I’m not always as up to date on the news as I should be, and something caught my eye today that has probably been in the national news for months, but had previously escaped my attention. The issue in question? The Ground Zero Mosque.
At first I wasn’t sure what the controversy was, and I read through some articles trying to understand, before I realized that people are literally just upset because a mosque is going to be built near ground zero.
Oh no! Anything but that!!
Seriously, this is the world we live in now? I was surprised to learn that the majority of Americans are against the mosque being built there, and that even the majority of New Yorkers are against it. What ever happened to religious freedom? I was under the impression that America was founded in large part to escape these kinds of ridiculous attitudes. This is like being upset that some Japanese people live near you during WWII. Oh wait…we actually rounded those people up and put them in camps. Some things never change.
Stuff like this is why I don’t read newspapers or watch TV news. It’s too depressing to be constantly reminded that I share my country with such ignorance and stupidity.
Stay classy, America.
You might also enjoy:
- Be a part of the change in America. Go vote today.
- 7 tips for talking about hot-button issues
- November 2010 Blog Income Report
- My Thoughts on the News
- January 2011 Blog Income Report
You should subscribe and follow me on Twitter here.
Ryan, you don't think considering the whole "Ground Zero" tragedy that it's a little insensitive? I mean, the attack itself was religiously-inspired terrorism. It seems provocative. What made it worse is that the Imam refuses to denounce Hammas. It's more like whites setting up a KKK church in the middle of South Central.
Freedom? Yes. Insensitive and provocative? Yes again.
The fact that you'd compare Islam to the KKK just proves my point.
It wasn't a comparison, it was an analogy. This particular Imam has refused to denounce Hamas, an extremely racist, anti-Semitic group. I don't see a big gulf here.
What I'm saying is, I disagree with your general gut emotions about this controversy
Good day my fellow countryman!
to be fair, Ryan doesn't really do emotion – and he certainly wouldn't base an opinion on them
"An emotion as such tells you nothing about reality, beyond the fact that something makes you feel something."
- Ayn Rand
The title of the post was "Disgusting"
An "Ignorant and Stupid Person" that Doesn't Agree,
Jake
stay classy?? we are WAAAAAAY beyond that. ::sigh::
Regarding the claims about Christians and the OT and Shariah law, the difference is Shariah Law is actually still being carried out today.
An affront on human liberties, women’s rights, you name it.
Back to the issue. It should be quite obvious why people are upset about a Mosque on a landmark that is designated for mourning a tragedy caused by radical Muslim men.
If your politics respect the rights of all religious liberties, then I’d offer that they should also respect the rights of those who wish to attend a KKK fellowship. Not all KKK are radical, white-sheet killers. Some are.
From a legal perspective, they have the right.
From a human perspective, I can’t help but see this as provacative. GROUND ZERO for crying out loud. It’s like building a Pork Butcher Shop next to the temple in Mecca.
While Muslims as a whole aren’t enemies, the situation is recent enough and emotional enough to warrant criticism. It’s extremely provocative and the refusal of the Imam to renounce Hamas (a hate group) is concerning.
I will qualify my statements in this way
1) The Mosque is a couple blocks from Ground Zero
2) It’s not Islamaphobia as much as decency and sensitivity and seeing the action as provacative.
As one Muslim man put it:
However, out of respect for conservative Americans and for the victims of 9/11, and knowing that the money for the proposed project will likely come from KSA and maybe other Wahhabi-infested kingdoms, I believe it would be unwise for Muslims to insist on building a mosque near ground zero. Having said this, the actions of New Yorkers and mayor Bloomberg have already shown that Americans are quite tolerant of Islam and Muslims.
Before you slam America as not being classy in this situation, know that they’ve given permission for the building by city government officials, and others, even while exercising their own freedom of responding to what they see as provocative, also agree they have certain liberties in this situation. There is diversity of opinion. Much more than I can say you would get in a Muslim nation.
I think the issue here is the fallacy of lumping all muslims and Islamic centers in with those who believe or teach the way the 9/11 terrorists did. When you look at it from the perspective of it being one large religion with factions of people who interpret things in an extreme, unsanctioned way (much like Christianity or probably any other religion), things are quite a bit different.
The analogies you’ve drawn are more akin to someone wanting to build a terrorist training camp on the site. In which case (or any case for that matter), yes, that’s absurd and offensive (and illegal). As it stands, these analogies are therefore apples to oranges.
I disagree that they are apples-to-oranges. A pork butcher shop isn’t an illegal terrorism training camp.
Do you disagree that it’s at the least provocative? I mean, are you really, truly beside yourself that others are concerned about this?
I wouldn’t group this particular Mosque in with the hate-filled Muslims of 9/11, except that he refuses to denounce Hammas, a hate-filled terrorist regime. Also, the money being paid to help fund this project will likely come from hate-filled terrorists and terrorist sponsors. The distinction is difficult to make, which is why, unfortunately, many equate all of Islam in with these fundie groups.
Islam is not nearly as diverse as Christianity. In contrast, it’s much more monolithic. So, yes, it’s a fallacy to off-the-bat group all Islamic people into one general, blanket group. But when we look further, there’s a lot more to the story that makes that distinction quite difficult.
Just FYI, you can group your responses in one long comment…I don’t mind
You keep bringing up the issue with the Imam refusing to denounce Hamas, but I really think that’s a red herring, for two reasons. First, the issue with Hamas came up after people got all worked up about the mosque. And second, I bet 95% of the people who are against this don’t know anything about Rauf or his views on Hamas. They’re upset because it’s an Islamic mosque near ground zero, not because of the political views of the Iman.
Additionally, his response in an interview about the State Department’s stance on Hamas as a terrorist organization is interesting:
“I’m not a politician. I try to avoid the issues. 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.”
I disagree with him on Hamas, but I can appreciate the stance and the wish to remain neutral on the issue. Terrorism is not at all as straightforward as it’s made out to be by the government, the media, and politicians.
Surprise, Surprise. Terrorism isn’t straightforward? Some of Hamas’ terrorism is legit? Which children that they use to be suicide bombers is legit? Which of the two airplanes was “legit terrorism?” Which of the rockets fired into non-military, civilian market places is legit?
This is their entire strategy. Create fear and hope fear is stronger than actual military muscle.
I think the Imam’s statement is articulate, but a suspicious avoidance of the issue, and an admission of terrorism being “complex.”
You are right that most were upset before the knowledge of the Imam’s position toward Hamas. Whether it is a Red Herring is arguable. It must be factored in, even for those who took a closer look at the situation to form a judgement.
I don’t applaud or decry a population of people with images of the Twin Towers fresh in their mind being emotional about this. It is what it is. Provocation.
"Terrorism isn’t straightforward?"
Was it terrorism when we dropped the bomb in Japan, killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians? Was it terrorism when the Irgun bombed the King David Hotel in 1946, killing 91 people (Israel still refuses to classify it as terrorism)? Was the Sabra / Shatila massacre terrorism? Are the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan terrorism? Is the rendition, torture, endless imprisonment, and execution of thousands of suspected terrorists to be considered terrorism?
There is no internationally-agreed upon legal definition of terrorism, because it's a complex issue. I know Fox News wants you to believe that it's not, that terrorists hate us for our freedom and deserve whatever they get, but reality is more nuanced. If you fuck with people for decades, you can expect them to fight back.
In fairness, the majority of Manhattenites are supportive of the legal rights for this mosque to be built close to Ground Zero.
Is it true the Grand Opening is to be 9/11/11?
Another guy argues, that although he believes the NYC Muslims are not associated with radical terrorism, the decision is still insensitive. The Mosque gives a celebration pad for thousands of radical Muslims on what is still a burial ground for thousands of Americans who lost their life. These radicals will clearly identify with this Mosque, making evil out of what may be good intentions. I found his comments interesting.
It’s really a question of sensitivity and provocation. And the failure of this Imam to not condemn terrorism, as he plots his temple at Ground Zero, only exacerbates the situation.
I think it’s important not to mix all the opposition voice up into one either. Not all are Islamophobes who want to see the White House turned into a Cathedral.
“Was it terrorism when we dropped the bomb in Japan, killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians?”
Yes. Sadly. Thankfully, it’s not our national policy either.
“Was it terrorism when the Irgun bombed the King David Hotel in 1946, killing 91 people (Israel still refuses to classify it as terrorism)?”
If I understand, this operation wasn’t carried out by Israeli government, but rather a Zionist radical group. I understand, Israel has defended this bombing, and I again re-instate the idea that this is not anyone’s continual policy. And… there were actually enemy combatants in the hotel.
Was the Sabra / Shatila massacre terrorism?
Yes, it was. And rightfully condemned. The debate and controversy over Israeli government responsibility continues.
“Are the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan terrorism?”
Does death of civilians equal terrorism? How about intended civilian targets? Please explain your question here.
“Is the rendition, torture, endless imprisonment, and execution of thousands of suspected terrorists to be considered terrorism?”
Terrorism, no. Controversial and even rightly condemned? I believe so.
“There is no internationally-agreed upon legal definition of terrorism, because it’s a complex issue.”
I cite: Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for a religious, political or ideological goal, and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians).[citation needed]
Some definitions also include acts of unlawful violence and war.
Because the International Community does not have an official document on this, does not mean understanding terrorism is difficult.
“I know Fox News wants you to believe that it’s not, that terrorists hate us for our freedom and deserve whatever they get, but reality is more nuanced. If you fuck with people for decades, you can expect them to fight back.”
I don’t watch Fox News, but thanks for the assumption. If I did, I’m sure their newsdesk is fine journalism. Their talking heads are just what they are, talking heads. No different than Keith Olbermann @ MSNBC.
Regarding the explanations for a terrorists’ deviant philosophy, no doubt, being “F**** with” is part of it. I’d say the other 90% has to do with religious fanatacism, fueled by oppression. We can dissect it, analyze and attempting to understand “why” terrorism exists all day long. At the end of the day, one would hope it’d be agreed that any group that targets civilians as a strategy for warfare is morally wrong, and we can do that without forming conclusions about the morality of war, saving that subject for another time.
Bottom line: Can you tolerate a fellow American having a different opinion on this matter? Can you understand that there could be some rational reasons why some would be upset (despite the obvious Islamaphobia that undoubtedly is many other’s reasons)?
And does a dissenting opinion on this matter make a fellow “stupid?”
I found this interesting: http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/05/wafa-sultan-a-mosque-at-ground-zero-equals-victory.html
This adds to the idea of this, at the least, being provocative: It is a Muslim tradition to build a Holy site near an area, battlefield or place where they had victory.
Are you new in your work environment? Or perhaps you are running your job for years? Whether it’s in a brand new company one or already existing, you would like to form positive you know how to safeguard your workplace it.