Thomas Jefferson’s copy of the Qur’an, published in 1764. (courtesy of the Library of Congress). Image via 15-Minute History at the University of Texas at Austin.
The Center for Inquiry (CFI) joined in the calls to end plans for any worship center for Islam near the site of the destroyed World Trade Center. But they added a twist.
CFI called for the entire area to be free from religious institutions, since, they say, it was religiously-inspired violence that caused the trouble. Greg Laden has pithy comments at his blog, as does DuWayne Brayton from the opposite tack (Laden agrees with CFI, sorta, while Brayton thinks they’ve jumped somebody’s shark).
And Glenn Beck in ignorance leads us farther and further from the intentions of the “founders”:
- “ . . . to bigotry, no sanction . . .” (George Washington)
- ” . . . they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Mahometan, the Hindoo, and the Infidel of every denomination.” (Thomas Jefferson)
Also at Millard Fillmore’s Bathtub:
- Statement from the National Council of Churches’ Michael Kinnamon (a Disciple of Christ, by the way)
- “Hallowed Ground: Why other nations think we’re nuts”
- “Cat and Mosque at Dogboy and Mr. Dan”
Millard Fillmore's Bathtub 
Another example of your difficulties with facts and logic. TARP was a Bush initiative, yet you blame it on liberals. That’s a very convenient dishonesty on your part.
You can’t refudiate me that easily, Jim. It is, by now, very well known that Bush signed the TARP bill; I haven’t said otherwise. I cited it as an example of a liberal initiative that fits the mold. It certainly does have an universal effect, at least upon Americans. A narrow band of elites make decisions about it; whether the public approves of these decisions & the associated consequences, or not, the status quo doesn’t change very much. And it is liberal in nature — Too Big To Fail, centralized planning, all that. What, are you saying it’s a conservative initiative because Bush signed it?
IIRC (without dredging through the whole thread) your claim of his “inconsistency” rests on his statement that he wants to use the community center to bring people together, and the fact that right now its a divisive issue.
You need to go dredging, because YDNRC.
As far as this marvelous fisking job by Ed, I read just a few excerpts in and then gave up. It seems to be just so much of: Ed squares what I had to say with his preconceived notions of the world, and if they don’t jive Ed automatically declares my statement to be in error. Pretty much a snapshot of a mindset unprepared for learning new things. It came off kind of like a caveman evaluating how a calculator works…and coming to a predictable conclusion that the calculator isn’t good for anything, because the caveman isn’t familiar with the concepts.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: All three of you have complexificated this issue on a high level of magnitude. Spotting someone who’s being deceptive with you, and himself, is not so complicated a thing. Cops are reasonably good at it, and any cop will tell you it isn’t something they learn in class. And until the lie is absolutely prove, it’s a subjective thing.
Also, I notice something else I’ve pointed out before, although I have yet to mention it about all three of you — but I think it applies that way. Thus far, it seems anyone who disagrees with you, on trivial issues as well as far greater ones, is automatically pig-iron stupid. Whoever agrees with you, or at least supports your common agendas at an abstract level, is competent with regard to everything that has been relevant, or will be later. I’ve already put up a link to Peggy Joseph, the woman who is looking forward to Obama paying her mortgage and putting gas in her car. And still, after me putting up that link, the trend remains unbroken; all who agree with you, know what they’re doing, and all who don’t, don’t.
I find that interesting. No, it does not impress me as the conduct of inquisitive minds. I’m not going to say you’re all case studies of Dunning-Kruger; but nor will I say any one of the three of you are off the hook.
LikeLike
Morgan,
Another example of your difficulties with facts and logic. TARP was a Bush initiative, yet you blame it on liberals. That’s a very convenient dishonesty on your part.
There’s no inconsistency that you’ve ever been able to demonstrate. Your only “evidence” for Rauf being a liar is that you don’t believe he’s honest. But you’ve never given any valid evidence in support of that claim.
IIRC (without dredging through the whole thread) your claim of his “inconsistency” rests on his statement that he wants to use the community center to bring people together, and the fact that right now its a divisive issue. But other people’s choice to be divisive does not mean there’s any inconsistency on Rauf’s part. He can obviously still want and intend to use the community center/mosque to bring people together. Keep in mind that after all this silly flapdoodle calms down, the building will be built and presumably they’ll use it for many many years, during which time Rauf can use it for his stated purpose. Let’s say the building is built and they’re still using it 30 years from now. Do you really think people will still be marching and protesting? Do you really think the public’s going to still feel outraged by this? Or do you admit that Rauf (and his successors) could in fact over those decades conduct programming that could help bring people together?
So, Mr. Freeberg, try giving us evidence for Rauf’s “inconsistency” which doesn’t involve convenient but dishonest framing of the issue on your part.
LikeLike
That the Dunning-Kruger effect may indeed apply to the Obama administration does not mean it doesn’t apply to you. It’s not a unique condition applicable to only one entity at a time. Instead, it’s rather distressingly common, and you are an outstanding case study. Even though we’ve directly noted the way you contradicted yourself and identified multiple specific logical fallacies you’ve committed, you still believe yourself to be in possession of some kind of superior logic.
Yeah, Dunning-Kruger applies to all kinds of things. And it’s no wonder leftists find it to come in so handy; it’s a rather ancient common thread to all leftist ideas. I want to make a policy decision that will apply to EVERYONE, but as we tweak the policy I want ONLY ME AND MY FRIENDS to be able to make decisions about it. ObamaCare has these two vital elements, so does TARP, as well as ninety percent of what Congress puts out these days…it applies to Ed’s favorite global warming / cap-n-crap scheme…Social Security, Medicare, Minimum Wage…on and on and on.
The plan should affect everyone. But anyone outside of my tight circle, should recognize their inferiority and politely leave the power-decisions to me & my buds. This particular issue is unique because the Mosque doesn’t affect everyone, but as you can see it’s captured leftist enthusiasm plenty well enough. Why, I’ve had you going on rather endlessly about it. You even got an atta-boy from Ed…for being toyed with. What’s that we were saying about DK? The incompetent can’t recognize their own incompetence? You’re demonstrating competence by being so easily manipulated…hmm…interesting…yeah, DK applies to someone here, without a doubt.
What seems to have escaped notice, though, is that spotting a liar isn’t something that demands special skills, talent or education; it doesn’t invite a drawn-out debate about inductive/deductive reasoning, straw-man, No True Scotsman, Begging The Question, or anything of the like. It’s a very simple situation here: Rauf said things, Rauf did things, there’s inconsistency there, the three of your choose to believe him, myself & others don’t. So you resolve the issue by calling anybody stupid who doesn’t agree with you. If only it applied — see, Morgan didn’t brag about being all-knowing or all-wise or all-powerful. You guys chose to buy into something, and I’m calling bovine feces when you don’t think I should. That Ed thinks this invokes DK, speaks volumes.
This is exactly the way scam artists sell things to old people who aren’t sufficiently cynical: Say yes, lady, or I’ll call you stupid. Oh no, don’t get any advice from your family members or a lawyer or anything…just give me your credit card number and I’ll take care of the rest. Do it now; don’t want me calling you stupid, do you?
LikeLike
Morgan,
That the Dunning-Kruger effect may indeed apply to the Obama administration does not mean it doesn’t apply to you. It’s not a unique condition applicable to only one entity at a time. Instead, it’s rather distressingly common, and you are an outstanding case study. Even though we’ve directly noted the way you contradicted yourself and identified multiple specific logical fallacies you’ve committed, you still believe yourself to be in possession of some kind of superior logic.
LikeLike
Dunning-Kruger Effect!
Ed, this is the “Region-free zone in New York” thread. I’m sure you have some other place to discuss the Obama administration’s inadequacies, and their failure to recognize them.
LikeLike
Freeberg wrote:
Let’s see how that works in the opposite direction:
Yep, that works pretty good, doesn’t it Mr. Freeberg?
LikeLike
Dunning-Kruger Effect! Oooooooh. Yes, that’s a solid description of it — especially if one uses Bertrand Russell’s description.
LikeLike
Morgan writes:
Rauf’s intentions must be noble. IF you believe whatever he says — and there’s no reason to do that unless you decide at the outset this must be the case.
To counterpart that:
Morgan believes:
Rauf’s intentions must be villainous. If you don’t believe a thing he says no matter what he says –and there’s no reason not to do that unless you decide at the outset this must be the case.
Or to put this another way, morgan, you decided the second you heard of the “controversy” that this Imam and his followers must be villains and planning something malignant. And you’re more then willing to stick to that preconceived notion despite the fact that there is absolutely no evidence to back that notion.
Sorry, you may be willing to sell your soul in order to condemn the whole for the actions of the few but at least have enough integrity to not claim shock that the rest of us aren’t willing to jump down that hole with you.
There’s been a mosque on that spot for years, Morgan, and it pricked your conscience not one bit. it bothered you not at all. You didn’t worry about that Imam or his mosque until you got told to do so.
You have all the credibility of Tom Petters.
LikeLike
Morgan writes:
Rauf’s intentions must be noble. IF you believe whatever he says — and there’s no reason to do that unless you decide at the outset this must be the case.
It’s this little thing called “innocent until proven guilty.” Or if you like this more…”Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
Do you have any actual evidence that his intentions are sinister? No. Has the mosque that’s been there for the last few years been a sinister thing? No. Did they put forth their plans in order to be offensive and provacative? No. Just because you’re offended by what they’re wanting to do doesn’t necessarily mean they’re purposely trying to be offensive or provacative.
So again..you’re left with no actual evidence to back your claims. So it means that all you’re left with to “justify” your position is…well…they’re Muslims and you don’t like them for that.
Are you so sure that you really want to put forth a position that says that two separate presidential administrations, two very different presidents from two very different party’s as well as the DHS, CIA, FBI and the NSA are/were all being fooled by one lowly Imam? That you know for a fact that this Imam is some sinister person? That you know it beyond a shadow of a doubt?
i mean granted, when Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq and said that we’d be welcomed as liberators and showered with candy and flowers I did tell my dad and say to him that Bush was making a huge mistake, that he did not understand what the reaction would be and that we would be paying a high price for his hubris and ignorance…but that was a prediction. A prediction that at the time I would have fully admitted had an equal chance of being wrong as of being right. It just so happens that I turned out right…but I’ll admit I could have been wrong.
You’re so locked into what you believe that you’ve confused opinion for proven fact, however. You won’t even entertain the thought that you might be wrong. Hell you won’t even admit that you have no evidence to back your opinion. You seem to be suffering from this belief that you don’t have to prove yourself right..that we have to prove you wrong. Well we don’t. You offer nothing more then unsubstantiated charges and base paranoid fear.
This is one of the many logical fallacies you are engaging in, Morgan:
Premise 1: The Terrorists were Muslims.
Premise 2: Terrorists are bad people and must be stopped.
Premise 3: The Imam is a Muslim
Ergo: The Imam must be a terrorist and he must be stopped.
LikeLike
Classic! I wouldn’t like being fisked if I was you, either.
No, they’re not the same, and it’s been pointed out many times why they’re not. But I find it amusing that you whine so much about people making misattributions about what you’ve said, or what you feel, but then you repeat ad nauseum that I’m angry. Pot, meet kettle.
Oh, you mean just like you view Park 51? Kettle, meet pot.
I think that’s a good approach that should be generalized. I’ll begin with you–there’s no reason for me to believe whatever you say, right? Let’s face it, I know more about Rauf than I do about you, so I’ve got no reason to “decide at the outset” that you’re either noble or truthful.
You have two false equivalencies here (yes, Morgan, yet another well-defined logical error on your part). First, making someone the butt of a joke is not the same as refusing to let them build where and what they have a legal right to build. So mocking them does not fit the definition I used of “punishing” them. Second, Catholics as a group, including the innocent ones, aren’t being targeted by those jokes–it’s the priests who have perpetrated and covered up molestation that are. Apparently you think punishment of the innocent is equivalent to punishment of the guilty. That’s the most perverse juridical standard I’ve ever heard. But I’m sure this will fly right over your head and you’ll continue to believe you’ve actually made some kind of telling point.
Translation: I don’t know what that means, so I’ll weasel around it.
Mr. Freeberg, you are a living, breathing example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. Of course for that very reason you won’t be able to recognize that you are in fact a living breathing example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
LikeLike
Neither. Triumph of hope over experience, coupled with a desire to limit craziness, geographically.
LikeLike
And that would be inductive or deductive reason you’re demonstrating, Ed?
LikeLike
Freeberg, this woman wants to meet you, maybe propose marriage. Get a picture of the boat, first.
LikeLike
If you follow what I’m doing, and if you know anything about competitive debate or courtroom argument, you’ll see that I am flowsheeting your arguments. I quote your entire statement to avoid claims that I have misquoted your, or put words in your mouth that you did not say (not that you’ve noticed).
I use a full spread flowsheet when each part of the argument deserves a response. In that post of yours you started from an erroneous premise, used erroneous and backwards claims, and ended up on the opposite side of the warrants you used.
You have started with my premise, and stated how it doesn’t jive with your personal opinion. Then you proceeded forward with what I noticed, that you don’t want me noticing…from there you proceeded to what I inferred, and commented how you don’t like what I inferred. In this way you demonstrated I’m “wrong” the way you’ve demonstrated pretty much every opinion I’ve seen you demonstrate: By creating a thumbnail sketch of the conclusion you’ve been wanting to reach, and then just going there.
It might work in court — if the judge, also, wants to reach the conclusion you want to reach. But you’ve been done a disservice by your legal education if you think that’s a strong argument.
I’m the one who’s supposed to be convinced, have you forgotten that? And I’m not convinced.
LikeLike
Wow, so you’re saying the comedians should go on — to use James’ word — punishing the Catholics for the sins of a few?
But for practicing free speech, which you supposedly support…”punishing” Islam for the sins of a few…you think the locals, in Manhattan, including the ones who lost loved ones in the 9-11 attacks…should be silenced. Maybe punished themselves.
Whoah. Real even-handed of you, Ed.
So it is what I said at the very beginning, isn’t it. If one side in a dispute is perceived to be more Euro-centric, it automatically loses. If you’re caught discriminating, in the midst of accusing others of the same thing, it doesn’t matter. Have to uphold those “American values.”
By the way, not that it will sink in to anybody who needs to see it — I agree with you. The objection to the Mosque location is more emotional than logical. At least, with regard to the people who lost friends and relatives in the attack, and therefore object to this reminder of it…that is, by its very nature, emotional. But that doesn’t mean it’s entirely invalid, which is what you appear to think.
You know, it would also be entirely logical to call illegal aliens illegal aliens, and to say since they’re illegal, they shouldn’t be allowed in. I have a suspicion you, Mister Consistency, won’t go along with that.
But the part of the objection that has to do with what our real enemies would see the Mosque as…that isn’t entirely emotional. And I think you’re afraid of discussing that part of it, Ed…because you know you can say “Imam Rauf intends this and Imam Rauf does not intend that” until you’re blue in the face, and it isn’t going to matter.
LikeLike
If you follow what I’m doing, and if you know anything about competitive debate or courtroom argument, you’ll see that I am flowsheeting your arguments. I quote your entire statement to avoid claims that I have misquoted your, or put words in your mouth that you did not say (not that you’ve noticed).
I use a full spread flowsheet when each part of the argument deserves a response. In that post of yours you started from an erroneous premise, used erroneous and backwards claims, and ended up on the opposite side of the warrants you used.
I pointed that out, in detail. If you don’t want to be held to account for your arguments, don’t make them here. (Heck, I’ve let so many slide by . . .)
LikeLike
But not a logical reason. The Sufi group has been good neighbors for years. It’s not like the Sufis started making Frankenstein monsters and sending them out — the torch-and-pitchfork response of the locals is most ugly, and unwarranted. It has no foundation in zoning law, and no real, logical foundation either.
For more than a year, no one has been able to articulate any viable reason that the Sufi group should not build as planned, rescuing a section of a block that was in decline before the devastation of the World Trade Center. Unable to legitimately stop the construction, they turned to illegitimate, immoral and unAmerican ways — and they found you to join them.
Your emotions may be real. Time to suck it up and do what Americans should do.
None that apply, logically. Nor have any done so that I have seen. You’ve got an unwarranted argument without any evidentiary support.
You’re projecting. I’ve said from the start that the claims against the center — even were it a mosque — are unwarranted. You’ve offered nothing but invective, no evidence, no solid argument. I find that unpersuasive.
It’s not accurate, but that’s not given you a second’s pause so far as I can see.
Perhaps. But in your case, I see ignoble, irrational bigotry and destructive intolerance where it does exist. Your claiming that comedians should be silenced when making sharp jests about child abuse in the Catholic Church isn’t exactly making a good case that all Catholics should be held responsible for the child abuse, nor that comedians should be censored. Instead, it exposes your argument against the Sufis for what it is: Unfair, unwarranted, untenable, and better left unsaid.
You keep calling for discretion, but you refuse to practice it yourself. Lead on, MacDuff.
LikeLike
Not that it would make any difference, I suspect, but sometime you should look up the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning and argument. You abuse both forms, always to justify your unwarranted bigotry, either against Islam, Moslems, or those who disagree with you.
From the content in this thread, it doesn’t get that complicated. The only people who’ve leveraged “unwarranted bigotry” against “those who disagree with [them]” are, for the most part, James Ed and Nick.
Obviously, there is a reason for locals to show strong reservation against the mosque being erected where it is planned. And there is a very strong reason for militant Islamists, be they affiliated with the Mosque or be they not, to see it as an icon of victory.
From the very beginning of the thread, all I can see the three of you doing to respond to this, is to say you don’t like the train of thought behind it. And for the most part, you do this by imagining some sinister motive associated with it, unjustified by the evidence, to prohibit Muslims from worshiping anywhere in the U.S.A.
Frankly, if that’s an accurate depiction of your perception of facts, it doesn’t really matter how you’re processing those facts. It is what I said — you see bigotry and intolerance where it does not exist, and ignore its presence where it does.
LikeLike
Yeah, I have my reasons for disliking fisking. I’ve noticed it does little to promote genuine discourse, and generally discourages open-mindedness and curiosity.
In short, I replied to what you did, with a summary of my personal dislike of what it is. You might say I replied with an Ed-Darrellism. <grin>
But okay, why don’t you just pick out the one very best example of how I supposedly contradicted myself. Fisking is pretty good for collecting high-fives and pats on the back from people who agree with you…but to pursue a real exchange of ideas with someone not of like mind, I think you’ll agree it’s more productive to just pick the best specimen and go with that one.
So lay it on.
LikeLike
I’ve corrected factual errors, especially where your claims are quite at odds with the facts. Frequently — very frequently, I see on review — you’ve stated a false premise and then made an inflammatory claim from that false premise.
I’ve pointed out those false premises from time to time. You call it nitpicking; I call it trying to hold to the First Point of the Scout Law.
I haven’t read Nick’s material to find such things . . . can you offer an example? Your putting words in the mouth of President Obama springs to mind, but I don’t recall Nick’s having done that.
It’s not a good practice for anyone. If Nick has done it, it doesn’t excuse your doing it.
That’s real projection, isn’t it? The bon mots, “Reality has a well-known liberal bias” goes to the heart of what you are alleging, but recognizes that it is usually the politically so-called conservatives who engage in the practice.
You probably don’t think privacy a constitutional right, since it’s not mentioned in the Constitution. I think you’d do well to study law and history sometime. Change where you sit, especially with education, you may change your view.
You seem to think that balancing out bigotry on one side with bigotry on the other makes you even. To the rest of us, it just demonstrates greater bigotry.
“Bigot” is not necessarily a bad thing to be. Darwin, for example, was called a bigot by his wife, because he was bigoted against spiritualism and spiritualists who claimed to be able to contact the dead.
I don’t find your bigotry of the noble variety.
“Attention whore” is your bigoted appellation, and not necessarily demonstrated in fact. Were Rauf as you describe him, surely he would not have maintained silence for several weeks while on official business for the U.S. government, but would instead of leapt at the opportunity to grant broadcast and print interviews. Of course, he did not do that, and therefore, by his actions, demonstrated your name-calling to be unjustified.
Once again, your blithe, bigoted premise is wrong, with regard to Rauf.
That is the meat of your entire argument against the community center. You have called the Sufi establishment a “victory mosque” to celebrate the attacks on the U.S. You insist that Rauf must make amends for the attack on the WTC by retreating from his plans to reach out to Christians, Jews and others, because, according to you, it’s his duty since all of Islam is guilty of the attack.
Not that it would make any difference, I suspect, but sometime you should look up the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning and argument. You abuse both forms, always to justify your unwarranted bigotry, either against Islam, Moslems, or those who disagree with you.
Don’t be so tendentious on these issues.
LikeLike
I’m becoming leery of taking anything Morgan writes at face value:
That doesn’t respond to the substance of the arguments I made. But it’s also a misleading attack on me:
LikeLike
Ed Darrell clearly pointed out the multiple times you contradicted yourself
Ed Darrell indulged in what is called “fisking,” which is an elaborate way of seeing an argument in the terms in which you wish to see it, so you don’t have to absorb what it really is.
Morgan, why don’t you just admit that what you really want is for every Muslim in the entire country to not be able to practice their faith anywhere in the country.
If my position is so easily assailed, and contradicts itself so starkly as James and Ed seem to think, there is no need to re-state it for me as something else.
Ed, I have a straightforward question for you. you’ve made it a fairly regular practice to parse and split statements subatomically and nonsensically, to pretend things are different when they are in fact identical…in the spirit of “Obama never said that” and so forth.
Nick, meanwhile, has made it a frequent practice to put words in the mouths of others, for the express purpose of finding intolerance where it doesn’t exist. What do you have to say about Nick pretending people said things they didn’t actually say?
Some conservatives say liberalism is all about living in a sort of opposite-world — seeing things as the opposite of what they really are. This is starting to make a lot of sense, from where I sit. Liberals seems to see bigotry the same way they see constitutional rights…if it isn’t there, they pretend that it is, and if it is there they look straight past it.
Well it isn’t going to fly with racial prejudice, because that’s an easy thing to measure. Speaking for myself, my antipathy toward attention whores like Rauf and Pastor Jones has been absolutely race-neutral…and, I daresay, anyone who says otherwise exposes their own bigotry, because they can’t see race-neutrality when they’re looking straight at it.
Rauf’s intentions must be noble. IF you believe whatever he says — and there’s no reason to do that unless you decide at the outset this must be the case. The two attention-whores aren’t any different from Balloon Boy’s dad. And it ticks Jim off no end when that’s pointed out, because it reveals his argument to be one of “I’m fooled by it, so I’m going to be angry if you’re not fooled by it too.”
Yeah, he doesn’t like it. But that’s what it is.
I said you erred in attributing the attacks to the Sufis.
And I did this where?
LikeLike
No, you missed the point at both ends.
I said it should be irrelevant what the place of worship is. Under U.S. law, we’ve gotten a long way since 1776 by officially ignoring the religious views of everyone from the government view, and tolerating all religious views as a people.
I said you erred in attributing the attacks to the Sufis. Our laws and our American tradition suggest we ignore the religious views of terrorists who attack us, and certainly that we not carry out retribution on other peaceful and non-belligerent members of the religious sects of anyone who attacks us, be they Lutherans during fights with Germany, Episcopalian during fights with Britain, Buddhist or Shinto during fights with Japan, Catholic during fights with Italy or Spain, or Mexico, etc., etc. Your intent to hold Sufis to account for attacks on the U.S. would be tantamount to holding the Southern Baptist Convention to account for the Spanish Inquisition.
Different arguments, both involving your misunderstanding of the situation.
Both claims involve what looks more and more like your intentional misunderstanding of the situation, Morgan.
LikeLike
Nick asks, >>>”why don’t you just admit that what you really want is for every Muslim in the entire country to not be able to practice their faith anywhere in the country.”<<<
Am I overstating things or isn't that exactly the expressed wish of Newt Gingrich in calling for a moratorium on mosque construction anywhere in the U.S.?
I've not heard the man's whole argument, but that's certainly how it sounded to me. I hope to be corrected.
LikeLike
No, I’ve not failed to pay attention when someone makes an argument. But you’re not making an argument; you’re just making rambling contradictory statements (Ed Darrell clearly pointed out the multiple times you contradicted yourself).
LikeLike
Morgan, why don’t you just admit that what you really want is for every Muslim in the entire country to not be able to practice their faith anywhere in the country.
This isn’t about people pretending that something didn’t happen.
This is about you pretending that an entire religion is responsible for the actions of a few crazies. And that members of that religion must give something up because you’re offended.
Did 9-11 happen? Absolutely? Should the people that caused it be caught and punished? Again, absolutely.
Was the entirety of Islam to blame? No. Was every Muslim in America to blame? Again, no.
Did 9-11 give you special powers/rights that allow you to demand that Muslims only practice their religion where you want them to? Again…no.
Are you trying to give the extremists what they want..for the United States to blame the entirety of Islam..to make this a war of the West vs Islam? Absolutely ******* yes.
Sorry, little one, if you weren’t offended that there was a mosque on that piece of land for the last few years you don’t get to suddenly be offended by it now. Not and have any credibility about such “offense.”
Are they trying to offend you? No.
Are they dishonoring the victims of 9-11? Again no. Sorry, if a shopping mall and subway tunnels being built through the remains of the victims isn’t offensive in your book then a mosque blocks away isn’t. And again Muslims were also victims in the attacks.
Do you or anyone else get to decide what others can build on a piece of land just because you don’t like it? Again, no. I don’t think you quite realize the absolute chaos that position would cause. Because having watched the nonsense that my town developing caused with people whining left right and center about what they did want and what they didn’t want happening on other people’s land..yeah opening up that precedent is a very bad idea.
At any rate, your side protested which was stupid. Because people don’t like being bullied into something. Your side has been protesting for two months now and gotten nowhere. The Muslims are not going to do what you want and New York City sure as hell can’t force them to.
It’s time your side practice some of that “self governance” that Lower is talking about and realize that you’re not going to get what you want.
That is of course assuming that the real goal of what your side wants isn’t to gin up fear and hatred of muslims in a craven attempt to affect the elections.
LikeLike
Oh and just for the record, Lower and Morgan, my church looks more like a mosque then that building.
If Faux News and the right wing hadn’t made a controversy over nothing noone really would have known there was a mosque in that building…except for the people using it.
LikeLike
Ed says it’s completely irrelevant that this is an Islamic place of worship but absolutely relevant that it’s a Sufi place of worship.
James wins the argument…through an inability to pay attention to an argument all the way through.
Nick is not saying we can avoid bloodshed through acquiescence…even though he has, in fact, been saying that repeatedly.
This is the failure of your argument, gentlemen. It seems to be victorious — if, and only if, you can dictate to people what they’re supposed to be thinking. If the mindset is supposed to have something to do with “American ideals” it is, in the final analysis, a massive fail after all. It has too much to do with people like you, and Nick, sitting in judgment of others.
At that moment, it becomes antithetical to real freedom. If you can’t see that, then you’re admitting your own defeat.
LikeLike
Mr. Hanley, I’ve stood in awe of your untanglings through this whole thread. I confess that I read the first part of his post and turned it off. It was only later that I stumbled into the second part and thought someone had posted a rebuttal to Freeberg; I scrolled up and found it was Freeberg in the same post. Not painful — an accident of time and perspective.
Thanks for noticing.
LikeLike
Wow, Ed, that must have been quite an ordeal. I got about 4 sentences in to that latest Freeberg screed and gave it up as the most incoherent thing I’d ever read that that wasn’t in all caps. I didn’t have the energy to try to disentangle it enough to respond. There’s not enough coffee in the world to get me through that!
LikeLike
Morgan’s massive fail: He didn’t bother to read his own stuff.
Wait. You’re proposing that Sufis, the most peaceful arm of Islam, and full of people who had nothing to do with the attack on the U.S. in 2001 except for those who were victims of the attack, stop doing what they’re doing because they share holy books with the attackers — sort of like all Catholics sharing guilt with the molesting priests. So, to be consistent, you’d be coming down on the side of the comedians making the jokes — you know, all Catholics ought to just suck it up and confess that they are to blame for the sins of molesting priests.
But you don’t. You turn 180 degrees from that line — for Catholics.
Silly and probably wrong example, but again, you’re turning 180 degrees from your argument against the Sufis.
We’ll ignore the silly and wrong parts again, and just note that this is 180 degrees from your stand on the Sufis.
Its the Freeberg Rule, not the Hanley Rule — isn’t it? And again, you’re taking a position about 180 degrees from your stand on the Sufis . . .
Now you’re just out to lunch. You’re right — anti-harassment training wouldn’t do much good. It’s firing time. If you got sent to training, you’d probably ask as the first question, “This is a ‘how-to’ course, right?”
Rauf says he favors America, and he does great favors for two presidents of different parties and different politics, promoting America. Rauf says he favors peace, and he’s a Sufi, working to counteract radicals in other branches of Islam. You choose to ignore the facts.
No, it’s not irrelevant that you ignore the facts. That’s sort of the whole basis for the hope behind this conversation, that you might see things as they are.
Once again you stray from the facts. Hate-crime laws get the person who dropped the bowling ball. In a just world, we’d go after the radio crank, but current law doesn’t do that, out of deference to the First Amendment.
Maybe that’s part of your misunderstanding — you think laws are not what the laws are.
Can we call you the “gotta be a bigot” guy? I think that would be fair here. Maybe you could try to see things a bit more gray?
But who are you saying needs defending in this case? The guy who dropped the bowling ball? Because although the crank needs criticism and jail time, all he’s going to get is criticism, and firing if he’s got a half-way savvy boss and sponsor.
That is your understanding of the law, right? You’re not working under the misapprehension that hate-crime laws could actually touch Limbaugh, are you?
Intentions don’t decide anything. Actions make the difference, especially under U.S. law.
You do seem to be quite fuzzy on how the law works, now that I look back. We don’t punish people for “bad intentions.” We punish people for bad actions. It’s much less 1984-ish that way.
You’re proposing that Rauf and the other Sufis should bear the weight of the sins of others not of their acquaintance, sect, belief, or action. That’s unfair, according to the Freeberg who started out this post.
Freeberg Standard, Corollary 1: Punish those who are too weak or too timid to fight back. Right?
I don’t hear Nick saying that at all. I hear Nick saying that we should live up to our American ideals. We don’t punish people for bad intentions, we don’t punish relatives of criminals, we don’t punish people who share a faith with criminals, in all other areas of life.
The American Way would be that we ignore others in their free exercise rights. That’s worked well with the community center in Lower Manhattan for the last few years — right up until the intolerants realized they were being tolerant and peaceful, and so took on the mantle of Ugly American.
That’s sort of like saying that, because Las Vegas exists, all Christian sects have been a complete failure all around. I think your brush is too broad, as well as instilled with the wrong color of inappropriate paint.
The existence of sinners is generally taken as a call for more churches, not fewer. This is just one more churchy group.
Do you know what a mirror is, and how it works? Because I think you’re standing in front of one.
I think you’ve made exactly the point you wished to indict. To cure your lack of fellowship and brotherhood, we sentence you to tolerate an Islamic community center close to Ground Zero, at least until one can be built to replace those that fell with the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings.
Status quo ante is a good idea, and not yet achieved.
LikeLike
http://blog.park51.org/
That’s the website for the building. It includes several artists renderings of the design.
Yeah…it looks SO scary…
*sarcasm*
LikeLike
It offended some people when a protestant congregation built the first protestant church in my town just 15 years ago. After all, my town had exactly one place of worship in it for its preceding 150 years.
I’m sure Lower would think that because those protestants should have built a place of worship somewhere other then my town, right? After all…people were offended by it.
And when my church built a new church 5 years ago those same people who were offended thought my church shouldn’t have to pay for city sewer and water even though the other churches (there’s three now besides my Catholic church) had to do so when they built their churches.
I’m sure Lower and Morgan would agree that those other churches should have to abide by rules that my church doesn’t have to abide by, right?
LikeLike
Lower writes:
James, the problem with your logic here is that both Morgan and I have repeatedly stated that if the situation were reversed that a pastor of any denomination that desired to build a church right next to ground zero would be bad form as well.
Actually let me be a bit more specific. The problem with your logic, Lower, is that you think that if it was a group of Christian terrorists that means that you’d be out there protesting the building of a Christian church. First off..you might. Morgan might. But I damn well guarantee you that 99.999% of the ones protesting that mosque wouldn’t. After all..we have had right wing terrorists and Christian terrorists in this country before who have attacked this country before..who have committed terrorism before. And you and yours were dead silent.
Secondly…you’d still be wrong. It doesn’t matter if you say “I’d do it to Christians if the situation was reversed” it’s still wrong…it’s still bigotry…it’s still punishing the whole of a group for the actions of a crazed few.
Lets say you didn’t want that mosque within 5 blocks of the WTC. Are you and yours prepared to protest every house of worship of every religion, no matter the religion, within that radius right this minute? Because thats the only way you get out of any charge of bigotry, Lower. You apply your little desired rule to all of them, Lower, or none of them. If you want to protest that mosque that means you protest every church, synagogue and whathave you as well.
You do not get to force a group to abide by a special set of rules that you are not trying to make the entirety abide by. And you do not get to mask it under “we’re only asking them to practice self governance” when your side has practiced no self governance yet.
Theose Muslims are under no obligation to do what you want. And that you and yours keep on egging on these stupid protests is only bullying. “Self governance” means that sometimes someone might choose something you don’t like, Lower.
And the right wing should be real wary of throwing out the demand that others practice “self governance” and “not offend people” when for my lifetime, at least, the right wing has not practiced self governance yet and has been ridiculously offensive over the years.
If that you’re offended that mosque is there, Lower, and they should go away because your offended then kiss the entirety of Faux News, Rush Limbaugh, Michelle Malkin and pretty much the entirety of the Republican party goodbye. Because I’m sure I and my fellow liberals can find plenty of things they’ve said or done that has been offensive.
So better mind what you ask of others…lest you pay the price.
LikeLike
lowerleavell,
Not to pile on, but I just happened to see this in my local newspaper, so consider this just an editorial addition to my most recent comment.
In Southern California, a church has bought some property is a valley with lots of wineries. Currently the zoning appears to prohibit the building of a church, but that may conflict with federal law. The wineries object to having a church there.
Question: Should the church “exercise self-governance” and not build there because the wineries object to it?
LikeLike
Let us know, Morgan and Lower, when you’re going to say that the anti-abortion crowd should show some “self governance” and go away. After all..we had an act of terrorism committed by an right wing CHristian nut when he assasinated Dr. Tiller.
Let us know when you’re going to make the entirety of Christianity abide by some rule that you’re not going to try to make non-Christians abide by, Lower.
LikeLike
Lower writes:
Morgan and I have repeatedly stated that if the situation were reversed that a pastor of any denomination that desired to build a church right next to ground zero would be bad form as well.
And yet curiously I haven’t seen you or your fellows protesting the fact that St. Nicks is building closer to the WTC site then the Park 51 community center.
Lower writes:
James, the problem with your logic here is that both Morgan and I have repeatedly stated that if the situation were reversed that a pastor of any denomination that desired to build a church right next to ground zero would be bad form as well.
Lower…the point still is you’re trying to apply one set of rules to one group and not applying those rules to everyone else. It’s still bigotry. Are you opposing the building of a Christian church there right this moment? No? Then congratulations…you’re still acting out of bigotry. Because you are trying to make one group abide by a set of rules that you’re not trying to make everyone abide by.
LikeLike
lowerleavell,
So are you specifically opposed to the rebuilding of St. Nicholas church, whose site is closer to GZ than Park 51 is?
If you’ve said that, I’ve honestly missed it. But I’ve yet to hear anyone say they oppose the rebuilding of St. Nick’s, so please forgive me if I’m a bit dubious.
For the record, I support the rebuilding of St. Nick’s as well as the building of Park 51. (Oh, noes, Mr. Freeberg, if you’re reading this–I’s supporting white Christians now!)
LikeLike
James said, “Anytime you apply different rules to someone else than you would apply to yourself, you are engaging in a bigoted action. (That’s why all sports fans are bigots! It’s only pass interference when their team does it.)”
I’m on my way to work so I only have a minute or two to write today. James, the problem with your logic here is that both Morgan and I have repeatedly stated that if the situation were reversed that a pastor of any denomination that desired to build a church right next to ground zero would be bad form as well. So, you’re attributing facts to my/other’s position that aren’t even true. Both our positions remain consistent in the fact that we have both stated our opinion that Pastor Jones was ethically in the wrong for threatening to burn the Quran. Nic and Ed did not remain consistent at all but shred Jones for his manner of “self governance” but defend the Imam for his. Both are defended for their rights – only the Imam gets a pass on morality. Completely and inconsistently desiring that the “pass interference” call be just one sided.
My apologies for ignoring your post on self governance. It was not my intention to do so but I have very limited blogging time. I will try to respond as best as possible as soon as possible.
LikeLike
Lower, since when did self-governance come to mean “Doing what my opponent wants?”
You keep on claiming they need to engage in self governance. They have. They thought about the situation and they came to a decision. As I said before…they’re not obligated to do what you want. That’s not what “self governance” means.
If you want to pretend thats’ what it means then I’m sure you’ll agree that the right wing needs to do some “self governance” and tell Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, MIchelle Malkin, Glenn Beck and Ann Coulter to shut up and resign from their jobs, right?
After all…they’re routinely offensive. And unlike the Muslims in New York..they actually try to be offensive.
LikeLike
[N]o sign, or perhaps I should limit that to shrine” of Islam should be permitted near GZ. But that punishes all Islam, and all Muslims, for the actions of a few…
:
Simply by putting pressure on them, demanding that they take special considerations others do not have to, you are punishing them. Punishment does not necessarily have to be a matter of law–social ostracism, for example, is very much a punishment.
That P-word absolutely fascinates me. There is an entire mindset that must be behind it…otherwise the whole idea would crumble under its own weight before it could even be expressed.
To rescind something from general view that is associated with your creed…or any group membership of yours…is “punishment.” To take the side of those who have entirely legitimate reasons for being wounded or offended, is to “punish” any individuals who are part of that other group. To represent the aggrieved, to express something sympathetic to them, to merely suggest that greater sensitivity should be shown to them, is to punish the other group.
What a fascinating rule this is. It ends up being a rule requiring people to pretend something never happened, right? How could it not?
Who else could enjoy the benefit of protection of such a rule…
All those late night comedians who’ve been making jokes about Catholic priests molesting small boys — they need to find out about this rule and stop punishing ALL CATHOLICS. (Actually, their humor really is no doubt injurious to those who were victimized in such a way, but that’s a different subject.) Feminists who irresponsibly spread around tall tales about men abusing their wives on Super Bowl Sunday, they are “punishing” men for the wickedness of just a few.
People who continue to bring up “The Crusades” as a reminder of the barbarism in the history of Christianity, they are “punishing” Christians. Actually, the title of this very post is “Religion-free zone in New York?” Such an idea, according to this rule, is “punishing” anybody who’s religious! That means Michael Newdow has been punishing religious people over and over again. So has Richard Dawkins and so has Bill Maher. Nick has been punishing Republicans and conservatives, repeatedly, “for the actions of a few” and without much thought going into it.
What else have we got: The tea party! Oh my goodness, talk about a mass of people being punished for the actions of a few. Actually, if I’m understanding this Hanley rule correctly, anytime a group is suggestively smeared with a stereotype, to make it easier to dismiss all who come from that group, even if the stereotype is based on the documented actions of a few individuals the rule has been violated.
How about cracking dirty jokes in front of women at work? Should I get sent to sexual harassment training for that? How absurd! It’s a harmless joke! You’re punishing me, as a man, for the actions of a few!
Seriously though, there’s another side to this I think some still aren’t seeing:
We hear a lot about what Imam Rauf does & does not “intend” to do with this mosque. I’m wondering how many participants in the conversation might have lost sight of the obvious fact: Aside from Rauf’s words & actions being completely incompatible with one another, in a mismatch you don’t often see with regard to sane & honest person…his intentions might be entirely irrelevant?
We’ve used precisely the same logic in our hate crime legislation. Right-wing guy gets on talk radio and says, “Anybody who voted for ObamaCare, I hope they end up desperately needing it” or some such. So the local congressman who voted yes, he’s driving under a freeway overpass and someone drops a bowling ball on his windshield. Hey, maybe it was one of the listeners to that right-wing crank on the radio! Who, when questioned, says, “Hey, look, I didn’t intend for anybody to do anything like that…”
Our three “gotta build it” people here, they’d defend that guy wouldn’t they? Especially Jim, right? Intentions, and lack thereof, decide everything.
I don’t think so. Note that, in this scenario, we’re deciding the “should” of building the Mosque…we’re not sitting in judgment of whether someone should be prosecuted or not. We’re just sitting in judgment of, if anything at all, wisdom, decency, consideration. Point is: Intentions don’t decide everything.
We have the “Could Be Construed As” standard applying in full force across all different kinds of our modern society.
This is one of a few cases in which there is a perfectly valid reason for applying it. The enemy we’re talking about, doesn’t have much of a history of being provoked into violence by rejection; if anything, they have been provoked into violence, repeatedly, by acquiescence.
Nick says, if we do acquiesce, it will probably bring peace and if we don’t, it will bring bloodshed. To date, though, it’s worked more-or-less in the exact opposite way.
As a message of fellowship and unity, the Mosque is a complete failure all-around. Even when people defend it, they don’t act unifying. They become instantly divisive and polarizing, as if possessed by a demon. They can’t even squeak out a single sentence without falling back into some sermon about they’re good, and anybody who doesn’t agree with them about everything must be bad. That’s the best definition of divisive there can possibly be.
Mission: Fellowship center, reach across, heal divisions.
Verdict: MASSIVE fail.
LikeLike
lowerleavell, I’m glad you would have liked it as a pun. It seemed to me it would come out sounding like “bringing us down to lowerleavell’s level,” which could fairly have been construed as an attempt at insult. Ah, well, a chance to be funny missed (lord knows I’m no comedian).
As to whether I get what the perception these people have, yes, I think I do. I know these people. I grew up among these people. But the perception is wrong, and the perception is based on some degree of bigotry. I say that with confidence because I know with certainty that they would not apply the same rule to Christianity. If it had been Christian terrorists who killed people in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, these same people would insist that it’s ok to build a church there. They wouldn’t march side-by-side with Saudi Muslims to protest the building of such a church.
Anytime you apply different rules to someone else than you would apply to yourself, you are engaging in a bigoted action. (That’s why all sports fans are bigots! It’s only pass interference when their team does it.)
As to my “punishment” statement, I apparently wasn’t clear. I get now that you would not try to deny their right to build as a matter of law, so I wasn’t referring to that when I said “punishing” non-guilty people. I meant the term more broadly. Simply by putting pressure on them, demanding that they take special considerations others do not have to, you are punishing them. Punishment does not necessarily have to be a matter of law–social ostracism, for example, is very much a punishment.
As to your return to the claim that they ought to engage in “self-government,” I’ll admit to being a little upset by this, because you brought it up before, I challenged it, and you didn’t respond to the challenge. Now you bring it up again as though my response to it was not still outstanding.
Look, I’m a political scientist. Not only that, one of my mentors is the world’s leading scholar in the issue of self-governance, Indiana University’s Elinor Ostrom (ahem, I’m riding laurels here–I am by no means a leading scholar of that myself, but I learned a lot from her). I have never before heard anyone use the phrase “self-governance” in a way that means “come to the conclusion I want.” Self-governance is, as Ostrom’s colleague Michael McGinnis puts it in this document:
It’s no more legitimate to say, “if they engaged in self-governance they would achieve this particular outcome” than to say, “if the elections are fair, the Democrats will always win.”
I could as easily say to you, “your side should engage in self-governance and ‘should be wise and sensitive to those (Muslims) around them.'” Why isn’t that as legitimate a claim about self-government as yours? It is in fact just as legitimate, because neither is particularly legitimate. Self-governance is a process, and not an outcomes.
In the end, I just can’t excuse the type of sensitivity that perceives building the mosque there as illegitimate. People who cannot live and let live are people who are not in fact well-suited for self-governance, because they are too eager to control the actions of others, and impatient with any process–no matter how fair–that doesn’t produce their desired outcomes.
That’s not an attack on conservatives, because too many left-wingers are that way, too. (I know a very liberal nun who objected to Bush’s re-election in 2004 with the question, “How can this be a democracy?”) Self-governance involves a good deal of live and let live, and absolutely requires that we accept the outcome of the legitimate processes.
So, yes, I understand these folks’ perception. But I reject it. There are many perceptions I understand but reject. Having grown up protestant I understand anti-Catholocism, but I reject it (with the exception of Notre Dame university, which I eagerly root against). Having studied Marx I understand Marxism, but I reject it. An internet debate opponent has in recent years helped me understand Calvinism, but I still reject it (no offense intended, if you happen to be a Calvinist-leaning Baptist, as he is; I just happen to be anabaptist). And I understand opposition to free trade, but I reject that.
So my rejection of their perspective is not based on ignorance. It’s based on being familiar with it, but firmly believing it is rooted in bigotry because it would not be applied to Christians if the tables were turned. That’s my number one ethical stance, above all else: You have to abide by the same rules you would have others abide by. I don’t see that happening here, so I can’t approve.
LikeLike
Oops – posted before I finished my sentence.
You still haven’t answered by giving documentation about the mosque being there for years.
LikeLike
Nic said, “If the whole objecting to the mosque wasn’t about ginning up fear and hatred of muslims ahead of the elections..then why didn’t your side try being diplomatic and negotiating first?”
My “side” did. Your “bigoted” archbishop did. Shoot, even Pastor Jones tried to have a meeting with the Imam! Your question is baseless.
You still haven’t answered by giving documentation abou
LikeLike
James said, “It appears to me that there are two possible reasons. One is that no sign, or perhaps I should limit that to shrine” of Islam should be permitted near GZ. But that punishes all Islam, and all Muslims, for the actions of a few. From my perspective on the world, punishing some people for the actions of others is not an obviously justifiable thing.”
That is not my view. I do not think that legislation or legal action should be taken to keep Muslims from building anything or “permitting” them from doing anything peaceful near ground zero. Two wrongs don’t make a right. That is where I believe self government comes into play that the Muslims who desire to worship in that area should be wise and sensitive to those around them. Thumbing your nose at others does little to instill confidence in the American people that their motives are pure. I think, with the big hearts of the American people, if the Imam and others surrounding him, had been gracious and respectful of those who are hurting, he would have won over a lot of people. I could be wrong, but the Imam hasn’t been helping his cause very much.
James said, “The second reason I can see is that it does indeed disturb and offend some people. I don’t dispute that it is, but demanding someone else not do something that disturbs/offends us is also not an obviously justifiable thing.”
Do you see why it is disturbing some people? You see the disturbance, but do you understand it? You claim it only can be for bigoted reasons? Can you see past that knee jerk reaction and into why people really do believe that this mosque could be an afront to the 9/11 attacks – whether it is true or not? Do you at least understand the perception, whether it is right or wrong?
James said, “It might be nice if the disturber would refrain from their action, but far from standing on any moral high ground when we demand they do not, we bring ourselves down to a lower level (absolutely no pun intended–I don’t have a better phrase) by placing our own interests ahead of others.”
Well, for one thing, too bad that the pun wasn’t intended – that would have been really funny! :-) By the way, in case anyone wonders, I use that name because I have older brothers who are the upper leavells and it helps people know how to pronounce my last name. :-)
I haven’t placed any demands on the Imam – nor has Nic’s “bigoted” archbishop, or lots of other people who believe the mosque should consider moving to a different location, including several prominent Democrats and several Islamic organizations and people. To claim these Muslims who desire the mosque to be moved have Islamiphobia and are bigoted against Muslims is laughable! Some of “us” actually believe it is in the best interest of the mosque and the Muslims who will worship there for them to willfully move to a different location. Unfortunately they’ve dug in and any move they make now will be a “victory” for someone. :-( It’s now become a no win situation. I find that unfortunate that they didn’t have serious talks with others like the archbishop before making a final decision.
I can’t defend every person’s reasons for not wanting the mosque there – I know some of them are wrong. I’ve never intended in these long back and forths to give any one else’s perspective but my own. I think there are several different kinds of people who oppose the mosque for various reasons. Not all of them great reasons.
That being said, not all reasons for defending the mosque have been great either! As indicated by Pastor Jones, (not you James – you’ve been consistent), several on this site plastered him to the wall for his call to burn the Quran. Nic defends it saying that he never questioned his right to do so – but that’s exactly what I/Morgan have been saying about the mosque from the very beginning as well! Your position on the burning of the Quran is the same as my position on the mosque. They have the right, but whether it’s purposeful or not, the perception is widely held to be a provacation. I’ve heard Pastor Jones speak on the subject several times – he says he believed God was telling him to do it but then stopped his hand at the last minute (like Abraham with Isaac – his illustration, not mine). He wasn’t trying to harm anyone but believed God wanted a message sent. So…at least he believes his motives are pure and holy. Yet you believe his actions were a provacation – shoot, practically everyone including me believes it was! James, if he burned those Quran’s it would mean the probably death of several of our soldiers. Not that I want to give in to terrorists, but giving them one more reason to fight against us unnecessarily is not going to help anything. My point is that the Imam states that his motives are pure as well – yet a large portion of the country perceives the mosque as a provacation and there are things that the Imam has said that are inconsistent. Whether people are bigoted for believing he is lying or being provacative or not, or whether the terrorists are wrong for being provoked by the burning of the Quran – that’s not the issue. The issue is, what is the wisest course of action that leads to peace whenever possible…as much as lies within me? The Imam has not chosen that route…interestingly enough, the pastor did.
James, “I only mean that I think the counterarguments presented here are, at the least, legitimate enough to warrant serious thought.”
James, most of the arguments revolve around my character and “my side” and Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich’s character. I even posted an argument on this site that I found to be reasonable and asked you guys to check out – I even tried to HELP your side of the argument…how’s that for oposition. :-) There are great arguments for the mosque being there that I respect. The ones presented on this thread have been far less than gracious and reasonable.
Nic…one more time I’m going to ask you for documentation that the mosque has been meeting on that site for years. Stop dodging the question.
LikeLike
I have a real simple question for Lower and Morgan.
If the whole objecting to the mosque wasn’t about ginning up fear and hatred of muslims ahead of the elections..then why didn’t your side try being diplomatic and negotiating first?
Actually I’ll add two more questions.
Where is your objection that a 55,000 square foot shopping center is going to be built on ground zero? Including access to the New York Subway system which presumably includes digging and building literally among the ashes of those who died?
And why is it that you and yours never protested the mosque that has been on the site for years that you’re having such a fit about now?
ANd you, Morgan, can answer this question: Where in the 14th Admendment of the US Constitution does it say “This does not apply to Muslims.”
Here, I’ll even quote the relevent part of the 14th Admendment for you:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
What next, Morgan? Barring Muslims from running for office? Legislating that us white Christians can be the only ones to hold office? Barring Muslims from practicing their faith? Oh wait…you and yours already trying to do that one.
I especially love the sudden concern your party is having about sharia law. The whole demand that there be a law barring the implementation of sharia law is quite amusing.
Especially since it blithely forgets that there is already a law that bars such a thing. of course your party likes to pretend that law doesn’t exist when they try legislating Christian beliefs into the law.
That law of course being the 1st Admendment’s establishment clause.
LikeLike
Morgan writes:
You have absolutely no evidence that Rauf is a liar…
I have logically demonstrated he has to be one.
You wouldn’t know what logic is if your soul depended on it, Morgan. Logic requires that you have evidence that he lies. You have no such evidence. All your have is your opinion and your opinion is neither logical nor evidence.
If Rauf was a white Christian you wouldn’t even be opposed to him.
LikeLike
Morgan writes:
I have called out that you and Nick are engaged in a dubious thinking process which, among other things, excludes it as a possibility that anybody or anything Euro-centric, Christian, English-speaking, or I presume heterosexual can ever be a sympathetic figure.
Lets see. My ancestry is from Europe. I’m Christian and I speak english. And I’m heterosexual.
Would you like to try that claim again, Morgan? Or would you like to admit that you’re just making up bullshit now? Have fun providing the evidence where I made any such statement, Morgan.
You keep on thinking that I’m somehow against whites. First off, child, I am white. Secondly if it was a group of whites being bullied by you and your ilk I would defend them exactly the same.
This isn’t about “defended someone who isn’t white” for me..this is about defending American citizens from a group of jackanapes who think that they get to decide whether some group they happen to not like have the same rights as them.
This reverse racism claim of yours is pure and utter bullshit, morgan.
LikeLike
No, you haven’t. You think you have. You’ve made an argument that satisfies yourself. But you haven’t made a logical demonstration at all. I have a background in logic, having studied it both as an undergraduate and a graduate student. I know how a logical argument is constructed, and you have not constructed one.
You’ve done so several times. You’re either self-deluded or a liar. I won’t claim to know which, but those are the only plausible possibilities.
This is an example of your abysmal grasp of logic. We have discussed a total of one–one–issue, and on that issue I have based my argument on the claim that it’s wrong to try to stop anyone from exercising their rights. On that one single issue you jump to the conclusion that I would never support any white, Christian, etc., etc. But a single case can’t logically support such a broad generalization.
In fact this is a well-known logical fallacy, called hasty generalization. When you make such a blatant and well-known logical fallacy, you can’t successfully persuade people that you’re making logical arguments.
Anyway, I can easily demonstrate that your claim I would never by sympathetic to Christians is empirically false. Just see right here on this blog, this comment I made earlier this very day.
The rest of your comment is just nonsense. Nobody on my side is taking Rauf’s side because of his skin color. The only person who keeps emphasizing the issue of skin color is you. I’m on Rauf’s side because, as Nick and I have each said several times, it’s nobody else’s business where he builds a community center with a mosque. It’s not your business and it’s not my business.
How you manage to translate “it’s none of your business” and “live and let live” into “He wants the brown people to triumph over the white people1!111!” is one of those weird mental tricks I often see on these here intertubes, but that I just don’t understand. (Well, actually I do. It’s called a straw man, and it’s another logical fallacy. What I don’t get is how people can persuade themselves they’re correct when they do that.)
LikeLike
You have absolutely no evidence that Rauf is a liar…
I have logically demonstrated he has to be one.
Or else he’s nuts.
You keep expressing great concern about the feelings of white folks, and no concern about the feelings of brown folks.
I’ve done nothing of the kind. I have called out that you and Nick are engaged in a dubious thinking process which, among other things, excludes it as a possibility that anybody or anything Euro-centric, Christian, English-speaking, or I presume heterosexual can ever be a sympathetic figure. The irrational pre-judgment that Imam Rauf must be honest in his highly illogical and inconsistent statements, flows naturally from this.
And how do you two respond…”No! No! We’ve found a way to show we’re nice wonderful people that doesn’t take a lot of honesty or thought! Don’t take that away from us Freeberg, or else we’ll call you a racist!”
Here, let’s test whether you’re being straight and/or rational, by evaluating where your way of thinking puts us:
Taking sides in a dispute WITHOUT any consideration for who belongs to what race or creed…is racist.
Taking sides in a dispute BASED ON who belongs to what race or creed…discriminating, in other words…is not racist.
Up is down. Wet is dry. In is out.
Martin Luther King called. He wanted to know when you’re going to concern yourself with the content of Imam Rauf’s character.
LikeLike
MKF–we already know that you have preemptively decided that Imam Rauf is a liar. I wish you the good fortune of people not pulling that same offensive assumption against you. You have absolutely no evidence that Rauf is a liar, but you claim its more rational to assume he is than to grant him the assumption that he is telling the truth. Again, there’s that whole “do unto others” business that I would commend to your consideration.
Oh, and I don’t see any evidence you’re treating people with different skin colors the same. You keep expressing great concern about the feelings of white folks, and no concern about the feelings of brown folks. You’re deceiving yourself if you actually believe what you say.
Nick–my point is that it’s legitimate to argue that Rauf might prove himself a better person if he was to move the community center/mosque. That’s not to imply he’s a bad person now, but to say that I can see an argument that the best type of person–the ideal considerate and ethical person–might twist himself into impossible knots to avoid giving offense. (I don’t personally hold that view, but I think it’s legitimate.)
So that doesn’t directly translate into a comparison with those opposing him, or any kind of statement about them.
But I do agree their concern should be with proving themselves ethical, before they insist he prove himself ethical.
LikeLike
Except for the fact that Rauf did not do anything to intentionally cause a problem/disturbance/offense.
Yes, we’ve covered this. You can go by Rauf’s statements if you believe he tells the truth all of the time. The only reason you would assume such a thing is because you’ve pre-judged him to be a sympathetic character. There is no logical reason to view him this way. His words and his actions are at odds with each other.
You’ve castigated me for pointing out that you and James just side with whoever has the darker skin in every dispute. You’ve excoriated me for it, called me a racist for it, mocked me for it, ridiculed me for it…
…the only thing you haven’t done is deviate from the behavior. One. Single. Time. Out of 248 comments in this thread, and something in the triple digits in the other. Your behavior has been absolutely consistent — and when someone points it out you become unhinged about it.
But you can’t deviate from the behavior. Because what I observed about you is absolutely correct: You have an intellectually lazy way of demonstrating your decency, and it depends on creed & race.
LikeLike
James writes: It is not that there is no argument to be made that Imam Rauf might in fact prove himself a better person by undertaking the effort to avoid causing disturbance to others.
How about those opposing it prove they are the better people and drop their protests. They are the ones causing the disturbances.
Lower or Morgan wrote:
a pair of situations, like the Rauf/Jones couplet, that are exactly the same
Except for the fact that Rauf did not do anything to intentionally cause a problem/disturbance/offense.
Whereas Pastor Jone’s intent was to intentionally cause a problem/disturbance/offense.
Curious how you blithely ignore the motivations there.
LikeLike
You keep repeating that as though it’s true. It’s not, and we’ve told you why. Rauf’s purpose is not to offend or attack anyone…
I understand, Jim, you’re not the first to do this.
People who fall for a clever lie, are offended in the extreme when others do not fall for it. You take Rauf at his word and you want everyone to do the same.
The problem is, there’s just no logical reason to take him at his word.
To translate for morgan: I’m being persecuted because I’m white when I can’t persecute, oppress and deny the equal rights to nonwhites…
Got that, everyone? Nick is not going to see anyone who has white skin as a victim under ANY circumstance, and we won’t permit anyone else to do that either.
This reminds me of when Jeremiah Wright’s name started to become well-known. Black racist, no ifs ands or buts. Obama had to quit the church in order to pursue His candidacy. And yet, even today there are some who deny the idea that anyone who’s non-white, can ever be a racist. Some still insist it should be okay to use the n-word wherever you want — so long as you’re not white.
If you accept that, it offers an easy-out for the feeble mind: Do what Jim and Nick do, pick out the darker shade and go with that — ALL of the time. Don’t worry about contradicting yourself from one dispute to the next. You’re making up for past episodes of oppression. And if anyone calls you on it, don’t forget to call them racists.
Trouble with that is — it leads to a post-modern intellectual chaos, in which you’re a “racist” if you treat people with different skin colors the same…and if you discriminate, you’re not a racist so long as you do it in the right direction.
Guys, it’s time to face facts. The argument ended when you sided with Rauf, and against Jones, even though Rauf and Jones are doing precisely the same thing. You were exposed as hypocrites in that instant. Everything since then has just been cyclical carping.
LikeLike
lowerleavell,
Trying to speak sincerely to your claim that you thought your reasons for opposing the community center/mosque were obvious…
It appears to me that there are two possible reasons. One is that no sign, or perhaps I should limit that to shrine” of Islam should be permitted near GZ. But that punishes all Islam, and all Muslims, for the actions of a few. From my perspective on the world, punishing some people for the actions of others is not an obviously justifiable thing.
The second reason I can see is that it does indeed disturb and offend some people. I don’t dispute that it is, but demanding someone else not do something that disturbs/offends us is also not an obviously justifiable thing. It might be nice if the disturber would refrain from their action, but far from standing on any moral high ground when we demand they do not, we bring ourselves down to a lower level (absolutely no pun intended–I don’t have a better phrase) by placing our own interests ahead of others.
It is not that there is no argument to be made that Imam Rauf might in fact prove himself a better person by undertaking the effort to avoid causing disturbance to others. But the arguments that support demands that he do that are not–by any standard of ethics I’m familiar with–obvious.
By “not obvious” I do not mean to say “obviously wrong.” I only mean that I think the counterarguments presented here are, at the least, legitimate enough to warrant serious thought. And for any idea that warrants serious thought, its opposite cannot truly be considered obvious.
LikeLike
You keep repeating that as though it’s true. It’s not, and we’ve told you why. Rauf’s purpose is not to offend or attack anyone, while Jones’ is. From an ethical perspective, their actions differ.
However from a legal perspective their actions are similar, both being legally protected and a matter of their rights. So as I’ve told you repeatedly, I support the right of both of them pursue their choice of actions, so I’m not sure why you keep bringing that up as though it’s some kind of telling blow against me. Jones will make himself look bad, because as all book-burners look bad, but I’m not going to protest his actions and say he shouldn’t do it. In fact, I’ll say for at least the third time here, I think he should, just because the FBI questioned him.
So a) the two acts are not “exactly” the same. But to the extent they are “legally” similar, I support the right of each to do as they wish, against the outrage of professional moralists on either side.
Every time you try the “you oppose Jones but not Rauf” line on me, you’re lying about me. Don’t expect to impress me that way.
LikeLike
I just love how the right wing claims that white people are being oppressed and persecuted when everyone else is treated exactly the same as us white people.
To translate for morgan: I’m being persecuted because I’m white when I can’t persecute, oppress and deny the equal rights to nonwhites. And those who call me on my bigotry and racism are being bigotted and racist against me.
What a load of cow dung you spout, Morgan.
LikeLike
Morgan writes:
The three vocal ones are concerned about the other end of this spectrum: Rich people, conservatives, white guys, English-speaking people, Christians. As far as I’m concerned, this whole thread degenerated into a mindless and comical exercise when Pastor Jones’ name was brought up — that’s when the bigotry was revealed to be on the other side, within the three who are so casual about calling others bigots.
Lets see. I’m half german, quarter swede and quarter Norwegian. In other words, Morgan, I’m white. I’m as white as it gets. In fact I’m even blond too. I’m also a member of a family that is fairly wealth and I’m a lifelong Christian. And my native language is English even though I’m also fluent in spanish. But the latter is something I picked up in high school. So what stupid point do you think you’re proving?
Secondly, you apparently missed where I said that Pastor had the right to do what he wanted.
So no, Morgan, this isn’t some “I’m going to attack the white people” thing with me. But that you keep on bringing that up and apparently think that nonwhites shouldn’t have the same rights as whites in this country is really only proving that you’re a bigot and a racist.
Come up with one reason to oppose that mosque that doesn’t have anything to do with the fact that its a group of Muslims doing it.
I swear you’re statements are as if the KKK claimed that “you’re against white people” once they could no longer harass and lynch black people. That you don’t get to oppress muslims because of your fear means that you’re the victim of some anti-white persecution? Do you even think about what you say?
Oh and by the way if a radical group of Christians had been behind the 9-11 attacks and another group of Christians, who had nothing to do with the attacks, wanted to build a church on the piece of land you’re having such a fit about..I wouldn’t care. I’d have no problem with it. But if you did I’d still call you an idiot and a bigot for it.
But I don’t think you would. Because I think you wouldn’t even contemplate blaming the entirety of Christianty for the acts of a crazed few. But because its Muslims you’re willing to do that. After all..they’re not like you. It’s so much easier to hate people who are different then you isn’t it. Its so much easier to blame the entirety of a group when they’re not like you. After all…because if they were like you and you did so you would have to also blame yourself.
So what you’re spouting, morgan, this stupid “You’re anti-white” is only proving yourself a fool and an idiot. By making that argument you’re not helping yourself. You’re only proving us right..that indeed this thing is about you exercising your bigotry.
LikeLike
Sorry, Morgan, despite your delusion to the contrary, there are good conservatives out there. Just as there are good Republicans out there. I just wish they’d take charge of their party again instead of letting the fakes, the crazies and the fools run the show.
So no..she’s not describing me.
She is however describing you since what she describes is what you do to Muslims.
LikeLike
Morgan Freeberg once again emphasizes, “white guys,” but he probably still wonders why I think he’s racist. Nobody worries so much about skin color without being racist. Nobody criticizes others for standing up for the rights of a minority against the tyranny of the majority unless he is a bigot.
Oh, no, am I bullying Mr. Freeberg again? Sorry, I think think his obvious obsession with the skin color of the people involved in this issue is a dead giveaway, because of course not only white people died in the WTC, but black people, yellow people, and brown people (not only Middle Eastern, but Southeast Asian and Latin American as well). But his only concern is that “white people” are being oppressed.
It would be funny if it wasn’t so depressing.
LikeLike
Morgan writes:
I believe that it is bad form for a Muslim Imam to seek to build a mosque so close to ground zero for what I had thought were obvious reasons (apparently not).
Believe what you want but the fact is that there is already mosques close to ground zero including one on the piece of land that you’re throwing a hissy fit about. There is a chapel used by muslims in the Pentagon.
There have been mosques near ground zero for years, Morgan, so why should your “objection” be considered anything but the blatherings of a bigot? THere have been mosques there for years, Morgan, and you uttered not one word of protest. Nor did any of the others on your side.
Oh and by the way..the only way your reason becomes “obvious” is if the entirety of Islam was behind the 9-11 attacks. is that what you think is going on? Are you blaming the entirety of Islam?
So again..why should innocents be punished for the actions of a crazed few?
You can believe that Imam is acting in bad form all you want..but the fact of the matter is that you, lower, and all the rest are acting in bad form with these protests, these bullying actions…this blatant racism.
Oh and please don’t try denying the racism..the fact that anti-muslim attacks have been on the rise since your side started that nonsense is proof of that. Especially since your side is hardly condemning those attacks and isn’t dampening down its rhetoric.
It’s a pity that the right wing has so little faith in the United States, the US Constitution and the people of the United States that they’re willing to sacrifice the ideals of this country in order to “protect” it.
But then we all know what Benjamin Franklin said about those who would sacrifice liberty for security.
LikeLike
You want to deliver a smackdown, and be seen by others delivering it.
And you’re all clear on who’s going to get the smackdown, and who’s supposed to be defended by it…facts be damned.
It doesn’t work when you have a pair of situations, like the Rauf/Jones couplet, that are exactly the same — so that you’re forced to take the exact opposite side in one situation versus the other. That just unmasks the hypocrisy. It’s quite undeniable. Also, it doesn’t work when the person belonging to the demographic you’ve singled out as a beneficiary of this bullying defensive sermon-mongering of yours, is manufacturing an incendiary situation where one previously did not exist.
LikeLike
Not even close to obvious. In fact so far from obvious that to those who don’t share your vision of it it does appear to partake more of irrational stubbornness than of considered thought.
As to Mr. Freeberg’s “they’re bullies” line, talk about pots and kettles. Our point is precisely that you guys are trying to bully Imam Rauf. But somehow standing up for the minority’s right to be left alone is what’s “bullying?” Bravo for Mr. Freeberg’s perversion of the English language.
Remember, gentlemen, “do unto others as you would have others do unto you” is a concept you’re supposed to apply to yourself–not force on others in relation to oneself. What you’re supposed to do then is to turn the other cheek.
LikeLike
There’s something I think you might be missing here, LL. Our three enthused counterparts are bullies. I mean this in a quite literal way; think about how a real bully behaves on the school playground. He makes a big show out of figuring out what kind of torment his targets “deserve,” but he isn’t putting any thought into it whatsoever. Where his thought went, is into who the targets are going to be. And he picked them out in consideration of what scenario was most likely to allow him to “win.” Picking on whoever’s weak, just naturally arises from this; that’s the definition. The cause of the definition is they want to win, and they pick the fight based on this objective of an easy win.
Their threshold for pain is spectacularly low. When you were a skinny little kid, did you ever land a lucky punch on a much bigger bully?
But Ed, Nick and Jim know exactly who they want to pick on here. There’s a hierarchy here, one that isn’t news to anybody who was paying attention when Obama & Hillary were jockeying for the nomination two years ago. The three vocal ones are concerned about the other end of this spectrum: Rich people, conservatives, white guys, English-speaking people, Christians. As far as I’m concerned, this whole thread degenerated into a mindless and comical exercise when Pastor Jones’ name was brought up — that’s when the bigotry was revealed to be on the other side, within the three who are so casual about calling others bigots.
There is absolutely no difference between the two situations, the Mosque-building and the Koran-burning. None whatsoever. Save for one: Jones has yet to insult people’s intelligence with an argument of “You have to let me burn the Korans or it will be looked upon as an insult to my people.”
But you were consistent — I was consistent — Jones and Rauf are both being duplicitous and unethical, undeserving of support from any civilized person. Plus they’re both attention-whores of the worst magnitude. One’s got slightly darker skin and a fuzzy haircut, the other is Caucasian and has a very silly looking mustache.
So the bullies take the position they think will assure them the easiest victory. But they don’t care about looking reasonable here on Ed’s blog, they want to look reasonable in their own social circles. Without blackening their own eyes or bloodying their own noses…like real bullies. So they pick on whoever’s whiter.
I point it out, and Jim calls me a racist. For, as you noted, pointing out something about him. Which in addition to making very little sense, goes a long way toward substantiating the truth of what I said about him.
You can try to prove to these people you’re a good person, but I have strong doubts it would ever work. They’re not here to learn new things about people; that much should be obvious. They’re here in an attempt to move upward in the social strata of their own circles, to be bullies, to pick fights in which they think they have the best shot of winning. And they do not — repeat, DO NOT — want people to get along better or to live in unity. That is a complete sham. If all conflict were to be somehow banished from everything, everywhere, overnight, they’d be miserable. They want the conflict so they can show they’re better people that somebody else.
If someone tells me humans are hurting the environment, I immediately want to know if their bathroom has some light bulbs unscrewed. If not, I’m not going to listen to a word they say. Similarly, if someone wants more peace and less fighting in the world, more people to “sit down and talk it out with their enemies” as it were…before I see what they have to say about Islamic whackos, I pay attention to how they treat conservative Republicans. If I see a lot of Bill-Maher-type ankle-biting there, then I know they’re frauds, they’re liars, they actually crave conflict, and they’re just going through motions of being peacemakers. But they don’t mean it.
Ed’s citing Huffington Post to demonstrate that conservatives can get along without a god, but they crave a devil. How unbelievably silly. What if a space alien, who understood written English but knew not a single whit about conservatives or liberals, were to drop in to this thread to get his initial reading on who stands for what? He’d see you reaching across to the other three…he’d see me toying with them trying to figure out what makes them tick…and he’d see Ed, Nick and Jim going on and on about “our side” and “your side” and “us” and “you” and “them” and how stupid Sarah Palin is.
First time such an alien reported to Ed what he’d learned, Ed would tell the alien he should be getting his information somewhere else…for some reason.
But who is it who can’t get along without a devil? Go back and read the thread from the beginning. The answer is crystal-clear.
LikeLike
Let me see if I can put it this way:
Bigotry means an irrational stubborn fear of something or someone. That being said, my oposition to the mosque has nothing to do with subject of fear or stubborness and everything to do with the ideals of ethics. Are they subjective? Absolutely – or guys like you wouldn’t be defending them. I’ve never criticized their rights to build the mosque – I’ve only voiced my opinion that I believe that it is bad form for a Muslim Imam to seek to build a mosque so close to ground zero for what I had thought were obvious reasons (apparently not). Is it an open and shut argument that overwhelmingly compells Rauf to change locations? Nope – he hasn’t budged. That’s his perogative and his constitutional right. He answers to God for his actions – I answer to God for mine. I’m ok with it ending there. Always have been.
Is offense a choice? Sure! Just to give two examples, I choose to be offended by Westboro Baptist Church’s picketing against dead soldiers, and I chose to be offended by Pastor Terry Jones’ threat to burn the Quran. While there are different levels and causes for offenses, these two others are still choices. I could chide you all for choosing to be offended by their provatactions rather than to respond in grace and love. I could tell you to “shut up” because they have every right to do those horrible things – and yet you continually chide me for wanting Rauf forced off that location – something I’ve never advocated.
Interestingly, if bigotry can never be seen by the person who possesses it, why then can I not claim that you are bigoted? If I make the claim, are you not obligated to take my word for it – since you wouldn’t be able to see it in yourself? Or is my word not one you can trust? Why then should I trust your (I’m sure unbiased) word on the subject?
Regarding my employment of being bigoted against bigotry – my only point is to advocate self reflection before throwing out character tags. To be sure, it was a corny way to do so. However, sometimes the reason we criticize someone’s character so strongly is because we share the characterization – which makes it so easy to identify it in someone else. Jesus reminds us to remove the beam out of our own eye before removing the speck in our brother’s eye. It was a lame attempt to remind you of this principle.
LikeLike
Sara Robinson is describing Nick, there?
It fits like a hand in a glove.
LikeLike
If Ed Brayton posted here, he’d probably say something like this comment at Dispatches from the Culture Wars:
LikeLike
It took George Bush 8 years to dig a $3.2 trilliion hole, his having been presented with budget surpluses and a budget plan that would have paid off the entire national debt by 2012. Obama’s had not yet two years to stop the hole digging and start filling in. You’re right, the George Bush Depression created a 9.5 percent unemployment rate — it’s a cowpie, yes.
No, no one considered 9.5 percent unemployment natural, or good save Mitch McConnell, Jim Bunning and John Boehner, all of whom claim we don’t need to do anything more as a nation to try to reduce that rate, but instead should transfer money from the unemployed to the rich.
I don’t know what you think it’s racist to face facts. But then, I can’t figure out how you leap to the bizarre conclusions you leap to on any issue, Morgan. Logic, history and evidence play no role in your thinking, it appears to me.
LikeLike
Amen, Nick. There is, admittedly, a certain irony–but perhaps only a linguistic one–in being intolerant towards intolerance. But there is a far greater irony–or perhaps its simple hypocrisy–in demanding tolerance for one’s own intolerance.
LikeLike
James, think Lower realizes that his argument that tolerant people have to be tolerant towards intolerant people means that he is in effect saying the United States shouldn’t have helped stop Nazi germany?
Or that the United States should have let the KKK continue to kill blacks?
Or that the United States should have let the Taliban and Al Qaeda do what they want?
Sorry, to paraphrase a fictional character for you Lower: I believe as long as the right wing is intolerant towards gays, lesbians, blacks, unions, women, poor people, the middle class, Muslims, hispanics, nonChristians, Christians and the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and the Fourteenth Amendments, I will remain intolerant towards them.
Or to put this another way, Lower, you and Morgan are in no position to be demanding that your bigotry be tolerated. Why? Because you’re not being tolerant yourselves. Sorry, you’re not going to get to play that both ways. You don’t get to demand that you be tolerated while practicing nothing but intolerance yourselves.
Now before you go whining again…do realize that being tolerant towards someone does not mean agreeing with them.
You want to live in an adult responsible world? Then prove that you’re an responsible adult instead of some petulant throwing a hissy fit because you’re not getting your way.
LikeLike
Oh and quit comparing Rauf to that jackass Pastor.
The jackass pastor did what he did with the sole intention of being an asshole and being antagonistic. The same can not be said about the Imam in any amount of honesty.
That that mosque has been on that same piece of land for the last few years now and you and yours never objected renders moot any claim that it’s somehow offensive.
That a shopping mall will be built on the WTC site is far more “offensive” then a mosque blocks away.
LikeLike
Morgan writes:
To the best I can discern, the other three vocalists have settled on casting Rauf in a sympathetic light, and Jones in something not-sympathetic…so Jones needs to cease & desist from what he’s doing (which he did), and Rauf is merely misunderstood and engaged in some noble endeavor.
Apparently you missed me saying where I said that what Jones was doing was purposely antagonistic…but that he had the right to do it.
As for Rauf, we don’t have to cast him in a sympathetic light. All we pointed out was that the Bush state department considered him a moderate and a useful person to help US foreign policy in the Middle East. You, little one, have no evidence that he is otherwise. You’re bent on casting him as some sort of villain despite the fact that you have no evidence to base that claim on.
You do remember that “innocent until proven guilty” is what applies in the United States, right?
If his rights should be subservient to your whims, Morgan, then you sacrifice your rights to our whims. So make a choice…demand that Mr. Rauf give up his rights and lose your own in the process…or respect his rights and secure your own rights in the process.
LikeLike
Oh, and Morgan, that’s just a flat-out lie. I don’t like book-burners, period, and Jones is clearly as idiotic as any other book burner, but not only did I not oppose his right to do it, I explicitly said I hope he does just because the FBI showed up to question him.
You play very fast and loose with the truth when you’re busy accusing other people.
And while I’m busy listing the faults you’ve displayed in this thread, you also claimed that you can’t see the difference between a book burner and a community center/mosque builder.
So, bigotry, racism, rank dishonesty, and gross ignorance. Does that about cover it?
LikeLike
Freeberg,
You were the only one to bring up race. Yet you claim to be the one who’s color neutral.
As Bill Clinton would have oh, so folksily, said, “That dog won’t hunt.”
Then again, that’s very much become the standard conservative pundit’s method, ala Limbaugh and Beck. E.g., “Barack Obama’s socialist leanings….I never called him a socialist!” It seems to work on a whole lot of benighted folks, so maybe that dog does hunt. But not here. Not with me.
The sad thing is, I don’t think Mr. Freeberg is putting on an act. It appears to me that he’s quite sincere in his belief that there’s no bigotry in his actions or words. But bigots never see themselves as being in the wrong, and they nearly always see themselves as victims. That’s one of the reasons I don’t normally waste time with such people. You can’t reason them out of their bigotry because they can’t see it in themselves.
But I think they sense it just enough to be really bothered by the claim. There’s a very strong element of “Methinks he doth protest too much” here.
And notice the eagerness with which they turn from a defense of their anti-community center/mosque argument to focus on my accusation of bigotry and racism, as though the latter is really what’s important here. I think that’s done because they can’t rise to the challenge of showing any actual harm caused by Park 51. They can’t demonstrate that the Cordoba House is actually doing anything wrong, as opposed to doing something they just don’t like.
Here’s a little story that may be relevant. The lady kitty-corner across the street from me painted her house a god-awful shade of aqua green. I don’t like it. But that’s life–if I wanted to control my neighbors’ house colors I’d live in neighborhood with an HOA. The old lady across the street from me, however, called the city government and tried to get them to do something about the house color. They, correctly, told her that there was nothing they could do. The house is a source of frequent comment–some caustic, mostly amused–in our neighborhood. But in the end, most of us realize that this lady hasn’t done any of us any harm. If we don’t like it, that’s our problem, and she’s under no obligation at all to please us.
LikeLike
The same way the mission changed in Europe after VE day. By your standards, what the surrender of Germany meant was “all Stalin need do is wait.”
I know you don’t like subtlety, nor are you much on accuracy when the accuracy makes Obama look good, against whom you have an oddly bigoted view (‘anything Obama says or does is wrong, and anything to the contrary is right, no matter they conflict’). But there it is. Troops are coming out of Iraq. Combat has been turned over to the Iraqi army and police. Still, we have troops there.
I’m sure this will be news to you, but today, 69 years later, we still have troops in Germany, too.
LikeLike
How he got from “live and let live” to “brown skin wins” I have no idea. It’s clearly a dishonest maneuvre [sic] on his part.
LL and I, as I’ve pointed out before, are applying a purely color-neutral “don’t be a dick” rule to both Pastor Jones and Imam Rauf.
To the best I can discern, the other three vocalists have settled on casting Rauf in a sympathetic light, and Jones in something not-sympathetic…so Jones needs to cease & desist from what he’s doing (which he did), and Rauf is merely misunderstood and engaged in some noble endeavor.
It just doesn’t hold up logically. Both men are doing exactly the same thing. Or were…one of them stopped. They’re both antagonizing people on purpose. Oh, unless, that is, you take Imam Rauf at his word. There’s no reason to do that though, I’ve already illustrated the logical inconsistencies with what Rauf is doing with what he’s been saying.
The two situations are identical in all the ways that matter. There’s no reason to treat them any differently unless you’re discriminating on the basis of religion, or race. Anyway, that’s how you come off — to the best I can make out, that’s how you’re figuring out who’s good & who’s bad in these disputes. You do it by leaping to some conclusion about who’s lying and who isn’t…and you do this by identifying race. No other explanation makes sense.
But even if that isn’t true — to presume it is, doesn’t make me a racist. If you apply that term in that way, you’re doing exactly what I said you were doing: Alienating points you don’t want to see resonate, by calling people racists.
First it was
Obama’s “We withdraw on this date, no matter what” — this translates to what is known as a surrender — makes them much happier.
When I pointed out that Obama had not said that, Morgan came back with this:
Let me say this as plainly as I can: by August 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end.
Ed, what can I say. There’s hair-splitting…there’s extremely fine hair-splitting…there’s becoming a parody of yourself…and then there’s writing material that would be good enough for a Monty Python sketch. “I did not say this parrot was dead, I said it has ceased to be!”
I paraphrased what the President said, you got cocky and carried away with your “rumor-debunking” mode…and I nailed you to the wall because you were careless. Obama said what I said He said. You said, and I quote, “Think about what such a statement would mean: All al Quaeda need do is wait.”
How does that not apply to “[B]y August 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end”?
Can I offer some advice? Both of you need to get better at discussing things with people who are capable of remembering things, and looking things up, and care about what’s really happening. It’s obvious you’re both accustomed to just throwing something out there, like “Katie Couric made Sarah Palin look bad”…or “I think you’re a bigot”…or “Your claim is a strawman, just because I say it is one”…and whoever these people are you’re used to dealing with, just go running home with tails tucked between their legs.
That might work most of the time; it isn’t going to work all of the time.
LikeLike
Moving the goalposts: First it was
When I pointed out that Obama had not said that, Morgan came back with this:
Anti-mission creep isn’t error. Obama didn’t say “complete pull out.” Instead he pulled back the combat mission (which George Bush had erroneously declared done eight years earlier, even though he didn’t change the mission). That was substituted with a different mission for the troops, one of rebuilding, turning over keys of government to Iraqis, and preparing for the eventual, though not soon enough, total pull out.
We’ve lost trillions of dollars, a significant part of our national future, a huge part of our national prestige, and too many lives, because of the Bush administration’s failure to plan for an end point.
There may be legitimate reasons to complain about U.S. disengagement. I see no reason to make up stuff that isn’t accurate.
LikeLike
Morgan Freeberg wrote,
There are equal parts pure lie and false dissembling here. As to the first part, what he said to be labeled a racist. He said,
Who would make such a statement but somebody who’s worried about skin color? And who else but racists are worried about skin color?
As to how I “use” the R-word, notice Freeberg’s tendency to make really overbroad claims. Based on my comments about just this one issue, despite the fact that I never mentioned race, and despite the fact that I explicitly said the issue was about liberty and the lack of any harm from a mosque, he made the extravagant claim that I have a general “brown skin wins” rule. How he got from “live and let live” to “brown skin wins” I have no idea. It’s clearly a dishonest maneuvre on his part.
But then he repeats the same move in claiming that I use the “R word” just to attack people who disagree with me. But how could he possibly know that, since there’s two people here who disagree with me, and I’ve only called one a racist? And I called him a racist because he made a racist comment. And I haven’t called the other guy who disagrees with me a racist because he hasn’t made any racist comments.
It’s all kind of humorous, because Freeberg’s pretty much doing himself what he accuses me of doing–making overbroad accusations without foundation, merely for the purpose of demonizing political opponents.
And look at what they consider to be bad political behavior. Linking peaceful Muslims with 9/11: Not bad. Calling that kind of behavior bigoted: Bad.
Both Freeberg and lowerleavell are doing a good job of playing a game that political conservatives have perfected in recent years: If the other side is nice, you steamroll them as nastily as possible; but if the other side plays nasty, too, you cry and whine about how nasty and mean they are. It’s worked for Republicans, as the Democrats have mostly curled up in a ball and become paralyzed with terror at the idea of offending Republicans.
But Nick hasn’t (maybe because he’s a former Republican!), and so Freeberg and lowerleavell are shocked–shocked!–at his refusal to be nice. And I’m no Democrat, so I don’t play that way, and our “friends” take up the victim stance and cry that it’s so unfair that anyone criticize their beliefs so harshly.
Oh, but telling peaceful moderate Muslims they’re not welcome anywhere near the World Trade Center, and staging protests where brown-skinned people nearly get assaulted? Nothing wrong with that!
LikeLike
lowerleavell wrote, of me:
I’m not even sure how to respond to such silliness. How is a person supposed to respond to intolerance and bigotry? The moment I criticize it, you guys play the victim card, “Oh, he called us bigots–that means he’s really the hateful bigot!”
It’s like that childish schoolground taunt, “No, you are!
Oh, and since bigotry is an irrational dislike of a group based on irrelevant characteristics, it’s tremendously silly to talk about being “bigoted towards bigots.” There’s a rational reason to dislike bigots, and it’s based on a relevant characteristic–their bigotry.
And, to make it clear, I think this opposition to the community center/mosque is based on bigotry because I haven’t seen anyone give a good reason why it shouldn’t be there. That is, a reason based on some claim of harm the mosque would cause.
I have repeatedly asked you and Freeberg to explain what actual harm would be caused, and neither of you has been able to demonstrate any harm. It’s just a repeated statement of personal offense. If you think you’ve got good reasons for opposing it that go beyond personal offense–a comment reaction of people reacting based on bigotry–please tell me what those good reasons are.
But, in the end, loweleavel, do you really think I’m going to feel bad about despising bigotry and criticizing people who are demonstrating bigotry? I think it’s really funny how you two have decided that’s the issue now–that someone has dared to say the B-word out loud.
And so you keep ducking all my questions and challenges, by which you could potentially prove me wrong. E.g., what harm is caused? Will you allow self-governance if you don’t like the outcome? Why is it any of your business or mine where they build?
LikeLike
“Let me say this as plainly as I can: by August 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end.”
You’re proving my point rather splendidly, Ed. You live in a world in which Peggy Joseph is better informed than I am, because her ignorance serves your agenda and my statements — based on quotes and events that actually did take place — do not.
If I come to a conclusion you don’t want me to reach, it means I lack an ability to discern.
Everything you say makes perfect, wonderful sense, provided we redefine enough things before we evaluate what you’re saying. Example: YES, Sarah Palin did a wretched job in that interview. Yes, she’d make a terrible, awful, woefully unqualified President.
If by “being President,” what we really mean is “being interviewed by Katie Couric.” Sadly, that particular activity is not enumerated in Article II of the U.S. Constitution. No, the job of President more closely resembles the various things Barack Obama has been failing at doing.
But all too often, when I see you debunking myths, your process more closely resembles one of handing down dictatorial decisions on about which facts should receive attention from people and which facts should not.
LikeLike
1. Obama didn’t say that. Your drive to create straw man arguments rather overwhelms any sanity a real claim might have.
2. Think about what such a statement would mean: All al Quaeda need do is wait. Instead, they’re fighting as if for their lives and cause, because they know that the U.S. is unlikely to leave without significantly strengthening institutions to fight al Quaeda, and without significantly weakening al Quaeda. Waiting for U.S. withdrawal is not an option for them. Which means your claim is absurd on its face, when weighed against reality.
3. Earlier I noted your concession of victory to al Quaeda was odd. I didn’t realize how much of a surrender monkey you really are, Morgan. Why the rush to concede? You call it a “victory mosque,” when it is nothing of the sort, and not even the most ardent terrorists dare make such a claim. Why are you staking out a position so much against U.S. interests?
LikeLike
Ed says,
In total agreement. Except don’t forget radio. There is still one reliable news source available via radio. NPR. Of course, if you have XM…you can treat yourself to the BBC as well.
LikeLike
Yeah, that whole “fighting to win” thing has really turned a lot of people off at us. Like our enemies for example. Obama’s “We withdraw on this date, no matter what” — this translates to what is known as a surrender — makes them much happier.
The bowing is a nice touch.
With Obama in charge, our unemployment rate considers 9.5 percent to be its natural home. Is that a cowpie? I guess I’m a racist if I dare to think so.
You know what? If only liberal solutions made sense, OR worked some of the time…it wouldn’t be necessary to try to intimidate people into agreeing with them. Or into silence, if they don’t agree with them. You wouldn’t have to interview their opponents on television and spring these “gotcha” things on them. You wouldn’t have to order people not to watch Fox, as if you have some kind of authority to do that, which you don’t…
You could just say “Let’s do THIS, because it worked great over HERE.”
LikeLike
There’s that lack of discernment I mentioned.
No one seriously claims Palin’s ignorance would have been an asset in any negotiations. Our foreign policy is looking pretty good, really, except for the cowpies left by Bush.
LikeLike
Gretchen Carlson can’t expose her way out of a traffic stop.
Yeah, you saw something on Fox. It’s not what you described, though. What can I tell you — that you have a lack of discernment similar to Sarah Palin’s?
Bush made some colossal errors that have cost us trillions of dollars, a decade of diplomacy and several thousand lies. Among them, he didn’t send enough troops to do the job in Afghanistan, and then he pulled out too soon. He didn’t send enough troops to do the job in Iraq, and when the problem manifested, he diddled for at least three years before trying to fix things.
Candidate Obama was right — 20,000 troops more to Afghanistan in 2008 was too little, six years too late. He said no progress could be made — and he was right, mostly. (You didn’t oppose sending more troops in 2010 as “overkill,” did you? No.)
I’m sure Gretchen Carlson can’t figure out the difference between “making no progress” and “improving security,” but you’re not a former Miss America, and we expect more from you.
Carlson’s a nice lady, but she’s no political pundit, and living close to the Capital and broadcasting for Fox don’t make her an expert on what goes on there any more than living close to Russia informs Palin, nor any more than going into a garage makes them automobiles.
LikeLike
And perhaps as a result of that — and the mistaken quote about seeing Russia from the house — the American People overwhelmingly decided the Obama team was more competent. Since then, this has turned out to be an epic mistake. Nobody thinks Obama has any skill for this job anymore, or even any appetite for it, save for those who have invested some unreasonable quantity of ego in it.
We let Katie Couric pick our President. Now we’re the poorer for it.
Just goes to show — forming reasoned inferences from fact is not that straightforward of a business. Might as well let people get their information from whatever source they’ve a mind to dial up. Correct them when the information turns out to be wrong.
But don’t tell them what to watch. It’s not like you made a better decision, is it.
LikeLike
What in the world does that have to do with this discussion?
Palin said something worse. She said that Alaska’s proximity to Russia gives her acumen in foreign policy issues.
Asked about it again a week or so later by Katie Couric, she didn’t come off any better — claiming that mere proximity to Russia gave her experience. She spouts raving lunacy instead of just confessing that she has no depth in foreign policy.
She didn’t say those exact words, but given a chance to back off from them, she made it worse.
When I worked with politicians, when they’d get into a situation where they were way over their heads, I would have counseled them before hand to shut up. A confession of ignorance can be done gracefully by saying “I don’t have the full story, I think, and I’m looking hard at those issues.” Time after time the foolish ones claim to know more than they do, and when challenged, they push on as if it were a war between bullies and they want to be the bullyest. I don’t like the woman, I think she’s a ditz, and still I get those knots in my stomach when I see and hear her step off into thin air like that.
I don’t think Sarah Palin understands why it’s a foolish argument to say that proximity to Russia gives her foreign policy experience. I’m closer to Mexico than she is to Russia — if she’s a Russian foreign policy expert, I’m the Ambassador to Mexico for the U.S. and most of the nations of Europe.
LikeLike
Well, the thread’s gone on long enough I forgot to close a tag. Whoopsie.
</i>
LikeLike
more detail, and without the mud.
Right Ed. You and I both know “mud” is whatever factual bits of the story might make a conservative look good or a liberal democrat look bad.
“I can see Russia from my house” — which Sarah Palin never actually said — is “not mud.”
Mispronouncing the word “corpsmen,” which is something Barack Obama really did, would be “mud.” It’s so convenient, isn’t it? Anyone who doesn’t agree with you about something needs to be “educated.”
There’s a problem with re-defining supposedly ultimately-simplistic words like “fact” and “truth” and “well-informed” to serve an agenda: Ultimately, you have to view people like Peggy Joseph as “well-informed,” if their gross misunderstandings are convenient to what you’re trying to do.
And if someone is able to see through it, you have to figure out what to do with them. Jim’s way is to call them racists. But that’s getting a little bit worn out & thin now; the word has lost most or all definition, and everyone paying attention knows it’s because it’s been re-defined to “whoever raises a point about skin color that doesn’t service me or my attempt to win an argument.”
If you’re honest, deal with the facts. If someone has a mistaken opinion about something, and you come to find it’s because of something they learned on Fox that was inaccurate — get to the root of it. And then correct them on that one point.
Don’t tell them not to watch certain things.
That’s the arguing tactic of intellectual children.
Saw Gretchen Carlson expose White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs as a craven liar. What you going to tell me, now…I saw it on Fox so it never really happened? I should wait around endlessly for CNN to ask a democrat spokesman a harsh question? Puh-leeze. If a tree falls down in a forest and there’s no microphone to pick up the sound except one from a Fox news truck — it still made noise.
LikeLike
Morgan, you assume that Fox News presents “the other side,” as if it were a genuine news reporting agency just trying to get a balanced story.
If you want balanced news, you’ll need to check the other five major broadcast networks, and supplement with three or four good print sources.
Fox doesn’t present any worthwhile information that is not available elsewhere, usually earlier, with more detail, and without the mud.
LikeLike
No thanks to you for muddying the waters, often stating things exactly contrary to what was said.
Appreciate it by paying attention and heeding the words, not by substituting whatever strawman you wish to demonize at the moment.
LikeLike
[…] put together a nice list for everyone. Thought I would share it. 1: fool 2: gullible 3: ignorant 4: prone to hysteria 5: prone to […]
LikeLike
I would like to state for the record, in all seriousness, I am in full support of people being intolerant toward intolerance itself. There’s really no reasonable alternative. When you tolerate intolerance, what you’re doing isn’t tolerance anymore.
So James’ announcement, taken at face value, is quite reasonable. What isn’t reasonable is taking it at face value.
I wanted to know what it takes to be a “bad person” because there’s been way too much bloviating about all the ways in which 5 out of 7 Americans are bad…and not nearly enough about where the line is drawn. Now we have a full, clear picture — or something close to one. Jim won’t participate because he doesn’t waste his time on racists like me.
The real story is, what did I do to become a racist? I noticed something about Jim. Specifically, how he uses the R-word. It has very little to do with race; he uses it to “gutterball” people who make accurate points he doesn’t want to see resonate.
After I made that observation, Jim responded by proving me absolutely correct.
And then Ed and Nick affirmed that anyone who takes the trouble to learn both sides of an issue, is a bad person.
No exceptions.
Thanks for clearing this all up. It is appreciated.
LikeLike
Nic, “And the objection to having a mosque within three blocks of the WTC site is rendered moot by the fact that there is already a mosque within three blocks of the WTC site that you, Lower and all the rest of the protestors never objected to. One that has been there since 9-11 happened that you or the others never claimed was some sort of victory for the terrorists or dishonoring the victims of 9-11.”
Documentation please concerning the mosque being there since 9-11 happened. Documentation please that it was being used before September 2009.
What is quite apparent from this discussion is that the reason this is such a big discussion is that the disagreement over the mosque is only a symptom of a much larger sphere of disagreement. I mean, shoot – now we’ve got Ed saying that people who watch Fox News are generally bad people…Nic’s list is not even close to better. I’m remembering very clearly why I had stopped blogging on this site.
Jim, I’m sorry if I misrepresented you by assuming you thought that blogging like Nic was not a positive thing. I won’t assume that again. My apologies.
I’m learning something about the way you operate:
-You’re intollerant of anyone you deem intollerant
-You hate those who you deem are hateful
-You are bigoted against those who you deem bigoted
My suggestion is to look over your posts and understand that you are demonstrating exactly what you are against and just haven’t seen it.
I’m seeing clear intollerance of my position, bigotry against “my side”, and suppression of my first ammendment rights (i.e. “shut up!”).
So, looking forward to you not alienating this (my) portion of the population that support the Imam making the choice to move the mosque.
LikeLike
Doing “opposition research” to find out what fool thing the right wing is coming up with this time.
I see. And how often do you do this?
LikeLike
Well there is a 10th but it applies to liberals who watch Fox:
10: Doing “opposition research” to find out what fool thing the right wing is coming up with this time.
LikeLike
To quote:
Does simply watching Fox News make you a bad person?
No. But it means you’re either, pick one or any combo of these:
1: fool
2: gullible
3: ignorant
4: prone to hysteria
5: prone to conspiracy thinking
6: bad
7: immoral
8: silly
9: selling out your own economic self interests
LikeLike
Morgan writes:
Nick is stating for the record that five out of every seven people in the United States are bigots and racists, and not good enough to live with him, Jim and Ed.
No..I said that five out of every seven people in the United States are wrong on this subject.
As for the racism and bigotry part….tell me..what do you call subjecting one subgroup of the population to special rules and restrictions that aren’t applied to the rest? What do you call opposing that groups right to worship around the country just because of what religion they belong to? You yourself acknowledged that this is about race with what you said to James.
Yeah, Morgan, after 9-11 a strong sense of Islamophobia entered the country. It would be foolish to pretend it didn’t. How else do you explain all the anti-muslim hysteria going on right now? Or did you somehow miss the fact that mosques are being opposed around the country?
Were the Jim Crow laws not racist in your world, Morgan? Were the anti-miscegenation laws not racist in your world? Were denying women the right to vote not an act of bigotry in your world, Morgan?
As for the part about leaving the country, thats hyperbole. Consider it an object lesson for your party because when it was in power it constantly treated those who opposed it as traitors and all that. I have no problem in using the Republicans own tactics against them. Or did you miss me telling you to be wary of claiming “I’m right because I’m the majority” because that can just as easily be used against you.
I’m a former Republican, Morgan. I have no problem in using the Republican’s own tactics against them. It amuses me if nothing else when they start whining about it. For way too long every time the Republicans played the part of the bully the Democrats response was “Please Don’t Hurt Me.” Sorry, I’m not that kind of Democrat. And before you or Lower argue “Democrats oppose this mosque too.” Yeah…so? That doesn’t make them right. It just means, as far as those Democrat leaders who do oppose that mosque, that they’re a little too worried about not letting the Republicans paint them as something. Do you honestly think if the right wing wasn’t leading the charge against that mosque that it would even be a national issue?
Needlessly marginalizing the moderate muslims…needlessly playing fast and loose with their rights, needlessly lumping them in together with those who attacked us, Morgan, does not serve the interests of the national security of the United States. In fact it harms it.
You and Lower have given no reasons to oppose that mosque other then ones that trace back to “They’re Muslims!” They’ve done nothing wrong, they have not declared it a “victory mosque.” They’re not being purposelly offensive or provactive. As James pointed out..all those things that you, Lower and the rest say they are doing only exists because you think that. Its only in your head. Your neighbor doesn’t become a mass murderer just because you think he is. There has to be actual evidence that exists independent of your opinion.
And the objection to having a mosque within three blocks of the WTC site is rendered moot by the fact that there is already a mosque within three blocks of the WTC site that you, Lower and all the rest of the protestors never objected to. One that has been there since 9-11 happened that you or the others never claimed was some sort of victory for the terrorists or dishonoring the victims of 9-11.
Suddenly that you develop that objection and it just happens to come in the middle of an election season and that your side has openly said it intends to make a campaign issue doesn’t mean anything other then you and yours are so craven that you’re willing to divide the country along the fault lines of irrational fear just to gain power.
LikeLike
Generally, yes. That’s their intent.
LikeLike
So to be clear. I’d like a STRAIGHT answer to this.
Nick is stating for the record that five out of every seven people in the United States are bigots and racists, and not good enough to live with him, Jim and Ed.
Correct?
LikeLike