This topic is currently marked as "dormant"—the last message is more than 90 days old. You can revive it by posting a reply.
1modalursine
According to the NY Times article here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/15/us/politics/15mosque.html?hp
Obama first articulated support for building the "Cordoba" Islamic center in lower Manhattan, near (but not at) the site of the destroyed World Trade Center;
but now seems to be "recalibrating" his position in the face of political criticism, mainly but not entirely, from Republicans.
The previous president, for all his faults, nevertheless was adamant that our enemy is not Islam per se, but only a numerically small subset within the Moslem community, and particularly warned against directing anger or violence against Moslems, simply on the basis of their faith.
I certainly hope the the current POTUS does not shirk his duty to uphold the constitutional principle of neutrality towards all religious belief, and clearly insists that the law protects all citizens alike regardless of race creed color or country of national origin.
Anything less would be a national calamity.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/15/us/politics/15mosque.html?hp
Obama first articulated support for building the "Cordoba" Islamic center in lower Manhattan, near (but not at) the site of the destroyed World Trade Center;
but now seems to be "recalibrating" his position in the face of political criticism, mainly but not entirely, from Republicans.
The previous president, for all his faults, nevertheless was adamant that our enemy is not Islam per se, but only a numerically small subset within the Moslem community, and particularly warned against directing anger or violence against Moslems, simply on the basis of their faith.
I certainly hope the the current POTUS does not shirk his duty to uphold the constitutional principle of neutrality towards all religious belief, and clearly insists that the law protects all citizens alike regardless of race creed color or country of national origin.
Anything less would be a national calamity.
2timspalding
The problem here is that two issues are conflated--whether that group ought to be legally able to build a mosque there, without interference or discrimination, and whether building a mosque is the right thing to do.
The extremities of the discussion have conflated the two questions, seeking to turn their opinion of what Obama called the "wisdom" of the project into a legal issue. Obama asserted the principle of freedom of religion, which he ought to support loudly as both a patriot and the President, without saying that the mosque is necessarily a good idea. This is precisely the "neutrality" of which you speak with approval.
For my part, I view the project as a rather tasteless attempt to appropriate some of the symbolic power of the place--an attempt similar to wearing an outspoken religious t-shirt at a funeral, or to the crosses at Auschwitz. I would feel the same way about a Catholic Center for 9/11 Healing three blocks away. Indeed, I predict that, if the mosque goes through, we'll see a succession of copy-cat centers, as each religion and perhaps political persuasion attempts to secure a little piece of real estate near the site, to better push their view. I find that possibility distressing.
The problem is that politics is driven by extremes, and few can distinguish between political liberty and endorsement. If the mosque is to be allowed, many must believe it is a very good idea too. And if it is a bad idea, somehow it must be stopped. This is how we get the distasteful prospect of anti-government Republicans playing petty historical-zoning games in order to restrict what a group can do with a privately owned (and not-very-historic) building.
About tastes, there can of course be no dispute. Legal anti-religious discrimination is another matter.
The extremities of the discussion have conflated the two questions, seeking to turn their opinion of what Obama called the "wisdom" of the project into a legal issue. Obama asserted the principle of freedom of religion, which he ought to support loudly as both a patriot and the President, without saying that the mosque is necessarily a good idea. This is precisely the "neutrality" of which you speak with approval.
For my part, I view the project as a rather tasteless attempt to appropriate some of the symbolic power of the place--an attempt similar to wearing an outspoken religious t-shirt at a funeral, or to the crosses at Auschwitz. I would feel the same way about a Catholic Center for 9/11 Healing three blocks away. Indeed, I predict that, if the mosque goes through, we'll see a succession of copy-cat centers, as each religion and perhaps political persuasion attempts to secure a little piece of real estate near the site, to better push their view. I find that possibility distressing.
The problem is that politics is driven by extremes, and few can distinguish between political liberty and endorsement. If the mosque is to be allowed, many must believe it is a very good idea too. And if it is a bad idea, somehow it must be stopped. This is how we get the distasteful prospect of anti-government Republicans playing petty historical-zoning games in order to restrict what a group can do with a privately owned (and not-very-historic) building.
About tastes, there can of course be no dispute. Legal anti-religious discrimination is another matter.
3jjwilson61
I'd understand if all religious buildings were banned from immediate vicinity of 9-11, but somehow I don't think that's what Sarah Palin wants.
4timspalding
If I say X and you say I'm saying Y you have either not understood me, or are intentionally distorting my point.
Let's be clear. I did not say "ban." Indeed, I said the exact opposite--repeatedly emphasizing that such things should not be banned. Indeed, that would be directly in violation of our country's laws and on the larger, correct principle of religious liberty.
What you are doing is asserting that if I don't think the mosque is in good taste, then I am in favor of banning it. That is not the case at all.
Now, I don't know how far Palin has gone to insist that she's not against it legally. Certainly many on the right are leaving that ambiguous, or openly advocating for new zoning hearings and so forth.
It's also true that there can be both non-bigoted and bigoted reasons for opposing the mosque. I believe my own reasons aren't bigoted. I suspect that Palin's are.
Let's be clear. I did not say "ban." Indeed, I said the exact opposite--repeatedly emphasizing that such things should not be banned. Indeed, that would be directly in violation of our country's laws and on the larger, correct principle of religious liberty.
What you are doing is asserting that if I don't think the mosque is in good taste, then I am in favor of banning it. That is not the case at all.
Now, I don't know how far Palin has gone to insist that she's not against it legally. Certainly many on the right are leaving that ambiguous, or openly advocating for new zoning hearings and so forth.
It's also true that there can be both non-bigoted and bigoted reasons for opposing the mosque. I believe my own reasons aren't bigoted. I suspect that Palin's are.
5Jesse_wiedinmyer
whether that group ought to be legally able to build a mosque there, without interference or discrimination, and whether building a mosque is the right thing to do.
But that's just it. You only need an answer to the first question. It's the only question worth asking. You can sit and talk about how tasteless the gesture is all you want. That still doesn't make it illegal.
For my part, I view the project as a rather tasteless attempt to appropriate some of the symbolic power of the place--an attempt similar to wearing an outspoken religious t-shirt at a funeral, or to the crosses at Auschwitz. I would feel the same way about a Catholic Center for 9/11 Healing three blocks away. Indeed, I predict that, if the mosque goes through, we'll see a succession of copy-cat centers, as each religion and perhaps political persuasion attempts to secure a little piece of real estate near the site, to better push their view. I find that possibility distressing.
I find that about as distressing as the possibility that someone open a gay bar near the mosque. Which is to say that I don't find it very distressing at all.
The problem is that politics is driven by extremes, and few can distinguish between political liberty and endorsement.
Their inability to distinguish doesn't mean that the distinction isn't valid, though.
But that's just it. You only need an answer to the first question. It's the only question worth asking. You can sit and talk about how tasteless the gesture is all you want. That still doesn't make it illegal.
For my part, I view the project as a rather tasteless attempt to appropriate some of the symbolic power of the place--an attempt similar to wearing an outspoken religious t-shirt at a funeral, or to the crosses at Auschwitz. I would feel the same way about a Catholic Center for 9/11 Healing three blocks away. Indeed, I predict that, if the mosque goes through, we'll see a succession of copy-cat centers, as each religion and perhaps political persuasion attempts to secure a little piece of real estate near the site, to better push their view. I find that possibility distressing.
I find that about as distressing as the possibility that someone open a gay bar near the mosque. Which is to say that I don't find it very distressing at all.
The problem is that politics is driven by extremes, and few can distinguish between political liberty and endorsement.
Their inability to distinguish doesn't mean that the distinction isn't valid, though.
6Jesse_wiedinmyer
Or to rephrase the conflation, there's only one question worth asking... Who should be allowed to decide whether or not that group should build a mosque there?
7timspalding
>5 Jesse_wiedinmyer:
Well, it depends what kind of conversation we want to have. If the conversation is about legality, the conversation should end with "they can do it."
I, however, often discuss topics that have to do with the appropriateness or fitness of something. For example, I review books, with the understanding that my dislike of a book does not imply the book should be banned. :)
Well, it depends what kind of conversation we want to have. If the conversation is about legality, the conversation should end with "they can do it."
I, however, often discuss topics that have to do with the appropriateness or fitness of something. For example, I review books, with the understanding that my dislike of a book does not imply the book should be banned. :)
8weener
There are already three gay bars within .1 mile of the mosque site. Check it.
And having an Islamic community center near Ground Zero doesn't strike me as tasteless at all. What's tasteless about community? Regular Islam is about as close to Islamic terrorism as German citizens are to the SS. Would it be tasteless to build a German restaurant near a church that got torched by neo Nazis?
And having an Islamic community center near Ground Zero doesn't strike me as tasteless at all. What's tasteless about community? Regular Islam is about as close to Islamic terrorism as German citizens are to the SS. Would it be tasteless to build a German restaurant near a church that got torched by neo Nazis?
9timspalding
Would it be tasteless to build a German restaurant near a church that got torched by neo Nazis?
I'd worry about that, particularly if the German restaurant did it precisely to play upon that connection—even if, as in this case, they were doing it correct the record straight, for example that being German was about great food, not hate. I'd certainly worry about a German restaurant next to Auschwitz, and not because I hate Germans or think them still Nazis.
The desire to seize upon the situation is why reason why I have nothing against the existing mosque that is near the site, or the other existing religious places.
I'd worry about that, particularly if the German restaurant did it precisely to play upon that connection—even if, as in this case, they were doing it correct the record straight, for example that being German was about great food, not hate. I'd certainly worry about a German restaurant next to Auschwitz, and not because I hate Germans or think them still Nazis.
The desire to seize upon the situation is why reason why I have nothing against the existing mosque that is near the site, or the other existing religious places.
10modalursine
The only reason the placement of an Islamic center might be considered "tasteless" or inappropriate is because of the demonization of Islam and the confounding of ordinary work-a-day Moslems with the fanatical fringe around al Queda and its sympathizers by various actors with their own particular axes to grind.
Sam Harris, who is actually opposed to the building of the Islamic center, has a piece in which he says in part ... Nor can we ignore the fact that many who oppose the construction of this mosque embody all that is terrifyingly askew in conservative America—“birthers,” those sincerely awaiting the Rapture, opportunistic Republican politicians, and utter lunatics who yearn to see Sarah Palin become the next president of the United States (note that Palin herself probably falls into several of these categories). These people are wrong about almost everything under the sun....
Here's a link to his screed. Fech!
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-08-13/ground-zero-mosque/
I don't want to mislead you about Harris's opinion. The full quote goes on to say that "those people" are right about Islam, and then he carries on by trashing Islam roundly.
But I say that whether the demonization is motivated by abhorrence of the content of the "holy" text of the Koran, or from doctrinal differences with Islam from a Christian perspective, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
One might equally well object to any religion on exactly the same grounds.
So while emotional attachment to one faith community or another might be a perfectly valid reason for going to this church rather than that one, or to none of the above, those are not valid reasons for considering one
faith's actions problematic when the same action would be considered perfectly within bounds if done by another.
Its not very complicated.
Sam Harris, who is actually opposed to the building of the Islamic center, has a piece in which he says in part ... Nor can we ignore the fact that many who oppose the construction of this mosque embody all that is terrifyingly askew in conservative America—“birthers,” those sincerely awaiting the Rapture, opportunistic Republican politicians, and utter lunatics who yearn to see Sarah Palin become the next president of the United States (note that Palin herself probably falls into several of these categories). These people are wrong about almost everything under the sun....
Here's a link to his screed. Fech!
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-08-13/ground-zero-mosque/
I don't want to mislead you about Harris's opinion. The full quote goes on to say that "those people" are right about Islam, and then he carries on by trashing Islam roundly.
But I say that whether the demonization is motivated by abhorrence of the content of the "holy" text of the Koran, or from doctrinal differences with Islam from a Christian perspective, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
One might equally well object to any religion on exactly the same grounds.
So while emotional attachment to one faith community or another might be a perfectly valid reason for going to this church rather than that one, or to none of the above, those are not valid reasons for considering one
faith's actions problematic when the same action would be considered perfectly within bounds if done by another.
Its not very complicated.
11Lunar
If this is supposed to be a "recalibration" to make Obama seem more ammenable to the interests of the Right, why is he invoking religious plurality? The Right doesn't believe in religious plurality. He'd have better political luck emphasizing the glossed-over bit about private property rights.
12timspalding
>10 modalursine:
The only reason the placement of an Islamic center might be considered "tasteless" or inappropriate is because of the demonization of Islam and the confounding of ordinary work-a-day Moslems with the fanatical fringe around al Queda and its sympathizers by various actors with their own particular axes to grind.
Since I did neither, and indeed repeatedly saying I wasn't doing either—and indeed said the exact opposite, repeatedly—you clearly either (1) Think I'm lying and am secretly doing what I say I'm not or (2) are not good at reading (3) use "the only reason" in non-standard ways, for example to mean "the only reason I understand."
The only reason the placement of an Islamic center might be considered "tasteless" or inappropriate is because of the demonization of Islam and the confounding of ordinary work-a-day Moslems with the fanatical fringe around al Queda and its sympathizers by various actors with their own particular axes to grind.
Since I did neither, and indeed repeatedly saying I wasn't doing either—and indeed said the exact opposite, repeatedly—you clearly either (1) Think I'm lying and am secretly doing what I say I'm not or (2) are not good at reading (3) use "the only reason" in non-standard ways, for example to mean "the only reason I understand."
13jjwilson61
I got a bit carried away when I said "banned" in msg #3. But I don't agree that a Muslim community center near Ground Zero is tasteless, even if it does "appropriate some of the symbolic power of the place". Isn't that the point? To appropriate some of the symbolic power of the place in order to promote mutual understanding and tolerance. That sounds like a good cause to me.
If you disagree, you need to explain exactly when it is appropriate to appropriate symbolic power and when it isn't. Is a memorial appropriate? Why? Is selling American flags at the site appropriate? For that matter, is a McDonald's appropriate? Why or why not?
If you disagree, you need to explain exactly when it is appropriate to appropriate symbolic power and when it isn't. Is a memorial appropriate? Why? Is selling American flags at the site appropriate? For that matter, is a McDonald's appropriate? Why or why not?
14modalursine
ref #12
I wasn't responding to anything specifically by timspalding, only speculating that the "controversy" exists primarily because of Islam bashing. If a Christian group were to put up a denominationally oriented community center or even a full on Church, no problem, no controversy, nobody saying "tsk tks bad taste old chum".
Why the difference? Well, that's my idea anyway.
PS "The guilty flee where none pursue".
I wasn't responding to anything specifically by timspalding, only speculating that the "controversy" exists primarily because of Islam bashing. If a Christian group were to put up a denominationally oriented community center or even a full on Church, no problem, no controversy, nobody saying "tsk tks bad taste old chum".
Why the difference? Well, that's my idea anyway.
PS "The guilty flee where none pursue".
15timspalding
I agree that the controversy is higher because it's Islam, and that Islam-bashing is a big part of this. That factor alone makes me wary of stating any other criteria for the judgment. But I do think there would be a controversy over a 9/11-directed Evangelical center, or Scientologists, or center for the Republican Party and 9/11 or whatever. There is something gross about yolking your ideas to 9/11 and driving around.
16timspalding
This does give some perspective, though:
http://cmonstah.tumblr.com/post/958942407/aatombomb-topherchris-the-planned-grou...
T
http://cmonstah.tumblr.com/post/958942407/aatombomb-topherchris-the-planned-grou...
T
17modalursine
ref #16
Small world department:
C-Monster's blog has a picture of Shiprock, which is about and hour and half's drive from where I'm sitting right now.
I used to work in the Financial district. I'm pretty sure that there was and still is a Massjid , in a not so upscale building, somewhere south of what became ground zero. Nobody seems particularly bothered about that (nor should they be).
There are also about a bazillion falafel and Halal food carts there too.
I must agree There is something gross about yolking your ideas to 9/11 and driving around.
And yes, for those of us who are attuned to tacky behaviour from whatever quarter its appropriate to make some remarks.
But the heat, and the "resonance" surrounding the "mosque at ground zero" meme (never mind that its not exactly a mosque and not exactly at ground zero) to me overshadows any of that and points to a truly unhealthy Islam bashing that should be quashed, to the extent that such things can be quashed by mere jawboning, by all responsible adults.
Small world department:
C-Monster's blog has a picture of Shiprock, which is about and hour and half's drive from where I'm sitting right now.
I used to work in the Financial district. I'm pretty sure that there was and still is a Massjid , in a not so upscale building, somewhere south of what became ground zero. Nobody seems particularly bothered about that (nor should they be).
There are also about a bazillion falafel and Halal food carts there too.
I must agree There is something gross about yolking your ideas to 9/11 and driving around.
And yes, for those of us who are attuned to tacky behaviour from whatever quarter its appropriate to make some remarks.
But the heat, and the "resonance" surrounding the "mosque at ground zero" meme (never mind that its not exactly a mosque and not exactly at ground zero) to me overshadows any of that and points to a truly unhealthy Islam bashing that should be quashed, to the extent that such things can be quashed by mere jawboning, by all responsible adults.
18margd
In The True Believer, Eric Hoffer discussed how easy it is to scapegoat the other in manipulating the masses. We have big problems: unemployment, climate change, war, natural disasters at home and abroad, healthcare & pensions. Is it conspiracy theory or a reasonable thesis to think that our attention is being intentionally diverted to a scapegoat?
ETA: Howard Fineman thinks it's more the latter: http://www.newsweek.com/2010/08/15/fineman-immigration-ethics-and-islam.html
ETA: Howard Fineman thinks it's more the latter: http://www.newsweek.com/2010/08/15/fineman-immigration-ethics-and-islam.html
19margd
"To a remarkable extent, a Salon review of the origins of the story found, the controversy was kicked up and driven by Pamela Geller, a right-wing, viciously anti-Muslim, conspiracy-mongering blogger, whose sinister portrayal of the project was embraced by Rupert Murdoch's New York Post."
"...Geller ... succeeded beyond her wildest dreams."
http://www.salon.com/news/ground_zero_mosque/index.html?story=/politics/war_room...
"...Geller ... succeeded beyond her wildest dreams."
http://www.salon.com/news/ground_zero_mosque/index.html?story=/politics/war_room...
