SezWho2 comments

SuperLib: You're sending a mixed message when you tell someone, "You should be tolerant, but please ignore the intolerance of those people over there. It's not important.

Should the focus of the message be large enough to also address the Hindus and the Muslims in India, the Protestants and Catholics in Northern Island, the Tutsi and the Hutus in Rwanda, the Tamils and the Sinhalese in Sri Lanka? Or is it just Muslims living elsewhere that we should talk about when we speak to the American people regarding tolerance?

Yes, if you really want to address the issue of intolerance--intolerance generally and globally--the focus of your message should be larger. However, it need not be larger if you want to address the issue of intolerance in America.

There is no mixed message in telling your tribe or clan that "we do not eat our peas with a knife, never mind that they do over there." There is no mixed message in telling Americans that they must be tolerant of other Americans. The child says, "But, dad, everyone else is doing it!" And the adult says, "I don't care what everyone else does. I care about what you do." There's no mixed message there.

SuperLib: I think it's fair to point out the intolerance of places like Saudi Arabia and Muslim countries with similar practices.

You can point that out all you want, but it is not relevant to the issue of tolerance in America. What would be your argument: they're intolerant so it's OK for us to be intolerant, too? at least we're better than they are? Obama should chide Saudi Arabia?

How would any of that be relevant to what is going on today with respect to the Islamic cultural center?

If not then you're simply saying that one group should be tolerant while another should be allowed to be intolerant.

No, I'm saying all Americans should be tolerant and that they should be so without regard to what the Saudis do. Except militarily, we cannot disallow intolerance among the Saudis.

mikehuntez: Too bad we don't hear it. Please provide your examples and links that prove this.

Actually, yabits is responding to the assertion that mainstream Islam does not denounce extremism. The burden of proof lies with those who make that assertion. Unfortunately for them, they have placed themselves in a position where they have to prove a negative.

So, unless you are willing to make that proof, I'm afraid you're going to have to accept a single instance of Islamic repudiation as evidence that the assertion was wrong. And, in any event, why would you be likely to hear repudiations of extremism? Do you regularly listen to the words of Muslim scholars and clerics?

MisterCreosote: Well, what to say ? I also grew up in America. The experiences you speak of seem quite foreign. In fact, they seem fabricated to me.

When you don't know what to say, deny and accuse--not that any of these things respond to the point, mind you. But they at least distract from it.

I don't know where you grew up or when, but it seems to me that you really ought not accuse people of manufacturing experience until you get your facts straight. For my part, I think that anyone who grew up in the Bible Belt in the 50s and 60s must surely know what I am talking about--unless of course they were profoundly asleep during that time. I also think that if you look at America today you can see the growth of megachurches as a political Christian movement that is really an extremist interpretation of textual Christianity. Despite the number of adherents, the message is skewed.

What people in Saudi Arabia do is really not to the point. You are looking there at a single Islamic state and using it as a proxy for all of Islam. It is not. Islamic practices are many and widespread and your attempt to use Saudi Arabia as the defining element of Islam has scarcely more to recommend it than using the Vatican to define Christianity or the Hassidim to define Judaism.

Wolfpack: There is a difference. Mainstream Islam has been cowed by their extremist wing and does not stand up and denounce them.

I don't for a moment believe that mainstream Islam has been cowed by extremists, no more--and probably a lot less--than mainstream Protestantism has been cowed by reactionary interpretations of the bible in the US. And, yes, the moderates do denounce the West. And so do plenty of people in the West. But that is because the West has a nasty habit of "defending itself" on Islamic turf and in the best of times visiting draconian regimes upon largely Muslim populations and in the worst of times, visiting sanctions, warfare and death. It is quite disproportionate and it is the lack of proportion that draws the criticism.

A perfect example of this was his public call for the Florida pastor to not burn the Koran yet he refuses to ask the Iman behind the Ground Zero Mosque to not build it on such a sensitive site.

I think that would be an imperfect example. The Imam's contemplated action is to build an interfaith cultural center. The Florida furniture salesman's contemplated action is to burn a holy book. There is no question that the Q'uran is sacred to the Muslims. And there is no question that the planned location of the cultural center is not designated as sacred to the memory of 9/11.

Anger against the Imam is totally misplaced. If people believe that site should be sacred, then they should petition the city to make it so. Otherwise, it's just a case of trying to dictate who can and who cannot build there based on who we like at the time. Obama showed no favoritism by refusing to ask the Imam not to proceed with his plans. He showed analytical ability and good sense.

MisterCreosote: Americans don't need politicians lecturing them about tolerance.

It's quite plain that Americans have always needed guidance in terms of tolerance. I think the American system is better in that demands tolerance. However, what is demanded is not always given. Whether politicians are the right group of people to plea for tolerance is a different question, but I see no reason why they should not.

And frankly, the tolerance Mohammedans in America show towards other faiths and lifestyles is the exception, not the rule.

"Mohammedans"? Have you ever heard a Muslim refer to himself as that? Your semi-slur notwithstanding, it is irrelevant that Muslim tolerance is the exception not the rule. The contention was that Obama should exalt Muslims to tolerance. In the Golden Days of W, much was made of the fact that he was President of the US, not of the world. Ditto Obama. When he addresses Americans, he is addressing all Americans. Do you think he needed a special shout-out to all those erstwhile law-abiding American Muslims?

Wolfpack: America is at war with Islamists.

A lot of Christianites certainly are. If America only knew who it truly should be at war with, it would have a much better chance at achieving a good result.

When Obama addresses the nation and pleas for tolerance, I don't think he is excluding Muslims, is he? It seems to me that Muslims in America have been extremely tolerant. It's not like they ran riot on Glenn Beck when he suggested that Congressman Ellison somehow needed to prove that he wasn't working with "our enemies".

MisterCreosote: No, actually, the truth is that it is Islam which draws clear divisions among mankind.

I think that the truth within the truth is that Muslims see those divisions in different ways. I grew up among good Christian folk who spent considerable time pondering if the Jew could be saved and how the US could have a civil society despite the clear-to-them Biblical inferiority of blacks.

I think it would be a really good idea if non-Muslims stopped trying to make a case for the exceptionalism of Islam.

SuperLib: It was the only negative sample available, and it was only available because it happened near the beginning of the trip before they realized that their preconceptions were not accurate.

That's a fair point. However, just as preconceptions can be inaccurate, epiphanies may be false.

I think it may be quite true that people are accepting of individual Muslims and that individuals who are expecting prejudicial treatment are surprised to find generosity toward them as individuals. It wouldn't follow that the same generosity extends toward groups or that prejudice doesn't exist among those who show generosity.

Prejudice seeks to draw lines--not with my daughter, not in my neighborhood, not near Ground Zero. It is not so apparent in individual treatment of individuals as it is group treatment of groups who somehow cross the line, whether by design or by mischance.

The "victory mosque" protesters seem to hold that Imam Rauf and his backers have crossed a line by design. I think there was certainly design in the location, but I find the drawing of a line obnoxious. I have little doubt that the reaction would have been much different had the cultural center been planned at a location 4 blocks away or 5.

I think that in this case the line was drawn to exclude a certain group. The exclusion was first. The reasons came later. I don't think Imam Rauf set out to cross any lines by design. I think this comes under the category of mischance. However, it is certainly an affair that tests the true tolerance of Americans and I think that here, where group looks at group, that tolerance is sorely lacking.

MisterCreosote: So - - there was only destruction, displacement, and death in Iraq and Afghanistan?

No, there were plenty of good intentions as well.

But you are side-stepping the implicit question about the validity of your predications in regard to civilized societies. And you are completely avoiding the fact that the planned cultural center is not the project of outsiders who are historical or traditional enemies and who seek to desecrate the dead or insult their memories.

MisterCreosote: No civilized society allows for the desecration of its dead or insults to their memory by outsiders, least of all to those wrongfully killed by a historical or traditional enemy.

One might well ask whether a civilized society would visit destruction, displacement and death upon the citizens of two countries in order to avenge its wounded pride. There seems to be something rather vague about what civilized societies will or won't do.

However, Imam Rauf and American Muslims are not outsiders, nor are they desecrating the dead or insulting their memory. And they aren't historical or traditional enemies of the US, either. They are, however, people to whom 2/3 of the American population are quite willing to say, "We don't want your kind building here."

sailwind: Just like we remember getting 'kick in the nuts' once a year by Islamic radicals on 9/11 right?

I think it was more like a "cuppa acid in the face". And I don't think we remember it once a year on 9/11. It's much more like we remember it every day and still can't imagine why anyone would do that to us. Must be the devil's religion at work, do ya think?

WilliB: Obama ran on the claim that Afghanistan is the "right" war (as opposed to Iraq). He continuous claimed that, so yes it is his war.

I think it is America's war. Both candidates wanted the war in Afghanistan. They wanted it because Americans would not accept pulling stakes and coming home.

mikehuntez: This thread has proven that the terrorist have won. The bleeding heart liberals are so shit scared that they are afraid of what radical islamists may do that they want to deny this weirdo his right to express his opinion. He is not advocating killing all muslims. He is only sending the radicals a message.

Shall we assume that by "bleeding heart liberals" you are referring also to General Petraeus? If anyone is afraid of what radical Muslims might do, my money would be on the folks who have a prejudice against Muslims or against Islam.

I doubt that Jones is sending a message to radical Muslims. I think it much more likely that his audience is domestic. However, if his message is only to radical Muslims, he needs a different delivery system--one that doesn't deliver junk mail to the mailbox of every Muslim on the planet and instruct them that their religion is of the devil.

squaremarble: This pastor's actions, no matter how wrong headed, will have minimum influence on events in the war zones. If you haven’t noticed, many people don’t need this pastor to provide a reason to hate America.

I think that is what I said. If you are unclear about that, perhaps you should read my post again.

I'm not sure what you are talking about when you refer to people arguing against people who protested the building of the mosque on "legal grounds". There are no legal grounds for protest. I believe the gist of the protest was on grounds of "bad taste".

However, my point was that I'm quite happy to let Jones be as stupid as he wants to be in this matter. I don't believe that his stupidity will add appreciably to the danger to the troops. And I don't believe that Petraeus necessarily thinks so either. I do think, however, that Petraeus is part of a concerted government effort to distance the itself from this lunatic.

Sarge, I think the reason that blvtzpk urgest the deletion of this expression is that it is prejudicial and false. There is no proclamation of victory, no death in the name of Islam, no mosque on Ground Zero, and, as a matter of fact, there is no mosque. There is a cultural center which will serve all faiths and in which there will be a mosque. However, a mosque is nothing but a place--not even a building--where a Muslim offers prayers toward Mecca. And those prayers are already offered there, I believe.

sailwind: The sad part is this story should have never made past the Gainesville local paper and then only a one paragraph on page 32 'Gadfly Preacher Is At It Again With latest Stunt'....and be done with it. Thanks MSM for giving the good pastor his undeserved and nauseating 15 minutes of fame.

You seem to be blaming liberals for making an issue of this. However, it strikes me that if one were to look for someone obnoxious enough, one might just find someone who is so perfervidly anti-Muslim that even mainstream America would wince.

Now who would want to prove that the good citizens of the US are not prejudiced against Muslims?

Not saying this is so. Just saying there's more than one possibility here.

SuperLib: Well now some people will better understand the concept of "legally within his rights" vs. "poor taste."

I think there's a difference between allegations of poor taste and poor taste. And there's a difference between poor taste and idiocy. And there's certainly a difference between building a cultural center and burning a Q'uran.

I don't for one minute believe that Islam is the devil's religion. But once we hold that it's OK for cartoonists to mock the prophet, I don't see that there is any substantial reason to wring our hands over an idiot burning a holy book. Let him burn it and let people see that in America he is free to do so and that our government does not approve.

Jones is not going to put the troops in any significant danger. The previous President already did that and the troops will remain endangered until such time that they either go home or that their battlegrounds become stable client states.

The rest of us might not want to vacation in Pakistan, though.

sailwind: Anybody with common sense knows that is not true, you judge people one person at a time but the fact is Islam and Muslims will never ever be able to dis-own that 9/11 will be forever linked with Islam and with Muslims.

SezWho2: By linking 9/11 to all Islam and by using this to discriminate against Muslims, you make a popular choice, but the wrong one, I think.

sailwind: I link nothing of the sort, I ask that a Mosque or a Islamic cultural center not be established near ground zero out of respect for the dead.

It certainly seems to me that you are linking 9/11 to Islam. And, while it is clear that you are calling for the planned construction to be aborted out of respect for the dead, it certainly seems to me that you are discriminating against one religion.

Additionally I would add that the proposed Islamic cultural center shows no such lack of respect. However, plenty of the living have made up that it does so.

sailwind: Who do prefer you we link with Mormons?

I really cannot understand your meaning here. Are you asking what event I think we should link with Mormons? If so, will I have to link events to all major religions? Or are you asking if we should link 9/11 to Mormons? If so, that really makes no sense.

What I would say is this, if you feel compelled to link 9/11 to something, try to link it to the people who committed the crime. By linking them to Islam, you are choosing to view them as representative of all Islam first and as terrorists only secondarily. I think I would say that they did not represent all Islam and that in their actions they may well have been political first and extreme Muslims secondarily.

It's not a case of it being just the way it is. It's a case of choosing a viewpoint of the way it is. By linking 9/11 to all Islam and by using this to discriminate against Muslims, you make a popular choice, but the wrong one, I think.

sailwind: Anybody with common sense knows that is not true, you judge people one person at a time but the fact is Islam and Muslims will never ever be able to dis-own that 9/11 will be forever linked with Islam and with Muslims. This is just the way it is.

That's not the way it is. That's the way we make it. We could choose to link 9/11 with Muslim extremists. We could choose to link 9/11 with political fanatics. But we choose to link it with Islam and Muslims.

That the terrorist were Muslims is not in dispute. What does seem to be in dispute is why they did what they did. But even if they did this in the name of Islam we could still choose to recognize that they are not representative of mainstream Islam. However, we refuse to make that choice.

It sounds as though your neighbors refused to make up a story that the offending sailor perpetrated the rape in the name of the US Navy. They chose well. The neighbors of the proposed cultural center more support the construction than oppose it. I think they have chosen well, too. Why doubt their judgment?

We can respect people's losses without submitting to their wishes. To say otherwise gives grief a veto of indeterminate extent. And I would also say this: there is absolutely no reason for Americans to respect the wishes of the grieving when those wishes discriminate on the basis or race, religion, creed or national origin.

tigermoth: Isn't that appeasement? By definition I would say yes. Should I have said pacification? Same thing.

One of the problems is with the word "appeasement". To understand what I mean, try referring to the internment camps for Japanese Americans as "concentration camps" and see what happens. "Appeasement" is an emotionally loaded word and "pacification" is not much better. Hitler was "appeased". Native Americans were "pacified". Muslims in general require neither appeasement nor pacification.

Another problem is with the concept of appeasement as divorced from its radio talk show meaning. I'm not supporting the construction of the cultural center as an effort to reduce Muslim extremism. If I were, I think that might be referred to as appeasement. I support the construction because I believe there are no good reasons to disallow it and that there are good reasons for it, including the demonstration that we are a nation that is tolerant of all faiths. A national movement to "Stop the Mosque" is exactly the wrong thing to do to demonstrate this.

And yes, there are some in America, and aspects of American life that have today and historically not been exactly milestones of basic rights and freedoms. But you bring up exceptions rather than the norm.

For the sake of argument let us say that this is true. Are you of the opinion that the whole discussion regarding Muslims in America does not constitute another exception? If you are, I just have to disagree. Over 40% of Americans admit to having anti-Muslim prejudices. My guess is that the true percentage doesn't stop with those who admit. Yes, they could just "move on down the road", but why should they have to? I really don't believe that Christians would have to, nor Jews. Do you?

And your comments about Muslims living in the US for over '300 years' is true, but a slight misrepresentation of the facts to support your own ideas.

That would be a lot more convincing if you were to mention the ideas that you think I am supporting with that statement. Be that as it may, I think there has been a significant Muslim population in the US for 300 years or more. However, we called them "slaves" and didn't allow them a lot of personal freedoms. Also, I think it was the second US President who referred to the prophet Muhammad as a great truth-seeker or some such thing. So I don't think that Muslims were unknown to us--ghettoed, perhaps, shunned, maybe, unwelcome down on the farm, probably, but not unknown.

On the scale of worries I have about violence in America, the possibility of Muslim violence in America comes far down on the list of road rage, workers going postal, drive-bys and so on. Yes, some Muslim extremists could make a bomb, but I don't think it's likely to happen at the proposed Islamic cultural center. And, for that matter, anyone like the Weathermen, the Unabomber or Timothy McVeigh can make a bomb.

tigermoth: don't you think it somewhat telling that in your comments you seem to suggest (forgive me if I'm wrong) an appeasement of Islam, or at least in "America's interest to promote moderate Islam" as a means of curtailing violence by extremist followers of Islam?

What I think is telling is that you use the term "appeasement", more telling when you use the phrase "appeasement of Islam". Islam is neither monolithic nor is it the enemy. My reading of your post that you would give reason why it is the enemy and why, despite the fact that America has lived with Muslims for over 300 years, we must now brand American Muslims as part of "them", too.

I agree with you that America enjoys more religious freedom than Islamic countries, but to this day some in America are Orwellianly more free than others. "Gentlemen's Agreement", the best picture of 1947, documents the systematic denial of the privileges of American society to Jews. 50 years ago fears about Catholicism nearly undid Kennedy. Two years ago the best Republican candidate was (shhhh!) thrown under the bus because he was a Mormon. People out to smear the current President describe him as a Muslim.

Put another way, in America there has always been religious freedom, but basic freedoms and right trump all else. This doesn't fly with Islam, even the more moderate variety, and that makes a lot of Americans uncomfortable.

Apparently, in the case of the planned Islamic cultural center, "basic freedoms and right" do not trump all else--at least not in the eyes of those who protest its construction. American Muslims, however, have lived quite peacefully with these basic freedoms and rights for years. Why, on account of the actions of extremists and theories about religious intolerance elsewhere, should we deny those basic freedoms and rights now? Are you seriously worried that America might become an Islamic state?

Americans are uncomfortable about a lot of things. But if basic freedoms and rights trump all else, Americans have to find a way to live with their discomforts. We all do.

sailwind, I think by now almost everyone has been asked to attend to Bolourchi's words. I think too often people seize upon the fact that she is a Muslim, although self-described as a secular one, and forget to listen to what she is saying:

...the prospect of a mosque near Ground Zero -- or a church or a synagogue or any religious or nationalistic monument or symbol -- troubles me.

I just don't get that most of the protesters would be troubled by a Christian cultural center that contained a place of worship nor that they would be averse to a nationalistic monument or symbol. I have absolutely no problem with what Bolourchi is saying. I'm all in favor of erecting a simple memorial to those who died there, but that is not really the plan for that space, is it?

Molenir: And America should care that Muslims think we are prejudiced against Muslims why?

I think this question was already answered in my previous post. It is in America's interest to promote moderate Islam. It cannot do that if it is seen as being prejudiced.

Again, note that this site was deliberately chosen precisely because of its proximity to 1 WT.

So what?

Americans are not deluded, only those who think this is about Freedom of Religion are deluded.

No. Your sarcasm notwithstanding, Mormons did not attack the Towers. Large numbers of Americans are totally at sea concerning what Islam is. If a cultural center constructed by another religion would be unobjectionable, then objections to an Islamic culture center indicate this is about religious tolerance. I didn't say anything about Freedom of Religion.

And with America saying, you can build your Mosque elsewhere, just not there, it is telling that Rauf insists that it is only on that site, that the holy Mosque can be completed. Only there, that Islam can honor the 19 martyrs.

How generous of "America" to say that the cultural center can be built somewhere else! Not! People can build wherever it is permitted. In Manhattan it is permitted. More residents of Manhattan favor the construction than oppose it, although this may change if the rabble-rousers are successful.

Imam Rauf does not insist that the cultural center be built there. You have rather turned this thing on its head. It is the 70% who are insisting that it not be built there. Rauf has been silent about whether it would be better to choose another site. Some people connected with the project have indicated an openness to considering an alternative site.

And as for the site being the only place where Islam can honor the "19 martyrs", that is simply a false and inflammatory statement. There are no plans to use the cultural center to honor the 19 men who flew planes into the Towers. And as for its being the only place where Islam can do it, that is absolutely wrong. Today those miscreants are being honored in centers of extremism in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen and even in the US. They can be honored anywhere.

It really does not matter that 70% of Americans think that this is in bad taste. 30% support the culture center project (more in Manhattan). Those who support wish to see American Muslims make a strong statement in favor of moderate Islam. It seems to me that most who oppose cite bad taste and back up this sentiment with lies and half-truths.

SuperLib, yes, your question is a good one. However, the timing of these charges is coincidental to say the least. With the evidence in front of you, which do you think to be more likely?

The major embarrassment to the military and the administration which vetted its mission is of rather recent vintage. While I suppose that it may be true that Assange's recent publicity has vested him with a new-found power, I think it is more likely true that a rapist could have been a rapist at any time.

Apparently the prosecutor believes that she has a case, so he might well be a rapist. I don't have a dog in this race. However, with the public information available to date it smells to me more like a honeytrap or the subornation of perjury than it does rape.

Honeytrap?

Molenir, an important part of any claim is "source". If you want to judge what Rauf is talking about, go back to the source. Then tell me who is making stuff up.

As for America's loss, America loses in several ways. First it will have validated a widespread view in much of the Muslim world that America is prejudiced against Muslims. Far more worrisome than the remote possibility that extremist views will be preached here is the almost dead certainty that they will be preached abroad and find willing listeners among the disadvantaged.

Second, it will have deluded itself into believing that its mistaken views of Islam are perfectly justified. The "bad taste" argument is predicated on the perception that all Muslims should be penitent on account of extremists who acted in the name of a religion which, alone among other major religions, has an intrinsic capacity for evil which must be held in check. This is not true. However, relocating the proposed center will relieve Americans of the responsibility of actually finding out what Islam is about and who Muslims are.

Third, rather than everyone winning, the obvious discrimination--for you can bet there would be no hue and cry were it a Christian or Jewish center--will serve to radicalize Muslims here. Not putting up barriers to its construction shows tolerance. Erecting barriers will corroborate the perception of discrimination and successfully preventing construction will tend to give cause for grievance.

Finally, most of the non-Muslim supporters will not "win". Of course the Muslims can build another mosque somewhere. And they will. I doubt that most Americans know what a mosque is, however. Writing in the Washington Post, Edward E. Curtis IV points out that

A mosque, or masjid, is literally any place where Muslims make salat, the prayer performed in the direction of Mecca; it needn't be a building.

Under this definition, if prayers are now performed in the direction of Mecca at the current structure, there is already a mosque there. So, what people are saying to Muslims is, "Don't be visible!" Success in stopping the construction will certainly not be a win for the 30% of Americans who support the right of Muslims to be visible, even in the relatively small way that the planned construction will bring.

I don't think that many of these 30% can be considered to be a "Muslim extremist, who thinks Islam should naturally be spread throughout the world, by the sword if necessary".

manfromamerica: Don't kid yourself. America can be very bad. Those who choose to come also choose to ignore this. In bashing Imam Rauf, America truly shows its ugly side.

mikehuntez: Imam Rauf: Asking for understanding and consideration abroad, giving none of it at home.

If you want to know what kind of understanding the Imam shows at home, you might try listening to what he says rather than what other, agenda-stricken folks say he says. Your send-up of my comment certainly illustrates the intolerance the Imam is receiving.

Understanding has never meant capitulation. In fact, capitulation would be almost un-American. The Imam may decide to try to persuade the developers to build elsewhere, but that will be America's loss.