The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[scaeagles]

yeah, I'd agree with that.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Changing gears for a moment: I found myself wondering - suppose a Christian community center were being built across the street from the Pretern Clinic in Brookline, MA. Imagine the sh*tstorm that would ensue should someone then try to block it from being built.

Or if there were protests against a white-owned business opening around the corner from the Lorraine Motel in Memphis.

[Alex]

Why do you want sharia law to become the law of the United States? Don't you realize that the First Amendment is not a suicide pact?! The tree of liberty must be periodically fed the blood of the blustering!! Something, something, something.

[scaeagles]

The Los Alamos Historical Museum celebrating the Manhattan Project is probably a pretty cool place, but I might suspect it would considered in poor taste to build it in a suburb of Hiroshima.

There are protests here in Phoenix (though granted they are much smaller) about the building of a Mormon chruch because, even though zoned properly, the nearby residents don't like how high the steeple will be. The Mormon church has sat down with the residents to try to discuss their concerns, and has compromised on it.

Of course they have a right to build it. This is not in question in my mind.

I don't think this is about the building of a Mosque, or I guess an Islamic Community Center, but about the relations and perhaps poor taste of choosing to build it there, particularly when the the project is largely headed by an Imam who refuses to even acknowledge Hamas is a terrorist organization. If this was built a couple of miles away there might be protests, sure, but nothing to the extent of what is happening now.

When you throw all this in with this story about the only chruch destroyed on 9/11 that still hasn't been allowed to rebuild, it does cause one to wonder why the Islamic Center is seemingly fast tracked but the Greek Orthodox Church, which was there before the attacks, is being blocked.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

The Los Alamos Historical Museum celebrating the Manhattan Project is probably a pretty cool place, but I might suspect it would considered in poor taste to build it in a suburb of Hiroshima.

And why would that be? Because atomic bombs killed a lot of people there. That's not remotely analogous to a mosque and 9/11.

There are protests here in Phoenix (though granted they are much smaller) about the building of a Mormon chruch because, even though zoned properly, the nearby residents don't like how high the steeple will be. The Mormon church has sat down with the residents to try to discuss their concerns, and has compromised on it.

Fine. Again not remotely analogous until people start opposing the temple because a Mormon offshoot of polygamous engaged in pedophilia and forced marriage of young girls. And when that happens I'll take the exact same stance in defense of the Mormons.

Hell, I'll take the same stance in defense of a temple against charges it shouldn't be allowed because of the church's actual role in Prop 8.

And let's not slip into Newt Gingrich's extremely flawed analogy that Nazi's aren't allowed to built a recruitment center next to the National Holocaust Museum. While he's technically right (since all of the land around the museum is federally owned), he is also wrong. If the American Nazi Party (or whomever) decide they want to start building recruitment centers across the street from every synagogue in the country, I'll take the pre-emptive stance of saying nobody should get in their way. And pro-life groups gets to build confusing clinics across the street from Planned Parenthood offices. And the NRA should be allowed to hold their convention at Columbine High School if they're willing to pay the fee. And so on.

Hurt feelings are almost always a piss poor reason to trying to block things.

Of course they have a right to build it. This is not in question in my mind.

Great, now convince the other people who "don't deny their right" but don't support it either and seem more than happy to discuss the use of governmental and quasi-governmental means to try and stop it.

I don't think this is about the building of a Mosque, or I guess an Islamic Community Center, but about the relations and perhaps poor taste of choosing to build it there,

The idea that a mosque is inherently in poor taste and insensitive is entirely based on a faulty assumption.

And I'll credit you with honest doubts about sensitivity. But having read the comments on most discussions on this topic I can't help but feel you're relatively isolated in that view. They always seem to devolve quickly from concerns over appropriateness to just hatred of Muslims in general.

For example, at the Volokh Conspiracy, a libertarian leaning legal blog a post was made yesterday on whether Kelo would allow any kind of taking of the site in question as a way to prevent construction of the mosque.

[quote] particularly when the the project is largely headed by an Imam who refuses to even acknowledge Hamas is a terrorist organization. [quote]

It is odd how Rauf has only become an Islamic extremist in the last couple of months after certain groups decided to oppose this project. Before that he was an voice of Islamic moderateness in the mainstream of American religious discourse. In fact, until recently he was directly critizied by Islamic fundamentalists for his pro-American views.

What happened between December last year when the project received mildly positive coverage on Fox and this summer when suddenly the project morphed into a foothold of Islamic triumphalism? It couldn't just be that it was seized upon as an election season billy club, could it?

If this was built a couple of miles away there might be protests, sure, but nothing to the extent of what is happening now.

Really? Then why are proposed mosques hundreds and thousands of miles away being protested and opposed?

But regardless, is it really your position that Muslims are not welcome to worship in lower Manhattan? It really isn't that big of a place and "a couple miles away" mostly takes you off the island.

When you throw all this in with this story about the only chruch destroyed on 9/11 that still hasn't been allowed to rebuild, it does cause one to wonder why the Islamic Center is seemingly fast tracked but the Greek Orthodox Church, which was there before the attacks, is being blocked.

The cause for wonder is really only there if one chooses to ignore the fact that the regulatory bodies involved for the two projects are completely different and while bureaucratic inefficiency sucks it is hardly surprising that different bureaucracies move at different speeds and have different hurdles. The question is, if the Greek Orthodox church had purchased the Burlington Coat Factory building and tried to rebuild there would they have been slowed? There is no evidence of that.

But if we're just randomly having causes of wonder, one wonders why those upset by this place of Islamic worship aren't upset by the other pre-existing places of Islamic worship in the neighborhood. Why they weren't upset until "thought leaders" changed their position and decided to be upset? Why the person behind the project was a suspected enemy of America until after people decided to be upset? Why in this case it is ok to take extreme actions by group members as representative for the entire group (as opposed to say, it being ok to assume Tea Party people are all stupid because some of their more vocal members are)? Why so many seem to be crossing their fingers when saying that they support the ideals behind the First Amendment and then explaining why it doesn't really apply in this case?

Just some things I have cause to wonder.

[Stan4dSteph]

I find the overt racism and anti-Muslim attitudes of the protesters in NYC to be very sad. I would hope people would be able to use their brains a little more than that. Hysteria like this just leads to more misunderstanding.

Check out this video and tell me the people there are acting rationally.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Alex

And why would that be? Because atomic bombs killed a lot of people there. That's not remotely analogous to a mosque and 9/11.

It is to many people. Radical Islamic terrorists are certainly responsible for 9/11. When the Imam won't condemn Hamas as a terrorist organization, it raises questions about his sensitivities.

Fine. Again not remotely analogous until people start opposing the temple because a Mormon offshoot of polygamous engaged in pedophilia and forced marriage of young girls. And when that happens I'll take the exact same stance in defense of the Mormons.

I was simply pointing out the obvious in that there are a variety of reasons that things are protested in response to GD's point of the uproar if other projects were protested. It was simply one that came to mind because it's local.

The idea that a mosque is inherently in poor taste and insensitive is entirely based on a faulty assumption.

And I'll credit you with honest doubts about sensitivity. But having read the comments on most discussions on this topic I can't help but feel you're relatively isolated in that view. They always seem to devolve quickly from concerns over appropriateness to just hatred of Muslims in general.

Those that are bigoted and hateful are always the loudest. This does not discount that there are others that think this could be handled better, nor does it mean that everyone who thinks this is a bad idea is a bigot or an Islamophobe. Imagine the good will that could be generated toward the Islamic community if the Imam had at least agreed to meet with (and followed though on the meeting) Patterson and discussed moving the site. As I said earlier, they have the right to build there and no one is stopping them. Moving the center would be seen as a tremendous act of good will and would be a remarkable public relations move on behalf of this Imam. Certainly doesn't have to. But it might be a good idea.

It couldn't just be that it was seized upon as an election season billy club, could it?

It most certainly could be just that. That's what politics is, I suppose. I admittedly don't know anything about the Imam prior to this become big news.

Really? Then why are proposed mosques hundreds and thousands of miles away being protested and opposed?

I never said they weren't. But they aren't the huge story that this is. In fact, I even said the center would likely still be protested if built further away, but it wouldn't be the huge uproar it is now.

[JWBear]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Moving the center would be seen as a tremendous act of good will and would be a remarkable public relations move on behalf of this Imam. Certainly doesn't have to. But it might be a good idea.

Why should they? Why should they give in to bigotry and hate? Why should their religious freedoms be less than anyone else's?

[JWBear]

Oh, and saying that Ruaf "won't condemn Hamas as a terrorist organization" is simplistic.

During an interview on New York WABC radio in June 2010, Rauf declined to say whether he agreed with the U.S. State Department's designation of Hamas as a terrorist organization. Responding to the question, Rauf said, "Look, I'm not a politician. The issue of terrorism is a very complex question... I am a peace builder. I will not allow anybody to put me in a position where I am seen by any party in the world as an adversary or as an enemy."

Link Source

Reality tends to be much more complexe and nuanced than Fox News talking points.

[scaeagles]

I didn't say their freedom is less than anyone else's. I have CLEARLY stated they have the right to build there. This is not in question, just as the right to protest and put pressure on elected officials is a right. I am simply looking at it from a standpoint of public relations.

If the Imam said "People of America, I recognize that the 9/11 attacks on your country are still quite fresh in your minds, and while what I support and the God I serve did not and would never support such an attack, there are those that twist Islam into violence rather than what it truly is. Because of this, we will most certainly be willing to look at alternatives to this site.".

That would diffuse the entire situation. He certainly does not have to and the center will most likely be finished and there will be protests and counter protests and cries of Islamophobia.

What if he called for Saudi Arabia to allow for building of a Christian church? I realize that is completely unrelated to this, except that if he said that he would show his support of religious tolerance in all cases.

To be clear: They own the property. They have the permits. They can build. They have the right. I am looking at it from a public relations standpoint.