I got into a stupid flame was the other day on Facebook with a friend (and her commenters)
She [A] posted the following to her wall:
If you think that putting up a mosque 600 ft. from ground zero and have
the opening of the mosque on the anniversary of 9/11/11, is immoral,
inhuman and a complete lack of respect for the memories of all that
perished on that day and their survivors & that politicians are
doing a grave injustice to the fallen heroes, their families and the
people of New York City, THEN PLEASE COPY AND PASTE THIS TO YOUR WALL
The first commenter followed with
[B] its digusting its even a thought in someones head…..
I saw this and saw yet another vile, right-wing sponsored attack on civil liberties. I am not religious, and abhor religion. I think it perpetuates an evil upon the world that does incalculable damage to current and future generations. However, I do support the rule of law, and the Cordoba House people have the right to build there.
So I posted, what I thought was a reasonable and factual statement to counter the right-wing memetics that have been strewn across the TV & Blogosphere in recent days:
[me] Sorry to have to say this, but the mosque (prayer room) already exists at the site. The proposed building is to be a Community Center (like a YMCA, but Muslim not Christian).
There is nothing disgusting in allowing people the right to self determination. Conflating the acts of terrorists with the wider community of people who share the faith professed by those terrorists is simply wrong!
Do you berate every Catholic because of the acts of the IRA, or because some priests are guilty of paedophilia? Every protestant because of the acts of the UDF, Timothy McVeigh, or Abortion clinic bombers?
The Constitution of the US is a wonderful thing, and it enshrines rights for EVERY American - not just the ones YOU agree with!
The US is the embodiment of the values and ethics espoused by the Enlightenment, and by philosophers like Voltaire:
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" (Evelyn Beatrice Hall, paraphrasing Voltaire in her biography of him)
I thought this was fine – given the 700 character limits on facebook comments – but then the flaming began. I’ll just post the thread without edit and let it stand on it’s own. All I will say is that if this is the response of reasonable people, then this country is in worse shape than I thought.
[C] I have to disagree with Tony in that the basic idea of a memorial means different things to different cultures. In the Christian culture, putting a building or memorial near the site of the fallen is a way to honor the dead. In Islam, it is a way of honoring heroes and their actions. Big difference! While I don’t think it should be built there, I don’t think there is a legal way to prevent it. I would feel better if it were even just a few blocks away.
[B] Thank you (C)! Exactly!
[me] (C), I have to disagree. The community center is not, except in the minds of right-wing pundits a 'tribute' to anyone. This is NOT a memorial! It's a community center, and unless one has an agenda against people who happen to be Muslim, it is disingenuous (at least) to suggest otherwise. Care to cite the primary source of this being a 'Muslim Memorial'? Everything I've read to date states it's a community center. Not a memorial. Not a tribute to fallen heroes ( although such would be perfectly valid - many American Muslims worked and died at the Twin Towers on 9/11). It's a YMCAYMMA!
You may *disagree* with the appropriateness of their decision. But you can't *demand* that they not build their center.
And when you say “I think it should be further away”… how far away is acceptable? 5 blocks? 10 blocks? How about in Jersey City? Or perhaps in Madison, WI? As soon as you start to draw arbitrary lines on ‘appropriate’ that have no foundation in law, you start on the path of societal control that even Stalin could only dream. Our ideas of appropriate all differ. Our constitution allows us the ability to ‘meet in the middle’ recognizing that while we may disagree, we agree on the fundamental – that I may not impose my narrow perspective upon you, not vice versa.
I find it strange that the same people who shout about ‘activist judges’ and ‘the coming of Sharia law in the US’ are the same ones demanding the kind of control over the body politic that they so denigrate in others and that they see around every corner the scary ‘other – ‘ so much so they are more than willing to excise our freedoms for the imposition of more constraints and controls (but that’s OK, ‘cos it’s Christian, right?)
Lastly – I am happy that you recognize the legal right of the Cordoba House to build their community center. I’m less happy that you continue to conflate, and use denigratory terms to reference that ‘other’. They are Americans. Please accord them the same respect and rights that you would anyone else .
[D] I think we, as Americans, should do the right thing…..get even! I say we build a pork BBQ place on one side, and a strip club on the other.
Image by Erich Vieth (using Creative Commons WTC image and mosque image by Achilles (Dreamstime.com) with permission)
[A] OK Tony..stop it with the right wing bullshit. You are ASSuming this opposition is being fueled by those on the right. For most citizens, it’s not about right, left, or in the middle. It’s about the surviving family members. Where were you on 9-11? Switzerland, Canada, Spain? We were watching in horror the events of 9-11. (M) was traveling that day. I didn’t know if he was on a plane or on the ground. I remember the silence afterward. No planes in the sky. I thought the world was ending. I’m not an idiot. I know these were acts of extremism. Where’s the line? The only “agenda” I have currently is to decide whether or not I should drop your ass as a friend on facebook.
[A] EXACTLY what I was thinking, (D)! Bravo!
[me] (A) - I'm sorry you feel that way. On 9-11 I was in a building opposite the US mint in downtown Philly - watching the events unfold with two of my team members who lived minutes from the towers, - and realizing that we all had colleagues and friends at a client site in Tower one. My focus in the immediate aftermath was making certain that I could get everyone in my team to safety as all federal buildings and their vicinities were being interdicted. I lost a colleague from my office, and others from offices across the country in the attack. I have friends who were directly impacted, and many who still live in the vicinity. Despite being thus affected I can recognize appropriate versus inappropriate, and still stand by my earlier statement, and will even expand upon it: I disapprove of ALL religion, and think it exacts untold evil upon the world, but while this particular group act legally I will defend their right to do so - just as I would defend the rights of any others acting within the law. Whether you agree or not with the appropriateness of the Cordoba Group's decision to build their community center, there are NO valid objections available in law.
[me] (D) - there already is a strip club less than half a block away - and at least three BBQ (and fast food) joints within a few hundred feet.
OK – I admit this was an asinine response. 🙁 But then it’s followed by this…
[E] Where did this guy come from? I’m appauled at the justification. And for the record ….. there also is “no valid objections in the law” to the other 98% of americans having an issue w/ it and speaking that freely.
(A) – I’m w/ you on this one
I am dismayed, but unsurprised. There is no nuanced response. I find the knee-jerk reactions to be no different to those that fueled Catholic/Protestant ‘troubles’ in Ireland and the West of Scotland when I was growing up in the 60’s and 70’s. They are no different to the commentary made about ‘uppity’ blacks or white ‘apologists’ prior to integration. They are no different to the comments made about Japanese Americans interned following the attack on Pearl Harbor.
They are no different to the commentary of any bigot.
I wholly disagree with the stance of those behind Cordoba House, just as I am against those who build mega-churches, or fight to close down abortion clinics, or deny basic rights to LBGT couples. However, I will defend the expression of those viewpoints against similar bigotry.
UPDATE: One of Scalzi’s guest bloggers apparently feels the same way. Great post on this same issue at Whatever
UPDATE 2: Daryll Lang posted a Photo Essay and a blog post on this issue. Both deserve to be seen.
UPDATE 3: Some final posts over the past 24 hours…
[C] The issue has absolutely nothing to do with religious tolerance and everything to do with compassion, kindness and sensitivity to the families of the 9/11 victims who were murdered there. Period.
[me](C): Does that compassion extend to the many Muslim Americans families who lost loved ones? I know of one such family, personally (mentioned in passing above).
All I see is an 'astroturf issue "think of the families", which appears from a dispassionate perspective to be more about "Oh Noes, Teh Muslim" than it is about "values" or "compassion". I have not seen ANY outcry from anyone other than the right-wing blogosphere and pundits, such as Gingrich, Beck, Limbaugh, and their ilk. This is a manufactured issue, that has become a stain on American Democracy. Are the constitutional rights of Americans so small a thing that being a "Muslim American" makes you somehow less deserving of those rights? The outcry against this is manufactured and directed by nothing less than bigotry. I don;t mean to imply that people who are uncomfortable with the decision are bigots. Simply that the issue has been manufactured and amplified by bigots.
[A] ok. we can agree to disagree. Tony—lucky thing I’m so crazy about your wife and kids—ok, and you too—MOST of the time. I can’t believe you called me a flippin bigot! NO RESPONSE NEEDED 😉 My page, I get the last word.
You’ll notice that reading comprehension is not a strong suit here – since I specifically stated that those people who felt uncomfortable are not necessarily bigots – but the people instigating the outrage most certainly are.
I declined to comment further.
UPDATE 4: The NYT has an article that reports how the rampant and vocal opposition to the moslem center (mosque)
is playing into the hands of extremists by bolstering their claims that the United States is hostile to Islam
I'm a technophile with an enduring interest in almost anything real or imagined. I suffer fools badly, and love trashy science fiction, plot-free action movies, playing guitar, and baking (especially scones. You haven't lived 'til you've eaten my scones. I've recently undertaken bread, and am now in danger of gaining in a matter of weeks the 60 pounds I've lost in the past 2 years). My wife & I are Scottish, living north of Atlanta, GA, with two children, one dog, and a growing collection of gadgets. I work for a living.
Thanks Brynn. I liked that cartoon. Also saw a post yesterday with a 'picture essay' of businesses, including a "Gentleman's Club" and other such hallowed examples of Americana. See my update 2.
There was a mosque located in one of the twin towers, and many of the victims in the WTC were Muslim. Of the more than 1600 bodies positively identified, at least 28 were Muslims, (not including the hijackers), and with with around 1000 unidentified, there are probably more.
The offices located in the towers employed nationals from over 70 countries, but the politically driven asinine opponents of a nearby Islamic center seem to think that #only# white Anglo-Saxon descended Christians counted.
Typical of the Nacirema in the new political conservative movement.
Niklaus – you repeat and expand upon a point I made – thanks!
I have no problem with people being queasy about the Muslim Center. Queasy is their right. (I'm queasy about seafood with too many legs, but I don't boycott Maine, or the Chesapeake!)
I have a major problem with the barely-masked bigotry that suggests their concern is "for the families" as if only Christians died or suffered.
I sometimes wonder what happened to the America of Lady Liberty "bring me your huddled masses yearning to be free"
We are all for freedom of religion. But situating the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem, in such close proximity to countless atrocities by Crusaders, is insensitive. Please help us convince the Church of the Holy Sepulchre to move to a new and less offensive location. Perhaps Toledo, Ohio.
Given the 3:2 Christian:Muslim world population ratio (and falling), lets propose a standard of 2 mosques for every 3 churches within any given radius of Ground Zero.
According to Google Maps, there are currently dozens of Christian churches within the radius of where they are planning to put a single Muslim community center.
There's a tangentially related issue which may also help to expose the fake outrage here: do people who are so outraged about the "mosque at ground zero" also support funding for health-care for the first responders? Many GOP'ers do not. If they truly cared about the "hallowed ground" and "sacrifices of the victims and their families", shouldn't they be doing everything possible to ensure that their needs are taken care of? See the article here.
Ailing 9/11 responders slammed President Obama on Tuesday for sounding off on the Ground Zero mosque while keeping silent on a $7.2 billion health care bill.
"Why have you failed us? We thought you would be our champion" in pushing the legislation, John Feal wrote to Obama.
…
In the Senate, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has promised to seek a floor vote. As Reid broke with Obama on Monday and called for the mosque to be built "someplace else," his spokesman added, "If the Republicans are being sincere, they would help us pass this long-overdue bill."
Mayor Bloomberg took a swipe yesterday at Republicans who opposed the bill yet say the proposed mosque is insensitive to 9/11 families.
"I would never use the word 'hypocritic' [sic] – never," Bloomberg said with a smile in Philadelphia during a mid-Atlantic swing to endorse candidates.
"It is somewhat inconsistent, I suppose," he said later in Washington.
That got no argument from Rep. Pete King (R-L.I.), who opposes the mosque location but backs the Zadroga bill.
"It is offensive to have a mosque two blocks from Ground Zero, but it's also offensive to let firefighters die with pulverized glass in their lungs," King said. "It should be looked upon as a related issue."
The GOP made clear yesterday it will keep hammering on the mosque issue in a drive to take back Congress.
What's going on regarding the "ground zero" mosque controversy is sheer demagoguery, encouraged by a mass media that loves stupid pissing matches. Thuggish conservative politicians are trying to run off the outgroup Muslims because they are still smarting that they were massively embarrassed when about a dozen Muslims armed with box-cutters took down the World Trade Center. Maybe they are also embarrassed that part of our high-profile national response was to make sure than no one with a fingernail clipper would be allowed to get on an airplane. The bottom line is that we hate Muslims here in America, and we don't like our Constitution anymore. So let the cameras roll.
This "revenge" against all Muslims is sorely misguided, of course. Just because SOME members of X group are dangerous doesn't mean that ALL members of X group are dangerous. America's conservative politicians know this but they don't care. That is the nature of demagoguery and bigotry. And those spewing hate toward those who wish to build the mosque are truly bigoted, in that there is no indication that any people associated with that particular mosque (no most Muslims) present any danger to any Americans. But rational thinking is not of much use to those who prefer to be demagogues. That internal "rational thinking" switch has been twisted over to "Machiavellianism." This mosque incident is yet another illustration of the "Power of Nightmares." Consider the opening lines from that excellent BBC documentary:
In the past, the power of politicians promised to create a better world. They had different ways of achieving this, but their power and authority came from the optimistic visions they offered their people . . . Politicians were seen simply as managers of public life. But now they have discovered a new role that restores their apparent authority. Instead of delivering dreams, politicians now promise to protect us . . . from nightmares.
We are seeing a raw fissure in the ongoing undeclared (and publicly denied) religious war between conservative Christians and all Muslims. It's a war over whose god of love is superior, I think . . .
But here's the kicker. The World Trade Center was a place where substantial numbers of Americans spent a lot of time worshiping the god of Mammon. This is the god that George W. Bush called upon merely two weeks after the 9/11 attacks.
Thus, all of those pious-looking conservative Christians (and a sprinkling of Democrats) are moaning that "ground-zero" will be contaminated by those brown-skinned worshipers of a false god all the while they themselves are about to fill ground zero with a huge shopping mall. That's right! Robert Cesca describes it here. You will someday be able to spend lots of money on things you don't need right there, among the ashes of 3,000 victims. And that will bring great relief to the free-market fundamentalists who currently call the shots in Congress.
I posted a very similar comment to yours, Tony, on an extended relative's stupid comments about the Islamic center, after several other idiots back those comments up. However, instead of starting a flame war, my comment simply disappeared within the hour. Quiet reason and fact just does not work with these people. In fact, that only seems to enrage them all the more, like a drunk you're trying to calm down in a bar before he tries to kick your ass.
An impressively measured response (even the comment about strip clubs and BBQ joints). But it's clear these folks are not listening to reasoned argument–they are running on sheer emotion, and nothing can stop that until another issue comes along and distracts them. (Perhaps that's the upside: emotional responses tend to be relatively short-lived?)
Throughout his statement, the Archbishop referred to the planned location as a problem; instead, he should be addressing the aggressive and xenophobic reactions of (mostly conservative) Americans as the ONLY problem.
James: thanks for your comment. You'll notice 'Update 3' above… the conversation went on a little further, and definitely demonstrated an emotional response rather than a rational one. Despite specifically stating that people like my friend were not bigots, that the instigators of this faux outrage were the bigots – she reads my final statement as calling her a bigot. Perhaps realization was settling in. I hope that some guilt surfaced too.
perhaps I should use crayon & stick-people pictures next time.
Will: exactly — I have plenty more to say – but won't say it in that particular thread (one just antagonizes the drunk by staying in their line-of-sight!)
There is one thing I find difficult to follow in this nonsensical fear mongering.
My understanding is that the Semites, Muslims, and Christians all worship the same god. They just show their faith in different ways, based on different philosophical interpretations of the core religion, which, as far as I can determine, is Judaism.
Both Christianity and Islam are based on Judaism, and even though Islam in the younger of these faiths, it is much closer to Judaism than is Christianity.
Even within these major religious divisions, there are many many more sects, Shiite, Hassidic, Carmelite, yadda yadda yadda, with various sects often warring against the others. Perhaps someday we may even see Baptist Christians attempting to drown Methodist Christians for assaulting them with squirt guns loaded with holy water. It's like a set of identical triplets fighting over whose dad is "Better".
The entire Religious right movement, in fact, the neo-conservative movement is built on a foundation of hypocrisy. Presumably they believe the people are too self centered and greedy to rule themselves under a democracy, that a ruling elite can only be trusted to run the show. The hypocrisy is that it seems only the most self-centered and greedyist of the greedy are the ones who qualify for this ruling class.
It's not about the families of the victims, it all about @$$hole politicians scoring brownie point with the bigoted redneck religious right.
The Ground Zero hype is feeding the self-righteous anti Muslim rhetoric across the nation. In Murfreesboro, a college town 30 miles south east of Nashville, a planned Islamic center including a mosque, gardens, auditorium has met with hyped opposition from the "Not in My Backyard" crowd, in spite of the fact that all legal requirements for the construction has been met.
This past weekend, several pieces of heavy construction equipmtn were set on fire. The local FOX affiliate reported on the "alledged arson" where gasoline had been poured on the equipment and set on fire, showing obvious indications of an excellent use in the multiple fires.
Maybe Faux News wants us to believe that God miraculously rained gasoline down on the equipment and ignited the flames with well placed lightning bolts. I realy don't think so.
Hitler and his staff used those of the Jewish faith as scapegoats, as an unseen enemy hiddent in the German population, to unify the German states into a nation. In doing so, he destroyed their democracy, their history, their honor and the peace of the world.
We are witness to a similar play unfolding. We are told that the enemy among us are Muslims, We should fear them, wen must hate them. We are they want to enslave us, We are told they are evil incarnate and that we must fight their holy war with a war of our own. We are told they deserve our anger. We are told LIES, by a few corrupt people who wish to manipulate our ignorance against us, take our freedoms, our rights, our future.
There are many parallels between these "Leaders" and the NAZI party. The Nazis saw the dangers of unregulated corporations as a threat to the needs of the people. Our leaders promote corporate fascism as the one true way.
Niklaus – regarding the alleged arson at the Murfreesboro center, TPM reports the following
Kevin Fisher, a resident who has been a lead organizer of mosque opposition, released a statement condemning the fire.
"I condemn any violence against anybody," Fisher told TPMmuckraker in a phone interview. He urged anyone who has information about the fire to step forward. He also cautioned against jumping to the conclusion that a mosque opponent set the fire and said everyone "should simply take a step back."
"I think it's terrible that people are jumping to conclusions," he said, "and calling it an act of terror. It's sad. … I think it's kind of irresponsible to immediately start labeling it as such."
I'm certain he would be equally aghast at labeling a burning cross, or white sheets as having any racist overtones, too!
I wonder if they understand that their "Christian" (presumably evangelical, according to the url on the poster) services are funding the Mormon Church?
A few years ago, such behavior would have been decried as vehemently as funding for Islam!
Mormanism has morality and Mormanism lets others including their own children decide freely what they will concerning its beliefs and doctrines.
Mormanism has actually shown an initial degree of an ability to change beliefs that may have become doctrines that appear to be out of line with much of the rest of Christianity.
Mormanism in its current form has also shown an ability to change some of its biases and peculiar interpretations of doctrines so that they do not make them issues worth causing divisions.
Not to put words into Karl's mouth, but from an outsider's perspective what I see is that Mormons are simply less odious to Evangelical Christians than those brown-skinned people. Any port in a storm, and the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
From Karl's previous posts, I believe he is being honest in his comment. I do not get the same vibe of honesty from his 'religious compatriots'.
Re: "Glenn Beck" and the religious right. I think his "free pass" is simply more evidence of their astounding ability to compartmentalize.
He exudes right-wing talking points that resonate strongly with them, so they accept those talking points, and Beck by association.
You'll note that until the recent LoveFest at the Lincoln Memorial, Beck rarely mentioned God or Faith in anything but general foundation of the American Christian Nation™ terms, which again, enabled him to gain entry to the closed ranks of American evangelicals – the core of the right wing revulsion. At that rally, and since, he has been leaking 'radical Mormon philosophy' from every pore.
I wonder how long the cognitive dissonance in his audience will protect him from their wrath. (Recall the impact on Mitt Romney in the 2008 race – easily a front runner in every way, except for that damned mormonism. The evangelicals took him out of the race)
If it wasn't so serious I'd be getting the popcorn and settling down for the show! I'm looking forward to the time, in the very near future, when the Reich-Wing Evangelicals totally refudiate Mr. Beck. I wonder how many tears he'll shed?
Karl writes:—"Mormanism has morality and Mormanism lets others including their own children decide freely what they will concerning its beliefs and doctrines."
The hell they do. The price for deciding that Joseph Smith was a charlatan and another path might be "better" is extreme ostracism. There is no acceptance within the group for deviation. They present a nice facade for those they wish to convert, but the reality is quite different.
And before you go off on what I may not know, my parents were Mormons at one time and I came very close to being baptized into it. I have seen this.
Beck wishes he could be as influential as Fr. Coughlin. That old priest (young at the time!) was influential because he had his own ideas, and especially at the outset, his ideas resonated strongly with the zeitgeist which garnered him popularity, a national audience, and a position of influence among many otherwise disparate groups.
Beck is an outlier, with influence only among aging ditto-heads. I admit those ditto-heads are loud, and seem to have the GOP in thrall (with the result we see in congress today). I do not see him having longevity, and certainly not having influence beyond that of a carny-barker, harranguing passers-by about the side show – but missing the main event entirely.
He is a novelty. I don't expect him or his like to be as influential in the coming decades, for the simply reason that his media is radio and TV, and the audiences for those media are dying on the vine.
People my age and younger get our news from a multiplicity of places – we don't switch on the TV, or listen to the radio.
The future of the union is safe – so long as we don't let media, or government, control the net. I don't think that can happen. There are too many avenues, and too many players.
I hear you saying you know from personal experience and the experience of others that the Christians of the Church of Latter Day Saints do not let their children "freely" choose in matters of there own faith. There will be those who will disagree with you and there will be those who agree with you. Does the proportion matter -no- to you it will not matter because it was a very personal and intense matter that wasn't pleasant. Neither you, nor your parents apparently had a simple understanding of differences when you left.
Strong agressive personalities, broken relationships and highly charged emotions were either displayed or kept from being displayed during the parting.
Neither you, nor I, nor any particular adherents or members can speak to a specific policy or doctrine of any organized religion. The leaders of that organization can address whatever their official stance or policy is on any given matter.
Something tells me more people than your parents and you involved in this ordeal.
This is the doctrine of inclusion that is on the LDS website.
We all know that feelings concerning hopes, aspirations and personal values run very high in nearly ever family, even "loving," caring, families.
In any family facing questions of allegiances of faith or major change in worldview there will always be resentments unless people put aside those differences and agree to disagree, without trying to place the blame for the way they feel towards the other perosn on the other person.
The problem is, one or both parties often never get a chance to say or show how they really feel while the differences are being aired out.
If I were Tony's child and I decided to doubt in macro-evolution or to persistently consider if there were anything to this Flood of Noah, I'd probably have a hard time getting a word in edgewise especially if I indicated I wouldn't readily see his side of the matter. Just considering having a church wedding might be over the top as well.
I can't speak for an unwritten human SOP that ends up being a very common outcome in most situations that are so charged with emotions, but I know from personal experience myself that many Mormons are very sincere in their love for other people, especially their own children whether they go on a mission or not, and whether they stay in the faith of their parents or not.
Hello, I invite you to subscribe to Dangerous Intersection by entering your email below. You will have the option to receive emails notifying you of new posts once per week or more often.
Tony-
Nice job trying to bring some sanity to the "debate" (or perhaps it should be called "echo-chamber"?).
I saw this cartoon today, thought it brought something else to the debate.
Thanks Brynn. I liked that cartoon. Also saw a post yesterday with a 'picture essay' of businesses, including a "Gentleman's Club" and other such hallowed examples of Americana. See my update 2.
There was a mosque located in one of the twin towers, and many of the victims in the WTC were Muslim. Of the more than 1600 bodies positively identified, at least 28 were Muslims, (not including the hijackers), and with with around 1000 unidentified, there are probably more.
The offices located in the towers employed nationals from over 70 countries, but the politically driven asinine opponents of a nearby Islamic center seem to think that #only# white Anglo-Saxon descended Christians counted.
Typical of the Nacirema in the new political conservative movement.
Niklaus – you repeat and expand upon a point I made – thanks!
I have no problem with people being queasy about the Muslim Center. Queasy is their right. (I'm queasy about seafood with too many legs, but I don't boycott Maine, or the Chesapeake!)
I have a major problem with the barely-masked bigotry that suggests their concern is "for the families" as if only Christians died or suffered.
I sometimes wonder what happened to the America of Lady Liberty "bring me your huddled masses yearning to be free"
Then there is the new apropos FaceBook group: No to the Church of the Holy Sepulcher at Jerusalem! that reads:
Given the 3:2 Christian:Muslim world population ratio (and falling), lets propose a standard of 2 mosques for every 3 churches within any given radius of Ground Zero.
According to Google Maps, there are currently dozens of Christian churches within the radius of where they are planning to put a single Muslim community center.
Let's see ten more building permits, post haste!
There's a tangentially related issue which may also help to expose the fake outrage here: do people who are so outraged about the "mosque at ground zero" also support funding for health-care for the first responders? Many GOP'ers do not. If they truly cared about the "hallowed ground" and "sacrifices of the victims and their families", shouldn't they be doing everything possible to ensure that their needs are taken care of? See the article here.
Dan
Anyone would think you were some kind of iconoclastic radical activist!
What's going on regarding the "ground zero" mosque controversy is sheer demagoguery, encouraged by a mass media that loves stupid pissing matches. Thuggish conservative politicians are trying to run off the outgroup Muslims because they are still smarting that they were massively embarrassed when about a dozen Muslims armed with box-cutters took down the World Trade Center. Maybe they are also embarrassed that part of our high-profile national response was to make sure than no one with a fingernail clipper would be allowed to get on an airplane. The bottom line is that we hate Muslims here in America, and we don't like our Constitution anymore. So let the cameras roll.
This "revenge" against all Muslims is sorely misguided, of course. Just because SOME members of X group are dangerous doesn't mean that ALL members of X group are dangerous. America's conservative politicians know this but they don't care. That is the nature of demagoguery and bigotry. And those spewing hate toward those who wish to build the mosque are truly bigoted, in that there is no indication that any people associated with that particular mosque (no most Muslims) present any danger to any Americans. But rational thinking is not of much use to those who prefer to be demagogues. That internal "rational thinking" switch has been twisted over to "Machiavellianism." This mosque incident is yet another illustration of the "Power of Nightmares." Consider the opening lines from that excellent BBC documentary:
We are seeing a raw fissure in the ongoing undeclared (and publicly denied) religious war between conservative Christians and all Muslims. It's a war over whose god of love is superior, I think . . .
But here's the kicker. The World Trade Center was a place where substantial numbers of Americans spent a lot of time worshiping the god of Mammon. This is the god that George W. Bush called upon merely two weeks after the 9/11 attacks.
Thus, all of those pious-looking conservative Christians (and a sprinkling of Democrats) are moaning that "ground-zero" will be contaminated by those brown-skinned worshipers of a false god all the while they themselves are about to fill ground zero with a huge shopping mall. That's right! Robert Cesca describes it here. You will someday be able to spend lots of money on things you don't need right there, among the ashes of 3,000 victims. And that will bring great relief to the free-market fundamentalists who currently call the shots in Congress.
Go figure.
I posted a very similar comment to yours, Tony, on an extended relative's stupid comments about the Islamic center, after several other idiots back those comments up. However, instead of starting a flame war, my comment simply disappeared within the hour. Quiet reason and fact just does not work with these people. In fact, that only seems to enrage them all the more, like a drunk you're trying to calm down in a bar before he tries to kick your ass.
Tony,
An impressively measured response (even the comment about strip clubs and BBQ joints). But it's clear these folks are not listening to reasoned argument–they are running on sheer emotion, and nothing can stop that until another issue comes along and distracts them. (Perhaps that's the upside: emotional responses tend to be relatively short-lived?)
The "loving" solution offered by Catholic Archbishop Dolan is that he will pray that the Islamic community center should be moved to a new location.
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/archbishop…
Throughout his statement, the Archbishop referred to the planned location as a problem; instead, he should be addressing the aggressive and xenophobic reactions of (mostly conservative) Americans as the ONLY problem.
James: thanks for your comment. You'll notice 'Update 3' above… the conversation went on a little further, and definitely demonstrated an emotional response rather than a rational one. Despite specifically stating that people like my friend were not bigots, that the instigators of this faux outrage were the bigots – she reads my final statement as calling her a bigot. Perhaps realization was settling in. I hope that some guilt surfaced too.
perhaps I should use crayon & stick-people pictures next time.
Will: exactly — I have plenty more to say – but won't say it in that particular thread (one just antagonizes the drunk by staying in their line-of-sight!)
The air is thick with hypocrisy, as Andrew Sullivan explains about Sarah Palin. http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_d…
There is one thing I find difficult to follow in this nonsensical fear mongering.
My understanding is that the Semites, Muslims, and Christians all worship the same god. They just show their faith in different ways, based on different philosophical interpretations of the core religion, which, as far as I can determine, is Judaism.
Both Christianity and Islam are based on Judaism, and even though Islam in the younger of these faiths, it is much closer to Judaism than is Christianity.
Even within these major religious divisions, there are many many more sects, Shiite, Hassidic, Carmelite, yadda yadda yadda, with various sects often warring against the others. Perhaps someday we may even see Baptist Christians attempting to drown Methodist Christians for assaulting them with squirt guns loaded with holy water. It's like a set of identical triplets fighting over whose dad is "Better".
The entire Religious right movement, in fact, the neo-conservative movement is built on a foundation of hypocrisy. Presumably they believe the people are too self centered and greedy to rule themselves under a democracy, that a ruling elite can only be trusted to run the show. The hypocrisy is that it seems only the most self-centered and greedyist of the greedy are the ones who qualify for this ruling class.
These comix may be apropos (placed with permission):
<img src="http://www.atheistcartoons.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/theothergroundzero.jpg">
<img src="http://www.atheistcartoons.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/rememberthevictims.jpg">
It's not about the families of the victims, it all about @$$hole politicians scoring brownie point with the bigoted redneck religious right.
The Ground Zero hype is feeding the self-righteous anti Muslim rhetoric across the nation. In Murfreesboro, a college town 30 miles south east of Nashville, a planned Islamic center including a mosque, gardens, auditorium has met with hyped opposition from the "Not in My Backyard" crowd, in spite of the fact that all legal requirements for the construction has been met.
This past weekend, several pieces of heavy construction equipmtn were set on fire. The local FOX affiliate reported on the "alledged arson" where gasoline had been poured on the equipment and set on fire, showing obvious indications of an excellent use in the multiple fires.
Maybe Faux News wants us to believe that God miraculously rained gasoline down on the equipment and ignited the flames with well placed lightning bolts. I realy don't think so.
Hitler and his staff used those of the Jewish faith as scapegoats, as an unseen enemy hiddent in the German population, to unify the German states into a nation. In doing so, he destroyed their democracy, their history, their honor and the peace of the world.
We are witness to a similar play unfolding. We are told that the enemy among us are Muslims, We should fear them, wen must hate them. We are they want to enslave us, We are told they are evil incarnate and that we must fight their holy war with a war of our own. We are told they deserve our anger. We are told LIES, by a few corrupt people who wish to manipulate our ignorance against us, take our freedoms, our rights, our future.
There are many parallels between these "Leaders" and the NAZI party. The Nazis saw the dangers of unregulated corporations as a threat to the needs of the people. Our leaders promote corporate fascism as the one true way.
Niklaus – regarding the alleged arson at the Murfreesboro center, TPM reports the following
I'm certain he would be equally aghast at labeling a burning cross, or white sheets as having any racist overtones, too!
Posters like this are purportedly popping up all around "ground zero." http://i.imgur.com/hCltS.jpg
I wonder if they understand that their "Christian" (presumably evangelical, according to the url on the poster) services are funding the Mormon Church?
A few years ago, such behavior would have been decried as vehemently as funding for Islam!
And how does Glen Beck get a "free pass" from the Christian Right, even though he is a Mormon?
Mormanism has morality and Mormanism lets others including their own children decide freely what they will concerning its beliefs and doctrines.
Mormanism has actually shown an initial degree of an ability to change beliefs that may have become doctrines that appear to be out of line with much of the rest of Christianity.
Mormanism in its current form has also shown an ability to change some of its biases and peculiar interpretations of doctrines so that they do not make them issues worth causing divisions.
Not to put words into Karl's mouth, but from an outsider's perspective what I see is that Mormons are simply less odious to Evangelical Christians than those brown-skinned people. Any port in a storm, and the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
From Karl's previous posts, I believe he is being honest in his comment. I do not get the same vibe of honesty from his 'religious compatriots'.
Re: "Glenn Beck" and the religious right. I think his "free pass" is simply more evidence of their astounding ability to compartmentalize.
He exudes right-wing talking points that resonate strongly with them, so they accept those talking points, and Beck by association.
You'll note that until the recent LoveFest at the Lincoln Memorial, Beck rarely mentioned God or Faith in anything but general foundation of the American Christian Nation™ terms, which again, enabled him to gain entry to the closed ranks of American evangelicals – the core of the right wing revulsion. At that rally, and since, he has been leaking 'radical Mormon philosophy' from every pore.
I wonder how long the cognitive dissonance in his audience will protect him from their wrath. (Recall the impact on Mitt Romney in the 2008 race – easily a front runner in every way, except for that damned mormonism. The evangelicals took him out of the race)
If it wasn't so serious I'd be getting the popcorn and settling down for the show! I'm looking forward to the time, in the very near future, when the Reich-Wing Evangelicals totally refudiate Mr. Beck. I wonder how many tears he'll shed?
Karl writes:—"Mormanism has morality and Mormanism lets others including their own children decide freely what they will concerning its beliefs and doctrines."
The hell they do. The price for deciding that Joseph Smith was a charlatan and another path might be "better" is extreme ostracism. There is no acceptance within the group for deviation. They present a nice facade for those they wish to convert, but the reality is quite different.
And before you go off on what I may not know, my parents were Mormons at one time and I came very close to being baptized into it. I have seen this.
Glenn Beck wants to be a contemporary Father Conklin. Those of you who don't know who that was, Google it, do your own research.
Mark,
Beck wishes he could be as influential as Fr. Coughlin. That old priest (young at the time!) was influential because he had his own ideas, and especially at the outset, his ideas resonated strongly with the zeitgeist which garnered him popularity, a national audience, and a position of influence among many otherwise disparate groups.
Beck is an outlier, with influence only among aging ditto-heads. I admit those ditto-heads are loud, and seem to have the GOP in thrall (with the result we see in congress today). I do not see him having longevity, and certainly not having influence beyond that of a carny-barker, harranguing passers-by about the side show – but missing the main event entirely.
He is a novelty. I don't expect him or his like to be as influential in the coming decades, for the simply reason that his media is radio and TV, and the audiences for those media are dying on the vine.
People my age and younger get our news from a multiplicity of places – we don't switch on the TV, or listen to the radio.
The future of the union is safe – so long as we don't let media, or government, control the net. I don't think that can happen. There are too many avenues, and too many players.
Mark,
I hear you saying you know from personal experience and the experience of others that the Christians of the Church of Latter Day Saints do not let their children "freely" choose in matters of there own faith. There will be those who will disagree with you and there will be those who agree with you. Does the proportion matter -no- to you it will not matter because it was a very personal and intense matter that wasn't pleasant. Neither you, nor your parents apparently had a simple understanding of differences when you left.
Strong agressive personalities, broken relationships and highly charged emotions were either displayed or kept from being displayed during the parting.
Neither you, nor I, nor any particular adherents or members can speak to a specific policy or doctrine of any organized religion. The leaders of that organization can address whatever their official stance or policy is on any given matter.
Something tells me more people than your parents and you involved in this ordeal.
This is the doctrine of inclusion that is on the LDS website.
http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&l…
Here is a layman's view of the situation
http://ldsliberationfront.net/?p=164
We all know that feelings concerning hopes, aspirations and personal values run very high in nearly ever family, even "loving," caring, families.
In any family facing questions of allegiances of faith or major change in worldview there will always be resentments unless people put aside those differences and agree to disagree, without trying to place the blame for the way they feel towards the other perosn on the other person.
The problem is, one or both parties often never get a chance to say or show how they really feel while the differences are being aired out.
If I were Tony's child and I decided to doubt in macro-evolution or to persistently consider if there were anything to this Flood of Noah, I'd probably have a hard time getting a word in edgewise especially if I indicated I wouldn't readily see his side of the matter. Just considering having a church wedding might be over the top as well.
I can't speak for an unwritten human SOP that ends up being a very common outcome in most situations that are so charged with emotions, but I know from personal experience myself that many Mormons are very sincere in their love for other people, especially their own children whether they go on a mission or not, and whether they stay in the faith of their parents or not.