I’m glad this article in Saturday’s New York Times got written.
Some counterterrorism experts say the anti-Muslim sentiment that has saturated the airwaves and blogs in the debate over plans for an Islamic center near ground zero in Lower Manhattan is playing into the hands of extremists by bolstering their claims that the United States is hostile to Islam.
Opposition to the center by prominent politicians and other public figures in the United States has been covered extensively by the news media in Muslim countries. At a time of concern about radicalization of young Muslims in the West, it risks adding new fuel to Al Qaeda’s claim that Islam is under attack by the West and must be defended with violence, some specialists on Islamic militancy say.
Interesting stuff. While I don’t think it’s the strongest reason to support the rights of Muslims to build cultural centers with prayer rooms, it is certainly worth noting.
So, while I don’t want to be too nit picky, there’s one word in a paragraph toward the end of the piece that really gets my goat.
Mr. Gingrich, the former House speaker and a potential 2012 presidential candidate, said in a Fox News interview that “Nazis don’t have the right to put up a sign next to the Holocaust museum in Washington,” a comment that drew criticism for appearing to equate those proposing the Islamic center with Nazis.
Really? The style guide precludes you from just saying “drew criticism for equating the Islamic center with the Nazis”? You couldn’t make a declarative statement? That metaphor was too layered and complex?
Carl
As far as I know, in the USofA, Nazis do have the right to put up a sign across form the Holocaust museum.
As for Herr Gingrich, he would have been one of those loyal Germans who supported Hitler’s cause … so I guess by OUR standards he has the right to spew anytime Muslim hatred just as his Nazi’s would.
And yeh, comparing a Sufi Iman to a Nazi. puts Mr. Gingrich in great American company … father Coughlin, David Duke, George Wallace, Louis Farrakhan, Jo McCarthy, Lee Atwater, Geln Beck, …
Of course now that Mr. Gingrish is a Catholic, I ASSUME he would support removing the Cathedral that sits atop the Aztec Temple in Mexico City???
Somethin weird .. may message got posted twice.
OK ..
Let all join with Mr. Gingrich and his bud melo GIBSON IN A NEW CRUSADE TO FREE christendom from the invaders!
Let’s use another analogy.
Should the Japanese be allowed to put up a 13 story statue of Emperor Hirohito next to the Pearl Harbor memorial?
Guess if I saw the same folks protesting any Catholic priest to be 50ft near any young male… I can at least say they are consistent with their ‘concerns’.
@3 Troll
Somehow I do not think they might want to do that. If they did, and it were on private property, exactly what would you do about it?
FWIW, THERE IS A SHINTO SHRINE A SHORT DISTANCE FROM THE MEMORIAL.
While you are at it it, by what weird reasoning do you see a Sufi led Muslim Cultural Center as celebrating el Qaeda?
For that matter, I assume you are in favor of tearing down all the triumphal Catholic churches they erected at their victory sites?
@1
That was my thought exactly – the modern-day Nazis do have a right to put up signs, including proximal to Holocaust memorials – that’s the whole fucking point. All speech must be protected, including – especially – the most vile.
(And of course the Islamic cultural center is nothing close to vile)
This whole episode is such a disappointment and embarrassment – we as a people could be so much better than this. We could demonstrate the power in our diversity and inclusiveness. But rather, a populace stressed and tense from economic storms is easily whipped into a fury of racist nastiness and hatred. Yet another benefit arising from Republican (and corporatist Democrats’) obstruction to any sort of jobs/recovery spending – lower wages for the serfs, and a populace easily distracted and/or whipped into divisiveness and hatred.
I despair for us.
The saddest part of the hate Gingrich and his ilk are feeding us is that it prevents anyone with rational criticisms of Islam from speaking.
The immediate victi9ms of all this are the words of Muslim reformers .. Ali Hirsch, Reza Aslan. There rational points of view abut the need for reform in Islam are lost in the torrent of fecal comment from the right.
Hmmm..
Do you suppose Gingrich’s next conversion will be to Islam?
See this?
Yet another evil fucking Republican whipping up hatred – this time of tolerance itself. And as SJ has pointed out in the recent past, illustrated by Washington’s letter to the Jewish community of Rhode Island, tolerance isn’t even the issue – it’s that we’re all Americans.
@7
I think that’s part of the point – moderate people are marginalized, and only the extremists of both sides are able to be heard. And they get more war, which is what they want in the first place.
@6 LS
This is an all too familiar pattern.
Hitler scapegoated the Jews for Germany’s failures in WWI. Henry Ford, Father Coughlin, carried on that tradition.
The same stupid thing goes on in the Muslim world .. they blame the Jews for their own failures.
Israeli extremists, Avigdor Lieberman esp, demonize Palestinians.
Farrakhan got himself very, very rich demonizing all “white folks.”
@9 LS
The only place we would differ is in the word “moderate.”
There is nothing moderate about following in the tradition of Jefferson, King, Gandhi, .. these people might be better called radical rationalist than moderates.
I fear that the President is being too moderate today. He should call together a group of ethical and moral leaders and jointly condemn this disgusting behavior.
Maye be needs a wristband with the letters WWMLKD?
btw, there are several Buddhist temples located in Pearl City, HI (Pearl Harbor).
@8 Liberal Sci
Great link .. I copied it here with some emphasis added:
With the most sincere apologies I can offer to good Christians, my reaction is
“How Christian of you!”
Of course the author, Republican Allen West , is really no different than some Mullah in Tehran, Wahabi in Riyad, Oarngeman in Belfast, etc.
How comforting it must be to be art of his “we!”
@12 jammin
The Tojo regime was Shinto, not Buddhist.
Buddhism as a matter of faith is opposed to violence and to any form of coercion in religion.
The irony of Buddhist History is that the religion was spread by an emperor as a way of controlling his empire. Like Constantine and the cross, Ashoka adopted the dharma for India. In doing so, however, Ashoka committed himself to non violence. Three generations later, hwe was over thrown. Constantine and Christianity persited until another cnquering religion, the people of the Quran and scimitar, arose.
I thought this was going to be about the Dick Cavett column in the New York Times, maybe it should have been.
Real Americans, Please Stand Up
http://opinionator.blogs.nytim.....-stand-up/
I think we have to remove people/s economic insecurity – or we’re going to have a disaster on our hands – in more ways than one.
Your reference to Nazi vilification of Jews, was exactly what my wife brought up today as we were discussing the Burlington Coat Factory Mosque issue. I doubt the Nazis could have done what they did without the economic disaster that was post-WW1 Germany. I fear that as we institutionalize high unemployment and job insecurity and lower standards of wages and disappearing long-term opportunity, people will be angry and desperate and very very susceptible to racial demagogues.
I am regretting that on the recent family road trip to California (despite my initial hopes to fit it into a very busy itinerary) I didn’t take the kids to Tule Lake or Manzanar.
We all need to know what we as a people are capable of in our most irrational and frightened state – and that includes concentration camps.
We need to be taking busloads of students out there to the high desert and showing them what happens when we give into fear and hate of other, when we divide ourselves, much to our everlasting shame.
13
There is a Christian Taliban. Allen West is part of it. He would not like Jesus Christ, if he were to meet Him. The odds of Jesus Christ being a rightwing hater would seem pretty slim to me.
Proud,
There are misguided Christians who equate righteousness with fanacticism and zenophobia. They want rectitude without the mercy it requires.
There are misguided Christians who water their faith down to the weakest of weak teas, picking what pleases them and ignoring those things that require discipline and self sacrifice. They want the comfort of faith without the costs.
And there are an awful lot of Christians doing the best they can to lead decent lives using Christ as a mediator and an inspiration. They may be hypocrites at times. They may adhere to beliefs others disagree with. But they are doing the best they can.
re 19: ‘zenophobia’????
Is that the fear of pre-Socratic Greek philosophers?
lost @ 19,
I couldn’t agree with you more, though I suspect we would quite disagree about who fits into your categories. I fall into category 3, I believe, which is where I suspect you consider yourself to be.
@17 Liberal Scientist
You REALLY dod not need to go some historic time or as far away as Tule Lake or Manzanara to teach this lesson.
Take the Bremerton ferry over to the Samish Reservation. Visit with the people, visit Ch. Seattle’s grave, visit the museum and have your kids see how Christians stole children from their parents’ culture.
Then come home to look at the sad statue of Seattle, in a traffic circle, under the monorail.
This is a lesson from today’s events.
@19 LSIB
“misguided christians”
This is a sad example of how Christians avoid taking responsibility for their religion’s actions.
Shall we call Jefferson Davis a “misguided American?” Or should we all accept OUR responsibility for what WE did?
@18 Lib Sci
The real Jesus Christ, whoever he was, is long lost under the teachings of Paul and the Church established by Rome as a form of political control.
Christianity, like Islam, should accept responsibility fore its own faults.
LSIB
Fine, but the same can be said of Muslims following the Quran or Marxists following das Kapital.
Carl–
Here is the real outcome of ImamObaMao weighing in on this–
Sunday, August 22, 2010
Trying to spin that objecting to the Mosque is somehow playing into the hands of terrorists is LUDICROUS!
In essence, they are saying we ought to really teach the Islamic Extremists a lesson and let the Mosque be built. That’ll teach ’em!
Stupid, leftist idology.
pl–
Are you in Montana?
We had an unbelievable hot windstorm yesterday.
99 degrees and gusts to 50MPH.
It was brutal on the plants & gardens.
Covered as much as we could with rolls of burlap.
Barely got off the Madison River before the big blow started.
I don’t see how focusing on the religious aspect of all this helps. This fanatic raving about the Burlington Coat factory remodel (we need to stop calling it the 911 Mosque) isn’t religious at all. It’s political. It’s a dog whistle to the Republican base. Remember when they said they wanted another horrific terrorist act to occur before the 2008 elections? They believe that the best way to whip up their base is to play the part of threat monger. Because they don’t have anything else to frighten their voters, they manufactured it. Mosque + Ground Zero = radical Islamic terrorism. And yeah, if it actually does instigate a reaction from the real terrorists, that’s fine with them. Sacrifice some more innocent American lives to take back control of Congress and improve their chances in 2012.
It’s a business decision. The cherry on top is improved ratings during the traditionally slow summer months. No oil spill to cover. The withdrawal of troops from Iraq isn’t sexy. This is just another example of the sensationalism that plays to the LCD in this country. And do you think they’ll take responsibility even a little bit if this does result in a terrorist attack? Heck no. They’ll make even more money covering the aftermath.
The best way to respond? Vote Democrat. Get your friends to vote Democrat. Help them get their ballots in on time. Call your network of friends and family in other vulnerable States and prompt them to vote Democrat. Don’t let the fear-mongering meant to stir up the Republican base keep the Democratic base at home. Simple as that.
Public opinion can shift on a dime. This whole thing could backfire on the Republicans. Be the voice of reason with everyone you know. Help them to see what is really happening here and what they can do to stop it. Lay out for them how desperate the Republicans are that they have to result to these tactics. Most of all, stop panicking. Panic paralyzes people…keeps them from taking action. We ARE Stronger than this.
I guess the neoNazi that shot and killed someone at the Holocaust Museum didn’t really count as a protest.
A protest that shows clearly exactly where the country is headed.
Did I miss something here? Did Gingrich, or anyone else for that matter, claim that this “Islamic Center” *couldn’t* be built? I don’t think so. The question is, *should* it be. Doesn’t it bother any of you that despite the definite upset this is causing, the owners are declining to even consider whether going ahead with construction is such a good idea? From a simple good will standpoint, if nothing else, you’d think they’d be very willing to relocate, wouldn’t you?
How many of you would be quite so nonchalant about a Walmart going up in your neighborhood? Would you concede that they have every right to construct what they want on their own property? Or would you be out there protesting against this “evil corporate menace” (or whatever the current leftwing anti-captialist verbiage might be)?
Re 23
Sorry SJ, my post at 19 is as far as I go in taking responsibility for the remote actions of others. Christianity is a huge umbrella, and the chances that I’ll agree with every one under it on every issue are pretty slim.
I don’t understand the Jefferson Davis reference. He was a secessionist, by definition NOT an American. And no, I feel no responsibility whatever for slavery, Indian Wars or anything else that happened prior to the birth of my grandfather. Sorry, I just don’t buy the liberal myth of perpetual and inexhaustible guilt.
Nor did I say anywhere that Muslims or any other faith aren’t largely populated by folks doing the best they can to find some notion of God and live good lives. Quite the contrary, I’ve frequently written the reverse of that.
I just get annoyed with the revisionist view of history that makes Christianity out as a negative force historically or currently. It’s poor scholarship, it’s poor interpretation of basic historical facts. And it’s just plain wrong.
Re 27
This “Sacrifice some more innocent American lives to take back control of Congress and improve their chances in 2012.” is a lie. It isn’t even a good one.
I take it you don’t really believe this, that you’re simply repeating what you heard on some left wing talk show.
Or you’re an idiot. By the quality of your writing, I’d guess this isn’t true.
I abhor Obama, Reid and Pelosi for their policy stances. But I don’t hate them. Nor do I think that they are designed to destroy the country, though that is their effect.
It’s the difference between thinking assessment of political worldviews and blind partisan hatred.
@29 I-Burn 08/22/2010 at 1:39 pm,
“Nonchalant”? What kind of red blooded American brings up this sort of French Soshuleest word when discussing capitalism and the constitution of the US of A?
You, SIR, can take your French vocabulary, and GTFO!
“Nonchalant”! Can you believe that???
>>This “Sacrifice some more innocent American lives to take back control of Congress and improve their chances in 2012.” is a lie. It isn’t even a good one.
Um…okay…it was cynical speculation, not statement of fact. Speculation ≠ fact. Sorry for not making that distinction.
>>I take it you don’t really believe this, that you’re simply repeating what you heard on some left wing talk show.
I don’t have a television signal. Even when I did, I quit watching the news several years ago, and the punditry probably three years ago. I haven’t listened to radio, even music in over a decade, maybe more. I don’t even own a radio. I only started reading this blog maybe a month ago.
>>I just get annoyed with the revisionist view of history that makes Christianity out as a negative force historically or currently. It’s poor scholarship, it’s poor interpretation of basic historical facts. And it’s just plain wrong.
Lost, I think you’re correct. Christianity has made great strides and major improvements in comparatively recent history. I think it’s impressive that Christian sects can co-exist peacefully (except in Ireland?) in a way that perhaps Islam hasn’t quite figured out yet.
LSIB
“I just get annoyed with the revisionist view of history that makes Christianity out as a negative force historically or currently. It’s poor scholarship, it’s poor interpretation of basic historical facts. And it’s just plain wrong.”
“revisionist” … hardly. Unless you are reading some very weird books, the facts of Christian history are petty widely shared.
Christendom is rightly proud of the good things its done .. wonderful art, charities, philosophy7, and so on. Call that Christian Pride?
But, unlike most other human endeavors, if Christianity refuses to accept resposnibility for the bad, how can it improve? Why should any of the rest of us trust you?
Apply the same standard to Islam. Islamic apologists want to disavow any responsibility for Islam terrorism. Is that OK by you? Do you know of Mohamed’s massacre of the Jews of Medina? Do his modrrn followers get to to dismiss that as being an event of the past?
Seems to me that YOU .. and similar apologists for Islam .. are the revisionists.
@29
Can you spell “zoning?”
Speaking of should… the WSJ has this:
Good for you Newt & Sarah!
In all the clutter about the mosque in New York, I haven’t heard much discussion about the National Socialist Party of America vs. Village of Skokie, Illinois, 432 U.S. 43 (1977).
The American Nazi party scheduled a march in Skokie which had large numbers of Jewish citizens, many of whom were survivors of the Nazi concentration camps of WWII. It was an intentional “in your face” attempt by the Nazis to create a violent reaction.
The village of Skokie responded by requiring the Nazis to get insurance and post a bond against any damages which might be incurred. The Nazis protested this action, since it hadn’t been previously required of any other group seeking to demonstrate in Skokie.
In an ironic twist, the American Civil Liberties Union represented the Nazis in the court challenge. Although the Nazi party represented beliefs completely contrary to those espoused by the ACLU, the ACLU felt it had to defend the right of the Nazi party to hold a demonstration. They noted that the First Amendment wasn’t written to protect the views of the majority, it was written and adopted to protect the minorities, no matter how disagreeable we find their speech, and to allow them to freely voice their opinions “in the public marketplace of ideas”.
The U.S. Supreme Court agreed with the ACLU’s position, and sent it back to the lower courts for a hearing consistent with their opinion. In the end the Nazis never ended up marching in Skokie, they instead marched in other Illiniois communities where the number of marchers were very small, being outnumbered by the counter-protestors and the media covering the events.
Now, I don’t equate a Muslim from wanting to build an Islamic Communty center in lower Manhattan with the Nazis wanting to march in Sokie, Illinois. They really arn’t equivilent by any measure.
But if the U.S. Supreme Court can rule that the First Amendment protects something extreme as the Nazi right to march in a community of Holocaust survivers, then surely it also protects as innocuous a project as the building of a community center at an abandoned Burlington Coat Factor, whichisn’t even within eyesight of Grand Zero?
SJ @ 35
Do you know of Mohamed’s massacre of the Jews of Medina? Do his modrrn followers get to to dismiss that as being an event of the past?
Yes, and no respectively, but let’s not gloss over all of the fact, shall we? There were three Jewish tribes north of Medina, the Bani Qurayza, the Bani Nadir and the Bani Qaynuqa. Following the battle of Uhud and the siege of Medina, only one of those tribes was actually massacred. The other two were simply banished. Any discussion of the massacres of jews needs to properly account for these facts.
As for the massacre itself, the men were beheaded. The women were taken into slavery. Haven’t we just read about this in HA’s own Bible Study? Are those events not remarkably similar to what’s described in Deuteronomy?
LMFAO..thats like saying we played into the Japanese’s hands after Pearl Harbor.
Western/White Guilt, its whats for dinner.