigerian president.
Tim
I think we have the answer: A half-Palestinian, half-Nigerian president.
Tim
424prosfilaes
#421: I'd note that Pakistan and Egypt consistently scored low on liking us, and are major sources of anti-American terrorism.
Interesting numbers overall. What the hell did we do to Argentina? And was it something that I really should know? I find Turkey a bit worrying too; I thought we were better allies than that.
The fact that France has more respect for us as a country and as much for us as a people as Britain does surprises me, given the profound lack of respect most Americans have for the French. Perhaps the UK doesn't like getting treated as the little brother?
And I really, really don't get Indians answering positively to "U.S. Consideration of Other Countries' Interests". I'm not sure I'd give that a huge thumbs up myself, and I don't think India gets the weight in American consideration that it deserves from an economic and demographic standpoint. I think if you asked Americans to rattle off countries, many of them would run out before they reached India.
Edit: Oh, and it's amusing how half the world trusts our president more than we do.
Interesting numbers overall. What the hell did we do to Argentina? And was it something that I really should know? I find Turkey a bit worrying too; I thought we were better allies than that.
The fact that France has more respect for us as a country and as much for us as a people as Britain does surprises me, given the profound lack of respect most Americans have for the French. Perhaps the UK doesn't like getting treated as the little brother?
And I really, really don't get Indians answering positively to "U.S. Consideration of Other Countries' Interests". I'm not sure I'd give that a huge thumbs up myself, and I don't think India gets the weight in American consideration that it deserves from an economic and demographic standpoint. I think if you asked Americans to rattle off countries, many of them would run out before they reached India.
Edit: Oh, and it's amusing how half the world trusts our president more than we do.
425perdondaris
This "scandal" is proof that patriotism is a religion and as such it is a very dangerous thing.
426timspalding
Three good pieces from NPR:
In Tenn., Mosque Location Isn't The Issue: Religion Is
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129302961
European Islamophobia Finds A Home In The U.S.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129381552
Religious Freedom, Free Speech Face Off Nationwide
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129330121
Between Murfreesboro and the truly strange percent of Republicans who think Obama is Muslim, the whole issue has moved decisively from the crazy fringe to the chilling main stream.
In Tenn., Mosque Location Isn't The Issue: Religion Is
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129302961
European Islamophobia Finds A Home In The U.S.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129381552
Religious Freedom, Free Speech Face Off Nationwide
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129330121
Between Murfreesboro and the truly strange percent of Republicans who think Obama is Muslim, the whole issue has moved decisively from the crazy fringe to the chilling main stream.
427Makifat
426
Well, we were recently reassured - on this very site, I believe - that what some of us view as extremism is what the majority of Americans believe.
Comforting thought, isn't it?
Well, we were recently reassured - on this very site, I believe - that what some of us view as extremism is what the majority of Americans believe.
Comforting thought, isn't it?
428codyed
Boy does Marty Peretz hate Muslims. He writes tripe like this over and over again and nothing happens. Nothing. He'll continue to be the publisher of The New Republic and all will be as it ever was.
429perdondaris
During the McCarthyite Terror of the 1950s the books of Karl Marx and Bertrand Russell were burned in public and the Bill of Rights in private. America is clearly trending towards a Right Wing dictatorship lead by the likes of politicians, religious leaders and businessmen of the Franco and Pinochet stripe. "The Nation, Christianity and the Class System must be defended at all costs!" was the drumbeat of European Fascists. All of the pieces of the Police State are coming together on the American Right--the support of censorship, torture, capital punishment, lynching, paramilitary death squads, the cult of personality and the worship of power--all in the name of freedom.
America's far Right has always used the term "libertarian" and "small government" to defend privilege and State sponsored violence because the term "fascist" has too much of a nasty taste too it after WWII. The businessmen's coup attempt after FRD's election 1933 was typical Franco-Fascism--using the military in alliance with Veterans groups to impose a dictatorship to defend capitalism against what they thought of as a politician with anti-business policies (re: progressive).
As the Right has become more and more extreme since the Reagan Revolution they have felt it necessary to ratchet up the propaganda and compare their enemies to "fascists". Goldberg's book does not take into account the "stab in the back" ideology that Hitler used (cf. Vietnam-liberalism and WWI -Social Democracy) and how Hitler used right wing Veterans groups to bolster his power (the S.A.) Hitler explicitly pointed out how much he hated all forms of leftism: feminism, class struggle, democracy, the rights of ethnic and religious minorities. All of these Hitlerian motifs dovetail with today's American Right and its rise to power.
Hitler used the strongest of terms to describe left wing politics. Such as cancer, treason, abortion and rats (sound familiar?). The movie 1984 begins with the famous Two Minutes of Hate with an audience convulsed into animal fear and hatred and Goldstein--the traitor--and Goldsteinism (Trotskyism for Orwell) shown as the epitome of evil (the words cancer on society is used). 1984 is not only about dictatorship but the death of human consciousness. Language is spliced into smaller and smaller chunks--so words that were once indicative of good (welfare, liberal, progress, compassion, freethinking, social justice) are turned into their opposite and cruelty and indifference are made into virtues. The Jew was a symbol of the threat of Communism--international bankers of course, not the patriotic German bankers and capitalists that provided Hitler the capital for his rise to power. During Hitler's imprisonment for the Beer Hall Putsch he was treated like a king and allowed to right a long Bible of Right Wing Hate by his Right Wing jailers--Bolsheviks were given the firing squad after the Spartakist Uprising.
Hitler and the Fascists never spoke of social justice or universal health care. They opposed unions and used the force of the State to destroy them. But they always spoke of patriotism, religion and defending Western Civilization from Godless Communism. They supported torture, capital punishment, spying on itheir own citizens, enabling acts, war and the persecution of ethnic and religious minorities and other "pragmatic" ways of "cleaning up the streets" and "making the trains run on time". Jonah Goldberg's book is a slur on Jews who were and still are a part of the Socialist Movement.
America's far Right has always used the term "libertarian" and "small government" to defend privilege and State sponsored violence because the term "fascist" has too much of a nasty taste too it after WWII. The businessmen's coup attempt after FRD's election 1933 was typical Franco-Fascism--using the military in alliance with Veterans groups to impose a dictatorship to defend capitalism against what they thought of as a politician with anti-business policies (re: progressive).
As the Right has become more and more extreme since the Reagan Revolution they have felt it necessary to ratchet up the propaganda and compare their enemies to "fascists". Goldberg's book does not take into account the "stab in the back" ideology that Hitler used (cf. Vietnam-liberalism and WWI -Social Democracy) and how Hitler used right wing Veterans groups to bolster his power (the S.A.) Hitler explicitly pointed out how much he hated all forms of leftism: feminism, class struggle, democracy, the rights of ethnic and religious minorities. All of these Hitlerian motifs dovetail with today's American Right and its rise to power.
Hitler used the strongest of terms to describe left wing politics. Such as cancer, treason, abortion and rats (sound familiar?). The movie 1984 begins with the famous Two Minutes of Hate with an audience convulsed into animal fear and hatred and Goldstein--the traitor--and Goldsteinism (Trotskyism for Orwell) shown as the epitome of evil (the words cancer on society is used). 1984 is not only about dictatorship but the death of human consciousness. Language is spliced into smaller and smaller chunks--so words that were once indicative of good (welfare, liberal, progress, compassion, freethinking, social justice) are turned into their opposite and cruelty and indifference are made into virtues. The Jew was a symbol of the threat of Communism--international bankers of course, not the patriotic German bankers and capitalists that provided Hitler the capital for his rise to power. During Hitler's imprisonment for the Beer Hall Putsch he was treated like a king and allowed to right a long Bible of Right Wing Hate by his Right Wing jailers--Bolsheviks were given the firing squad after the Spartakist Uprising.
Hitler and the Fascists never spoke of social justice or universal health care. They opposed unions and used the force of the State to destroy them. But they always spoke of patriotism, religion and defending Western Civilization from Godless Communism. They supported torture, capital punishment, spying on itheir own citizens, enabling acts, war and the persecution of ethnic and religious minorities and other "pragmatic" ways of "cleaning up the streets" and "making the trains run on time". Jonah Goldberg's book is a slur on Jews who were and still are a part of the Socialist Movement.
430marieke54
Timothy Winter:
(“It was the sight of peach juice dripping from the chin of a teenage French female nudist that led a Cambridgeshire public schoolboy to convert to Islam. Thirty-five years later, Timothy Winter – or Sheikh Abdul-Hakim Murad, as he is known to his colleagues – has been named one of the world's most influential Muslims.”)
(…)
"The principle reason, which Whitehall cannot admit, is that people are incensed by foreign policy. Iraq is a smoking ruin in the Iranian orbit. Those who are from a Muslim background are disgusted by the hypocrisy. It was never about WMD. It was about oil, about Israel and evangelical christianity in the White House. That makes people incandescent with anger. What is required first of all is an act of public contrition. Tony Blair must go down on his knees and admit he has been responsible for almost unimaginable human suffering and despair."
He adds: "The West must realize it must stop being the world's police. Why is there no Islamic representation on the UN Security Council? Why does the so-called Quartet (on the Middle East) not have a Muslim representative? The American GI in his goggles driving his landrover through Kabul pointing his gun at everything that moves, that is the image that enrages people."
Is there a similar antagonistic symbolism in the construction of a mosque at Ground Zero?
"If the mosque represented an invading power they would have every right. Muslims in America are there as legitimate citizens with their green cards, with jobs, trying to get by. They are there in humble mode.
"Would you oppose the construction of Shinto Shrines at Pearl Harbour, of which there a number? How long must the Muslims of lower Manhattan have to wait to get a place to pray five times a day? With Islam there are certain liturgical requirements. It's not like a church that you can build on the top of a hill and say, we've only got to go once a week and it looks nice up there. Muslims need to pray five times a day, they can't get the subway out and back. It should be seen as a symbol of reconciliation not antagonism." ”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/timothy-winter-britains-most-i...
(“It was the sight of peach juice dripping from the chin of a teenage French female nudist that led a Cambridgeshire public schoolboy to convert to Islam. Thirty-five years later, Timothy Winter – or Sheikh Abdul-Hakim Murad, as he is known to his colleagues – has been named one of the world's most influential Muslims.”)
(…)
"The principle reason, which Whitehall cannot admit, is that people are incensed by foreign policy. Iraq is a smoking ruin in the Iranian orbit. Those who are from a Muslim background are disgusted by the hypocrisy. It was never about WMD. It was about oil, about Israel and evangelical christianity in the White House. That makes people incandescent with anger. What is required first of all is an act of public contrition. Tony Blair must go down on his knees and admit he has been responsible for almost unimaginable human suffering and despair."
He adds: "The West must realize it must stop being the world's police. Why is there no Islamic representation on the UN Security Council? Why does the so-called Quartet (on the Middle East) not have a Muslim representative? The American GI in his goggles driving his landrover through Kabul pointing his gun at everything that moves, that is the image that enrages people."
Is there a similar antagonistic symbolism in the construction of a mosque at Ground Zero?
"If the mosque represented an invading power they would have every right. Muslims in America are there as legitimate citizens with their green cards, with jobs, trying to get by. They are there in humble mode.
"Would you oppose the construction of Shinto Shrines at Pearl Harbour, of which there a number? How long must the Muslims of lower Manhattan have to wait to get a place to pray five times a day? With Islam there are certain liturgical requirements. It's not like a church that you can build on the top of a hill and say, we've only got to go once a week and it looks nice up there. Muslims need to pray five times a day, they can't get the subway out and back. It should be seen as a symbol of reconciliation not antagonism." ”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/timothy-winter-britains-most-i...
431MMcM
Ertuğrul Apakan and Nawaf Salam are Muslims, I believe. Joy Ogwu and Ivan Barbalić are Christians, I think, but their countries have Muslim majorities.
432Jesse_wiedinmyer
Any chance you'd care to explain that post to me at #431? I don't recognise the names and am not sure what significance I should derive from rany of them.
433MMcM
> 432 Sorry, it was late.
The current rotating members of the UN security council include Turkey, Lebanon, Nigeria and Bosnia & Herzegovina. It isn't entirely clear to me what "Islamic representation" means, I admit.
ETA: Furthermore, in simplest iconic terms, I believe that in the last election
got twice as many votes as 
.
The current rotating members of the UN security council include Turkey, Lebanon, Nigeria and Bosnia & Herzegovina. It isn't entirely clear to me what "Islamic representation" means, I admit.
ETA: Furthermore, in simplest iconic terms, I believe that in the last election
got twice as many votes as 
.434Jesse_wiedinmyer
Thanks.
435perdondaris
Are there "adult bookstores" and strip clubs near ground zero? Are they patriotic? I heard Giuliani got rid of those places of ill repute in the 1990s so Taxi Driver may no longer be representative of New York City.
I have only been to New York City once in my life and it was not near the World Trade Center. Although it was right after the first World Trade Center bombing and my experience was limited to the area from the Met to Washington Square in a period from Noon to 6 PM. My knowledge of New York City is mostly limited to movies, TV and the News after that.
I have no problem with the Koran Burnings because it probably is keeping those Klansmen from burning Harry Potter and crosses. It pulls the rock over the Right Wing pests that normally keep their bigotry to themselves or the Visible Evil Empire of Clear Channel radio and Faux News.
I have only been to New York City once in my life and it was not near the World Trade Center. Although it was right after the first World Trade Center bombing and my experience was limited to the area from the Met to Washington Square in a period from Noon to 6 PM. My knowledge of New York City is mostly limited to movies, TV and the News after that.
I have no problem with the Koran Burnings because it probably is keeping those Klansmen from burning Harry Potter and crosses. It pulls the rock over the Right Wing pests that normally keep their bigotry to themselves or the Visible Evil Empire of Clear Channel radio and Faux News.
436lilithcat
> 435
I heard Giuliani got rid of those places of ill repute in the 1990s
It was Times Square he cleaned up. It's now a boring, schlocky, tourist trap filled with places like the Disney store. Bring make adult movie theaters, I say!
Are there "adult bookstores" and strip clubs near ground zero?
It's my understanding that there is a "gentlemen's club" that is closer to Ground Zero than the proposed community center.
I heard Giuliani got rid of those places of ill repute in the 1990s
It was Times Square he cleaned up. It's now a boring, schlocky, tourist trap filled with places like the Disney store. Bring make adult movie theaters, I say!
Are there "adult bookstores" and strip clubs near ground zero?
It's my understanding that there is a "gentlemen's club" that is closer to Ground Zero than the proposed community center.
437Jesse_wiedinmyer
Stumbled across this again, from David Foster Wallace after 9/11...
Are you up for a thought experiment? What if we chose to regard the 2,973 innocents killed in the atrocities of 9/11 not as victims but as democratic martyrs, "sacrifices on the altar of freedom"? In other words, what if we decided that a certain baseline vulnerability to terrorism is part of the price of the American idea? And, thus, that ours is a generation of Americans called to make great sacrifices in order to preserve our democratic way of life--sacrifices not just of our soldiers and money but of our personal safety and comfort?
In still other words, what if we chose to accept the fact that every few years, despite all reasonable precautions, some hundreds or thousands of us may die in the sort of ghastly terrorist attack that a democratic republic cannot 100-percent protect itself from without subverting the very principles that make it worth protecting?
Any thoughts?
Are you up for a thought experiment? What if we chose to regard the 2,973 innocents killed in the atrocities of 9/11 not as victims but as democratic martyrs, "sacrifices on the altar of freedom"? In other words, what if we decided that a certain baseline vulnerability to terrorism is part of the price of the American idea? And, thus, that ours is a generation of Americans called to make great sacrifices in order to preserve our democratic way of life--sacrifices not just of our soldiers and money but of our personal safety and comfort?
In still other words, what if we chose to accept the fact that every few years, despite all reasonable precautions, some hundreds or thousands of us may die in the sort of ghastly terrorist attack that a democratic republic cannot 100-percent protect itself from without subverting the very principles that make it worth protecting?
Any thoughts?
438krolik
>437 Jesse_wiedinmyer:
Sounds unpleasant but totally plausible. The gated-community ideal, even if one wanted it, is not going to be possible.
Sounds unpleasant but totally plausible. The gated-community ideal, even if one wanted it, is not going to be possible.
439perdondaris
I was watching the Colbert Show over the past two days (where he honored our servicemen for their sacrifice). What makes it hard for me to watch is that they suffered, died and all the rest of it and Iraq and Afghanistan are going to be a mess for generations or even revert back to the way they were before we came. That is the worst thing about the war on terror. We cannot even count on the countries we liberated from bloodthirsty evil tyrants to joining the rational democratic world.
Now, the conservatives that thrust our boys into harms way are saying f*** you to them. We cannot have a meaningful dialogue on health care and regulating Wall Street without the Right claiming genocide so we can help them out. And some rich crud that uses $50 dollar bills (provided care of the taxpayer and the little people that fight his wars) to wipe his ass telling people to act fiscally responsible. 21st Century America, SSDC.
Now, the conservatives that thrust our boys into harms way are saying f*** you to them. We cannot have a meaningful dialogue on health care and regulating Wall Street without the Right claiming genocide so we can help them out. And some rich crud that uses $50 dollar bills (provided care of the taxpayer and the little people that fight his wars) to wipe his ass telling people to act fiscally responsible. 21st Century America, SSDC.
440lilithcat
> 439
We cannot even count on the countries we liberated from bloodthirsty evil tyrants to joining the rational democratic world.
Yes, but they were their bloodthirsty evil tyrants. And given the penchant this country has shown for "liberating" countries, often sub rosa, and imposing our own bloodthirsty evil tyrants, it may be that those countries think our claims to being a "rational democratic" society are so much bunk.
We cannot even count on the countries we liberated from bloodthirsty evil tyrants to joining the rational democratic world.
Yes, but they were their bloodthirsty evil tyrants. And given the penchant this country has shown for "liberating" countries, often sub rosa, and imposing our own bloodthirsty evil tyrants, it may be that those countries think our claims to being a "rational democratic" society are so much bunk.
441theoria
States operate with their own special brand of "rationality," which cannot be described as democratic. That's the risk of state-building. Once you've built another State, it will act like a State, which means it may well act against your interests. No one should rationally expect that new Iraqi State or the almost-born Afghan State will to be "compliant" with U. S. interests.
442perdondaris
America is not a rational democratic society in the first place--it cannot export what it does not have. It's arrogance (like any other country's arrogance) is unjustified. The funny thing about Colonel Blimpies and jingoists is their ignorance, not their arrogance.
I was watching a TV show last night. It was a BBC production that took place in Oxford, England. One of the characters asks another character about abortion and if he is intolerant of it, like the Fasco-Cons in America. He responds with: "I have none--this is Oxford, England not Oxford, Mississippi."
If you happen to argue with a Hitchens-type exponent of the invasion of Iraq--ask him or her this: There are dozens of bloodthirsty dictators just like Saddam Hussein all around the world. How did Iraq come first on the list and how is the West going to liberate the people of all of those other countries? It does not have the resources. Especially when those bloodthirsty dictators are our allies? Like Saudi Arabia, Jordan, China, Sudan...
Why Iraq and not Iran, Syria or North Korea. Those nations which are overtly belligerent to Western interests. Not to mention the nations of China and Russia, which are covertly belligerent to the West and seek to eclipse the U.S. as superpowers.
I was watching a TV show last night. It was a BBC production that took place in Oxford, England. One of the characters asks another character about abortion and if he is intolerant of it, like the Fasco-Cons in America. He responds with: "I have none--this is Oxford, England not Oxford, Mississippi."
If you happen to argue with a Hitchens-type exponent of the invasion of Iraq--ask him or her this: There are dozens of bloodthirsty dictators just like Saddam Hussein all around the world. How did Iraq come first on the list and how is the West going to liberate the people of all of those other countries? It does not have the resources. Especially when those bloodthirsty dictators are our allies? Like Saudi Arabia, Jordan, China, Sudan...
Why Iraq and not Iran, Syria or North Korea. Those nations which are overtly belligerent to Western interests. Not to mention the nations of China and Russia, which are covertly belligerent to the West and seek to eclipse the U.S. as superpowers.
443K.J.
442> Because Iraq was an easy target, although in retrospect, I think the powers that be didn't have a clue what they were getting into. As for the other choices, well:
A - China would kick their ass. (They can afford to throw bodies at the USA for decades and not feel it. They have also just developed a weapon that changed the naval supremacy of the Pacific overnight.)
B - Russia would kick their ass. (Can anyone really imagine the USA invading Russia? From which direction?)
C - North Korea would kick some ass. (China wouldn't want us to be victorious and establish a presence so close to their borders, so I see some collaboration coming into play.)
D - Saudi Arabia would cut off their oil. End of discussion.
E - Iran would put up a helluva fight, and it would be much, much more difficult than Iraq.
A - China would kick their ass. (They can afford to throw bodies at the USA for decades and not feel it. They have also just developed a weapon that changed the naval supremacy of the Pacific overnight.)
B - Russia would kick their ass. (Can anyone really imagine the USA invading Russia? From which direction?)
C - North Korea would kick some ass. (China wouldn't want us to be victorious and establish a presence so close to their borders, so I see some collaboration coming into play.)
D - Saudi Arabia would cut off their oil. End of discussion.
E - Iran would put up a helluva fight, and it would be much, much more difficult than Iraq.
444mikevail
443-
"They have also just developed a weapon that changed the naval supremacy of the Pacific overnight.) "
Can you elaborate on this? I'm not sure to what you're referring here.
"They have also just developed a weapon that changed the naval supremacy of the Pacific overnight.) "
Can you elaborate on this? I'm not sure to what you're referring here.
445Jesse_wiedinmyer
Google "Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile" and you'll come up with a bunch of hits.
446Jesse_wiedinmyer
Here's a USNI Report.
447codyed
KJ might be referring to this. I don't believe the weapon is fully developed yet. Regardless, I've stated on here a couple times that carriers are nothing more than floating coffins. Yeah. They look impressive. But it won't take much to sink them if we face an enemy with adequate weapons systems (or one that could send waves of martyrs piloting speed boats packed with explosives).
448StormRaven
People have been predicting the death of the carrier for a couple decades. I'm not saying that time won't come to pass, but it hasn't yet, and I doubt this will be the time that it happens.
449timspalding
waves of martyrs piloting speed boats packed with explosives
The problem with speed boats isn't this. The problem is that carriers in peacetime need to wander in among normal, unvetted boat traffic—close enough that a boat can zoom over and explode itself. In a time of tension or for operational need a carrier can prevent speedboats from getting anywhere near themselves, no matter how many there are and how fanatic their drivers.
The problem with speed boats isn't this. The problem is that carriers in peacetime need to wander in among normal, unvetted boat traffic—close enough that a boat can zoom over and explode itself. In a time of tension or for operational need a carrier can prevent speedboats from getting anywhere near themselves, no matter how many there are and how fanatic their drivers.
450codyed
It's ridiculously simple to control where you want the fleet to be, Tim. The Iranians did exactly that a few years ago when dumped a bunch of white boxes in the paths of American ships. The ships could not confidently pass through those boxes because each one was a potential mine.
451prosfilaes
#450: Minefields predate carriers. If we were at war with the Iranians, it would not be ridiculously simple to get into position to lay mines.
452timspalding
Right. Laying mines in open water is also an act of war.
454K.J.
444> Here's the story to which I am referring:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100805/ap_on_re_as/as_china_us_carrier_killer
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100805/ap_on_re_as/as_china_us_carrier_killer
455OldSarge
It's a lot harder to sink a carrier than you think. They are warships after all and designed to take damage. Since the attack on the USS Cole the Navy has also revised its ROE (Rules Of Engagement) for ships to defend themselves against such threats.
456mikevail
454
There has been and probably always will be a next "unstoppable" ASM. The same was said about Sizzler and Sunburn missiles. It would take more than a few missiles to penetrate a battle group. Carriers aren't out there alone; the support ships provide a pretty effective radar picket for missile defense. And as OldSarge mentioned, a carrier that maintains watertight integrity would be really hard to sink though destroying the flight deck is nearly as devastating. Also, most people aren't aware of how well passive counter-measure work in detering ASMs. Google "Nulka" for an example.
There has been and probably always will be a next "unstoppable" ASM. The same was said about Sizzler and Sunburn missiles. It would take more than a few missiles to penetrate a battle group. Carriers aren't out there alone; the support ships provide a pretty effective radar picket for missile defense. And as OldSarge mentioned, a carrier that maintains watertight integrity would be really hard to sink though destroying the flight deck is nearly as devastating. Also, most people aren't aware of how well passive counter-measure work in detering ASMs. Google "Nulka" for an example.
458Carnophile
Another day, another bunch of left-wing fascists.
Elizabeth Moon, SF writer, "uninvited" from Sci-Fi convention due to her saying that the mosque proposal was in poor taste.
Notice the idea that if you have a different opinion from us then you must be silenced!
Even worse, there's no indication that she was going to make any remarks about the mosque at the convention. So the position is in fact, "If you disagree with us on a single topic, then you must not be allowed to speak publicly about any topic."
Elizabeth Moon, SF writer, "uninvited" from Sci-Fi convention due to her saying that the mosque proposal was in poor taste.
Notice the idea that if you have a different opinion from us then you must be silenced!
Even worse, there's no indication that she was going to make any remarks about the mosque at the convention. So the position is in fact, "If you disagree with us on a single topic, then you must not be allowed to speak publicly about any topic."
459readafew
sad, very sad. Is this a growing problem caused by internet networking? Not wanting to socialize with people of differing opinions, cause they can find enough 'right thinking' people out there?
460Carnophile
Although I suppose it is understandable, since she said all Muslims should be slaughtered. No, wait, she said this:
Edited to add the link.
When an Islamic group decided to build a memorial center at/near the site of the 9/11 attack, they should have been able to predict that this would upset a lot of people... Though I am not angry about it, and have not spoken out in opposition, I do think it was a rude and tactless thing to propose (and, if carried out, to do.)If the left had their way, we wouldn't even be allowed to disagree with politically correct dogma to the extent of saying something's rude and tactless. Jesus. I wonder if anyone has been in the symmetric position of being "uninvited" as a guest speaker due to supporting the mosque idea. I rather doubt it.
Edited to add the link.
462Makifat
Oh yes, the Right is much more tolerant of contrary opinions - just ask Christopher Buckley. Right, deniro? deniro? Oh yeah, I forgot he has me blocked.
463Carnophile
>461 OldSarge:
I had the same thought, OldSarge. Time to check out amazon.com.
Her page at amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/Elizabeth-Moon/e/B000APWQCA/ref=sr_tc_img_2_0?qid=12877844...
I had the same thought, OldSarge. Time to check out amazon.com.
Her page at amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/Elizabeth-Moon/e/B000APWQCA/ref=sr_tc_img_2_0?qid=12877844...
464Makifat
For the record, I don't think Moon should have been disinvited (taking your word, Carney, for what she might have said - I have no inclination to keep clicking through the fair and balanced, or fairly unbalanced, "Battleswarm" blog to get to her actual words), nor do I think Juan Williams ought to have been cut from NPR, even if he's crying all the way to the bank.
But she sure has an imprecise way with words, doesn't she?
...a memorial center (sic) at/near the site...
But she sure has an imprecise way with words, doesn't she?
...a memorial center (sic) at/near the site...
465AsYouKnow_Bob
Elizabeth Moon's LiveJournal essay that started the controversy.
466Carnophile
>462 Makifat:
Delayed response on Christopher Buckley because I didn’t know what you were referring to. After looking it up, for anyone else who missed the reference:
Buckley resigned from his father’s conservative magazine The National Review after he endorsed Obama in a different forum and NR got a lot of upset emails from its conservative readers.
The two cases aren’t analogous.
1) Christopher Buckley resigned from National Review; he wasn’t fired.
2) Even if he had been fired, it would have been from a conservative magazine for being insufficiently conservative - a perfectly reasonable action.
The correct analogy would be something like this: Christopher Buckley endorsed Obama, and for that reason several conservatives prevented him from giving a guest lecture on car maintenance at his local Shriners Club meeting.
Getting back to the thread topic: I really doubt anyone has been prevented from speaking at an event not related to the mosque because they support the idea of the mosque.
As always, if anyone can produce an apt example, it will be duly noted.
Delayed response on Christopher Buckley because I didn’t know what you were referring to. After looking it up, for anyone else who missed the reference:
Buckley resigned from his father’s conservative magazine The National Review after he endorsed Obama in a different forum and NR got a lot of upset emails from its conservative readers.
The two cases aren’t analogous.
1) Christopher Buckley resigned from National Review; he wasn’t fired.
2) Even if he had been fired, it would have been from a conservative magazine for being insufficiently conservative - a perfectly reasonable action.
The correct analogy would be something like this: Christopher Buckley endorsed Obama, and for that reason several conservatives prevented him from giving a guest lecture on car maintenance at his local Shriners Club meeting.
Getting back to the thread topic: I really doubt anyone has been prevented from speaking at an event not related to the mosque because they support the idea of the mosque.
As always, if anyone can produce an apt example, it will be duly noted.
467Carnophile
As to deniro’s ignoring you: It's not at all the same thing as trying to make sure that no one else can read your posts. It’s not as if he’s pressuring Tim to have you removed from the site so that no one else can hear you.
468AsYouKnow_Bob
#460 Well, not quite.
Guest of Honor is a high profile, PAID gig. (Certainly "expenses paid", I think but I'm not certain if there's an honorarium, too.) And WisCon (strictly speaking, the corporate entity that runs WisCon, not even the committee that runs the Con) rescinded Moon's invitation when they realized that they disagreed with her public positions.
They aren't suggesting that Moon not be allowed to blog as she likes; they're saying that they disagree with her to the point that they don't want to give her publicity and exposure. (As in, "I paid for this microphone.")
Guest of Honor is a high profile, PAID gig. (Certainly "expenses paid", I think but I'm not certain if there's an honorarium, too.) And WisCon (strictly speaking, the corporate entity that runs WisCon, not even the committee that runs the Con) rescinded Moon's invitation when they realized that they disagreed with her public positions.
They aren't suggesting that Moon not be allowed to blog as she likes; they're saying that they disagree with her to the point that they don't want to give her publicity and exposure. (As in, "I paid for this microphone.")
469Makifat
466/467
I really doubt anyone has been prevented from speaking at an event not related to the mosque because they support the idea of the mosque.
As always, if anyone can produce an apt example, it will be duly noted.
Well, if I run across any examples of someone being denied the opportunity to speak because they are not a bigot, I will be sure to make note of it.
As 468 notes, deciding not to pay someone to speak because their message is contrary to, or against the express policies of, that of the payer is hardly censorship. Moon and Juan Williams have other outlets at their disposal. As far as the example of Buckley (and deniro, for that matter) is concerned, it is merely illustrative of the fact that conservatives are not less likely to plug their ears when they hear something they don't want to hear than anyone else.
470Carnophile
>469 Makifat:
if I run across any examples of someone being denied the opportunity to speak because they are not a bigot, I will be sure to make note of it.
Why are people on the other side of the issue from Makifat willing to entertain a variety of opinion?
And Makifat says (drum roll) "Because they're bigots!"
Been taking the recommended dosage of your irony supplements?
if I run across any examples of someone being denied the opportunity to speak because they are not a bigot, I will be sure to make note of it.
Why are people on the other side of the issue from Makifat willing to entertain a variety of opinion?
And Makifat says (drum roll) "Because they're bigots!"
Been taking the recommended dosage of your irony supplements?
471Carnophile
>468 AsYouKnow_Bob:
However reasonable or not reasonable that argument is in general, it's irrelevant. I wasn't talking about the corporation, but the people who tried to get Moon shut down, who were not members of the corporation. They were just a bunch of "concerned citizens" or whatever who started pressuring the corporation. They do not have any issue of being "associated with Moon's views" or whatever. They simply wanted to silence her.
However reasonable or not reasonable that argument is in general, it's irrelevant. I wasn't talking about the corporation, but the people who tried to get Moon shut down, who were not members of the corporation. They were just a bunch of "concerned citizens" or whatever who started pressuring the corporation. They do not have any issue of being "associated with Moon's views" or whatever. They simply wanted to silence her.
472Makifat
470
Ah, the old "you don't like bigots, therefore you are a bigot" ploy.
Always a good argument of last resort, but I would have thought that after five days you could have come up with something better.
471
They simply wanted to silence her.
No, they simply didn't want to hear her. I'm ambivalent as to whether they should have done this or not, but given that she has other outlets for her views, I wouldn't say that they were trying to silence her. But you can spin it whichever way pleases you.
Ah, the old "you don't like bigots, therefore you are a bigot" ploy.
Always a good argument of last resort, but I would have thought that after five days you could have come up with something better.
471
They simply wanted to silence her.
No, they simply didn't want to hear her. I'm ambivalent as to whether they should have done this or not, but given that she has other outlets for her views, I wouldn't say that they were trying to silence her. But you can spin it whichever way pleases you.
473Carnophile
Oh my God, you just repeated the “bigot” meme! Keep going!
I would have thought that after five days you could have come up with something better.
This calls up a funny image of you obsessively checking LT every half hour to see if I’m going to respond, and if so, when. Sorry to keep you on tenterhooks, Maki, but I have a life. It’s not really predictable when I’ll respond. If so, it might be in a couple of minutes, or - WARNING! - not for another five days. Try to hold on!
‘They simply wanted to silence her.’
No, they simply didn't want to hear her.
No, they could have accomplished that by not attending her speech, putting their hands over their ears, listening to their iPods, etc.
I would have thought that after five days you could have come up with something better.
This calls up a funny image of you obsessively checking LT every half hour to see if I’m going to respond, and if so, when. Sorry to keep you on tenterhooks, Maki, but I have a life. It’s not really predictable when I’ll respond. If so, it might be in a couple of minutes, or - WARNING! - not for another five days. Try to hold on!
‘They simply wanted to silence her.’
No, they simply didn't want to hear her.
No, they could have accomplished that by not attending her speech, putting their hands over their ears, listening to their iPods, etc.
474Carnophile
Gallup: Less than half of US Muslims support building the mosque at its proposed location.
Those anti-Muslim bigots!
Those anti-Muslim bigots!
475krolik
>474 Carnophile:
Whatever puts dew on your lily.
Whatever puts dew on your lily.
476krolik
Looks like the previously stated anticipation and delectation has waned, or at least been edited.
477Carnophile
What, you mean this?
"I look forward to watching lefties here explain how most US Muslims are anti-Muslim bigots."
I took it out, as you noticed, but I'm a very accommodating guy, krolik, and happy to reinstate it for ya!
"I look forward to watching lefties here explain how most US Muslims are anti-Muslim bigots."
I took it out, as you noticed, but I'm a very accommodating guy, krolik, and happy to reinstate it for ya!
478codyed
There is a qualitative difference between American Muslims opposing the construction of the Islamic center and the hordes of rabid Muslim haters who opposed it, many of whom, if you remember, held up signs with "sharia" written in dripping blood. The former are not anti-Muslim bigots. The latter, however, are.
479codyed
I thought Muslims were supposed to be systematically destroying American institutions, one by one, and jamming their collective, Muslim finger in the collective eye of Americans who regard Ground Zero as the most sacred place outside Jerusalem. Pam Geller will surely have something to say about this.
480Carnophile
>478 codyed:
Most people who have expressed objections to the mosque are not holding up bloody sharia signs.
Most people who have expressed objections to the mosque are not holding up bloody sharia signs.
482K.J.
My grandmother taught me that a gentleman does not tell that he did X. Especially if he wants to do her again.
487perdondaris
If we start banning dangerous religions we will be left with no religions. How is that for food for thought?
488theoria
"The American preacher who planned a mass burning of the Qur'an on the anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks could be banned from entering Britain under incitement and national security laws.
Terry Jones, a pentecostal preacher, is to address the far-right group, the English Defence League (EDL), about "the evils of Islam" at a rally in Luton in February.
Theresa May, the home secretary, is under intense pressure to ban Jones and said she was "actively looking" at the case. She said Jones had "been on her radar for a few months" and, as home secretary, she could ban his entry if he was a threat to national security."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/12/terry-jones-possible-ban-from-uk
Terry Jones, a pentecostal preacher, is to address the far-right group, the English Defence League (EDL), about "the evils of Islam" at a rally in Luton in February.
Theresa May, the home secretary, is under intense pressure to ban Jones and said she was "actively looking" at the case. She said Jones had "been on her radar for a few months" and, as home secretary, she could ban his entry if he was a threat to national security."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/12/terry-jones-possible-ban-from-uk
489BruceCoulson
And one of the pro 'burn the Qu'ran' people was given a new car for not carrying out his tantrum...errr...threat.
I'm surprised no atheist group filed for having a burning of all religious texts right next door, on the grounds that the local church was making a good start, but hadn't gone far enough.
The old-fashioned, conservative way of stopping a building from being built was either to buy the property yourself, or pay politicians to prevent the building. None of this wishy-washy having protests...
I'm surprised no atheist group filed for having a burning of all religious texts right next door, on the grounds that the local church was making a good start, but hadn't gone far enough.
The old-fashioned, conservative way of stopping a building from being built was either to buy the property yourself, or pay politicians to prevent the building. None of this wishy-washy having protests...
490prosfilaes
#489: The old-fashioned, conservative way of stopping a building from being built was either to buy the property yourself, or pay politicians to prevent the building.
They're a hundred years too late to prevent the building, and it seems they ran out of political options to stop them. In a town the size of New York, I imagine it's virtually impossible to stop a building like this; what are you going to do, buy all the land within a thousand meters of the WTC?
They're a hundred years too late to prevent the building, and it seems they ran out of political options to stop them. In a town the size of New York, I imagine it's virtually impossible to stop a building like this; what are you going to do, buy all the land within a thousand meters of the WTC?
491BruceCoulson
Boo hoo. Again, from a conservative point of view, if you lose, you stop whining about it.
And I always thought conservatives were all about the sanctity of private property and the right of the owner to do whatever they damn well pleased with their property.
And I always thought conservatives were all about the sanctity of private property and the right of the owner to do whatever they damn well pleased with their property.
492prosfilaes
#491: Again, from a conservative point of view, if you lose, you stop whining about it.
What? I've heard many things attributed to various political groups, but this is the first time I've heard not whining or accepting loss attributed as a particular political view, and frankly I find it absurd. No political party has the monopoly on dragging things out to the bitter end or protesting and complaining even after something is a foregone conclusion.
What? I've heard many things attributed to various political groups, but this is the first time I've heard not whining or accepting loss attributed as a particular political view, and frankly I find it absurd. No political party has the monopoly on dragging things out to the bitter end or protesting and complaining even after something is a foregone conclusion.
493perdondaris
The war on Islam is being fought in America by theocrats of the worlds second most disastrous religion: Christianity. Religions that do not operate on the Pleasure Principle but on the Work Ethic always end up leading to war, slavery, and genocide. Hence Christianity's history in the Americas.
If more people would realize what money grubbing nonsense the Work Ethic is and live according to the Pleasure Principle we would have a much better world---one that was not misrun by theocrats, generals and capitalists.
If more people would realize what money grubbing nonsense the Work Ethic is and live according to the Pleasure Principle we would have a much better world---one that was not misrun by theocrats, generals and capitalists.
494BruceCoulson
Part of life in a society is accepting that you don't get your way every time. Ultimately, a decision is made; and you may not be the winner. You accept your loss and move on.
I made the reference to conservatives because I consider myself one. And conservatives are supposed to be social/political realists who accept how life works (as opposed to how we'd like it to work).
If everyone in a society refused to accept decisions that went against them, society would grind to a halt.
I made the reference to conservatives because I consider myself one. And conservatives are supposed to be social/political realists who accept how life works (as opposed to how we'd like it to work).
If everyone in a society refused to accept decisions that went against them, society would grind to a halt.
495prosfilaes
#494: I made the reference to conservatives because I consider myself one.
And assuming that people who share your political beliefs are wiser and more moral is one of the things that helps to grind this society to a halt.
And conservatives are supposed to be social/political realists who accept how life works (as opposed to how we'd like it to work).
Right. Like all the conservative organizations that keep pushing school prayer, and the teaching of creationism in schools, and banning abortions, etc.
And assuming that people who share your political beliefs are wiser and more moral is one of the things that helps to grind this society to a halt.
And conservatives are supposed to be social/political realists who accept how life works (as opposed to how we'd like it to work).
Right. Like all the conservative organizations that keep pushing school prayer, and the teaching of creationism in schools, and banning abortions, etc.
496BruceCoulson
I said 'supposed to be'. I didn't say they were. And it certainly would be nice if most (if not all)conservatives were better educated and wiser than I was, considering I don't regard myself as brilliant or qualified to lead.
And frankly, the organizations you refer to aren't conservative, in my opinion. They're reationary (at best). Claiming to be conservative doesn't make you one. They'd be willing to sacrifice all sorts of principles to get the mess of pottage they feel is important.
School prayer is easy. For one thing, as numerous comedians have observed, as long as there are students who haven't studied for a pop quiz, prayer will be in schools. What is being debated is should a school-sponsored prayer exist? The answer is simple: no. Public schools are an agent of the government. The government sponsoring any faith above any other is illegal. Now, I'm sure students would love to take the time stating prayers in every known faith on the planet; it would make their school day much shorter! But I don't think it's practical, so, if you want a school with a sponsored prayer, do the right thing and send your kid to a religious school. Pay for it out of your own pocket.
Ditto for creationism; you want to teach religion, spend your own money. Catholics have been doing this for years in the United States.
Abortion isn't a religious issue (cf Gary Wills' excellent book, Under God). It's a power/control issue.
And frankly, the organizations you refer to aren't conservative, in my opinion. They're reationary (at best). Claiming to be conservative doesn't make you one. They'd be willing to sacrifice all sorts of principles to get the mess of pottage they feel is important.
School prayer is easy. For one thing, as numerous comedians have observed, as long as there are students who haven't studied for a pop quiz, prayer will be in schools. What is being debated is should a school-sponsored prayer exist? The answer is simple: no. Public schools are an agent of the government. The government sponsoring any faith above any other is illegal. Now, I'm sure students would love to take the time stating prayers in every known faith on the planet; it would make their school day much shorter! But I don't think it's practical, so, if you want a school with a sponsored prayer, do the right thing and send your kid to a religious school. Pay for it out of your own pocket.
Ditto for creationism; you want to teach religion, spend your own money. Catholics have been doing this for years in the United States.
Abortion isn't a religious issue (cf Gary Wills' excellent book, Under God). It's a power/control issue.
497perdondaris
I think the best way way of explaining the "terror mosque" phenomenon is to read Sartre's Portrait of an Antisemite. It is the perfect explication of conservative paranoid thinking.
Conservatives must live their lives with a soundtrack to a horror movie constantly playing in their head.
Conservatives must live their lives with a soundtrack to a horror movie constantly playing in their head.
498BruceCoulson
In World War Z, a repellant character makes the observation that fear is the most marketable item around. You can sell anything, if you link it to fear.
Which is why 'neo-cons' are so gullible; they live their lives in fear, so you can sell them pretty much anything.
Actual conservatives have worries and concerns, but try not to succumb to fear, because fear makes you stupid in the modern age.
Which is why 'neo-cons' are so gullible; they live their lives in fear, so you can sell them pretty much anything.
Actual conservatives have worries and concerns, but try not to succumb to fear, because fear makes you stupid in the modern age.
499Makifat
Sorry, but it looks like I'm gonna have to trot out my trusty ol' Hermann Goering quote once again:
Naturally, the common people don't want war, but after all, it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag people along whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country.
500prosfilaes
#499: So some Nazi scumbag points the finger at everyone else and says "you're no different then we are", and you repeat his line because it supports your interests, even if you blow off everything else he said.
501readafew
so because he's a Nazi, everything he ever said is automatically wrong?
Even a broke clock is right twice a day. That quote pretty accurately explains how we got into Iraq as far as I've been able to tell.
Even a broke clock is right twice a day. That quote pretty accurately explains how we got into Iraq as far as I've been able to tell.
502Makifat
Whatever the source, it is an excellent example, from the inside, of the art of manipulation. Recognizing it does not imply an endorsement of it.
503BruceCoulson
Goering's assessment of how people are manipulated into supporting wars that do not benefit them is spot on.
I believe Machievelli stated much the same thing, in different terms.
If a source is accurate (and in this case, would have inside information concerning the matter), rejecting the information because you disapprove of the source is foolish.
Many scientists throughout history were personally unlikable. That doesn't invalidate their findings.
I believe Machievelli stated much the same thing, in different terms.
If a source is accurate (and in this case, would have inside information concerning the matter), rejecting the information because you disapprove of the source is foolish.
Many scientists throughout history were personally unlikable. That doesn't invalidate their findings.
504prosfilaes
#503: If a source is accurate (and in this case, would have inside information concerning the matter), rejecting the information because you disapprove of the source is foolish.
He doesn't have inside information concerning the matter. He knows something of how it worked in Nazi Germany. He doesn't have any inside information as to any of the governments that interest us. And saying the source is accurate is circular; you have to prove it's accurate, first. It's not disapproval of the source; it's distrust. Goering had every motive in the world to believe and tell his listeners that he was no worse then they were. He doesn't have the scholarship, the learning to pontificate on the subject. There's no reason to trust him as a source.
Many scientists throughout history were personally unlikable. That doesn't invalidate their findings.
No. But we don't introduce quantum entanglement with a quote from Einstein. Nor do we trust the word of scientists, likeable or unlikeable; major discoveries need to be checked. And again, Goering is not a historian or a political scientist; he's a man with an axe to grind on the subject.
I believe Machievelli stated much the same thing, in different terms.
And Machievelli is not an unreasonable person to quote on this. He was a scholar who studied the situation and wrote disinterestedly on the subject. But why not a modern historian or political scientist, who has actually seen communist and democratic governments in motion? Is there any other reason then because a responsible historian would not make such sweeping statements?
He doesn't have inside information concerning the matter. He knows something of how it worked in Nazi Germany. He doesn't have any inside information as to any of the governments that interest us. And saying the source is accurate is circular; you have to prove it's accurate, first. It's not disapproval of the source; it's distrust. Goering had every motive in the world to believe and tell his listeners that he was no worse then they were. He doesn't have the scholarship, the learning to pontificate on the subject. There's no reason to trust him as a source.
Many scientists throughout history were personally unlikable. That doesn't invalidate their findings.
No. But we don't introduce quantum entanglement with a quote from Einstein. Nor do we trust the word of scientists, likeable or unlikeable; major discoveries need to be checked. And again, Goering is not a historian or a political scientist; he's a man with an axe to grind on the subject.
I believe Machievelli stated much the same thing, in different terms.
And Machievelli is not an unreasonable person to quote on this. He was a scholar who studied the situation and wrote disinterestedly on the subject. But why not a modern historian or political scientist, who has actually seen communist and democratic governments in motion? Is there any other reason then because a responsible historian would not make such sweeping statements?
505BruceCoulson
Goering was a highly-placed official in Germany, in a democratically-elected government. Although his knowledge of other governments and their operations would be second-hand, why would you assume that the operation of Germany's government would be of no interest to us? Germany's popularly-elected government led their people into a briefly successful but ultimately disastrous war. Unless you are saying that Germans from the period of 1919-1945 were fundamentally different, surely the techniques used by the Nazi Party to lead the German people would have some significance.
Goering was in a position few former leaders find themselves in; on the losing side but still able to speak. President Wilson, for instance, would have had no reason to admit to such manipulations to get the U.S. into World War I; he was not a P.O.W. facing death afterwards. But a study of the war hysteria prior to the U.S. entry into WW I bears out Goering's observation. Honesty is sometimes a by-product of impending death, and Goering's line is quoted precisely because it's accurate in many cases.
Goering was in a position few former leaders find themselves in; on the losing side but still able to speak. President Wilson, for instance, would have had no reason to admit to such manipulations to get the U.S. into World War I; he was not a P.O.W. facing death afterwards. But a study of the war hysteria prior to the U.S. entry into WW I bears out Goering's observation. Honesty is sometimes a by-product of impending death, and Goering's line is quoted precisely because it's accurate in many cases.
506Makifat
505
Absolutely correct. Whatever his many, many loathesome characteristics, Goering was there and played a central part. As for its relevance, the quote got a fair amount of play in the run-up to the Second Iraq War. It will probably be resurrected in time for the next round of military adventurism, not that it will be paid any more heed than the last time.
Honesty is sometimes a by-product of impending death, and Goering's line is quoted precisely because it's accurate in many cases.
Emphasis on the "sometimes". Self-delusion is a hard habit to break.
I've forgotten the fuller context of Goering's Nuremberg statement. It may have been either the final crow of a master manipulator, or a grim warning to posterity to not get too confortable with the "it can't happen here" mindset. Or both. Or neither. The intention doesn't matter that much.
Absolutely correct. Whatever his many, many loathesome characteristics, Goering was there and played a central part. As for its relevance, the quote got a fair amount of play in the run-up to the Second Iraq War. It will probably be resurrected in time for the next round of military adventurism, not that it will be paid any more heed than the last time.
Honesty is sometimes a by-product of impending death, and Goering's line is quoted precisely because it's accurate in many cases.
Emphasis on the "sometimes". Self-delusion is a hard habit to break.
I've forgotten the fuller context of Goering's Nuremberg statement. It may have been either the final crow of a master manipulator, or a grim warning to posterity to not get too confortable with the "it can't happen here" mindset. Or both. Or neither. The intention doesn't matter that much.
507prosfilaes
#505: Unless you are saying that Germans from the period of 1919-1945 were fundamentally different,
Why 1919? Goering only got into political office in 1932. In terms of the running of a democratically elected government, they were; in 1932, more then half the Germans voted for Fascist or Communists parties, neither of which believed in the democratic government. Between 1933 and 1945, Germany was not meaningfully a democratic government, and it ruled not by "tell{ing} them they are being attacked," but terrifying the populace until an uprising would be impossible. Wikipedia says "By the mid-1930s the party as an institution was increasingly unpopular with the German public"; they were forced into whatever schemes the Nazis wanted unless they were willing to revolt.
"Unless you are saying that Germans from the period of 1919-1945 were fundamentally different," surely we must worry that any democracy can fall into a dictatorship in one election.
Quotes of famous figures are bullshit; they're authoritarian in nature, acting like someone being famous means you should listen to them, and they're anti-reason, being packaged into soundbites stripped of all logic and context. But at least when you quote Abraham Lincoln or some wise, respected figure, you're quoting someone you believe was telling the truth and had the wisdom to know the truth.
#506: The intention doesn't matter that much.
So if someone is making a self-serving lie that fits your cause, go ahead and repeat it?
You want to tell me that Joe Smith, professor at UC-Berkeley, wrote in "Military Engagements in Democratic Nations" that "It is disturbing the number of times democratic nations have gone to war when the populace wanted peace. A study of wars of the US and the UK during the 20th century reveals that at the start of virtually all the wars, the leaders of the country manipulated the facts surrounding military incidents to lead the country into war." (P. 279). I'm sure there's some scholar of history or political science that has written something of the sort, and if you go to page 279ff, you should see a detailed support of that statement.
But that would encourage counterquotes by Robert Jones, professor at Baylor University, and arguments about the facts presented page 279ff. You want instead to stifle discussion, "to drag people along", to "denounce the" militarists "for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger".
Why 1919? Goering only got into political office in 1932. In terms of the running of a democratically elected government, they were; in 1932, more then half the Germans voted for Fascist or Communists parties, neither of which believed in the democratic government. Between 1933 and 1945, Germany was not meaningfully a democratic government, and it ruled not by "tell{ing} them they are being attacked," but terrifying the populace until an uprising would be impossible. Wikipedia says "By the mid-1930s the party as an institution was increasingly unpopular with the German public"; they were forced into whatever schemes the Nazis wanted unless they were willing to revolt.
"Unless you are saying that Germans from the period of 1919-1945 were fundamentally different," surely we must worry that any democracy can fall into a dictatorship in one election.
Quotes of famous figures are bullshit; they're authoritarian in nature, acting like someone being famous means you should listen to them, and they're anti-reason, being packaged into soundbites stripped of all logic and context. But at least when you quote Abraham Lincoln or some wise, respected figure, you're quoting someone you believe was telling the truth and had the wisdom to know the truth.
#506: The intention doesn't matter that much.
So if someone is making a self-serving lie that fits your cause, go ahead and repeat it?
You want to tell me that Joe Smith, professor at UC-Berkeley, wrote in "Military Engagements in Democratic Nations" that "It is disturbing the number of times democratic nations have gone to war when the populace wanted peace. A study of wars of the US and the UK during the 20th century reveals that at the start of virtually all the wars, the leaders of the country manipulated the facts surrounding military incidents to lead the country into war." (P. 279). I'm sure there's some scholar of history or political science that has written something of the sort, and if you go to page 279ff, you should see a detailed support of that statement.
But that would encourage counterquotes by Robert Jones, professor at Baylor University, and arguments about the facts presented page 279ff. You want instead to stifle discussion, "to drag people along", to "denounce the" militarists "for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger".
508Makifat
It's not just a matter of a random quote by a "famous figure". It's a bit of insight into the thinking of someone who had the experience, who played a big part in engineering one of the greatest mass deceptions (not to mention mass murders) of the 20th century. I gather from your post that we should only listen to the reflections of "wise, respected" figures. You certainly shut out a lot of information with that mindset. Anyway, who's putting people on a pedestal now?
509BruceCoulson
And who determines who is a 'wise, respected figure'?
By your standards, we can ignore the statements of any political leaders (so Abraham Lincoln, Sun Tzu, Ho Chi Minh. Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin, etc. would all be out)
And no, no one is telling you that you can't quote Joe the Plumber, Rosie the Janitor, or even the ever-popular Anonymous, one of the wisest people who has ever lived.
It strikes me that you are the one 'stifling discussion' by forbidding the use of quotations by people who actually had experience and practical knowledge of the subject. It's like saying you can't quote any military leader about war, because they're authoritarian in nature; you can only use quotes by people who never commanded people in battle.
By your standards, we can ignore the statements of any political leaders (so Abraham Lincoln, Sun Tzu, Ho Chi Minh. Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin, etc. would all be out)
And no, no one is telling you that you can't quote Joe the Plumber, Rosie the Janitor, or even the ever-popular Anonymous, one of the wisest people who has ever lived.
It strikes me that you are the one 'stifling discussion' by forbidding the use of quotations by people who actually had experience and practical knowledge of the subject. It's like saying you can't quote any military leader about war, because they're authoritarian in nature; you can only use quotes by people who never commanded people in battle.
510jjwilson61
It strikes me that you are the one 'stifling discussion' by forbidding the use of quotations by people who actually had experience and practical knowledge of the subject.
I thought profilaes was objecting that any experience and practical knowledge that Goering had isn't relevant to modern democracies.
I thought profilaes was objecting that any experience and practical knowledge that Goering had isn't relevant to modern democracies.
511BruceCoulson
Just how 'modern' do you have to be? Germany in the 1920s and 30s was a democracy. The National Socialist Party was popularly elected (albeit, as part of a coalition government).
Abraham Lincoln was elected far earlier than that.
Abraham Lincoln was elected far earlier than that.
512jjwilson61
Did you actually read post #507? profilaes discusses that.
513prosfilaes
#509: I gather from your post that we should only listen to the reflections of "wise, respected" figures.
It's not about listening to. It's about quoting. Liars and fools need to be read in context, with the constant light of history and truth shining on them. Heck, so do wise, respected figures, but arguing against quoting them is a bit quixotic.
#509: And who determines who is a 'wise, respected figure'?
The speaker and the audience. The rule, depending on how you treat social interactions, is quote people you think were wise or quote people you think your audience will think wise.
By your standards, we can ignore the statements of any political leaders
No. Many of political leaders, including several you named, wrote lengthy justifications and explanations of their actions. But puffery and propaganda aren't worth listening to.
#511: Just how 'modern' do you have to be? Germany in the 1920s and 30s was a democracy.
Modern is not a word I would use. 'Sane' democracies, perhaps? It takes a certain attitude for democracies to work, a belief in the rule of law and a desire on the behalf of the populace to work within the democratic system. Germany, like many African countries and other post-colonial countries, didn't have it. In 1932, the majority of the populace, either Nazis or Communists, were voting for parties that opposed democracy. Wikipedia citing Mary Fulbrook's The Divided Nation: A History of Germany, 1918-1990 claims the president was already trying to make Germany into an authoritarian state before Hitler gained power. In March 1933, Hitler was granted dictatorial powers, and on July 14th, 1933, Germany became a de jure and de facto single party state, casting off any illusion of democracy. Goering served under a democracy for a year, and a pretty petty excuse for a democracy at that.
Goering's quote is false: "Naturally, the common people don't want war," he says, but go poll the average American on December 8th, 1941 or September 12, 2001. It's also not what the Nazis did; they took power and made it clear that dissent would not be tolerated. Again, "by the mid-1930s the party as an institution was increasingly unpopular with the German public"; they held power they couldn't have if they had had to worry about bringing the people to the bidding of their leaders.
He lied, and nobody had any reason to expect anything more of him. Stop trying to push his whines and excuses, and make the simple, clear and honest statement that men put into power openly and fairly in democratic governments have lead their nation into wars on the backs of lies. Or whatever statement you think you can defend. Just don't parade around the lies of evil men just because they support your case.
It's not about listening to. It's about quoting. Liars and fools need to be read in context, with the constant light of history and truth shining on them. Heck, so do wise, respected figures, but arguing against quoting them is a bit quixotic.
#509: And who determines who is a 'wise, respected figure'?
The speaker and the audience. The rule, depending on how you treat social interactions, is quote people you think were wise or quote people you think your audience will think wise.
By your standards, we can ignore the statements of any political leaders
No. Many of political leaders, including several you named, wrote lengthy justifications and explanations of their actions. But puffery and propaganda aren't worth listening to.
#511: Just how 'modern' do you have to be? Germany in the 1920s and 30s was a democracy.
Modern is not a word I would use. 'Sane' democracies, perhaps? It takes a certain attitude for democracies to work, a belief in the rule of law and a desire on the behalf of the populace to work within the democratic system. Germany, like many African countries and other post-colonial countries, didn't have it. In 1932, the majority of the populace, either Nazis or Communists, were voting for parties that opposed democracy. Wikipedia citing Mary Fulbrook's The Divided Nation: A History of Germany, 1918-1990 claims the president was already trying to make Germany into an authoritarian state before Hitler gained power. In March 1933, Hitler was granted dictatorial powers, and on July 14th, 1933, Germany became a de jure and de facto single party state, casting off any illusion of democracy. Goering served under a democracy for a year, and a pretty petty excuse for a democracy at that.
Goering's quote is false: "Naturally, the common people don't want war," he says, but go poll the average American on December 8th, 1941 or September 12, 2001. It's also not what the Nazis did; they took power and made it clear that dissent would not be tolerated. Again, "by the mid-1930s the party as an institution was increasingly unpopular with the German public"; they held power they couldn't have if they had had to worry about bringing the people to the bidding of their leaders.
He lied, and nobody had any reason to expect anything more of him. Stop trying to push his whines and excuses, and make the simple, clear and honest statement that men put into power openly and fairly in democratic governments have lead their nation into wars on the backs of lies. Or whatever statement you think you can defend. Just don't parade around the lies of evil men just because they support your case.
514Makifat
It's interesting that you keep characterizing the quote as a lie. Your defense, weak as it is, is to suggest that in the aftermath of Pearl Harbor and 9/11, the statement that the common people don't want war is obviously false. Well, no shit, Sherlock.
But the proximate cause of my posting the quote was a statement regarding the manipulation of the public by fear. In a discussion of an issue in which inflammatory anti-Muslim statements by the likes of Newt Gingrich and Pam Atlas are used to stoke public fear and anger, a statement regarding how fear of some vaguely anticipated attack (and the concurrent denouncing of more prudent souls as "unpatriotic") can be used by demagogues to their advantage and to the detriment of society as a whole is entirely relevant.
I get it: you don't like Goering. I don't like him either. But inasmuch as you have chosen to obsess over the source of the quote rather than its content, I'm not sure a lengthy explanation of its relevance (minor as it may be) would be of much use.
But the proximate cause of my posting the quote was a statement regarding the manipulation of the public by fear. In a discussion of an issue in which inflammatory anti-Muslim statements by the likes of Newt Gingrich and Pam Atlas are used to stoke public fear and anger, a statement regarding how fear of some vaguely anticipated attack (and the concurrent denouncing of more prudent souls as "unpatriotic") can be used by demagogues to their advantage and to the detriment of society as a whole is entirely relevant.
I get it: you don't like Goering. I don't like him either. But inasmuch as you have chosen to obsess over the source of the quote rather than its content, I'm not sure a lengthy explanation of its relevance (minor as it may be) would be of much use.
515jjwilson61
And why are you obsessing over defending the quote? I think prosfilaes makes a good point that just because you agree with the text of the quote doesn't make it good support in an argument.
516Makifat
The quote was offered as an example of how demagogues manipulate by fear (does anyone deny that?), not as support for any particular argument. The fact that it was offered by a demagogue (Goering, I mean) ought to count for something. I think if the same quote had first appeared in Decision Points, it would have been hailed as a model of candor.
As far as me obsessing over it, I'm done. :)
As far as me obsessing over it, I'm done. :)
517prosfilaes
#514: the statement that the common people don't want war is obviously false. Well, no shit, Sherlock.
So you're parading around a statement you admit is false.
as you have chosen to obsess over the source of the quote rather than its content
I don't really care about the content. Neither do you. As I said above, the content could be made without the quote. Most of us here are familiar with the Gulf of Tonkin affair, with W's Iraq War. There will be few of us so stupid as to deny that governments pull that shit. But like any quote, you want to pull it out so you don't have to discuss complex reality. So the fact that's this is a lie by a liar pontificating on stuff he didn't know crap about is very relevant.
So you're parading around a statement you admit is false.
as you have chosen to obsess over the source of the quote rather than its content
I don't really care about the content. Neither do you. As I said above, the content could be made without the quote. Most of us here are familiar with the Gulf of Tonkin affair, with W's Iraq War. There will be few of us so stupid as to deny that governments pull that shit. But like any quote, you want to pull it out so you don't have to discuss complex reality. So the fact that's this is a lie by a liar pontificating on stuff he didn't know crap about is very relevant.
518prosfilaes
#516: The quote was offered as an example of how demagogues manipulate by fear (does anyone deny that?)
If no one denies it, then what's the point?
I think if the same quote had first appeared in Decision Points, it would have been hailed as a model of candor.
Classic abuse; if someone disagrees with you, call him a Nazi, Communist or Republican, and suddenly you don't have to pay attention to his arguments.
If no one denies it, then what's the point?
I think if the same quote had first appeared in Decision Points, it would have been hailed as a model of candor.
Classic abuse; if someone disagrees with you, call him a Nazi, Communist or Republican, and suddenly you don't have to pay attention to his arguments.
520jjwilson61
It takes two to obsess...maybe.
521BruceCoulson
Okay, here's a quote from an American political leader on the same subject.
"When fascism comes to America, it will not be called fascism; it will be called Americanism."
Huey Long, also a democratically-elected leader.
And actually, the idea that the commmon people are ever willing to go to war is false. They may be willing, even eager, to defend themselves in case they believe they've been attacked; but that's not the same thing as saying they want to go to war. In order to go to war, a casus belli must exist. Now, sometimes, that is indeed an actual cause (cf Pearl Harbor, or the German invasion of the Soviet Union). But far more often, the 'cause' is made up, or grossly exagerrated, in order to convince the common people their interests are at stake.
"When fascism comes to America, it will not be called fascism; it will be called Americanism."
Huey Long, also a democratically-elected leader.
And actually, the idea that the commmon people are ever willing to go to war is false. They may be willing, even eager, to defend themselves in case they believe they've been attacked; but that's not the same thing as saying they want to go to war. In order to go to war, a casus belli must exist. Now, sometimes, that is indeed an actual cause (cf Pearl Harbor, or the German invasion of the Soviet Union). But far more often, the 'cause' is made up, or grossly exagerrated, in order to convince the common people their interests are at stake.
522prosfilaes
#521: "When fascism comes to America, it will not be called fascism; it will be called Americanism."
Which contradicts the Goering quote, which made no distinction between fascism and other governments.
And actually, the idea that the commmon people are ever willing to go to war is false. They may be willing, even eager, to defend themselves in case they believe they've been attacked; but that's not the same thing as saying they want to go to war.
That's semantic game playing. You could as well say that nobody is ever willing to go to war, but if their interests are at stake they'll go. W wouldn't have gone to war in Iraq if they'd just rolled over and surrendered. When some redneck on September 12, 2001 is jumping for the chance to go to some Middle Eastern country and shoot some Muslims, I don't see any way to describe that but as being willing to go to war.
A larger historical case is the western push of European-Americans. As I recall it, the common people Georgians weren't crying about the Cherokees being forced off their land at gunpoint, and the people pushing forward taking Indian land by force were often the common people, with the military following later.
often, the 'cause' is made up, or grossly exagerrated, in order to convince the common people their interests are at stake.
Sure, I'm not contending that. What I am contending is that the Goering quote is that we have no reason to believe it, that it is overbroad, and that it was a self-serving lie by Goering.
Which contradicts the Goering quote, which made no distinction between fascism and other governments.
And actually, the idea that the commmon people are ever willing to go to war is false. They may be willing, even eager, to defend themselves in case they believe they've been attacked; but that's not the same thing as saying they want to go to war.
That's semantic game playing. You could as well say that nobody is ever willing to go to war, but if their interests are at stake they'll go. W wouldn't have gone to war in Iraq if they'd just rolled over and surrendered. When some redneck on September 12, 2001 is jumping for the chance to go to some Middle Eastern country and shoot some Muslims, I don't see any way to describe that but as being willing to go to war.
A larger historical case is the western push of European-Americans. As I recall it, the common people Georgians weren't crying about the Cherokees being forced off their land at gunpoint, and the people pushing forward taking Indian land by force were often the common people, with the military following later.
often, the 'cause' is made up, or grossly exagerrated, in order to convince the common people their interests are at stake.
Sure, I'm not contending that. What I am contending is that the Goering quote is that we have no reason to believe it, that it is overbroad, and that it was a self-serving lie by Goering.
523BruceCoulson
That it was self-serving? Probably. A lie? That's not so certain. You've basically agreed with everything he said; you're just saying we shouldn't believe him, even though you think he's right.
And it's not semantics. There's a world of difference between responding to a direct attack (Pearl Harbor) and willingness to kill for your interests (cheap oil). Most people are willing to defend themselves. How many people are willing to fight over a close parking space? Even in the winter, you don't see fist fights or gunplay (mostly) over parking spots in malls.
People are also willing to accept bribes. But in your example, people took land (that didn't belong to them) as a result of being taught they had a better right to it than the owners. When the owners fought back (surprise), the thieves screamed for police...err military/government action to protect them. And since it was in the government's interests to support the criminals... But there was initial propaganda even in your example. (I believe that even if Hussein had given W everything he wanted...the U.S. would have invaded anyway.)
And there isn't that much difference between governments. As Thomas Jefferson stated, all power ultimately derives from the people. It's all a question of how (and if) they are willing to exercise it.
And it's not semantics. There's a world of difference between responding to a direct attack (Pearl Harbor) and willingness to kill for your interests (cheap oil). Most people are willing to defend themselves. How many people are willing to fight over a close parking space? Even in the winter, you don't see fist fights or gunplay (mostly) over parking spots in malls.
People are also willing to accept bribes. But in your example, people took land (that didn't belong to them) as a result of being taught they had a better right to it than the owners. When the owners fought back (surprise), the thieves screamed for police...err military/government action to protect them. And since it was in the government's interests to support the criminals... But there was initial propaganda even in your example. (I believe that even if Hussein had given W everything he wanted...the U.S. would have invaded anyway.)
And there isn't that much difference between governments. As Thomas Jefferson stated, all power ultimately derives from the people. It's all a question of how (and if) they are willing to exercise it.
524prosfilaes
#523: There's a world of difference between responding to a direct attack (Pearl Harbor) and willingness to kill for your interests (cheap oil).
And examples can found all the way inbetween. As I said after 9/11, the cry from the common people was not for an attack against a specific nation, but for a pound of flesh.
But in your example, people took land (that didn't belong to them) as a result of being taught they had a better right to it than the owners. {...} But there was initial propaganda even in your example.
That's a classic rigging of the results. If the common people do something you're claiming they don't, call it propaganda. Never mind that if it is propaganda, it's from the common people themselves. Never mind that childhood is a process of filling that tabula rasa, and that you can as quickly blame anti-war attitudes on propaganda. The reason "you don't see fist fights or gunplay (mostly) over parking spots in malls" is because the Comics Code and other pervasive propaganda tells us that crime doesn't pay. Once you start blaming everything on propaganda, it's hard to find anything you can say that isn't propaganda.
As Thomas Jefferson stated, all power ultimately derives from the people. It's all a question of how (and if) they are willing to exercise it.
Again, you're pulling out quotes that contradict your Goering quote. According to Goering: "Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country." The people have no power, because they "can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders." "It works the same in every country."
And examples can found all the way inbetween. As I said after 9/11, the cry from the common people was not for an attack against a specific nation, but for a pound of flesh.
But in your example, people took land (that didn't belong to them) as a result of being taught they had a better right to it than the owners. {...} But there was initial propaganda even in your example.
That's a classic rigging of the results. If the common people do something you're claiming they don't, call it propaganda. Never mind that if it is propaganda, it's from the common people themselves. Never mind that childhood is a process of filling that tabula rasa, and that you can as quickly blame anti-war attitudes on propaganda. The reason "you don't see fist fights or gunplay (mostly) over parking spots in malls" is because the Comics Code and other pervasive propaganda tells us that crime doesn't pay. Once you start blaming everything on propaganda, it's hard to find anything you can say that isn't propaganda.
As Thomas Jefferson stated, all power ultimately derives from the people. It's all a question of how (and if) they are willing to exercise it.
Again, you're pulling out quotes that contradict your Goering quote. According to Goering: "Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country." The people have no power, because they "can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders." "It works the same in every country."
525BruceCoulson
Just because the people can be manipulated into using their power at the behest of the leaders does not mean that they have none. Quite the contrary; why bother getting public support if the people have no power to influence events? Goering is saying how the public is manipulated; he says nothing about their actual power.
Most politics involves getting the people to put their power behind you...without them ever realizing they have the power without you.
So, I will concede that people are more scum than I was saying, and that if both the leaders and the people want something, there's little opposition. That still doesn't exclude manipulating the public towards policies that benefit the leaders but not the public; just that if everyone benefits (or thinks they do) it's far easier. So, yes; people in general are evil and self-serving. Which would make them easier to manipulate, yes?
Most politics involves getting the people to put their power behind you...without them ever realizing they have the power without you.
So, I will concede that people are more scum than I was saying, and that if both the leaders and the people want something, there's little opposition. That still doesn't exclude manipulating the public towards policies that benefit the leaders but not the public; just that if everyone benefits (or thinks they do) it's far easier. So, yes; people in general are evil and self-serving. Which would make them easier to manipulate, yes?
