The same week his press secretary laces into the “professional Left,” President Obama
1) unambiguously defends religious freedom re the location of a community center & mosque planned near the 9/11 site and
2) delivers a staunchly liberal and I-think-more-eloquent-than-usual (listen to it) weekly address, invoking both the spirit and name of FDR.
Go, Barack!
Please share widely!
…to the gentleman I had quite the back and forth with last night. He’s of the school that says the less government and lower taxes the better, but I don’t peg him as the kind who would say offensive things about this mosque. He started his analysis of Obama by saying that he needs to leave his extreme left positions and tack more towards the center, to which I asked if we were watching the same President.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08…
<
p>
<
p>Wisdom. Would that be a trait held by all involved in this project.
<
p>It’s only been nine years since 9/11 and the wounds are still deep in nation’s psyche. I think it would be wiser to wait; I also think there’s value in moving it to another location. After all, the Japanese Cultural Center in Hawaii wasn’t built until 1994, more than 50 years after the bombing of Pearl Harbor, and it isn’t located at Pearl Harbor. I think there’s a tremendous lack of sensitivity shown towards the people of New York. The supporters of the mosque may have the right to built it, but that still doesn’t make it right.
… we need here is more considerations for the victims of 9/11 here. I also totally agree that what we need here is more consideration of the significance of the actual 9/11 site.
<
p>All of that makes the trying to stop this cultural center more than just unwise, it makes it a bigoted and insensitive initiative that violates any consideration for the victims here.
<
p>Why?
<
p>Because this center isn’t being built at ground zero and the people building this thing were victims of the 9/11 attack.
<
p>But if we want to slap these particular victims in their cultural face just because belong to the wrong one-of-the-worlds-most-popular-religions the we have to admit our bigotry for what it is since what we’re really doing here is treating one set of victims differently based on their religion.
nor is it a “failure of understanding.” This is an enormously painful scar that is still healing. I think you’re asking an awful lot of people to ignore or put aside their feelings regarding September 11.
<
p>I do want to address one of your claims:
<
p>
<
p>Are there only Muslim victims in the post 9/11 world? Asking to have the center moved or put on hold is about consideration for a majority of the victims. But your statement makes it appear that only victims you see here are the Muslims who seek to build a cultural center near the site of one of our greatest national tragedies, when Muslim men, purporting to commit jihad, hijacked jets and drove them into the Twin Towers, the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania. More than 3,000 Americans died that day, most of whom were peace-loving, work-a-day civilians. Most of the people with whom I’ve discussed this aren’t bigoted and they’re not antagonizing their Muslim neighbors, but they do see the push to build a mosque near ground zero a triumphal act. It’s kind of like the Orange men parading in Irish Catholic neighborhoods. Ordinarily, a parade is just a parade, right? Until it is carried out in a sea of distrust and suspicion. And this is how this mosque is viewed. The newspapers are full of stories about how hate, vitriol and radical teachings are being propagated, the outcomes of which are felt from within the US Army to Times Square.
<
p>http://abcnews.go.com/WN/fort-…
<
p>http://www.boston.com/news/loc…
<
p>The Times Square attempt was only in May. So yeah – I think it’s too soon for a cultural center to be built near Ground Zero. “Let it be” should be the banner of the day, because to do otherwise is to open that wound, and all that goes with it. The “victim card” you’re playing on behalf of the mosque supporters isn’t fair nor is it reasonable. Like I said, no one built a Japanese cultural center until 50 years after the bombing of Pearl Harbor, and even then – it wasn’t even on the same island. I know WW II vets who still harbor considerable animosity towards the Japanese, and with all due respect, given what they went through in the South Pacific, who could blame them? Are we really all that surprised that Americans are still struggling in the aftermath of September 11? I will never forget that day as long as I live.
… clear. We’re violating any consideration of some victims on behalf of placating others. After all, those Muslims that were victimized weren’t civilians after all.
<
p>Of course everyone should realize that when we do this we’re doing the right thing, which is of course why there were so many protests when they rebuilt the mosque inside the pentagon. Sooner or later the people we’re discriminating against here will realize that we’re only doing it to show the perpetrators that we’ll go to any lengths to protect (some of) our freedoms.
as mud. You seem to want to call sensitivity “discrimination” and I am only calling for a little common sense. It doesn’t have to be win/lose. It can be win/win with a little sensitivity. I don’t think “sticking it in the eye” of victims (families, friends, neighbors, etc) which is how this feels in this current environment (remember, Texas doctor, Times Square near-miss etc) while we’re still feeling the fallout from 9/11 helps the Muslim community. I don’t. I don’t see the harm in either waiting or asking it to be built a little further out. Even the President didn’t endorse the wisdom of building the mosque.
Seriously — do we measure it in distance? Time to walk there? Drive there? Take the subway? Do we measure it in the number of people who live closer to Ground Zero than the Religious Center? How many square feet of occupy-able space ought be closer? How many non-Muslim religious buildings must be closer?
<
p>
<
p>How far away is far enough away? This is a serious question. I’d love to have an answer.
and “wicked cool” but not going to get you buy-in, which is essential to the success of the project. I don’t disagree that the mosque supporters are within their legal rights, I just think it’s incredibly insensitive to ignore the very real emotional charge associated with 9/11. New York is a very big city. There’s plenty of space for this mosque somewhere in the city, in fact, the developer is looking at alternative sites, acording to the latest reports.
<
p>http://www.jta.org/news/articl…
<
p>And yeah – I’m a native New Yorker. But you don’t need to be one to understand this. It’s easy to talk about ideals if you can ignore the pain.
If it’s too close, how far away is far enough?
Let’s take a page from the Japanese Cultural Center supporters, who has the good sense to open the center 50 years after the bombing of Peal Harbor, on another island all together. Does that work for you?
Really?
<
p>Over a million people live between WTC and North Harlem. Most of the time it takes an hour to get from one to the other. You’d want it to be that far away?
<
p>Hey, whatever man. That’s your opinion. I think it’s asinine, but at least you (finally) answered the question of how close is too close.
<
p>Manhattan is now officially off-limits to any new Muslim activity, programming, or construction, at least in (ahem) Justice4All’s land.
We’ve been allies with Japan almost since the day WWII ended. The immediate neighborhood doesn’t have a monopoly on the emotional and physical scars from that day. There’s been a place for Muslim worship inside the Pentagon itself for a few years and that building was of course itself hit that day. Any excuse, even veiled as “sensitivity”, only promotes the assumption that “they” (ie the Muslims collectively) were responsible for the attack. In fact not being hostile to Islam was articulated early in our history by the Treaty of Tripoli, often cited as evidence for us not being founded as a Christian nation:
<
p>
<
p>Allowing this isn’t just about religious freedom for those who wish to build it, but showing the world exactly who we are and what we’re made of.
<
p>Not even close.
<
p>If you remember, it was the Japanese (or at least the Japanese military) who planned and executed the attack on Pearl Harbor. In that situation, I can understand the “good sense” of the Japanese Cultural Center supporters deciding to give it some time.
<
p>You’ll also note that it was several radical members of Al-Qaeda who planned and executed the attack on the World Trade Center. If Al-Qaeda was planning to build a memorial (or mosque, or anything) near the site, I would certainly hope the plans would be canned.
<
p>But the supporters of this mosque are not members of Al-Qaeda, have nothing to do with Al-Qaeda, and in fact specifically reject everything Al-Qaeda stands for. So how does your Japanese analogy apply to this situation in any way, shape, or form?
Everything? How about Hamas? I think it’s more “complex” than that…but that would totally wreck the narrative, wouldn’t it?
<
p>http://www.nypost.com/p/news/l…
<
p>
<
p>This doesn’t sound like a rejection of everything terrorists stand for…it sounds like a guy who’s hedging his bets. And you are aware that the State Department still considers Hamas to be a terrorist organization right? http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/…
<
p>Is there any wonder why people are concerned?
A lot of Muslim civilians died on 9/11. It is perfectly appropriate to have a Muslim center near the memorial, as well as centers of other religions, and memorials not associated with any religion at all.
This establishment already exists, in a building roughly the same distance from Ground Zero as the proposed site. They are just moving to a new building. The new site is not visible from GZ, nor is it on any typical route to get to GZ. Nor is it only a mosque; it has other, non-religious purposes.
<
p>This entire “issue” is bigotry disguised as patriotism and “sensitivity.” From what I have seen, the vast majority of New York residents, including the Mayor, are in favor of the new building. Why do a Senator from Texas and a posse of bigots from other parts of the country have any say whatever in what gets built in NYC?
You guys always play the bigot card when it’s convenient and you don’t want to do the work of actually listening to people’s fears and concerns. We just had a near miss in Times Square, but that’s all good. No worries there.
<
p>And you better link your quote that the vast majority of NY residents are in favor of the mosque – because I’ve heard otherwise. This was done in late June…so please link up if you have better data. This is from NBC:
<
p>http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news…
Justify your opposition to this cultural center. Is the existing cultural center a threat, or offensive? If it isn’t, why is moving it to another location suddenly scary and offensive? Would you oppose a Buddhist cultural center in that spot? Why not? The Muslim religion is not responsible for what happened on 9-11. A bunch of criminals who used Islam as a justification for their murderous acts were responsible.
<
p>People’s fears and concerns are often unfounded – as they certainly are in this case – and are being used by unscrupulous politicians to manipulate those people. You’re helping those politicians. By doing so, you are helping to make those people needlessly more fearful. Small children are often needlessly afraid. Do you go around encouraging them to fear imaginary threats?
lets ignore the seeds of radicalization in this country. Let’s ignore the US Army doctor who killed 12 soldiers at Fort Hood last fall, and yeah, let’s ignore the near tragedy in Times Square this spring. And let’s also ignore the Christmas Day incident that was foiled in Detroit, and that’s only within the last ten months. That’s the only way you’re going to get to “unfounded” in terms of people’s fears.
While it is legal to build a mosque there, it is unkind, insensitive, and politically stupid.
<
p>While there are many stupid actions that are legal, those who make political and cultural progress are generally wise enough not to do insensitve, disliked, politically stupid actions because in politics, and in making friends, frankly, “timing” and “sensitivity” are a lot more important then “I got my rights”.
In the United States, no tenet is more important than “I’ve got my rights.” It is a celebration of all that is best in this country — all the freedom that the 9/11 terrorists feared — to have an educational and cultural center built by Muslims so close to Ground Zero. (But, by the way, not so close that you can actually see it from Ground Zero, because you can’t.)
Lately, though, I think it is manners that are more often forgotten.
<
p>There is something to be said for patience, for compassion for how others feel, for deciding whether or not something one has the right to do should be done…or done now.
<
p>I have had many clients who felt that it was their right to say anything they wanted to any body at any time. I explain that the reason some of them get arrested for being disorderly persons, or creating a public disturbance is that at times, there is a set of consequences for saying whatever you like, no matter what, no matter where.
<
p>So as to whether “I got my rights” will turn out well in the context of a Muslim Center at that site in New York, I do not know. I believe in freedom of religion, but as a student of history, I also know that sometimes poor timing means that exercising one’s rights is costly, and does not have the intended or desired result.
<
p>The story will no doubt play out in a very public way; my advice to all involved, not that anyone is likely to follow it, is to be diplomatic, courteous and have the best possible manner.
So because 19 crazy ass sons of bitches who subscribed to a religion which 99% of Muslims say ain’t supported by Islam pulled off a terrorist attack and a bunch of ignorant non-Muslims can’t seem to figure out that the two groups aren’t any more related than Christians as a religion are to Terry Nichols, the other 99% of Muslims shouldn’t build their religious, cultural, or social buildings near the site — despite the fact that it’s an otherwise awfully convenient site for them for who knows why?
<
p>It’s not as if there’s no good reason to build something in downtown Manhattan. It’s not like they’re building it in the middle of a vacant 10,000 acre lot because it just so happens to be right next to where the 9/11 plane went down in Pennsylvania. They’re building it in one of the densest areas of one of the densest cities in America, right near public transit and a number of other amenities.
<
p>To suggest that it’s insensitive simply because a bunch of Americans are ignorantly oversensitive is bass-ackward to me.
There are plenty of reasons to build there, and there are several important reasons not to build there. Among these latter reasons is that the decision to build there is extremely inflammatory and counter-productive to the stated mission of the organization.
<
p>They have every constitutional right to build there, and seem determined to do so. I think that this is an unwise, but not unlawful, decision.
That building the Cordoba House on this site is “extremely inflammatory” to people who are either (1) simply bigoted towards Muslims or (2) don’t understand (quite limited) scope of this project, or both, is not an “important reason not to build there.”
<
p>This discussion really has gone off the deep end. I cannot believe that otherwise reasonable people such as yourself (and AmberPaw, Peter Porcupine, and a few others in this thread) don’t see this. The only way the Cordoba House is controversial in any way is if one equates 9/11 with the actions of Muslims everywhere, rather than the actions of a few extreme radicals. Otherwise, the project has absolutely nothing to do with 9/11 whatsoever.
<
p>I’d encourage conservatives in particular to read the few reasonable conservative voices on this issue and remember that for all his faults, one thing George W. Bush refused to do is sink to the level of demagoguery that this “debate” has encouraged. It’s gotten truly ridiculous.
But I don’t think it wise to pretend something is NOT inflammatory because it SHOULD NOT BE inflammatory. That is, unless the goal is to be provocative, which I do not understand to have been to goal of this organization.
<
p>I am not a mind reader, so I don’t know who is bigoted or not, though statements recorded in the media by opponents of the mosque sure sound that way. Bigoted-ness isn’t a useful yardstick here, anyway. The reasonable conservative voices are likewise correct, and Bush could do a great post-Presidential service to weigh in here again as he has done before.
<
p>The reality is: it is inflammatory, and should have been anticipated to be so. That makes the decision to put it there unwise, even if they have every right to site it there, which they do.
… minds here. The only way taking ‘offense’ would make sense here is if you lump all the Muslims together with the terrorists. If lumping these people together isn’t justified by the facts (and nobody seems to be actually making that case anyway) then its hard to see how that isn’t a textbook example of bigotry. Pretty cut and dry to me.
<
p>This is all the more absurd because the people here are trying to re-build because the correct classification of these people here is not ‘with the terrorists’ but ‘victims of 9/11’. The idea that these non-terrorists should suspend their religious rights an absurd expectation.
<
p>
If their goal is political activism and confrontation, they got what they were after.
<
p>If their stated goal of cultural building is real, the decision seems to have been enormously counter-productive.
<
p>The whole thing reminds me of the “innocent and peaceful” parades by Orangemen celebrating the 12th of July. I suppose their could be some well-intentioned parade organizer that thinks that he can build peace and harmony by routing the parade through republican neighborhoods, but that person would be a singularly lousy peacemaker, good intentions and constitutional rights notwithstanding.
… to review the timeline when determining who’s goal it was to produce “political activism and confrontation”. (Also audio here.
<
p>This wasn’t anything like the Orangemen. First there was no controversy, then some nuts decided to make hay, and when it looked like they made inroads into getting people all worked up, the GOP latched on as is typical for their electoral strategy. This was a nothing turned into a farce by political opportunist with no actual interest in the victims here.
after the center decided to give them lots of tall grass.
<
p>It was predictable as sunrise.
<
p>The timeline of parades on the Twelfth indicate that republican nuts initiate the um, controversy, as well.
However, I feel that this issue is much larger than something predicated on one-on-one interactions. The building of this Muslim Center is not analogous to being a disorderly person. Ground Zero is the ideal site for centers of spirituality and learning. I also have more faith in those who experienced 9/11 firsthand or who lost loved ones than to think that they are automatically wounded by the presence of Islam. In fact, the argument that they necessarily are is exactly the wrong lesson to take from that terrible day when Muslims, Christians, Jews, and atheists alike were attacked.
as per zoning and so forth, then I think a mosque should certainly be allowed. Prohibition of this particular type of house of worship/cultural center, specifically because it is Islamic and not Christian, Scientologist, or what have you, would seem to be an unconstitutional and immoral discrimination based on religion.
<
p>Because of the deranged and evil actions of an international criminal organization purporting some mixture of religious and political motives, should we now enshrine religious bigotry (and ethnocentism, truth be told) into our public policy decisions? In my opinion, to do so would be to grant yet another victory to all the enemies, foreign and domestic, of our noblest American ideals.
Well, I can’t say it’s all that earth shattering to learn that our president has “clarified” and modified a previously bold and courageous political stance.
<
p>This islamic cultural center near ground zero should cause no more controversy than the idea of building a christian community center next door to the site of an abortion clinic.
<
p>It frankly shocks me to think that some of my fellow progressives are against American citizens exercising their religious freedom The only reason building the islamic center near ground zero is seen as “politically stupid” is because too many ignorant people equate islam and 9/11 in their minds as if one caused the other. It is seen as “politically stupid” because too many people are ignorant and bigoted.
<
p>Ending “don’t ask don’t tell” might be seen as stupid because too many in the military are homophobes. Doesn’t make ending the policy right.
<
p>For what it’s worth, there are many families of 9/11 victims who SUPPORT The building of the islamic cultural center near ground zero. You can find them here…
<
p>http://www.peacefultomorrows.org/
<
p>For those of you who want to see what political courage looks like, you should all watch Michael Bloomberg’s eloquent defense of the islamic cultural center.
<
p>For evidence of political cowardice, read about Obama’s backtracking this morning.
Great comment, Boourns. I was totally disappointed with Obama’s weaseling after his great initial statement. Saying he wasn’t commenting on the “wisdom” was equivalent to saying the wisdom was in question. Dammit, Barack, you had it right the first time.
I had the first initial thought, but in fairness the clarification doesn’t really detract from the initial statement. The important issue from Obama’s viewpoint is not (and should not) be the “wisdom” of the project, which is a zoning decision left to the local community in Manhattan. The real questions were whether he would give in to the right-wingers and demagogue the issue, which to his credit he did not, and whether he would give a strong statement in favor of religious freedom, which he did.
I noticed that news clips used to ‘illustrate’ the story virtually cut him off in mid-sentence, but what I heard him say at the dinner was that the Constitution and the rule of law protected Islam. How that was extrapolated into support for the mosque is unclear.
<
p>The ‘wisdom’ IS in question, Hub. What he COULD have said is that while the right is absolute, the responsibility to have the compassion and consideration to be respectful neighbors should be taken into account as well, but it was not the decision of anyone but the mosque and the city.
I just don’t get this logic. I certainly agree that not all rights are absolute. But what the hell does “the responsibility to have the compassion and consideration to be respectful neighbors” have to do with THIS situation? If we were talking about the contrast between the 1st Amendment “right” and the clear lack of “compassion” and “wisdom” of somebody going around in public yelling “f**k” at the top of their lungs, then sure.
<
p>But instead what we have here are religious people applying for the right to build a religious structure, in full accordance with local zoning laws. This religious group is doing what religious groups have done for centuries in America — building centers of religious community, and in the largest and one of the most diverse cities in the country, no less. Why should this be a surprise, or controversial in any way?
<
p>The only way this really makes any sense as a clash between 1st Amendment absolutism and “compassion” is to equate the Muslim faith and its billion-plus adherents with the actions of 19 fanatical mass-murderers on the morning of September 11, 2001. In other words, it makes sense only if “Muslims” writ large were responsible for the destruction in Manhattan that day.
<
p>And that’s pure lunacy and extreme ignorance, not to mention contrary to both the legal text and the spirit of our nation’s Constitution. It is most unfortunate that in this country a debate so debased as this Cordoba House nonsense occurs. It’s times like these when I reflect back on Franklin’s quip about America being “a Republic, if you can keep it.” Sometimes I wonder if we really can keep it, or whether the society will get swallowed up by the baseless demagoguery and extreme ignorance on full display during this sad espisode.
The 9/11 bombing was not a single incident. There have continued to be other arrests and foiled plots as recently as last month. As a part of that continuum, houses of worship have also been subverted into training and recruitment cetners.
<
p>It’s more than 19 people. And many people DO think it is ‘Muslims writ large’ that are responsible.
<
p>Charley and I had this argument in another place. I asked why there wasn’t a more aggressive repudiation of the killing of the medical aid workers in Afghanistan by ‘moderate Muslims’, and Charley suggesed taht I seek them out and ask. I replied that offering condolences and extending repudiation had to be a proactive thing. HAS this group condemned those killings? If they have not, then I am afraid their desire to be a part of the community instead of just shouting at the top of their voice as you described, is wanting. If they HAVE made such a repudiation and it hasn’t been reported, then it is a serious lapse, and that condemnation should be made better known.
Your response doesn’t clarify for me my original question.
<
p>Clearly 9/11 was not a single isolated incident, in the sense that other would-be murderous radicals continue to threaten American civilians. But what does that have to do with the group that wants to build a cultural center in Manhattan? They are not Al-Qaeda. They have nothing to do with either 9/11 or other arrests and foiled plots. If some wackos are sullying the name of Christianity, or America, or whatever, by using them to justify extreme political violence, then I would hope I wouldn’t have to condemn all of them (simply because I am a Christian and an American) in order for people to take my intentions at face value. I would hope people would have the good sense to recognize fanaticism for what it is, and not demagogue the issue by tying the actions of a few to a much broader and entirely separate group.
<
p>Further, I agree that “many people DO think it is ‘Muslims writ large’ that are responsible” for 9/11. But that’s just pure ignorance and bigotry, and is irrelevant to the Cordoba House question. It’s like saying that a black family planning to move into a new home really should have “compassion” and “wisdom” for the “many people” in the neighborhood who don’t want them there because they believe that their moving into the area will increase crime (since, after all, many crimes are committed by blacks). Is it really necessary for that family to publicly condemn all violence perpetrated by black criminals everywhere before being allowed to enter the community?
I’d love to be able to say that I am surprised that a majority of Americas are against the building of the Islamic cultural center near ground zero. But I’m not. This country has a long history of religious bigotry and xenophobia. You want to see a history of violence associated with religion? Look no further than American history, folks!
<
p>Here are some questions: Should all unionists and socialists have been condemned because a few in their ranks were involved in bombings in the early 20th century? Should all christians have been condemned because a few radicals bombed abortion clinics and kill abortion doctors? Should all white southerners have been condemned because a few in their ranks participated in the lynching of blacks?
<
p>I could go on. And requiring all moderate muslims to grab bullhorns and scream condemnation every time the extremists of their religion commit acts of terrorism is as absurd as requiring Christians to loudly condemn those who kill abortion doctors in the name of Jesus.
<
p>The actions of Osama Bin Laden and any other member of Al Qaeda are not the responsibility of the other 1.2 billion muslims to address. To expect it is, in my opinion, another form of religious intolerance.
<
p>If you want to be patriotic and support your fellow Americans’ rights to do what is lawful and constitutional, support the building of the Islamic cultural center.
I don’t doubt that “many people DO think it is ‘Muslims writ large’ that are responsible.” I also don’t doubt that many people also think that “Blacks writ large” are responsible for most crime (and are therefore deserving targets for their bigotry), “Mexicans write large” are currently responsible for all sorts of evil, and so on and so forth.
<
p>Many people think “Catholics writ large” are responsible for a decade of violence, murder, mayhem, and vandalism at clinics across America. That church’s relentless promotion of its homophobic anti-gay agenda adds credence to those beliefs.
<
p>Is it therefore appropriate to single out the Catholic church for harassment?
<
p>When you use words like “they”, and build arguments based on the opinions of “many people” about a particular ethnic or religious group “writ large”, you stoke the flames of racism and bigotry.
<
p>My family and I are at far greater risk from home-grown right wing Christian fundamentalist crazies than from any other religious group. For that matter, it is religious extremism itself that motivates a huge portion of the threats against the well-being of my family and myself.
<
p>If you suggest that we go further down the road of anti-Muslim policy and culture, I suggest rather strongly that we broaden the target to include all three Abrahamic traditions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam). In my view, this single religious meme (My God is the only God, and woe to those who disagree) — perpetrated primarily by the Abrahamic faith traditions — is responsible for an enormous portion of the warfare, violence, and hate in today’s world.
<
p>In my view, the larger question you raise is whether “religious tolerance” makes sense in today’s world. It’s a reasonable question, and is certainly not limited the Muslim tradition.
…but your second paragraph and follow-up question remind me of a diary YOU wrote a while back that seemed to want to hold the Catholic Church responsible for Dr. Tiller’s murder.
Have you STILL not absorbed the difference between the “Catholic church” as a corporate entity and the behavior of its followers? That was at the core of our discussion then and you still seem unable or unwilling to differentiate the two.
<
p>The phrase “Catholics writ large” refers to the body of Catholic worshipers (or perhaps to those merely suspected of being Catholic worshipers). The body of Catholic worshipers do, in fact, endorse homophobia, misogyny and — for that matter — clergy sex abuse of adolescent followers each time one of them contributes funds knowing full well that those donations will be controlled (ultimately) by Mr. Ratzinger and his cronies. Nevertheless, that is not the same as arguing that most Catholics support criminal behavior against health clinics.
<
p>As far as I’m concerned, I think that extremists of all three Abrahamic traditions are a clear and present danger to society as a whole. If there are to be restrictions, I would far prefer to see restrictions on extremist behavior enforced across all three traditions, and let moderate organizations build churches, mosques or synagogues wherever they like (including at the WTC site).
We deliberately protect extremism.
It sounds to me like you include yourself in the “Many people think Catholics writ large…” paragraph in your previous comment. When you ask, “Is it therefore appropriate to single out the Catholic Church for harassment?” it sounds like your own answer to that question is a resounding yes. Nothing in your most recent comment serves to disabuse me of that.
I ABSOLUTELY think the institutional Catholic church should be singled out for harassment regarding its criminal conspiracy to protect sex abusers — by “harassment”, I mean vigorous prosecution.
<
p>I think the Catholic church should be singled out for harassment regarding its thinly-veiled support for anti-abortion extremism. I would like to see Cardinal O’Malley forced to walk through pickets and demonstrations at every opportunity. I would like to see Catholic worshipers walk a gauntlet of large placards displaying bloody images of Matthew Shepard on their way to their Sunday morning mass.
<
p>When the leadership of the Catholic church acts to rein in its followers from their harassment of women seeking treatment at health clinics (and of the care providers who bravely continue to offer treatment to them), then I’ll soften my stance.
<
p>When the list of clergy sex abusers prosecuted by local authorities based on information provided by the church officials is longer than the many lists of criminals protected by those same officials, then we can talk.
On this one, Obama is getting it right.
<
p>He says that they have the right to build it there, but that he won’t comment on whether it is a good idea.
<
p>They DO have a right to build it there, with the Free Exercise Clause of the 1st amendment, enforced through the 14th amendment. And, even if people wanted to, amending the US Constitution requires a very broad, deep consensus nationwide that is not going to happen, no matter how unpopular this mosque is.
<
p>He’s also right to not comment on the wisdom of it. He’s THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. He’s also not going to recommend a good Bar and Grill in Terre Haute, Indiana 🙁
<
p>Too much electioneering is done with cultural symbolism. People ought to have to defend their policies to get elected, not comment of cultural symbolism such as whether this mosque is “good” or having a gay group march in a parade is “good”.
<
p>I want all the politicians to say nothing about cultural symbolism, and that’s what Obama does. I say good.
<
p>Finally, what about the rights of the non-religious to be skeptical of religion? People should have a right to be skeptical of religions and what they do, from this mosque to churches and beyond. And there should be an ABSOLUTE right to mock any and all religions, too. That is also part of religious freedom.
<
p>There’s nothing wrong with drinking the kool-aid and believing something which may not be true. If you really think issues like this (the mosque being proposed) which is opposed by 2/3 of the people in the US has “played itself out” then I say “spread this word to your Democratic candidates to espouse in their message”. We Republicans will reap the benefits.
<
p>We are not opposed to freedom of religion (in fact, IMO Conservatives support it more than Liberals)… including “all” religions but we do believe in some things which are insensitive. We typically don’t allow strip joints to be built across from elementary schools (I know this is a “zoning” issue). It’s not about “rights”, it’s about what’s “appropriate”.
…to cite popular opinion as determinitive of what is right:( I for one don’t think those results would have come about were it not for deliberate right-wing fear-mongering.
<
p>I was actually unpleasantly surprised to find a couple of people who are usually very progressive objecting to the location and timing. My only question, which I would love for someone to clear up, is whether there is funding for this project from questionable sources, though even if there is I’m not sure what we could do about it. I think the Mayor of NYC has been the hero in this saga. We must show that we are exactly the kind of country that celebrates the practice of religion. We must also proclaim that we understand that a great religion was hijacked on 9/11 just as certainly as those planes were by wannabe Muslims who twisted their faith to suit a political end. We are not and have not been at war with Islam, remember? Even President Bush said that!
I did not cite public opinion as to what was “right”, I cited it because Bob was implying that this strategy “… largely to have played itself out…” which I think was wrong. I think this issue runs large until the 9/11 anniversary and then it may die down.
<
p>Then I talked a little about how I think the opposition feels about this location. Go a few blocks away and be done with it. We are not at war with Islam and I think if these Muslims genuinely were concerned they would move the building a few blacks and remove the controversy. Nobody has said they shouldn’t have the right to build a Mosque.
You really need to get out more, John.
I’m surprised that two intelligent liberals on this thread have given voice to the “they have the right to build but it’s not appropriate/sensitive/wise whatever” position.
<
p>Notice how everyone who articulates this position claims they are doing it on behalf of someone else.
<
p>None of them has the guts to just say, “I don’t want any f***ing Muslims praying or community-mongering within a mile of Ground Zero, because the bombers were Muslim, so I have ugly feelings about Muslims when I think of 9/11.”
<
p>Instead, they just say “New Yorkers” or “victims’ families” have this feeling, and it ought to rule the day.
<
p>If you don’t have that feeling — if you are not personally offended by the knowledge that Muslims are congregating near Ground Zero (which they already are, in at least two mosques) — then I question why you feel the need to impose it indirectly on behalf of those other people.
<
p>I would make just as much sense, if you’re looking for other people’s feelings to represent, for you to speak on behalf of my feeling that this kind of center is exactly what we need from the Muslim community in light of the terrorist blight.
The local community board overwhelmingly supports this project. NY Post:
<
p>
<
p>This is not insensitive etc. etc. (ad nauseum) so far as the local community is concerned.
Muslims did not commit the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Radical Islamist Muslims were responsible. Those who oppose this community center & mosque appear either unable or unwilling to differentiate between the two. There are extremists in most religions: extremist Christians, extremist Jews, extremist Muslims, even extremist Hindus, etc. The group developing this center has been sensitive to the situation in not proposing a simple mosque but in making it a community center that will have interfaith, all-community activities as part of its mission. As many others have pointed out, al-Qaeda gets smacked upside the head by a very moderate Muslim development that seeks not to confront, shun or insult America but to fit in and take a responsible, constructive role within the community. What’s more, it is a block or two away, i.e. it is near Ground Zero but not at it, not in view of it. I understand some people’s hot knee-jerk sensitivity but we need to employ more cool logic.
If we live in a free society then we must defend even that which we hold to be abhorrent.
<
p>The idea that a religious community center one of many in lower Manhattan is somehow offensive because of the religion of a few genocidal maniacs is immoral at best.
<
p>What if I wanted to limit access by White people to build homes or centers around Federal buildings out of deference to the Oklahoma City bomber’s victims is that ok?
<
p>I am sorry that the burden of freedom is so much for some people. But if you want a society that limits access to religions you find uncomfortable move to Saudi Arabia.
He’s actually suggested that there should be no more mosques built in the US until Saudi Arabia allows churches and synagogues. Here I was thinking he at least had a good head on his shoulders:(
… did you ever think “…he at least had a good head on his shoulders”? He’s a right wing opportunist with delusions of grandeur who has made a sideline hobby of making himself appear more interesting by dabbling in absurd futurism.
…before he started obviously considering a White House run, when he at least seemed to be formulating ideas that went beyond “Just Say No”. I also liked some of the things he had to say when he’s teamed up with Arne Duncan and Al Sharpton regarding education. I know there have been times over the past couple of years when I’ve almost felt nostalgic for when he was the face of the GOP when compared to the “Tea Party” crowd.
He’s an amoral opportunist. Don’t believe for one second that he gave up his ambition in any way. You might want to re-evaluate any past ‘reasonableness’ in retrospect with such recent evidence of opportunism and hypocrisy in mind. The man is ‘double high‘.
my only issue would be as to why anyone would feel that a mosque anywhere could be abhorrent.
<
p>I wish President Obama had said something similar, or at least qualified his qualification by saying that as Americans, why are bound to be religiously tolerant.
<
p>I am an atheist, so I do not “get” the whole religion thing anyway.
Obama’s comment about not commenting on the wisdom of building the mosque is a reach-out to voters like ME.
<
p>Why?
<
p>I HATE, LOATHE AND DETEST the use of cultural symbolism in election campaigns, whether it’s if the mosque is “good” or if having a gay group march in a parade is “good”. I want to force all candidates to defend enforced policies and not to get in based upon likes and dislikes that are not about policy.
<
p>As for religion, I believe in God, the Infinite Creator, but I am skeptical of all religions, and part of religious freedom is the right to be skeptical of any religion and to criticize religion.
Obama hits it out of the ballpark on this one.
<
p>I have the courage to live free, and push this courage on others.
<
p>Build the mosque.
<
p>The law will back building this mosque.
<
p>No matter how wildly unpopular this mosque may be, it is not unpopular enough to create the broad and deep consensus needed for a Constitutional Amendment.
<
p>On the other hand, there is no right to have everyone say that it’s a great idea.
<
p>And people have a right to be skeptical of any religion and mock any religion, too.
<
p>I really dislike electioneering based on cultural symbolism, and in saying that he won’t comment on the wisdom of building the mosque there, Obama is also rejecting that type of campaigning. And I say good.