Merged Obama enters GZ Mosque debate

[Cleon]

Even by the standards of the NY Daily News, this is scraping the bottom of the barrel. Nobody wearing lingerie attacked the WTC on 9-11. No dolls were involved in the hijackings of four jet planes that morning. Nobody placed wagers on the ponies and then slit the throats of flight attendants to get into the cockpits.

So we're back to associating all of Islam with Al-Qaeda.

 

[Chaos]

So we're back to associating all of Islam with Al-Qaeda.

It´s been almost nine years, and you notice now?

 

[A'isha]

Even by the standards of the NY Daily News, this is scraping the bottom of the barrel. Nobody wearing lingerie attacked the WTC on 9-11. No dolls were involved in the hijackings of four jet planes that morning. Nobody placed wagers on the ponies and then slit the throats of flight attendants to get into the cockpits.

No Sufi Muslim did those things, either. Wahhabist Sunni Muslims did (15 of the 19 hijackers were Wahhabist Sunni Muslims from Saudi Arabia). Wahhabist Sunni Muslims generally don't like Sufi Muslims - until very recently, Sufism was actually banned as heretical in Saudi Arabia by their official religious establishment (which is, of course, Wahhabist Sunni).

The so-called "Ground Zero mosque Imam", Feisal Abdul Rauf, is a Sufi.

Protesting the building of a mosque led by a Sufi Imam because of what Wahhabist Sunni al-Qaeda did is akin to protesting the building of a Lutheran church because of the Catholic priest sex abuse thing.

 

[Cleon]

It´s been almost nine years, and you notice now?

Heh. Well, the people who oppose the mosque keep insisting that they're not bigots. And yet, they keep talking as though all of Islam is to blame for 9/11.

Of course, I'll believe they're being sincere about not being bigots the moment I see any of them protest the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, TX or a Catholic Church that runs a day care center.

In other words, I'm not holding my breath.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Even by the standards of the NY Daily News, this is scraping the bottom of the barrel. Nobody wearing lingerie attacked the WTC on 9-11. No dolls were involved in the hijackings of four jet planes that morning. Nobody placed wagers on the ponies and then slit the throats of flight attendants to get into the cockpits.

But opponents of the Mosque/community center who recognize that the First Amendment guarantees them the right to proceed with the project claim that the Mosque is somehow disrespectful and insensitive. They claim GZ and its surroundings are "hallowed ground" that deserves respect that trumps First Amendment rights. These images show that such a claim is not true.

Also, you're not claiming that the people building the Mosque were any more involved with the 9/11 attacks than the people running the lingerie shops, OTB parlours and MacDonalds, are you? If so, I'd like to see the evidence you have that connects them to it. If it's true, we wouldn't be discussing building a Mosque, but rather how to handle their criminal trials.

But that's not the case, and you know it.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

No Sufi Muslim did those things, either. Wahhabist Sunni Muslims did (15 of the 19 hijackers were Wahhabist Sunni Muslims from Saudi Arabia). Wahhabist Sunni Muslims generally don't like Sufi Muslims - until very recently, Sufism was actually banned as heretical in Saudi Arabia by their official religious establishment (which is, of course, Wahhabist Sunni).

The so-called "Ground Zero mosque Imam", Feisal Abdul Rauf, is a Sufi.

Protesting the building of a mosque led by a Sufi Imam because of what Wahhabist Sunni al-Qaeda did is akin to protesting the building of a Lutheran church because of the Catholic priest sex abuse thing.

Heck even if it were the same sect, it wouldn't matter. For example, we don't object to the building of any Catholic church because of the crimes of some Catholic priests. (As has been pointed out, the Branch Davidians not guilty of any crimes still have buildings near Waco, as is their First Amendment right.)

Being a member of the same organization as a criminal is not the same thing as being a criminal. Again, if the people building the Mosque were behind 9/11, we wouldn't be discussing a Mosque but rather how to proceed with their criminal trials.

But they weren't.

 

[Thunder]

9-11 was done by Muslims.

Muslims want to build this Mosque.

To the morons and bigots of this nation, these two facts are all that matter.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

So we're back to associating all of Islam with Al-Qaeda.

And Brainster isn't alone in voicing this absurdity:

"Permits should not be granted to build even one more mosque in the United States of America, let alone the monstrosity planned for Ground Zero," Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association wrote this week on the AFA website. "This is for one simple reason: each Islamic mosque is dedicated to the overthrow of the American government."


Fischer is the AFA's director of Issue Analysis for Government and Public Policy.

Linky.

I also saw a thing on a TV news program interviewing some protesters in Manhattan where one guy claimed that letting the project be built would be equivalent to someone drawing swastikas on a Holocaust memorial. (Thus voicing both false memes I keep hearing: all Muslims are Al Qaeda, and someone is proposing building a mosque right on Ground Zero on land owned by the Port Authority.)

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

9-11 was done by Muslims.

Muslims want to build this Mosque.

To the morons and bigots of this nation, these two facts are all that matter.

Yep. (On a tangent, this is identical to illogical arguments I've heard in favor of racial profiling to control illegal immigration.)

How about this version of it:

Most rapes are committed by males.

We should just arrest all males and require them to prove they're not rapists.

(In the current case, the conclusion might read that we should deny all males the right to practice their religion or to get building permits.)

 

[A'isha]

Heck even if it were the same sect, it wouldn't matter. For example, we don't object to the building of any Catholic church because of the crimes of some Catholic priests. (As has been pointed out, the Branch Davidians not guilty of any crimes still have buildings near Waco, as is their First Amendment right.)

Being a member of the same organization as a criminal is not the same thing as being a criminal. Again, if the people building the Mosque were behind 9/11, we wouldn't be discussing a Mosque but rather how to proceed with their criminal trials.

But they weren't.

Point taken.

I'm just saddened at the ignorance that leads one to lump the members of a moderate sect in with those who committed 9/11 despite the fact that at the time 9/11 happened, members of that sect were routinely imprisoned, beaten, prevented from worshiping, had their holy sites destroyed, and were subject to suicide bomb attacks by the very fundamentalist nations and sects that did carry out 9/11.

 

[willhaven]

Photos of some of the hallowed ground near the WTC site.

But a gentleman's club is just where really nice guys hang out.

 

[hgc]

From Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (through a spokesperson):

The First Amendment protects freedom of religion. Senator Reid respects that but thinks that the mosque should be built some place else.

Idiot. Ass. Since he's looking likely to be re-elected, I would strongly support someone else taking over the leadership of Senate Dems.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

From Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (through a spokesperson):



Idiot. Ass. Since he's looking likely to be re-elected, I would strongly support someone else taking over the leadership of Senate Dems.

Yep.

Democratic leadership has not been noted for having spines. I hate all this nonsense of trying to speak out of both sides of their mouths.

 

[marksman]

I don't interpret his follow-up like that. Maybe I missed something, but all I got was that he's not going to comment on it. I don't see how that goes to what the ADL did, which was to explicitly oppose the mosque at that location.

I agree with Joe. Obama was not required to bring into question the wisdom of building a mosque where they did. But he did. Here are his initial very strongly supportive words:

I understand the emotions that this issue engenders. Ground zero is, indeed, hallowed ground.

This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable. The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country, and will not be treated differently by their government, is essential to who we are.​

-Cite
When he says we must welcome and respect other faiths, and is directly referring to the Islamic Center in lower Manhattan, he is welcoming and respecting that center. He did comment on the wisdom of the plan. he respects and welcomes this plan.

As do I. I thought that was a great statement.

And then he blew it in his clarifying statement the next day:

I was not commenting, and I will not comment, on the wisdom of making the decision to put a mosque there. I was commenting very specifically on the right people have that dates back to our founding. That's what our country is about.​

But reading his initial statement, this second statement is either a retraction of his statement of respecting and welcoming the Park51's plan to build an Islamic center in lower Manhattan, or he never intended to welcome or respect that decision. Either way, he turned a forceful defense of the freedom of religion into a timid, tepid, mealy-mouthed invocation of the freedom of religion.

If was wasn't going to comment on the wisdom of the plan, he shouldn't have commented at all. The whole dispute is of the wisdom of the plan. The ADL, for example, doesn't claim that Park51 has no right to build there. Their statement says at least twice that they do have the right. The ADL simply questions the wisdom of the plan. (I disagree with them, but at least they were up front about their position.)

Mayon Bloomberg forcefully defended the wisdom of Plan51.

Governor Paterson said there was "no problem" with Park51 as planned (though he stupidly offered to pay them to move it to nearby State land).

Andrew Cuomo said "I agree with Mayor Bloomberg. Then I agree with the community board that approved the mosque".

I agree with Bloomberg. I agree with Cuomo. God help me, I agree with Governor Paterson.

Why did Obama step away from his initial quite strong statement? Why did he feel the need to issue his "clarification" that rendered the first statement into a watered-down pablum about freedom of religion?

Political timidity. And that saddens me.

 

[hgc]

I agree with Joe. Obama was not required to bring into question the wisdom of building a mosque where they did. But he did. Here are his initial very strongly supportive words:

I understand the emotions that this issue engenders. Ground zero is, indeed, hallowed ground.

This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable. The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country, and will not be treated differently by their government, is essential to who we are.​

-Cite
When he says we must welcome and respect other faiths, and is directly referring to the Islamic Center in lower Manhattan, he is welcoming and respecting that center. He did comment on the wisdom of the plan. he respects and welcomes this plan.

As do I. I thought that was a great statement.

And then he blew it in his clarifying statement the next day:

I was not commenting, and I will not comment, on the wisdom of making the decision to put a mosque there. I was commenting very specifically on the right people have that dates back to our founding. That's what our country is about.​

But reading his initial statement, this second statement is either a retraction of his statement of respecting and welcoming the Park51's plan to build an Islamic center in lower Manhattan, or he never intended to welcome or respect that decision. Either way, he turned a forceful defense of the freedom of religion into a timid, tepid, mealy-mouthed invocation of the freedom of religion.

If was wasn't going to comment on the wisdom of the plan, he shouldn't have commented at all. The whole dispute is of the wisdom of the plan. The ADL, for example, doesn't claim that Park51 has no right to build there. Their statement says at least twice that they do have the right. The ADL simply questions the wisdom of the plan. (I disagree with them, but at least they were up front about their position.)

Mayon Bloomberg forcefully defended the wisdom of Plan51.

Governor Paterson said there was "no problem" with Park51 as planned (though he stupidly offered to pay them to move it to nearby State land).

Andrew Cuomo said "I agree with Mayor Bloomberg. Then I agree with the community board that approved the mosque".

I agree with Bloomberg. I agree with Cuomo. God help me, I agree with Governor Paterson.

Why did Obama step away from his initial quite strong statement? Why did he feel the need to issue his "clarification" that rendered the first statement into a watered-down pablum about freedom of religion?

Political timidity. And that saddens me.

Yeah, I see what you mean. Why, indeed, does he equivocate so?

 

[Biscuit]

No. You don't look like a nation of idiots.
To me it looks like a vocal minority are getting told what's what by people who value freedom of religion.

While I thank you for the optimistic assesment the headlines tell a different story. If the story was being played as "American's stand up to protect the rights of a minority" I would find it easier to believe you.

As a secular humanist I am not encumbered with a religious bias. If Al qaeda represents the entire muslim faith than I believe that Fred Phelp's represents every single christian.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Yeah, I see what you mean. Why, indeed, does he equivocate so?

He's another of those political animals, and he's worried about midterm elections.

I think it's a silly thing to do even pragmatically (how what he says may or may not affect the midterm elections).

On the other hand, as Mencken said, "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public."

 

[marksman]

It's the political season, when Republicans vacillate between the Scarecrow (no brain) and the Tin Man (no heart), and Democrats firmly embrace their inner Cowardly Lion.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Point taken.

I'm just saddened at the ignorance that leads one to lump the members of a moderate sect in with those who committed 9/11 despite the fact that at the time 9/11 happened, members of that sect were routinely imprisoned, beaten, prevented from worshiping, had their holy sites destroyed, and were subject to suicide bomb attacks by the very fundamentalist nations and sects that did carry out 9/11.

Yup. (FWIW, Skeptic just started another thread more or less making the point I was making, that it wouldn't even matter if these were extremists, as long as they weren't criminals.)

But yes, I think some compassion for the Muslims who were as much victims of the 9/11 attacks as anyone else is woefully lacking. Prejudice is all about lumping in this way.

 

[dudalb]

It´s been almost nine years, and you notice now?

It's something new for Brainster. He is just toeing the current GOP line of exploting Bigotry in hopes of a big win of November. The real joke will come when they find out the forces they have unleashed are not going to be easy to control.