August 19, 2010
Unsigned WaPo Op-Ed: Where are the Republicans who will reject pandering and prejudice?
It is more than a little bit fascinating to see liberal "conventional wisdom" on display, especially when it is unsupported by reality.
This editorial, for example, is rife with deception and ignorance.
BROADLY SPEAKING, there seem to be three strands of argument against building a mosque or Muslim community center two blocks from Ground Zero in Lower Manhattan.The first is that the terrorists who destroyed the World Trade Center and killed almost 3,000 people there in 2001 really did represent Islam and that to pretend otherwise is a dangerous delusion. The second is that, no, al-Qaeda does not speak for Islam, but many people -- including survivors and relatives of the victims -- naturally associate the two, and therefore it would be insensitive to locate anything Islamic so close to the scene of the crime. The third, for many politicians, seems to be that most Americans oppose construction of the mosque, and therefore opposition is useful (for Republicans on the attack) or safe (for Democrats cowering in a corner).
All three of these are objectionable. It is true that more Muslims around the world than one might wish sympathize with some of Osama bin Laden's thinking, view America as an aggressor nation and accept as justified some of what Americans view as terrorism.
The writer of this unsigned piece provides little in the way of qualification here... "more Muslims around the world than one might wish" sympathize with the bin Laden's thinking. The writer might be interested to know that bin Laden's thinking is firmly rooted at the very core of Islamic theology, and his calls to wage jihad perfectly reflect that of his religions' primary prophet, Mohammed, who warred, killed, and took as slaves entire tribes during his lifetime as he spread his newly-created faith at the point of a sword.
The writer also seems to have forgotten the celebratory mood that erupted in many, if not most parts of the Arab world to the news that that thousands of Americans had been killed on 9/11. The fabled "Islamic street" was thrilled.
Almost a decade later, even our so-called Islamic allies are anything but. A clear super-majority of Pakistanis view the United States as the enemy. That view holds sway across Arab Islamic cultures.
But it's also true that many more Muslims reject such thinking, see Islam as a fundamentally peaceful religion and view al-Qaeda as foreign and repugnant.
Anyone who holds the view that Islam is a fundamentally peaceful religion simply choses to ignore the faith's origins, history, religious texts, and modern practitioners.
Islam is intractably linked to violence, as violence is the primary way the faith has been spread for the 1,400 years since it was founded. From early skirmishes to the Battle of Badr onward to today's wars and terrorists, Islam is rooted in forcing itself upon others. It it true that some Muslim cultures have declining support for al Qaeda and the Taliban, but that is only because fellow Muslims are the bulk of their victims. When al Qaeda and the Taliban kill non-Muslims, even those Muslims who disapprove of the groups as a whole find joy in the deaths of infidels.
As Muslims struggle with how to adapt their religion to the challenges of modernity, Americans should be showing respect for those in the second camp, not lumping them together with the terrorists and their supporters.
Here the writer either chooses to ignore key tenants of Islamic religion, or simply professes ignorance. Islam cannot be modernized. That is it based upon the unshakable and un-editable word of Allah is a key tenant of the faith. Author Salman Rushdie has had a fatwa (death sentence) on his head for decades for challenging that belief, by basing the title of his book The Satanic Verses on verses said to have been edited out of the early Koran. Islam cannot be modernized. It was designed from the outset to hold anyone attempting to modernize or change it as a blasphemer, worthy only of immediate and violent death. Islam requires philosophical stasis as a key element of it's controlling philosophy.
And if the Muslims who want to build a community center are no more responsible for, or supportive of, the attacks of Sept. 11 than any other Americans, how can their plans be "insensitive"? The hurt feelings must reflect misunderstanding or prejudice on the part of the objectors, and the right response to misunderstanding and prejudice is education, not appeasement.
This, like so much elitist pap, is based up self-congratulatory mental masturbation, as the writer congratulates him or herself for their tolerance. The imam pushing this project holds Americans to blame for the 9/11 terror attacks. Like many other mosques raised around the world, it would be purposefully constructed as a victory symbol, as Muslims have done at the sites of their conquests since the very beginning. It is no accident that many of the most revered mosques in Islam were once Christian churches or Jewish synagogues. Islam literally means "submission," and it demands that from all, whether they are Muslims or not.
The many Republicans and Democrats who have come out against the mosque—including the presiding Senate Majority leader and the recently retired Democratic National Committee chairman—are not bigots. They are realists. Opponents of this victory mosque are not prejudiced, but instead terribly aware of precisely what the mosque is meant to symbolize to the Islamic faith in every nation in which it is practiced.
This Washington Post op-ed serves only to expose the historical and theological ignorance of this declining newspaper's editorial board.
None of us should apologize for rejecting intolerance, especially intolerance in the guise of a suicidal multiculturalism.
Judging by TEH stoopid, I suspect the writer is E.J. Dionne.
Cordially...
Posted by: Rick at August 19, 2010 01:06 PMWhen al Qaeda and the Taliban kill non-Muslims, even those Muslims who disapprove of the groups as a whole find joy in the deaths of infidels.
Are you saying American Muslims found joy in 9-11? You need help.
Seriously, after that "Islam is intractably linked to violence" and your quote above, why on earth should -- in your view -- we allow any Mosques to be built anywhere in NYC, or the DC metro area? Or in the US? Or for that matter, why allow any Muslims in our communities? Think of the children!!!
Try writing a post in favor of building any new mosque anywhere in our nation while we're at war with Muslims and their religion. I'd love to see you try and wrap your brain around that exercise.
Or for that matter, why allow any Muslims in our communities?
Hmm. What's your point supposed to be again? I cannot think of a single good reason to allow any Muslims into the country.
But by all means, remind me of what the reasons are.
Posted by: flenser at August 19, 2010 07:39 PMWell said flenser! This controversy has nothing to do with proximity to Ground Zero, you guys are just bigots. I admire your honesty. I'd love to hear your plans for the Muslims who are already American citizens. Don't be shy.
Posted by: Jim at August 19, 2010 08:40 PM"Well said flenser! This controversy has nothing to do with proximity to Ground Zero, you guys are just bigots. I admire your honesty. I'd love to hear your plans for the Muslims who are already American citizens. Don't be shy."
I would give them a choice: they can be a Muslim, or they can be an American citizen. The tenets of Islam are so far removed from the philosophy this country was founded on that it would be impossible for a sincere Muslim to be an American in philosophical outlook; likewise, it would be impossible for a sincere American patriot to honestly embrace Islam.
For example, consider the American tenet of separation between church and state. Then consider Islam's claim to absolute temporal authority over not only its own adherents, but over those who do not follow Islam.
In other words, someone who claims to be an American and a Muslim at the same time is lying about something. Prudence would dictate concluding that he is lying about being an American.
BTW, the same could be said of real, no-kidding Christian Dominionists (i.e., followers of Rushdoony, North, and their ilk), and I would not be uncomfortable at all with applying the same strictures to them.
Posted by: Cobalt Shiva at August 20, 2010 12:04 AMWhy not put all of this under the heading of "We're just religious bigots, and we don't care about the constitution and freedom of religion"? To you, every muslim in the world is exactly equivalent. Tim McVeigh was a lapsed Christian, but somehow that doesn't mean that all Christians are terrorists.
Posted by: Black Bart at August 20, 2010 03:10 AM"Why not put all of this under the heading of "We're just religious bigots, and we don't care about the constitution and freedom of religion"? To you, every muslim in the world is exactly equivalent."
How far does "freedom of religion" go?
Does it extend to religious faiths that advocate murder? Arson? Violent overthrow of the government? Defrauding non-believers? Cheating on income taxes? Drunk driving?
Of course not. None of these are constitutionally protected activities. And you should get the precedent of Cheech v. Chong cited if you went to court to argue otherwise. (The judge should say "Bailiff, WHACK HIS PEE-PEE!")
Having established that, in fact, freedom of religion is not absolute, we can examine specific cases.
Islam claims temporal authority not only over its adherents, but over non-believers as well--i.e., that it has the authority to govern everyone in the world. That is utterly incompatible with the American constitutional law forbidding establishment of a state religion.
"Tim McVeigh was a lapsed Christian, but somehow that doesn't mean that all Christians are terrorists."
As you pointed out, Timothy McVeigh was a LAPSED Christian, which means that he wasn't a Christian. Religious adherence isn't an ethnic or racial identity; it's an ethical choice by the individual.
Posted by: Cobalt Shiva at August 20, 2010 07:33 AMThe bottom line is that these terrorists would not have done the deed if they knew they would not have the hero status bestowed on them by the MAJORITY of their muslim brothers and sisters.
Islam is not compatible with all the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. Islam is a cult, not a religion, and as such should not have the protection of the 1st. Ammendment.
Paul in Texas
This controversy has nothing to do with proximity to Ground Zero, you guys are just bigots. I admire your honesty.
That's big of you. Now, is there any chance you can show some honesty yourself and explain why you think we MUST admit Muslims into the country? You know, answer the question I already asked you and which you already ignored?
Posted by: flenser at August 20, 2010 01:20 PMWhy not put all of this under the heading of "We're just religious bigots, and we don't care about the constitution and freedom of religion"?
There is no constitutional requirement that we admit Muslims (or anyone else for that matter) into the country.
We are suppossed to be tolerant of something we detest? Why? Had the Aztec priests survived the destruction of their civilization would you have been tolerant of their beleifs? A religion of death is what it is. The majority Islam, worldwide, is our enemy. Recognize reality.
Posted by: Odins Acolyte at August 20, 2010 01:44 PMAnd Jim, I realize that reality is scarce in the rainbow-world that you and the other idiots live in, but I would suggest that you look up the you- tube videos of the muzzies dancing in the streets on September 11, 2001.
Then go back to whatever house of stupid you came from(I suspect daily kos is the location).
Does Boeing have a right to build a museum commemorating their contributions to aviation within a short walk of Ground Zero at Hiroshima?
Or is the question, should Boeing build such a museum? Would it be bigoted and racist to oppose it?
Posted by: Steve Skubinna at August 20, 2010 10:46 PMChanel Handbags 2009
Chanel Handbags 2010
Chanel Purses
Chanel Handbags
Chanel bags
Chanel bags 2009
Coach Handbags
Coach Bags
Coach Purses
Coach Outlet
Coach Classic
Coach Luggage
Cheap Coach Purses
Cheap Coach handbags
Coach Wallets
Coach Tote Bags
Coach Crossbody Bags
Omega Watches
IWC Watches
Gucci Watches
Rolex watches
Concord watches
Christian Louboutin Shoes
Christian Louboutin Boots
Christian Louboutin Pumps
Christian Louboutin Sandals
Christian Louboutin Slingback
