Mosque Proposal Arouses America’s Sinister, Ignorant Side

Let’s see. . . first, you are calling roughly two thirds of Americans deeply irrational and proud of it. One supposes that it is then fair to suggest that one third of Americans are ignorant and proud of it. . . By the way, you can count among those who are opposed the Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, and Governor Dean. Both are big-time liberals. The fallacies in the Japanese internment argument are myriad. First of all, the sponsors can build the mosque elsewhere. There are already dozens of mosques in New York. The Japanese were deprived of property and liberty – the sponsors can build on a different location, perhaps even provided by the Governor of New York. The Japanese were persecuted because of their race. The reason Americans are opposed to this is not based on race, rather, on what Muslims believe. And the basic religious beliefs they subscribe to are the same as the Muslims who drove those planes into the World Trade Center. Oh. . . they are “moderate,” not radical? Well fine. . . I’ll concede that. But there have been a number of moderate Muslims in the media saying that this project should not go through – Muslims who contend that this project is indeed an attempt to plant an Islamic “flag” adjacent to the site of an Islamic “victory” against the Great Satan. Why should we not listen to the counsel of those moderate Muslims?If the goal of the sponsors is to improve “Muslim-West Relations,” then with two thirds of all Americans opposing it, one would think they would reconsider the location. At this point, all Rauf and his cronies are doing is proving that those proud, irrational Americans probably aren’t all that irrational after all.

luther_blisset #4 – Utter nonsense. The attack by Muslims on the WTC wasn’t the Civil War and this isn’t about race. That you would base your opinion of Americans today on the attitudes and behavior of people 150 years ago demonstrates breathtaking intellectual sloth.So, let me guess. . . Howard Dean is an anti-Muslim bigot? Harry Ried is an anti-Muslim bigot? Moderate Muslims who speak out against this are anti-Muslim bigots? Oh. . . I get it. . .anyone who opposes the mosque project (anyone who disagrees with you) is racist or anti-Muslim or a bigot. . . My favorite moment in this whole debacle is when someone proposed establishing a gay bar across the street for gay Muslim men. Supposedly, the spokesman for the sponsors of the project said, “You’re free to open whatever you like. If you won’t consider the sensibilities of Muslims, you’re not going to build dialog.” Don’t know whether it’s true or not, but if it is, it speaks volumes.

1. The fact that two-thirds of group of people are for or against something doesn’t make that position right. If the Constitution does anything, it protects minorities (sometimes minorities of one) against the unjust tyranny of the majority. At various points in our history, Americans were probably two-thirds on the side of some very bad things, e.g., slavery, segregation, non-suffrage for women, the World War Two interment camps for Japanese-American citizens.2. A letter opposing the mosque in today’s The New York Times says that Muslims who “insist on their ‘right’ to build this mosque where other Muslims killed thousands of Americans, show an astounding level of insensitivity and are thwarting their alleged goal of increasing understanding and harmony.” The operative and revealing word there is “other.” Because OTHER Muslims from another country committed mass murder near the site of the proposed mosque, ALL Muslims in America are forever prohibited from building a mosque near that site. There you have it: Some Muslims perpetrated an atrocity, therefore all Muslims in America are guilty. All–intesting number–six million of them.Subpoint: And it’s the Muslims’ fault for “thwarting their alleged goal of increasing understanding and harmony” by merely building the building and going about their religious business in it. If it weren’t for gutty Mayor Bloomberg, one would almost expect the police chief, in the vein of Jim Crow southern polices chiefs saying that blacks couldn’t use a certain park because their presence might cause a riot, to say that, sorry, he couldn’t allow the Muslims to build a mosque on the site they own because they might cause a riot.

I probably have a minority viewpoint here, but I see this as a property rights issue. I think the owner of a piece of land should have the right to build whatever they like on the property, whether it is a mosque, a strip club, a liquor store, or a brothel.

The fun part of trying to have a dialog with so many here is that they can only hear themselves. One more time. This isn’t about race. Talk of internment camps and Jim Crow laws is just plain nutty. This isn’t even about freedom of religion since there are dozens of mosques in NYC and no one is prohibited from worshipping Allah, or God, or the Great and Powerful Oz, or Mohammed the talking bear, or Jesus with his hippie sandals and see-through hands and feet. I don’t think anyone disputes the fact that they have a legal right to build there. It’s about propriety. It’s about the fact that even moderate Muslims say that this is about sticking it to America.swish #8 – The nonsensical comments from leftists on this topic notwithstanding, this issue is no longer right vs. left. The supporters come from the right and left and the opposition comes from the right and left. trendisnotdestiny #6 – Nice to see you are a Bushie. . .I mean, it was W himself who used to say that the radicals coopted Islam. Here’s the problem. David Duke is an individual – he only represents himself. And libs hate the more radical Christians – I can just hear many of you cheering years ago when the Branch Davidians were slaughtered like fish in a barrel. Sharia law, mistreatment of women, violent jihad. . . these are all a part of the very core of Islam. Tens of millions of Muslims subscribe to these things. It would be nice to think that no Americans of the Islamic faith believe in this, but that would be fantasy – the Times Square bomber, the guys in Buffalo, there’s lots of evidence that at least some Muslims in the US would take up arms against fellow citizens BECAUSE OF THEIR FAITH! The funniest thing is that all of those from Bloomberg to Fendrich to you – those preaching tolerance and blind acceptance for people adhering to the most intolerant beliefs on the planet – would undoubtedly be the first to be imprisoned and killed if traditional Muslims had their way. I believe the best phrase describing supporters is probably “useful idiots.”

New to this. That was a test.The comment above (11) raises a plethora of questions. To posit several of them:* The commenter says that those who disagree “can only hear themselves.” This differs from his or her own comments just how?* The commenter says that this is not about freedom of religion because there are other mosques open in New York City. If a group is violating no zoning, construction, traffic, noise, health, or similar ordinances, and is being pressured not to open a mosque (or a church or a synagogue or a temple), then how is it not certainly is an issue of freedom of religion? The argument that a group of Muslims has every legal right to open a mosque in a certain location, but shouldn’t because of the lack of “propriety” in opening a mosque is simply a sophistic disguise for an abrogation of freedom of religion.* The commenter says that “even moderate Muslims say that this is about sticking it to America.” Just how is the legal opening of a mosque, per se, “sticking it to America” unless American Muslims, per se, are somehow un-American? And might the commenter furnish a quote or two from some moderate Muslims–preferably an American Muslim, since this would be a mosque in America–to the effect that moderate Muslims do regard the opening of a mosque on this site as “sticking it to America”?* The commenter says, “There’s lots of evidence that at least some Muslims in the US would take up arms against fellow citizens BECAUSE OF THEIR FAITH!” Why does this hypothetical (under unspecified circumstances) constitute a reason why another group of Muslims shouldn’t be able–especially since the commenter has conceded their legal right to do so–open a mosque on this site? Is there any evidence that this particular group of Muslims are going to take up arms agains America?* If, as the commenter says in sum, Muslims are by their very religious beliefs seditious, and so should not enjoy the civil rights of other American citizens, would he or she simply stand up and say so? Otherwise, to imply that Muslims are, per se, seditious, but then argue that the reason the mosque should not be allowed to be open is merely one of “propriety,” is a little bit nonsensical. It’s like saying that you know that a stranger at your door is carrying a loaded gun and has a criminal record, but that the real reason you won’t let him in is that his shoes are muddy.* If the commenter truly believes that Muslims in America are, by their very religious beliefs, seditious, then he or she should not only advocate prohibiting this mosque from being opened, but should be advocating the closure of most, if not all, mosques in the United States. Is that his or her true position?* Describing the mosque’s supporters as “useful idiots” is simply an insult (a supporter of the mosque could well call the commenter “an obstructionist idiot”) that does nothing to advance any reasonable argument against the mosque.I’m prepared to be called a “useful idiot,” or something similar by the commenter, but I would appreciate, in addition to any ad hominem remarks, some reasoned responses to my questions.

Let them build it; then thay won’t be so quick to bomb NY City. That would be suicide for them!Oh…wait a minute

Re #15:Who are “they”? Who are “them”?

I thought it was the election of GWB that made the U.S. the laughingstock of the world.

I have long pondered why the comments on this site for higher education professionals are always plagued by trolls who don’t seem to know enough to have been to college, much less teach at one. I was beginning to think that some conservative group was paying people to troll web forums perceived as “liberal.” I have come to the conclusion, however, that they are merely ordinary trolls — meaning sad, lonely people whose failure to connect with others leaves them socially isolated and bitter. Anonymous trolling on the internet is the human connection of last resort. There are trolls that blaspheme on religious sites, and those that post sexist comments on sites frequented by women, etc. They aren’t necessarily committed to the opinions they express. Their objective is to get attention – any attention is better than being ignored by everyone. Thus the wisdom of the internet proverb: “don’t feed the troll” – meaning, if you ignore the troll it will go away. In the classroom, teachers are thrilled if we can get a lively debate started. We don’t ignore students just because they ask ignorant or argumentative questions in class. We are professionally obliged to treat our students with respect, no matter how disrespectful they are. Indeed, we are trained to recognize these awkward moments as teaching opportunities. In most forums, trolls get blocked by the forum administrator after a post or two. But here at the Chronicle, they bask in the human warmth of our thoughtful readings of their thoughtless posts, our careful critiques of their careless invectives, and our earnest socratic questions. The reason we have so many trolls lurking in the Chronicle comments sections is that we have created a troll paradise here. But it is seriously undermining our exchange with our professional peers.We must recognize that the Chronicle comments are not classrooms, and that trolls are not students. Our pedagogical mission is misplaced here. I know how tempting it is to try to educate them, but all attempts will be fruitless. This place is severely troll infested. Please stop feeding them!

anthsiuBro, this is a blog. The stuff you find here is what is typical of blogs.I have no reason to believe that the posters here are dishonest about what they post. However, as is typical with blogs, the anonymitiy provided by the forum allows for people to overstate their case one way or the other. That is what makes it a blog!As Jerome Bruner might say, you must take what you find here with a “perspectival grain of salt.”As far as the mosque is concerned, it will either go up or it will not. It is beginning to look like the construction workers will refuse to build it. We will find out.The way I see it, the intellectual depth of the comments on the board are reflective of the intellectual depth of the original post. In the case of Fendrich, I would not assume anything too deep.

maniac wrote: “[Islam]it is not a religion but a political ideology masquerading as a religion.”And Christianity isn’t?! Who are you kidding (besides yourself)?

I can proudly say that I had a career previous to entering academia.The arguments presented against the community center in NYC are cheap pettifoggery. Put in plain, bald terms…it makes you feel ooky that Muslims are building a community center (with a prayer room inside). Well, too bad. They bought the property, the mayor has said they can build. Quit whining and move on.Minority rights should NEVER be subjected to popular vote. The examples of just how foolish such an exercise is are myriad in US history. Professional politicians who exploit the situation are just as guilty as the cowards who lack the courage to actually do the right thing.You are not required to like everything that is done in this country and I am heartily sick and tired of people wrapping their vile and ignorant opinions in the US flag. Sinclair Lewis said it best, “When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.”~JC

Re #31:And now, the author of such jewels of reason as below is the judge of jcisneros’s logic.*** “I cannot wait until our dear leader prays at the mosque!”* “The miasmic ‘social justice’ obfuscation that passes for reason in academia has made the US the laughingstock of the world.”* “Ah, the nauseating whine of an academic pulling up the frilly panties.”** The “fanatically intolerant”–e.g., “You can’t build a mosque here!”–obviously includes mainiac. And jcisneros didn’t say that “all dissenters are fascists;” he or she merely quoted Sinclair Lewis to the effect that American fascism, if and when, would arrive under the guise of a fundamentalist Christian showy patriotism. We’re not there yet, but a few indicators–as a drive through certain sections of Idaho, Utah, Colorado and Texas, a surf of preachers on cable TV, and a few Tea Party rallys will demonstrate–are starting to point that way.

So mainiac, if I read what passes for your argument correctly you are somehow inferring that academics all wear frilly panties and are suspiciously feminine?Somehow, having a liberal point of view on something is somehow less manly?Ahh, see…the nice mainiac is equating academia, academics and liberal thought with rampant homosexuality…or being sissies.I pity him. He is insipid, puerile and nauseating. Pulling out the “queer” card doesn’t work with me, since I happen to be a gay man.Try something other than ad hominem language, mainiac.~JC

That’s your Straw Man contruction/evasion, JC, it’s fine if he’s Gay, too!

how can you talk about anything having to do with the united states and it’s citizens, (“the great melting pot”), without including the frame of reference of any ethnicity who cares to comment?

“….without including the frame of reference of any ethnicity…..?”I agree with the point: The US is a an Imperialistic White Beast without a head! Ethnicity issues of all Americans is far too broad a topic to whack around in this somewhat focused thread. Tell me, what do you think of Andrew Jackson?

How can I be erecting a straw man? You posted plain as day:”Ah, the nauseating whine of an academic pulling up the frilly panties.”I responded to your direct posting of this. Now don’t tell me that you meant something other than to insinuate that un-named academic was anything other than a sissy, feminine, or any other associated code phrase for unmanly or possibly even queer.In my first post on this topic I made an argument and stated a position, the essence of which is this:The people who are arguing against the building of the Muslim community center are using a majority position against a disfavored religious minority. Majority rights end when they step on the constitutional rights of minorities who are not able to defend themselves sufficiently from social opprobrium (like LGBTs, Native Americans, Muslims, et al).The motives for this behavior run the gamut from ignorant fear to calculated political statement. I see no reason to be offended by Muslims building a community center three to four blocks away from ground zero. It is not disrespectful in the least, nor do I see any sinister motive. So, from my point of view I see the whole uproar as nothing more than stoking fear against a group that is currently unpopular.~JC

Aptly stated goxewu.~JC

you certainly won’t get any argument from me that my people have “suffered at the guns of empire”, however that really has nothing to do with the point i was making with my analogy, which once again you have avoided addressing in any way whatsoever, leading me to assume either you don’t get it, you agree with it, or you disagree but have no rational rebuttal to justify your disagreement. in simple terms, (if my detailed analogy was too complicated), saying that muslims have no right to build a mosque near the “sacred ground” of the twin towers is no different than saying christians have no right to build a church near wounded knee (it was a church that was built next to that massacre site that AIM members barricaded themselves in during the 1970′s to fight for native american equality), or in many other sacred places where churches were erected on ground considered sacred and hallowed by indigenous peoples of america. yet i don’t hear the people who are screaming about the insensitivity of building a mosque near ground zero even whispering a single word about the “insensitivity” of christian churches being erected near or even on top of native american sacred sites and places where native people were slaughtered like cattle or a turkeys in a turkey shoot. why is this do you think? in all fairness, if those people who are calling for the violation of constitutional property rights in the interest of “sensitivity” for grieving atrocity victims are not racists, should they not be calling for the destruction of christian churches near native american “sacred ground”. it seems to be a pretty clear irrational double standard, fueled and justified only by fear, bigotry, and racism. now if one of those people were calling for honoring the victims of native american atrocities and any other race or people who have suffered similar circumstances with “sensitivity”, then i might have more of an open ear to their argument. but i have no ear or heart for hypocrisy and bigotry, and by my best attempts at logic and rationale that is none other than what this is. i use my own personal family history and ethnic frame of reference to relate to the situation and frame my own perspective on the issue, as we all do in these sort of circumstances. please don’t interpret my analogy as an attempt to say that christians don’t have a right to build churches in this country. it is not that at all. simply an attempt to point out the irrational, hypocritical, biased, and bigoted fallacy of the “sensitivity” argument against building this mosque.* point of fact in reference to your response to JC- unless you are retracting your attempts to keep this debate on subject and referential to this specific issue, and expanding your debate to broad world terms, muslims are most certainly a minority in the united states of america, which is the country we speak of specifically here.

“…i use my own personal family history and ethnic frame of reference to relate to the situation and frame my own perspective on the issue, as we all do in these sort of circumstances. please don’t interpret my analogy as an attempt to say that christians don’t have a right to build churches in this country. it is not that at all. simply an attempt to point out the irrational, hypocritical, biased, and bigoted fallacy of the “sensitivity” argument against building this mosque.”The catalog of atrocities against Native Americans is damning, and continues to this day…..was there not a reservation neglected and without power and water for months during a recent catastrophic blizzard? Your judgemental construction through a (specific ethnicity) the analogy is warranted. Concerning the mosque, as we all know, it is moot as to the legality of the mosque being built. The 911 World Trade Center location now has a problemmatic iconic status. The read each class or group has on the iconicity has an astonishing, yet deeply troubling variety. Much like your interpretation of the mosque placement from the perspective of a native american, there are those who interpret the presence of a an Islamic supranational icon, as a repetition of the initial act of war against the trade towers (icons in themselves, as the terrorists well knew). The duplicitous nature of the tenets of Islam do not make the intentions and more believable. The united States will probably be at war in the middle east again, soon. Saudi Arabia, among others, is pressuring the US to control a potentially nuclear Iran. Most people understand this. As for sensitivity, I would say the 68% of the people who do not want a mosque being built consider the mosque an icon of the next war.

Addendum, re #49:”…there are those who interpret the presence of a an Islamic supranational icon, as a repetition of the initial act of war against the trade towers…”This is an extension of the collective-guilt-of-all-Muslims argument that’s even more odious: building a mosque near (and once again, not at) Ground Zero is actually another act of war (against the United States). And mainiac’s adroit distancing him- or herself from it by not admitting he or she holds this view, and saying only that “there are those who” hold it does no credit to his or her cause. If mainiac believes this, then mainiac should man up (or woman up) and say so.

I wonder where our comfortable, faculty-lounged Islamo-philes will be for the first MASS WEDDING of 400 Pre-Pubescent Child Brides at the new Mosque “Cultural” Center? Check: http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=muslim+child+brides&FORM=IGRE&qpvt=muslim+child+brides#Will all the “Women’s Studies” Chairs be invited?Will N.O.W. be allowed to hold their annual conference there?Will G.L.A.D.D. get a discount for using the “community” room?Will the Jewish Legal Defense Fund get a discount too?http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=muslim+child+brides&FORM=IGRE&qpvt=muslim+child+brides# Oh, back to my original question…they will be sailing off Bar Harbor, no doubt within view of THEIR mosque.

Apparently the imam behind this community center is a *SUFI* muslim. That makes a big, big difference, since the Sufi have been the target of Taliban suicide bombers as much as anyone. Consider:http://www.ted.com/talks/imam_feisal_abdul_rauf.html

Nope, I am not an Islamophile. I feel no urge to convert to Islam. I simply feel all of this brouhaha serves no purpose other than to inflame hatred of a minority religious group. What makes it worse is the arguments are erroneous and infantile.In my experience honore and mainiac are arrogant trolls. We really should stop feeding them.~J

whoa! what kind of religion allows for the abuse of young children?!! that’s horrible! perhaps i better get to sunday mass and ask the priest there what kind of horrible, ungodly, disgusting religion would allow or promote the abuse of children? or maybe i should ask my two uncles who went to the riverside school in anadarko, ok, the oldest indian boarding school still in operation in this country? or maybe i should go back to santa barbara and ask the descendants of the chumash indian slaves who were forced to build the santa barbara mission via the whip and the cane. you want to talk about religious freedom… try being beaten, whipped, and tortured for speaking your own language and practicing your own religious beliefs instead of christianity. try being forced under threat of violence to memorize and recite catholic prayers, try being told you are a heathen, savage, wretched, lower than human animal for believing the way you do and that you will be tortured here on this earth as well as eternally if you do give up the ways that your beloved family and ancestors have taught you to believe. that’s the kind of religious freedom the christian founders of this nation brought my family and ancestors. you want to know what’s really ironic. i am a christian.

“..doesn’t excuse its being used in this debate a slyly homophobic anti-academics cudgel by mainiac…” It was the indulgent vanity of the adademy I was satirizing with the quote, goxewu. “Estimated number of Christians (includes Roman Catholics) in the US- 225 million+.” This number does not truly reflect the fact that many christians are non practicing and secularized. IMO the only practicing christian segment of the US is the southeast/biblebelt. Apostacy in the islamic world is punishable by death; hence that religious culture has fervent believers.There is an “Islamic Menace” (like the red menace) or islamic scare/Red scare because of real social assimilation issues with muslims around the world, jcisneros. “If mainiac believes this, then mainiac should man up (or woman up) and say so.” Besides the voice of the people, American jurisprudence is often the force that creates real change in American culture. As far as I know, there are no legal rulings against the mosque. While many have called upon the constitution in this instance as the guarantor of certain religious rights, many on the left claim the constitution is a archaic cultural artifact (for example second amendment). Consequently, as we so often see, judges’ interpretations change law, often from the persepective of political ideologies. Using “freedom of religion” in this politically expedient context creates doubt in the minds of hicks (not rednecks, goxewu). I interpret the aligning of international contrarian forces in this petty instance (over the simple construction of a building) as symbolic conflict of cultural worlds: the dechristianizing secular (law) West literally in material conflict with the islamic oriented cultures of the middle east.

Re #61:”Frilly panties” alludes to something a little stronger than mere “vanity,” and I give maniac credit for knowing that.As for paragraphs three and four: a lot of words, but somehow it boils down to, “Kids, can you spell w-e-a-s-e-l-i-n-g?” Manning up, they ain’t.

Re #64:1. What’s the controversy? That some Muslims want to open a mosque at a site where some people–perhaps 68 percent of the American public–want to blame all Muslims for what happened there on Sept. 11, 2001. If those people weren’t so insistent on blaming the attacks of that day on all Muslims, there wouldn’t be any controversy.2. Agreed, one does disregard 68 percent of the American people at one’s own peril. That’s why I, and many others, regard the likes of Mayor Bloomberg as being rather courageous on the honorable side of an issue. Using public opinion as an indicator of which side of an issue to take is also something that one does at one’s own risk. Getting along by going along can haunt one later one, as can introducing the epithet “redneck” into a thread and feeling one must re-explain it away every subseqent post. 3. I still see no plain declaration of what mainiac would have as federal, state and city official policy toward American Muslims. Saying that the legal issue is settled, and mentioning that 68 percent of the American public is against the mosque is definitely not manning up about it. It’s that darned ol’ W-word again. Retry the last two paragraphs of #61 in less evasive language?4. Since jcisneros, photojoe77, maniac, honore and myself, among others on this thread, are all trolls, mainiac’s rather pungent description applies to him as well as to everyone else. All barnyard animals, by the way, feed on something unappetizing in varying degrees to humans–even academics. Nice touch, though–the pretentious spelling of fetid.5. I had a few bucks down with a friend on my hypotheses about mainiac and honore. Being sure that mainiac wouldn’t want me to come into any extra cash, I just want to give him another chance next comment to indicate where I was wrong.

1. What’s the controversy? That some Muslims want to open a mosque at a site where some people–perhaps 68 percent of the American public–want to blame all Muslims for what happened there on Sept. 11, 2001. If those people weren’t so insistent on blaming the attacks of that day on all Muslims, there wouldn’t be any controversy.Your hyperbole is wrecking your rationality/focus/effectiveness; Nobody is blaming all muslims for the attack. a large percentage of muslims, however, are networked into jihadist organizations, and moderates are intimidated into support….or silence. 2. Hilarious example of the moral man: Bloomberg is the most cynical, exploitive situational ethicist in the city. He would pimp his mama.3.I have been very clear about the legal aspects of this. Law is the final word. READ WITH LOWERED INTERNAL VOICE: I know, goxewe, you secretly are trembling with an anticipated racist, sexist, xenophic, homophic RANT OR HOWL that you can chalk into your worldview and add to that bloody academic satchel!!!4. Reflexivity is the most becoming of postmodern insults…5. I want to belive!

i have to agree with mainiac on one more point after the fact that my people were the victims of imperialist guns: in light of his recent “get a shotgun and a cowboy hat” comments in regards to dealing with tax conflicts between the seneca tribe and the state of new york, bloomberg is a giant racist douche bag! (is there a more pretentious “academic” spelling for douche bag by the way? if so i would love to learn it and use that instead, just for the sake of this thread.) and yes, i think i could be considered a troll as well, being that i only signed up to this site to comment on this article, which was posted in my FB feed by my mother). i have long been out of any collegiate academic debate circles, being i graduated in 2000, (with a liberal arts BA in advertising photography no less! which may leave me quite out of place among these other trolls!) i still owe about 70 grand in student loans however, so perhaps that qualifies me to be allowed to troll in collegiate debates? oh and maniac, i can tell you after many years as a bartender, (refer to the aforementioned liberal arts BA and photography habit), that there is no happy hour on sundays, you’re just drunk on “the lord’s day” is all. which is fine, just don’t miss mass and confession tonight, and you will be forgiven. ;p (emoticon usage should be a big hint as to my true non-academia non-pretentious status. in fact i am quite certain that truly esteemed and educated trolls never use emoticons either, so i may have to take my place among the low brow blue collar trolls after this.)

Well, I can see everyone was really busy this weekend. . .sorry i couldn’t play – student move-in day is now less than two weeks and I don’t have as much time for philosophical banter. But I will take time for a few thoughts. . .Gox – I thought you said in the last thread that you were done with this topic? Yikes! I can see why you’re back at it, however. . . Your apparent infatuation with responding to all things mainiac is impressive. He is, of course, correct in the points he’s made.Photojoe777 – I’m not sure how the plight of native Americans has any relevance to this topic. I’d be willing to bet there are plenty of native Americans who don’t want to see the thing built. And as mainiac said, this isn’t about the constitution. Clearly, they have a right to build there if they own the property, comply with all zoning and code, and can find NY constructions workers who will actually build it (good luck with that. . .). And there are already plenty of mosques in NYC and in Manhattan, so people can clearly worship where they please. No, it’s about propriety and respecting the sensitivities of the families and the majority of New Yorkers and Americans. I mean, that’s the rub, isn’t it? Rauf says he is about building bridges and reaching out to the west, so he’s doing that by angering 68-70 percent of the population? And why do they object? Because it doesn’t take a genius to realize that if this thing is built – regardless of what Rauf and his cronies say – it will be viewed by Muslims around the world as a monument to the victory of Islam over the Great Satan. Sorry, pal. . . I remember the pictures of Muslims in the Middle East dancing in the streets to celebrate what happened at the WTC. Those are images I will never forget. . .Certainly, only a very small percentage of Muslims are terrorists. But a substantial percentage are fanatical – the Taliban, the leadership of Iran, etc., etc. Think of those who rioted in the streets killing other Muslims over cartoons in a newspaper! (Free speech is part of the First Amendment, as well). And the rest? How many of the rest sympathize with the fanatics and the terrorists? And how many, even in this country, are too afraid to speak out?Again. . . I’m still shocked that liberals are so enamored of Islam. It’s a religion that subjugates women in despicable ways. No woman in this country or any country should be subject to being punished because she was raped. No woman should be prohibited from going out in public unless a male family member is with her. No daughter should face being murdered by her father or brother only to have it considered justified by Sharia law as an honor killing. To the extent that people wish to worship Allah or play with little Mohammed the talking pig action figures, I say go for it! But we all know that’s not what Islam is all about. It’s about turning the rest of the world into the kind of paradise we see in Iran or in Saudi Arabia. It’s about returning the world to the level of human rights progress that existed in the 7th or 8th century. No thanks. Again, I’m all for religious freedom, but Islam is a political system and a legal system as well as a religion – a legal and political system that makes the Nazis look like pikers. Moderate Muslims? Were there moderate Nazis?

And still no answers to:* How long should the mosque-prohibition near Ground Zero be– Another ten years? Twenty-five? Fifty? Forever?* How geographically wide should the ban be? Another few blocks? A mile? All of Manhattan?* [For those who think that Islam is irretrievably evil and that any Muslim, even a native-born American citizen is dangerous to the degree that he/she subscribes to it:] What limitations–in the interest of security–should be put on the civil and legal rights of American Muslims? (It makes no sense to rail against the excesses and atrocities of Islam elsewhere, to say, in effect, that the nature of Islam is such that all adherents to it, no matter what country’s citizens they are, will, if and when called upon, participate in or at least support such excess and atrocities, and then concede that American Muslims should be treated just like every other citizen. So, a Constitutional Ammendment excepting Islam from freedom-of-religion protection? Special ID cards for American Muslims? No Muslims allowed to join police forces or the military? All mosques subject to surprise inspections? The anti-mosquers–who certainly wouldn’t limit themselves to blog-thread debates while American Muslims present such a threat, would they?–must have loads of ideas. I, for one, would love to hear some of them.)

livefreeordie- sad that the logic of a simple analogy escapes you, but i can’t say it’s surprising considering the overwhelming veil of hate and fear it would have to penetrate to sink in to your brain, as made evident by your vehement tirade against islam. i am a christian, and am most certainly not “enamored with islam”, however i have had the great pleasure of being friends with several muslim people in my time, none of whom espouse the ideals that you claim, in all your rush limbaugh inspired wisdom, islam stands for. the ideals that you speak of would be as foreign a language to them as it is to me, and it stands clear in just your writings that you are filled with much more hate than any of the muslims i have ever known. perhaps you should spend some time actually getting to know some people of the islamic faith rather than just re-spouting fox news hate rhetoric? it’s no wonder a simple rational analogy couldn’t penetrate all those memorized right wing talking points, it must take a lot of work just to keep your notes organized from the last tea party rally you attended and your sean hannity biography memorized so you can spout irrational hate rhetoric like sunday school memory verses!”Again, I’m all for religious freedom, but Islam is a political system and a legal system as well as a religion – a legal and political system that makes the Nazis look like pikers. Moderate Muslims? Were there moderate Nazis?”you just compared all of islam, my wonderful, kind hearted, loving and giving friends included, to nazis. your logic speaks for itself. i suppose you are one of those who thinks that obama is a communist socialist nazi? as if such a thing exists.anyone who is with the “nays” for this islamic center being built, i welcome you to address the simple logic of the analogy i have made as to why it is not just as “unsympathetic” or “improper” to build a christian church over a native american massacre site or holy ground? how is that any less offensive to your FELLOW AMERICANS who’s ancestors happened to be here for millennia before yours arrived, than building an islamic center near ground zero would be to the families of 9/11 victims? because i can tell you that practitioners of the christian faith took a lot more than 3,000 native american lives, and now we have to see churches standing not just near our holy and sacred sites, but on top of our graves. so if your argument against this islamic center is valid and your reasons for opposing it not based in bigotry and irrational fear, you should be espousing the cause of not building christian churches on or near sacred native american sites as well, or you are a hypocrite who is clearly not basing your opinion on sensitivity towards victims of atrocities and their survivors, but i would have to guess simply on fear and bigotry.