Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Mosque-Issippi Burning
Salman Hamdani died on Sept. 11, 2001. The 23-year-old research assistant at Rockefeller University had a degree in biochemistry. He was also a trained emergency medical technician and a cadet with the New York Police Department. But he never made it to work that day. Hamdani, a Muslim-American, was among that day's first responders. He raced to Ground Zero to save others. His selfless act cost him his life.
Hamdani was later praised by President George W. Bush as a hero and mentioned by name in the USA Patriot Act. But that was not how he was portrayed in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. In October, his parents went to Mecca to pray for their son. While they were away, the New York Post and other media outlets portrayed Hamdani as a possible terrorist on the run. "MISSING-OR HIDING? MYSTERY OF THE NYPD CADET FROM PAKISTAN" screamed the Post headline. The sensational article noted that someone fitting Hamdani's description had been seen near the Midtown Tunnel a full month after 9/11. His family was interrogated. Hamdani's Internet use and politics were investigated.
His parents, Talat and Saleem Hamdani, had been frantically searching the hospitals, the lists of the dead and the injured. "There were patients who had lost their memory," his mother, Talat, said. "We hoped he would be one of them, we would be able to identify him."
The ominous reports on Hamdani were typical of the increasing, overt bigotry against Arab-Americans, Muslim-Americans and people of South Asian heritage. Talat, who worked as a teacher, told me how children in her extended family had to Anglicize their names to avoid discrimination:
"They were in second grade ... Armeen became Amy, and one became Mickey and the other one became Mikey and the fourth one became Adam. And we asked them, ‘Why did you change your names?' And they said ‘because we don't want to be called terrorists in the school.' "
On March 20, 2002, the Hamdanis received word that Salman's DNA had been found at Ground Zero, and thus he was officially a victim of the attacks. At his funeral, held at the Islamic Community Center at East 96th St. in Manhattan, Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Police Commissioner Ray Kelly and Rep. Gary Ackerman all spoke.
Which brings us to the controversy around the proposed Islamic community center, slated to be built at 51 Park Place in lower Manhattan. The facility is not, for the record, a mosque. And it is not at Ground Zero (it's two blocks away). The Cordoba Initiative, the nonprofit group spearheading the project, describes it as a "community center, much like the YMCA or the Jewish Community Center ... where people from any faith are allowed to use the facilities. Beyond having a gym, the Cordoba House will house a pool, restaurant, 500-person auditorium, 9/11 memorial, multifaith chapel, office and conference space, and prayer space."
Opposition to the center started among fringe, right-wing blogs, and has since been swept into the mainstream. While the hole at Ground Zero has yet to be filled, as billionaire developers bicker over the plans, the news hole that August brings has been readily filled with the "Ground Zero Mosque" controversy.
There is another hole that needs to be filled, namely, the absence of people in the U.S. in leadership positions in every walk of life, of every political stripe, speaking out for freedom of religion and against racism. As the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. once said, "In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends."
Does anyone seriously say that there shouldn't be a Christian church near the site of the Oklahoma City bombing, just because Timothy McVeigh was a Christian?
People who are against hate are not a fringe minority, not even a silent majority, but are a silenced majority. They are silenced by the chattering classes, who are driving this debate throughout the media.
Hate breeds violence. Marginalizing an entire population, an entire religion, is not good for our country. It endangers Muslims within America, and provokes animosity toward America around the world.
When I asked Daisy Khan, executive director of the American Society for Muslim Advancement, which is a partner in the proposed community center, if she feared for herself, for her children or for Muslims in New York, she replied, "I'm afraid for my country."
Denis Moynihan contributed research to this column.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
132 Comments so far
Show AllThe US has become a nation of cowards, ruled by fear, controlled by hate.
That the peaceful and tolerant among you have been silenced by the Political, Corporate and Media classes shows that your democracy is long dead and rotting.
Your actions shame the word 'human'.
Non Serviam - I will not serve.
Regarding the Mosque: http://coyotesings.wordpress.com/2010/08/15/regarding-the-mosque-near-ground-zero/
A Muslim questions the Mosque: http://coyotesings.wordpress.com/2010/08/15/thank-you-thank-you-thank-you/
Thank you. The reasonable voice of bigotry is always welcomed.
You're welcome.
I think you're misunderstanding sarcasm.
You think it's me huh?
How else would you read "the reasonable voice of bigotry?" It's a bit of a backhanded complement.
I give up.
How else would you read "the reasonable voice of bigotry?" It's a bit of a backhanded complement.
Regarding the "Mosque" - from the actual organization building it:
http://www.park51.org/vision.htm
http://www.park51.org/inthenews.htm
Sounds like a paradise! That should settle all concerns.
In most civilized countries racists and foreign hating groups are completely isolated from the general population but in the United States they can win widespread support and form the governing majority. They have killed millions of people in aggressive needless wars all over the world based on lies but they are traumatized because 3,000 Americans got killed on September 11, 2001.
Most Americans have been paranoid about Muslims and Arabs since 9/11 and all this Islamic cultural center controversy does is stir up the flames from long-smoldering coals. The same sign-waving fools against the center would claim in chorus their "belief" in religious freedom of expression, so long as it's not practiced by Muslims in the USA. Their support for the first amendment comes with Christian strings attached.
So it's no surprise that reactionary dolts like Eric Cantor and Harry Reid are willing to carry the Christian torch of intolerance, because hey, remember 9/11? It's the key point to every last American-exceptionalist argument. We were attacked once upon a time, therefore we have the right to declare enemies throughout the world, based solely on our perverse perception of who attacked us. THEY did. And "they" means whomever we wish it to mean under varied circumstances, the better to attack any country at any time and occupy it indefinitely, until we've extracted whatever resources from it we claim as our own, given to us by God Almighty, as the Bible teaches.
That's the religious background to Full Spectrum Dominance, the general rationale for our military presence in virtually every nation state on earth. We alone are supposed to control the whole world, not Islamic "terrists". Our form of routine military terrorism is sacrosanct, ordained by the Creator, to stamp out infidel religions like Islam. The mirror image of Al Qaeda and Taliban Islamic fundamentalism. Christian fundamentalist fear of "the other" is clashing with the idea of equally fanatical Islamic intolerance of any other god but Allah. It's been this way since 9/11 and it isn't going away. Religious insanity has the world by the throat.
" The same sign-waving fools against the center would claim in chorus their "belief" in religious freedom of expression, so long as it's not practiced by Muslims in the USA. "
Have you seen the sign-waving fools protesting against *all* of the hundreds of mosques in the US? Or just one single proposed facility? Thanks.
Since you asked so politely:
http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1008/16/acd.02.html
"We're joined now via Skype by Bryan Fischer; he's the host of Focal Point on the American Family Radio Talk Network. . We should point out that he's also issues director for the American Family Association. While he says his views are his own, not the association's, the American Family Radio Network is, in fact, listed as a division of the AFA, just to get that all clear. Thanks for joining us, Mr. Fischer.
BRYAN FISCHER, HOST, "FOCAL POINT" AMERICAN FAMILY RADIO TALK NETWORK: You're welcome, Dr. Gupta, good to be with you.
GUPTA:You don't want any mosques built in the United States, is that correct? You want a moratorium?
FISCHER: I think the reality Dr. Gupta is, that when we look at Islam, we're looking at a totalitarian ideology that is anti- Christian, anti-Semitic. The values that are at the core of Islam are contrary to every single solitary western and American value. I think communities ought to have the liberty to reject building permits.
Each one of these mosques is either a potential or actual recruitment center for Jihadism or training center for Jihadism.
GUPTA: You said quite a bit there already. Let me just start with one thing, freedom of religion. You've been asked this question before; it's one of this country's founding principles.
The First Amendment says, Congress shall make no law respecting (ph) an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
How can you say that that potentially applies to all religions except Islam?
FISCHER: Well, the reality, Dr. Gupta, is that no one could claim First Amendment religious protections if their ideology and their activities are subversive.
All you've got do is ask the Christian militia, the Hutaree how much First Amendment protections they had when they set out to attack federal officers. They have Bible verses plastered all over their Web site. Everything they did, they did in the name of Jesus Christ. They are right now pondering the limits of the First Amendment from the inside of a jail cell, which is where they should be.
GUPTA: You know, you have said -- now, again, you've said some this before. Your evidence for saying that every mosque potentially here is dedicated to the overthrowing of the American government is a manifest, I believe, issued in 1991 by a group called the Muslim Brotherhood. Now, you quote some frightening passages from there about destroying Western civilization from within.
But, Bryan, you realize this group doesn't speak for all Muslims; it doesn't speak for all Muslims around the world. It doesn't speak for all Muslims in the United States. It's a radical political group, very controversial.
And while its history does involve some violence, they're -- they're controversial even among Muslims. So, how can you -- how can you use that one particular organization and say that they're speaking for 1.2 billion people?
FISCHER: Well, Dr. Gupta, it's nice of you to try to marginalize the Muslim Brotherhood, but their tentacles include the Islamic Society of North America, the Muslim Student Association, the Council for American-Islamic Relations -- CAIR, and also the Muslim Association.
So, you're looking at four -- five, really, if you include the Brotherhood -- five of the most prominent and most visible Muslim organizations in North America. They are far from a fringe group; they represent the essence and the core of Islam. And it's very clear that the goal of Islam in North America is the extermination of Western civilization. No community should have to put up with that.
GUPTA: I don't think a lot of people agree with you, Bryan, on this. I just have to say that. And I'm a layperson when it comes to this, but let me ask you what you think of this particular comment back in 2001.
"Islam is peace." Now, that wasn't said by any liberal or Democrat. It was said by President George W. Bush, a man who talked at length about his deep Christian faith. What about that from President Bush?
FISCHER: Well, President Bush was well-meaning, but wrong.
Islam is not a religion of peace. It is a religion of war. It is a religion of violence. Christianity, on the other hand, is a religion of peace. It was founded by the Prince of Peace. That's the major contrast between the two religions.
Islam, in reality, is a political ideology. It's a totalitarian political ideology. And you simply cannot hide a totalitarian political agenda behind the First Amendment.
Imagine if Timothy McVeigh was a Christian. Now, he wasn't. He was an atheist. But imagine he was a part of a violent Christian sect, and he wanted to build a 13-story center, cultural center, for his Christian sect overlooking the grounds of the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City.
GUPTA: All right.
FISCHER: I don't think anybody in America would put up with that, and they would be right not to.
GUPTA: I hear you. I think that's an unfair comparison, with all due respect.
Quickly, Mr. Fischer, a lot of Muslim-Americans watching tonight, some of them very upset by some of the comments you have made in the past, what do you say to them now?
FISCHER: Well, I say I love Muslims. I am pro-Muslim. I am anti-Islam.
I would say to a Muslim, look, your ideology is destructive. It's deceptive. It's dark. I invite you to come into the light of the kingdom of Jesus Christ. That's where hope and light, forgiveness and a promise for the future can truly be found."
I await the hilarious apologia and excuse you will try to come up with.
You provided "only one* example of an idiot. I am sure this idiot felt this way ahead of the current controversy. Are you actually trying to say that this idiot is characteristic of the *all* of the people protesting the current situation in NYC? If so, why?
Your initial statement:
"Have you seen the sign-waving fools protesting against *all* of the hundreds of mosques in the US? Or just one single proposed facility? Thanks."
I provided an example showing that yes, there are indeed sign-waving fools protesting against *all* mosques in the US.
"I provided an example showing that yes, there are indeed sign-waving fools protesting against *all* mosques in the US."
And you didn't have to. I had no doubt that there are a tiny minority of pinheads that feel this way, and that in the main the opposition is around ground zero. Those people are idiots like I said before. Don't you agree?
Using the statements of one man and some followers to paint everyone opposed to building a Mosque near Ground Zero with a broad brush. Typical. Get a clue. Not everyone opposed to the Mosque is a bigot; there are even Muslims opposed to building the Mosque-Muslim Center 2 blocks from Ground Zero. They hate their own religion? LOL
Most of the people opposed to the Mosque are indeed bigots. I have heard very few of these mythical Muslims who are opposed to the building. My guess is at most they might not think it's a good idea, which is very different from being opposed to it.
"Most of the people opposed to the Mosque are indeed bigots."
The way the polling is going than you mean most of a large majority of Americans are bigots.
I happen to think accusing bigotry or racism is intellectually lazy.
You need improve your basic reading skills.
Nowhere did I state that my example was indicative of everyone. jakenewton disputed the contention that sign-waving fools oppose all mosques. I provided an example showing that there are indeed sign-waving fools who oppose all mosques.
Nor did I state anything about anyone hating their own religion. You are arguing with the voices in your head.
Typical.
"Nowhere did I state that my example was indicative of everyone."
I'm sorry, there are others here that do think that there is widespread opposition to mosques in the US in general. I am so glad that you aren't one of them. Aren't those people who do believe that kooks? I'll bet we agree on that one. Take care!
The largest rallies against the Community Center have been organized by a group called the SIOA.
That stands for "Stop the Islamization of America".
Does this suggest anything to you?
"The largest rallies against the Community Center have been organized by a group called the SIOA."
I don't know that to be true. Lets assume it is. Does that mean that everyone attending the rallys is in lock step with the stated positions of SIOA? Of course it doesn't. And where is the stated position by SIOA that they are against all mosques in the US?
"Does this suggest anything to you?"
Not without further checking. Did you do any?
Yes , unlike you I do not plead ignorance on every topic and then demand people do my legwork. I have already provided the names of one of the spokespeople for that group and she has been interviewed by virtually every television network where she stated her opinions.
As to your other point.
When A group of people in Brownshirts with Swastikas worn on their sleeves are marching, I do not think I have to ask each one individually what it is they "believe in". It would seem pretty evident to me they are marching in "lock step" or they would not be there marching in lock step.
Are you saying you would march with the Nazi Party if they had a point you agreed with?
The same is when true people March in rallies organized by "Stop the Islamization of America". If they did not agree with the groups principles, yet were opposed to the Mosque for other reasons, they can choose to March on their own or with groups that are more reasonable.
If they decide they MUST march with SIOA because it "convenient" then I question their principles.
"When A group of people in Brownshirts with Swastikas worn on their sleeves are marching, I"
Where did this happen? What does it have to do with the subject under discussion?
"The same is when true people March in rallies organized by "Stop the Islamization of America". "
Oh, now I see. How can you make any comparison to the Nazi example? Just based on the signs?
It doesn't matter. SIOA does not have a stated goal of opposition to all mosques in the country.
>>Oh, now I see. How can you make any comparison to the Nazi example? Just based on the signs?
Do you practice being obtuse?
If the opposition to the Community Center is so universal, it should be easy to join in a protest that is NOT associated with SOIA. If no such protests can be found then it follows the protests are being orchestrated by SOIA.
People that JOIN such a group to protest are not FORCED to do so anymore then a person marching with Nazis is forced into brown Uniforms to do so. They do it out of choice.
If a person marching in brownshirt wearing a Swastika on his arm claims that he not really a Nazi and does not believe any of the things they preach...he just "likes to wear brown and march around" I am not going to find him credible.
If a person marches in protests organized by the SIOA and claims he does not really believe in their message but he could not find anyone else to march with, I am not going to find him very credible.
Now I also suggest you do more research on SIOA which is based on a like group in Europe. One of the those signing the Charter that brought SIOA is one John Joseph Jay. You can google search his name.
The others who signed the Charter are Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, Anders Gravers, and Richard Davis.
I have spoken of Pamela Geller before and you can GOOGLE her name to see some of her interviews, one in particular where she claims Islam inspired Adolf Hitler..
Anders Gravers is the founder of the European Wing of this group . He has protested across Europe against the building of ANY Mosque.
Back to John Joseph Jay.
He has openly called for the deportation of all Muslims from the USA and has posted that The West should make war on All Of Islam man, woman and child as there no such thing as Innocence in Islam...they are all guilty.
You are free to go to their own website. They have articles there giving tips to Americans as how they can stop the construction of ANY Mosque in The USA.
Now back to Nazis.
Can you think of any Nazi leader...any at all who singled out a Religous group and claimed they should be cleansed from say....let me see , a Germany because it was a Christian nation and this other religous group was traitorous and duplictous and responsible for..say the Loss of a war?
Now imagine for a moment that in fact happened...
Imagine these Nazis singled out the Jews. Imagine they destroyed Synagogues or called for their destruction of blocked the Construction of new ones.
And there a group of people who opposed this and spoke up against it claiming it Bigotry and hateful...
Who would YOU stand with?
Again research the founders of SIOA before you dimiss them as being little more then "patriots" concerned about hurting peoples feelings as they oppose the Community Center in Manhattan.
"Do you practice being obtuse?"
Not helpful to your position GW. Don't do it again.
"If the opposition to the Community Center is so universal, it should be easy to join in a protest that is NOT associated with SOIA."
Bzzzt. False premise. Just because there is opposition, it does not follow that those who oppose would be the least but interested in joining a protest. That is traditionally what the far left does, not the right or the middle. The recent tea party movement is an exception that has very little precedent.
"If no such protests can be found then it follows the protests are being orchestrated by SOIA."
Even if my statement above were wrong, what we have here is *yet another* example of your inability to use reason. The thing you are forgetting about (or never knew about) this time is the principle "absence of evidence is to evidence of absence". Look it up. We should all be relieved that you are not a scientist.
All the rest of your concerns about SOIA are irrelevant because our central question is whether that group has a stated goal of not allowing any mosques in the US, outside of whether that means everyone who shows up at a protest they sponsor agree with that particular point.
The SOIA has no stated goal about mosques in the US generally. That is the crux of your problem. If you think they do, you must demonstrate that they do. Forget about the Nazis, that is distracting you from what your true focus should be.
>>"absence of evidence is to evidence of absence
Apply this fallacy to your own statements such as who was responsible for 9/11 and or the Religous faith of those responsible and why it would have any bearing as to whether or not a Islamic Community Center should be constructed at that site.
Indeed the fact is this. The SIOA has indicated it is organizing protests at ground zero. You can go to their website and join one.
Can you provide evidence of such not orchestrated in conjunction with SIOA? Links please.
>>Forget about the Nazis, that is distracting you from what your true focus should be.
I see. So when presented with evidence of how groups in the past "focused" the attentions of a people on an identifiable enemy/threat using the meme of "security" and "terrorism" wherein the same types of protests organized against persons of a certain religion, you would prefer to ignore the evidence and the example?
I suspect there were a whole lot of people like you in Germany in 1933 to that countries great loss.
Again. I gave the names of the Founders of SIOA. You can reasearch them.
"Apply this fallacy to your own statements such as who was responsible for 9/11 "
I have already. Sorry, but like most reasonable people I lean toward Muslims armed with box cutters over SPACE BEAM technology.
"The SIOA has indicated it is organizing protests at ground zero."
I agree. So what? The question has been whether they or anyone else is protesting just the ground zero thing or mosques in the US as a whole. Why do you lose focus on this central theme of our discussion" So we have a few examples of people who have vocalized opposition to mosques in the US in general. This does not include the SIOA. So what? That is to be expected. The elephant in the room is a large majority of Americans polling against the *ground zero* facility.
"So when presented with evidence of how groups in the past"
GW: you are distracted. The scale of the Nazi party was *huge*. Concentrate on the central theme: Is there widespread opposition to mosques in the US? No.
Your secrets out Jake, you practice being obtuse. "Don't do it again." You're a bossy little twerp, aren't you?
*shrug*
See Battles Around Nation Over Proposed Mosques - NYTimes.com
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/08/us/08mosque.html?_r=1
This August 7 NY Times article lists opposition to mosques not only near Ground Zero, Manhattan, but also in Murfreesboro, Tenn., Temecula, Calif., and Sheboygan, Wis.
Thank you. Those incidents are local, and nowhere does the article show opposition to all mosques across the US. The issue we have been discussing is a national issue, one that the President has now weighed in on.
*Nowhere* did I state that there doesn't exist a small minority who are against all mosques in the US. What no one in this threed seems to want to acknowledge is that across the general public, this proposed facility is not polling well, with a significant majority of Americans against it. The one "mosque" that is.
"Those incidents are local." Give some examples of a location for anything that isn't local. It's sort of self-defining. And what if a majority of Americans are against this particular and local, to lower Manhattan, cultural center? (It's not a mosque.) Does this have some profound significance, other than exactly what anyone might expect?
"Give some examples of a location for anything that isn't local."
It looks like I should have said that they are *only* local. So called ground zero has national significance due to what happened there, and I am sure you and I would agree on that. Those other sites are nothing loke that.
"And what if a majority of Americans are against this particular and local, to lower Manhattan, cultural center? (It's not a mosque.) Does this have some profound significance,"
Obviously it is significant.
"other than exactly what anyone might expect?"
I don't know what you mean, other than the fact that certain politicians and media people are tone deaf to this issue and we should expect that?
To all those people who support the 2-blocks from Ground Zero Mosque: Would you also be supportive of a "Museum of the KKK" being built in Harlem or any other black neighborhood? Why or why not? Wouldn't it be wrong or intolerant or un-American to oppose the KKK museum? Weren't most members of the KKK non-violent, and the KKK that became infamous was a violent, radical offshoot that hijacked the KKK movement? After all, weren't most KKK members "moderates"?
There's nothing controversial about stating that the KKK is intolerant, supremacist and was often murderous, but say the same thing about Islam, based on the Koran and Hadith and the history of Islam, and you get howls of protests from "tolerant" liberals against the "bigoted" people making these statements about Islam.
It seems many liberals have become very supportive of the Mosque based purely on who is against it(Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich), and claiming it is "right-wing" to oppose it. I can't stand any of these people, and while I believe the Mosque-Islamic Center 2 blocks from Ground Zero isn't a good idea and is apparently offensive to 9/11 victims families and other Americans, I don't believe the state should get involved or block it. Rather, I would suggest the organization that wants to build it should consider another location and meet with the families of 9/11 victims.
This article explains quite nicely the ridiculousness of being "tolerant" of Islam - http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/243899/tolerant-pose-andrew-c-mccarthy
"The first thing that all honest students of Islam must admit is that it is not absolutely clear where members of al Qaeda, the Taliban, al-Shabab, Lashkar-e-Taiba, Hamas, and other Muslim terrorist groups have misconstrued their religious obligations. If they are “extremists” who have deformed an ancient faith into a death cult, they haven’t deformed it by much. When one reads the Koran and the hadith, and consults the opinions of Muslim jurists over the centuries, one discovers that killing apostates, treating women like livestock, and waging jihad—not merely as an inner, spiritual struggle but as holy war against infidels—are practices that are central to the faith. " - http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-08-13/ground-zero-mosque/2/
Granted, most Muslims are non-violent, decent people, but we can't pretend that their holy book preaches peace and is respectful of all religions and peoples(have you never met a very polite, law-abiding racist in your life?). Some of America's best citizens, as this article clearly indicates, are Muslim.
For the record, not being overly fond of this Mosque near Ground Zero doesn't make you right-wing. I'm not even Christian(another supremacist, often violent religion) and I am against most of what Republicans stand for. I'm against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and hope we completely pull out soon.
You comments with a few tweaks could be the same as old-fashioned Anti-Semitism. The original European Anti-Semites who claimed there were secret teachings that the Jews didn't tell outsiders, and they too said the equivalent of "there are good Muslims, but they need to speak out."
The KKK analogy is utter nonsense, as there is only one KKK ideology, but there are countless sects of Islam, and only one has been hijacked by extremists.
In any case, you know what? It's the law. They own the land. End of story.
Nowhere did he deny that fact. As fact, most of the critique people had of what he wrote was a restatement of what he wrote.
This all has gone too far....both ways.
Why don't you get your information from the actual people building this facility - for starters, it isn' even a "mosque".
http://www.park51.org/vision.htm
http://www.cordobainitiative.org/
KKK is not Islam (or even Christianity). Stupid hater.
IT'S NOT A MOSQUE!!! Did you read the article??? Oh person who "is" neither "truth"ful nor "peace"ful.
"Would you also be supportive of a Museum of the KKK"
They aren't proposing to build a museum of terror. They are proposing to build a community center.
"Weren't most members of the KKK non-violent?"
Actually, you can't say "The" KKK. Several different organizations have formed under than name at different times in history. Every one of them though, was first and foremost, a terrorist organization. Their purpose was to achieve certain political and social goals by threatening violence against anybody who did not comply. It may be that many of their members were too cowardly to act out their professed beliefs, but I wouldn't know how many did or did not carry out the the program.
"...but say the same thing about Islam, based on the Koran and Hadith and the history of Islam, and you get howls of protest."
The vast majority of Muslims are not violent extremists. The reason is simple: The vast majority of PEOPLE are not violent extremists. You'd have to look long and hard to find a Muslim who chose to be a Muslim in the same way that KKK members choose the KKK. Virtually all Muslims were BORN Muslim. Regardless of what the history of their religion may be, and regardless of what their scripture may say, they find ways to make it a religion of peace.
You can find passages in the Holy Bible where God commands His people to commit genocide and other atrocities. You can cite historical events in which Christians have raped or tortured or slaughtered innocent people in the name of God. Does that prove that Christianity is a religion of violence and terror? No, it does not. The majority of Christians---just like the majority of Muslims, just like the majority of people everywhere---are people of peace, and they find ways to make their religion a religion of peace.
"It seems many liberals have become very supportive of the Mosque based purely on who is against it"
Sounds like a straw man to me. How many is many? How do you know why they support it? I don't know why other "libs" support it, but I support it on purely libertarian grounds. As long as they pay their taxes and comply with zoning ordinances, the owners of the property should be allowed to use it as they please.
"I believe the Mosque-Islamic Center 2 blocks from Ground Zero isn't a good idea."
Oh? And how far would be "far enough?" Would three blocks be OK? Five blocks? Is there anywhere in Lower Manhattan that would be far enough to please all of the critics? Is there anyplace in New York City that would be far enough? Is there any place in the U.S.A.?
I agree.
Understanding and tolerance takes intelligence and compassion, while intolerance and hate takes fear of understanding and tolerance.
Selling fear is the driver of this one.
"And how far would be "far enough?"
A fair question. I might suggest that in cases of genuine heartfelt concern, that a doubling of the current distance might halve the concern, whatever that concern level happened to be.
Dear jakenewton;
but using that argument, wouldn't mean that the many 911 families who support the COMMUNITY center, would want it halved, closer, in the other direction!
Once again, the PEOPLE are forgotten, and the blog persons that started this were using their incorrect information to make this a political issue, to take up the front pages, and create another" soft on terror" campaign.
Aren't verbal terrorists just as bad? How far off the internet should they be moved? Oh wait, we do have the First Amendment here, and it protects them as equally as it protects the rights of the COMMUNITY center.
Taking this argument to the nth degree, because some priests ARE pedophiles, then there should no longer be Catholic schools because so many schools are in close proximity to the churches,and we all know who's in the churches! IF one is guilty, then they all are, is really a silly argument.
"but using that argument, wouldn't mean that the many 911 families who support the COMMUNITY center, would want it halved, closer, in the other direction!"
Yes. I don't think too many exist though.
"This article explains quite nicely the ridiculousness of being "tolerant" of Islam - http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/243899/tolerant-pose-andrew-c-mccarthy
"The first thing that all honest students of Islam must admit is that it is not absolutely clear where members of al Qaeda, the Taliban, al-Shabab, Lashkar-e-Taiba, Hamas, and other Muslim terrorist groups have misconstrued their religious obligations. If they are “extremists” who have deformed an ancient faith into a death cult, they haven’t deformed it by much. When one reads the Koran and the hadith, and consults the opinions of Muslim jurists over the centuries, one discovers that killing apostates, treating women like livestock, and waging jihad—not merely as an inner, spiritual struggle but as holy war against infidels—are practices that are central to the faith. " - http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-08-13/ground-zero-mosque/2/"
No, this article demonstrates nicely the ridiculousness of such articles.
"Granted, most Muslims are non-violent, decent people, but we can't pretend that their holy book preaches peace and is respectful of all religions and peoples(have you never met a very polite, law-abiding racist in your life?)."
We can't pretend that the holy book of most religions preach peace and are respectful of all religions and people. Nor can we pretend that most holy books are even consistent. Which is why articles like the one you linked are idiotic. Any fool can pull quotes out of some holy book to make that religion look bad. Equally, anyone else can pull quotes out of that same holy book that contradicts those other quotes. And so on, and so forth.
Nor can we pretend that some atheists preach peace and are respectful of all religions and peoples.
It is the literalist fundamentalist idiots, the people with a literalist fundamentalist mindset, who think pulling random quotes proves anything. And that includes fundamentalist atheist type
Read the Bible literally, both old and new testaments. Not much better than the Koran, I say. Historically, Muslims have been more tolerant than Christians. Or have we forgotten the Middle Ages. We in the west like to think we have progressed past all the religious nonsense when it comes to our political systems. If so, we should be helping Muslims out of the Middle Ages, not attacking and invading their countries.
I believe that intolerance and hatred are signs of a maladjusted psychotic. Religion is very convenient for these types. They can pick and choose and make of it any thing they want.