Umbrage as a Rhetorical Tactic
Dorothy Rabinowitz writes:
Immediately after the suspect in the attempted car bombing near Times Square was revealed to be Faisal Shahzad, of Pakistani origin, Mayor Bloomberg addressed the public. In admonishing tones—a Bloomberg trademark invariably suggestive of a school principal who knows exactly what to expect of the incorrigibles it is his unhappy fate to oversee—the mayor delivered a warning. There would be no toleration of “any bias or backlash against Pakistani or Muslim New Yorkers.”
That there has been a conspicuous lack of any such behavior on the part of New Yorkers or Americans elsewhere from the 9/11 attacks to the present seems not to have impressed Mr. Bloomberg. Nor has it caused any moderation in the unvarying note of indignation the mayor brings to these warnings. It’s reasonable to raise a proper caution. It’s quite something else to do it as though addressing a suspect rabble.
Ms. Rabinowitz is wrong. Since the September 11 terrorist attacks, there’s been a substantial increase in “bias” against American Muslims and Muslims generally. How many times have you heard someone insist that being Muslim is incompatible with being a loyal American citizen? Or denigrate the religion as inherently violent? How many arguments have been published calling for Muslims to be subject of profiling at airports? Or suggesting that immigration from Muslim majority countries should be stopped?
It would be more accurate for Ms. Rabinowitz to point out that there hasn’t been a violent backlash against American Muslims, that America has elected presidents that encouraged religious tolerance and spoke against stereotyping, and that there haven’t been abrogations of civil liberties on par with what was done to Japanese Americans during World War II.
All valid points worth noting.
It’s also true that the United States government rounded up a lot of innocent Muslims, and held them for years on end without charges in various prisons around the world, sometimes torturing them, but more frequently just letting them rot at Guantanamo Bay, sometimes even after their innocence was established.
This is more the doing of America’s elite than what Ms. Rabinowitz calls its “suspect rabble,” but insofar as the latter group is supportive of these civil liberties abrogations, a bit of preemptive rhetoric to discourage blow back against innocent members of a religious minority doesn’t seem inappropriate. And taking such outraged exception to it strikes me as another unfortunate example of a cultural conservative carrying an unduly large chip on her shoulder. When I listen to Mayor Bloomberg, I think he’s talking to the small minority of Americans who would consider lashing out at Muslims. Those kind of people exist in every society, and it is a responsibility of leadership to dissuade them from rash action. Ms. Rabinowitz hears the same speech and assumes that Bloomberg views average Americans as violence prone rabble. Nonsense. It is dismaying to see how readily the right has adopted the culture of taking offense.
And apparently my take on this matter puts me outside the category of “ordinary Americans” that Ms. Rabinowitz invokes. Funny, I fancy myself as ordinary a citizen as anyone else. Perhaps she can explain why those of us who applaud the thrice elected mayor of America’s largest city inhabit a class of judgmental others in her column.
We’ve had two articles on the mosque planned for the WTC site, and both of them have been closed for comments. It seems some people will allow a mosque to be situated anywhere, but will not allow comments to be situated anywhere.
People who say it’s a matter of freedom of religion are not being serious if they don’t come to grips with fact that a mosque at the WTC site serves the same purpose as raising the U.S. flag on Iwo Jima did. It’s a symbol of victory, and an inspiration to go on to more such victories.
If people say, yes, our religious freedom is that important that we have to take the risk that we are inspiring another such victory at the site of the Sears Tower in Chicago, well, we should listen to those people. They might have something important to tell us. But people who don’t even address that issue should be treated only with contempt.
For the rest of us, think of what happens when a right-wing fundamentalist church wants to locate next to an abortion clinic, or wants to conduct worship services on the sidewalk in front of one. Oops. I suspect a different set of standards suddenly comes into play.
— The Reticulator · Aug 5, 12:22 AM · #
My freedom is worth more than your fear.
— Diabolik · Aug 5, 12:46 AM · #
“It seems some people will allow a mosque to be situated anywhere, but will not allow comments to be situated anywhere.”
If that is a double standard I am certainly guilty of it.
“… a mosque at the WTC site serves the same purpose as raising the U.S. flag on Iwo Jima did. It’s a symbol of victory, and an inspiration to go on to more such victories.”
This is a strange analogy, both because I am not bothered by the prospect of more Islamic community centers being built, and because the United States wasn’t interested in long term control of Iwo Gima. I suspect you’re trying to say it’s a symbol of victory for radical Islamists, but in fact the people building the mosque aren’t radical Islamists, and are actually claiming that they’re acting in part to marginalize them.
“If people say, yes, our religious freedom is that important that we have to take the risk that we are inspiring another such victory at the site of the Sears Tower in Chicago, well, we should listen to those people. They might have something important to tell us. But people who don’t even address that issue should be treated only with contempt. “
Do you seriously think there are terrorists out there who wouldn’t attack us but for the fact that a mosque went up near Ground Zero, and as a result would launch an attack on the Sears Tower? That strikes me as a laughable assessment of what motivates Islamic terrorists.
“For the rest of us, think of what happens when a right-wing fundamentalist church wants to locate next to an abortion clinic, or wants to conduct worship services on the sidewalk in front of one. Oops. I suspect a different set of standards suddenly comes into play.”
Can you find any example where high profile American politicians are objecting to the construction of any Christian church?
— Conor Friedersdorf · Aug 5, 12:47 AM · #
“Since the September 11 terrorist attacks, there’s been a substantial increase in “bias” against American Muslims and Muslims generally.”
I’m shocked, SHOCKED to hear that repeated terrorist attempts by Muslims living in America have caused an increase in bias against them.
— Steve Sailer · Aug 5, 01:23 AM · #
This is a strange analogy, both because I am not bothered by the prospect of more Islamic community centers being built
The issue is the LOCATION of this particular center, not the fact that more of them are being built.
and because the United States wasn’t interested in long term control of Iwo Gima.
Different war, different objectives. The fact that wars vary in character does not mean their are not many valid analogies among them.
I suspect you’re trying to say it’s a symbol of victory for radical Islamists, but in fact the people building the mosque aren’t radical Islamists, and are actually claiming that they’re acting in part to marginalize them
That’s a silly claim when you and I both know that this will NOT marginalize the radicals. And how non-radical can the builders be if they’re willing to tell such a blatant lie about how this will affect radical Islamists? You and I both know there will be dancing in the streets if this structure goes up: “We kicked some infidel ass! Party time!”
And even if they aren’t radicals in themselves, that doesn’t mean the builders don’t want to suck up to those who are. Consider how some Republican-types spend most of their waking hours trying to find areas in which to cooperate with the left-wing totalitarians in our society.
Do you seriously think there are terrorists out there who wouldn’t attack us but for the fact that a mosque went up near Ground Zero, and as a result would launch an attack on the Sears Tower? That strikes me as a laughable assessment of what motivates Islamic terrorists.
That’s not what I said. Do you think the U.S. wouldn’t have gone on to victory if we hadn’t raised the flag on Iwo Jima? Do you think the raising of the flag wasn’t a morale booster and an encouragement for our side, and that it wasn’t intended to demoralize the enemy? You’re being way too binary about this, to the point of supreme silliness.
Can you find any example where high profile American politicians are objecting to the construction of any Christian church?
I don’t know how that’s relevant to your behavior, but study the controversies over the RLUIPA even after it was passed, and you’ll come up with plenty of names of your own.
Here’s an article to get you started in your search:
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hamilton/20031106.html
— The Reticulator · Aug 5, 02:28 AM · #
“I’m shocked, SHOCKED to hear that repeated terrorist attempts by Muslims living in America have caused an increase in bias against them.”
Dodgy pronouns do all the work in these arguments.
— Conor Friedersdorf · Aug 5, 02:30 AM · #
So, should the Carmelite nuns get their convent next to Auschwitz back?
— Steve Sailer · Aug 5, 03:22 AM · #
Regardless of what the law allows, they shouldn’t be putting a mosque so close to ground zero. As far as I’m concerned, it’s like painting a confederate flag at the site where MLK was assassinated. Whatever the intentions of the people who want to open this mosque (and I am highly skeptical of the claim that there is no invidious intent behind the choice of location), it is deeply offensive to many of the victims of 9/11 and others.
— Joey L · Aug 5, 03:36 AM · #
As a left-wing totalitarian, I’m loving this week. On the east coast, we’ve got our jihadi anti-American wing. On the west, there’s the gay anti-American wing.
Trust me, nobody who loves the freedom or the white race or boobs should be in Iowa next year. It’s going to be like the end moves of Fortress America, but with a gay Sharia-following platoon of hover-tanks.
— Modulo Myself · Aug 5, 03:42 AM · #
“Dodgy pronouns do all the work in these arguments.”
CF, I like much of your stuff, but on this issue you’ve brought nothing new to the table. The earlier post denouncing Newt was a pure vent with no analysis (like you were actually considering voting for him). You haven’t really addressed the actual issue itself – you seem to be more interested in using the topic to support your critique of the modern american right or the GOP. But it would be more interesting to see an examination of both sides of the actual substantive issue instead. A group of Muslim fanatics have been obssessed with causing death and destruction at the site of the world trade center since the early 1990s. Now a different group of Muslims want to build some sort of religious center near there. I can see why this would alarm people. On the other hand, I don’t necessarily like the idea of city or state authority deciding where religious facilities may be located. [Maybe they already have the power to do it with zoning laws, etc…. I bet a city or county authority could stop the building of some sort of evangelical Good News church next to a public high school.] Not sure where I stand. Oh well, carry on with your rhetorical war against rhetoric.
— JC39 · Aug 5, 04:06 AM · #
JC39,
This isn’t a complex issue with valid arguments on either side.
It is very simple, freedom of religion is guaranteed in the Constitution, full stop. The minute we start saying a particular religion isn’t covered by that we cease to be America.
That doesn’t mean a church can be built anywhere, cities have zoning laws. But what it means is if the zoning would allow a Baptist church to be built there it also needs to allow a Catholic one, a Lutheran one, a Mosque, a Synagogue, a Mormon Temple, a Scientology Center what ever.
In your hypothetical if the zoning said no churches next to schools that would be fine since all religious denominations would be treated equally.
— eric k · Aug 5, 04:22 AM · #
JC39,
I’ve written a bunch about this elsewhere, including exhaustive arguments in the comments at Ricochet, and a column at Forbes:
http://ricochet.com/content/view/full/11365//%28comment%29/11382
http://www.forbes.com/2010/07/22/ground-zero-mosque-religion-terrorism-opinions-columnists-conor-friedersdorf.html
— Conor Friedersdorf · Aug 5, 04:23 AM · #
This isn’t a complex issue with valid arguments on either side.
You are not very well informed if you really think that.
Start with that link to the findlaw article that I posted.
I find it a very difficult issue, myself, because I do see strong arguments on each side. I’m afraid I’ve come down on both sides of it in internet discussions. There is only one aspect of the topic of which I’m absolutely positive, and that is that the Conor Friedersdorf types are wrong in being so absolutely positive that there is only one right side to the issue. Bunch of moral absolutists, I guess.
— The Reticulator · Aug 5, 04:38 AM · #
Friedersdorf, excellent post.
Reticulator, since when are you so sensitive to al qaida’s propaganda arm? Bin Laden will try to drum up righteous violence, whatever we build or don’t build near Ground Zero. Obviously, the Trade Towers themselves were a supremely provocative symbol in his mind. Yet, according to our laws and traditions, those towers were perfectly justified. So too would be a mosque.
Don’t be so soft. Who cares how al qaida regards our actions. Horrible and extraordinary though they were, the Sept. 11 attacks also revealed a distinctly weak bunch of perpetrators. They had nothing buy flying lessons, box cutters and our own aircraft to hit us with. We’ve been overreacting to al qaida ever since, and yet you and Gingrich remain eager to ditch our national strengths in response to a faraway lightweight. Further, you let Bin Laden take the lead, adopting and ratcheting up his preferred framework— a war of civilizations. C’mon man, snap out of it. Have a little confidence in our liberal character. Our continued tradition of toleration should always trump the delusional victory dance of religious zealots. Why are you afraid that these zealots might laugh at us? Let them.
Sailer, how does the resolution of disputes between Catholics and Jews in Poland have any bearing on this? A Polish court can ban all crosses at Auschwitz tomorrow (there’s several there right now, by the way), and our tradition of religious toleration will remain robust.
At Slate, William Saletan neatly described the pathetic position of Reticulator/Sailor: “Saudi Arabia won’t rise to our level, so we sink to theirs.”
— Patrick Bateman · Aug 5, 04:42 AM · #
Bin Laden will try to drum up righteous violence, whatever we build or don’t build near Ground Zero.
So? Did you actually read what I wrote?
Yet, according to our laws and traditions, those towers were perfectly justified. So too would be a mosque.
We have conflicting laws and traditions on the subject. You could look it up.
— The Reticulator · Aug 5, 05:01 AM · #
A Polish court can ban all crosses at Auschwitz tomorrow (there’s several there right now, by the way), and our tradition of religious toleration will remain robust.
Our tradition might remain robust, but such an act by a Polish court would be a threat to our own tradition of religious toleration. It happens to be the way the world works. No country is an island, etc.
— The Reticulator · Aug 5, 05:05 AM · #
eric k,
You have a very literal and simplistic understanding of the concept of equal treatment in constitutional law. The Constitution explicitly guarantees to all persons “the equal protection of the law,” but that doesn’t mean all laws that treat people unequally are unconstitutional. It’s not unconstitutional to restrict the purchase of alcohol to people 21 or older, for example. One can imagine a law that was facially neutral with respect to different religions and that restricted the location of religious places of worship on the basis of threats to the public order. Such a law might prevent the opening of a mosque near ground zero but not, say, a synagogue.
— Joey L · Aug 5, 05:07 AM · #
Joey L
There is nothing complex in the constitution about this topic.
Explain how any reading of the constitution justifies treating one religion different from another.
— eric k · Aug 5, 05:34 AM · #
Steve, are you shocked that Rabinowitz claims there has been no increase in bias? She essentially says Bloomberg is wrong for suggesting there is. Which is it?
— Derek Scruggs · Aug 5, 05:36 AM · #
eric k,
The Constitution doesn’t “justify” treating one religion different from another. It allows treating one religion different from another. Just as it allows treating one person different from another.
— Joey L · Aug 5, 05:54 AM · #
If you believe Islamists want to plant a
mosquecultural centeratabout 200 hundred meters from the former site of the World Trade Center as a “flag of victory”, you have a problem. If you say yes, then they plant themosquecultural center in Lower Manhattan and they have their flag. If you say “no”, then the Salafist Jihadis have an argument to make to their fellow Muslims that the “West” will never accept Islam or extend justice to Islam, so they must affirm the most militant and harsh of Islamic traditions and build a Muslim superpower just to cope with the inevitable aggression from dar al harb.In other words, whatever you do in this case, the Salafists, including al Qaeda, can in theory spin the outcome to their advantage. In this case, you have nothing to lose that I can see from sticking with your laws, principles, and traditions. If you lose whatever you do, doesn’t it make sense to lose like Americans, not like a wannabe theocracy? Let the builders of the
mosquecultural center go ahead.— John Spragge · Aug 5, 06:29 AM · #
then the Salafist Jihadis have an argument to make to their fellow Muslims that the “West” will never accept Islam or extend justice to Islam
I’ve seen no sign that this is what motivates extreme Islamic aggression. Have you? I’ve never before heard anyone (other than perhaps some airhead politician) make the claim that theirs is a struggle for acceptance.
— The Reticulator · Aug 5, 07:40 AM · #
@ The Reticulator
Bias against Muslims in the western world doesn’t motivate Islamic aggression? The conclusion that it does is certainly rational and worth considering. And it’s not like you’re providing evidence of your “victory flag” scenario being some huge part of what motivates radical islamists. Your entire line of reasoning on that part pretty much started and ended with “you and i both know”
Face it, your line of argument is strange because no matter what, you grant Al Qaida a propaganda victory. Build it and they get a symbol (your argument, not mine, IMO, the symbol’s the hole in the ground) don’t build it and they get to say I told you so. You can weigh the two results (alienating average muslims certainly being a bigger deal than Bin Laden throwing a party in a fucking cave) but you haven’t attempted to do so And judging by the post I’m responding to, you don’t even want to consider the idea that you could be alienating the average muslim.
— Console · Aug 5, 09:03 AM · #
@Reticulator: No, I think most Salafis have made their desires pretty clear: they want to build a Muslim superstate according to the dictates of what they regard as traditional Islamic law and to rule it. Refusing permission for a
mosquecultural centreat the WTC sitewithin 200 meters of the WTC site will not change the mind of any Salifi, but it might enable the Salafis to make an appeal to other Muslims who want to coexist with the “West”, but who do expect fair treatment. Refusing permission for amosquecultural centre would provide as much of an opportunity for Salafi propaganda as the construction of one.Note, by the way, that word, permission. If the City of New York permits the construction of a
mosquecultural centre on the basis of traditional American values, it doesn’t fit your metaphor. The Japanese certainly did not permit the Americans to raise a flag on Mount Suribachi; if they had done so, say in the name of Japanese military tradition, the flag raising would have counted as far less of a visible success for the United States.— John Spragge · Aug 5, 09:06 AM · #
Forgot to add:
If the Cordoba Institute community center becomes a symbol for Islamic victory over america, it will be because the shortsightedness of american bigotry made it into one. They made it a big deal, not radical muslims.
— Console · Aug 5, 09:13 AM · #
Console and Spragge: I will at least give you credit for addressing the issue of the symbolic nature of the “community center” at ground zero. You could be right that refusing to allow it to be built would also be a propaganda victory for the other side; it may have been a brilliant ploy by the extremists to make such a “tails we win heads you lose” sort of move. It wouldn’t be the first such move in the history of cultural conflicts and it won’t be the last.
But what do you think of the government not remaining neutral on the issue, but interceding on behalf of a group and going out of its way to clear away rules and regulations that would ordinarily prohibit such a structure. What is your take on the controversy over RLUIPA?
Your entire line of reasoning on that part pretty much started and ended with “you and i both know”
Yeah, tu quo que.
There are a couple of things we can all be sure of:
1. Radical Islamists will want this structure to be a symbol of victory and there will be dancing in the streets when this goes up, just like there was when the towers went down.
2. Leftwingers who weigh in on this subject on the grounds of religious toleration are rationalizing, not reasoning. (Such a blanket statement would not have been true back in the days when liberals still roamed the earth.)
Things are not so certain when you get beyond those two points. As to the consequences of not allowing the structure to be built, or refusing to actively go to bat to get the variances and exceptions that would allow it to be built — there’s a whole lot of uncertainty as to the wisdom and consequences of such a course. I’m not ready to go very far out on that limb.
— The Reticulator · Aug 5, 01:02 PM · #
I don’t know how that’s relevant to your behavior, but study the controversies over the RLUIPA even after it was passed, and you’ll come up with plenty of names of your own.
This would seem to be the opposite of what you’re talking about—instead of not letting someone build a church because it’s Christian, RLUIPA would allow someone to build a religious structure that would be illegal if it were secular (concert halls the size of mega-churches, for example).
This seems pretty far from “a different set of standards” coming into play “when a right-wing fundamentalist church wants to locate next to an abortion clinic”.
With or without RLUIPA, the idea that it should be illegal to build a mosque where it’s okay to build a church or synagogue, or vice versa, is insane.
In any event, I haven’t heard anyone opposed to Cordoba House also A) admit that RLUIPA makes it open-and-shut that Cordoba House should be allowed to procede and B) call for the repeal of religious land use exceptions. Is that the position you’re defending here?
— Consumatopia · Aug 5, 01:39 PM · #
I’m thinking of opening a community center across the street from Abu Ghraib prison. I’m calling it the Lepanto Center. My brother-in-law might be friends with the CEO of Blackwater, but that’s totally unrelated to the Lepanto Initiative’s bridge building efforts. Swing by for prayers in our Roman Catholic Chapel! We break ground on the anniversay of the Battle of Tours. See you there!
— Lasorda · Aug 5, 02:13 PM · #
Reticulate,
I know, my reply is late, but cut me a break— I had to get my beauty rest.
You ask if I “actually read what [you] wrote,” as though I missed a subtle layer of your argument. You claim in one comment to see strong arguments all around this issue, yet your earlier posts put their emphasis squarely on what an obvious propaganda score for al qaida the Cordoba Initiative’s building would be. Along the way, you make quirky, unconvincing analogies. (The one about abortion clinics and nearby anti-abortion worship centers is particularly bad. Sure, people who work in abortion clinics no doubt wish the Christians hadn’t moved in next door, but who ‘s proposing any legal barriers to them doing so? You suggest that people who have no fear of a Muslim church near Ground Zero sing a different tune and take up arms when a Christian church seeks a strategic address. While there are certainly occasional efforts by abortion advocates to turn the tables on and legally hassle/protest their Christian opponents, the irony is that the Christians are much much more devoted to their protests, and they are the ones who are raising the real hue and cry about the existence of abortion clinics, not the other way around.)
Regarding the alleged muddy waters around the First Amendment, I took your advice, and I “looked it up”— the article you linked to, that is. No surprise, it does no more to make your case persuasive than do your weird analogies to Iwo Jima and abortion clinics. The RLUIPA does not allow discrimination based on religious affiliation. In fact, it opens the door to any and every religious group to claim special zoning privileges. It appears to be a crap law, as it dumbly tries to address fake grievances so often exploited by faith groups to fire up their flocks and get bigger, louder sound systems. However, it does not establish the primacy of one religion. It does not call for the suppression of free religious exercise. So, it does nothing to color or alter the plain language of the First Amendment.
From a legal standpoint, there are not two sides to this issue. As erik k has mentioned already, claiming legal gray areas here is disingenuous. If the article about the RLUIPA is all you’ve got, Reticulator, then you still haven’t provided any evidence for “conflicting laws” on religious freedoms.
Does your claim of strong arguments on both sides of this debate stem from your sympathies with the still raw feelings of people who were close to the September 11th tragedy? Do you consider some reflexive queasiness at the notion of an Islamic worship center near Ground Zero understandable? Okay, I’m with you, here. If I had been close to somebody who died in those attacks, I would probably feel some irrational anger, too. In fact, I might go further than just hating mosques. I might prefer that captured conspirators, once convicted, should be taken outside our legally prescribed punitive system and be subjected to the kinds of primitive, tortuous punishments used in certain theocratic Islamic nations. In other words, I might shrink to my lower, vindictive impulses, finding precedents for prisoner treatment and civil liberties in the governments of Iran or Saudi Arabia, just as Newt recommends.
But I would be wrong. A strong, confident nation quickly ignores these impulses and never considers bending its laws to accommodate them.
— Patrick Batesville · Aug 5, 02:32 PM · #
1. Conor, I’m not really sure what point you are trying to make in your original post, but if I understand you correctly, I think the post may be pointless.
1.1 Do you disagree with Rabinowitz’s assertion that Bloomberg took a hectoring, scolding tone?
1.2 Given that you agree with Rabinowitz that everyday Americans (to their credit) have not responded to their Muslim neighbors with violence, do you disagree that Bloomberg’s tone was inappropriate?
1.3 To put a point on it, don’t you and Rabinowitz agree that Bloomberg should have taken a constructive, positive tone – “To our credit, we recognize that our Muslim american neighbors are Americans, and I call on my fellow citizens to continue . . .”
1.4 You can’t seriously be arguing that it is appropriate for Bloomberg to scold his citizens because you think the detainment standards for Guantanamo should have been different. So what are you arguing?
2. If I may, I think closing the comments on the mosque pieces was the wrong choice. It resulted in ruining this comment thread with displaced comments, and also implies that you don’t think your commenters have sufficient signal to noise on the issue. One of TAS’s strong points is the commenters — even the maddening ones — and I’d rather hear what they have to say.
Thanks,
— J Mann · Aug 5, 02:57 PM · #
Not sure how much overlap there is between the minority of Americans who’d lash out at Muslims indiscriminately and the minority of Americans persuadable in this matter by the words of Mr. Bloomberg.
— KVS · Aug 5, 05:34 PM · #
“ 1. Radical Islamists will want this structure to be a symbol of victory and there will be dancing in the streets when this goes up, just like there was when the towers went down.”
If the mosque/community center gets built, some radical Islamists will try to portray this is a symbol of victory —- “look what we’ve done, America is weak, etc”. If the center doesn’t get build because of the opposition to it, some radical Islamists will try to portray it as further evidence that America hates Muslims —- “the mosque was intended as a symbol of religious tolerance but America really wants war with Islam, their precious Constitution doesn’t apply to Muslims, etc”.
So, whatever we do, the result will be used as propaganda by our enemies. One difference is that if the mosque/community center gets built, we have good propaganda points of our own —- “see how true we are to our principles of religious tolerance, our war is with Islamic extremists and terrorists, not with all Muslims, etc.”
Overall, from a purely strategic point of view (ignoring legal/constitutional/moral issues) I feel that allowing the center to be built is in our interests, overall. We’re not in a shooting war with Islam in general, just with a relatively very small (compared to the 1+ billion Muslims in the world) set of radical extremists. One key to “winning” (whatever that means) the shooting war is to limit recruitment opportunities for the radicals, and building or not building the center seems to be at least a wash in that respect (I think building it is actually in our favor wrt limiting recruitment, but don’t want to argue that right now). On the other hand, the real long-term “fight” is in promoting Western ideals, and allowing the center to be built is much more consistent with those ideals (particularly, religious tolerance) and better advances our long-term message and goals.
— ratufa · Aug 5, 05:38 PM · #
I suspect a lightning rod effect is possible—there’s no point striking out at Muslim invaders if appeasers like Bloomberg are just going to sell you out to the “enemy”.
— Consumatopia · Aug 5, 05:58 PM · #
Anybody know what denomination of Islam is represented at the Mosque? Methinks Hanbali Wahhabism would be inappropriate in a way that Ja’fari Twelvers would not be. Not unlawful, mind you; just psychohistorically inappropriate.
— KVS · Aug 5, 06:01 PM · #
Consumatopia, didn’t think of that. Maybe ‘twas useful after all.
— KVS · Aug 5, 06:02 PM · #
KVS, it’s nondenominational as far as I know, much like JCC’s and YMCA’s are nondenominational. It also has Jews and Christians as members of its board of directors, yet another data point in the column of “the people going crazy about this are, themselves, extremely crazy.”
I sense that Reticulator has left the building, now that his very flimsy legal backing has been reckoned with and found wanting. All I can say is that I agree with Jon Chait. The people so brazenly equating all Muslims with terrorists – in the media, online, to their friends, wherever – are going to wake up one day and be truly ashamed of themselves for what is easily diagnosable as bigotry. Attempting to position this debate as one with two legitimate sides is simply equivocating.
— max · Aug 5, 06:44 PM · #
KVS, the Imam most associated with Park Place 51 is Feisal Abdul Rauf, who is Sufi (and the leader of a Tribeca mosque). The Cordoba Initiative is generally pretty moderate/lefty.
That said, I’m not sure what it means to have a non-denominational mosque. Will it be open to all muslim religious leaders to hold services, or just a subset?
— J Mann · Aug 5, 07:43 PM · #
Thanks, max and J Mann.
I never got this. Saying all Muslims are hostile to the West is both provably wrong and strategically dumb.
— Kristoffer V. Sargent · Aug 5, 10:42 PM · #
@diabolik my life/safety is worth more than your freedom/softness/ignorance/stupidity
that aside, and the law aside, and the high-horse that the left is perched on aside, and islamic triumphalism aside, this is in very very very poor taste. nyc should outzone additions of any religious structure in the vicinity, given the emotionally charged context. and bloomberg should aggressively investigate the sources behind this massive fund-raising. and the feds should aggressively investigate bloomberg and the council for any fiduciary impropriety.
— designer2984 · Aug 6, 12:55 AM · #
The Reticulator wrote:
What’s so inconceivable about the idea? The bin laden that’s saying things like this about France:
“The West is incapable of recognizing the rights of others. It will not be able to respect others’ beliefs or feelings. The West still believes in ethnic supremacy and looks down on other nations. … How can we explain France’s stance on the headscarf and the banning on wearing it at schools … This is a Zionist-Crusader war.” Source
Is the same bin laden that’s going to be talking about the Cordoba mosque. The al-qaida strategy isn’t some grand mystery.
— Console · Aug 6, 02:31 AM · #
@J Mann: Objecting to Mayor Bloomberg’s taking a “scolding” tone begs the question: does every utterance by “the people” or some subset thereof deserve the respect, or at least the forbearance, of elected officials? If an elected official finds an argument fatuous, cowardly, or just vicious, have they lost the right every ordinary citizen has to say so?
— John Spragge · Aug 6, 05:38 AM · #
Objecting to Mayor Bloomberg’s taking a “scolding” tone begs the question: …
No, it doesn’t.
— The Reticulator · Aug 6, 01:10 PM · #
The RLUIPA does not allow discrimination based on religious affiliation. In fact, it opens the door to any and every religious group to claim special zoning privileges. It appears to be a crap law, as it dumbly tries to address fake grievances so often exploited by faith groups to fire up their flocks and get bigger, louder sound systems. However, it does not establish the primacy of one religion. It does not call for the suppression of free religious exercise. So, it does nothing to color or alter the plain language of the First Amendment.
I was hoping that people who read about the RLUIPA would have the wit to realize that its very existence, and the fact that it addressed controversies and that it in itself is controversial, would demonstrate quite clearly that the issue of allowing religious groups to build religious structures anywhere they want is NOT and HAS NOT been so cut and dried as some people in this comment thread have been claiming.
— The Reticulator · Aug 6, 01:14 PM · #
the issue of allowing religious groups to build religious structures anywhere they want
No, the issue was banning a specific religion from building a structure that would otherwise be okay for a different denomination or faith. That was, obviously, never okay, before or after RLUIPA.
Look at your own first post. Your objection to the building was entirely because it was a mosque.
— Consumatopia · Aug 6, 01:50 PM · #
Sometimes I miss the obvious: the objections to construction of a
mosquecommunity centreat ground zeroin lower Manhattan rests exclusively on magical thinking. The symbolic nature of amosquecommunity center in proximity to hallowed ground will somehow inspire a scattered bunch of fanatics who sleep in caves while waiting for the hum of automated drones with missiles. And that “inspiration” will somehow enable them to repeat an attack that only succeeded the first time because of the element of surprise.If the United States had only Hogwart’s to defend you, the objections raised by Newt G. and Sarah P. would make a certain amount of sense. But in fact you have the largest miltary forces in the world, a formidable intelligence apparatus, the support of every developed country and most of the rest of the world. I don’t think you need to worry about a little sympathetic magic.
— John Spragge · Aug 8, 07:00 AM · #
Look at your own first post. Your objection to the building was entirely because it was a mosque
I looked at my first post. I didn’t recall objecting to the building because it was a mosque, and I see that indeed I hadn’t.
What I object to is people who are pretending that the mosque isn’t going to be used as a symbol of victory and to incite further violence. Maybe we’ll have to take that risk in order to protect our religious freedoms, but it would help if people would be honest about it.
— The Reticulator · Aug 13, 04:28 AM · #
Obviously, your first post, and your last post, objects to building because it’s a mosque. A church or a synagogue could not be a “symbol of victory” for Al Qaeda, could it? It’s not about “allowing religious groups to build religious structures anywhere they want”, as you later claimed, your problem is with one specific religious group building in a place where other religious groups would be welcome to build.
I have never encountered anyone on these forums as dense as you.
— Consumatopia · Aug 13, 06:32 AM · #
I have never encountered anyone on these forums as dense as you.
Sorry if you see me as competition.
BTW, none of this “obvious” stuff is as obvious to me as it is to you. (Maybe I win the contest after all?) How about if you quote the words where I object to a building because it’s a mosque.
— The Reticulator · Aug 13, 07:45 AM · #
“People who say it’s a matter of freedom of religion are not being serious if they don’t come to grips with fact that a mosque at the WTC site serves the same purpose as raising the U.S. flag on Iwo Jima did. It’s a symbol of victory, and an inspiration to go on to more such victories. “
Substitute “church” or “synagogue” in there, and it doesn’t work, does it? If it wasn’t a mosque, you wouldn’t object.
This is not an “issue of allowing religious groups to build religious structures anywhere they want”, as you later mischaracterized the argument. The problem you had was specific to it being a mosque, not just a religious structure.
Or, as I said before: “the issue was banning a specific religion from building a structure that would otherwise be okay for a different denomination or faith. That was, obviously, never okay, before or after RLUIPA.”
— Consumatopia · Aug 13, 08:17 AM · #
Reading our exchange again, there might be an ambiguity I missed. I was not accusing you of objecting to building all mosques, but of objecting to one mosque where you would not object to a different religion’s building.
— Consumatopia · Aug 13, 01:31 PM · #
I don’t recall objecting to any building at all, at least not in this thread. What I’m objecting to is idiots.
But you are right, substitute church for synagogue at the WTC site, and there is no reason to fear it being used as a symbol of victory and/or an incitement to further violence.
— The Reticulator · Aug 13, 02:05 PM · #
The “symbol of victory” argument was dealt with pretty thoroughly by others (a week or so ago…), and they were not the ones revealed as idiots.
The point is that the issue of preventing one faith from building what another faith would be permitted to build is and has been just as cut and dry as many of us in this comment thread have been claiming, RLUIPA or no RLUIPA.
— Consumatopia · Aug 13, 03:24 PM · #
The “symbol of victory” argument was dealt with pretty thoroughly by others (a week or so ago…), and they were not the ones revealed as idiots.
Some people blathered about it. I don’t recall any coherent remarks on the subject that were in disagreement with what I said.
And if for you the world is all black and white, with no shades of gray, have you ever considered donating your eyes to science upon your demise?
— The Reticulator · Aug 13, 03:35 PM · #
Not every issue is black and white. Indeed, there are good arguments on both sides of RLUIPA generally.
But preventing one faith from building what another faith could build really is simply against the First Amendment, RLUIPA or no RLUIPA.
— Consumatopia · Aug 13, 04:47 PM · #
No other “faith” would be allowed to build on the WTC site, silly. Bloomburg isn’t supporting religious pluralism or the first amendment. Like any other leftist, his policy is “the greatest evil for the greatest number.” Like any other leftist he is against religous freedom unless in the service of some evil that outweighs the good of a lesser liberal policy.
If you think you’re any different, we need to see your bona fides. How much money have you contributed to the Rutherford Institute in its support of religious freedom? Do you have cancelled checks to prove it? Show us the posts you have made in favor of religious groups holding prayer services in front of an abortion clinic. If you can’t put up your credentials, nobody is going to believe you’re in favor of any aspect of the First Amendment.
It’s interesting that some people, like the President’s wife, can see the slightest sign of racism, say in the tea parties, where a lesser person would not be completely unable to detect it. But the same people miss out on the obvious symbolism of a terrorist group targeting the symbols of our nation’s financial and military might, and can’t figure out how the same people who danced in the streets when the twin towers came down will be dancing in the streets again when a 13-story mosque goes up.
They’re idiots or liars. Or more likely, both.
— The Reticulator · Aug 14, 12:42 PM · #
No other “faith” would be allowed to build on the WTC site, silly.
Doubly false. It’s not on the WTC site. You won’t even be able to see it from the WTC site—there’s a building taller than the proposed structure between it and Ground Zero. It’s on private property, and yes, any other faith could build a religious facility in compliance with local building codes if they own property there.
Again, not every First Amendment issue is cut and dry. But this one is. Deep down you know that—that’s why you keep wanting to trying to change the subject to other arguments you lost last week. Every time you try to change the subject is a confession—a confession that you know I’m right, but you don’t want to admit it to yourself.
So please, try to change it some more.
— Consumatopia · Aug 14, 03:17 PM · #
So, no bona fides. I wonder how I guessed that.
— The Reticulator · Aug 14, 05:16 PM · #
Yes! Another subject change, and thus another admission that I’m right. Thanks!
— Consumatopia · Aug 14, 06:20 PM · #
You seem to have trouble grokking the concept that from the beginning this has been less about a mosque in NYC than it is about you and your ilk.
— The Reticulator · Aug 14, 07:59 PM · #
No, I understand perfectly that you never cared about facts or logic, you only cared about tribal resentment. But thank you for coming out and admitting it, I appreciate it.
My posts are all about the fact that your statements about the mosque and the law are false. The way you keep wanting to talk about things unrelated to my posts, even though you’re ostensibly replying to me, is an admission that I’m correct.
— Consumatopia · Aug 14, 08:55 PM · #
Uh, huh. You and Bloomberg would find all sorts of zoning ordinances to keep another western religion from building at the site, as your lack of bona fides demonstrates. But you and Bloomberg are willing to run roughshod over existing regulations to make it possible for a 13-story mosque to be built. If it were a church, we’d be hearing all sorts of sanctimonious appeals about the landmark status of buildings that are in the way.
You can run, fella, but you can’t hide.
— The Reticulator · Aug 15, 01:26 AM · #
There are already a couple churches even closer to the site than the proposed mosque. Google maps is all the “bona fides” I need. I don’t need to show you cancelled checks to point out that you are making verifiably false statements.
BTW, what the hell dude? Did you really want me to scan in some financial records and post them on the internets? Is that what this is about—are you just the least efficient identity thief in history?
Also BTW, why are you thinking I have some kind of problem with churches? I think churches are beautiful! I don’t go to one, but hey, my best friend is an organist and makes money from those guys! Please, please, go build your Ground Zero cathedral! Use RLUIPA if you have to! Call up Rutherford! I’ll send you my friend’s resume when you need some tunes—she’s good!
In any event, while you can accuse me of discriminating against Christianity in some counter-factual world that only your crystal ball has access to, the people trying to block this mosque are quite explicit that the reason they’re blocking it is because it’s a mosque. Even if Parallel Earth Michael Bloomberg (check for evil goatee) would block a church, at least he wouldn’t be stupid enough to say it was because it was a church.
You can talk about running away, but I’m not the one who keeps changing the topic or talking about imaginary circumstances. There’s a set of actual facts here, and you seem to find them uncomfortable.
— Consumatopia · Aug 15, 02:21 AM · #