I've already weighed in on the positioning of the community centre.

My problem is that people who are opposing it are opposing it on the grounds that it's too Islamic. It's based on the assumption that Islam is essentially the cause behind 9/11.

Islam wasn't the cause behind 9/11 any more than America was. Americans should be opposing terrorism and hatred, not Islam.

How long is it going to be too sensitive to have an Islamic presence in the proximity of Ground Zero, and where do you draw the line? Should all Muslims stay away from Lower Manhattan out of respect for Islamophobes? What's the right thing to do?

When I was a kid in the 70s, I was under the impression that America was (essentially) a progressive place (or at least progressing) and that because shows like The Jeffersons and All in the Family and music groups like The Village People and Parliament were popular, that we were steadily moving toward a national culture that was inclusive, even celebratory, when it came to appreciating non-white, non-heterosexual, non-Christian members of American society. But I was kid, you know, I really only knew what my parents taught me and what I observed of our culture through movies, music and television.

Since then, I've gotten older and wiser and after years of reflection am pretty much convinced that that 'happy colorful place,' that 'America' I grew up in, was sold to me, or rather that it was what I wanted to see and (because of that time and place in history) it was given to me...I'm no longer certain that it ever really existed outside of the political climate established at home by my parents and by the 'marketplace' which found these ideals to be very profitable at the time (hence the old 'liberal media conspiracy' canard, perhaps). How else could things be so different now? So terribly wrong, in my estimation.

I just spent the better part of two weeks traveling around the southeastern US and I've come back with a fortified confidence in this theory. I've read regional magazines and newspapers, seen political campaign ads on tv, overheard conversations and seen enough ignorant bumper stickers, billboards and rebel flags to cover 'Ground Zero' twice over with good old American fear and radicalism. And before the good old boys pile on, I'm not apt to believe that this is a 'Southern' thing. How could it be, it's too pervasive, too popular, to be regional.

So, I'm sorry to pile on with the 'right wing' bash-a-thon without contributing significantly to the issue with the mosque, but I think the reaction to the mosque is a perfect example of the exclusionary, reactionary antithesis of everything I was brought up to believe in as an American. This shit wouldn't have flown in 1975.

Perhaps, like much of life, this is just a turn of the tide and all the little conservative children of the world are growing up thinking that (basically) their country is heading in the right direction while their popular culture teaches them that their fears are justified and their reactions are rational. I dunno.

I guess my point is, it's my impression that all this anti-Mosque hoopla is just a single incident in a much more troubling and pervasive trend toward the legitimizing of some very old, ugly and dangerous ideas.

sorry I didn't have something more specific to add to the discussion, but to me there's no sense in talking specifically about it without addressing the bigger issue. It would be akin to swatting a single termite crawling across the floor of your living room while the multitudes are busily eating away your floorboards.

An excellent point mix, I feel the same way. Lots of things I thought were "real" were not and just specters and lip service to the diversity.

I do not think that it is much the case today, but I can see it in other parts of the country when I visit. I wonder "where are the black people?" a lot when I am traveling the US and around the world. I look for the diversity of culture and I don't see it much in other countries either. It's always an us versus them, the invaders, the ones that don't belong here. Yet immigration is strong all over the world, people cross borders to get a better life. Nothing trips me out more than meeting Asian people who speak perfect Castillian Spanish, German, or speaking Icelandic.

I do think that the small minded will be the small minded and they will eventually die off as those in the younger generations grow up with more diverse classrooms and workplaces.

If you would have told me two years ago that this would be the political environment after a black man was elected president, I wouldn't have believed you. Yeah, there was racism after 9/11, and hatred directed at Muslims, but it seemed to be a small minority; most Americans seemed to have grown up and left their prejudices behind.

Then a black man got into the oval office, and the blindfold was removed. We're no more evolved than we were a century ago. The racists had always been there, but they were hiding; now they're going to rallies preaching their ignorance on signs. As bad as America looked when Bush was in office, I'm more ashamed to be an American today. What must we look like to the rest of the world?

I wish I could be as optimistic as you are. I'm not sure that diversity in and of itself fosters tolerance and inclusion. It is an attitude, perhaps even a philosophy. There has to be respect and appreciation and trust. Sophistication. Objectivism. What I observe in young Americans today doesn't reflect a tendency toward these things. Not to say that there isn't tolerance in our society, just that it seems we are resigned to it rather than grateful for it.

I think it's wrong because it's not ok to tell any religion where they can and can not build a community center. Islam did not attack us on 9-11. Al Qaeda did. You have groups like "Stop Islamization of America" calling themselves a "human rights group." I find that offensive.

And many people here have expressed why they thought it should be built where it's planned. Cyn, who disagreed with Obama speaking about it, stated there is a need based on current residential use of of the area. Lastly I'm not blaming "a" political party... I blame both parties. People in the Dem party have stated they're against it too. I blame them and think they're wrong too.

Did someone actually say that Harry Reid is a liberal?

The reason that this whole situation gives me pause is that we seem to be building towards the type of highly charged, overtly xenophobic political atmosphere that sets the stage for widescale, institutionalized atrocities.

nothing more to say. move along.

My point was that the liberals need to get their house in order before complaining. I've seen bigotry and racism from both sides. Shouldn't be, but it is.
Since I live in New York I've seen a lot of discussion about the mosque. The national aspect of it certainly increased after Obama made his comments.

---------- Post added at 09:13 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:06 AM ----------

I personally have no objection to the mosque being built anywhere they choose. I don't think Muslim beliefs have anything to do with terrorism. That link is thanks to a small number of charismatic nutcases who have twisted Muslim principles to suit their own purposes and for their own personal power and influence.

As long as people of any race or of any religious beliefs aren't committing acts of violence, I really don't care what they do or where they live. Deal with the troublemakers individually, not as a class of people.

I'm also tired of conservatives being labeled bigots or racists. Another example of falsely labeling a group of people because of a few vocal personalities.

It wasn't until I moved to NYC that I learned there are fiscally conservative moderate socially Republicans existed.

it's like an olympic games of stupid is breaking out on the televisual airwaves.

Newt Gingrich compares mosque to Nazis - Andy Barr - POLITICO.com

legitimating racism is a dangerous game.

I like the matter-of-factly way that Gingrich places an entire religion into a cubbyhole next to a now non-existent racist, antisemitic, fascist political party and its ally, a now non-existent empire guilty of horrendous war crimes.

The fact is, the Nazi party couldn't place anything anywhere because they don't exist.

The Empire of Japan couldn't place anything in Pearl Harbor because it doesn't exist.

Isn't it odd how the Germans and the Japanese aren't viewed as The Enemy? Why is that?

Because we have a new enemy. I have come to the conclusion that much of this nation can not exist without an enemy. I don't understand why we need a bogeyman but for some reason we do.

Palin, Gingrich, Hannity, Beck, and other GOP leaders have been pounding on this since May but Obama making a statement over the weekend made it a national issue?

The problem is that instead of kicking those people out or just ignoring them, they are pandering to them to create wedge issues. What other conclusion are we supposed to come to when one of the main 2012 hopefuls is speaking on behalf of the "human rights group" called "Stop Islamization of America"?

I don't think that's possible.

Just like the black folks didn't vote or want Al Sharpton to speak for them, I don't expect Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, or Sarah Palin to speak for me. I didn't ask them to speak for me nor did I vote for them to speak on my behalf.

That may be true for you but as a whole those people are widely popular in the current GOP. There is no organized force pushing back from them so it isn't much of a stretch to say that they represent mainstream conservatives.

I guess then that it's fair to say the same thing about the fanatical Muslims since there isn't any organized force pushing back from them that it isn't much of a stretch to say that they represent mainstream Muslims.

I guess you've demonstrated the point for me.

Au contraire, Muslims are VERY vocal that fanatical terrorists are not representative of the mainstream. A very disingenuous position for you to take, Cyn.

What bothers me so much about issues like this is there seems to be an underlying idea that we have some right not to be offended as though others rights are less important then their right to not be uncomfortable. I don't know how you really reconcile that with living in a free country or any value on what we (should) stand for.

That's my point, there are individuals who are in any community or group, but not any organizing body which is why kutulu is saying it's okay to make the stretch. There are conservatives out there who speak out and state they aren't represented by Rush et. al.

I don't think it's okay to make the stretch for any generalities.

I agree Cyn its unfair to generalize any group due to a few (or many) out spoken idiots. Conservatives aren't against the Mosque being built SOME conservatives (and liberals) are and they should be the ones held accountable not the entire group. This guilt by association crap that's so common in politics is BS, there isn't one giant conservative brain being shared by millions of people and many of them can and do disagree on issues like this. Most conservatives I know HATE Rush.

A good part of the blame for the outrage and indignation associated with the mosque lies firmly with the major polarising force in the world today... the internet. The ability to spout extreme opinions and to easily find others who agree with you is one of the major impacts of the web. Neo-nazis, white supremacists, radical Muslims, extreme fundamentalist Christians... all these groups can now find an audience for their opinions, and because of the activist nature of their leanings, their voices/websites/media exposure is far greater than their numbers merit.

The age of the silent majority is truly now. Most people just don't care, but you'll never hear that. They don't espouse their feelings from the rooftops as the extremists do.

I'm not against the mosque... Muslims did not attack the WTC... idiot terrorists who happened to be Muslims did.

The vast majority of Muslims subscribe to the tenet of peaceful co-existence that is a basic part of Mohammed's teachings. The vast majority of Christians subscribe to the basic teachings of Christ. Pick your religion... none of them are based on aggression towards others. What we are seeing today is that the fringe elements of any group can now make themselves appear MUCH more numerous than they actually are. I'm not giving up on society as a whole... but I [am MUCH more jaundiced about what I read in the media and on-line.

I don't think anyone can really say what conservatives want. There's just too many types of conservatives now to make a general statement as to their desires. Around the time of Reagan the GOP started melding social conservatives with fiscal conservatives and now we have so many voters who vote one issue it's impossible to really define the conservative movement. As you point out many conservatives seriously dislike Rush, other love him. Same with Palin. One thing they usually have in common is there's no way in hell they're voting for a Dem.

The same can be said for liberals to some degree. And the one thing they're not doing is vote GOP.

Which is why both parties do whatever they can to get independent voters. Which every way the Ind. votes swing so does the election, usually.

I don't know if the internet bears the brunt of the responsibility. This story has been helped immensely by the fact that network and cable news channels are all too eager to trumpet and validate bullshit like "the ground zero mosque".

so here we are again: the ultra right and it's racist constituency gets ahead of this non-issue in the context of the conservative media apparatus and waves the fascism problem about for a few days. this is not a matter of margins taking over either: from the politco and salon pieces above, we know that exploiting this non-issue is a tactical choice made by the organized right. but the ultra-right does not represent the whole of the republican party, nor, obviously, all conservatives.

now it seems that other republicans are concerned that appearing to be (or being) a bunch of racist assholes could damage the gop in upcoming elections:

washingtonpost.com

if you look at the names involved, it's pretty clear what's really going on.

a) first and foremost this is a way for the conservative media apparatus to bump its ratings. something to get really lathered about. harumph harumph.

b) this is yet another conservative non-issue that's designed in part to created a phantom "battle" at the level of news cycles which they can control and thereby pretend to "win"--having nothing to say of any substance about any economic or social issue except either warmed over versions of the same nonsense that got us into the present economic situation in the first place or NO, creating and "winning" such image battles is maybe important because

c) this is likely a non-issue that was used to galvanize the demographic that votes conservative not because of what they think so much as because of who they "are"--so the identity politics crowd. the front national impersonators. all the kind of folk that sane conservatives want to be lumped in with.

and

d) it seems to also be a play within conservativeland in the ongoing factional fight for control of the movement such as it is: rove's organization versus the republican party in a knockdown drag out fight over patches of astroturf and donor money.

...and people who see the opposition to the "mosque" (community center) for what it is--unconstitutional religious intolerance.

not to mention, there are primaries in many states next Tuesday...I can only hope that this bloated piece of nonsense illuminates the blatantly racist/xenophobic/generally intolerant tone of many of the 'conservative' campaign ads I've seen in the last couple of weeks.

I say conservative because I noticed that many of the repub nominees refer to themselves in their ads as 'conservatives' rather than 'republicans'. Which leads me to believe that the ideological split in the party must be pretty wide.

Sure, and I think it leaves a lot of voters out in the cold while the old "lesser of two evils" decision pops up that a lot of us find ourselves having to make around elections. Whats average Joe Conservative to do? Vote Dem to show he doesn't support bone heads like Rush and Sarah? Everybody is just trying to get by in the world and just because you feel the GOP represents you better then the Dems doesn't mean you should have to get lumped in with this garbage.

Although I wish those that opposed stupid things like this would be a little more vocal about it...I sure as hell would be pissed off is somebody claiming to represent me was going around trying to pull this crap.

You know, you'd think with so many independent voters having such a huge impact on elections it might be a sign that we need more parties....then people could also pick and chose whats right for them instead of having to shoe horn into a group that sort of represents them.

We do have other parties to vote. I've voted the Working Families Party which sometimes can have either a democrat or a republican on their line. It's helped me vote for a democrat without ever having voted on the democrat line.

Well I should have written viable parties, most people are too scared to throw away their vote so they stick with the big two. Buy anyway yeah, I often vote for third parties for the same reason Cyn.

The Democrats have made an even more offensive move now with Nancy Pelosi wants an investigation of how the opposition to the mosque is being funded. It's really none of the government's business who is opposed to the mosque or how they are funded. Has Nancy conveniently forgotten about the first amendment?

'No regrets' on mosque issue, Obama says - Politics - More politics - msnbc.com

I wouldn't call that wanting an investigation. She's merely calling for transparency on both sides of the issue.

I'd like to know how the mosque is being funded. That seems like a more appropriate inquiry compared to questions of how the opposition is being funded.

It is a little strange to be looking into who is funding the opposition...of course I'm not sure it really matters who is funding the Mosque either. For better or worse people have a right to express how they feel about a Mosque being built near ground zero...it shouldn't have any effect on the out come but they have the right. Who cares how they got the money to do it? Freedom of speech and all that.

Jesus christ, just when you think this story couldn't get any stranger they find a way to up the ante one more time.

Rather than calling for who is funding who, can't we just call for all sides to just shut the fuck up and forget about it?

"Looking into something" is an investigation. But the government has no business even asking for transparency from either side. Who is funding either side is none of the government's business. Nancy Pelosi is way off base on this.

I'm inclined to agree with you on this, dog. It doesn't matter who's funding it; what matters is it's unconstitutional and wrong. This shouldn't even be a debate.

This issue is really bringing out the worst in people. I'll zero in on politicians because they hold the most power and everyone knows when they say something stupid (like what Pelosi said).

Sticking to the Constitution seems like the easiest, least complex way to solve this problem. Let them build it, because they have the right to do so. Don't let the government investigate anything we do as private citizens, because they have no right to do so. Everyone should just look at the Constitution as the end-all for problems.

Blah this shouldn't even be a debate. I'm sickened by both sides for turning this into a political football.

this is why the republicans were worried about this non-issue.
they cant control it. the question "who's funding the opposition" is an indication of loss of traction. the constitutional questions are a canard.
what's worse is that the damage this non-issue will do the right outweighs the benefits.

personally, i hope this blows up in their faces.
live by the sword die by the sword.

maybe it'll back the conservatives off from legitimating racism as a campaign strategy.