|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Aug 18, 2010 15:38:04 GMT -5
That is Olson, to be clear. I think it is a valid point, but I have always thought there's something off-putting about the "I should decide as a relative of a victim" angle. Their loss is immense and tragic - I understand that - but I think there should also be some sense of moving on in what is done with the various 9/11 sites.
They achieved that at the real Ground Zero site, to the dismay of many victims' families who wanted it to be used for a park/memorial garden/place of reflection kind of thing IIRC.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Aug 18, 2010 16:01:30 GMT -5
I know it is tough to stomach, but Harry Reid is not that liberal. It would be nice if one of his Republican colleagues would cross the aisle in a similar matter and with the same regularity. CQ's 2008 ratings for party unity had him at 84% - that makes him a maverick in some circles. ;D On edit, Ted Olson, a well-respected conservative thinker, has come out in support of the New York City community center proposal. Just about every Senator who has scored below 80% in party unity is a Republican, you realize that, right?
|
|
|
Post by hoyawatcher on Aug 18, 2010 16:12:00 GMT -5
That begs the question of why the Imam didn't look to have this dialogue earlier as it wouldn't take a Georgetown graduate to see the backlash coming. Especially if the idea was to create a place of "healing" after 9-11. And I have to admit I have a bit of an issue saying it is too late now - essentially giving them both benefit of the doubt and in fact rewarding them for ignoring the obvious. That doesn't mean they don't have the legal right, but it does open them wide and clear for all the claims that this isn't a moderate Islamic group focused on healing but rather some sort of insensitive Islamic power play.
I do have to admit I get a kick out of relating this to the "right wing noise machine". As the linked article reiterates, New Yorkers (that bastion of right wing politics) match the rest of the fly over country with 60+ percent thinking this location is a bad idea. And even Obama is playing the part of the rightest of wingers saying he isn't going to comment on the common sense of putting the Mosque there. But I am sure we will get to the bottom of this with the investigation of the opponents of this location now promised by Speaker Pelosi. I guess that will exclude Reid since he just has a different view of things as now characterized by Obama.
On another level though, this is backlash is no different than it was for the Catholics who wanted to inhabit part of the concentration camp or as others said would come should the German government want to open something next to the Holocaust museum or a whole host of other similar examples where not all Catholics were part of helping the Nazi exodus or this German gov't is not associated with the Nazi party. But it is common sense and any muslim group who really wants to promote healing after 9-11 would be highly sensitive to this perception and deal with up upfront and proactively. It would also help if the Imam would say Hammas is a terrorist group and not devote a significant part of the building to the study and promotion of Sharia law. Again this is his legal right but doesn't help the perception of the post 9-11 healing.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Aug 18, 2010 16:53:11 GMT -5
I know it is tough to stomach, but Harry Reid is not that liberal. It would be nice if one of his Republican colleagues would cross the aisle in a similar matter and with the same regularity. CQ's 2008 ratings for party unity had him at 84% - that makes him a maverick in some circles. ;D On edit, Ted Olson, a well-respected conservative thinker, has come out in support of the New York City community center proposal. Just about every Senator who has scored below 80% in party unity is a Republican, you realize that, right? Do you have any 2008-2010 data? I looked for it but couldn't find it, so I looked at 2008, when that kind of party disunity was more an issue of common sense than anything else. Still, I respect that many Republicans even then and still do think highly of Dubya. It is a courageous position. Meanwhile, it cannot be argued as a matter of historical fact that there have been more filibusters and forced cloture votes in the Senate since 2008 than at any other time in the history of the republic. Everything from judicial nominations to HCR has been held up because of this. The disunity comes in, occasionally, where something is uncontroversial but a Senator will vote against cloture and then vote aye on the merits. John Kerry did that in 2004, and he earned a name for it.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Aug 18, 2010 18:14:40 GMT -5
Another right wing demagogue weighs in and says another site would be better: For shame!!!!
|
|
hoyatables
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,603
|
Post by hoyatables on Aug 18, 2010 21:11:21 GMT -5
That begs the question of why the Imam didn't look to have this dialogue earlier as it wouldn't take a Georgetown graduate to see the backlash coming. Especially if the idea was to create a place of "healing" after 9-11. And I have to admit I have a bit of an issue saying it is too late now - essentially giving them both benefit of the doubt and in fact rewarding them for ignoring the obvious. That doesn't mean they don't have the legal right, but it does open them wide and clear for all the claims that this isn't a moderate Islamic group focused on healing but rather some sort of insensitive Islamic power play. I do have to admit I get a kick out of relating this to the "right wing noise machine". As the linked article reiterates, New Yorkers (that bastion of right wing politics) match the rest of the fly over country with 60+ percent thinking this location is a bad idea. And even Obama is playing the part of the rightest of wingers saying he isn't going to comment on the common sense of putting the Mosque there. But I am sure we will get to the bottom of this with the investigation of the opponents of this location now promised by Speaker Pelosi. I guess that will exclude Reid since he just has a different view of things as now characterized by Obama. On another level though, this is backlash is no different than it was for the Catholics who wanted to inhabit part of the concentration camp or as others said would come should the German government want to open something next to the Holocaust museum or a whole host of other similar examples where not all Catholics were part of helping the Nazi exodus or this German gov't is not associated with the Nazi party. But it is common sense and any muslim group who really wants to promote healing after 9-11 would be highly sensitive to this perception and deal with up upfront and proactively. It would also help if the Imam would say Hammas is a terrorist group and not devote a significant part of the building to the study and promotion of Sharia law. Again this is his legal right but doesn't help the perception of the post 9-11 healing. Go back and read the original NY Times article describing the Center from December that I posted above. At that time, no one seemed to have a real issue. Indeed, after that article, the Center continued to wind its way through the approval process without raising any real controversy, other than from one NY Post columnist that repeatedly made stuff up to get the attention of the national media and make a name for herself. Until it became a brilliant sound byte, NO ONE ELSE REALLY SEEMED TO CARE. [begin rant] In some ways, I am a little amazed that it took the demagogues as long as it did to realize the pretty little package they were served up with here. Much like flag-burning, or banning Christmas mangers in front of City Hall, or refusing to say the Pledge of Allegiance, this is one of those perfect cases where it free speech and religion flies in the face of public opinion, even though the "right" answer is clear. Add to this the fact that it adds a good ol' fashioned dose of American ethnic/religous fear of the "other" and you have the recipe for a wonderful intellectual "trap" that will fracture liberal coalitions and unite conservative ones. But the best part of this -- the best part -- is that watching the American reaction to this is all but certain to further steele the resolve of those who want to kill us and will aid their recruitment efforts. "See how hypocritical the Americans are -- they preach freedom for and inclusiveness of all faiths, yet they won't let us build centers to promote the Muslim religion." "See how intolerant the Americans are -- they view themselves at "war" with Islam just as they were at war with the Japanse, and view all Muslims as the equivalent of Nazis." The ever loving irony of all of this, of course, is that we're the ones goosestepping our way towards fascism. Maybe we should just round up all Muslims and make them live in special "towns." While we're at it, let's just make all Hispanics wear a special insignia on their shirts that proves they are here legally - that would just be easier than having to stop them to ask for their papers. And who needs "scared straight" when you could just use genetic engineering to eliminate the differences in basic aspects of the human condition . [/end rant] Wow, when did I become such a flaming liberal?! :-D.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Aug 18, 2010 21:14:19 GMT -5
I join in tables' insightful statement. It was neither a liberal statement nor a conservative statement but an American one based on our founding ideals.
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Aug 18, 2010 21:40:29 GMT -5
But the best part of this -- the best part -- is that watching the American reaction to this is all but certain to further steele the resolve of those who want to kill us and will aid their recruitment efforts. "See how hypocritical the Americans are -- they preach freedom for and inclusiveness of all faiths, yet they won't let us build centers to promote the Muslim religion." "See how intolerant the Americans are -- they view themselves at "war" with Islam just as they were at war with the Japanse, and view all Muslims as the equivalent of Nazis." That's certainly something to worry about, but the reaction to this among radical Muslims is nowhere near as dangerous as the reaction among moderate Muslims will be. Think about this from the moderate Muslim point of view, especially a moderate Muslim in America. You've heard the US say they're not at war with Islam - just with Al Qaeda. You've accepted this for the most part, after all you hate Al Qaeda just as much as the average American hates Al Qaeda. To you, this mosque/cultural center represents a tremendous opportunity. Could there ever be a better way to show moderate Muslims' wholehearted rejection of radical Islam than to build a mosque dedicated to peace so close to the very site of radical Islam's worst ever crime? Could there ever be a better way to draw the line between America's war against radical Islam and America's acceptance of peaceful Islam? But instead of seeing America at its welcoming best, the moderate American Muslim is now seeing America at its racist and xenophobic worst. Suddenly it's painfully obvious that Americans can't tell the difference between Al Qaeda and a peaceful group like the Cordoba Institute. And if Americans group all Muslims together under the Al Qaeda banner, then who are we to tell radical Muslims that they shouldn't put themselves under the Al Qaeda banner? The reality is that the US isn't at war with Islam, but in many ways we, along with our allies, are a war against Al Qaeda FOR Islam. The US and Al Qaeda aren't going to decide who wins this war, moderate Muslims are going to decide this. If the US and our allies manage to convince moderate Muslims to reject Al Qaeda and radical Islam, Al Qaeda will wither away and die. However, if moderate Muslims turn against the US, they will strengthen Al Qaeda until they can't be stopped. People act like allowing the mosque to be built will be a victory for Al Qaeda. In fact, NOT building the mosque, and proving to Muslims around the world that the US can't accept even the most peaceful brand of Islam, would be one of the biggest victories Al Qaeda has won since 9/11, and they wouldn't have even had to lift a finger to win it.
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Aug 18, 2010 22:34:41 GMT -5
Excellent post Stig. Well done.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Aug 19, 2010 8:22:31 GMT -5
It is an excellent post....in a vacuum and separated from reality.
I think it is very easy to paint this all just as bigotry and American boorishness, because of the words of a few, but it's just not true in reality.
You talk about our perception among moderate Muslims, but I just linked yesterday to a few moderate Muslims who think this mosque location is a bad idea. If you read some of their opinions on this, you get a completely different concept from the "moderate Muslim community" about who comes off looking bad here.
Outside of that, there are also divisions in other areas. While the majority of liberals support it, there are more than a few liberal Democrats who have come out against it, some of them national figures, some of them not.
And while the majority of conservatives think this is a bad idea, some conservatives have said they don't have a problem with it.
While I certainly don't think this is the most important story going around right now, not even close, it is entirely too simplistic to paint this issue in the terms you have outlined.
As for al Qaeda, it really doesn't matter what happens. Put the mosque there, put it somewhere else, it makes no difference. They are going to call it a victory anyway (without having to lift a finger in either case), so I could really give a crap about that particular consequence.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,450
|
Post by TC on Aug 19, 2010 8:53:15 GMT -5
I think getting dragged down into the symbolism of it either way - what it says to America or to the Muslim world is stupid because at the end of the day - Cordoba House or no Cordoba House - it's going to be a large building that people use in Manhattan.
So the issue to me isn't really whether it's a bad idea or not - for example I think the KFC Double Down is a bad idea and you could get public opinion polls that back me up on that (only 68% of Americans - both in flyover country and flaming liberal NYC would try it). People find a cheese filled sandwich packed between chicken filets disgusting and offensive. It goes against what they would put in their hallowed stomachs.
The issue is do you do something about it or not and try to ban it, which I find ridiculous - and before anyone starts jumping up and down and says "BUT THE DEMOCRATS HAVE A SODA/NO-SALT BILL", I am talking about a bill only banning the KFC Double Down.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Aug 19, 2010 8:59:48 GMT -5
TC finds common ground again.
Now, I think I'm on record as not being, ummm, the healthiest of eaters, but the KFC double down is the worst idea in the history of ideas.
I don't care if it has bacon and that anything with bacon is normally inherently and empirically good. That thing is evil and you will never get me anywhere near it.
But KFC is free to keep making it if that is what they choose to do.
TC, you really are a uniter and not a divider, aren't you? ;D
|
|
|
Post by HoyaSinceBirth on Aug 19, 2010 9:33:26 GMT -5
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Aug 19, 2010 10:03:53 GMT -5
Sweet merciful ever-loving crap!!!
OK, that's it. I take back everything I said in the other thread about being libertarian on things of this nature and how we should be able to make our own choices about the food we eat; salt, smoking, the whole shebang.
The federal government needs to step in immediately and stop that abomination!
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,450
|
Post by TC on Aug 19, 2010 10:24:16 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by HoyaSinceBirth on Aug 19, 2010 10:35:54 GMT -5
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Aug 19, 2010 13:22:45 GMT -5
I was in lower Manhattan today so I made a point to go by the site of the proposed Mosque. It was easy to identify because there are all kinds of cops, tourists, protesters and media around it. But the LOCATION itself? Pretty obscure. It's in the middle of the block, on a cross street (Park Place) and 2 1/2 blocks from the WTC as well as from the new Path Station.
It is not on any of the primary paths to the WTC.
How big is it? Well, a 13 story building in Manhattan is little more than a glorified brownstone. The entire building would fit inside the atrium of the Time Warner building at Columbus Circle. Compared to say, St. Patrick's Cathedral -- which is in a highly prominent location and is a pretty spectacular building -- this Mosque will be almost invisible.
If someone didn't point out that it is within a couple of blocks of the WTC... no one would notice.
So why is it getting so much attention? Because our media -- and many of our politicians -- have a habit of trying to rile up the public about non-issues that somehow capture attention in order to pad ratings. (and to distract from the REAL issues facing our country?)
The only reason to oppose this mosque is anti-Islam discrimination. Nothing American or Patriotic about that.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Aug 19, 2010 13:40:26 GMT -5
Thanks, Saxa. I think some of the imbroglio arises from non-New Yorkers who aren't generally familiar with that area. The NY Mayor and city planners have spoken clearly, and what's left is big government conservatism.
We can stand on firm ground knowing that we did not subject our notions of tolerance to a Rasmussen poll.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Aug 19, 2010 14:10:48 GMT -5
Quote of the day, from washingtonpost.com: Woman: Could you do the egg bacon mosque and sausage without the mosque then?
Waitress: Urgghh!
Woman: What do you mean 'Urgghh'? I don't like mosque!
Vikings: Lovely mosque! Wonderful mosque!
Waitress: Shut up!
Vikings: Lovely mosque! Wonderful mosque!
Waitress: Shut up! Bloody Vikings.
Waitress: You can't have egg bacon mosque and sausage without the mosque.
Woman: I don't like mosque!
Man: Sshh, dear, don't cause a fuss. I'll have your mosque. I love it. I'm having mosque mosque mosque mosque mosque mosque mosque beaked beans mosque mosque mosque and mosque!
Vikings: mosque mosque mosque mosque. Lovely mosque! Wonderful mosque!
Posted by: CalDvoices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/08/how_politically_catastrophic_w.html?hpid=opinionsbox1Yes, I do, in fact, read the Plum line. I have to maintain a keen awareness of what the galactically stupid are thinking.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Aug 19, 2010 14:51:30 GMT -5
"The only reason to oppose this mosque is anti-Islam discrimination. Nothing American or Patriotic about that."
SirSaxa, you are flat out wrong and judgemental as hell.
|
|