The world-wide backlash against Muslims will continue until they show the same respect towards non-Muslims as they want from us. In that vein, I whole-heartedly support the majority of Americans who do not wish to see a mosque there. It will pay Muslims back in the same coin they have been paying us for centuries. I have no love lost for their close-mindedness and their bigotry. The same "values" practiced on Muslims may open their eyes. It's definitely worth a try. How else one can deal with mullah minds?

Susan, thanks for the words. You certainly make me think. Jews, Christians, Muslims, athiests all died on 9-11. Unfortunately, we continue to confuse how islam fundamentalists and moderate muslims differ - just as muslims confuse moderate christians and fundamentalist christians. I think we must continue to learn about each other, and segregating where a church, mosque or synagogue can be built does nothing but work against our learning about each other. Within six blocks of my home in Canada is a mosque, an anglican church and a southern baptist church. The anglican church is across the street from the mosque and the two share each other's parking lots. Of course on good friday everyone goes to prayer and then that gets a little crowded!

In Brooklyn Heights, streets are named for Revolutionary War battles. Sometimes, when walking down a store-lined block, passing the subway station, the venders, I see before me barren earth, dusty boulders, young men crouched behind them pointing rifles. Shots echo. Pedestrians rush out of the stores, back to work, the trains, the Courthouse, as frustrated drivers honk their horns, and a flyer or two sails off into the street.

SJ had a nearly perfect essay going there before raking up Beck and Palin.

Stories are remembered. Places change. We all fall away, but the memory remains. The very *earth* itself, its soil is the remains of what has died before...each location "sacred" because it is composed of death? Every square inch a monument to history? I don't think so.

Beck and Palin are creating their own story -- whether or not it sticks depends on the success of their vision, and only time and patience will bring us the results to prove or discredit them. Whatever it does, it does not depend on any symbolic location.

Islam? Islam is ridiculous. Christianity? Also ridiculous. Mormonism? PARTICULARLY ridiculous because its history is so well recorded. But, as ridiculous as they are, to believe in them is within rights of those who wish to believe such nonsense -- PRECISELY BECAUSE the founders knew what they were doing when they built a nation that was meant to last.

Freedom is as free people do. Burn a Qu'ran, fine. Burn your Beatles records, fine. Burn the flag, fine. Live it out loud, and have your fun because the fabric that is common is stronger than the petty differences of religion and politics.

We all move on eventually.

MARTHA WOODROOF & CO., Is So Jealous;

That She/He Suuucks!

RESPNSE When POSTING:

"Other views on religion in the news.

Thank you for commenting.

Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner.

Return to the original entry.

Note: WAPO: STOP Steeling BLOGGERS WORK/Ideas/POSTS!

It Is High Time That WE Old Time Blogers Bloggers Should start Getting paid {via Pay Pal] For Providing "CONTENT" to THIS/These Parasites on ONFAITH or WAPO et al and posting "iNTELLECTUALL Ideas as WE[i] Post!" W/out US bloggers YE art DEAD! DEAD! Please File For Bankruptcy!

LAST TiME

Fuuuck Jon Meacham, David Waters, Lisa Miller & Sally Quinn & CO (ONFAITH.NET). in VA. somewhere & D.C!

Else "ONFAITH" Ye Will DIE For Blogger-Abuse!

Dear Counselor, et al:

Note: As Ye/Yo can See; Once WE[i], i[WE] Elect these two-face WORD-MERCHANTS of certain Politician-GANGs aka "USURPER"s, Then THEY DO WHAT They WANT. So There is

NO U.S. or State CONSTITUTION!! YES, Things Must Change, Not only Yes We Can hot air. DO, No Talk!!

Maybe SARA PALIN Ms. RIGHT is right (Not Wrong)?! Sarai Ain't Afraid to Break or Dirty Her finger Nails. Now That's Tough; So Sara Ain't No "Manicure-Babby", but a Lipstick Momma! eeeeeehaaaa!

Note: Sisstar SARAi is starting to look really good ('Platform/ticket', not only Lipstick & looks) soo maybe she should be our 1st LADY President, aye? OR/b>

Maybe Brother MiTT ROMNEY is the ripe Mr. RiGHT (NOt Wrong). Likewise; MITT is looking & Sounding GOOD too. A Great BUISINEES MAN Who Will Save AMERICA from Poverty & out of Debt!?

Note: MITT maybe should be our 1st MORMON (A Xrstian , but Persecuted People, NOt only AFRO-Americans) Prez aye??.

"WE, The People" Need To Take Our Nation Back & fix the Sick Constitution? This is NOt a Test! This is Real!!

Note: And GLENN BECK might be 1/2 or 3/4 right (NOt Left oopps, Wrong)?

___VOTE:

"Peace/Huggs Rock-n-Roll, MiTT Romney"!!!

"Peace/Huggs Rock-n-Roll, MiTT Romney"!!!

"Peace/Huggs Rock-n-Roll, MiTT Romney"!!!

___ OR

"Peace/Dance Rock-n-Roll, w/ SARA Palin"!!!

"Peace/Dance Rock-n-Roll, with SARA"!!!

"Peace/Dance Rock-n-Roll, with SARA"!!!
--
GOOD-BYE OBAMA & CO! GOOD RIDDANCE NEPOTISTic Hillary et al!! Time fo a Real Man, or a Real woMan Prez!! Ya Ya!
--
Hailaluya! Praise the Holyi NO MON/WOM!

LOVE AMERICA! LOVE AMERICA! LOVE AMERICA..!

ARKNS

"I thought you said it is a cultural center"

It is. With a place to worship inside.

"a mosque in other words"

Incorrect.

"As far as i am concerned, they may call it what they like, it will turn out to be a mosque"

I see. Crystal ball?

"A people that is so hung up about religion make little distinction between a "cultural" center and a place of worship"

There isn't a big one. So? We're back to you questioning their right to worship wherever they choose as is one of America's greatest Ideals. You are arguing against one of our greatest ideals instead of arguing against the ideals of Islam that you do not like. Let them worship. And criticize what they worship. That's what I do. It's the American way. Use your free speech to discredit what they worship. not to fight against their right to worship it.

"They start worshiping at the drop of a hat"

They are allowed to do so. And so is everyone else. That's what's great about America.

"I can blow holes in your arguments all day long"

Good little egoless Hindu. Your religion serves you well I see.

"Your pick of so-called universal principles which you like and don't like"

I mentioned no universal principles that I like or dislike.

"Proof that the one you rejected is harmful or scientific proof on the blackboard that the one I picked is good for mankind"

I have no idea what you are talking about. I rejected something? And you picked something? What?

"You seem to need spoon feeding on elementary points!"

What elementary points? That muslims will worship at the drop of a hat and that they are definitely going to turn that cultural center into a mosque, you just know it?

Timmy2:

Distorted ideas have to be defeated in debates and dialog so that mullahs finally see the light of day"

Agreed. So debate the principles that you disagree with. Not their right to build a place of worship where they chose. That is one of our principles you are attacking. And it's a very valuable one.

I thought you said it is a cultural center. Now you admit that it is a place of worship--a mosque in other words. It is you who needs to get educated, not me. make up your mind. As far as i am concerned, they may call it what they like, it will turn out to be a mosque. A people that is so hung up about religion make little distinction between a "cultural" center and a place of worship. They start worshiping at the drop of a hat.

Anyway, replying to your so-called rejoinders will be a waste of my time. I can blow holes in your arguments all day long.

Who is to say?"

Who is to say what?

"Take your pick"

Take my pick of what? Your pick of so-called universal principles which you like and don't like.

"Don't expect a proof on the blackboard"

Proof of what?

Proof that the one you rejected is harmful or scientific proof on the blackboard that the one I picked is good for mankind. You seem to need spoon feeding on elementary points!

ARKNS

"Distorted ideas have to be defeated in debates and dialog so that mullahs finally see the light of day"

Agreed. So debate the principles that you disagree with. Not their right to build a place of worship where they chose. That is one of our principles you are attacking. And it's a very valuable one.

ARKNS

"Who is to say?"

Who is to say what?

"Take your pick"

Take my pick of what?

"Don't expect a proof on the blackboard"

Proof of what?

"My commenting on the mosque issue was meant to sensitize Muslims on their in-your-face attitude"

Building a cultural center is an "in your face attitude"? You think they're building it to get in people's faces? Why do you think that?

"Taking advantage of secular institutions and constitutions to further their religion even at the cost of sensitivities"

Taking advantage? By building a cultural center? Huh?

"They seem not to care"

And gay people seem not to care about the sensitivities of those who don't like gays. Holding hands in public. Wanting to get married. How dare they? Don't they know that some people are sensitive about gayness?

"Ostensibly, Imam Rauf's objective in building the mosque is to heal the divide between Muslims and non-Muslims"

I thought you said his objective was to display an "in your face attitude." Which is it?

"But building one more mosque will do exactly nothing in that regard"

It's not a mosque. It's a cultural center. And how do you know it will do nothing to heal the divide?

"What will really heal this divide is much more Islamic tolerance towards non-Muslims, acceptance of diversity, and secularism in their own countries"

Perhaps this is what they want to display with this cultural center. In fact I'm pretty sure that is their goal.

"It seems to me that Muslims loathe to grant the very religious rights in Islamic countries that they demand in countries secular countries where they settle"

So we should act like muslim countries? Tit for tat?

"The first principle is treat others as you yourself wish to be treated"

So you wish to be told that you can not build a cultural center where you wish to build it? Because that is what you are doing to others right now.

"I don't see such thinking among Muslims"

I do. You must be blind. Or painting all muslims with the same brush.

"In short, I oppose construction of the mosque"

It's not a mosque. You should get educated before you comment.

"to force Muslims to question their fondest assumptions about their religion and their attitude"

Force? Good little Hindu.

"The Ground Zero mosque debate provides me an excellent opportunity to pry open closed Muslim minds"

It sounds like your mind is the one that is closed.

"Time to call a spade a spade"

Okay. You are a spade. I've not seen any American muslims trying to deny anyone else religious freedom. But I am currently witness to you doing exactly that.

Moreover, bombing from B-52s is not working either. How do you bomb out distorted ideas? Distorted ideas have to be defeated in debates and dialog so that mullahs finally see the light of day. It will take time. One mullah at a time.

Timmy2:

Some do, some don't.

Who is to say? Take your pick. Don't expect a proof on the blackboard.

Then why did you comment on it? Why are you suggesting that the builders change their plans? Sounds to me like it makes a difference to this particular non-dualist or you wouldn't be taking sides.

My commenting on the mosque issue was meant to sensitize Muslims on their in-your-face attitude. Taking advantage of secular institutions and constitutions to further their religion even at the cost of sensitivities. They seem not to care. Ostensibly, Imam Rauf's objective in building the mosque is to heal the divide between Muslims and non-Muslims. But building one more mosque will do exactly nothing in that regard. What will really heal this divide is much more Islamic tolerance towards non-Muslims, acceptance of diversity, and secularism in their own countries. It seems to me that Muslims loathe to grant the very religious rights in Islamic countries that they demand in countries secular countries where they settle. This is hypocrisy of the highest order. The first principle is treat others as you yourself wish to be treated. I don't see such thinking among Muslims. In short, I oppose construction of the mosque to force Muslims to question their fondest assumptions about their religion and their attitude. The Ground Zero mosque debate provides me an excellent opportunity to pry open closed Muslim minds. As I said, we all have our own reasons. Hundreds of mosques in India have generated exactly zilch in opening up mullah minds across the border in Pakistan or within India itself. Time to call a spade a spade.

ARKNS,

"I did not say my religion is better than yours"

I don't have one.

"I am only saying that only Universal messages make sense"

Some do, some don't.

"As for one good reason among those who oppose, how about the pain of a lot of people who lost loved ones on that awful day"

What does that have to do with this muslim cultural center?

"who do not wish to be reminded of any symbols that is associated with the attacks?"

There is already a mosque within blocks of ground zero. If seeing a mosque or anything Islamic reminds them of that tragedy, there is nothing that will stop them from having these memories triggered. To think that stopping Cordoba House from being built will stop them from being reminded by Islamic symbols is asinine. They're not thinking clearly.

"I am sure they realize that not all Islam is to be blamed for the actions of a relatively few"

Apparently not if they are protesting the building of an islamic cultural center because of what happened to their loved ones.

"This does nothing to ameliorate their pain"

What will? Moving Cordoba House? This is asinine thinking. In fact the protests over Cordoba House have already caused them to be reminded of their pain way more than the quiet building of it which was going forward quietly until the press decided to make it a very public and divisive issue.

"Sensitivities are involved and so one has to tread carefully"

Perhaps gay people should not hold hands in public for fear of offending someone who knows someone who died of Aids.

"What is so sacrosanct about a house of worship that it has to be built exactly where we want it to be built come what may?"

It doesn't have to be built there. That just happens to be where they were planning to build it. It is the protestors who are making a big deal about where it is built, not the builders.

"We make too much of religion and that's when it becomes a problem"

Precisely. It's the protestors who are making a big deal out of nothing, not the builders.

"Move it or don't even bother building it. What's the big deal?"

You tell me. You're the one saying "move it or don't even bother building it." You and the protestors are the ones making a big deal over it by demanding that it be built somewhere else.

"An edifice of stone here, there or even nowhere, makes no difference to a non-dualist. Only fools quarrel over such things"

Then why did you comment on it? Why are you suggesting that the builders change their plans? Sounds to me like it makes a difference to this particular non-dualist or you wouldn't be taking sides.

Timmy2:

I did not say my religion is better than yours--those are your words, not mine. I am only saying that only Universal messages make sense--parochial ones sound like those coming from a used car salesman. The path to salvation lies only through me, I am the last Prophet, etc. sounds a lot like I got the best used cars. It is the parochial ones that fight for hegemony and to conquer and convert by the sword. I don't mean to offend just to encourage thinking.

As for one good reason among those who oppose, how about the pain of a lot of people who lost loved ones on that awful day, who do not wish to be reminded of any symbols that is associated with the attacks? I am sure they realize that not all Islam is to be blamed for the actions of a relatively few. This does nothing to ameliorate their pain. There was recently an Op-ed in a newspaper that pointed out that the Germans did not erect a memorial next to Auschwitz out of deference to the feelings of Jews. Sensitivities are involved and so one has to tread carefully.

OK, even if I grant you that the majority of Americans are misguided and ignorant on the mosque issue, the fact remains that they oppose it and are pained by it. What is so sacrosanct about a house of worship that it has to be built exactly where we want it to be built come what may? I would not be even able to pray in peace with this intransigence on my conscience.

We make too much of religion and that's when it becomes a problem. Move it or don't even bother building it. What's the big deal? An edifice of stone here, there or even nowhere, makes no difference to a non-dualist. Only fools quarrel over such things.

ARKNS

"One needs to remember that a majority of Americans oppose the building of the mosque near Ground Zero"

One needs to remember that 80% of Americans are certain that the Christian magic sky fairy exists. Freestinker's point about the faulty reasoning in their opposition is sound.

"Just realize that out of this majority different people oppose the mosque for different reasons"

I've not heard a reason that is sane. Can you name one?

I'm no fan of Islam, or any religion for that matter. But not liking something is not a good enough reason to protest against one particular group of religionists building a cultural center in one particular place. I don't like tatoos either but I would not be dumb enough to think that it make sense for me to protest the building of tattoo parlors in places where I don't think they should go.

In the end I see your post as just an excuse to say, hey look at my religion, it's better because it is non dualistic. You haven't really countered Stinker's point that the reasons being used to be against this cultural center are misguided and ignorant.

ARKNS,

Why should the builders of the Park51 project show deference to people whose irrational sensibilities are so misplaced as to equate law-abiding American citizens with radical foreign jihadists?

Posted by: Freestinker | September 4, 2010 10:49 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Freestinker:

One needs to remember that a majority of Americans oppose the building of the mosque near Ground Zero. Now that does not mean that the sensibilities of the majority are sound. Just realize that out of this majority different people oppose the mosque for different reasons.

From my perspective, that would be enough to move my Hindu temple. I will not build a temple in any place where there is not a good feeling towards my house of worship. Now that does not mean I have to respect every single opinion. It simply means I will not ride roughshod over the feelings of most others if they oppose it. I lose nothing by doing so. I will build the temple where it is welcome.

One can adopt such an attitude if the God one believes in (no, gets brainwashed in) is a universal God. Until this day, it is not clear to me who Allah is--I mean what do Muslims believe Allah to be. Do they believe Allah to be a Muslim God only interested in upholding Islam? If they do that, they will be holding on even tighter to their sense of hurt, their mosque, their religion, etc. Such concepts of God separate rather than unite. If Muslims believe theirs is a separate God, then I can understand why backing down is harder--it is an affront to their God, their religion. They are being victimized.

Now if Muslims think Allah is a universal God, not a Muslim God, then the issue is not so parochial. If the majority rejects a mosque, we will simply move somewhere else. The majority has unwittingly rejected their own God too in the process. Verily, I tell you this is how I think as a Hindu. Religion ceases to be such a big issue. It is a very private issue. I secretly pray to God in the inner chamber of my heart. Who cares what the world thinks? I am neither interested in publicity nor in political domination.

Non-dualism is a very strong vaccination against parochialism, separateness, and extremism. I am brainwashed in the philosophy of non-dualism. I tell you this brainwashing has been much stronger than what any mullah has been able to impart to the faithful. It has sunk into my DNA.

So, nothing to get excited about. Oh, they are denigrating Shiva calling His symbol a phallus? No problem, it's a denigration of that one infinity. Oh, they don't want us to build a temple here? No problem, Infinity can always be worshiped in one's own heart. A temple is not necessary. (No one can insult or take away from infinity one bit. Infinity minus infinity = Infinity and Infinity Divided by Infinity = Infinity. Know that God's Providence like the blue sky, is forever above us all!

Islam is a treat to free and democratic societies; only a daft human being would think otherwise. My question to people who sees no danger looming with exponential Muslim population in US is thus : When this group eventually becomes the majority in American society -- wouldn't they change our laws to accommodate the Sharia,the Quar'an and their others Islamic beliefs?

With a low birth rate and more and more westerners joining the Homo-sexual club -- vis-a-avis, men and women from Arabian and Islamic countries whose population increases in geometrical-progression;the post-equilibrium position is very near.They may be their 50-60years from now.

Posted by: otigbuonyiyan

*******************************************

I've posts with the thrust like this too other than On Faith and in Europe too.

Compared to other ehnic and religious groups migrating to the US, Muslims are a minority. More Indian Hindus migrates to the US than Indian Muslims.

Could it be the real underlying fear is the fact that in wealthier European and American states, the birth rate is lower among Caucasians?

Hence the fear of Caucasians being a minority ethnic group is driving anti-abortion and gay unions, especially among Caucasians, and immigration in the States?

Families with better income and education don't don't have many children, including those in Muslim states. And American Muslims are generally and by percentage and average, of a higher income group than, say, Hispanics.

The only threats to freedom and democracy in the west are from the "natives" themself, not Islam, not Muslims, in how they manage and handle pluralism/multiculturalism by their own priciples of freedoms, equality and laws.

I touched on some sensitive secular and atheistic souls here with my sarcastic post on prevailing notions about Islam and Muslims?

We Muslims are self-centred and insensistive. We direly need to be sensitised on certain sensitivities and sensibilities, realities and idiocies. So they told us.

There are many sensitising us for free out of the goodness of their hearts to ensure perennial peace and freedoms on earth for all. So they told us.

I do so love reading on strategies, tactics and techiques broached forth to bring Muslims to their senses religiously, politically, socially, economically, hysterically.

And I don't mean just from my fellow Muslims of every shades and ilks....

(*_-)

The opponents of proliferation of Mosque in the US are fighting for future generation.Those who cannot see the danger are merely concern with the present.Nobody is encouraging vandalization of Muslim properties or putting their lives in danger.They are simply saying some societal laws needs to be changed to address the dangers of the 21st century.
Islam is a treat to free and democratic societies; only a daft human being would think otherwise. My question to people who sees no danger looming with exponential Muslim population in US is thus : When this group eventually becomes the majority in American society -- wouldn't they change our laws to accommodate the Sharia,the Quar'an and their others Islamic beliefs?
With a low birth rate and more and more westerners joining the Homo-sexual club -- vis-a-avis, men and women from Arabian and Islamic countries whose population increases in geometrical-progression;the post-equilibrium position is very near.They may be their 50-60years from now.

ARKNS,

Why should the builders of the Park51 project show deference to people whose irrational sensibilities are so misplaced as to equate law-abiding American citizens with radical foreign jihadists?

Although we've been through this discussion before (ad nauseum, in fact), I should point out that the Auschwitz analogy is absurd for reasons to numerous to mention. The excellent Times article for which I give the link does not make one important point: JEWS do not view the death camp Auschwitiz with its crematoria, zyklon B, lice, starvation, surgeries by the Catholic Josef Mengele as "sacred ground." (Judaism is not Christianity, NB, again, Susan Jacoby)

If anything, Auschwitz is PROFANE ground, the site of a devolution, a reversal in what should have been generation, SHOAH (UTTER WASTE).
--------------------------------

At Auschwitz, Decency Dies Again

http://www.nytimes.com/1989/09/03/opinion/at-auschwitz-decency-dies-again.html

Jihadist,

You sure have that martyr thing down pat.

Is there anything wrong with Islam?
Or is it a perfect religion of peace and anyone who sees any problems with it just doesn't understand it?
Do you stand by everything written in the Koran?
Or do you ignore large portions of it to come to your version of Islam. How about the Hadith? Do you stand by it all or are there large parts of it that you disavow?

What is the penalty for apostasy according to your version of Islam? And where in the Koran does it say that you get to make up your own version of Islam?

I highly doubt you will answer any of these questions. How dare I even ask them?

An analogy will suffice on the theory of karma and Divine forgiveness.

Suppose I always drive rashly--way over the speed limit. I get a ticket. Then I am praying five times a day to God to forgive me. But I continue to drive like that. Now the mortal judge will probably waive the first offense. I doubt he will waive the subsequent ones and neither will God regardless of how many times I pray to Him. True repentance means I change my driving ways to respect the speed limit. The right action then garners God's forgiveness (and the mortal judge also does not hold a grudge against me).

The message to the Islamic world is cease and desist! There is no salvation without this. The laundry list approach to Allah does nothing (pay Zakat, go on a Haj, pray five times a day, etc.) cannot unravel karma. So cease and desist.

I think the whole mosque controversy missed an important point. True, at one level the right of Muslims to build a mosque near Ground Zero translates into a question of religious tolerance and rights in a secular democracy like the Unites States. I am not questioning the constitutional framework of the United States in agreeing with Americans who support the project.

With rights however come responsibilities. Muslims who only see rights and not responsibilities miss the mark entirely on this issue. First, they should show more sensitivity towards the issue. God can be worshiped anywhere--moving the mosque further away from Ground Zero out of deference to those who take offense or oppose the project in any way is not capitulation but a sign of maturity and wisdom. Second, and more importantly, Muslims should ask themselves why there is such a negative reaction from non-Muslims to the mosque? The answer is simple--the negative reaction is a direct result of Islamic intolerance towards non-Muslims. I cannot imagine that would have been such vehement opposition if religious tolerance in Islamic countries would have been the norm rather then the exception. That is the kernel of truth hidden in all this hullabaloo. This gets back to karma. One cannot escape karmic consequences even if one prays five times a day ut does the wrong thing in practice. Karma is such that no God comes down to forgive us if our actions cause harm. God forgives if there is genuine repentance and we do not repeat our wrong actions. No priest can say "Go by child and sin no more". Hindus don't believe that it is up to a mere mortal to say that when even God does not do that. Repentance has to be translated into right action in order for one to be forgiven. Islam has shown little repentance in that in Islamic countries where Muslims are in majority, there is absolutely no move to more tolerance towards non-Muslims leave alone equal rights. This is sheer hypocrisy--you want all the rights to be conferred to you but you and your brethren in Islamic countries are loathe to grant the very rights that you demand in secular countries! Until Muslims recognize this elementary truth and repent by ceasing their discriminatory ways, they will continue to attract a negative reaction to all things Islamic. Such is the law of karma. It is on autopilot and even God does not interfere with His laws no matter how many times one prays. Such prayers do not reach His ears.

Jihadist, from your post of September 4, 2010 10:27 AM, I am now come to theh conclusion that the silly season has started on this segment of the blog. Your previous posts I have seen were more cerebral, that this one. Please, you are better than this last post, a lot better. Your posts have often been laced with wit and humor built into your sarcasm. But this last one is just a bit sophomoric diatribe of stereotypical islamist. I am a bit disappointed. I guess you got off the proverbial wrong side of the bed this morning. Go for a jog, and have you r good cup of Joe from Starbucks or Seattle's Best and then talk. Until then all the best.

Timmy2 we are in general and in overall agreement. While we may disagree slightly on details of tactics, I think between teh two of us have covered as much as we can. I think time to agree to disagree on the minor tactical details.

Posted by: Secular

*******************************************

For the Canadian-Indian American atheist-secular coalition "tactics" in their "war on Muslims" they may wish to continue:

- to consistently insist Islam is a cult as do excitable Evangelists, Hindus and Atheists;

- project it as a battle between the America-Europe-India front against the Islamic-Sino-Orientalist front and all that;

- continually insist that Muslims have low IQs, are uneducated, are unable to integrate;

- state with personal conviction that Islam is at odds with democracy and will cause collapse of country and civilisation;

- refer to experts like Glenn Beck in the States, Geert Wilder in the Netherlands, Thilo Sarrazin in Germany et al on immigration; and

- urge western states to close their doors to Muslim migrants as threats of terror, as possible fifth column, as a burden on social services, to reduce crime etc.

There's actually more, much, more of course, in, er, "tactics".

(*_+)

Daniel12,

Today you don't need to sacrifice yourself dying for your cause for your cause to win. No war should be necessary, not anymore.

I saw the article almost 24 hours ago and haven't commented yet because I'm kind of torn between two things:

1) It's true that land worship is one of the holdovers from pre-modern thought, and that Islam's attachment to land is, IMO, one of the shortcomings holding their economic development back. Believing in some ground as being the territory of a religion is intellectually stifling in some of the same ways as defining the jurisdiction of a government that way, like the Great Firewall of China.

2) On the other hand, since seculars don't get their values and culture from revelation, one of the main places we do get them from is history. One of the best things about living in the mid-Atlantic is that places like Independence Hall, Monticello and Bull Run are easy to visit and are the closest thing to sacred spots because they're where our values got implemented.

My own opinion of having a mosque nearby is that anyone can put a monument to superstition anywhere. I'm kind of more worried about radical Islamists interpreting it as their western Dome of the Rock.

Pretty inspired piece by Jacoby here, pretty forceful and not without originality. It is true many people feel tangible things such as land to be able to become more sacred or valuable than abstract things such as truth and knowledge. I suppose taking the Bible or the Koran too seriously is a type of "land worship" as well. In general I suppose truth and knowledge expects us to become somewhat detached. But then again too much detachment makes one indifferent and incapable of passionate love. One of the most difficult things I have had to deal with in my life is not being attached to really anything. Hard to tell if I would be willing to die for someone or something. It probably can be stated that being willing to die for truth and knowledge rather than sacred places, "land worship", is a pretty rare thing. The more one becomes engrossed with truth and knowledge the more one has to fight against an increasing sense of detachment...At least it seems the case with myself.

Secular,

I agree, we don't disagree on very much here. I have no soft spot for islam. I want it to go away but I do not want to send it away. I want to give it enough rope to let it hang itself. Same goes for Christianity.

Regular blogger here, Daniel12, has accused me of being underhanded with my stance on Cordoba House. And he's kind of right. He says that for me to say that I want to dispel the narrative that the west is out to destroy Islam is a ruse because I speak out endlessly against Islam and actively campaign towards it's demise. And that western secular values will eventually destroy Islam. He and I quibble over the word "destroy. " I don't think that the west is out to destroy Islam so much as I think that we just hope that it will eventually die out as it is won over by our better example of a secular state with religious freedom, and freedom of speech, and free press etc.

The Koran is a recipe book for divisive violence and war. Muslims who call it a religion of peace have to disregard large parts of the book and it's history. A reading of the Koran makes it clear that it will only be a religion of peace when everyone is a muslim. But then the same thing is true of Nazism. Every time muslims mention the fact that there are over a billion of them, I laugh at the fact that they seem to have forgotten why. Their ancestors were conquered by it. The same is true for Holy Bible thumpers.

Just like monarchy these superstitious god cults are in their final throws. What we're feeling right now is the final lunge for air by a drowning victim. With the internet now, modernity will spread through them like flesh eating disease. And that's what I'm doing here on the internet. D12 is right about me.

Timmy2 we are in general and in overall agreement. While we may disagree slightly on details of tactics, I think between teh two of us have covered as much as we can. I think time to agree to disagree on the minor tactical details.

Secular,

I understand where you and Massor Irjaz are coming from. But both Mr. Irjaz and yourself make a mistake by calling Cordoba House a mosque. It is not. This might not matter to you or to him but then why call it a mosque if you have just as much objection to a cultural center? Cal it what it is. Though there will be a place to pray, it is not a mosque or a madras or a triumphal monument for extremist Islam.

My objection to your comments was only about the wording that we "deny them this opportunity." As you have admitted, we can not do that, nor should we. But making your dissenting voices heard is perfectly acceptable.

I do not support the building of Cordoba House nor would I have ever suggested it. My comments are all about how Americans should deal with it's inevitable existence. Loudly protesting it helps perpetuate the false Islamic extremist narrative that the west is out to destroy Islam. And doing so on the "sacred ground" argument gives them more incentive to attack that location again. However if Americans were able to act pragmatically and without emotion I think that they would see that allowing it to happen without protest harms greatly the Islamic extremist narrative that the west is out to destroy Islam.

I know that this will not happen though. Cordoba House will be built, and Americans will protest loudly, perhaps there will even be some vandalism and terrorism on our part during and after it's construction. This will help the terrorists with their narrative and improve their recruitment abilities. And that is my concern.

I will continue to criticize Islam harshly, and also to staunchly support their right to worship wherever they want. This is the essence of free speech and freedom of religion. And that's what America is all about. The darker side of Islam will eventually be defeated. But not because we ban or protest Islamic cultural centers near "sacred ground." The darker side of Islam will be defeated precisely because we do not do such things. It will be defeated because we set an inspirational example of how to act towards such instances.

I can not speak strongly enough against the idea of making ground zero a "sacred" or "hallowed" ground. What a terrible idea. I mean talk about not learning from history.

Timmy2, I share your sentiments by and large. I fall in the camp of Mr. Manssor Irjaz in this case, and wish the promoters will follow his advice.

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2010/08/us_muslims_should_be_american_first.html

I am talking about several instances when Hindus were denied permissions in several DFW suburbs to build their first temple. Often at the behest of the local baptist minister or the methodist minister. But they did not raise a big hullabaloo, instead worked with the next city. Now there are several in the DFW area, in fact in some of the same cities that denied earlier. The point is some times it is not the best approach to play the victim card at the first opportunity. NYC with 100 mosques (by their own count 1 for every 6000) isn't a backwaters redneck town. I don't think there is any comparison to Saudi Arabia. All I want to happen is the promoters of the project see the folly of their enterprise constitutional or not. The defiant attitude of Ms. Khan compared to Mr. Irjaz's stand speaks volumes about the promoters. The hypocrisy of the promoters is they come up with this high sounding notion that they want to promote amity between the natives and muslims. Why can't they first start trying to promote tolerance in some of those paradises.

Secular,

"By making the proponents see that popular sentiment is against their project"

I think they are well aware of this by now. But this is not "denying" them the opportunity. It's just vocalization via free speech which I support, and this process is currently playing out. But we can not deny them anything. It's also pertinent to point out that popular sentiment was against the desegregation of the south also. Popular sentiment is not always right, and in this case, I don't think that it is.

"If so then every application to build a place of worship will have to be granted"

Indeed. They can not be denied based on the particular religion or the sensitivities of the location.

"I at least know of a few such applications denied before. There was no such hullabaloo made out by the aggrieved parties then"

I'd need to know the details to comment.

"I gather that a greek orthodox church was denied permission in the relative vicinity. I confess I do not know all the details of that circumstance"

It was not denied for reasons of religious sensitivities. It's a construction issue that interferes with the rebuilding of Ground Zero.

I don't like the religion of Islam any more than you do and neither do I like the religion of Christianity. But there must be a consistency in our treatment of these religions or we are being Saudi Arabia not the USA. This is an example of why the USA is better.

I agreed with this article of Susan's before it was even written. The sacred or hallowed ground argument is as primitive thinking as the religions you don't like. We need to be better than that. They can not have a triumph on our sacred lands if we don't claim any sacred lands. We were attacked precisely because our religious freedoms threaten their lack of religious freedoms. Their triumph will be if we deny this cultural center to be built. They will have succeeded in making us cave on the ideals which make us great.

abrahamhab1 wrote,

The author should realize the fact that historically Muslims built mosques over Christian and Jewish sacred places in the lands they colonized. If they did not think of this place as sacred when they initiated the project they do now, and we should view it from this perspective.

*************************************

Classical Newt Gingrich false comparison! Bringing in middle ages analogies into the 20th Centuries. Go read the history of what your holy soldiers did to local people in the Crusades. Didn't they built Churches on conquered land? The Crusaders proudly said they killed every single man, woman, child and elderly in Jerusalem and walked knee deep in the blood of Saracens (Muslims). The fact is they just dint kill the muslims of Jerusalem but Jews and even their fellow Christian as well who they thought looked like Arabs any way. The inhabitants of that region had never seen such barbaric people before. They even ate the flesh of their muslim prisoners. In comparison when Saladin retook Jerusalem few years later there was no orgy of revenge as the Christian expected. Instead every single inhabitant was spared even allowed to carry their weapons and all other possessions and provided safe access to Christian lands. Dont think they would teach you that much history in your Fox Madrassah!

Timmy2, you wrote, "How? By making an exception to the constitution, just this once?" Of course not. I am not advocating any extra constitutional means or through any kind of extra legal means either. By making the proponents see that popular sentiment is against their project. While, I agree that individual's right to practice of religion, however distasteful it might be to me, is enshrined in the constitution. However, there is no IMHO opinion is there a group right to build a place of worship any given place. If so then every application to build a place of worship will have to be granted. I at least know of a few such applications denied before. There was no such hullabaloo made out by the aggrieved parties then. I gather that a greek orthodox church was denied permission in the relative vicinity. I confess I do not know all the details of that circumstance. Far be it for me to advocate extra constitutional actions or promote unbridled anarchy. If the project meets the constitutional mustard, I may not be elated, my hands would be tied.

Secular,

"So the best recourse is to deny that opportunity"

How? By making an exception to the constitution, just this once?

I agree with abrahamhab1, completely. In a general sense us rationalists should work to minimize number of these holy places on this planet. Especially they are to be tied to a place an historical event had occurred. Bad enough that accidents of events at a geographic location should exalt that location, but to further pollute it with a theological edifice is rubbing chili powder to the open wound. I am more opposed to the mosque so close is not just to necessarily doubt the intent of the promoters. But to also prevent future hijacking of the secular protestations of the day, for building it. As we all are aware of the triumphalist dogma of islam, if not today, eventually the hijacking might happen. So the best recourse is to deny that opportunity.

Muslims know much more about us and our laws than most of us know about their ideology. They are taking advantage of our laws to invade and dominate us. Maybe they would realize that in this case they went a bit too fast and too far. The author should realize the fact that historically Muslims built mosques over Christian and Jewish sacred places in the lands they colonized. If they did not think of this place as sacred when they initiated the project they do now, and we should view it from this perspective.

I am not very found of hallowed grounds or holy places. least of them holy places. What makes Jerusalem, or Mecca, or Varanasi a holy place is silly. Does this mean the deity has some special attachment to the place. How silly the deity that supposedly created every thing under the sky (whatever that is) made one corner more holy than the other. A pilgrimage to it supposedly expiates all sin. By that definition then people born in those places either must be sin free or whatever their sins are expiated. How fair and just is that. The never ending litany of contradictions grown out of the belief in sky daddy meme.

Ed

"Cool! Let's have a rave on Gen. Lee's lawn"

Dead people don't have lawns.

I've been saying this since the first day I heard about this cultural center and it's controversy. I remain stunned that in todays modern age, people do not realize that the idea of sacred ground has been one of the most destructive ideas ever embraced by humans. It has caused, and continues to cause unspeakable suffering.

In fact making the ground sacred is making the ground itself more important than the lives that were lost, and the ideals that were attacked. Sacred ground can be physically attacked. Ideas and memories can not. The best way to preserve ideas and memories is to not attach them to any parcel of land.

We are capable of putting our ideals and memories of our lost ones in a place where they can not be physically attacked. Why people chose to do otherwise is beyond me.

Cool! Let's have a rave on Gen. Lee's lawn.

Truth and knowledge, not ground or steps, are sacred.

- SJ

*******************************************

Amen. Amin.

Ramadan Kareem to Ms. Jaocoby and all my favourite "On Faith" atheist poster-readers. That includes you too, Timmy2.