Sunday, August 15, 2010

Fletch Mosque–rat Love

Following on from Andrei's post about the story of the mosque being erected near the site of the 9/11 attacks, comes the story today that President Obama has backed the idea.


"As a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country," Obama said, weighing in for the first time on a controversy that has riven New York and the nation.
"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. "This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable."
The president made his remarks at an Iftar dinner at the White House celebrating the beginning of the Islamic holy month of Ramadan.

Just a point that I noticed in that story and have made bold is that the White House celebrates Ramadan? I am wondering if they celebrate any Christian feast days (apart from the commercialized Christmas and Easter).
Yes, I agree with Obama that Muslims have a right to practice their religion, sure, but I think it is very foolish to make such a gesture on that particular spot. The perpetrators of 9/11 were making a statement when they crashed those planes into the WTC. They were Muslim extremists who think of America as the "Great Satan".

Whether Obama thinks so or not, the building of a mosque on that particular spot sends a message that Islam will not fail to find significance in. It would be tantamount to the Americans building a Japanese temple/shrine where the attack on Pearl Harbour took place. Mr Roosevelt wouldn't have been so unthinking; Mr Obama, there is a difference between "freedom" and stupidity.

44 comment(s):

Psycho Milt said...

What is it with conservatives, that they imagine the PoTUS should ignore his country's constitution if conservatives feel he ought to?

Zen Tiger posted a video a while back, in which was made the sensible point that a republic isn't the same thing as a democracy - ie, a govt should operate within a framework of laws, not just do whatever's popular right now with the voters. Obama's acting like the leader of a republic on this issue and you're complaining about it.

What exactly would you, Gingrich et al have Obama do? Issue some kind of order that a group of people should be prevented from building a place of worship on private property because lots of Americans don't like them? Has Gingrich heard of the Supreme Court, or is he imagining it could be disbanded for the duration?

Andrei said...

PM - if you read my original post you would see it did not suggest the Government of the United States should prevent this monstrous thing being built.

The President can express his disapproval though. Or not as the case may be.

Two odd things, a church destroyed on 9/11 is yet to be rebuilt, in fact all sorts of obstacles have been placed in the path of its reconstruction.

And
the absurd controversies surrounding the ground zero cross.

Both of which lead to the question, does religious tolerance only exist for the religion behind the massacre in the first place?

KG said...

""As a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country,"

The crucial difference being, of course that other religions aren't fronts for an ideology bent on world domination at the point of a sword. (or airliner).

Psycho Milt said...

Andrei: I didn't comment on your post, as it seems straightforward that people are entitled to dislike this proposed construction intensely, and say so publicly. The post above, however, seems to be criticising President Obama for recognising that his country has a constitution and people are expected to abide by it. The quote from Obama posted by KG immediately above is the only legitimate response Obama could make on this subject.

Redbaiter said...

"So it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

muerk said...

PM - I think that the mosque should be built provided there is no legal impediment to build, i.e. it's their land, their money, and the building code allows it. In cases like these we have a rule of law that must be followed even if we do not like the outcome. Freedom means freedom, even if it makes people upset.

As a Catholic I would not want to be judged by members of the IRA.

Redbaiter said...

"PM - I think that the mosque should be built provided there is no legal impediment to build, i.e. it's their land, their money, and the building code allows it."

OK, we'll all just shut up then. Happy now?

I.M Fletcher said...

Look, sure every religion has rights under the constitution rahdee, rahdee, rah, but that is not the point. By putting a mosque THERE in THAT location, what message is it sending to radical Islam? We're going to put up a building that honors your religion - a religion that thinks of us as the Great Satan and wants to spread throughout the world. It was an act of war but we're over it now; here, let me spread my legs so you can kick me again? Why not? It got the desired result the first time.

I just can't get over how STUPID it is. As I said, it would be like the Americans building a Japanese temple on the site of the attack on Pearl Harbour.

People complained about George Bush, but he would have had more common sense than to allow this.

Melva said...

Osama Bin Laden and every other Muslim extremist sees a culture war (as do many Christian fundamentalists) and that's what they're waging. For them it's Islam vs the West and moderate Islam is as insidious to them as the West itself, if not more so since moderate Islam is seen as colluding with the enemy. Hence many Muslims are being killed through terrorist attacks as well - they're targeted more and hit more consistently than western targets.

The greatest undermining of extremist Islam is healthy co-existence of moderate Muslims with western society. When we say 'there is space for you' and cultivate those relationships we remove another potential 'recruit' and wholey undermine the culture war that extremism seeks to cultivate - because we stop it from being an 'us vs them' scenario.

By allowing the mosque Western society is seen to be saying 'we have space for you' and extremism is undermined.

The building of a mosque is no statement of victory for an extremist muslim... if it were they wouldn't be attacking them and blowing them up in other countries (such as Pakistan). A mosque, if it's not preaching dialogue they agree with is simply another bastion of evil. With the record of the Iman building this mosque, it's not going to be seen as a victory or bastion for Islamic extremism - it will be seen as another collusion between Muslims who have sold their soul and the west. That said, the more it is rallied against by the western 'enemies' of extremism, the more it becomes a space for extremists to call theirs and the more it alienates the moderate Islamic voice and breeds more recruits for extremism as it grows the 'us vs them' mentality. It is only a symbol of victory if it is hated by the west - otherwise it is a symbol of loss for extremists.

The orthodox church trying to get approval is another issue. If they have the land and everything needed, there is no reason to stop that either.

-Frank

Psycho Milt said...

Muerk: I agree. But apparently King Obama should be issuing some kind of royal decree to prevent it happening.

Redbaiter: I do see your point with that quote from Obama - he really does seem overly inclined to try and make excuses for people unworthy of it.

People complained about George Bush, but he would have had more common sense than to allow this.

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on exactly how Bush might have achieved not allowing it. Like it or not, the Constitution's guarantee of religious freedom actually is the point here, and whatever you might personally feel about some "message" that might be sent to people you don't like by the exercise of that religious freedom, the PotUS doesn't get to override the Constitution if he finds it inconvenient.

Andrei said...

The problem is Frank that this mosque is triumphalist ans a calculated insult.

It will be read that way by the extremists and it is intended to be read that way.

Western apologists for Islam are feeding this.

If they can build it let them but let us also hold it in the contempt it deserves - it is after all aa testament to human wickedness.

Melva said...

Andrei,

Can you link me to the info that you've seen from Muslims that leads you to the conclusions of your first sentence?

-Frank

KG said...

"the PotUS doesn't get to override the Constitution if he finds it inconvenient."
In fact Obama has done just that several times.

Andrei said...

Frank

The greatest Church in Christendom - Hagia Sophia. What happened to that?

The Dome on the Rock built over the holiest site in Judaism.

And of course this in 21st century Europe
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWCF6JFYzuo

Sorry there is a pattern here that cannot be ignored

Psycho Milt said...

KG: you may be astounded to hear this, but there are political partisans on the other side with a big list of claimed violations of the Constitution by Obama's predecessor. Strangely enough, the people didn't rise up against that outrageous tyranny either.

Andrei: the war that saw the Hagia Sofia become a mosque ended with the West ruling most of the Muslim countries. It's not that long ago that we gave their countries back again (well, most of them anyway), and we still reserve the right to interfere in them militarily at our convenience (two cases currently ongoing). If anyone's got an excuse for triumphalism it's us, and don't think for a moment the losers aren't aware of the fact.

KG said...

I'm not quite so easily astounded, PM.
It's accepted by every conservative I know that the feds have routinely treated the Constitution with contempt, and that for a very long time.
Which of course makes the claim that Obama must adhere to the letter of the Constitution in this particular case even more dishonest.

leftrightout said...

Well KG, you'rre obviously better informed than I about US planning laws, but I am surprised that they come under the responisibilitis of POTUS rather than the local authority, say NYC.

leftrightout said...

Well KG, you'rre obviously better informed than I about US planning laws, but I am surprised that they come under the responisibilitis of POTUS rather than the local authority, say NYC.

Ciaron said...

FFS Leftrightout, you draw some bloody long bows......

leftrightout said...

Its not me with the long bow, its KG and the other dipshits like him that seem to think Obama can over ride anything they demand.

Ciaron said...

let's bring this into focus, 'cause you're all over the place.

you said:
Well KG, you're obviously better informed than I about US planning laws, but I am surprised that they come under the responsibility of POTUS rather than the local authority, say NYC.
(no need to thank me for fixing you're spelling mistakes, it's on the house)


Now, lets look at what KG has said on this thread....

""As a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country,"

The crucial difference being, of course that other religions aren't fronts for an ideology bent on world domination at the point of a sword. (or airliner).


Ok, a shot at Islam being a cult...

"the PotUS doesn't get to override the Constitution if he finds it inconvenient."
In fact Obama has done just that several times.


A shot at obama being a crook.

I'm not quite so easily astounded, PM.
It's accepted by every conservative I know that the feds have routinely treated the Constitution with contempt, and that for a very long time.
Which of course makes the claim that Obama must adhere to the letter of the Constitution in this particular case even more dishonest.


A shot at bending, breaking & observing rules when it is convenient.

I can't see anything in those comments that is even remotely associated with your dipshit contribution.

KG said...

Don't confuse the poor boy with facts, Ciaron--you'll give him a headache. :)

KG said...

All Obama had to do was eithr keep his mouth shut or indicate that he thought the site of the proposed mosque is insensitive. Instead he came out clearly in favour of it, against the wishes of over 70% of New Yorkers.

Redbaiter said...

Funny ain't it with these progressive morons, that "offensiveness" always only swings one way.

KG said...

LOL! It's a bit like that weasel-word "inappropriate" Redb. Only conservatives ever do or say anything inappropriate. ;)

leftrightout said...

KG, stop wasting your time here, there are posts to delte at the bunny hole.

Red, some of us delight in NOT being offended. Others are far too quick to look for offence in everything.

Ciaron said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ciaron said...

If 3000 people murdered isn't a good reason to be upset, I don't know what is!!!!!!!

WebWrat said...

Islam is not a religion, it is a political persuasion.

There is no ‘radical’ Islam, only Islam.

leftrightout said...

And how many of those 3000 were Muslim? hint -it is more than 17.

Ciaron said...

Indeed, and my ears bleed from the constant, deafening outcry against terrorism by their families......

WAKE UP said...

RULE 1: DON'T FLY PLANES INTO BUILDINGS. It's going to give you a credibility problem for...well, FOREVER, actually. Tough shit.

This mosque will NOT be built.

muerk said...

I think a serious problem is that people are assuming that every Muslim is a terrorist or a friend to terrorism as though Islam = Al-Qaeda. That's like saying that the IRA terrorists who exploded a bomb in Manchester (wounding 212 people) in 1996 speak for all Catholics. Would people in Manchester object to a new Catholic church being built?

Of course by alienating Muslims and regarding them all as terrorists and murderers you only serve to extremise people.

If you disagree with me, then go and read Book I, chapter 1-2 of Plato's "The Republic" about justice and giving a man his due.

http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/republic.html

I want to live in a country that stands for laws, reason and blind justice and NOT emotional decisions based on preference. I want to live in a country where people are equal in front of the law.

Ciaron said...

I think the only problem with your analogy muerk, is that plenty of Catholics world wide would have condemned IRA bombings, and loudly so. Where I have yet to hear significant in-house criticism from muslims; and until I do, I find the concept of a moderate muslim highly fantastical.

KG said...

"I think a serious problem is that people are assuming that every Muslim is a terrorist or a friend to terrorism as though Islam = Al-Qaeda."

Which people? I don't know of any people who make that assumption. Al Qaeda is a loose affiliation of (mainly) Wahabbists. And not every attack by islamists is carried out by Al Qaeda--in fact those attacks are in the minority.
The truth is that islam is a murderous ideology and there's no lack of flavours for a muslim to choose from in order to justify killing infidels. All of those flavours having the authority of the koran and the various sura and hadiths.

"I want to live in a country where people are equal in front of the law."
Good luck with that, once Sharia law is introduced. And with enough fools wilfully blind to the threat of islam, it sure as hell will be.

KG said...

Pretty much says all that needs to be said about islam.

The first, critical mistake the West made was to give this ideology the same protection and regard we give to religions.
And that mistake will destroy us.

KG said...

"KG, stop wasting your time here, there are posts to delte at the bunny hole."

Hmm...at least you admit that trying to get a few simple facts through your thick skull is a waste of time, LRO. The dawning of self-awareness, perhaps?
And no, there are no posts which require "delte' at CR thanks. The occasional comment however does require deletion, when leftards fail to understand the warning posted on the sidebar.

Melva said...

Andrei,

So you're basing your understanding of the intent of this mosque on a few other events... would love to see how Muslims would respond in a tit-for-tat about Christianity.

To determine the intent of this mosque I'd be more comfortable going to the source and hearing from those actually wanting to build it. Moderates and extremists are not the same people and I find it a little disturbing that you swept aside my whole argument with a spurious assumption.

Where this conversation has pointed out a lack of criticism from moderate Islam towards extremists a clear lack of research is evident. It doesn't take much to find Muslims and Islamic organisations dedicated to undermining the views and activities of extremism.

This link takes you to the declaration from the Federation of Islamic Associations in New Zealand:
http://www.fianz.co.nz/pressreleases/declaration_content.php

It also wasn't too long ago that I was watching a great article on a former Egyptian extremist who now travels the world speaking out against the doctrines of Islamic extremism and painting a very clear picture of its destructiveness.

I am not a Muslim, I am Christian and therefore I hold to an entirely different world-view - one that I think is better and leads to life as it is intended to be, but I am also not naive enough to come at one of the world's largest religions and believe that all are the same, with the same motivations and agenda.

I refuse, out of basic human decency to look at the building of one mosque as 'triumphalist' or as a 'calculated offense' because of the actions of some other Muslims. If I were to approach such matters in that way I would have kicked Christianity to the curb many years ago... there is more than one sin that flows through the veins of the historical and present adherents of Christianity which if taken as a rule of thumb to represent all of our activities would give most of humanity ample right to call our faith and all of our pursuits an abomination. I refuse to do that with Islam.

My encounters with Islam have, so far on every account and in a few different countries now, been encounters full of grace, humility, hospitality and true expressions of friendship - admirable considering our differing world-views. I am fully aware that amongst Islam, as amongst Christianity, there are those who wish to incite violence and to dominate the world, but I'm also well aware that such a sentiment exists within portions of Christendom, except often it is more subtle, less blatant and more insidious because it is preached with a veneer for the concern of humanity.

If I wish for people to not tar me with the dirt of the brush caused by the ill actions of some carrying the name of Christianity, then I must extend that same grace to those who call themselves Muslim.

I will not engage a culture war, one where Islamic extremism views of all the west and Christianity as the same entity by doing the same in return.

-Frank

leftrightout said...

Melva/Frank - great post, one with which I can agree and empathise.

KG said...

"I will not engage a culture war, one where Islamic extremism views of all the west and Christianity as the same entity.."

We are engaged in a war whether well-meaning limp-wristed Panglossian fools wish it or not. And by "we" I mean not just Westerners and not just Christians. Sikhs, Buddhists, atheists, Humanists and Muslims are all victims of the armed extremist wing of islam.
The victims of Bali, of New York, of Mumbai and Beslan weren't "engaged in a culture war" either.

Problem is, that culture was engaged in a war with them. Since 9/11 there have been over 15000 atrocities committed by muslims.
That ought to indicate something rotten at the core of islam Frank, even to you. Drawing some kind of imaginary equivalence between "extremist" Christians and islam is offensively, wilfully stupid.
Unless, of course you'd care to point out the 15000 atrocities committed by those Christians since 9/11?

Andrei said...

Frank;
There are over thirty mosques in Manhattan.

And other suitable sites in lower Manhattan have been proposed and rejected by the people who want to build this thing.

What does that tell you?

$100 million is not small change,it will have to be raised, what sort of people, given the fuss, will donate? What will their motives be?

I'm sorry I just can't see peace and harmony in a grandiose monument to a religion - one which will overlook a place where 3000 died in the name of that religion.

I'm sorry I just can't see anything but a deliberate provocative act, one designed and intended to sow disharmony.

Melva said...

KG,

I did not say there was no culture war - I said I would not engage it by making the same categorical mistake that Islamic extremists make when they paint Christianity and the West as synonymous - by painting all Muslims as the same.

You have driven my point home by noting that one of the victims of the violence of extremist Islam are Muslims themselves - so we do nobody any favours when we alienate and make negative blanket assumptions about moderate Islam. All we do when we pursue that is push more people towards the camp of the extremists.

The thing that undermines the pursuit of the extremist the most and removes their core group for recruiting is to shake hands with moderate Muslims.

I also did not draw an exact equivalent between Islamic extremism and Christian extremism, though if you increase your litmus test for Christian extremism beyond the last ten years it wouldn't be too hard to find a well walked trail of blood... if we want to talk about atrocities committed at the hands of the wider western world in the east - then we've got an interesting discussion on our hands.

No adult human group is free of guilt in its treatment of other humans... it would be offensively and willfully stupid to assume so.

The problem isn't Islam and any conservative arguing that it is the problem has missed something rather large, the same thing that Dawkins and other atheists miss when they argue that religion is the problem - human nature. Human nature will always play itself out, the only question is what the vehicle will be.

Power, greed, violence, oppression, anger, hurt - these will all play themselves out where humans are present. Extremist Islam simply happens to be the vehicle that catches our attention at the moment, but it's simply the vehicle not the source.

Another question often not asked when arguing the toss about such things is why do people turn to violent extremism, whatever form it may take? How are extremist forms of Islam able to take hold and are we in the West so stupid that we ignore our own history and think we're immune or not guilty of wanton and atrocious bloodshed - that somehow we've got some utopia we need to protect from the evil muslims and that the watery liberals are handing it to them on a platter while the holy conservatives seek to protect all that is right and true? If we think this is about Islam and not about humanity and our nature itself then we're stupid.

If we really want to address issues of extremism we need to answer those questions - not just rage about the evils of the vehicle.

-Frank

Psycho Milt said...

Since 9/11 there have been over 15000 atrocities committed by muslims.
That ought to indicate something rotten at the core of islam Frank, even to you.


A lot more than 15,000 Muslims have been killed by Western govts since Sept 2001, and to conservatives in the Muslim world it's compelling evidence not only of the war the West is waging against Muslims, but of an evil alliance between Christians, Jews and secularists to destroy Islam. Pretty stupid, huh? Lucky we don't have such stupidity in the West, isn't it?

Frank Ritchie said...

Thought some people might be interested in these links showing where the money for the mosque is coming from since Andrei asked :)

http://frank-ritchie.com/post/1006696909/fox-news-is-helping-to-fund-the-ground-zero

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/24/news-corp-executives-actu_n_692790.html


If everyone at Fox News is anti the Mosque then they need to stop taking pay from the Network as their funding is coming from the same source... support for Fox is a support of terrorist dollars according to their logic. I'd also be suspect of any George W. Bush supporters as he was good friends with this money king as well... therefore supporting Bush was a support of terrorism. ;)

Post a Comment

Please be respectful. Foul language and personal attacks may get your comment deleted without warning. Contact us if your comment doesn't appear - the spam filter may have grabbed it.