RSS Feed MenuSomewhat shockingly, Obama’s approach to the Ground Zero mosque issue has emerged as a libertarian one. In prepared remarks about it on Friday, he didn’t feel the need to assert any (false) platitudes about “interfaith outreach” or defend the particular Muslims behind the initiative — he simply pointed out that people are free to build what they please on their own property: …[A]s a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country. That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances,” he said. The critics of the mosque weren’t called racist or “Islamophobic,” and the mosque was not defended on the merits of its goodness. Obama merely asserted that our laws grant people the right to do what they please with their own property.
Rep. Peter King’s response was puzzling for its irrelevance: “It is insensitive and uncaring for the Muslim community to build a mosque in the shadow of ground zero. While the Muslim community has the right to build the mosque, they are abusing that right by needlessly offending so many people who have suffered so much.” King and Obama, then, seem to agree that they have the right to build the mosque, which is really the key issue at hand here. Obama didn’t ground his support for allowing the mosque to be built on the basis of the upstanding character of the imams behind it. The only relevant factor in allowing the mosque’s development, as Obama correctly pointed out, is whether the property was acquired legally. Whether one is personally offended by its being built — as I am — has nothing to do with whether it should be permitted. One’s rights don’t evaporate upon the majority taking offense. Our rights exist primarily to defend not the majority, after all, but the offensive, the radical, the shocking, and the outlandish. Obama and I diverge drastically when it comes to the nature of Islam, and his respect for property rights has not always been particularly stellar. But on this issue, he is absolutely correct and the right is absolutely wrong.
anniemargret // Aug 15, 2010 at 9:31 pm
traveler: The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step .
I am hopeful. If we are not hopeful, then we give in to despair and defeat. To me defeat is giving into the idea that all of the Muslims in the world are addicted to violence and revenge. If so, then get ready to arm ourselves to the teeth and fight endless wars with billions of people – Armageddon would indeed have arrived. That’s not what I as an American or for my children and future grandchildren, or for our country.
Make no mistake. I cannot speak for the other centrists here, or liberals here…. for myself, I have no illusions about our enemies in the world. But this entire argument stemmed from whether or not the mosque/recreational center should be built near 9/11, because we are offended by it. I understand why people feel offended… I feel offended too.
But we honor our Constitution and our laws. It’s what makes us great. And when we say to the Muslims, yes, go ahead and build your mosque/recreational center near 9/11, and even though it might profoundly disappoint us or hurt our deep feelings for those that died there, we are Americans. And as Americans we can rise above our feelings and do what’s right.
I mentioned earlier the real threat of cyberterrorism… that would require not a single bomb dropped on any American city, nor suicide bombers blowing themselves up in Times Square. It would require real vigilance and we need to get the best and the brightest to counteract this threat which could bring us to our knees. I think we are more at risk in that area than we are for another planned airline attack on an American city.
And defending the mosque being built is not defending Islam. That is sheer hyperbole and it lends absolutely nothing to this discussion.
busboy33 // Aug 15, 2010 at 9:51 pm
@Slide:
Great link — thanks!
@Traveler:
From the link of the survey from Slide above:
“Meanwhile, radical Muslims gave political, not religious, reasons for condoning the attacks, the poll showed.”
Slide // Aug 15, 2010 at 10:17 pm
Islamic public opinion is, like many things, a bell curve. There is a certain center where the majority of public opinion resides and then there are the extremes, on one end OBL and his cohort of terrorists – on the other, supporters of the United States who would like nothing better than to send their children to MIT. In between there would be varying degrees of support and opposition to terrorism.
Now we may all have differing views of where that center is located but that is irrelevant to my argument. We need to move that bell curve in the direction away from the OBL wing. That would result in fewer terrorists. Fewer willing to support terrorism. Fewer willing to turn away and ignore terrorism. It conversely would mean more moderates writing op-eds denouncing terrorism. More willing to cooperate with the West in fighting terrorism. More willing to question the unequal treatment of women, more modernity, etc.
Muslim public opinion can only move in two directions. The invasion of Iraq unfortunately moved the bell curve in the wrong direction. Invading an oil rich Muslim country based on the lies of WMD certainly assisted and gave credence to OBL’s narrative. The election of Obama perhaps moved it a bit in the other direction. This is the type of war we are in. A war of public opinion. Don’t get me wrong, there is a military component to our battle with Islamic terrorism but lets not fool ourselves, we can’t kill our way out of the situation because in a population of 1.5 billion there will always be more than enough 16 year olds willing to fill in the void if encouraged by public opinion. All of our military might is useless in this kind of war as 911 clearly demonstrated. I think the only way we can have success in in reducing the threat against us is to move public opinion in the right direction.
We should be embracing moderate Muslims, like the one’s involved with building the community center, not alienating them. Doing otherwise just makes it harder for Muslims to be moderate. It pushes them in the wrong direction.
Now I know that I will be attacked for being some dewy eyed liberal wanting to hold hands and sing Kumbaya. Nothing could be further from the truth. I firmly believe that if we ignore Muslim public opinion we do so at our own risk.
Traveler // Aug 15, 2010 at 10:19 pm
Slide, Busboy and Annie:
Good points all. That is why I almost always concur with your posts. But not as much this time.
Slide, you ask what are the numbers? As to intolerance, I only have my personal experience and what it read in the newspapers. On the one hand, the recent Pakistabi polls may not be so bad, ie : Apparently, only 18% support Al-Qaeda (up from 10%) , and over 80% dislike us. http://original.antiwar.com/eli-clifton/2010/07/30/poll-pakistanis-dislike-us-taliban-and-al-qaeda/
But then see this take: http://missioneuropakmartell.wordpress.com/2010/07/11/islamic-terror-caused-by-small-minority-of-muslims-facts-prove-opposite/. “In a recent survey of 6,000 Muslims in 14 countries published in Studies in Conflict & Terrorism…some 47 percent of 62-year-olds surveyed were inclined to support terrorism. That percentage was only 10 points higher for 18-year-olds.”
I guess these must have been really radical countries, since that is such a big difference from the 2008 poll. Gallup is no slouch, and frankly, I would love to be wrong. Perhaps some posters here might want to distill the polling data into some semblance of, coherent analysis. You folks have considerable talent, and more time than I do. Unfortunately, having rocks thrown at me for being an infidel tends to bias my thinking.
Busboy, teasing out the effects of religion vs. culture is somewhat of a specious argument. It really doesn’t matter, as they are both intertwined so deeply. See abk1985’s post on that. I prejudge them based on their religion, since it does the job. Of course I am not unaware of the many different Muslim faiths and their derivations. Sufis are pretty cool, but they get bombed (Oops, so much for that idea). So let’s dive into Wahabism if we want to get specific. Whether its religion or culture, the fact remains that these people have it in for us. As I pointed out, Iraq is sure looking like it was a real good idea.
Annie, you are damn right I am not defending Islam, at least the more misogynistic Wahabism. My defense of the mosque is not hyperbole at all. Wrong word there. Maybe you thought I was being disingenuous? But I have made myself perfectly clear. Sorry about my focus on Islam itself vs. the mosque location, but frankly that is low hanging fruit. BO did the job there, and I can’t believe the amount of palaver on that when the larger issue looms. I much prefer a more focused discussion on what our world could be, and should be. I don’t want Armageddon any more than you do.
Alex Knepper // Aug 15, 2010 at 10:27 pm
@llbroo — Insanely dumb:
“I have read your varying post attacking Muslim and not differentiating then from the 911 attackers. When others have tried to counter your arguments with comparisons to Christianity, you state that it is irrelevant as you are an atheist and believe all religions are flawed. So let me attempt to give you a better analogy.
All men that have sex with little boys are pedophiles and by the nature of the sex act, homosexuals. As a matter of fact one the stereotypes about gays are that they are pedophiles. Now if you wanted to build a gay community center, say in West Memphis, Arkansas (site of the Paradise Lost Murders) wouldn’t you (if you were gay) want people to be able to tell the difference between homosexuality and pedophilia?”
The problem with this analogy is that it is really stupid and based upon a premise I don’t share: that is, that Islam is a peaceful faith that’s been hijacked by extremists.
A homosexual is someone romantically and sexually attracted to the same sex. That’s it. That’s the definition. A Muslim, by definition, is someone who adheres to the dogma of the Qur’an. The Qur’an blatantly advocates violence; being homosexual has nothing to do with having sex with children. Hence, the Qur’an inspires violence, being gay doesn’t inspire child molestation.
Any more questions?
Alex Knepper // Aug 15, 2010 at 10:32 pm
Anyway, I’m too lazy to reply to other points; I’m so sick of talking about this issue right now. I just spent 30 minutes writing a reply to a friend elsewhere, so, maybe later.
busboy33 // Aug 15, 2010 at 10:34 pm
@Traveler:
I understand what you are saying — I disagree with it, but its a respectful disagreement.
Traveler // Aug 15, 2010 at 10:37 pm
Hi Busboy,
I really wish it was just political. If so, why was I stoned 37 years ago? Hell, Reagan wasn’t even around then, and the Yom Kippur war was 4 months into the future. So it was all due to ‘geopolitical reservations’ by slum residents in the back alleys of Srinagar? That is rich. Those assholes weren’t Wahabis either. It might help to pay attention to what I post.
You have to realize this antipathy (to put it politely) goes way back. And you can’t bury it under PC relativism. I buried it until 9/11, but no more. Please wake up! I am not some neocon. We desperately need to really examine the facts here, and wishful thinking won’t do. So far I haven’t seen much factual evidence that is encouraging. Please prove me wrong.
Modified:
Our posts passed in the ether. As you note, we disagree with each other, but respectfully, and I thank you for the civility. Sorry if I came off a little cavalier in the first para. But claiming politics might be a bit of a reach.
anniemargret // Aug 15, 2010 at 10:53 pm
traveler: Sorry, I think I was addressing some of your points, but my point about ‘defending Islam’ was more directed at some of the other bloggers here who equate all Muslims with radical Islamic terrorists .
I also want to point out (and since this blog is so long I may be redundant and someone else may have already said it), that we had no real threat from radical Muslims until and after Uncle Sam got a big footprint in the Middle East, and particularly our affinity with Israel. They perceive that our sympathies lie with the Israelis at the expense of the Arab.
In many ways, I see this more of a political issue with radical Muslims than I do with their religion, although “Traveler’ you are correct in that their antipathy toward the westerner goes back thousands of years. I would even venture to say the Crusades probably didn’t help matters, but I am not trying to be flippant.
We need to remember that OBL used this issue (Israel vs Arab) as his raison d’etre against the U.S. It is why I fundamentally disagree with those that are saying this is something simply out of the Qu’ran. There may be elements to that, but I basically feel we’ve got radical Islam on our backs due to our almost unilateral support of Israel.
Our invasion of Iraq (that was no real ‘war’ since Iraq never declared war on us), exacerbated that hate and anger. It was and still is one of the gravest strategic errors in our history with long-lasting repercussions.
llbroo49 // Aug 15, 2010 at 11:30 pm
Alex,
You stated the following: “The problem with this analogy is that it is really stupid and based upon a premise I don’t share: that is, that Islam is a peaceful faith that’s been hijacked by extremists.
A homosexual is someone romantically and sexually attracted to the same sex. That’s it. That’s the definition. A Muslim, by definition, is someone who adheres to the dogma of the Qur’an. The Qur’an blatantly advocates violence; being homosexual has nothing to do with having sex with children. Hence, the Qur’an inspires violence, being gay doesn’t inspire child molestation.
Any more questions?”
Did not mean to offend. However, I doubt Muslims believe your assumptions are based upon a premise they share. I do not dispute your definition of homosexuality, I merely point out how others can view the acts of a minority as the beliefs of a much larger group. just ask any homosexual male (or for that matter any male) who wants to work as a day care provider or any occuppation that works closely with young children. They face discrimination because others believe homosexuals are predisposed to pedophillia. If you acknowledge that this assumpton is ludicrous- then that is probably the way many Muslims feel about lumping them in to a group with terrorists.
And lets be honest, if a minority of christians began carrying out despicable acts based on their interpetation of the bible (primarily the Old Testement)- even you would say they do not represent christians. It is highly unlikely that you (as an atheist) would be calling for the banning of church expansion because of the dangers of the bible. The reason is probably because you have enough contact and relationships with christians that you can see the deplorable actions of some do not reflect the actions of all. Perhaps you should spend some time with Muslims that don’t blow things up to get a feel for how their teachings and faith affect their daily lives.
I say this as someone who was vehemently against gays serving in the military. I had long held beliefs based on how I was raised and on church teachings. But since leaving the service, I have had the opportunity to work with several and some I even call friends. While I am still opposed to homosexuality on moral grounds and would do everything I could to discourage my children from engaging (note I didn’t say choosing) in homosexuality, I no longer find homosexuals as people that should be kept from the same rights that I share.
Alex Knepper // Aug 16, 2010 at 2:21 am
@llbroo — But the truth of whether a link is legitimate is not determined by how people “feel,” but by the logical connection between things. The Qur’an is a violent, fascist book. What I’m really insulted by is this lumping together of Muslims and gays as “oppressed minorities” that people “misunderstand.” If people “misunderstand” Muslims, it’s in large part their own fault for swearing fealty to a deranged “prophet” and his book, a little tome comparable to Mein Kampf in its treatment of Jews, women, gays, and non-believers. Most Muslims — especially American ones — ignore the nasty parts (which are legion). But you can hardly be surprised that people are suspicious when the Qur’an is such a violent, brutal book.
I just want to live my life, love someone, and be left alone by religious fanatics. Yes, it’s bigoted to oppose such a request. It is not bigoted to be naturally suspicious of someone who claims that the book that’s most important in their life is scarcely different than Mein Kampf in its treatment of those that it disapproves of.
Alex Knepper // Aug 16, 2010 at 2:24 am
@annie — OBL gave several reasons, Israel being one of them.
Sorry if I’m not willing to abandon Israel — an oasis of modernity in a wasteland of savagery — to appease fanatical Islamists.
llbroo49 // Aug 16, 2010 at 3:12 am
Alex,
I think you may need to spend some time reading the bible. I could qoute scripture (but alas it would be a waste of time) of the horrors that were directly condoned in the bible. I say this as a practicing christian. However, (for better or worse) most christians cherry pick the bible to conform to their daily lives ( its why we go to church on Sunday vs Saturday as the bible dictates). It must be assumed the same goes for muslims. If not we would have a much larger problem on our hands ranging from the middle east, europe, and aisa. Americans would not be welcome in Nigeria, Bosnia, or Kosovo.
Instead of the arguement being whether or not Islamic centers are built, we should be spending our time supporting moderate muslims that do not take the Quran literally in every aspect. And that would mean supporting the Muslims seeking to build a center in NY.
I have no problems with investigations seeking the sources of funding and active support of terrorist. But at this point if there were any real links they would have already been pursued or are actively being pursued.
I detest the KKK and what they stand for. But if their members were seeking to build a center and were not engaged in illegal activity, I would accept their right to do so and not do anything to hinder its construction. The university I attended had a prominent building named for Nathan Bedford Forrest an early founder of the KKK and an indivdual who commanded Confederate soldiers that murdered black Union soldiers at Fort Pillow after they (Union soldiers) surrendered.
Also it was not my intention to lump gays and muslims in to the same catagorey to be offensive. But lets be honest it is not the tenets of the Quran that upset our sensibilities. It is the fact that individuals of the Islamic faith have carried out and attempted attacks against us. It is not written anywhere that homosexuals want to take over the world and do away with heterosexual relationships- but you would be hard pressed to explain that to most people in the Bible Belt. The Quran merely gives us a non racist reason to dislike arabs. If Buddhist hit us on 911 and were behind other terrorist attacks instead of Muslims we wouldn’t be talking about how great their releigous tenets were versus the actions of said terrorists.
Again make an effort to spend time with people of the Islamic faith versus reading a text written several centuries ago. I sure wouldn’t want someone judging me based on some of the cruel acts of the bible.
And thank you for responding.
Alex Knepper // Aug 16, 2010 at 3:43 am
Have you bothered to read anything here? My post? My replies?
1) I’m not a Christian and don’t like the Bible,
2) I don’t want to stop these people from building the mosque.
Also, if you’re going to sit there and psychoanalyze my responses — “Your problem isn’t really with the religious tenets of Islam. Your unconscious motive is racism against Arabs!” — then I’m not going to talk to you. Get out of my face.
llbroo49 // Aug 16, 2010 at 4:21 am
Alex,
I don’t understand your rudeness. I made no personal attacks on you. But in the future you may want to drop any references to religious dogma in your arguments. Attacking religon A and then discounting the actions of religon B by stating you are an atheist leads me to wonder what is your real argument against religon A. From your post to @annie at 2:24 I can only assume it is because you believe those people from that region of the world are savages- which is a better argument than merely attacking their religon.
Re-read my post I did not use the word “you:” in reference to disliking Arabs, I stated “us”. And where in my posts did I say YOU were against building the Islamic center?
Slide // Aug 16, 2010 at 7:10 am
Alex, you really need to grow up a little. Sorry to sound like an “agist” but your intellectual immaturity reveals itself from time to time and … well, its quite annoying. Hey, its not a knock, when I was your age I was still getting drunk at frat parties. Party on dude.
Slide // Aug 16, 2010 at 7:39 am
Mr. Gingrich said that the proposed mosque and community center would be a symbol of Muslim “triumphalism” and that building it near the site of the Sept. 11 attacks “would be like putting a Nazi sign next to the Holocaust museum.”
imagine for a moment if this “genius” became President of the United States
Alex Knepper // Aug 16, 2010 at 9:14 am
@llbroo — You called me a racist. You overtly implied that my criticisms of Islam are not legitimate and therefore must be a mask for my hatred and fear of Arabs. Sorry. Not replying to you if you’re going to make attacks that, yes, are personal, and vicious.
@Slide — I’m mature enough to know that, in arguments like this, “Immature” just means “Disagrees with me.”
jg bennet // Aug 16, 2010 at 10:05 am
I CAN’T BELIEVE INTELLIGENT PEOPLE ARE ALL CAUGHT UP IN THIS POLITICAL MARKETING SCHEME!
“The information of the people at large can alone make them the safe as they are the sole depositary of our political and religious freedom.” –Thomas Jefferson
do they have the constitutional right to build the mosque? yes
lighten up folks you have been bamboozled and your anger is what the bamboozlers want and that means both sides of this argument
all of you passionate, patriotic, well meaning americans are playing your part in this scheme and it is right out of central casting.
for a guy who never ceases to be amazed by basic propaganda tactics this debate just solidifies my point.
i wish people would get beyond the rhetoric, toss emotions aside and look at the constitutional facts
“Mr. Gingrich said that the proposed mosque and community center would be a symbol of Muslim “triumphalism” and that building it near the site of the Sept. 11 attacks “would be like putting a Nazi sign next to the Holocaust museum.”
The scheme and just two points in the list of 7 Common Tactics Used to Influence Behavior…
NEWT
4. Testimonial
The aim of testimonial is to leverage the experience, authority and respect of a person and use it to endorse a product or cause. Testimonials appeal to emotions instead of logic because they generally provide weak justifications for the product or a cause of action.
NAZI HOLOCAUST SIGN
3. Transfer
This is a technique used to carry over the authority and approval of something you respect and revere to something the propagandist would have you accept. One does this by projecting the qualities of an entity, person or symbol to another through visual or mental association.
read the list and learn
http://www.doshdosh.com/the-art-of-propaganda-seven-common-techniques/
Slide // Aug 16, 2010 at 10:28 am
Alex Knepper // Aug 16, 2010 at 9:14 am “@Slide — I’m mature enough to know that, in arguments like this, “Immature” just means “Disagrees with me.””
errrr….no. But at least you didn’t put a “LOL” into your response this time. An improvement.
busboy33 // Aug 16, 2010 at 2:22 pm
Actually Alex, “Immature” is the polite form of “acting like a childish jackhole”.
But you were close though. You’re not posting on 4Chan anymore . . . you might conssider changing you behavior to reflect that.
SpartacusIsNotDead // Aug 16, 2010 at 4:18 pm
AlexK’s thinking on this topic is astonishingly flawed.
As an atheist and one who does not study Islam, he is placing his own interpretation of the Qur’an over the interpretation given to it by its 1.4 billion adherents?
Many posters on this thread have raised the example of Christianity not for the purpose of demonstrating that the Bible also has violent writings and, therefore, Islam isn’t the only violent religion. Instead, people have mentioned Christianity to demonstrate that the violent references in the Bible are not driving its adherents (by and large) to commit violence and, similarly, the violent references in the Qur’ran are not driving its adherents (again, by and large) to commit violence. The adherents of these religions do not interpret the writings of the Bible and the Qur’an in the silly, child-like fashion Alex has.
There are, of course, small minorities of both religions who are inspired to violence by these books. But, because the overwhelming majorities of the adherents are not inspired to violence by these books no mature, reasonable person would make the conclusions Alex has made. We don’t claim that America is a violent country merely because some Americans have been inspired to violence by the constitution.
Rocketship7 // Aug 17, 2010 at 11:42 pm
Building a “German Cultural Center” next to Auschwitz makes as much sense as this Cordoba Center.
Then again, the Germans have enough sense not to propose this, why don’t the Muslims?
WHY ARE LIBERALS SUCH APOLOGISTS FOR CULTURES AND COUNTRIES AT WAR WITH THEIR OWN PEOPLE.
Its because they hate Israel, and America even more then their own people.
busboy33 // Aug 18, 2010 at 1:33 am
@Rocketship:
Already answered this in the other thread. I notice that rather than replying, you just moved somewhere else and said it again.
WHY ARE RIGHT-WING NUTJOBBERS SO UNABLE TO DEFEND WHAT THEY ALLEGEDLY BELIEVE?
(btw . . . use a question mark at the end of your shouting questions.)
Its because they have no idea what the hell they are talking about, and only know how to chant like a mindless robot over and over.