Fighting My Own Bigotry

Appreciated this article…. I am with Howard Zinn on this one! We should ask people with perspective that are not apart of the dominant culture to shed insight into places that most of us find difficult to critically examine. How did surviving citizens of nagaski and hiroshima proceed? What do native americans think about the idea? How would holocaust survivors respond? There are way too many people who cling to an us versus them mentality. For most, its either black or white like in some movie. Fundamental islamists killed my family….. or the US brought it on themselves not understanding or caring about Arab culture (Black or white)…. It is much more complex than most would have us think..

It is not at all “shocking” that the ADL came out against the Cordoba Center (which is not “at” Ground Zero, nor on ground that was directly affected by the Sept 11 attacks, merely nearby): their unofficial motto for some time has been religious tolerance for me and not for thee. Or to put it another way, Abraham Foxman — so quick to lob accusations of “anti-Semitism” against anyone who so much as raises an eyebrow about any action or policy of any Israeli government — really couldn’t care less about the defamation of any other religion, or its adherents. Defame away! Just leave the Jews alone, or we will accuse you of denying the Holocaust.Religious tolerance is THE central founding principle of the United States of America, the principle that impelled the passengers of the Mayflower to immigrate, and one that is enshrined in the First Amendment to the US Constitution. There is absolutely no way religious intolerance — of ANY religion — or restrictions on the legal building of houses of worship can be logically justified by patriotism, much less legally upheld. The irrational reaction of some Americans against any religious expression on the part of American Muslims is nothing but rank prejudice. Get over it.The majority of New Yorkers aren’t in the least bit perturbed about having a mosque and Islamic cultural center downtown (it got almost unanimous approval from the loical community board, which virtually never happens in a city where ALL new development is contentious!), and it’s more than a bit annoying when outsiders — usually cultural conservatives who generally never mention New York except to disparage it — suddenly decide that the former World Trade Center site (and a radius of several blocks either side, apparently) is “theirs,” is “sacred ground” for “real Americans,” and therefore can’t be zoned for construction according to city ordinances in exactly the same way as the rest of Manhattan. Who asked you? NYC taxpayers and their elected representatives have decided they’re fine with the mosque. It’s nobody else’s business.

And to commenter #2, who trots out the usual tired old tenets (not “tenants,” dear) of Islamophobia:(1) “most moderate or ‘liberal’ Muslims will not condemn what happened.”Yeah? Prove it. What’s your source for that information? Do not point me to a Facebook post written by Sarah Palin. Point me to a source written by actual American Muslims where they have refused to condemn the attacks. Take your time searching, I’m in no hurry….(2) “seriously, you don’t get that this is a religion that debases women? The burqa is required because Islamic men believe women to be corrupt.”The burqa is not required by Islam. It was required by the former theocratic government of Afghanistan, and is required by some extremely conservative Muslim men of their wives. (That the wives in question submit to this requirement is their own affair.) The vast majority of Muslims understand “modesty” to be satisfied by long sleeves and skirts/pants, plus covering the head and neck for women. Orthodox Judaism also requires women to cover their heads and wear similarly modest clothing. Should we outlaw the building of synagogues? (I fear the ADL will respond quite differently to that idea.) Christianity has produced its fair share of violent extremists (even if you take the Crusades, the Inquisition, witch-burning, and the routine burnings of Catholics and Protestants under a succession of Tudor monarchs out of the equation, there are plenty of recent examples to cite, such as abortion clinic violence, the murders of several doctors, and the beatings and deaths of innumerable known or suspected homosexuals — and that’s just in the U.S.!). Judaism, too, has its extremists who do not shrink from violence and have no respect for international law or treaties (see: the West Bank). The vast majority of the world’s religions treat the genders differently, usually placing far more restrictions on women’s behaviour and movements than men’s. I couldn’t agree more that this is sexist and reprehensible, and should be reformed, but don’t pretend that it’s unique to Islam.

And to Laurie Fendrich — this is a great column, actually. I’m glad that you don’t (unlike Joel Stein in his recent, infamous TIME column about Indian immigrants in NJ) try to hide behind the idea that “gosh, I just have these incredibly subtle and complex feelings about this mosque, whatever could they be, I simply must explore them in writing.” Instead, you call them by name — bigotry, pure and simple. Prejudice is a natural human reaction that we all experience sometimes. But we can either deny it (“I’m not a racist, but….”) and insist that there is some “rational” foundation for our irrational hatred of “them” (as Commenter #2 does); or own it, as you do here, and then make the necessary effort to overcome it — rationally. I appreciate that you’ve modeled the latter, mature approach in your column above. It’s the one we all need to follow if we ever hope to make “-isms” (racism, nativism, sexism, etc.) and “-phobias” a thing of the past.

anon1972 – So. . . let me get this straight. You see the events of 9/11 as just another day in the park. . . there’s 7 million stories in the naked city and that was just one of them. Hypocrisy? How many of those graves in Washington Square were filled by people put there against their will with 3000 others from all over the world? The very fact that you are trying so hard to ignore what happened indicates that you know that what you are writing is nonsense.Friend, there are all kinds of Muslims from liberal to extreme. But the home of Islam is Saudi Arabia – an American ally. Can you travel to Mecca? How are other religions treated in that country? How are other religions treated in most Islamic countries? You know, it’s been very difficult for me because I believe strongly in religious freedom. But many aspect of the very foundation of Islam are bigoted. . . and reprehensible. And this is the 21st century, not the 15th or 16th. There’s only one religion left that espouses, essentially, conquering the whole world – by force if necessary. The question is this – How much freedom do we grant to a religious group whose stated purpose is to take religious freedom away from everyone in the world and who have demonstrated repeatedly that they will use deadly force to achieve their ends? Look at what’s happening in the Netherlands. Sorry. . . I’m not saying don’t build the Mosque – I’m just saying they should build it somewhere else – somewhere not close to an area defiled by their co-religionists and made sacred by the spilled blood of those 3000 people.

Turner Classic Movies showed “Bad Day at Black Rock” (1955) this past Saturday night. The plot–if you haven’t seen the film, and you should–concerns (the character played by) Spencer Tracy arriving in a forlorn desert town shortly after the end of World War II, looking for a Japanese-American farmer named Komoko. [Spoiler alert! Reading further will reveal plot points near the end of movie.]Komoko’s son, it seems, saved Tracy’s life in combat in Italy, got a posthumous medal for it, and Tracy wants to give the medal to the father. Unfortunately, the father had been burnt out and murdered four years previously by the town toughs and their leader (played by Robert Ryan), in a rage over Pearl Harbor. When Tracy asks Ryan what Komoko had to do with Pearl Harbor, Ryan replies,”What does it matter? He was a Jap, wasn’t he?”To belabor the obvious: “What did the people wanting to build the mosque near Ground Zero have to do with Sept. 11, 2001?” The answer with all to many people is essentially, “What does it matter? They’re Muslims, aren’t they?”

Some reactions to this are bigoted, indeed. But the basic discomfort isn’t, any more than the reactions to erecting crosses, churches, convents, or German cultural centers near old concentration camps. It may be a legal right, but it is inappropriate and insensitive. The original intent might have been positive, but surely when one recognizes it is not having the intended result, one should desist? Persisting notwithstanding hurt feelings indicates the intent was not as benign as it was portrayed.

This is a great post. Honesty like this doesn’t come easily, and my hat’s off.Xenophobia is highly useful from an evolutionary perspective; it keeps us suspicious of strangers, those not from our own family, clan, tribe, who might after all not have our best interests at heart. We’re all soaked with it, like it or not, and imo it’s better to bring it out in the open than to deny that it’s thee. Of course, since human beings came up with a way of counteracting some of the grimmer aspects of natural selection, i.e. civilization, xenophobia needs some managing. We have learned, to a greater or lesser extent, depending on the individual, that fear and loathing of the stranger is sometimes/often/usually/generally not the optimal response in our world today, which is not the world our ancestors evolved in.It isn’t easy, heaven knows, but it’s worth the effort to become a civilized human being. (Okay, that’s a value judgment. If you disagree, sue me.)However, it makes no sense to go from one extreme to the other, from reflexive hatred of everything different or strange to reflexive embrace of ditto. The First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion, even, thank God, for those of us who aren’t religious. Does this mean that any religious group can construct a building intended for religious activities anywhere they want? Anywhere at all?The problem is balancing conflicting needs and desires. I don’t have all the answers, obviously. Should religious toleration mean that visitors to Ground Zero should be able to hear the call to prayer, whether they want to or not? I don’t know. I wonder, though: Why is religious tolerance a one-way street, even with our “allies”? Why do we have such “allies,” whose principal business seems to be oppression of their own people, utter intolerance for gays and for women who don’t want to be property, and the preservation of feudalism and slavery into the twenty-first century?I don’t believe all/many/most/moderate Muslims are any more responsible for 9/11 that all/many/most/moderate Christians are responsible for the Crusades, the Thirty Years’ War, or the rest. I do know some Christians who cling to the idea that this is a Christian country and who would like to abolish the Second Amendment. (For some reason, the assumption always is that it would be “my” religion that’s established.) I don’t know why people can’t see the disparity between lunatic religious leaders, Muslim or Christian or Jewish or whatever, and the ordinary Muslim, Christian, Jew, or whatever on the street, in the classroom or business place, or in the home.I do know this, however: Good luck building a church or synagogue in Mecca. It’s a Muslim sacred site, after all.

Salman Hamdani was also a real American victim of the 9-11 attack, along several dozen other Muslim Americans. It can be considered sacred ground to their survivors as well.

Practical matters for the anti-mosque commenters:* What’s the time frame or distance from Ground Zero regarding Muslims (of whom there are between 5 million [U.S. News & World Report] and 7 million [Council on American-Islamic Relations]; compared with about 6.5 million Jews [Jewish virtual library] in the U.S.) being able to build a mosque? They’re forever prohibited? They can’t ever come closer than, say, five miles? Two miles?* What will be the political and civil rights consequences of telling a group wanting to exercise a perfectly legal right that violates no zoning, health, construction, etc., ordinances that they can’t exercise it because it’s in bad taste? Granted, that the building could be stymied, as is much proposed construction in New York, on some technicality, but this questions assumes, perhaps mistakenly, that the anti-mosque contingent will play straight up and say right out loud what they mean: “You can’t build a mosque here because, well, it’s a mosque.”* Should all U.S. Muslims be required to register as agents of a foreign power? (For that matter, should U.S. Catholics be required to register as agents of the Vatican, which literally is a foreign power?)* This is New York, remember. There’s lots of stuff–secular and religious–within a short radius of Ground Zero, including a lot of buildings a lot taller than thirteen stories. (And there are over a hundred other mosques in the city.)And re #18: Since there’s been a long a cozy relationship between the Bushes and the Saudis (see Craig Unger’s book, “House of Bush, House of Saud”), should any physical tribute to George W. Bush near Ground Zero be prohibited, too?

Sorry, that’s thedailybeast.com

Um, I meant 2,000,000 American Muslims in the comment above. As you can perhaps tell, mathematics isn’t my field. *facepalm*I will also take this opportunity to signal-boost swish’s observation that “Salman Hamdani was also a real American victim of the 9-11 attack, along several dozen other Muslim Americans. It can be considered sacred ground to their survivors as well.”

It is not slander to call bigotry by its name. People get all bent out of shape when they are accused of racism too — it’s so terribly hurtful to be called a racist, just for making some derogatory generalizations about a particular ethnic group! So unfair!It reminds me of when a student copies parts of a paper from the Internet without attribution — or has a parent do the assignment for him/her — and then gets terribly, terribly hurt when accused of plagiarism. Plagiarism is a very serious charge, with serious consequences! All I did was copy a few sentences from Wikipedia! Everybody does it! I’m not a plagiarist! Sorry, but a person who argues that the American guarantee of religious freedom should be suspended or abrogated for Muslims only is making a choice, just as that student is making a choice when (s)he highlights the text and clicks “copy,” then “paste.” That student might be a very nice person in many ways, (s)he may devote several hours a week to caring for the elderly and rescuing abused animals, but (s)he is a plagiarist. Similarly, the person who makes a bigoted comment may be a thoroughly admirable individual in most respects, but that doesn’t magically purge the comment of bigotry.I’m not suggesting anyone in this thread is a bigot. I think we just have differing opinions. But some views expressed in this thread have been bigoted in nature, and Laurie is not wrong to characterise her own knee-jerk reaction against the mosque as a “bigoted” one. Indeed, it is admirable of her to have engaged in such self-scrutiny.Racism and other -isms (sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, etc) are all around us, deeply embedded in the culture and history that form the fabric of our collective life and the language that we speak. It’s totally natural and indeed unavoidable to fall into the trap of lazily hating or fearing an “other” once in a while. We’re trained to make these lazy, reflexive assumptions. It doesn’t make anyone “a bigot.” But spouting unexamined generalizations about any group of people is indeed bigotry, just as copying someone else’s work without attribution is indeed plagiarism. Replacing these terms with euphemisms that won’t be so hurtful for people to hear isn’t helpful in this kind of situation; it just allows people to avoid taking responsibility for their choices.

And, because this seems to be a point that is missed by many, the mosque is not AT Ground Zero, merely nearby — on the site of a building that is still standing and was not damaged in the attacks.So no one is “buried there” and in that since it is not “sacred ground.”Meanwhile, I can’t help noticing that Ground Zero itself — the place where all those people ARE buried (at least, those whose bodies could not be recovered and given a proper burial by their families) and which IS, arguably, “sacred ground” — is not being treated as such, but rather is the planned site of another huge commercial skyscraper. Yes, there will be a memorial garden as well, but that’s only on part of the site. The plan is to build a nice soulless office building on the rest. Why aren’t people up in arms about that? Oh, right, because unfettered capitalism isn’t offensive (despite the destruction and suffering it has wrought around the world since 2008). Only Islam — and the Americans who embrace it as their faith — is too unmentionable to be practised within [insert arbitrary distance here] of Ground Zero.

Correction to the above: “…to explain why Muslims should NOT be protected by the First Amendment.”

And just to be as irritating as possible, Bruce Bawer’s _While Europe Slept_ is an excellent work, providing an American viewpoint from within Europe of what has been going on in Europe. Bawer wrote that he thought U.S. fundamentalist Christianity was bigoted toward gays until he experienced Islam in the Netherlands. Meanwhile, Europe’s intelligentsia–the politicians, the professoriat, and the press–continue to demonize anyone who denies that everyone is on the yellow brick road to diversity paradise.

Got me. Marx said that the capitalists would sell the revolutionaries the rope to hang them with. I don’t recall his predicting that the intelligentsia would braid it for free. Given the learning curve thus far, however, I think I can say with reasonable accuracy how many of the EuroAmerican intelligentsia the imams will have to execute before they figure out there might be a problem: about half of them. Fundamentally, as Bawer points out, it comes down to the (lowercase) democratic liberal conviction that everyone is reasonable and we can just sit down and discuss matters reasonably and find a way that will satisfy everyone. But there’s no sitting down and discussing matters with the irrational, whether it be a Christian fundamentalist whose mind has finally been sealed shut, an Islamic extremist who’s convinced that the annihilation of the Great Satan will please God, a Hitler who wants all the Jews dead and all non-Aryans enslaved to serve the master race, or a rabid Rottweiler. We simply must get over the delusion that the world is populated by firm believers in the principles of the U.S.Constitution. There are plenty of true believers out there who think that God wants his law made universal, that anyone who stands in the way is fair game, and that killing infidels pleases the Almighty. I think they’re crazy, but if the matter were put to the vote in Saudi Arabia, I’d be scheduled for immediate lapidation, probably in front of a cheering crowd indistinguishable in its mind-set from a good old American lynch mob.

For all the rhetorical flailing about the evils of Islam–almost all of it “over there,” mind you–none of the anti-mosque* commenters have even hinted at what their actual, concrete policy would be:* Not permitting the mosque to be built because, well, it’s a mosque, and saying so right out loud in official testimony/documents?* Establishing some legally required distance in space and time from Ground Zero in which a mosque can be built?* Limiting civil rights for U.S. citizens who are Muslims?* Forbidding U.S. citizens from converting to Islam?* Prohibiting the immigration of any and all Muslims?* Deporting Muslims?* Other “solutions”?Note: In “Bad Day at Black Rock,” the murder of the Japanese-American farmer took place during the war, a few days after Pearl Harbor. This movie is fiction, but after September 11th, 2001, there were a few instances of Muslims, or people perceived as being Muslims, being attacked. Great credit to Americans, there were very few incidents considering the nature of the terrorist attacks–although one would gather from a few of the comments, above, that some people commenting on “Brainstorm” think it’s a pity there weren’t more.

After reading the article I remembered why I left NYC decades ago: violence, it’s a strike zone, political naivete, and far too many people thinking population centers act rationally. I might add I have family still in mid town.

“Death fatwas,” as opposed to, say, disco fatwas?

Yes, ethel, DEATH FATWAS. Are you a middle-school student who logged onto your mommy’s computer, or have your read ANYTHING about the subject? A famous one was issued against Salman Rushdie, about whom you probably haven’t heard.But go on, make some more jokes and get back to watching Jersey Shore.

There are no central religious authorities in Islam, unlike Catholicism for instance. Fatwas are promulgations by prominent individuals which often contradict each others and are often insignificant.There are at least one billion and a half Muslims (1,500,000,000)in the world belonging to various denominations, cultures and nationalities and including one billion and a half unique individuals….Some of the comments here are more moderate than elsewhere. If you read for instance comments on Yahoo headlines about the proposed mosque, you come across Muslims being called “ragheads” as well as calls for violence against anyone perceived as Muslim…. Several commentators have even divided the world into “Muslims” and “whites” … and of course undocumented immigrants from Mexico are now perceived as “Muslims”!How is it that a religion becomes a “race”? How is it that those “whites” become by implication “Christians”?There is no difference between an Islamic, or a Christian, or a Jewish, or an atheist bigot. Their hatefulness exactly translate into one and other. Saudi Arabia is not the “home of Islam”. When the Brits gave up that part of their empire, they fostered the formation of small monarchic absolute dictatorships. So Saudi Arabi came into being as a state with lots and lots of money, and control of Mecca, which gives it more influence than it would have had otherwise. Worse, Saudi Arabia is the birth place of Wahhabism, a nineteenth century fringe sect of Islam. It would have remained so if the Saudi monarchy hadn’t acquiered all that wealth and power. Wahhabism is the perverted version of Islam that has been adopted by the Talibans, the very group Reagan favored right after the Soviet defeat when different Afghani groups were fighting each others. He referred to them as “good, god fearing people” and the CIA trained them and funded their madrassas….. etc etc etc… history might be long and complicated but a cursory look at it will make mincemeat of preconceived notions and prejudices….

* New York City has “Community Boards”–neighborhood associations who pass resolutions (which, I gather, are non-binding in terms of legislative impact) on matters such as proposed big construction projects.A couple of other points:1. In terms of potential terrorist attacks in downtown Manhattan, it would seem that a big mosque and Islamic community center in the area would rather reduce the prospect.2. We “mainstream” Americans are constantly complaining that immigrant groups keep to themselves, don’t integrate, etc. Short of requiring everybody who comes here to join a Protestant church and wear only clothing from The Gap, aren’t the likes of the proposed mosque in the thick of downtown Manhattan a step in the direction of integration?

katisumas, P.S. Gotta run, the Taco Bell Chihuahua is delivering a campus distinguished lecture with Cheech & Chong today. The topic of course is:”Milennial Diversity As Seen Through Beau Obama’s Eyes In The White House Rose Garden” and the line already reaches to the Capitol…Madison, WI

Anyone who wants to see the main problem, please youtube Nihad Awad’s interview with Bill O’Reilly last night: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olEn-PGA7eYAwad is the head of the Council of Islamic-American Relations, and an ally of imam Rauf. (Two previous leaders are in jail for aiding terrorism, but he presents himself as a moderate who, however, is “tired of having to condemn terrorism every day”). Watch the clip. Awad refuses to acknowledge the real upset of people about this, or why they might be upset, and O’Reilly starts by talking about the people in his own Long Island community who lost family on 9/11 and are greatly upset about the mosque. Awad refuses to acknowledge this real upset, and claims it is all an anti-Muslim conspiracy.I have no brief for O’Reilly, but he at least acknowledged the other side, that Rauf has every legal right to build the mosque. His point was it was insensitive and unwise. But with an attitude like Awad’s, with this stunning absolute refusal to acknowledge the validity of the feelings of the other side and instead to condemn it as all a conspiracy against Islam, well, folks–this attitude speaks for itself about why building the mosque is a problem.

Gplm2000, did you read what I wrote, or just skim it? I fail to understand how you got that out of anything I’ve written here. Oddly enough, despite your description of my position as a “typical equivocating liberal stance,” I get the impression that we’re actually largely in agreement. I hope it won’t be taken amiss if I say that I find that possibility deeply unsettling.I guess, though, it really comes down to this: my feeling is that the proposed mosque is at best an insufficiently thought-out, really insensitive idea, at worst a brazen, blatant, deliberate in-your-face to NYC and America in general. Much as I hate to say anything good about any politician, however, I think Mayor Bloomberg hit it on the head. We’re better off sticking to the high road. The Constitution guarantees freedom of religion; the planning commission has declined preservation status to the existing building and has given the go-ahead; like it or not, the mosque is going to be built. Let’s hope that it serves its intended purpose.Now, about that nice little Episcopal church we’d like to build in Riyadh . . . and the synagogue next to it . . .

There is no evidence that the 9/11 attacks were done by Muslim flight school dropouts other than a VHS tape that was miraculously found after the invasion of Afghanistan. In his first few comments to the media, bin Laden denied involvement. The Taliban asked the Bush administration for evidence that bin Laden planned the attacks. That evidence was never produced. If any of you have evidence then point it out for us. You should look at the Project for a New American Century which called for a “new Pearl Harbour” event to create public support for more imperial wars.

* There’s a bit of circular thinking going on in #54: Since some people regard the mosque as a “brazen, deliberate in-your-face” whatever “to NYC and America in general,” it must BE a “brazen, deliberate in-your-face” whatever “to NYC and America in general.” Mayor Bloomberg, who’s about as sensitive to in-your-face whatevers to NYC as anybody (e.g., he wants to keep the tax cuts for the rich because letting them lapse would be bad–he thinks–for NYC), doesn’t seem to think that the proposed mosque in a brazen, deliberate, in-your-face whatever to NYC.* How long and how far should the “real feelings on the other side” extend in terms of a veto power over proposed mosques? Forever? Fifty years? Twenty years? Ten miles? Five miles? Two miles?* The proposed mosque is not “morally wrong.”* It’s irrelevant what CAIR and Nihad Awad blame the opposition to the proposed mosque. And, although it may not be a conspiracy against Islam, it opposition sure is to Islam. So far, I’ve heard or read nobody saying they objected to the proposed mosque because it’s an example of multiculturalism.* What the Catholic Church did in regard to a monument to the Catholic dead at Auschwitz is also irrelevant. (I didn’t really care one way or another about that proposed monument, but as long as a lot of Catholics died in Auschwitz, and as long as the monument wasn’t the biggest one or the only one, the monument hardly seemed inappropriate.)* It really comes down to this: Islam as a whole, and Muslims as a whole, were responsible for Sept. 11, 2001; therefore nothing prominent and Islamic can be built within a certain distance of Ground Zero nor within a certain passage of time–those things to be determined by the feelings and sensitivity of relatives and friends of the victims. Some people buy that, but I don’t.

Goxewu #52 – You continue to repeat the clearly incorrect mantra that “none of the anti-mosque commenters has yet given an example of what they’d say on the record.” Ethat56 has pointed out to you that both he and dank48 would say the same thing. In my comment #40 – addressed to you – I said something similar. That yes, we must honor the first amendment, but that within the bounds of the law, we should make sure everything is on the up-and-up. And I would indeed ask New York companies to turn away the business.And I have a couple of questions for you. Would you support a Nazi organization building an “center” adjacent to the Holocaust Museum? Would you support the KKK building a “center” around the corner from a Black Church or, as I originally mentioned, the Lorraine Motel?

Livefree–I note that Gox can’t answer the questions in your last paragraph, though they are good parallels.Gox: this imam has said on television that the U.S. is an “accomplice” in 9/11; do you really think HE’s the person to build a 13-story mosque near Ground Zero? He told the American press that the $100 million for the mosque would come from American Muslim sources, but he told al-Shark al-Awsat in London that the money was coming from the Middle East. So he’s a liar. One of his books, published by a publisher tied to the radical and sometimes terrorist Muslim Brotherhood, crows about prosyletizing for (his brand of) Islam from Ground Zero. This imam’s spokesman is Awad, the head of a group (CAIR) two of whose leaders have been convicted of aiding terrorism. This spokesman evinces not the slightest compassion, sensitivity or understanding regarding the feelings of the families of 9/11 who oppose the mosque, ascribing all opposition to “a conspiracy against Islam.” Islam is not the equivalent of the KKK. The Muslim Brotherhood is.Given all of this, you still don’t see a problem. I’d say *that* is your problem–a lack of common sense.

Addendum:Time Magazine piece on the imam –http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2008432,00.htmlAnd I think that does it on this thread for me. The prudent liberals (trendisnotdestiny, anon1972, et al.) have all wisely gone back to more sensible things than a prolonged debate on this thread. I’ll finally follow their lead.

performance_expert2 #62 – I want you to know I appreciate your comment. The “birthers” make conservatives look like idiots, so it’s always nice to have someone like you make a comment like the one you made. You make the “birthers” look like analytical geniuses. Again, thanks!

Gox, in your #60, point 4, you’re calling me an Islamophobe (and, since I had already denied this accusation you’d made, with evidence of exactly what bothered me, you’re calling me a liar as well). I’d say that was pretty ad hominem.So let’s both apologize and move on.

The American version of HAMAS will be stockpiling weapons in the mosque sooner or later. Remember, Even though Mayor Bloomberg (you sure as hell know you’re in Kagan Kountry) claimed the times Square bomber was an irate Tea Bagger, the FBI learned the bomber had real religious convictions……Perhaps the Mosque will also have marital seminars on wife beating, as the Koran teaches. Finally, in recent Islamic theological reasoning, an Islamic husband in good standing can divorce his wife by texting “I divorce you” three times.

Well, Amnirov, of course it does, but so what? Freedom of religion is guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, and I for one am glad it does. This means each and every person in America has the right to believe as he, she, they believe. Clearly, from any one perspective, this means that everyone who believes different is exercising the right to be mistaken. (Since I wouldn’t believe what I believe if I didn’t believe it was true, I have to believe that those who believe different from me must be wrong. Too bad for them, but that’s their right.) Since even the most popular (that sounds wrong, but I mean “having the largest number of believers”) religion has fewer adherents than it has nonadherents, the unique thing about religion is that, whatever one’s beliefs, one is in the minority.Problem is, then, that just because religion strikes some of us as corrosive, on the whole, we have no right to destroy “all religious structures and texts everywhere on earth,” or even anywhere on earth, unless we’ve bought and paid for them first. Nevertheless, it seems to me that this entire agonized discussion has left one thing embarrassingly clear: the precious religious toleration of this country has been and is being and for the foreseeable future will continue to be shamelessly exploited by those who would have not the slightest hesitation to withdraw all toleration once they gain the upper hand politically. There are no churches or synogogues or Hindu or Buddhist temples in Mecca, for the simple reason that there are no “infidels” in Mecca. Heaven knows Judaism and Christianity went through their theo-political stages, and a hell of a mess they made of it. (“Divine right of kings,” my Aunt Fanny.) We have a few harmless, ignorant goofs who think the United States is a Christian country; big deal. Not to conflate “the Arab world” with “the Muslim world,” but we have plenty of examples of unification of mosque and state to demonstrate that, whatever its virtues as a religion, Islam as a political force is no more immune from power-madness than Christianity or Judaism or any other system of belief. With my teeth gritted, I say, let the mosque be built. If the builders want to foster understanding, I’d suggest they sponsor tours of countries where government is run by the mullahs, imams, ayotollahs, etc. And I’d suggest that those who take such tours dress with extreme modesty. Wouldn’t want to upset the natives, whose sensitivity must, after all, be respected. Double standard? What double standard?

Wouldn’t count on it. Maybe this will be the thin edge of the wedge to mutual understanding and respect, and maybe not. Btw, I’d do something about the shorts and halter top too. And for heaven’s sake don’t be so rude as to mention polygamy, concubinage, involuntary servitude, female genital mutilation, honor killing, or . . . On the other hand, inside the mosque one will probably be quite safe from hijacked airliners.

dank48 The question is what will more and more muslims bring? Culture? Scientific Achievment? Arts? Music? With the highest birthrate in the world, since women have to have as many children as they biologically can, when the population reaches 50%, and that will be soon in some areas, will they be as tolerant of us as we are of them? Everybody needs to look at the muslim populations in Europe, and see how well assimilation is working.

In case anybody stops by here belatedly, this is from an Aug. 15th AOL news story –Operating within the same radius from the “sacred ground” of Ground Zero that includes the proposed mosque are:a deli, a knitting store, two strip clubs, and self-described “trashy lingerie” store, a hair restoration business, a mystery-book bookstore, and a fountain-pen repair shop.