There's What's Constitutional And There's What's Decent
As you've surely heard, Muslims are trying to build what they claim is not a mega-mosque but an "Islamic center" (or, as Ezra Levant calls it, "a monument to jihad") near Ground Zero...the place where, as Ayaan Hirsi Ali notes, Osama Bin Laden's men followed the dictates of Islam and murdered 3,000 people for Allah:
"After 9/11," Hirsi Ali writes, "I found it impossible to ignore his claims that the murderous destruction of innocent (if infidel) lives is consistent with the Quran. I looked in the Quran, and I found it to be so."
Unfortunately, most people (including many "moderate Muslims") are ill-informed about Islam. As is made very clear in the Quran (which is to be taken literally as the word of god), Islam is not a religion but a totalitarian system commanding its followers to see to the the death or conversion of "the infidel" and the installation of "The New Caliphate" around the globe.
There are, however, many people in this country -- Muslim people -- who have read far, far less of the Quran than I have (if they've even read any, and not just chanted from it in Arabic without knowing what they're reading), and who are the Muslim equivalent of Christmas Christians. For them, Islam is a religion -- one they're quite in the dark about; for example, about the evil demands the Quran and Hadith make of Muslims in order for them to be considered good Muslims. (Murdering gays, and other such charming, Enlightenment values-inflected stuff.)
While it is prohibited by law to order the violent overthrow of our democratic state, which Islam does, and which its imams command with some regularity, it's a bit tricky as to whether Islam can be declassified as a religion, since there are many Muslims who don't really understand Islam's dictates, and who practice it as pretty much just a somewhat different flavor of god belief than that practiced in Judaism and Christianity.
So, while my almost daily studies of Islam since 9/11 have led me to understand that this system, with its terrifying facility to turn legions of ordinary people into mass murderers for Allah, is probably the greatest modern threat to Western freedoms and our lives...I am not for using government prohibitions to keep the Muslims from building the mosque but for using the strongest public relations pressure possible.
I don't like that, but we don't preserve the Constitution by ripping it up in a situation like this. What we can do, for starters, is inform people -- including the so-called "moderate Muslims" about what Islam is really about.
Sam Harris has a similar view, writing at The Daily Beast:
And honest reasoning declares that there is much that is objectionable--and, frankly, terrifying--about the religion of Islam and about the state of discourse among Muslims living in the West, and it is decidedly inconvenient that discussing these facts publicly is considered a sign of "intolerance" by well-intentioned liberals, in part because such criticism resonates with the actual bigotry of not-so-well-intentioned conservatives. I can see no remedy for this, however, apart from simply ramming the crucial points home, again and again.The first thing that all honest students of Islam must admit is that it is not absolutely clear where members of al Qaeda, the Taliban, al-Shabab, Lashkar-e-Taiba, Hamas, and other Muslim terrorist groups have misconstrued their religious obligations. If they are "extremists" who have deformed an ancient faith into a death cult, they haven't deformed it by much. When one reads the Koran and the hadith, and consults the opinions of Muslim jurists over the centuries, one discovers that killing apostates, treating women like livestock, and waging jihad--not merely as an inner, spiritual struggle but as holy war against infidels--are practices that are central to the faith. Granted, one path out of this madness might be for mainstream Muslims to simply pretend that this isn't so--and by this pretense persuade the next generation that the "true" Islam is peaceful, tolerant of difference, egalitarian, and fully compatible with a global civil society. But the holy books remain forever to be consulted, and no one will dare to edit them. Consequently, the most barbarous and divisive passages in these texts will remain forever open to being given their most plausible interpretations.
Thus, when Allah commands his followers to slay infidels wherever they find them, until Islam reigns supreme (2:191-193; 4:76; 8:39; 9:123; 47:4; 66:9)--only to emphasize that such violent conquest is obligatory, as unpleasant as that might seem (2:216), and that death in jihad is actually the best thing that can happen to a person, given the rewards that martyrs receive in Paradise (3:140-171; 4:74; 47:5-6)--He means just that. And, being the creator of the universe, his words were meant to guide Muslims for all time. Yes, it is true that the Old Testament contains even greater barbarism--but there are obvious historical and theological reasons why it inspires far less Jewish and Christian violence today. Anyone who elides these distinctions, or who acknowledges the problem of jihad and Muslim terrorism only to swiftly mention the Crusades, Israel's treatment of the Palestinians, the Tamil Tigers, and the bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma, is simply not thinking honestly about the problem of Islam.
...The claim that the events of September 11, 2001, had "nothing to do with Islam" is an abject and destabilizing lie. This murder of 3,000 innocents was viewed as a victory for the One True Faith by millions of Muslims throughout the world (even, idiotically, by those who think it was perpetrated by the Mossad). And the erection of a mosque upon the ashes of this atrocity will also be viewed by many millions of Muslims as a victory--and as a sign that the liberal values of the West are synonymous with decadence and cowardice. This may not be reason enough for the supporters of this mosque to reconsider their project. And perhaps they shouldn't. Perhaps there is some form of Islam that could issue from this site that would be better, all things considered, than simply not building another mosque in the first place. But this leads me to a somewhat paradoxical conclusion: American Muslims should be absolutely free to build a mosque two blocks from ground zero; but the ones who should do it probably wouldn't want to.
Be sure to read Harris' entire piece. Here's a letter I also concurred with, published in The New York Times:
Re "A Monument to Tolerance" (editorial, Aug. 4), in support of a plan to build an Islamic center and mosque near ground zero: You say that the "attacks of Sept. 11 were not a religious event," but rather "mass murder." That is certainly true, but the unavoidable fact is that the mass murder was committed in the name of Islam.That being the case, it is at best an act of colossal insensitivity for the sponsors of an Islamic center to locate it two blocks from ground zero. One need harbor no ill will toward present-day Germany to feel that a German cultural center would be inappropriate across the road from Auschwitz.
Undoubtedly, the owners of the property have a "right" to use it for a place of worship. But having a legal right to act without a decent respect for the reasonable feelings of others doesn't make it right to do so.
I hope the overwhelming majority of Americans who oppose this project will continue to exercise their right to condemn it, The Times's aspersions of bigotry notwithstanding.
Howard F. Jaeckel
New York
As for "tolerance" from Muslims toward those of other religions, check out how that's working for Coptic Christians in Egypt.
More from Pat Condell:
Condell commenter Tiberian gets it right:
9/11 was a religiously motivated attack that could not have happened without Islam and the teachings of the Koran. The hijackers were explicitly motivated by a literal reading of their religion's holy text and nothing else. Their primary grievance was the presence of infidels in Muslim territory, which is forbidden by the Prophet. The attack had nothing to do with economics, imperialism, colonialism, racism, poverty, ignorance, insanity or any of the other whitewashes people try to apply when they are uneasy blaming Islam. Saying they were unusual fanatics suggests their beliefs lay outside the mainstream of Muslim opinion, which is not the case. They were unusual only in their determination and expertise. 9/11 was an Islamic act of jihad carried out by devout Muslims to honour their Prophet and intimidate his enemies (read: all infidels). A building dedicated to Islam anywhere in proximity to Ground Zero is a sickening insult to the victims.
Amy, is there anything that infuriates you more than the letters you sometimes write about that you get from people who make assumptions about what you think or believe, who ascribe to you points of view that are often diametrically opposed to what you actually believe?
So do you really think it's at all possible for you to inform your "So-called Moderate Muslims" what Islam is all about?
I'm glad that you agree that you can't legally do anything about the building without removing the First Amendment from the Constitution, but do you really think any amount of public relations pressure is going to change the minds of the people who have already put together 100 million dollars?
Complaining about this "mosque" can only help turn moderate Muslims into slightly less moderate Muslims.
If a woman wrote to you about her boyfriend, who she was afraid was a cheater, and she kept telling him "you're a cheater" would that make him more likely, or less likely to actually cheat? Isn't it better to treat people as we'd like them to be, not as we don't want them to be? Doesn't the concept of the self-fulfilling prophecy come into play at all with human behavior?
clinky at August 16, 2010 1:16 AM
I think getting a little tail on the side and beheadings/abuse of women/killing non-believers/etc. in the name of religion are two very different things that can't even be compared.
Kendra at August 16, 2010 3:02 AM
The idea of the mosque at or near Ground Zero makes me sick. I was there. I saw the second tower fall. I was with my friend when she found out that her father had been killed. My husband had to call his roomates parents and tell them that he had perished. I watched dozens of people jump to their death. I saw the remains of what was a beautiful building. I also saw the remains of what were once human beings with families, as they were cleaning up the mess. I brought the men and women working on site sandwhiches and water. I watched as Al Quida and Osama bragged about it, and continue too brag about it.
Now they want a fucking mosque!? Fuck that. They may have a constitutional freedom to do so, and I have a contstitutional freedom to protest it straight up to the highest channels and make a lot of fucking noise. And I have been. And I will until the fucking city comes to it's damn senses.
Some places are just sacred. They can build their child fucking Allah shrine anywhere in the city. There might be some noise but mostly, I think people would accept it as thier right to do so. Why there? Why does it have to be on the ONE place that is the most sacred and woukld cause the most pain? You don't see us building fucking monuments in Japan do you? No. Because it's tasteless and tacky and serves no purpose than to rub noses in it. If they REALLY wanted to improve relations, as some of the ones in favor of the build are claiming, then a little sensitivity would go a long way. Just because something is your "right" doesn't make it right. Assholes.
Lest anyone here claim that I am just speaking from emotion and am being unreasonable and should show a little tolerance blah blah... Sod off... I am angry. And you should be too.
Sabrina at August 16, 2010 5:20 AM
I am not a lawyer.
I hear that in Manhattan they use zoning laws to stop or encourage all sorts of things. Not just Manhattan, many places in the USA. It is used on a regular basis against Churches expanding or even being built. It is probably used against other religions too, I am just not directly aware of them. Wait, we can't use that in this case because Mayor Bloomberg and his cronies made sure it would happen.
What about all that stuff you mention regarding government overthrow? One bit of those laws regarding places of worship is they can lose their tax-exempt status for endorsing political candidates. Aren't there any valid and similar laws against terrorist insurgencies hiding behind a religious shingle and then preaching the destruction of our government? Some of them in Virginia have actual ties to actual acts of terrorism.
BTW: Share thingie didn't work on this story, but it worked on on last night.
Suki at August 16, 2010 5:46 AM
Charles Krauthammer wrote what to my mind is the definitive piece on this travesty:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/12/AR2010081204996.html
kishke at August 16, 2010 6:24 AM
Complaining about this "mosque" can only help turn moderate Muslims into slightly less moderate Muslims.
Boohoo.
What I advocate is informing them, as Hirsi Ali was informed after she thought surely Bin Laden isn't right, that this religion commands them to mass murder as they did...and found out that yes, indeed, it does.
America-dwelling Muslims who think they are practicing a "religion of peace" (because they've maybe never read the Quran and know little about what their religion actually entails) need to start hearing the details of the evil their "religion" advocates. And it does advocate evil. And it is to be taken literally, as the word of god, unlike the bible (note that you don't see Christians stoning their neighbors for mixing two different fabrics, or for adultery).
PS Suki, Facebook sharing is still a problem, due to a Movable Type issue, but Twitter and others work okay.
Amy Alkon at August 16, 2010 6:36 AM
Tell ya what, we'll let you guys build your mosque, then we'll fly a plane into it. Sounds fair, right?
brian at August 16, 2010 6:38 AM
I notice that our fearless President has gone all in to support the mosque.
Cousin Dave at August 16, 2010 7:01 AM
Dave - I've already seen some blog comments saying this proves he's really a muslim.
Whether he is or not, I'm certain he's an idiot with a tin ear.
brian at August 16, 2010 7:54 AM
We've been told, the better part of 10 years, that we need to be mindful of the "Muslim street".
Well fuck that, clinky. It's time that the Muslims be mindful of the American street. We don't want your mosque there.
Move it 5 blocks, and we'll be OK with it.
I guess the next question is if clinky is in favor of a gay bar being established next door? tolerance, my friend, works both ways.
I R A Darth Aggie at August 16, 2010 8:23 AM
"I think getting a little tail on the side and beheadings/abuse of women/killing non-believers/etc. in the name of religion are two very different things that can't even be compared."
Well, they both end in somebody getting fucked...
"The hijackers were explicitly motivated by a literal reading of their religion's holy text and nothing else."
What outrageous bullshit.
They did not all independently think up the idea to fly into buildings and only meet up at the last minute. They joined a group that poured poison in their ear, and helped the interpret the "literal" words in the Koran (that is, if they didn't just make up their own and CLAIM it was from the Koran) and were guided and goaded into such a plan.
I keep saying it, and it keeps being true - if 100 percent of the people who read the Koran take up arms and start attacking America, THEN you'd have a case that it's the book's fault. It's the same argument I make against people who claim that videogames (or television, or Dungeons and Dragons, or Elvis) cause kids to go out and do Bad Things. It's not the thing, it's the interpretation and choice of the person (assisted or no) that results in the bad action.
Yes, building a community outreach center near Ground Zero is provocative. Yes, it might cause a number of Americans to consider acts as violent as those acted upon us. But if a few of those people actually ENTERED the center, and asked some QUESTIONS...what a difference that might make.
I have two questions for the folks who are so virulently against this...
--What's the address of the place, and exactly how close to GZ is it? I'll lay odds very few people would know without looking it up, so no fair if you don't know.
--How many Muslims do you actually know, or have you actually talked to about 9/11, their faith, or indeed anything other than how much change you're owed? Again, My money's on, if you know any, the mindset is that he/she is okay, it's those other ones over there that we need to keep an eye on.
And if that argument doesn't sound eerily familiar, you should read a bit more.
Vinnie Bartilucci at August 16, 2010 8:36 AM
'I guess the next question is if clinky is in favor of a gay bar being established next door? tolerance, my friend, works both ways."
Funny you mention that. A writer, Greg Gutfeld, on the Daily Gut proposed that very thing.
http://www.dailygut.com/?i=4696
I believe there is a contest going on to name it. I propose "The 72 Virgin".
Sabrina at August 16, 2010 8:39 AM
Clinky, vinnie, are you both fucking idiots?
We've been treating muslims as we want them to be ever since this nation was founded, and what has it gotten us? An ever escalating series of attacks on people and property?
Jesus christ the American form Brotherhood of Islam had Malcom X executed for speaking out against the part line and telling muslims they needed to start thinking for themselves.
lujlp at August 16, 2010 9:25 AM
I don't know offhand if there's anything in Japanese law that would prohibit the American embassy there from opening up new offices right next to the sites of the Hiroshima & Nagasaki bombings & adorning them with huge murals of an American eagle clutching an atomic bomb in each talon. I do know for certain that none of the oh-so-tolerant supporters of the Ground Zero mosque would stoop to defend that.
This mosque isn't a fly-by-night project. It's been planned for years. During all that time, the builders did not (to my knowledge) organize one single face-to-face public meeting with ordinary infidels to find out if they might be upset by the idea of a mosque named Cordoba House going up at the spot where the landing gear from one of the planes that flew into the WTC came down. All that time, all that opportunity for some genuine, honest community outreach & understanding, completely wasted. Now they know for a fact that the majority of people ARE upset over it. And their response is that they'll go right ahead & build it anyway, and the ignorant bigots who are upset can just get over it.
Martin at August 16, 2010 9:30 AM
I keep saying it, and it keeps being true - if 100 percent of the people who read the Koran take up arms and start attacking America, THEN you'd have a case that it's the book's fault.
Wow, so if only a single Muslim fails to take up arms against us, we know it's nothing to do with their religion. No less than 100%, right? You can keep saying it all freakin' day, your proposed standard of proof is still baloney.
kishke at August 16, 2010 9:32 AM
And U think the response of a mosque spokesman to Greg Gutfield regarding his gay bar proposal speaks for itself:
http://weaselzippers.us/2010/08/10/ground-zero-mosque-to-gutfield-your-gay-bar-wont-build-dialog-because-it-doesnt-consider-our-sensibilities/
Martin at August 16, 2010 9:45 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/08/16/sam_harris.html#comment-1743365">comment from Vinnie BartilucciIt's the same argument I make against people who claim that videogames (or television, or Dungeons and Dragons, or Elvis) cause kids to go out and do Bad Things.
Elvis wiggled his hips and sang about sex; he didn't claim he was speaking for god, to people gullible enough to believe that, and command them to go out and murder anyone who doesn't like rock and roll.
I think a lot of beliefs, customs, and fashions are really dipshitty, but as long as you don't want to kill people who don't follow what you do, and overturn democracy and install a set of religious laws that make women lesser people with lesser rights, and stone people for being homosexual, well, believe what you want to believe. I might think you're a dipshit, but if you're a peacable dipshit, well, keep it up if that makes you happy, and have a nice day.
Amy Alkon at August 16, 2010 9:48 AM
Amidst all the outrage over the construction of the Islamic center, I've not yet read anything about the groups representing the families of those who lost loved ones on 9/11 weigh in on the issue. If this construction is such an affront to the memories of the deceased, I would expect them to have spoken up by now. The group building this center has been in that neighborhood for years, and its leader worked with the Bush administration on outreach to the Muslim community and is known for his work on interfaith relations. The opposition to this mosque seems to me to play more to the benefit of the radical Muslims - who are seeking to create a global battle between Islam and the secular west - than Americans.
Christopher at August 16, 2010 10:03 AM
And their response is that they'll go right ahead & build it anyway, and the ignorant bigots who are upset can just get over it.
Won't happen. If they build a mosque there, within a year someone will fly a plane into it.
Pirate Jo at August 16, 2010 10:10 AM
"Wow, so if only a single Muslim fails to take up arms against us, we know it's nothing to do with their religion. No less than 100%, right?"
Sigh...
And I wonder why people can believe there are people who would take the written word so literally.
"We've been treating muslims as we want them to be ever since this nation was founded, and what has it gotten us?"
Of course that means I can't give this sentence the savaging it deserves...
Let's see, what has treating Muslims fairly and with tolerance gotten us? The strongest, greatest country in the whole damn world, maybe? Millions upon millions of law-abiding citizens who came here to live a prosperous life? All those great halal chicken and lamb stands all over NYC, including ones right AT Ground Zero, let alone two-four blocks away, or whatever the zone of sanctity is?
But yeah, aside from the aqueducts, the lower crime, the hygiene and general public health, WHAT have the Romans done for us, right?
I am distraught that there are so many people who cannot:
a) understand the concept that the terrorists and "radical" Islamists make up a VANISHINGLY SMALL percentage of the Muslim population in this country, but prefer to paint them all with the same brush
b) grasp the irony of having that mindset.
Yes, there are a lot more "radical" religious people ones who treat their women like cattle and all the other legitimately horrific practices that people love to bring up. There's a lot of Muslims who do it as well.
How great it must feel to be a Muslim today, one of the only minorities that people have no problem hating and acting out against. That's certainly the mindset that gonna keep them from blowing us up.
Vinnie Bartilucci at August 16, 2010 10:15 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/08/16/sam_harris.html#comment-1743385">comment from Vinnie Bartilucci. How great it must feel to be a Muslim today, one of the only minorities that people have no problem hating and acting out against. That's certainly the mindset that gonna keep them from blowing us up.
Look, I grew up Jewish, and people egged our house and called me dirty Jew. You see me blowing anybody up?
I don't hate anybody. It's a childish emotion.
There are many Muslims who haven't the slightest clue as to the commands in the Quran -- what the Quran says it entails for them to be good Muslims; i.e., convert or kill the rest of us.
This doesn't mean that Islam, as it's supposed to be practiced (per the Quran, which is to be taken literally as the word of god) isn't a dangerous and deadly form of totalitarianism; just that many Muslims are uninformed about what it is, and don't practice it properly.
ANY religion or ideology that commands the murder of other people, no matter whether one of their followers or a thousand or thousands follow that command, is a religion or ideology I will oppose.
Do you feel any differently?
If not, maybe the problem is that you haven't informed yourself enough about Islam. (I started after 9/11 and haven't stopped, and I'm horrified and disgusted about what I learn.)
And P.S. Not a fan of any religion, but again, if you want to believe some silly stuff, and your brand of silly stuffism doesn't call for the death of the rest of us, have at it.
Amy Alkon at August 16, 2010 10:43 AM
While I agree they have the legal right to build there, I also agree that they should have the decency NOT to.
Doug Stephens at August 16, 2010 10:43 AM
How great it must feel to be a Muslim today, one of the only minorities that people have no problem hating and acting out against.
Uh-huh. They, of course, have given us no reason for suspicion. None at all.
But that's beside the point. What is the point is that none of this is about bigotry or racism, as you, Vinnie, like to pretend. What it's about is our security, to which Muslim terrorists present a serious threat. And what it's additionally about in the case of the mosque is the utter stupidity of letting them poke their finger in our collective eye by building a symbol of their victory in the place where they murdered so many of our people. You're so invested in your bogus narrative that you can't see what's staring you in the face.
Here are some Muslims who get what this mosque is really all about and are not afraid to say so:
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Mischief+Manhattan/3370303/story.html
kishke at August 16, 2010 10:47 AM
At this point, I'm on board with the idea that the main reason for this mosque is to get the land owners out of debt. Float it to investors to build a mosque and make some cash out of it themselves or get someone to buy it from them in a bad market.
As for NYC officials supporting it, its all about getting easy publicity as being PC/tolerant. Look at the hubub now getting press about the St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox church's plans to rebuild near ground zero.
Sio at August 16, 2010 10:53 AM
Another Muslim who gets it:
http://www.aifdemocracy.org/news.php?id=6131
kishke at August 16, 2010 11:13 AM
"What's the address of the place, and exactly how close to GZ is it? I'll lay odds very few people would know without looking it up, so no fair if you don't know.
--How many Muslims do you actually know, or have you actually talked to about 9/11, their faith, or indeed anything other than how much change you're owed? Again, My money's on, if you know any, the mindset is that he/she is okay, it's those other ones over there that we need to keep an eye on."
It's 10 blocks from absolute ground zero. Body parts flew further that day. My SIl is an apostate, does that count? She can't go visit her mom and other family back in Iran because she'll be killed. By straight-up order of that fabulous "religion". Last I checked, I could stop being christian or hindu or buddhist or wiccan, with no fall-out whatsoever.
momof4 at August 16, 2010 11:52 AM
Well, Hamas just put in it's two cents on the Mosque:
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/hamas_nod_for_gz_mosque_cSohH9eha8sNZMTDz0VVPI
Vinnie, any opinions?
I have two questions for the folks who are so virulently against this...
--What's the address of the place, and exactly how close to GZ is it? I'll lay odds very few people would know without looking it up, so no fair if you don't know.
--How many Muslims do you actually know, or have you actually talked to about 9/11, their faith, or indeed anything other than how much change you're owed? Again, My money's on, if you know any, the mindset is that he/she is okay, it's those other ones over there that we need to keep an eye on.
2 blocks, roughly - the old Burlington Coat Factory and, also, a historical building that was scheduled for Landmark status since the late eighties - but not surprisingly, NYC never got around to making it official. A part of one of the flying bombs filled with human civilians landed in the building, I don't know WHAT part, because I've honored your request to not check it on the internet first. So, that would make this mosque be pretty fucking close in my book.
I have a friend who was born in Iran, and much like Momof4's friend, cannot return because he will be shot. His family sought political asylum here in the US because they were secular (non-religious of Muslim decent) and their two boys - at the time 9 and 7, were going to be drafted into the military. They can never go back. Culturally they are Muslim. But they do not worship, go to mosque, pray. They do observe the no pork rule - when I asked my friend why if he was not Muslim he did not eat pork he responded: "When you grow up hearing a pig referred to as swine, and about how dirty they are...it really doesn't make it too appetizing".
Vinnie, What I find most disturbing is the political correctness requested by supporters of this mosque. They ask us to be blind to historical facts and evidence because otherwise, we will be viewed as intolerant (somehow, I just don't see the US being anywhere near intolerant).
History is not on your side. For instance (Cordoba House?) Cordoba, is representative of Islamic conquest of Spain. It is iconic in Islamic history and building of a mosque there was for the purposes of symbolizing their victory.
I will repeat again, our Constitution is not a suicide pact.
Feebie at August 16, 2010 1:10 PM
"Do you feel any differently?"
Yep.
What you call a lack of knowledge about their own religion I prefer to see as a sign that there more and more followers are grasping that the teachings of the religion can and should be re-interpreted. Yes, those who are more fervent and traditional in the religion are calling for savage things against those who leave, as momof4 relates, but the very fact that there are those who WANT to change is a good sign.
Throwing around statements like Muslims "haven't the slightest clue" and are "uninformed" about their own religion comes perilously close to sounding elitist, Amy, and you're far better than that.
"ANY religion or ideology that commands the murder of other people, no matter whether one of their followers or a thousand or thousands follow that command, is a religion or ideology I will oppose."
Don't make me go diggin' through the Pentateuch, Amy. You know as well as I do that it's rife with commands of violence against not only other peoples but one's own family. Yes, the difference is that they are now viewed as allegory, or simply outdated, but the fact that it changed suggests that in time, Islam can as well.
I don't even have to go reaching into the past to find examples. Do you "oppose" Christianity, in whose name many people have died in the War On Abortion? Or do you agree that these are radical individuals or groups who are following a specific interpretation of the bible that justifies the actions they chose to make in the first place?
Do you "oppose" Judaism, in whose name Hassidic women are treated like second-class baby-making appliances? The Wife shared a room with a Hassidic woman when she gave birth to The Kid. The woman asked for permission to peek through her curtain and sneak a look at The Wife's TV, which was, at the time, only receiving a looping copy of 101 Dalmatians. When her family came to visit, they gave The Wife a series of hairy eyeballs and got the woman transferred to another room toot sweet. Classy. Or is that just an example of one group (admittedly a very LARGE group) with a different interpretation of the religion, and not the inherent fault of the faith itself?
"They, of course, have given us no reason for suspicion. None at all."
Correct. "THEY" haven't. A bunch of people who are Muslim did horrible things, and others continue to plan more of the same, and if we're real lucky, they'll be as lousy at it as the Pantybomber and the guy in Times Square. That they are all Muslims does NOT provide a valid argument to extrapolate that behavior onto all members of the faith. PERIOD. And it BEWILDERS me that people cannot accept that. There is no exception - You can't blame the group for the acts of the individuals. It is against our most basic principles. And that we have been so good at doing it in the past does not give one a pass for continuing.
"What it's about is our security, to which Muslim terrorists present a serious threat."
And if anyone can prove, or even supply credible evidence that the Muslims building this particular center are connected to terrorism by any reasonable series of connection other than "But they're MUSLIMS!!!" I'll be right there calling for the police and Homeland Security to storm in and sieze its records, computers and coffee makers. But right now, the only thing people have is "Since Muslims did 9/11, and THESE guys are Muslims..." And that's as false a jump to make as "well the guy who did the crime is black, and THIS guy is black, so..."
You want to do a little extra due-diligence about these folks before the permits get written? Fine, good idea, even. I'm betting it already has been. They'll never admit it, but I'll also lay odds there's gonna be a fair amount of surveillance equipment secreted into the walls of that place by construction workers who were paid nicely from a budget line marked "miscellaneous".
I consider it perfectly reasonable, based on past performance, to ensure that a particular group of Muslims are not using the faith as a cover to plan evil. That doesn't mean the faith itself is across-the-board evil. Reasonable caution and unilateral aspersion-casting are not the same thing, and it's entirely possible to do one without the other.
But the thing is, very little, if any, of the arguments against this center have had ANYTHING to do with the suggestion that it might be getting used for illicit purposes, it's been SOLELY on it being a mosque at all.
"Last I checked, I could stop being christian... with no fall-out whatsoever."
Wanna bet? You might not get a price on your head, but there's LOTS of people in THIS country who'll cut you off without a second thought if you stop being a Christian, or even worse if you announce you're gay. Not as bad as a fatwa, but far from "no fall-out whatsoever".
Islam is undoubtedly practicing beliefs that many, indeed most people, would call savage. But oddly, those practices are usually just used as extra ammo, in case the initial "but they blew up the TOWERS!!!" argument fails when trying to convince someone of the inherent evil of the religion. And if it IS a security issue, how would moving it five blocks away somehow render it safe, as I R A Darth Aggie suggests?
"Hamas just put in it's two cents on the Mosque. Vinnie, any opinions?"
Silly boy, I'm a freelance pontificator - of COURSE I have opinions.
One, I can't stand it when people misuse "its" and "it's", but that's not germane to the conversation and can easily be written off as a typo, but I feel the need to mention it in the interests of full disclosure. (also my typing sucks as well and I'm probably guilty of far worse transgressions in this missive alone)
Second, Hamas is a pack of bastards.
Third, it is possible for even a pack of bastards to be right about something.
I'd much rather they had not said anything, as it does rankle agreeing with them on something, but I'm not going to jump on the "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" bandwagon, because, well, you know where that started as well...
"History is not on your side."
I'm sad that your mindset is that a group is incapable of change and can never be trusted, and years of tradition should be taken as fact. I'm glad that all those ideas like the shape and location of the Earth are not issues for you either.
"Cordoba, is representative of Islamic conquest of Spain."
It was also that car that Ricardo Montalban hawked back in the day, the one with the rich Corinthian leather. Is Chrysler run by Muslims?
Vinnie Bartilucci at August 16, 2010 1:30 PM
(Forgive me if this post shows up multiple times, I was getting connection issues on my end, trying as two smaller posts...)
"Do you feel any differently?"
Yep.
What you call a lack of knowledge about their own religion I prefer to see as a sign that there more and more followers are grasping that the teachings of the religion can and should be re-interpreted. Yes, those who are more fervent and traditional in the religion are calling for savage things against those who leave, as momof4 relates, but the very fact that there are those who WANT to change is a good sign.
Throwing around statements like Muslims "haven't the slightest clue" and are "uninformed" about their own religion comes perilously close to sounding elitist, Amy, and you're far better than that.
"ANY religion or ideology that commands the murder of other people, no matter whether one of their followers or a thousand or thousands follow that command, is a religion or ideology I will oppose."
Don't make me go diggin' through the Pentateuch, Amy. You know as well as I do that it's rife with commands of violence against not only other peoples but one's own family. Yes, the difference is that they are now viewed as allegory, or simply outdated, but the fact that it changed suggests that in time, Islam can as well.
I don't even have to go reaching into the past to find examples. Do you "oppose" Christianity, in whose name many people have died in the War On Abortion? Or do you agree that these are radical individuals or groups who are following a specific interpretation of the bible that justifies the actions they chose to make in the first place?
Do you "oppose" Judaism, in whose name Hassidic women are treated like second-class baby-making appliances? The Wife shared a room with a Hassidic woman when she gave birth to The Kid. The woman asked for permission to peek through her curtain and sneak a look at The Wife's TV, which was, at the time, only receiving a looping copy of 101 Dalmatians. When her family came to visit, they gave The Wife a series of hairy eyeballs and got the woman transferred to another room toot sweet. Classy. Or is that just an example of one group (admittedly a very LARGE group) with a different interpretation of the religion, and not the inherent fault of the faith itself?
"They, of course, have given us no reason for suspicion. None at all."
Correct. "THEY" haven't. A bunch of people who are Muslim did horrible things, and others continue to plan more of the same, and if we're real lucky, they'll be as lousy at it as the Pantybomber and the guy in Times Square. That they are all Muslims does NOT provide a valid argument to extrapolate that behavior onto all members of the faith. PERIOD. And it BEWILDERS me that people cannot accept that. There is no exception - You can't blame the group for the acts of the individuals. It is against our most basic principles. And that we have been so good at doing it in the past does not give one a pass for continuing.
"What it's about is our security, to which Muslim terrorists present a serious threat."
And if anyone can prove, or even supply credible evidence that the Muslims building this particular center are connected to terrorism by any reasonable series of connection other than "But they're MUSLIMS!!!" I'll be right there calling for the police and Homeland Security to storm in and sieze its records, computers and coffee makers. But right now, the only thing people have is "Since Muslims did 9/11, and THESE guys are Muslims..." And that's as false a jump to make as "well the guy who did the crime is black, and THIS guy is black, so..."
You want to do a little extra due-diligence about these folks before the permits get written? Fine, good idea, even. I'm betting it already has been. They'll never admit it, but I'll also lay odds there's gonna be a fair amount of surveillance equipment secreted into the walls of that place by construction workers who were paid nicely from a budget line marked "miscellaneous".
I consider it perfectly reasonable, based on past performance, to ensure that a particular group of Muslims are not using the faith as a cover to plan evil. That doesn't mean the faith itself is across-the-board evil. Reasonable caution and unilateral aspersion-casting are not the same thing, and it's entirely possible to do one without the other.
But the thing is, very little, if any, of the arguments against this center have had ANYTHING to do with the suggestion that it might be getting used for illicit purposes, it's been SOLELY on it being a mosque at all.
Vinnie Bartilucci at August 16, 2010 1:32 PM
"One, I can't stand it when people misuse "its" and "it's", but that's not germane to the conversation and can easily be written off as a typo, but I feel the need to mention it in the interests of full disclosure. (also my typing sucks as well and I'm probably guilty of far worse transgressions in this missive alone)"
Pontificate, indeed.
"Third, it is possible for even a pack of bastards to be right about something."
And Hitler loved animals...what is your point?
"I'm sad that your mindset is that a group is incapable of change and can never be trusted, and years of tradition should be taken as fact. I'm glad that all those ideas like the shape and location of the Earth are not issues for you either."
Feebie at August 16, 2010 1:50 PM
Shit, hit submit too soon.
"I'm sad that your mindset is that a group is incapable of change and can never be trusted, and years of tradition should be taken as fact. I'm glad that all those ideas like the shape and location of the Earth are not issues for you either."
That makes you sad? You seem to have a lot of emotions bubbling up about this - perhaps you should check your premise and work from there.
Sufism, for instance is the spiritual practice Islam was derived from. I think people can change, but just like an addict, or an alcoholic - they need to lay off the sauce first before they can be trusted. Their religion condones lying to further their cause. Why should I believe anything they have to say - I go by peoples actions, not their words, especially if they have been proved to be liars(or they are ridiculous enough to hold beliefs that espouse lying as part of their ideology).
"It was also that car that Ricardo Montalban hawked back in the day, the one with the rich Corinthian leather. Is Chrysler run by Muslims?"
How old are you?
Feebie at August 16, 2010 1:54 PM
Yes, the difference is that they are now viewed as allegory, or simply outdated, but the fact that it changed suggests that in time, Islam can as well.
And when that happens, they will no longer be viewed as a threat. But it hasn't happened, and we're living in the here and now.
Correct. "THEY" haven't. A bunch of people who are Muslim did horrible things, and others continue to plan more of the same
And a whole bunch more support the terrorists and encourage them and make excuses for them, which is nearly as bad so far as I'm concerned. The guy building this place is certainly one of those. Here's Mr. Interfaith making excuses for Islamic terrorism:
http://weaselzippers.us/2010/08/09/uncovered-interview-with-ground-zero-mosque-imam-islamic-terrorism-caused-by-west-humiliating-and-ignoring-muslim-world/
See, it's all really our fault!
And Vinnie, none of what you said addresses the argument that this is intended as a triumphalist act, to rub our faces in their victory on 9/11, a fact recognized by Muslims, as per the links I posted above. But hey, that's all okey-dokey with you, so long as you can buy your shishkabob from a halal vendor.
kishke at August 16, 2010 2:01 PM
"Here's Mr. Interfaith making excuses for Islamic terrorism:"
Did you read past the jump?
http://bit.ly/d0NS5l (original article)
Cause he goes on about how much better America is on the division between church and state, something Islam sorely needs. He seems to make it quite clear that Islam has a long way to go.
Also, I don't see him saying the people in the middle east are RIGHT in their actions, he merely says that they feel the need to lash out. He doesn't say it's correct, it's something that needs to be understood when dealing with them.
He "blames" (choice of words of the writer) America based on its sanctions in Iraq, noting that when the innocent suffer, it's going to cause anger. And he's correct. But I don't see him saying "So it's okay what they did" And besides, Iraq didn't have anything to do with 9/11, remember?
Because people want to paint this guy, and Muslims in general, as evil, they will interpret anything they can to the negative. I don't see enough here to paint him as such, I'm sorry.
Vinnie Bartilucci at August 16, 2010 2:19 PM
"And besides, Iraq didn't have anything to do with 9/11, remember?"
Huh?
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/628wqxma.asp
Aside from Saddam's Al Qaeda connection, he allowed Islamic terrorist training camps to be conducted on his soil.
WIthin the article, there is also reference to a Newsweek article from 1999:
"January 11, 1999, issue, ran the headline "Saddam + Bin Laden." The subhead declared, "America's two enemies are courting." "
There were connections. Was there MONUMENTAL EARTH SHATTERING CONNECTIONS? In my estimation, no. But saying there were absolutely zero is disingenuous at best. It goes further to prove that ol' saying about how if something is repeated enough times, it becomes the truth - at least for those who choose to get their facts from regurgitated and bastardized-lefty-sound-bites.
Feebie at August 16, 2010 2:30 PM
Yes, I did read past the jump, and it couldn't be clearer that he's placing the blame for terrorism on us for supposedly humiliating and ignoring Muslims. (How terrible of us!) He's quite clear in claiming that terrorism is just a response to our supposed misdeeds. We've heard this stuff from terrorist apologists for years. Sorry, Vinnie, it's really not that hard to decode, except for someone who's got his head stuck deep in the sand and strands of halal lamb chop between his teeth.
kishke at August 16, 2010 2:31 PM
If Islam is really that evil and all of its followers are, wittingly or not, parts of some great conspiracy to make the whole planet a Sharia zone, then the obvious solution is to eject them all from the country. Throw them out. There should be no legal issue of the claim is true -- the Constitution is not a suicide pact.
parabarbarian at August 16, 2010 2:32 PM
I certainly think we should eject Muslims who are not citizens. We can let them back in after the change that Vinnie assures us is so very imminent. But until then, why invite trouble?
kishke at August 16, 2010 2:42 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/08/16/sam_harris.html#comment-1743492">comment from Vinnie Bartilucciwhen the innocent suffer, it's going to cause anger
Innocent people suffer all the time without committing mass murder as a response.
As Wafa Sultan pointed out, Jews didn't go blow up German restaurants in the wake of the Holocaust.
Islam commands Muslims to convert or murder the infidel.
When there are no infidels around Muslims murder each other -- Sunni vs. Shiite, etc. -- like the Iraqi woman who blew up a bunch of other Iraqi women and their children waiting in a U.N. food line.
There is no "tolerance" for other religions within Islam. There's just the pretense of that until the population of Muslims is very great and those who practice other religions is quite small, and then they are raped, persecuted, fined, and often killed.
See: Copts, Egypt, for example. Linkiepoo above.
You can want to believe things are different, but that doesn't make them so. And the commandment to murder and do evil to others comes straight out of the Quran. Read it. Pay attention to Sura 9, which abrogates all the nice, peaceful stuff before it.
Amy Alkon at August 16, 2010 2:55 PM
Don't miss this.
Think of her as your sister - an American.
Radwaste at August 16, 2010 3:05 PM
I don't understand. Comrade Barry and Hillary had their panties all bunched up when Jews want to build in Jerusalem, since that would not be nice to Muslim sensibilities. Not saying this as a support to build in Jerusalem, just sayin'.
Perhaps, Macarthur did it correctly:
http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1437
General Douglas MacArthur was in a quandary. Though he believed firmly in the freedom of religion, he saw the hold that fanatical Shintoism had on the Japanese mind. He pondered the matter for weeks; the solution finally came in the Allied Directive of December 15, 1945. Shinto was to be completely disestablished: it could not be taught in Japan’s public schools, state funding would be eliminated, and the emperor would be persuaded to denounce his divinity (to “de-god” himself, as the GIs called it). On January 1, 1946, Emperor Hirohito shocked Japan with a radio announcement -- broadcast repeatedly, so there could be no misunderstanding -- stating that it was a mistake to think of him as a descendant of the gods or that the Japanese were a superior people.
Biff at August 16, 2010 3:44 PM
Yes, the difference is that they are now viewed as allegory, or simply outdated, but the fact that it changed suggests that in time, Islam can as well.
My only question is when? The 7th century? The 8th? The 9th? The 16th?
We are now in the twenty-first century. Has any change occurred?
Until then F' off and die.
Too bad we can't get manure spreaders into Manhattan. I remember a video from way back when where an English farmer was ticked off with his bank. He rolled into town with a manure spreader and covered the front of his bank with the manure.
Too bad we can't do something similar with a manure spreader filled with pig feces. That is just a random thought.
Jim P. at August 16, 2010 7:48 PM
Most of this is serious, they want to kill us stuff. A lot of it is 'so what' stuff.
Something that is in no doubt, Mayor Bloomberg and his bureaucratic lemmings are PC pro Mosque and knee-jerk anti-Christian. Why can't an existing Greek Orthodox Church rebuild after 9-11? Zoning and other regulations. Why does a Ground Zero Mosque get a green light in record time? Corrupt PC government.
Suki at August 16, 2010 8:19 PM
Over 250 of the 9/11 families have come out in favor of the mosque:
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/08/pro-mosque-mom-who-lost-pregnant-daughter-in-trade-center-911-families-not-monolithic.php
franko at August 16, 2010 8:39 PM
Just to kick in my 2 cents- this is like when the American Nazis wanted to march through Skokie. The best idea I heard at the time was from Woody Allen...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOQ9hro02ts&p=B162B048E6636EAD&playnext=2&index=7&ytsession=D-hpLOBgBaACZGXKh0O0QWaxA6tb3RKy01suR3am7rmxyaBiCg4W15m1eY-Neb-2VD02DdQEdHmDH7KBugJpi9UEFQCquFZ7PNpv4DjYueqEksdUbT6_2OpYUuQo4-0B_BDya_m4WdDOxEGdt-on1YZN-Jqq0Ql3v1pubvkheuvs2bp78YSXG76cjz8ngiNpWApctKnjglEaLwgVYliaJVp3bCCEFo-8wFdLegw5Zc8YWxG2Z_wKAJJ-kz4JjTMChI3pD6xLPetcRYa8dOOHxdZK8wrvOCRGLrHt_4N2lqIz_fo6bIXSUxQw1A0eRU8_xyBvr4OM79w40I1eW-yUVCVA7SHwEToU
There simply comes a time when you won't take another bite from the shit sandwich.
Eric at August 16, 2010 8:58 PM
Shit! wrong paste- try this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCb2Le3wtIk
Eric at August 16, 2010 9:00 PM
Ya, franko - that was a reputable site. Isn't Josh Marshall one of the JournoListers?
Over 250 families came out in favor? Holy shit, NO WAY!? What about the other 2,000 plus? What are they saying?
Feebie at August 16, 2010 9:16 PM
Wasn't there a name for those 250 families a few years ago? The Jersey Wives or something?
Suki at August 16, 2010 9:32 PM
Have any of the 250 weighed in on that whole Greek Orthodox Church getting zoned out of town thing?
Suki at August 16, 2010 9:33 PM
Franko - why is it so hard to believe that you can find 250 idiots from any given group? This mosque project is their end-zone dance. The only thing missing is the Sharpie in the sock.
There are still people who believe that if we'd just stop supporting Israel then the muslims wouldn't hate us.
Of course, they've been attacking us since 150 years before the formation of the state of Israel, but don't try to tell them that. They're just SO DAMNED SURE!
brian at August 16, 2010 9:57 PM
Hitchens' take: http://www.slate.com/id/2263334
franko at August 16, 2010 11:16 PM
Also worth a read.
I'm in favor of letting NY determine its own zoning issues. Also, I get the feeling that if the site were moved 5 blocks away, Sarah and Newt would still be expressing their manufactured outrage that the mosque is less than 10 blocks from this holy ground....
franko at August 16, 2010 11:23 PM
This mosque project is their end-zone dance. The only thing missing is the Sharpie in the sock.
From this, it seems that the people behind the Cordoba house are allies of Bin Laden's or that all Muslims are the enemy. I guess it's time to get with expelling all Muslims from the U.S., then, since they are our enemies.
Christopher at August 17, 2010 9:15 AM
For those talking about the First Amendment, I repeatedly point this out:
The FIRST WORD in the First Amendment is Congress. "Congress shall make no law..."
This means that the First Amendment applies to the Federal Government. Not any smaller Governments or institutions. New York could declare a zone around the site as Mosque-Free if they wanted to. They just don't want to invite any more attacks, so they claim it's a "Right" for them to do build. If anyone can show that New York law states something different, then by all means, do.
WayneB at August 17, 2010 10:28 AM
This means that the First Amendment applies to the Federal Government. Not any smaller Governments or institutions
This is incorrect, thanks to the Supremacy clause. The Constitution and its amendments are the supreme law of the land; states may not make laws that limit the rights guaranteed under the Constitution.
Christopher at August 17, 2010 10:40 AM
Did the Muslims buy the land and pay for it? Is it zoned for a religious building or other highly trafficked building? Is their enough parking, and has traffic flow been taking into consideration? If so, well, that's how it goes.
Nothing stopping other groups from building a church for Christians, temple for Hindus, meditation retreat for Buddhists, or new stonehenge for Pagans.
NicoleK at August 17, 2010 10:58 AM
Nothing stopping other groups from building a church for Christians, temple for Hindus, meditation retreat for Buddhists, or new stonehenge for Pagans.
As was pointed out above, St. Nicholas' Greek Orthodox Church, destroyed in the 9/11 attacks, is being blocked from rebuilding. http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=38462
Lauren at August 17, 2010 1:24 PM
I do think that the American way is better than the Muslim way.
The Muslim way is to take huge offense at things other people say or do who don't agree with you, even if they don't particularly affect you directly. To shout them down, call them out and expect that they will behave in a way that conforms with your own philosophy.
The American way is to let people do and say what they want, even if it's philosophically abhorrent to you, as long as they do it in your own yard and obey the law. (You don't need freedom of speech to protect stuff everyone agrees with. It's meant for the contrary, for the fringy and the cranky.)
I am truly mystified as to why the anti-mosque contingent seems to be so comfortable acting like angry Muslims.
(And we can spend all day parsing the argument of "I have the freedom to say that they shouldn't have any freedom" and "I'm just saying what I think." but most of the folks on the anti-mosque side seem to be ok with the idea of some sort of government intervention to stop construction.)
clinky at August 17, 2010 2:35 PM
I am truly mystified as to why the anti-mosque contingent seems to be so comfortable acting like angry Muslims.
Can you understand that we can see the Muslims have the right to do it. But because it is a right, doesn't mean it is the right thing to do.
The group that wants to build the mosque is called the Cordoba Initiative (named after the Caliphate of Córdoba -- en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caliph_of_C%C3%B3rdoba) who conquered Spain.
As noted above a Greek Orthodox have trouble getting the same permit to rebuild.
I am going to go with the Picard type line on this:
I will not sacrifice the U.S. We've made too many compromises already, too many retreats. They bomb our barracks, and we fall back. They assimilate entire countries, and we fall back. They threaten our allies and we give them land. They destroy buildings and kill thousands in our own country and we respond. They only throw it back our faces. They must be made to understand that they have a choice -- peaceful co-existence or death. The line must be drawn here! This far and no further! We did it in the past -- and they can be taught the lesson again.
Jim P. at August 17, 2010 8:30 PM
"The Constitution and its amendments are the supreme law of the land; states may not make laws that limit the rights guaranteed under the Constitution."
Not so fast. Not only is the Constitution not simply law (check the method of implementation), Morton Grove v. Quilici established that this assertion is false.
The principle of applying Federal Constitutional law to states is also called "incorporation", and many states resist this, both specifically and generally.
Radwaste at August 18, 2010 1:30 AM
Morton Grove was not heard by the Supreme Court. Its finding wasn't binding on other districts; prior to the recent decision overturning D.C.'s handgun ban, there was much debate over whether the Second Amendment granted an individual right to bear arms. That has now been resolved.
Regardless, your point seems to fly in the face of the plain text:
States may resist this. But I've never seen them win.
Christopher at August 18, 2010 7:28 AM
You can also read the doublespeak about Sharia, by the moderate imam:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/muslims/interviews/feisal.html
Biff at August 18, 2010 7:37 AM
Lauren, I'm more inclined to say the Greeks should be allowed to build their Church, too, than to say the Muslims shouldn't be allowed to build a Mosque.
I wonder why the Greeks aren't being allowed to. I shall google this some more.
NicoleK at August 18, 2010 12:27 PM
USA, a land of freedom and personal liberty, cannot allow a mosque that is so obviously, so closely associated with some evil dictatorial oriental ideology that is so obviously going to threaten the freedom and personal liberty of most freedom loving decent American people.
WLIL at August 19, 2010 10:42 PM
Leave a comment