Mosque planned to be built near Ground Zero - Page 4 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Cynthetiq · 08-14-2010, 09:28 AM

I don't disagree. It should be permissible. I'm for them building something anywhere including the area in question.

I am not in favor of any of the politicians from outside of the local area weighing in from David Paterson, Governor of NY to President Obama. They aren't involved in our day to day politics and should stay out of it. NY Gov. Paterson Mosque Compromis to "use government land" is folly and shows his ignorance and stupidity. It allows people to then weigh in on and critique him for his viewpoint that he shouldn't be judged on. This is why I believe that President Obama shouldn't have made a public statement on it. It could have easily been put out via other channels that it is his opinion but it didn't have to be an officially stated direct from the mouth statement.

There are already too many people who get involved in my hometown politics that are elected and appointed. I don't need more that come from outside of the area that I may not have elected to care for my area.

Baraka_Guru · 08-14-2010, 09:39 AM

I think it would be even more so the case if it were a debate about how to organize the city, or maybe about municipal laws, or whatever. But this is an issue that goes as far as the Constitution. That's why I see it differently.

The overall effect of this extends beyond local politics.

Martian · 08-14-2010, 09:44 AM

A law that banned all houses of worship regardless of faith or denomination would be comparable with a gun ban. Trying to block muslim houses of worship specifically is not comparable.

Calling the people who carried out the attacks of 9 years ago muslims would be like calling Timothy McVeigh an American patriot, and refusing to allow a mosque to be built because of them is ugly and shameful. Obama is correct in supporting the right of all people to religious freedom, and given the absurd scale this has achieved I don't think he was out of line to speak in his official capacity either. The head of state is supporting a fundamental right upon which your country was founded. How is this wrong?

This ceased to be a local issue the minute it made international headlines.

Cynthetiq · 08-14-2010, 09:51 AM

If the local community board decided that it would not rezone the building or allow for the destruction and construction of a new building for the mosque that is the community board's right and duty. Many houses of worship here in NYC have changed hands over time one famous one is Bialystoker Synagogue which at one time was a Methodist Church. Many smaller churches have take over normal buildings and repurpose them as houses of worship to support the community.

This isn't about the people protesting it is about the local government being allowed to govern and control the space that it needs to without the interjections and objections of outside politicians and their pressure.

---------- Post added at 01:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:46 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martian

A law that banned all houses of worship regardless of faith or denomination would be comparable with a gun ban. Trying to block muslim houses of worship specifically is not comparable.

Calling the people who carried out the attacks of 9 years ago muslims would be like calling Timothy McVeigh an American patriot, and refusing to allow a mosque to be built because of them is ugly and shameful. Obama is correct in supporting the right of all people to religious freedom, and given the absurd scale this has achieved I don't think he was out of line to speak in his official capacity either. The head of state is supporting a fundamental right upon which your country was founded. How is this wrong?

This ceased to be a local issue the minute it made international headlines.

This isn't a ban. It is a process for allowing and enforcing zoning laws.

Baraka_Guru · 08-14-2010, 09:52 AM

Cyn, to me Obama seems to be speaking mostly to the issue of the people protesting it. Consider this aspect of the article:

Quote:

Aides to Mr. Obama say privately that he has always felt strongly about the proposed community center and mosque, but the White House did not want to weigh in until local authorities made a decision on the proposal, planned for two blocks from the site of the Sept. 11 attack on the World Trade Center.

roachboy · 08-14-2010, 10:01 AM

yeah, i think there are levels of this that shouldn't be conflated.

there's the register that cyn's talking about, which is local zoning laws, the commission that makes determinations within that context and the political processes that cluster around them. that's local stuff. i don't see obama as weighing in with an idea of influencing the actual decision-making either way. in fact, i can imagine a scenario in which it would be counter-productive for him---or the president at any time--to even try to substantively influence such a process. i can imagine the commissioners saying fuck you over a perceived infringement of prerogatives.

the other level is the one of international embarrassment--not just state local or national--over this issue caused by the tea partiers. there was a delightful sign that was photographed yesterday, almost as good as the statements seaver quoted above. these people are an embarrassment. i don't blame the administration for making a move to counter the impression that americans are largely ignorant, xenophobic racists.

Baraka_Guru · 08-14-2010, 10:06 AM

Let me get this straight: the community board in Lower Manhattan unanimously approved the center, didn't they?

Cynthetiq · 08-14-2010, 10:11 AM

I read that, but even if he speaks after the fact, it still is part of the story. I'd give it to him if he mentioned it a year or so later, to allow for there to be a separation of time to distance himself from it.

Sheldon Silver the most powerful Democrat in the state says about the protesters, "I believe people are entitled to their opinions. Disagreement is one of the fundamental principles of our country." He supports the mosque as a "freedom-of-religion issue."

I know that Sheldon has a history of if he doesn't like something going on in our neighborhood it quietly disappears politically or is engaged full on. It's his turf and I expect that as my elected official responsible for the Lower Manhattan area (District 64) he weigh in on things with responsibility. I see that from him, not from other politicians.

As far as the Landmarks Commission, they still can ensure that the building facade stay intact and that they cannot demo the building and build a new one.

---------- Post added at 02:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:10 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

Let me get this straight: the community board in Lower Manhattan unanimously approved the center, didn't they?

I'm not 100% sure on unanimous, I believe some members abstained from voting, but it was approved.

Baraka_Guru · 08-14-2010, 10:17 AM

Well, given that the board approved it, and given that the protests are generally against the idea of "Islam getting too close to '9/11 hallowed ground,' aka 'Ground Zero'," I have a tough time considering this as being anything other than a national if not international issue.

I see it as a First Amendment issue. I see it as an international cultural and religious issue.

I can't see it as a local issue once you move beyond the official steps regarding zoning and building regulations. I think this is because I see both 9/11 and Islam in a post-9/11 world as being anything but a purely local issue.

The_Jazz · 08-14-2010, 10:20 AM

Sorry, Cyn, but it's pretty obvious that any chance of this being a strictly local issue ended 9 years ago next month. Just like the decision to leave the USS Arizona where it is wasn't a local issue.

It's also not a local issue since the media is reporting it as a national issue.

Honestly, "local issue" feels like the response of someone who wants to use that excuse to infringe on someone else's right to the practice of their religion.

Cynthetiq · 08-14-2010, 10:53 AM

Jazz, I think you're missing the rest of what I've stated. I don't want the LARGER political folks to weigh in on the spaces and musings of what goes on in the neighborhoods of Lower Manhattan. I'm fine with them weighing in on Ground Zero, but not outside of that space.

Most local community board meetings can be divisive arenas. It directly affects people's quality of life. CB3 voted to allow for a high rise, and now there is a The fact that the local DOT changed the thoroughfare from 2 lanes to 1 lane to access the Williamsburg Bridge means that there is heavy traffic today whereas before it was moderate to light traffic.

They keep building low income housing in my neighborhood, but won't do so in the areas that they are allowing the mosque. Nope, all that area is "luxury" housing.

The local board hasn't denied any house of worship that I have been able to find, but they do block low income housing all the time.

Tully Mars · 08-14-2010, 11:06 AM

It's not like he took action or asked action to be taken. He simply stated publicly he agreed the mosque should be allowed.

The Tea guys/gals will use this to raise funds, no doubt about that. Can't have a monkey president supporting a monkey god religion... not in the US of A!

powerclown · 08-15-2010, 02:50 PM

Thought this was an interesting angle: why would the muslim community *want* to build a mosque in such a sensitive, symbolic location? Why would they want to do it? The rent can't be cheap...

FuglyStick · 08-15-2010, 03:15 PM

Why does anyone want to build a building anywhere?

Cynthetiq · 08-15-2010, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

Thought this was an interesting angle: why would the muslim community *want* to build a mosque in such a sensitive, symbolic location? Why would they want to do it? The rent can't be cheap...

Because there is a need for the growing Muslim community that is moving into the area.

The area is very under served as far as support services as historically it was not a residential area. Over the past 15 or so years has it has changed to include more residential housing. This means that supermarkets, houses of worship, and restaurants open after business hours and on weekends are required and demanded by the neighborhood.

powerclown · 08-15-2010, 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

Because there is a need for the growing Muslim community that is moving into the area.

The area is very under served as far as support services as historically it was not a residential area. Over the past 15 or so years has it has changed to include more residential housing. This means that supermarkets, houses of worship, and restaurants open after business hours and on weekends are required and demanded by the neighborhood.

Living in Manhattan you know the area better than me...I didn't know that particular area was heavily residential...I can see it from that point of view...I still think they are pushing things and it will come back to haunt them if they do decide to build there. Not that I personally wish harm to befall them but things are heating up nationally over this brings out the ugly side in people, and a sensitive matter to those who have family and friends who died on 9/11/01. I don't see this ending well its going to continue to fester and inflame emotions and ultimately bring all sorts of people with bad intentions out of the woodwork.

Willravel · 08-15-2010, 08:52 PM

The place where the Murrah Building used to be in Oklahoma City is now Oaklahoma City National Memorial. Across the street is St. Joseph's Old Cathedral, and one block away is St. Peter's Episcopal Cathedral. Two blocks away is Frontline Fellowship and Skyline Church.

Tim McVeigh was Catholic. Not one fucking peep from anyone.

dlish · 08-15-2010, 09:45 PM

powerclowns got a point.

there'll be those that will have the knives out waiting for the first excuse to call for its closure in order to justify their POV. So i dont think this is going to be an issue that is going to go away anytime soon. It will pop up in the news again. I'm hoping for reasons of cross cultural diversity and interfaith dialogue, but that doesnt sell news does it?

it does seem to me that everytime there is a mosque opening up, the proposal seems to make the national news, regardless of what country you live in. this just so happens to be the close to the most notable in the last decade.

YouTube - The Chaser's War on Everything - Mosman Mosque

Jimbow · 08-16-2010, 03:14 AM

When Al Qaeda sets off an atom bomb on Wall street it won't matter anymore will it?

roachboy · 08-16-2010, 03:31 AM

as always, conservatives are taking the high road.

Quote:

GOP takes harsher stance toward Islam
By: Ben Smith and Maggie Haberman
August 15, 2010 07:09 AM EDT

The harsh Republican response to President Barack Obama's defense of a mosque near ground zero marks a dramatic shift in the party's posture toward Islam — from a once active courtship of Muslim voters to a very public tolerance after Sept. 11 to an openly aired sense of mistrust.

Republican leaders have largely abandoned former President George W. Bush's post-Sept. 11 rhetorical embrace of American Muslims and his insistence — always controversial inside the party — that Islam is a religion of peace. This weekend, former Bush aides were among the very few Republicans siding with Obama, as many of the party's leaders have moved toward more vocal denunciations of Islam's role in violence abroad and suspicion of its place at home.

The shift plays to a hostility toward Islam among many Republican voters, and it fits with traditional Republican attacks on Democratic weakness on security policy.

"Bush went against the grain of his own constituency," said Allen Roth, a political aide to conservative billionaire Ron Lauder and, independently, a key organizer of the fight against the mosque. "This is part of an underlying set of security issues that could play a significant role in the elections this November."

Obama's remarks provide a clear, national focus for the simmering question of Islam in American life, and Republicans showed every sign Saturday of beginning to capitalize on it, with Republican candidates in New York and Florida seeking to inject the issue into local races as Democrats largely held their silence.

That stance in the GOP — both in terms of political strategy and policy views — appears to be carrying the day. Most of the potential Republican presidential hopefuls, led by Sarah Palin, came out sharply against the mosque.

And while most of its opponents note that they aren't opposing Islam, just this project, Republican attempts to build bridges with Muslims are few and far between — although some say that's because early post-Sept. 11 efforts were met with deep resistance. Republicans have stopped winning the Muslim votes they once split with Democrats, and largely stopped seeking them.

The spectrum ranges from silence on the issue to politicians and groups, like Keep America Safe, led by Liz Cheney and Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol, gearing up to engage the battle over the mosque and the basket of other issues involving the Obama administration's relationship with Muslims at home and abroad.

"The president supports a mosque at ground zero led by a man who blamed America for 9/11, his top intelligence official preaches the true meaning of jihad, and his attorney general can't even say the words 'radical Islam,'" said Michael Goldfarb, an adviser to Keep America Safe. "You start to worry they don't understand who the enemy is, and so Republicans might understandably feel like they have to spell it out for them."

Obama, meanwhile, only fed Republicans' eagerness to engage the issue with remarks Saturday morning that appeared to narrow his broader embrace of Islam in America to a defense of the legal right to build a mosque, though his office later issued a third statement saying he hadn't backed off his original remarks.

Muslim leaders say, regretfully, that they also see a dramatic change.

Republicans have "shifted completely away from the Bush administration line on relations with Islam and they've obviously made the political calculation that bashing Islam and Muslims is a winning issue for them," said Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, who blamed the "tea party movement [for] liberating the inner bigot in people."

The shift has various causes. One is simply the freedom of opposition. "The stronger imperative for Bush's stance was geopolitical," said former Bush speechwriter David Frum, referring to the Bush administration's reliance on Islamic allies for the prosecution of conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. Now Republicans are liberated to say what many think, and what many of their supporters want to hear.

But the attacks on what is now nationally known as the "Ground Zero mosque" — it is a few blocks north of the site — also stand in for a broader turn in the cultural politics of the right, in which some of the social issues that served as the emotional core of candidates' appeals have lost their power. A recent CNN poll showing that 68 percent of Americans oppose the construction of the mosque also found that about half think there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. No political genius is required to decide which issue to run on.

The debate over the mosque's locale had been brewing in the crucible of the New York tabloids for parts of the spring, then died down. Then came an attempted car bombing in New York's Times Square, by a confessed suspect who'd said he planned mass deaths as vengeance for Muslims in the two wars being waged by the United States in the Mideast, which recalled for many residents the constant sense of edginess and fear the Sept. 11 attacks inspired.

New York's beleaguered Republicans, seeing an opening, have seized and driven the mosque issue, and Roth and other mainstream figures have worked to insulate it from more radical anti-Islamic voices, like blogger Pamela Geller, who might marginalize the cause.

Leading New York Republicans acknowledge a shift from the Bush years, but say Muslim leaders, not Republicans, are to blame.

"George Bush made every attempt to reach out," said Rep. Pete King, a leading critic of the mosque project. "The Muslim community did not reciprocate, did not respond. After Sept. 11, some of them became entrenched and really didn't know how to cope.

"Somehow the leadership in the community does not impel them forward to be more part of the community. That's my reading of it," said King, who also noted that sensitivities involving the site are far deeper, and more real, than many are willing to recognize beyond the boundaries of New York.

Debra Burlingame, whose brother Charles Burlingame was the pilot of the jetliner that crashed into the Pentagon and who serves on the board of Keep America Safe, agreed that there is an emotional component but rejected the notion that the mosque issue is a "feelings" concept instead of part of a larger debate about different cultures and how the U.S. should engage with Muslim culture within the country.

"I do ascribe to the 'clash of civilizations' theory now," said Burlingame, who has been among the main voices questioning the funding behind the proposed mosque, and the intents of Feisal Abdul Rauf, the imam behind it. She said, as she did after Obama's speech, that many Muslims have practiced peacefully in the U.S. before and after the attacks, but that Rauf has made statements supporting radical elements of Islam, and that the location was chosen to be provocative.

She criticized those, mostly led by Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who are defending the project under freedom of religion, saying, "That's a Western concept."

"This is a different model," she said, arguing that in the United States people "for generations had been raised on this concept of separation of church and state, and that you don't trash someone because of their religion ... but that's not what we're dealing with here."

"I think the challenge for us is enlisting the Muslims who have already bought into the American program and not adjusting" to Muslim culture, she added. For Burlingame, the issue is not political — she said she objects to the content as well as the form of efforts by Bloomberg and others to push back because the goal is "to shut you up."

"We're talking to the wrong people," said New York City firefighter Tim Brown, a survivor of the attacks who has worked with Burlingame. He suggested that "radical" Muslims are being recognized in the United States as part of the religious dialogue, as in the case of the mosque. "Whoever made this decision and whoever set us on this path, and I don't care if it's the Bush administration or whoever, it's the wrong path."

Whatever the cause of the shift, the end of the Bush-era outreach aligns with the views of much of the Republican base. A Pew poll found last year that 55 percent of conservative Republicans believe Islam encourages violence.

The pre-Sept. 11 Republican Party actively courted Muslim voters in key states like Michigan. An energetic effort to lead the socially conservative, relatively affluent community into the GOP was led by power broker Grover Norquist — who didn't respond to a request to talk about Republicans and Muslims. But it failed, and the present-day Republican Party has more or less given them up for those lost and alienated by American policies in the Middle East and — as Republicans see it — misled by their own leaders into ambiguous public positions.

"The leading members of that community have not settled inside the Republican Party, and so their voice is lesser," said Frum.

Bush is hardly remembered fondly by Muslim Americans, many of whom blame him for a wave of detentions and deportations immediately after the Sept. 11 attacks and for conflict with Muslims abroad. But a less-remembered element of his legacy is the battle he fought within the Republican Party on Islam's behalf.

By the day after the attacks, then-White House press secretary Ari Fleischer recalled, Bush had expressed his intense concern at the possibility of a backlash against American Muslims, and his aides had begun discussing "the need to balance getting America ready for war against the people who carried out the attacks without infringing on Muslims' right to practice their religion."

On September 17, 2001, Bush visited Washington's Islamic Center with a simple message: "Islam is peace."

Those words didn't sit well with key segments of the Republican base, including some Christian leaders. In June 2002, a former president of the Southern Baptist Convention suggested that the God of Muslims would "turn you into a terrorist that'll try to bomb people and take the lives of thousands and thousands of people."

Fleischer took public exception to the statement on Bush's behalf.

"It's something that the president definitely disagrees with. Islam is a religion of peace, that's what the president believes," he said.

Today, Fleischer says he thinks the mosque's organizers would be more sensible to go elsewhere, but that the GOP risks taking too hard a line on Islam as the 2012 elections approach.

"The real issue is going to be the rhetoric of presidential candidates in '11 and '12, and whether they try to strike a balance or whether is it much more vitriolic," he said. "We are at war with radical Islam; we are not at war with Muslims writ large, and we have to find that right balance."

Other former Bush aides backed President Obama's defense of the mosque. Former Bush consultant Mark McKinnon called Obama's Friday remarks an example of "bold and decisive leadership."

"An enormously complex and emotional issue — but ultimately the right thing to do. A president is president for every citizen, including every Muslim citizen," said former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson. "Obama is correct that the way to marginalize radicalism is to respect the best traditions of Islam and protect the religious liberty of Muslim Americans. It is radicals who imagine an American war on Islam. But our conflict is with the radicals alone."

Among the first conservative groups gunning for the ground zero mosque was the National Republican Trust PAC, whose television ad two broadcast networks refused to air on the grounds that it seemed to tie the organizers of the community center, without evidence, to the planners of the terror attacks.

But it became a hit on YouTube, and combined with the complaints of New York politicians and some conservative bloggers, the project became a national issue.

"Once we brought this issue to the American people, the politicians were falling all over each other to get out in front of it," said Scott Wheeler, the group's executive director.

The GOP's likely presidential candidates drew a spectrum of shades of opposition but not a single one sided with Bloomberg in backing the mosque on the grounds of private property and religious freedom.

"Ground zero mosque is UNNECESSARY provocation; it stabs hearts," wrote Palin on July 18, calling on "peaceful Muslims" to "refudiate" it.

"There should be no mosque near ground zero in New York so long as there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia," wrote former House Speaker Newt Gingrich a day later.

Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, though he represents a relatively heavily Muslim state, rebuffed pleas from local Muslim leaders to back off his suggestion that the mosque would "degrade and disrespect" the Trade Center site. A spokesman for former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney cited both "the wishes of the families of the deceased and the potential for extremists to use the mosque for global recruiting and propaganda" in opposing it.

But it was former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee who seemed to fit the issue most clearly into a recognizable political category of culture war.

"Is it just that we can offend Americans and Christians, but not foreigners and Muslims?" he asked.

GOP takes harsher stance toward Islam - POLITICO.com Print View

pig · 08-16-2010, 04:19 AM

I'm just glad that Republicans aren't race and culture baiting again in this election cycle. Surely if they did, no one would fall for it, right? I mean it's not like they could take issues that have existed for 10 to 30 years or so, pretend that they just occurred in the past 6 months, and then whip up a furor in advance of elections in November...because that would be crazy.

edit: slight semantic shift

dlish · 08-16-2010, 05:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jimbow

When Al Qaeda sets off an atom bomb on Wall street it won't matter anymore will it?

no it wont.

what your point and what's it got to do with AQ and this mosque?

roachboy · 08-16-2010, 05:49 AM

it would be crazy, pig (nice to see you, btw)

so rather than risk that, conservatives are combining cultural/religious/xenophobia with a bit of good old american racist fun and excitement:

washingtonpost.com

Cynthetiq · 08-16-2010, 08:44 AM

This is one of the many reasons I believe Obama shouldn't have stepped into it, but it gives more fodder to those that oppose him. Again, some people believe that he endorses it, so now he has to clarify it. In clarifying it he'll have to further engage in conversations about it.

Quote:

Obama Clarifies Lower Manhattan Mosque Stance - Gothamist
Down the rabbit hole we go: After speaking forcefully about the right of developers to build a mosque two blocks from the World Trade Center site on Friday, President Obama qualified his remarks. Speaking in Panama City, Florida, while visiting Gulf Coast region, he said, "My intention was simply to let people know what I thought, which was that in this country, we treat everybody equally and in accordance with the law, regardless of race, regardless of religion. I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making the decision to put a mosque there. I was commenting very specifically on the right people have that dates back to our founding. That's what our country is about."

In other words, his words are not an endorsement! The Washington Post offers some quotes from critics: Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) said, "The decision to build this mosque so close to Ground Zero is deeply troubling, as is the president's decision to endorse it. is not an issue of law, whether religious freedom or local zoning. This is a basic issue of respect for a tragic moment in our history," while Sarah Palin Tweeted, "We all know that they have the right to do it, but should they? This is not above your pay grade."

Baraka_Guru · 08-16-2010, 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

This is one of the many reasons I believe Obama shouldn't have stepped into it, but it gives more fodder to those that oppose him. Again, some people believe that he endorses it, so now he has to clarify it. In clarifying it he'll have to further engage in conversations about it.

It didn't really need clarification. I'm sure he was pushed for it by the media. If anything, it was the media reaction that need clarifying. And I'm sure if he went long enough without saying anything that the right would have called him out for pussyfooting around the issue. Because, you know, the President shouldn't ignore such a national issue about Ground Zero.

You can't win.

kutulu · 08-16-2010, 09:41 AM

The bigots on the right have pushed this to such a large issue that Obama has no choice but to get involved.

roachboy · 08-16-2010, 09:48 AM

here's a timeline that tracks the development of this absurd right-wing "ground zero mosque" meme:

How the "ground zero mosque" fear mongering began - War Room - Salon.com

the article tracks is back to a single racist asshole conservative blogger, pamela geller.

not sure if it's quite as linear as the salon piece maintains, but it's nonetheless interesting to have a narrative to point to that shows something of how a meme comes into being. lets you see the underpinning of the raft the right would fill with racists.

btw i think it's a **really** dangerous game the conservatives are playing, legitimating american fascism as they are.

dlish · 08-16-2010, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

It didn't really need clarification. I'm sure he was pushed for it by the media. If anything, it was the media reaction that need clarifying. And I'm sure if he went long enough without saying anything that the right would have called him out for pussyfooting around the issue. Because, you know, the President shouldn't ignore such a national issue about Ground Zero.

You can't win.

dont forget, Obama is really an undercover muslim. no wonder he's supported the WTC mosque.

i havent heard that one yet, but i wouldnt be surprised if it did come up soon.

Baraka_Guru · 08-16-2010, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

btw i think it's a **really** dangerous game the conservatives are playing, legitimating american fascism as they are.

If it really is that bad, it's probably the single most disgusting thing to arise out of 9/11 since the push to go to war with Iraq. Way to use a tragedy to push for more tragedy. The last thing the right should be doing right now is alienate, marginalize, and otherwise demonize Muslims at home and abroad. Way to go. But if you can prey on the fear of your voters in such a way that will put you in power, then, hey, why not? That's politics. Besides, it's all about looking ahead. Someone has to keep the military industrial complex chugging along. Someone has to be The Enemy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dlish

dont forget, Obama is really an undercover muslim. no wonder he's supported the WTC mosque.

i havent heard that one yet, but i wouldnt be surprised if it did come up soon.

C'mon, you know someone—somewhere—has already said that and meant it. It's a question of how many.

Xazy · 08-16-2010, 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kutulu

The bigots on the right have pushed this to such a large issue that Obama has no choice but to get involved.

It was Obama choice to get involved, the only real issue had to do with historic landmark, and zoning. Now it ends up another part of the space is owned by the MTA, which makes the issue slightly different. I am not against freedom of religion, and I think we all need to be tolerant. I do not want us to be a nation which the government should have any say over this even if as a PR stunt. The media has full rights to interview people and say whether they feel that it should be considering ramifications how the families of 9/11 victoms may react. And people have a right to protest as well, that is what freedom is. But our politicians leaders should stand up and say exactly that.

roachboy · 08-16-2010, 01:20 PM

Quote:

If it really is that bad, it's probably the single most disgusting thing to arise out of 9/11 since the push to go to war with Iraq. Way to use a tragedy to push for more tragedy. The last thing the right should be doing right now is alienate, marginalize, and otherwise demonize Muslims at home and abroad. Way to go. But if you can prey on the fear of your voters in such a way that will put you in power, then, hey, why not? That's politics. Besides, it's all about looking ahead. Someone has to keep the military industrial complex chugging along. Someone has to be The Enemy

my remark came from the juxtaposition of the three chunks of infotainment i happened across today---the politico piece about how encouraging reactionary fears of muslim people is now part of conservative strategy; the salon piece that traces the development of the particular canard this thread's based around, the "ground zero mosque" to a particular racist asshole conservative blogger, pamela geller; and the washington post article about the tea partiers gathered in the aridzona desert as a protest--400 of them---which shows you that the press is willing to cover almost ANYTHING the tea party does--but i remember a protest against the war in iraq in dc that drew over 2 million people that got less press than does a gathering of 400 neo-fascists in the fucking desert...

anyway, yeah. it's a problem, where the political situation is may be heading, and alot of that has to do with the political...um....problems that the right has encountered thanks to the realities their politics have contributed significantly to producing, coupled with the fact that they continue to attract big money from the same donors who funded the rise of the conservative media apparatus---so the corpse still twitches---and in an attempt to figure out a way to regain all-important market share and by extension traction, they're willing to get into bed with the ultra-right.

so these kind of wedge-political actions are, i suppose, to be expected.
but i think it could backfire in a number of ways.
the one that concerns me is that the right manages to gain ground in the midterm elections and entirely paralyze the obama administration. it's at that point where the chickens could begin to come home to roost. what i'm more hoping is that the jerk to the right alienates almost everyone but the extreme right and that conservative take the consequences of this shift into the jurassic regions straight in the face.

but we'll see.
it's a zany times....400 reactionaries in the arizona desert getting more coverage than 2 million opposing the iraq war in dc...zany times.

kutulu · 08-16-2010, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xazy

It was Obama choice to get involved, the only real issue had to do with historic landmark, and zoning. Now it ends up another part of the space is owned by the MTA, which makes the issue slightly different. I am not against freedom of religion, and I think we all need to be tolerant. I do not want us to be a nation which the government should have any say over this even if as a PR stunt. The media has full rights to interview people and say whether they feel that it should be considering ramifications how the families of 9/11 victoms may react. And people have a right to protest as well, that is what freedom is. But our politicians leaders should stand up and say exactly that.

Well no shit, of course people have the right to protest but we have the obligation to call them on being dickheads when they do.

Newt Gingrich and Ginny Thomas (Clarence Thomas's wife) are speaking on behalf of Stop Islamization of America at a protest on 9/11

filtherton · 08-16-2010, 03:29 PM

It's a shame that Nazi comparisons typically end discussions, because sometimes there are apt comparisons to be made.

roachboy · 08-16-2010, 03:39 PM

for ultra-right conservatives these days it's ok to be a fascist. but it's not ok to be called a fascist. it's ok to be a racist. but it's not ok to be called a racist. it's ok to be xenophobic. but it's not ok to be called xenophobic. it's ok to be homophobic. but it's not ok to be called homophobic.

dogzilla · 08-16-2010, 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

for ultra-right conservatives these days it's ok to be a fascist. but it's not ok to be called a fascist. it's ok to be a racist. but it's not ok to be called a racist. it's ok to be xenophobic. but it's not ok to be called xenophobic. it's ok to be homophobic. but it's not ok to be called homophobic.

Conservatives aren't the only racists and bigots. The liberals have plenty in their camp too. Harry Reid being the latest example. Democratic Sen. Reid: Build mosque elsewhere - Politics - More politics - msnbc.com

Quote:

Breaking ranks for President Barack Obama on a controversial election-year issue, the Senate's top Democrat on Monday came out against plans to build a mosque near the site of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Locked in a tight race, Nevada Sen. Harry Reid became the highest profile Democrat to respond to Obama, who last week backed the right for the developers to build a mosque near ground zero. Since his comments Friday, the Democratic president and his aides have worked to explain the statement, which drew criticism from Republicans and Democrats alike.

So now we have another instance of amateur hour in the White House where Obama made another statement without thinking and turned a local issue into a national issue.

Just let the Muslims build their mosque.

Tully Mars · 08-16-2010, 03:55 PM

Sorry I got as far as -

Quote:

The human rights organization Stop Islamization of America...

And had to go take a shower.

Really all they're missing to prove their commitment to freedom and honoring 9-11 is Ann "the 9-11 widows are greedy harpies" Coulter, then they'd have a prefect group of "real Americans."

Baraka_Guru · 08-16-2010, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dogzilla

Conservatives aren't the only racists and bigots. The liberals have plenty in their camp too. Harry Reid being the latest example. Democratic Sen. Reid: Build mosque elsewhere - Politics - More politics - msnbc.com

So what are you saying? That America is at risk of normalizing racism? I don't think that liberals and conservatives are going to get into a pissing contest to see who has more racists. Wouldn't that be interesting?

Quote:

So now we have another instance of amateur hour in the White House where Obama made another statement without thinking and turned a local issue into a national issue.

Do you honestly think it was only a local issue until Obama made his statement?

Pearl Trade · 08-16-2010, 04:51 PM

Am I the only one getting tired of people in this thread bitching about "the right wing" being the big problem and how the media fucks everything up? For the last few posts there hasn't been much discussion about the planned mosque, it's mostly anti-conservative sentiment. I'm not saying this because I am a conservative, I'm saying this because I'm tired of everyone blaming the conservatives for not wanting the mosque to be built. It's a true cop-out, not having an opinion of your own and blaming a political party for saying something you don't like. I'd like to read people's opinions of the issue at hand and not hear all of this "conservatism is only propaganda!" bullshit. You give these little quips that don't contribute jack shit to the discussion, and you think you've said something smart because you think it's "exposing the real side of the issue", but you aren't, we've heard it all before. Please, use your fucking head to think about the quality of your post and if it actually contributes anything to the thread.

We all know they have a right to build a mosque wherever they want, no matter who gets offended or doesn't like it. That's what America is, a free country. Everyone has acknowledged that. But who here thinks the placement of the mosque is the BEST idea? Tell me why you think it must be built in that spot and not some where else of equal importance but less controversial.

My first post in this thread was very clearly against the building of the mosque. I have since changed my mind on this issue and my thoughts have taken a complete U-turn, thanks to this thread and the other members opinions alone. My opinion now is: they have the right to build it there and they should build it there, whether it's "morally right" or "morally wrong" is irrelevant. Morals don't matter, the law does.

roachboy · 08-16-2010, 04:53 PM

there's a personal subtext to my entries here today in particular.
this racist horseshit is not abstract. it affects actual people. it affects how they live their lives every day. people who have done nothing to anyone at all but who happen to be muslim find themselves already feeling--o i dunno, whats the word---claustrophobic because the right has decided for purely mercenary reasons that it's ok to flirt with legitimating racism. people who are very close to me, whom i love alot, are already affected by the sense that we're at the start of **yet another** mounting wave of officially sanction racism directed at people who happen to be muslim, who happen to be arab by descent but who are, in every way, as american as any of the people whose predispositions are being channeled for political gain by the national conservative movement.

the main difference is that most of those people don't feel like there's a line being drawn around them for no reason that separates them from being who they are, separates them from where they've grown up, separates them from a sense of belonging in the united states. where they've fucking grown up. same as you.

so i think i need to check out of this thread for a while.

btw, as an aside: nothing i write is about individuals who happen to be conservative. i happen to think the tea party is a neo-fascist movement and that on technical grounds. but i also know people who are part of it and know that it is not one thing, that it is not even, not single. same goes for the conservative movement in general. the actions of national-level rightwing organizations that legitimate racism are calculations made for political gain for the organizations. the calculation is based on the idea that there are more people who would be drawn to these organizations by going this way than would be repulsed by the turn. but that presupposes that there's open-endedness, that there's movement and/or flux--which means that people do not think all one way. so yeah. just to be clear.

ring · 08-16-2010, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

C'mon, you know someone—somewhere—has already said that and meant it. It's a question of how many.

There's a gaggle of men that hang about the closest gas station/snack store.
Every damn time I frequent this establishment, I hear them spouting their same mantra.
Obama's nuthin' but a N****r Muslim.

It's so fucking nauseatingly tiresome & frightening.

08-14-2010, 09:28 AM	#121 (permalink)
Cynthetiq Tilted Cat Head Administrator Location: Manhattan, NY	I don't disagree. It should be permissible. I'm for them building something anywhere including the area in question. I am not in favor of any of the politicians from outside of the local area weighing in from David Paterson, Governor of NY to President Obama. They aren't involved in our day to day politics and should stay out of it. NY Gov. Paterson Mosque Compromis to "use government land" is folly and shows his ignorance and stupidity. It allows people to then weigh in on and critique him for his viewpoint that he shouldn't be judged on. This is why I believe that President Obama shouldn't have made a public statement on it. It could have easily been put out via other channels that it is his opinion but it didn't have to be an officially stated direct from the mouth statement. There are already too many people who get involved in my hometown politics that are elected and appointed. I don't need more that come from outside of the area that I may not have elected to care for my area. __________________ I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. What's the best nation in the world? DO-NATION!

08-14-2010, 09:39 AM	#122 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	I think it would be even more so the case if it were a debate about how to organize the city, or maybe about municipal laws, or whatever. But this is an issue that goes as far as the Constitution. That's why I see it differently. The overall effect of this extends beyond local politics. __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

08-14-2010, 09:44 AM	#123 (permalink)
Martian Young Crumudgeon Location: Canada	A law that banned all houses of worship regardless of faith or denomination would be comparable with a gun ban. Trying to block muslim houses of worship specifically is not comparable. Calling the people who carried out the attacks of 9 years ago muslims would be like calling Timothy McVeigh an American patriot, and refusing to allow a mosque to be built because of them is ugly and shameful. Obama is correct in supporting the right of all people to religious freedom, and given the absurd scale this has achieved I don't think he was out of line to speak in his official capacity either. The head of state is supporting a fundamental right upon which your country was founded. How is this wrong? This ceased to be a local issue the minute it made international headlines. __________________ I wake up in the morning more tired than before I slept I get through cryin' and I'm sadder than before I wept I get through thinkin' now, and the thoughts have left my head I get through speakin' and I can't remember, not a word that I said - Ben Harper, Show Me A Little Shame

08-14-2010, 10:01 AM	#126 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	yeah, i think there are levels of this that shouldn't be conflated. there's the register that cyn's talking about, which is local zoning laws, the commission that makes determinations within that context and the political processes that cluster around them. that's local stuff. i don't see obama as weighing in with an idea of influencing the actual decision-making either way. in fact, i can imagine a scenario in which it would be counter-productive for him---or the president at any time--to even try to substantively influence such a process. i can imagine the commissioners saying fuck you over a perceived infringement of prerogatives. the other level is the one of international embarrassment--not just state local or national--over this issue caused by the tea partiers. there was a delightful sign that was photographed yesterday, almost as good as the statements seaver quoted above. these people are an embarrassment. i don't blame the administration for making a move to counter the impression that americans are largely ignorant, xenophobic racists. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

08-14-2010, 10:06 AM	#127 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	Let me get this straight: the community board in Lower Manhattan unanimously approved the center, didn't they? __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

08-14-2010, 10:17 AM	#129 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	Well, given that the board approved it, and given that the protests are generally against the idea of "Islam getting too close to '9/11 hallowed ground,' aka 'Ground Zero'," I have a tough time considering this as being anything other than a national if not international issue. I see it as a First Amendment issue. I see it as an international cultural and religious issue. I can't see it as a local issue once you move beyond the official steps regarding zoning and building regulations. I think this is because I see both 9/11 and Islam in a post-9/11 world as being anything but a purely local issue. __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot Last edited by Baraka_Guru; 08-14-2010 at 10:23 AM..

08-14-2010, 10:20 AM	#130 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	Sorry, Cyn, but it's pretty obvious that any chance of this being a strictly local issue ended 9 years ago next month. Just like the decision to leave the USS Arizona where it is wasn't a local issue. It's also not a local issue since the media is reporting it as a national issue. Honestly, "local issue" feels like the response of someone who wants to use that excuse to infringe on someone else's right to the practice of their religion. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

08-14-2010, 10:53 AM	#131 (permalink)
Cynthetiq Tilted Cat Head Administrator Location: Manhattan, NY	Jazz, I think you're missing the rest of what I've stated. I don't want the LARGER political folks to weigh in on the spaces and musings of what goes on in the neighborhoods of Lower Manhattan. I'm fine with them weighing in on Ground Zero, but not outside of that space. Most local community board meetings can be divisive arenas. It directly affects people's quality of life. CB3 voted to allow for a high rise, and now there is a The fact that the local DOT changed the thoroughfare from 2 lanes to 1 lane to access the Williamsburg Bridge means that there is heavy traffic today whereas before it was moderate to light traffic. They keep building low income housing in my neighborhood, but won't do so in the areas that they are allowing the mosque. Nope, all that area is "luxury" housing. The local board hasn't denied any house of worship that I have been able to find, but they do block low income housing all the time. __________________ I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. What's the best nation in the world? DO-NATION!

08-14-2010, 11:06 AM	#132 (permalink)
Tully Mars Living in a Warmer Insanity Super Moderator Location: Yucatan, Mexico	It's not like he took action or asked action to be taken. He simply stated publicly he agreed the mosque should be allowed. The Tea guys/gals will use this to raise funds, no doubt about that. Can't have a monkey president supporting a monkey god religion... not in the US of A! __________________ I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club

08-15-2010, 02:50 PM	#133 (permalink)
powerclown Junkie Location: Detroit, MI	Thought this was an interesting angle: why would the muslim community want to build a mosque in such a sensitive, symbolic location? Why would they want to do it? The rent can't be cheap...

08-15-2010, 03:15 PM	#134 (permalink)
FuglyStick WHEEEE! Whee! Whee! WHEEEE! Location: Southern Illinois	Why does anyone want to build a building anywhere? __________________ AZIZ! LIGHT!

08-15-2010, 08:52 PM	#137 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	The place where the Murrah Building used to be in Oklahoma City is now Oaklahoma City National Memorial. Across the street is St. Joseph's Old Cathedral, and one block away is St. Peter's Episcopal Cathedral. Two blocks away is Frontline Fellowship and Skyline Church. Tim McVeigh was Catholic. Not one fucking peep from anyone.

08-16-2010, 03:14 AM	#139 (permalink)
Jimbow Upright	When Al Qaeda sets off an atom bomb on Wall street it won't matter anymore will it?

08-16-2010, 04:19 AM	#141 (permalink)
pig pigglet pigglet Location: Locash	I'm just glad that Republicans aren't race and culture baiting again in this election cycle. Surely if they did, no one would fall for it, right? I mean it's not like they could take issues that have existed for 10 to 30 years or so, pretend that they just occurred in the past 6 months, and then whip up a furor in advance of elections in November...because that would be crazy. edit: slight semantic shift __________________ You don't love me, you just love my piggy style Last edited by pig; 08-16-2010 at 04:32 AM..

08-16-2010, 05:49 AM	#143 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	it would be crazy, pig (nice to see you, btw) so rather than risk that, conservatives are combining cultural/religious/xenophobia with a bit of good old american racist fun and excitement: washingtonpost.com __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

08-16-2010, 09:41 AM	#146 (permalink)
kutulu Junkie	The bigots on the right have pushed this to such a large issue that Obama has no choice but to get involved.

08-16-2010, 09:48 AM	#147 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	here's a timeline that tracks the development of this absurd right-wing "ground zero mosque" meme: How the "ground zero mosque" fear mongering began - War Room - Salon.com the article tracks is back to a single racist asshole conservative blogger, pamela geller. not sure if it's quite as linear as the salon piece maintains, but it's nonetheless interesting to have a narrative to point to that shows something of how a meme comes into being. lets you see the underpinning of the raft the right would fill with racists. btw i think it's a really dangerous game the conservatives are playing, legitimating american fascism as they are. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

08-16-2010, 03:29 PM	#153 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	It's a shame that Nazi comparisons typically end discussions, because sometimes there are apt comparisons to be made.

08-16-2010, 03:39 PM	#154 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	for ultra-right conservatives these days it's ok to be a fascist. but it's not ok to be called a fascist. it's ok to be a racist. but it's not ok to be called a racist. it's ok to be xenophobic. but it's not ok to be called xenophobic. it's ok to be homophobic. but it's not ok to be called homophobic. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 08-16-2010 at 03:44 PM..

08-16-2010, 04:51 PM	#158 (permalink)
Pearl Trade Addict Location: Houston, Texas	Am I the only one getting tired of people in this thread bitching about "the right wing" being the big problem and how the media fucks everything up? For the last few posts there hasn't been much discussion about the planned mosque, it's mostly anti-conservative sentiment. I'm not saying this because I am a conservative, I'm saying this because I'm tired of everyone blaming the conservatives for not wanting the mosque to be built. It's a true cop-out, not having an opinion of your own and blaming a political party for saying something you don't like. I'd like to read people's opinions of the issue at hand and not hear all of this "conservatism is only propaganda!" bullshit. You give these little quips that don't contribute jack shit to the discussion, and you think you've said something smart because you think it's "exposing the real side of the issue", but you aren't, we've heard it all before. Please, use your fucking head to think about the quality of your post and if it actually contributes anything to the thread. We all know they have a right to build a mosque wherever they want, no matter who gets offended or doesn't like it. That's what America is, a free country. Everyone has acknowledged that. But who here thinks the placement of the mosque is the BEST idea? Tell me why you think it must be built in that spot and not some where else of equal importance but less controversial. My first post in this thread was very clearly against the building of the mosque. I have since changed my mind on this issue and my thoughts have taken a complete U-turn, thanks to this thread and the other members opinions alone. My opinion now is: they have the right to build it there and they should build it there, whether it's "morally right" or "morally wrong" is irrelevant. Morals don't matter, the law does. __________________ Our revenge will be the laughter of our children. Give me convenience or give me death!

08-16-2010, 04:53 PM	#159 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	there's a personal subtext to my entries here today in particular. this racist horseshit is not abstract. it affects actual people. it affects how they live their lives every day. people who have done nothing to anyone at all but who happen to be muslim find themselves already feeling--o i dunno, whats the word---claustrophobic because the right has decided for purely mercenary reasons that it's ok to flirt with legitimating racism. people who are very close to me, whom i love alot, are already affected by the sense that we're at the start of yet another mounting wave of officially sanction racism directed at people who happen to be muslim, who happen to be arab by descent but who are, in every way, as american as any of the people whose predispositions are being channeled for political gain by the national conservative movement. the main difference is that most of those people don't feel like there's a line being drawn around them for no reason that separates them from being who they are, separates them from where they've grown up, separates them from a sense of belonging in the united states. where they've fucking grown up. same as you. so i think i need to check out of this thread for a while. btw, as an aside: nothing i write is about individuals who happen to be conservative. i happen to think the tea party is a neo-fascist movement and that on technical grounds. but i also know people who are part of it and know that it is not one thing, that it is not even, not single. same goes for the conservative movement in general. the actions of national-level rightwing organizations that legitimate racism are calculations made for political gain for the organizations. the calculation is based on the idea that there are more people who would be drawn to these organizations by going this way than would be repulsed by the turn. but that presupposes that there's open-endedness, that there's movement and/or flux--which means that people do not think all one way. so yeah. just to be clear. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 08-16-2010 at 05:02 PM..