West Seattle Blog...

WSB Forum » Politics

(69 posts)

The First Amendment

Started 1 year ago by Carson
Latest reply from JoB

Carson
Member Profile

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Its interesting how the right is attacking Obama for defending this first and most basic right granted. As much as I detest what happened on 9-11, I wasn't aware the Constitution has been changed to prohibit a house of worship close to ground zero.

Conservatives wrap themselves in the flag and burn the Constitution. Liberals wrap themselves in the Constitution and burn the flag.

Posted 1 year ago #
DP
Member Profile

Carson: Thanks for bringing this issue up. Frankly, I was afraid to, because I suspect that my opinion on this won't be very popular.

Anyway, that can wait . . . What I'd like to speak to now is the issue you raise about constitutionality. As I see it, this is a political issue, not a legal one. And as far as I can tell, no one's saying otherwise. Are they?

If Obama and Bloomberg say build the mosque there, they're really just saying they think it's a good idea for the symbolic value. They're not weighing in on whether it's legal to build it or not, because no one's even questioning that. It is legal.

Conversely, if 9-11 families (and New Yorkers generally) are saying don't build the mosque there they're just saying they think it's a bad idea, not that it should be outlawed.

Correct me if I'm wrong, which I could well be.

Thanks again for breaking the ice.

–David

Posted 1 year ago #
DOC
Member Profile

Carson, I may be very wrong on this, but this is what I understood. Obama agrees that the mosque should be built there because it legally can, but may or may not agree with the morality of it. I think most New Yorkers are wanting to stop the building of it there through legal means, essentially saying "you can't legally build that there".

Frankly, I agree with Obama. I believe that it has every right to be built there, regardless of whether or no I agree or not. Either way, there are Mosques all over the city, including 4 blocks from the WTC site.

Most people who don't want it built there, don't want it there because it is a muslim building and they don't want muslims there (IMHO). I see it as them ignoring the constitution to serve out their own prejudice. A small group of fanatics destroyed the WTC, not the other 1 Billion. It would be like saying no more churches in Kansas because Fred Phelps lives in Topeka. Although I would like to see him and his family dead frankly...

Posted 1 year ago #
Carson
Member Profile

DOC, you are dead right, and several Republican members of Congress seem to think they (Muslims) don't have the right to build a house of worship on private property and have been questioning Obama's support of the 1st Amendment. Personally, I am far more offended by American Priests molesting American children. The children trusted the priests, we have never really trusted foreign Muslims and knew the day was going to come eventually.

Posted 1 year ago #
RAK
Member Profile

I believe the President defended the right without comment on the judgment. Personally, I think the judgment is questionable but the right is absolute in the USA. My goodness, not all Muslims are terrorists (though I think some of their practices are weird). Christians and Jews have an equal criminal, terrorist history.

Posted 1 year ago #
JoB
Member Profile

it's a church...

the muslim faith didn't bring the towers down
fanatics did..

fanatics who may have used faith as an excuse.

Posted 1 year ago #
CarolPB
Member Profile

the KKK claim to be Christians, after all....not my God

Posted 1 year ago #
DP
Member Profile

Here's a link to a transcript of what President Obama said about the mosque.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/08/obamas-remarks-about-ground-ze.html

From this, I think you could make the case that Obama was in favor of the mosque being built near GZ. That is certainly the way the news services played it, anyway. (The Reuters headline went: "Obama backs controversial NW mosque project.")

Since then, the President has "clarified" his remarks, but he probably figured on having to do that all along. He seems to be trying to have it both ways on this. (I wish him luck with that.)

In any case, DOC is correct that Obama does not speak directly to the issue of whether building a mosque in this particular locale is "moral." In fact, I think it is moral. —How can it not be moral for any group that bases its moral code on faith in a deity to build a temple to that deity?

Having said that, I still think the proposed mosque project shows bad judgment and that it will not come to a good end. There are plenty of other places that mosque could have been built that wouldn't have bruised the feelings of New Yorkers. Why do they need to build it so close? Frankly, it seems like a provocation.

Of course it's easy for us Seattle-ites to urge tolerance and understanding on the people of New York, since we haven't experienced their pain. I just wonder if we would be as tolerant if the roles were reversed.

Posted 1 year ago #
DOC
Member Profile

I love the Daily Show with Jon Stewart. You should just check out these two clips for a pretty good argument.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-august-10-2010/municipal-land-use-hearing-update

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-august-10-2010/municipal-land-use-update---ground-zero-mosque

Posted 1 year ago #
rockhills
Member Profile

Thanks, Doc, I needed that!

Posted 1 year ago #
HMC Rich
Member Profile

It is two blocks from Ground Zero. A little close but not on Ground Zero. A former coat factory. Hmmm.

Carson started out with a quote about separation of church and state. Why then does USAID send people and money to help build or rebuild religious institututions? Just asking since some think religion is so bad.

I find it Ironic that the "Cordoba House" will be named after the church that was conquered by Islam in Spain and turned into a mosque.

Most disconcerting is why the President even said something and then backed away?

Carson, maybe you should try to start an outreach program for Republicans.

RAK, please look up how many conflicts are in the world currently and who is involved. Islam is involved are most of the conflicts. There is a high percentage of Christians involved in War. Jews not so much. I wish the Arabs would leave them alone, but they never will.

The KKK...Robert Byrds former club? Not wanted, not accepted.

I have wasted too much time on this thread. This is silly.

Posted 1 year ago #
dobro
Member Profile

This commentary from Keith Olbermann lists the facts which pretty much obliterate another ginned-up controversy designed to stoke fear and hatred and give Republicans something to talk about other than their lack of ideas to help America's recovery...check it out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dXFo0UUACM

Posted 1 year ago #
JoB
Member Profile

HMCRich...

pssst...

fighting on the other side of those islam conflicts you allude to are ... christians...

and when it comes to the big ones..
we invaded them :(

Posted 1 year ago #
Ken
Member Profile

Olbermann excerpt for those who can't access videos:

What was that about Iraq? Why did we go into Iraq? To free the world, and especially Iraq's citizens of the tyranny of Saddam Hussein. That's its supporters defense of the Iraq invasion of this hour. Well who lives in Iraq? Muslims. I hate to reveal this to anybody on the right who doesn't know this but when they say Iraq is 65% Shia and 32% Sunni you do know that Shia and Sunni are forms of the Muslim religion, right?

We sacrificed 4,415 of our military personnel in Iraq to save Muslims, and there are thousands of us still there tonight to protect Muslims, but we don't want Muslims to open a combination culinary school and prayer space
in Manhattan.

From the beginning of this nation we have fought prejudice and religious intolerance and our greatest enemy stupidity exploited by rapacious politicians. It is only 50 years now, this month since Americans publicly and urgently warned their countryman not to support a presidential candidate because he was Roman Catholic. He would bow to the will not of the American people, but of the Pope. He would be a papist. He would be the agent of a foreign state. His name was John Fitzgerald Kennedy.

Despite the nobility of our founding and the indefatigable efforts of all of our generations, there have always been those who would happily sacrifice our freedoms, our principals to ward off the latest unprecedented threat, the latest unbeatable "outsiders". But once again at 45 Park Place, we are being told to sell our birth right. To feed the maw of xenophobia and vengeance and mob rule.

The terrorists who destroyed the buildings from which you could only see 45 Park Place as a dot on the ground, wanted to force us to change our country, to become more like the ones (they) knew. What better way could we honor the dead at the World Trade Center than to do the terrorists heavy lifting for them.

Do you think 45 Park Place is where it ends? The moment this monstrous betrayal of our America gained the slightest traction, the next goal was unveiled. "No more building permits for any Mosques in this country" brayed the man from the euphemistically named American Families Association. Of course, he said maybe the permits could be granted if the congregation was "willing to publicly denounce the Koran."

They came first for the building permits....

Posted 1 year ago #
Yardvark
Member Profile

I'd like to think the Dems would fight the good fight on this one.

Unforunately, Harry Reid seemed to announce the other day that he'd like to be a bigot too, as long as it helps him keep his job. And then Obama added to the insult by stating that even though he isn't a bigot, he isn't not a bigot either, to be precise.

I might be paraphrasing.

Either way, I think this type of issue points out that we appear to have very few genuine leaders in this country. Most folks are actually just following poll numbers.

So sad and dissapointing.

Posted 1 year ago #
DP
Member Profile
Keith Olbermann is doing that thing where you don't quite call your opponents Nazis, but you do put them squarely on the Nazi continuum.

Olbermann: They came first for the building permits . . .

A few months ago, someone on this very forum tried to characterize people who supported a state income tax as being on the Nazi track, too. Remember that?

So let me try to get this straight now . . .

People who want an income tax are well on the way to becoming Nazis. —Right?

And people who don't want a monument to religion near a religious-inspired massacre are Nazis-in-training, too. —Right?

So . . . um . . . at this point I'd like everyone who's not a Nazi to leave the room.

No doubt, some bigots are exploiting this GZ mosque brouhaha to bash Muslims, and we should stand together against that.

(Let me think for a second, here. Yup. I'm against that.)

In the meantime, though, other questions are still open. Questions like:
- Is it really a good idea to build a mosque right there?
- Are there alternative locations for the mosque part of this project? Locations that won't piss off half the country?
Think of the mosque proposal as analogous to a Japanese cultural group wanting to build a Japanese military history museum within view of the Pearl Harbor Memorial. Or an American energy consortium proposing to hold a nuclear power exposition outside the "atomic dome" in Hiroshima.

Legal? —Maybe.

Insensitive? —Probably.

Foolish? —Definitely.

I'm going to make a prediction. I predict this thing will roil on for several more months, until everyone's had a chance to sound off about it one way or the other.

In the end, the developer, one Mr. Feisal Abdul Rauf, who is an otherwise sensible and fairminded man, will either drop the project all together or just the mosque part of it (what Rauf calls a "prayer room").

Rauf is not doing Islam or his fellow Muslims any good by pushing this thing, and I think he'll eventually realize that.

Coming up next: Who gets to say what Tom's religion means to Dick.

—Is it Harry? Or what?

Peace Out!

-D.P.
Posted 1 year ago #
Carson
Member Profile

DP,

There is no legal basis for the right to build a Japanese Museum close to Pearl Harbor. A Buddhist Temple yes. Should they build a Mosque so close to ground zero? No. Can they? Yes.

Posted 1 year ago #
JanS
Member Profile

DP...I think you're stretching that just a bit. He is not calling anyone Nazi's...he's using a familiar quote that is used in many instances - not just to accuse people of being Nazis. I agree with him...you can't have it all ways. They own the property...they should be allowed to build what they want there, within the bounds of zoning and laws. Monument to religion? It would be an education center, too. There is a smaller mosque only 4 blocks away...should that one be torn down?

I just don't understand people who stretch things like you are to inflame the discussion. You know very well what he was saying. Again...not all Muslims are terrorists. The ones who brought these buildings down had incredibly skewed views of what they believe.

Posted 1 year ago #
mpento
Member Profile

I just don't think that Obama is that stupid (I could be wrong). All this election stuff going on and he dangled a carrot infront of the republicans and they jumped on it. Also I was surprised that the "popular" media seemed to agree that he was stating that he is in favor of the mosque being built when he is obviously just stating they have the legal right. Fear the mosque instead of fearing the economy is going down the toilet. One just produces religious war the other will bring an end to the world as we know it!

Posted 1 year ago #
dhg
Member Profile

THERE IS a shinto temple close to Pearl Harbor. There is a giant US military base within 20 miles of Hiroshma. There are many muslims working in lower Manhattan. They want to worship in a converted Burlington Coat Factory. Good for them.

One thing I've recently sussed is that the Republicans are really good at taking a NON-ISSUE (i.e. burning the flag!!!!!!!!!!!!) and turning it into a referendum on patriotism. Who cares if they give all the breaks to the uber-rich and the middle-class loses. We're patriots!

Posted 1 year ago #
JoB
Member Profile

patriotism would seem to consist of defending what this country actually stands for..

freedom of religion is one of those things this country stands for.

Posted 1 year ago #
dobro
Member Profile

The phony issue will be dragged out by the corporate media/Republican echo chamber as long as possible because they got nothin'. no ideas, no willingness to work together to help america's recovery from their thievery and treason,nothing but hate and fear.

If you consider yourself an American and actually believe in the constitution and Bill of Rights, there's no issue here at all.

Posted 1 year ago #
waterworld
Member Profile

Way back at post 11, HMC Rich asked "Why then does USAID send people and money to help build or rebuild religious institutions?" apparently in reference to Carson's quoting the language of the First Amendment. I didn't know that USAID funded religious institutions, so I thought I'd look into that. Turns out, this goes back to President Bush's efforts to expand the availability of government money to religious organizations.
.
In 2001 and 2002, Bush issued Executive Orders 13198, 13279, and 13280, which collectively directed a number of federal agencies to "identify and eliminate regulatory, contracting, and other programmatic obstacles to the participation of faith-based and community organizations in the provision of social services by their Departments," and "to ensure equal protection of laws for faith-based and community groups that apply for funds to meet and administer social service programs domestically and abroad." In other words, let's give religious institutions an equal opportunity to apply for federal funding to support humanitarian projects.
.
I’m a little bit baffled, and very disappointed, that so many people condemn the notion of opening an Islamic center a couple of blocks away from Ground Zero. Such condemnation is inconsistent with our history and constitutional commitment to religious freedom and tolerance. And I agree with everyone who’s already pointed out that Islam didn’t attack us, a group of extreme, violent radicals who purport to embody the principles of Islam attacked us. Muslims died in the attacks on September 11. Muslims fight in our nation’s war against Al Qaida alongside people of other faiths. Muslims live and work in Lower Manhattan and have the same interests in providing services to the community as people of any other faith. And considering the Bush Administration’s policy of equal-access to federal financial aid (which has not been reversed by the Obama Administration), it would seem that an Islamic center in Lower Manhattan would not only be legal, as everyone seems to recognize, but would be eligible to compete for federal funds for humanitarian programs, just like all the other non-profits in the area.

Posted 1 year ago #
JoB
Member Profile

waterworld... well stated.

Posted 1 year ago #
dobro
Member Profile

Here's another statement on this issue by a person who apparently understands the Bill of Rights, attorney Ted Olson. I made this a tinyURL cuz it was long. It links to a video hosted at Talking Points Memo, a news aggregation site.

http://tinyurl.com/2696guy

Posted 1 year ago #
DP
Member Profile

Here's a story about American Muslims who agree with me that putting a mosque near GZ is insensitive:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100818/ap_on_re_us/us_ground_zero_mosque_us_muslims

From the article:

Abdul Cader Asmal, past president of the Islamic Council of New England, an umbrella group for more than 15 Islamic centers, said some opponents of the $100 million, 13-story project are indeed anti-Muslim. But he said many Americans have genuine, understandable questions about Islam and extremism.

In light of those fears, and the opposition of many relatives of 9/11 victims, Asmal said organizers should dramatically scale back the project to just a simple mosque, despite their legal right to construct what they want.

"Winning in the court of law is not going to help improve the image of Muslims nationwide," said Asmal, a Massachusetts physician. "You have to win the hearts and minds of the ordinary American people."

I expect to someone to respond with the pithy observation that the Associated Press and its mouthpiece, Yahoo! News, are both notorious right-wing operations . . .

Posted 1 year ago #
DP
Member Profile

DHG:

There is no "giant US military base within 20 miles from Hiroshima." What the heck are you talking about?

There is a large US base at Okinawa much farther south, but it's not trying to make a statement about the benefits of nuclear power as far as I can tell.

But thank you for bring this up anyway, because Okinawa is an excellent example of the point I'm making.

The U.S. military base at Okinawa has, in fact, been a tremendous source of irritation for the Okinawans, and for Japanese in general. To them, it's an insult to national honor, and as a result there have been large and continued protests against it. The issue of the base at Okinawawa even cost that Japanese P.M. his job.

As far as a Shinto shrine near the Pearl Harbor Memorial, I don't know anything about that. I'm guessing that it's either not that close, it pre-dated 12/7/41, or that it was erected with the blessing of the American survivors of the Pearl Harbor attack.

A mosque near GZ would be a great thing too, if that's really what New Yorkers wanted. Maybe they will want that in another 50 years or so.

But right now? It's dicey. Very dicey.

Posted 1 year ago #
JoB
Member Profile

DP..

it isn't a mosque.
it's a community center
with a prayer space on the top two levels...

it isn't next to ground zero
in fact.. it's a four block walk from the memorial
in an area few visitors to the memorial visit..

but hey..

why get bogged down with actual facts here
when there is an invented controversy you can fuel?

For a peace loving guy...
you pass along a lot of hate mongering rhetoric
and make a lot of inflammatory comments.
while exhorting the rest of us to play nice...

Your comments are a real mystery..
Do they originate with naivety
or are they the result of careful orchestration?
who knows.

Like i said once..
i think there is more to your comments
and political position
than meets the eye.

Posted 1 year ago #
dobro
Member Profile

Here's an article from Salon.com with a timeline of events leading up to this fake controversy. You can see (if you read it) it's pretty much a one-woman show with right wing fruitcake Pam Gellar leading the way, New York Post and RW echo chamber following up and MSM lapping up every bit of the hate/fear distraction. I made a tiny URL again cuz it was long...

http://tinyurl.com/2ejzp39

the whole fake issue pretty much comes down to
"do you believe in the Bill of rights or not and, if not, why do you hate America?"

Posted 1 year ago #
DP
Member Profile
JoB, I'm having trouble matching up what you're saying with what I'm saying . . .

My main point is that good people are going to be hurt by this mosque, "prayer room," or whatever you want to call it. (There's also going to be a 9/11 memorial there by the way which, ironically, may be part of the problem.)

You, like dobro, seem to believe that everyone who feels the way I do on this issue is in on some kind of conspiracy . . . But why don't you address the AP article I linked or the comments that the American Muslim guy made?

I'll give you a tip on how to argue your position, on this or any other topic. And I mean this in the most sincere way, because I want to continue having interesting debates with you:
1. Avoid using terms like "hate mongering," "inflammatory comments," "invented controversy," "careful orchestration," etc.
2. Don't spend a lot of time talking about your opponent's motiviation.
3. Try to discern as soon as possible whether it's facts you and your opponent disagree on, or rather interpretation of the facts.
4. If it's facts you disagree on, go out and get better, or more credible, facts than your opponent has. Establish the credibility of your sources as quickly and strongly as you can. Don't try to discredit your opponent's facts or sources until you've already established some of your own, and then try to discredit your opponent's facts —only as a last resort.
5. If it's interpretation of the facts that you disagree on, argue accordingly, but try to keep an open mind throughout, because interpretation of fact is much more variable than questions of accuracy or relevance.
6. Use sarcasm and hyperbole sparingly, and only for effect.
Example of how you should be making your case on this:

It's a prayer room, not a mosque, David. It's part of a much larger commercial project. It's only going to be X x Y square feet. It's not going to have a dome. It's not going to be visible from GZ, etc. This is information New Yorkers aren't aware of.

You know, I think people are getting bent out of shape over this. Some people [not you, David] are using this to bash Muslims, and that worries me a little.

Example of how you should not be making your case:

What's your game, DP? What's wrong with you? Don't you understand the facts of this case?

I'm open to having my mind changed on this, JoB. In fact, I almost had myself convinced of the other side for a second there . . . But you're going to have to come up with something better than "you're part of a conspiracy" to make that happen.

So go ahead and be tough on my arguments.

Just watch what you say about my chupacabra.

—David

P.S. dobro Can you include an excerpt from your salon.com piece? You don't have to put it in a blockquote box; just wrap it with quotation marks, so we'll know it's a quotation. Anyway, pick one fact or quote that you think is really valuable, and if it seems intrigueing, I'll drop in and check it out. The thing about "hating the Bill of Rights" is clever, but it's only going to work for people who are already on that side of the fence. Thanks.
Posted 1 year ago #
JanS
Member Profile

oh, good grief...let's not lecture, OK? Between GZ, and the location of this "mosque", that everyone says is going to be disrespectful, there are porn shops, head shops, strip joints. Is that respectful of the area? Does anyone bring that up? Has anyone petitioned to tell these people that they can't have what they want there? Of course not. It's just this "mosque", because it's being done by Muslims...and we all know they're just terrorists in disguise, don't we?;-> You all can sit here and "discuss" "debate", however much you want. But the truth is we all know why so many people are jumping on this particular thing. Everyone dances around it, tries to make nice.."I have nothing against freedom of religion ...BUT." If you support the 1st amendment and freedom of/from religion, then there are no BUTS...PERIOD. If there is, then you're lying to yourself..and those of us who you're saying it to. Plain and simple.

And...DP...show me exactly in JoB's remarks where she says outright "you're part of the conspiracy". Am I just not reading careful enough?
Or is that meant to get a reaction, in other words, inflame? I won't tell you how to present your side if you'll refrain from doing the same with others. It's condescending, to say the least.

Apologies for sounding cranky...guess I am a little cranky this week.

Posted 1 year ago #
JoB
Member Profile

DP..

it's not a mosque
it's not next to ground zero
there is nothing disrespectful about a community center.

what part of that is difficult for you to understand?

yes, muslims are worried that inflamed anti-muslim sentiment will spill over onto their local mosques..

they have reason to worry.
some idiot tried to blow up a mosque during prayer with 60 people inside recently.
He failed because he was too stupid to place the bomb inside.
but there are plenty of idiots being inflammed by made up controversys like this one..
so that probably won't be the last attempt...
and maybe one of them is smart enough to rectify his buddy's mistake.

It's not Americans who have to worry about terrorism from local muslims..
but local muslims who have to worry about terrorism from good ole Americans :(

Posted 1 year ago #
dobro
Member Profile

"My main point is that good people are going to be hurt by this mosque, "prayer room," or whatever you want to call it."

This "point" is irrelevant. Ask yourself this question. Would there be any problem with a Catholic church opening on the Park 51 site? A synagogue? A Presbyterian chapel? In America we have a thing called freedom of religion that applies to everyone, even if someone gets their fee-fees hurt. If you believe in the Bill of Rights you'd think that was a good thing. Some people would call it a founding principle of our country. Those who serve in public office swear to defend these principles. The oath doesn't say "I swear to uphold and defend the Constitution, so help me God, unless, of course, someone might get their feelings hurt."

"You, like dobro, seem to believe that everyone who feels the way I do on this issue is in on some kind of conspiracy."

I'd be curious to know what I said that insinuated anything of the sort. I pointed out how attention was pointed at this subject and turned into a media circus and cited and described an article that explains how that happened. the article is 981 words long. It's not War and Peace. If a person actually had any interest in the issue there's a link right there. Ahhh, but here I am again asking people to read something...I should know better. :)

Posted 1 year ago #
JoB
Member Profile

i heard Howard Dean has voiced his opinion
against the community center :(

How quickly we forget that the way we got where we are now is by giving idiots credence by accepting their made up issues as real.

any respect i had for him is gone.

Posted 1 year ago #
JanS
Member Profile

I listened to an interview last night that he gave to Keith Olberman. He sounded like an idiot. He had no point. His argument for his stance was disjointed. Makes one want to scream at them. He suggested that there be a "sit down" to discuss the issue in a "peaceful" manner, and maybe come up with a compromise, but kept saying that they have every right to build there. When pushed to expand what he meant by "compromise", he had no real answer. That's because there is none. How far away is far enough away? In stead of two blocks from GZ, should it be 4? There's already one there at 4 blocks...so should it be 6? 3 inches? What? Who is doing the compromising..certainly not those who object. Again, it all boils down to one thing...the only reason this is an issue is because they are Muslim, and too many people believe that Muslim= terrorist. It's prejudice, plain and simple.

This dilapidated property sat there for 8 years for sale. No one wanted it, no one wanted to develop it. It is derelict, has fallen into disrepair. Is that respectful to the area? People didn't care about that. There was no groundswell of protesters saying that letting the area 2 blocks from GZ rot is disrespectful. Enter in the dastardly Muslims who decided to take this derelict building, build a cultural center, with gym, cooking school, a prayer room. Oh, my, no, we can't have that. Tell me this isn't about prejudice. Give me a good argument why this is an issue all of a sudden that has nothing to do with these people being Muslim. I'll listen.

Posted 1 year ago #
JoB
Member Profile

Jan..

it's disappointing isn't it

monkey see
monkey do
and the dems let right wing nutcases make monkeys of us

it's enough to make you swear off politics...

i would.. but the nutjobs win if we do :(
i swear some days i don't know what a girl's to do :(

happy hour?
if only i could still drink:(

Posted 1 year ago #
KBear
Member Profile

The bigots among us make us all perfect targets for terrorists. They're playing right into their hands.

Posted 1 year ago #
JoB
Member Profile

kbear..

yes.. they are.

Posted 1 year ago #
dobro
Member Profile

"Tell me this isn't about prejudice. Give me a good argument why this is an issue all of a sudden that has nothing to do with these people being Muslim. I'll listen."

There aren't any such arguments. Certainly none have been presented here and in the things I've read and listened to I see nothing that isn't about prejudice, hate, and fear. The thing we're seeing mostly is craven cowardice on the part of many commentators (it is sad to hear Howard Dean buy into the baloney) and lots of denial from those repeating the list of fake arguments of their own prejudice.

Posted 1 year ago #
Ken
Member Profile

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-august-19-2010/extremist-makeover---homeland-edition

Fox news is a terrorist command center. :)

Posted 1 year ago #
Annie
Member Profile

One thing I haven't heard in all this debate is the question I heard so often in the early months/years after 9/11 - "Why haven't the peaceful muslins stepped up and denounced the terrorists or why have they not worked in their communities to do good, show the other side of their religion." It seems like this community center could be just that, providing a place in an area needing development for community activities - a basketball court, a cooking school are what I've heard - as well as meetings, classes, etc. What happened to that idea?

I'm reading a book now called "The Faith Club" about 3 women, a Muslim, a Christian, and a Jew, who met regularly after 9/11 to understand each other's faith. It's not so much a religious story as a human story. Listening and understanding each other is more healing than drawing lines and making prohibitions.

Posted 1 year ago #
DP
Member Profile

dobro: Here's what you said that makes me think that you think the mosque brouhaha is a conspiracy:

You can see . . . [that opposition to the mosque is] pretty much a one-woman show with right wing fruitcake Pam Gellar leading the way

I take this to mean you think that the opposition to the mosque/prayer room was originally incited by a single person and is being propagated by a small group of people. Hence: a conspiracy. Did I misread you on that?

But anyway, you know what? You could be right: it could be just a "one-woman show." I haven't been to New York lately or talked with many New Yorkers about this, so I don't really know whether they're really feeling angry about this or not. But then, neither do you. —Unless you've been talking with a bunch of them. (Have you?)

The Salon.com piece had some good information on Pam Gellar's blog. That should be taken into consideration. Because the right wing is the "out" party right now, they're particularly keen on starting trouble. However, it's also possible (I think probable, actually) that Gellar and others are merely trying to ride the wave of anger that was already building over this.

We'll see.

Annie: Hi!!

You make a good point.

It's ironic that the leader of this project (Mr. Rauf) has been one of the folks who has really tried to speak out against Muslim extremism. If he was willing to use some part of his building to host a safe and open-ended debate about the role of Islam in the modern world, then I would welcome that. In that case, I would switch over to a pro-mosque position. However, I suspect that Mr. Rauf is not willing to play host to such a debate.

You see, part of Mr. Rauf's message is that Islam is a religion of peace and only peace. But I suspect that's not how a lot of New Yorkers view it, because that's contrary to their experience. In fact, many New Yorkers may take this whole "Islam = Peace" message as a slap in their faces, even though that was obviously NOT Mr. Rauf's intention.

Islam, like Christianity, means many things to many people. Any Muslim can say what Islam means to himself or herself, and no one can reasonably contradict that. But for a Muslim (or anybody else) to say what Islam should mean to me (or the people of New York) is really stretching it.

Posted 1 year ago #
JoB
Member Profile

Annie..

yours is the voice of reason..
such an obvious answer..
it could be a place of healing.

thank you

Posted 1 year ago #
Garden_nymph
Member Profile

DP, dhg is correct per the info I found on
http://www.jca.apc.org/wsf_support/2004doc/WSFJapUSBaseRepoFinalAll.html#U.S._Military_Presence
There are US military bases near Hiroshima AND Nagasaki!
..."There are approximately 90 U.S. military facilities including major military bases throughout mainland Japan and Okinawa, with an area total of 3,130,000 sq.meters, 75% of which are in Okinawa. They are concentrated in a few areas (prefectures), 37 in Okinawa, 15 in Kanagawa, 11 in Nagasaki, and 7 in Tokyo. About 52,000 U.S. troops are stationed in these bases, 26,000 in mailand and 25,000 in Okinawa (2001). In mainland Japan, the largest contingent is the air force with 6,600 and that in Okinawa marines (15,500)... There is Iwakuni Marine Base near Hiroshima, and Sasebo Naval Base in Nagasaki Prefecture."
http://www.marines.mil/unit/mcasiwakuni/Pages
/history.aspx
http://www.nffsp.org/SASEBO/

Posted 1 year ago #
Annie
Member Profile

DP, how do we know that Mr. Rauf would not be willing to host such a debate/conversation? It seems it would fit in with what I understand to be a purpose of the community center. I do suspect that the matter of keeping it "safe" could be problematic however.

Also, I think that one difference between Islam and Christianity (Judaism, too? I don't know) is that in most Western religions there is one particular "head" that presides over matters of dogma or belief. The Catholic Church has it's Pope, for instance. As I understand Islam, there are Imams in different geographical areas and they have that role locally. So Islam could be different depending on interpretations by different Imams in different locations. So to Mr. Rauf it may truly be about peace, though I don't know of any religion that preaches "only" peace. Do you? Quakers maybe? Amish?

As for "many" New Yorkers who "may" take the idea of a peaceful Muslim message as a slap in the face, while understandably being hurt and angry, that reaction continues to polarize and is not helpful to a process of knowledge, understanding and healing.

Posted 1 year ago #
DP
Member Profile

Garden_nymph: Thanks for the info.

I just read the Wiki article on the Iwakuni base. At 6,000 personnel (including family members), it's not exactly what I'd call a "giant base" which is what dhg said. But maybe that's quibbling . . .

Here's something else interesting from the Wiki article on this base:

It was revealed in 2010 that in 1966 nuclear weapons were moved to the base for storage from Okinawa. When U.S. ambassador to Japan Edwin O. Reischauer learned of the presence of the weapons, which was a violation of the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between the United States and Japan, he told the United States Department of State that if the weapons were not removed within 90 days he would resign and go public with the information. The weapons were removed shortly thereafter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_Corps_Air_Station_Iwakuni

—the point being that Japanese people are very sensitive about having nuclear weapons anywhere on their territory, which is understandable.

Accordingly (and also because of US treaty obligations) Ambassador Reischauer demanded that the nukes be removed from Irakuni, which they promptly were.

I think there is a loose parallel with the NY mosque/prayer room here. I'm not equating a mosque or Islam with nuclear weapons. I'm equating the sensitivities of New Yorkers (logical or otherwise) with the sensitivities of Japanese.

Posted 1 year ago #
DP
Member Profile

Annie: Thank you for your most excellent comments!

You are quite right that I do not know that Mr. Rauf would be against having such a debate on his property. Oh, how I wish we could ask him right now!

I believe that to Mr. Rauf, Islam really does mean peace. And to the extent that he's trying to win over all Muslims to the side of peace, I am definitely with him. In the meantime, I think he, and others, can help move us forward by acknowledging that, to many people around the world, including many Muslims, Islam does not mean peace. At least, not for the time being . . .

I'm not sure I understand what you mean when you say that someone's reaction of being hurt or angry, while understandable, is "polarizing." Feelings are what they are; they are neither right nor wrong. However, what I hear some pro-mosque folks (not you) saying is that people who feel hurt by the mosque proposal are somehow wrong for feeling hurt—or wrong for voicing their opinion that they don't want a mosque this close to GZ.

For me, that's the nub of this matter. If I heard people acknowledging that this might just be about something other than the Bill of Rights, or about Muslim bashing, I'd feel better.

In any case, I'm glad to see someone recognizing that there are nuances to this issue. You are like a breath of fresh air.

Posted 1 year ago #
Garden_nymph
Member Profile

DP, I just thought you would appreciate being informed about the Japanese Cultural Center that IS located 10.5 miles from the USS Arizona Memorial on Oahu. http://www.hawaiiweb.com/oahu/sites_to_see/japanese_cultural_center.htm
The Address for the USS Arizona Memorial is,
USS Arizona Memorial
1 Arizona Memorial Road
Honolulu, HI 96818-3103

How many years will it take to move on in a peaceful manner? It sounds to me like a community center, any COMMUNITY center in a derelict area full of strip bars and porn shops would be welcomed. It is sad to me that this attempted blocking of the Mosque is tolerated in America, a country FOUNDED on religious freedom as a tenant of our Constitution! How many US service men and women have lost their lives protecting our rights and THIS is how we honor them?! My heart aches for those who have had to deal with retaliation due to ignorance regarding Muslims. Remember when a Sikh taxi driver was attacked after 9/11? He wasn't MUSLIM! What about the Muslim woman here in West Seattle that had her dress cut shorter! My friend's brother was the Muslim man who was almost shot at the Northgate Mosque on 9/11. The only reason he wasn't killed was the perp's gun jammed. He was praying for peace,as many of us were. When will people learn Muslim doesn't equal Terrorist, but Intolerance = Hate!? Aren't we better than this? For our collective sakes, I certainly hope so!

Posted 1 year ago #
dobro
Member Profile

"I take this to mean you think that the opposition to the mosque/prayer room was originally incited by a single person and is being propagated by a small group of people. Hence: a conspiracy. Did I misread you on that?"

According to the article I cited, Pam Gellar's organization Stop Islamization of America (SIOA) sponsored and organized the first protest of the prayer center after it had been publicly announced, approved by the powers that be for zoning and necessary permitting with no public opposition. Some people are in the business of stirring up things to promote their own interests (ie Ann Coulter, Dick Armey, etc), I think she may be one of those. I don't see it as a conspiracy and never said so because this type of action doesn't require a group of people to sit in a room and conspire. There's an entire Right Wing echo chamber that takes stuff like this and runs with it, puts freaks like Gellar on TV and radio to spew their hate and lies, and projects it into the MSM, creating fake controversy which translates into ratings and money. It's really all about money when you come down to it.

"However, it's also possible (I think probable, actually) that Gellar and others are merely trying to ride the wave of anger that was already building over this."

This is conjecture on your part that doesn't jibe with the facts presented in the article.

"However, what I hear some pro-mosque folks (not you) saying is that people who feel hurt by the mosque proposal are somehow wrong for feeling hurt—or wrong for voicing their opinion that they don't want a mosque this close to GZ."

As you stated earlier in your post, feelings are neither right nor wrong and folks can feel anyway they want. What IS wrong with a capital W is compromising constitutional rights because somebody doesn't like it if you exercise them. If its ok for Catholics, Jews, and Buddhists to have religious centers in that neighborhood then its ok for Muslims to do it too and if you are asking them to voluntarily give up their rights because someone's feelings might be hurt then what you're asking is un-american. Rights are not to be put up to a vote and apply equally to all.

Posted 1 year ago #
Annie
Member Profile

DP, I think I was reacting to the words, "slap in the face" as being polarizing. No one is wrong for the feelings they have, but people do have the responsibility for any actions they take in response to those feelings. Interpreting the building of a Muslim center as a "slap in the face" is not the only interpretation possible to anyone and those that feel strongly need to consider other possibilities. For instance that the owner of the property was not intending insult or demean or slap anyone. If Mr Rauf was indeed intending a "slap in the face" to New Yorkers, survivors, Christians, whoever, and and they "slapped back," which you can argue they did, how is that moving the conversation forward? That is where I see polarization. Surely we were "slapped in the face" on 9/11 and we slapped back, hard. Has that made life better for us or for the Iraqis, who had nothing to do with it?

Also, why is it up to the Muslims to prove anything to those who insult them? It was not a religion who attacked us, but men who made a mockery of their religion. Maybe the fact that they were all (almost) Saudi's had more to do with it than their religion. Just thinkin. . .and that popped into my head.

Posted 1 year ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.

All contents copyright 2012, A Drink of Water and a Story Interactive. Here's how to contact us.
No photo reuse without permission.
Entries and comments feeds. ^Top^