Mosque at Ground Zero

[Zarathustra]

Zarathustra,

That's the liberal narrative. Whenever they disagree with conservatives, we must be racist, bigots, fear-mongers, and violence inciters. It's the same damn play every time. Insult those with whom you disagree. They accuse [Edit: conservatives, not liberals] of demonizing Muslims, but don't hesitate to demonize conservatives.

I have the courtesy not to make my responses to this topic about you or any other personality, as you noted. Now here's a thought: how about you make your responses without sweeping statements about liberals? I'm not making sweeping statements about conservatives or conservatism.

I thought you were making a sweeping generalization about those who protest the mosque, namely that "we" are reaffirming what al-Qaeda says "we" are (intolerant cultural warriors). A generalization is only wrong in as much as it is inaccurate. Sure, all generalizations are going to have exceptions. But it is true that many liberals use the tactic of calling people on the other side of an issue, "bigot, intolerant," etc. If liberals didn't do this, then there would be no justification for me poining it out. It's happening right here on this board, and I'm the target. I think this justifies me in pointing it out.

Ask yourself: which criticism from conservatives ever has the suffix, "-phobia," attached to it? Can you think of a single one? "Phobia" is actually a psycholgocical, clinical term. But it is misued by the Left, (exclusively) in a way that completely ignores that the is an actual scientific meaning for this term. Xenophobia. Homophobia. Islamophobia. This is a tactic of political discourse that is only used by one side of the debate.

The Constitution does not of course mandate tolerance. It does mandate freedom of religious expression, which is being curbed by blocking Park51 even by those opponents of the project like yourself who pay lip service to the First Amendment.

We aren't blocking it. We're expressing our opinion. It is impossible for me to violate the 1st Amendment, given that I'm not a member of Congress.

What you are saying in essence is "Of course they can build it; we just don't want them to exercise their Constitutional rights."

I find it frustrating that this debate is impossible to have without skipping over my actual words, and instead telling me what my words are "in essence." Do gun control advocates not want people to exercise their Constitutional rights when they argue for rational (in their eyes) regulation of guns? Are people in favor of FCC regulations of obscenity on public airwaves trying to keep others from exercising their 1st amendment rights to free speech?

Don't you think it's possible for two sides to argue about an issue with the Constitutional right as a given?

The First Amendment is as much an attitude as it is a technical device. It's meant to engender a culture in which persons can express themselves without indemnity. It doesn't mean anybody has to tolerate the views expressed; people just need to have the right to express them. That's the kind of culture we Americans have striven for since we achieved independence. Discouraging the building of a religious and cultural institution without any pragmatic basis is antithetical to the kind of culture the First Amendment is meant to build.

I emphatically disagree that the 1st Amendment is some excuse for one group or another to engender a specific kind of culture. Nothing in the Constitution is meant to shape our culture. It's not supposed to have a positive effect, but rather to describe a "negative power." It's a limit on government, not a prescription for social engineering. We the People get to decide what kind of culture we want to build. And that includes me. I'd like to have a piece of that "expressing themselves wihtout indemnity," myself.

Furthermore, blocking this project is, again, an affirmation of the al-Qaeda narrative about what the United States stands for. The so-called "war on terrorism" is meant to destroy al-Qaeda's material and recruiting capabilities. That requires more than military operations. It requires political will. Blocking a mosque in our biggest city is not only a recruiting goldmine, it fits perfectly into al-Qaeda's justificatory narrative. Opponents of Park51 like the columnist Zarahustra quoted and Newt Gingrich who say that "We can build a mosque in lower Manhattan when freedom of expression is allowed in the Middle East" stoop to a pathetic low. Are theocracies and religious dictatorships the standard of freedom to which we hold ourselves? Fuck that. We are Americans. We have built a society in which any religion can express itself. Islam is included.

You don't think Al Qaida will use the mosque as a propaganda tool to symbolize their victory (even if it's not true)? Do you think we'll score any points with radicals, and actually open the eyes of jihadists by having a mosque there? If so, I find that incredibly naive.

Mosques are not symbols of terrorism. The reason why this is about more than religious sensitivity is that nobody would given a damn if this were a church or a synagogues.

Sometimes mosques are symbols of conquest. Like the mosque which was originally tied to the word, "Cordoba." Surely you're familiar with it. And as long as we're pointing out what people would give a damn about, why are all these "intolerant" people indifferent about the mosque that is already there?? Why wasn't there mass vandalism of mosques around the country after 9/11? Why wasn't there a surge in hate crimes against Muslims? We are obviously tolerant. But that doesn't mean you can keep pouring salt in a wound indefinitely.

So let's drop talk about religious tolerance and atheist secularism. This isn't about those issues. It's about Islam. We're risking erasing the distinction between moderate and mainstream Islam and fundamentalist Islamism.

It's "about Islam" only because you want to interpret it that way. If it were true, and it was not about this one specific mosque, then there would be more widespread anti-Islam activity.

As for the distinction between moderate and fundamentalist, I don't think that's a given. It seems to me that it's more a spectrum.

The kind of American Muslim who would use Park51 are so utterly unrelated to the Arab Islamists who destroyed the World Trade Center ...

How do you know? That's what the NYT reported of the imam who inspired the 9/11 terrorists! That's what NBC reported of the "bridge building" Muslim who chopped of his wife's head! Am I supposed to just take your word for it?

[Cybrweez]

Hey Z, great points about the discrepancy b/w Christianity and Islam here, and in general in this country. Pretty much ignored though. I'd love to know why this is. Apparently, your thoughts on Islam is more worrisome than worldwide jihad. Ok.

I'm not sure why people keep talking about the Constitution and legality? Who's arguing such things? I mean it, actually write their name in response: who is saying the mosque should be blocked legally from being built?

It's bad enough to use the old 'phobia' or hate or some other nonsense tactic, but now we're making up strawmen about blocking the building?

[Lord Mhoram]

Zarathustra,

I thought you were making a sweeping generalization about those who protest the mosque, namely that "we" are reaffirming what al-Qaeda says "we" are (intolerant cultural warriors).

I'm connecting al-Qaeda's rhetoric about the United States to the message of Park51 opponents. Dispute that connection if you like (I've mentioned it twice now and you haven't said anything substantive about it other than complain about my saying it). The fact is that anti-Islamic rhetoric is, as I've said, an al-Qaeda recruiting point.

We aren't blocking it. We're expressing our opinion. It is impossible for me to violate the 1st Amendment, given that I'm not a member of Congress.

This is a total cop-out. Surely you're advocating some action and not just theorizing. The logical conclusion of what you are saying -- don't build the mosque there -- is nothing less than a First Amendment infringement. Look, if you aren't advocating any action in the real world, we can let my comments apply to those who are advocating real action.

I find it frustrating that this debate is impossible to have without skipping over my actual words, and instead telling me what my words are "in essence."

In essence, how is what you're saying different from how I phrased it? I'm genuinely curious. Yes, FCC obscenity regulations can be First Amendment infringements. What's your point?

I emphatically disagree that the 1st Amendment is some excuse for one group or another to engender a specific kind of culture. Nothing in the Constitution is meant to shape our culture. It's not supposed to have a positive effect, but rather to describe a "negative power." It's a limit on government, not a prescription for social engineering. We the People get to decide what kind of culture we want to build. And that includes me. I'd like to have a piece of that "expressing themselves wihtout indemnity," myself.

If you don't think the Constitution shapes our culture, you have an ahistorical view of the Constitution, plain and simple. All actions that require the involvement of the government or the pointed exclusion of the government -- that is to say, almost all social and political actions in our society -- have the Constitution as a basis. The fact that we use phrases like "We the people" shows the pervasiveness of Constitutional thinking in our culture. The First Amendment has shaped American history and culture in profound ways. Nobody can show me a way that blocking Park51 would accord with that cultural tradition or with American jurisprudence.

You don't think Al Qaida will use the mosque as a propaganda tool to symbolize their victory (even if it's not true)?

How? How would the exercise of the First Amendment accord with al-Qaeda rhetoric?

Like the mosque which was originally tied to the word, "Cordoba." Surely you're familiar with it.

Yep, and anyone who thinks Cordoba is a symbol of conquest needs a history lesson. (Even though that link is hosted on Blogspot, the writer is a Yale doctoral student in Islamic history).

Why wasn't there mass vandalism of mosques around the country after 9/11? Why wasn't there a surge in hate crimes against Muslims? We are obviously tolerant. But that doesn't mean you can keep pouring salt in a wound indefinitely.

We are by and large tolerant, but there were increases in anti-Muslim hate crimes, and there have been protests against other mosques, already existing and proposed, across the country in the wake of this controversy.

It's "about Islam" only because you want to interpret it that way. If it were true, and it was not about this one specific mosque, then there would be more widespread anti-Islam activity.

You're factually wrong about the latter claim (see above), and also wrong about the former, or so I presume since you didn't address my point (also Ron Paul's, see Scot's post above) about churches and synagogues in lower Manhattan. This is about Islam.

How do you know? That's what the NYT reported of the imam who inspired the 9/11 terrorists! That's what NBC reported of the "bridge building" Muslim who chopped of his wife's head! Am I supposed to just take your word for it?

I know only what I can tell from the evidence. I've referenced the fact that he's been sponsored by the State Department and hired by the FBI. What have you got?

[SerScot]

Zarathustra,

What reason is there for opposing the Cordoba Center that isn't bigoted? If it is to protect the sensibilities of the victims of 9/11 why would they be offened by a Muslim Community Center who's stated goal is essentially the opposite of the Terrorists who hurt their families, unless, they are branding the people who are proposing this center with the taint of the terrorists who attacked the WTC.

Rus,

Where do you believe the line between State and Church should be drawn? Do you believe there should be a line between Church and State at all?

[Zarathustra]

Zarathustra,

What reason is there for opposing the Cordoba Center that isn't bigoted?

As I've said over and over: the imam himself seems disingenuous in his stated intentions of "bridge building." If people suspect that he is a fundamentalist radical, then it is not bigoted to oppose his bigotry.

If it is to protect the sensibilities of the victims of 9/11 why would they be offened by a Muslim Community Center who's stated goal is essentially the opposite of the Terrorists who hurt their families, unless, they are branding the people who are proposing this center with the taint of the terrorists who attacked the WTC.

"Stated" is the key word there. Some people don't believe him. If he actually, secretly intends it to be a sign of victory over America, you honestly don't see how that would be offensive to the victims? The fact that he wants to force this mosque upon a community and a nation which doesn't want it belies his stated goal of "bridge building." Surely he can see that it's not working. It's dividing, not uniting. The fact that he won't compromise at all--when HE is the one who says he wants to build a bridge, not the victims of 9/11--shows that he has absolutely no interest in building that bridge. He is lying! What could be more obvious?

I think it is an inaccurate charge to say that we're branding people with the taint of the terrorists. We understand those actions are separate from the actions of this imam. Do you think it's impossible to feel that the mosque is inappropriate while simultaneously acknowledging that there is no causal connection to the terrorists? The fact that this man equivocates on Hamas, or has trouble telling terrorists that they're not justified, speaks for itself. Don't forget that this imam does not hesitate to brand America with the "taint" of 9/11 by saying we're an accessory to the crime. Why doesn't that "tainting" bother you? Why is he free to criticize America, but Americans aren't free to criticize him (without earning the charge, "bigotry")?

[SerScot]

Zarathustra,

I think it is an inaccurate charge to say that we're branding people with the taint of the terrorists. We understand those actions are separate from the actions of this imam. Do you think it's impossible to feel that the mosque is inappropriate while simultaneously acknowledging that there is no causal connection to the terrorists? The fact that this man equivocates on Hamas, or has trouble telling terrorists that they're not justified, speaks for itself. Don't forget that this imam does not hesitate to brand America with the "taint" of 9/11 by saying we're an accessory to the crime. Why doesn't that "tainting" bother you? Why is he free to criticize America, but Americans aren't free to criticize him (without earning the charge, "bigotry")?

You're judging everyone involved in this project based on the actions of one Imam. An Imam who delivered a eulogy at Daniel Pearl's funeral. If he was supportive of Radical Islamists, why would he speak at the funeral of a man who was killed by them? Why would he attempt to build bridges with the society those Terrorists want to destroy? He will not say the U.S. has perfectly clean hands in the Middle-East because we don't. Who gave Saddam Hussein his Chemical Weapons? Who toppeled the democratically elected President of Iran in the 1950s?

To claim we haven't been involved in the Middle-East and that the attacks on 9/11 figureatively came from the clear blue sky is disengenuous at best. That's what he's saying. There are plenty of people in the U.S. on the left and right who have said essentially the same thing, should we protest if they want to buy a condo overlooking Ground Zero?

Either way I will not damn an entire project based upon the words of one person taken out of context and used to slime him. These people have the right to build the Cordoba Center on their property and I wish them well in their efforts to build bridges between the Islamic world and the U.S.

[Farsailer]

Another perspective from the Pentagon HERE

To summarize, there's an interfaith chapel within the Pentagon in the area that was hit on 9/11 at which Muslims working there have been worshipping for several years now without incident.

[SerScot]

Farsailor,

[sarcasm]How disrepectful to the victims who died at the Pentagon.[/sarcasm]

[Farsailer]

Farsailor,

[sarcasm]How disrepectful to the victims who died at the Pentagon.[/sarcasm]

[aliantha]

Wayfriend brought up that chapel* several pages back and got hooted down by Z. Glad to see someone else has brought it up again.

But -- ye gods and little fishes, that means Muslims must work at the Pentagon! Our very military has been infiltrated!



For much entertaining commentary about the yahoos Z has been linking to, I recommend www.loonwatch.com. It's their contention that a blogger named Pamela Geller has been behind the whole uproar over the so-called Ground Zero mosque.

*To be clear, WF did misspeak -- he said it was a mosque when in fact it's an interfaith chapel.

[Zarathustra]

*To be clear, WF did misspeak -- he said it was a mosque when in fact it's an interfaith chapel.

That makes all the difference in the world. If this imam was opening an interfaith chapel, I'd believe his desire at bridge building and support his effort.

I have no problem debating Geller's credibility, accuracy, or sources. I don't even object to someone calling her a loon. I have only used her as a source of factual events (which either did or did not happen), trying not to get into her opinions. You are free to provide evidence that the events she brings to our attention didn't happen.

Care to get the conversation started? What has she said or done that you find objectionable?

[Zarathustra]

Don't like Pamela Geller? How about Christopher Hitchens? And don't forget that I also posted an article written by a Muslim, but that went ignored by everyone except Cybrweez. You want to attack my sources, but not acknowledge the credible sources I post? Or even the Muslim sources? Or the Democrats who agree with me? Go ahead ... you just illustrate your selective bias.

www.slate.com/id/2264770

A Test of ToleranceThe "Ground Zero mosque" debate is about tolerance—and a whole lot more.

By Christopher Hitchens Posted Monday, Aug. 23, 2010, at 2:01 PM ET

Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf Two weeks ago, I wrote that the arguments against the construction of the Cordoba Initiative center in lower Manhattan were so stupid and demagogic as to be beneath notice. Things have only gone further south since then, with Newt Gingrich's comparison to a Nazi sign outside the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum or (take your pick from the grab bag of hysteria) a Japanese cultural center at Pearl Harbor. The first of those pseudo-analogies is wrong in every possible way, in that the Holocaust museum already contains one of the most coolly comprehensive guides to the theory and practice of the Nazi regime in existence, including special exhibits on race theory and party ideology and objective studies of the conditions that brought the party to power. As for the second, there has long been a significant Japanese-American population in Hawaii, and I can't see any reason why it should not place a cultural center anywhere on the islands that it chooses.

From the beginning, though, I pointed out that Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf was no great bargain and that his Cordoba Initiative was full of euphemisms about Islamic jihad and Islamic theocracy. I mentioned his sinister belief that the United States was partially responsible for the assault on the World Trade Center and his refusal to take a position on the racist Hamas dictatorship in Gaza. The more one reads through his statements, the more alarming it gets. For example, here is Rauf's editorial on the upheaval that followed the brutal hijacking of the Iranian elections in 2009. Regarding President Obama, he advised that:

He should say his administration respects many of the guiding principles of the 1979 revolution—to establish a government that expresses the will of the people; a just government, based on the idea of Vilayet-i-faquih, that establishes the rule of law.

Coyly untranslated here (perhaps for "outreach" purposes), Vilayet-i-faquih is the special term promulgated by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini to describe the idea that all of Iranian society is under the permanent stewardship (sometimes rendered as guardianship) of the mullahs. Under this dispensation, "the will of the people" is a meaningless expression, because "the people" are the wards and children of the clergy. It is the justification for a clerical supreme leader, whose rule is impervious to elections and who can pick and choose the candidates and, if it comes to that, the results. It is extremely controversial within Shiite Islam. (Grand Ayatollah Sistani in Iraq, for example, does not endorse it.) As for those numerous Iranians who are not Shiites, it reminds them yet again that they are not considered to be real citizens of the Islamic Republic.

I do not find myself reassured by the fact that Imam Rauf publicly endorses the most extreme and repressive version of Muslim theocracy. The letterhead of the statement, incidentally, describes him as the Cordoba Initiative's "Founder and Visionary." Why does that not delight me, either?

Emboldened by the crass nature of the opposition to the center, its defenders have started to talk as if it represented no problem at all and as if the question were solely one of religious tolerance. It would be nice if this were true. But tolerance is one of the first and most awkward questions raised by any examination of Islamism. We are wrong to talk as if the only subject was that of terrorism. As Western Europe has already found to its cost, local Muslim leaders have a habit, once they feel strong enough, of making demands of the most intolerant kind. Sometimes it will be calls for censorship of anything "offensive" to Islam. Sometimes it will be demands for sexual segregation in schools and swimming pools. The script is becoming a very familiar one. And those who make such demands are of course usually quite careful to avoid any association with violence. They merely hint that, if their demands are not taken seriously, there just might be a teeny smidgeon of violence from some other unnamed quarter …

As for the gorgeous mosaic of religious pluralism, it's easy enough to find mosque Web sites and DVDs that peddle the most disgusting attacks on Jews, Hindus, Christians, unbelievers, and other Muslims—to say nothing of insane diatribes about women and homosexuals. This is why the fake term Islamophobia is so dangerous: It insinuates that any reservations about Islam must ipso facto be "phobic." A phobia is an irrational fear or dislike. Islamic preaching very often manifests precisely this feature, which is why suspicion of it is by no means irrational.

From my window, I can see the beautiful minaret of the Washington, D.C., mosque on Massachusetts Avenue. It is situated at the heart of the capital city's diplomatic quarter, and it is where President Bush went immediately after 9/11 to make his gesture toward the "religion of peace." A short while ago, the wife of a new ambassador told me that she had been taking her dog for a walk when a bearded man accosted her and brusquely warned her not to take the animal so close to the sacred precincts. Muslim cabdrivers in other American cities have already refused to take passengers with "unclean" canines.

Another feature of my local mosque that I don't entirely like is the display of flags outside, purportedly showing all those nations that are already Muslim. Some of these flags are of countries like Malaysia, where Islam barely has a majority, or of Turkey, which still has a secular constitution. At the United Nations, the voting bloc of the Organization of the Islamic Conference nations is already proposing a resolution that would circumscribe any criticism of religion in general and of Islam in particular. So, before he is used by our State Department on any more goodwill missions overseas, I would like to see Imam Rauf asked a few searching questions about his support for clerical dictatorship in, just for now, Iran. Let us by all means make the "Ground Zero" debate a test of tolerance. But this will be a one-way street unless it is to be a test of Muslim tolerance as well.

[rusmeister]

Zarathustra,

What reason is there for opposing the Cordoba Center that isn't bigoted? If it is to protect the sensibilities of the victims of 9/11 why would they be offened by a Muslim Community Center who's stated goal is essentially the opposite of the Terrorists who hurt their families, unless, they are branding the people who are proposing this center with the taint of the terrorists who attacked the WTC.

Rus,

Where do you believe the line between State and Church should be drawn? Do you believe there should be a line between Church and State at all?

Not necessarily. (Edit) Certainly not the Jefferson ideal, let alone its modern form of draconian exclusion of religious worldviews from politics. The Byzantine Empire was far from perfect, but its symphonia was a valid form of government compatible with Orthodoxy. I think democracy is an ideal, but that there is no such thing as a modern democracy in any industrialized nation (or any nation of notable size).
I think the best Christian ideal is to be ruled by truth - by a government, of whatever form, that seeks to honor God and places that as higher than our modern cult of the individual as his own god.

Now, this is already not bigotry. It is good sense proceeding from an understanding of what truth is. It recognizes that other peoples of other faiths, or even lack thereof, also have bits of the truth, but they do not have the fullness of the Truth that the Orthodox Church has.

If a person asks "Why there?", he is not bigoted. He raises a legitimate question about the imposition of Islam - and all sorts of other faiths quite far from our own, with philosophies that differ radically - and recognizes that one's philosophy does affect one's everyday life, behavior and actions, and that this could affect him in a bad way. If he opposes the expansion of Islam in America, it may be unreasoned bigotry, or it may be reasoned intellect weighing the philosophy which springs from his worldview.

Pluralism and relativism are not ideals for the Orthodox Church. They are ideals of a world that wants to get along without God. We need to be bringing the light of Christ as best we can, and Christ sat with sinners, but he also picked up a whip when required. There are proper objects for hatred - as long as we understand correctly exactly what ought to be hated and what ought to be loved, and it is not bigotry to hate sin - and it can be love to tell others that there is such a thing as sin and what exactly it may be or is.

[aliantha]

*To be clear, WF did misspeak -- he said it was a mosque when in fact it's an interfaith chapel.

That makes all the difference in the world.

So instead of looking into it and then saying politely to WF, "I believe you misspoke -- it's not a mosque at the Pentagon, it's an interfaith chapel," you simply said, "That's not true!" Nice.

I was going to link to some of loonwatch's material about Geller on Sunday, but their site got hacked. I'll have to find the stuff again, now that they're back up and running.

I also looked into the background of the guy who owns World Net Daily, which posted at least one of the "news stories" you quoted from. The guy makes money hand-over-fist by publishing this kind of crap. To give you an idea of the caliber of individual we're talking about, he called for the return of the Hollywood blacklist to financially punish celebrities like the Dixie Chicks and Johnny Depp, who spoke out against the war in Iraq. I'll try to find that info again, too.

[SerScot]

Rus,

If such a Government were to require children be raised as Orthodox Christians or face having those Children taken from them would that be just and proper in your mind? What about banning public declarations that God does not exist or that Christ is not the son of God. Would you be comfortable with such restrictions on pain of civil fine or criminal sentences?

[Zarathustra]

Zarathustra,

What reason is there for opposing the Cordoba Center that isn't bigoted?

Are these Muslims bigots?

We Muslims know the Ground Zero mosque is meant to be a deliberate provocation. The fact we Muslims know the idea behind the Ground Zero mosque is meant to be a deliberate provocation to thumb our noses at the infidel. The proposal has been made in bad faith and in Islamic parlance, such an act is referred to as "Fitna," meaning "mischief-making" that is clearly forbidden in the Koran.

So what gives Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf of the "Cordoba Initiative" and his cohorts the misplaced idea that they will increase tolerance for Muslims by brazenly displaying their own intolerance in this case?

If Rauf is serious about building bridges, then he could have dedicated space in this so-called community centre to a church and synagogue, but he did not. We passed on this message to him through a mutual Saudi friend, but received no answer. He could have proposed a memorial to the 9/11 dead with a denouncement of the doctrine of armed jihad, but he chose not to.

Let's not forget that a mosque is an exclusive place of worship for Muslims and not an inviting community centre. Most Americans are wary of mosques due to the hard core rhetoric that is used in pulpits. And rightly so. As Muslims we are dismayed that our co-religionists have such little consideration for their fellow citizens and wish to rub salt in their wounds and pretend they are applying a balm to sooth the pain.

Is this Muslim a bigot?

... has said that though she supports the constitutional rights on the freedom of religion she doesn't favour building a mosque near Ground Zero.

"I totally agree with President (Barack) Obama with the statement on the constitutional rights of freedom of religion," Fakih said in the interview with Inside Edition.

However, the 24-year-old who will be competing in the Miss Universe pageant next week, favoured an alternate location for building the mosque.

"I also agree that it shouldn't be so close to the World Trade Center. We should be more concerned with the tragedy than religion," said Fakih, who is of Lebanese origin.

Is this Muslim a bigot?

Neda Bolourchi, whose mother was murdered during the 9/11 attacks, wrote in the Washington Post over the weekend:

I was born in pre-revolutionary Iran. My family led a largely secular existence -- I did not attend a religious school, I never wore a headscarf -- but for us, as for anyone there, Islam was part of our heritage, our culture, our entire lives. Though I have nothing but contempt for the fanaticism that propelled the terrorists to carry out their murderous attacks on Sept. 11, I still have great respect for the faith. Yet, I worry that the construction of the Cordoba House Islamic cultural center near the World Trade Center site would not promote tolerance or understanding; I fear it would become a symbol of victory for militant Muslims around the world.

Is this Muslim a bigot?

... one prominent Muslim thinker warns the Muslim community that the idea is "dangerously misguided."

Akbar Ahmed, an Islamic studies professor at American University in Washington D.C. says Muslims have failed to fully realize the depth of the effects on the American public due to the 2001 September 11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center.

"I don't think the Muslim leadership has fully appreciated the impact of 9/11 on America. They assume Americans have forgotten 9/11 and even, in a profound way, forgiven 9/11, and that has not happened. The wounds remain largely open," Ahmed said. “And when wounds are raw, an episode like constructing a house of worship – even one protected by the Constitution, protected by law - becomes like salt in the wounds."

Is this Muslim a bigot?

Asra Nomani, author of "Standing Alone: An American Woman's Struggle for the Soul of Islam," said she backs the idea of the mosque in principle but believes the feelings of families who lost loved ones in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks should trump the plan.

"I haven't been able to support the building of the mosque right there in the location they've got," said Nomani, an advocate for women's rights and tolerance in the Muslim world.

Nomani said American Muslims have not fully confronted extremism in Islam, which makes her worried that any mosque has the potential to become a haven for those with rigid views.

"Yes, there is prejudice against Muslims in the modern day, but also Muslims in the modern day have an extremist problem," Nomani said.

Is this Muslim a bigot?

Tawfik Hamid, an Egyptian scholar and reformer who said he was once a member of a terrorist group, said he had a "conditional objection" to the proposed Islamic center.

He said it was not enough for Park51 leaders to call themselves moderate. Instead, they should "clearly and unambiguously" reject radicalization by opposing specific extremist practices, such as killing apostates, stoning women for adultery, calling Jews "pigs and monkeys" and "declaring war" on non-Muslims who refuse to convert.

"This, in my view, will be perceived by radicals in Islam as a defeat for their ideology," said Hamid, senior fellow at the Potomac Institute for Policy Studies. "They think in a very primitive way. If they see a mosque near ground zero, this would certainly be perceived as a sign of victory for al-Qaeda. In the end, they will think, 'They are bowing to us.'"

Is this Muslim a bigot?

Neda Bolourchi of Los Angeles, a native of Iran whose mother was on one of the planes that crashed into the World Trade Center, opposes the plan.

"I fear that over time, it will cultivate a fundamentalist version of the Muslim faith, embracing those who share such beliefs and hating those who do not," she wrote in a Washington Post op-ed. "To the supporters of this new Islamic cultural center, I must ask: Build your ideological monument somewhere else, far from my mother's grave, and let her rest."

Is this Muslim a bigot?

As a believing Muslim, it is hard to see a mosque at Ground Zero in New York City as anything other than another horror-- a kick on the face to everyone who is still heavy with shock at the tragic death of 3,000 people killed by Islamist militants during the attack on 9/11.
...
According to anti-jihadist author, Madeline Brooks, "Rauf has numerous ties to CAIR, an unindicted co-conspirator in the Department of Justice funding case brought against Hamas, an openly terrorist organization. CAIR is also the initiator of numerous cases designed to intimidate non-Muslims from criticizing aggressive Muslim behavior, and to use our own legal and democratic presses to undermine and dominate America, forcing it to become Islamic.

"Rauf calls himself a Sufi, evoking among non-Muslims a "peace and love" image. But that's not the whole picture. Sufism has many sides to it, including the Koranic injunction to spread Islam one way or another, and it has a rich history of waging war, too. Could it be that one of the frequently used tools of war, lying to the enemy, explains the contradiction between Rauf's image as reconciler of religions and his sympathies and associations with terrorists?

My newspaper, the Weekly Blitz, has been continuing to publish articles against the idea of constructing a mosque at Ground Zero site. To Muslims worldwide, it would be a symbol of the progress they are making, like triumphantly planting an Islamic flag in Ground Zero.

(I couldn't get one of the links for several of the quotes above to format correctly in the body of the post. From CBS News:
link)

[Zarathustra]

*To be clear, WF did misspeak -- he said it was a mosque when in fact it's an interfaith chapel.

That makes all the difference in the world.

So instead of looking into it and then saying politely to WF, "I believe you misspoke -- it's not a mosque at the Pentagon, it's an interfaith chapel," you simply said, "That's not true!" Nice.

I'm really getting tired of being mischaracterized in this thread. That was Cail, not me.

BTW, there's a mosque in the Pentagon. (Which the same terrorists attacked.)

Bullshit.

And a Shinto shrine in Pearl Harbor, even.

Bullshit.

Next time you put quotation marks around words and attribute them to me, maybe you should actually make sure that I said them, Ms. I Used to Be a Journalist.

[aliantha]

On WF's mention of the Pentagon chapel: I apologize, Z, you were right.

On Pamela Geller: loonwatch.com is chock-full of blogposts about her craziness. Recently, they linked to this article in the Huffington Post about how Geller and her fellow anti-Islam blogger, Robert Spencer, are behind all the sturm und drang:

The"Ground Zero Mosque" fiasco is a fabricated controversy that traces its origins to a couple of long-time anti-Muslim goons from the annals of the hate blogosphere by the names of Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller as a flagship campaign of their newly founded organization, Stop the Islamization of America (SIOA). SIOA is part of an emerging phenomenon of astroturf anti-Muslim organizations that seek to project any public expression of Muslim life in this country as tantamount to a stealth "Islamization of America." (Except it's not so stealth since everyone and their mother is talking about it).

It was SIOA that first coined the misnomer "Mosque at Ground Zero," purposely twisting the reality that the proposed Muslim cultural center near Ground Zero is neither a Mosque nor at Ground Zero. It was the SIOA that sought to redefine Imam Rauf as a radical Imam even though he was heralded by the Bush administration, the FBI and others as a moderate voice of reason. It was the SIOA and its partners that ruthlessly sought to stoke the fears and suspicions of otherwise good, unsuspecting Americans.

The author, Ahmed Rashad, goes on to berate the mainstream media for not tracing this whole brouhaha back to its source.

On WorldNetDaily: Snopes.com thoroughly debunked a recent WND story. The story tried to smear Elena Kagan by claiming she was solicitor general for 8 cases on the Supreme Court's docket that challenged the validity of President Obama's birth certificate. In fact, none of the cases had anything to do with that. Here's my favorite part of the Snopes post:

NOTE: Immediately after we published this piece, WND scrubbed all references to the original article from their web site without explanation. Three days later, WND misleadingly replaced the original with a thoroughly rewritten article on a completely different topic.

www.conwebwatch.com has numerous other examples of WND making up stories and publishing them as fact.

And here's the blog post about WND owner Joseph Farah calling for Johnny Depp to be blacklisted in 2003.

These are the serious, unbiased journalists Z is recommending we all read. Z, please do let us know if any of *them* ever admit they've gotten their facts wrong.

One more note: Do you know what percentage of the US population is Muslim? In 2008, according to one poll, it was 0.6%. And the fastest-growing religious denomination in the US in 2008? Why, that would be Neopaganism.

[Cail]

Ali, you clearly also didn't click the hyperlinks that I had embedded in my "bullshit"s. The link about the (bullshit) Pentagon mosque correctly identified it as an interfaith chapel.

So nice try on the 'gotcha' there, but you probably should have read the post first before you used it as your example.



Edit- And I gotta say to everyone (myself included) how fucking ridiculous this thread has gotten. Everyone seems to agree that there's a First Amendment right for this community center to be built blocks from the WTC site (well, everyone except Rus who seems to think that he's the sole keeper of The Truth), but y'all are still arguing about it.

Meanwhile, the economy still sucks, we've still got an invasive federal government, two wars, Gitmo's still open and we're still torturing, no one knows what's going on with the "transparent" health insurance bonanza that passed, BP's cutting and running from the Gulf. But golly, them dirty ragheads want to build a YMCA in downtown Manhattan (where not one of us lives), and this thread gets more traffic than any other one here. And it's not just us, this non-story has taken over CNN, HuffPo, RealClearPolitics, and just about every political and news site out there.

Fucking pathetic. We've been snookered into getting all worked up over this, which has no effect on our daily lives at all (even if they have a banner out front that says "Death to the Infidels!"). Meanwhile, Rome is burning.

[aliantha]

Cail, I'm giving you a goodpost even though you called me out on the links in your original post. (But see what sticks with people when you post the word "bullshit" with no elaboration except a link? Just sayin'....)

I agree with you that we've been snookered into taking this alleged issue too seriously.