Masjids in Manhattan II cookies to Raidne

[MinDonner]

I'd quite like to see the day when other laws are passed with regard to how much it would piss off Al Quaeda. Gay marriage? They'd HATE that! Let's legalise it!

[Hereward]

Doesn't this apply tenfold to AQ? Don't you think they'd love to tweak the nose of the U.S., particularly since it is their triumph that they'd be celebrating? Surely they could do that by touting the fact that it is still a mosque, and simply ignoring the Sufi imam.

But they only have the ability to tweak the US nose because of the wholly manufactured outage over the building, which allows them to portray the US as anti-Muslim rather than anto A-Qaeda. That's not a reason for the opposition to the mosque, it's a reaction to it. In short, those you are apologising for are giving Al Qaeda a propoganda coup, not the mosque builders, and you are reversing the timeline.

[Guest Raidne]

Solo - interesting quote, thanks for posting. I should really read Gates' memoir.

What you quoted:

There isn't a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries.

...I think that's what people have really been trying to get across, said in a much clearer, more coherent fashion.

It's just not a good idea for some very vocal people in this country to now act like we're at war with 1.5 billion people. Even from a practical standpoint, that's not a war we're going to win.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I'm not sure that's true, at least for me.

Fair enough.

I agree that some anti-U.S. terrorists out there will use the construction project* as a sign for their own success. I just don't think that asking the project to relocate another block, or two blocks, will deflate that claim significantly. I mean, how familiar do you think they are with the topology of Manhattan? And why wouldn't the propaganda wing of these organizations gloss over the distance and simply declare victory, anyway? You're arguing as if the propaganda wing would have cared about the precise distance as long as the building is in the vicinity. If they're going to lie about the Park51 project as being a victory, then why wouldn't they also lie about the distance?

That's a really good point, It's actually a direct response to the argument I was making,not just a reiteration of your own points, and that's the kind of discussion I really like. Thanks.

I don't think they necessarily need to know the exact geography because this building was one that was actually damaged and abandoned as a result of debris from a 9/11 plane. So in some sense, the building is part of ground zero regardless of the distance in feet from the epicenter of the WTC. All the propagandists need do is focus on "a mosque rising from the rubble of a building destroyed by the martyrs and the will of Allah" type of crap to make their point. Still, I suppose they could always lie about that anyway, which wouldn't be quite as effective but still damaging.

I said yesterday (I think it was yesterday...) that if the only issue here was the propaganda effect overseas, I wouldn't oppose the facility. But I do think there is a "salt in the wounds" aspect for New Yorkers, who do know the geography downtown, and do know this building was damaged on 9/11. They'll know that the facility wasn't built on the site of a building wrecked on 9/11, and I'd imagine that false claims by AQ to the contrary wouldn't carry nearly as much sting.

*Let us be clear too that if there had not been an opposition to this project to begin with, it would not have gained nearly as much attention, nor would it have drawn the eyes of other countries to this local project.

I'm not sure about that. It wouldn't have had this kind of prominence in this country, but I suspect it would (or would not) be used for propaganda about the same way regardless. Although you're right in that now, they also could claim that it was erected despite opposition by the infidels.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

But they only have the ability to tweak the US nose because of the wholly manufactured outrage over the building

I do not believe it is wholly manufactured outrage. That may be true on the part of some national U.S. politicians, but there was legitimate grass-roots opposition in New York once the project cleared legal hurdles and started looking like a real possibility to get build.

which allows them to portray the US as anti-Muslim rather than anto A-Qaeda.

I don't understand that. I don't think the propagandists get much mileage among radicals with the "U.S. is anti-islam" card. As you point out, the radicals aren't even fond of less radical moslems, and our level of heresy already pegs their "infidel" meter. The propaganda is in celebration of a victory, which isn't dependent on the U.S. being perceived as slightly more anti-moslem than before.

In short, those you are apologising for are giving Al Qaeda a propoganda coup, not the mosque builders, and you are reversing the timeline.

I don't see a propaganda coup based on asking the mosque to be moved. I've said repeatedly I believe that is an insignificant event on their "religious tolerance" scale. The radicals have zero tolerance for us already.

[Hereward]

I've said repeatedly I believe that is an insignificant event on their "religious tolerance" scale. The radicals have zero tolerance for us already.

Indeed they have. And if the radicals were a set group with a cap on membership, it really wouldn't matter. They couldn't hate you any more or less. But they're not. They actively recruit and one of their strongest recruiting tools is trying to convince the devout that the requirement for jihad has already been met because the US is pursuing an active crusade against Islam, not Al Qaeda. Which brings us back to the momentous own goal of giving the impression that they might have a point.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

FLOW,

You didn't answer my question why wouldn't the hypothetical actions of Serbian Orthodox radicals be applied to all Orthodox the way you are applying the actions of Al Queda to all Muslims?

[Lord Mord]

FLoW,

You're welcome. The frustrating thing for me is that there is a tendency here -- and it happens the same way on predominantly conservative websites -- to assume everyone on the other side thinks the same way for the same reasons. While the stand you take on a particular issue obviously is important, the reasoning and morality you employ to get there sometimes matters.

I agree. Actually, I think that usually the reasoning matters more than the conclusion. Which is why I so often have problems in these kinds of talks :worried:

I get what you're saying. To me, though, the impact of what happens simply isn't a mirror image. Asking a mosque 8000 miles away to be moved, in a country where you might not have believed there is any religious freedom at all, doesn't strike me as having much of an impact. As I said, the fact that we'd let a mosque get build period might surprise some folks. And again, there are more immediate complaints that have against us. But a a victory 8000 miles away against the strongest country in the world, and a mosque to mark the extent of Allah's reach -- that's something.

I may not have understood you completely here, but based on what I think you're saying, I have to say that I'm not impressed by the possibility you posit. If they are that ignorant, not to know the construction of the mosque does not nearly represent the blow to our position or strength they imagine, that only increases my confidence in our position -- it's a moral victory for us. And OTOH, if they're simply happy that the US is building mosques and that Islam is spreading, then I have no beef with them, and if anything am marginally happy on their behalf, so it's a moral victory for the US and Islam both.

We can't lose by building the thing, and the radicals can't lose either way. We may as well build it.

As I said above, if that was the only consideration -- morale of the enemy -- I probably wouldn't have had much of an opinion.

Understandable.

But if it is viewed that way by the bad guys, and trumpeted on websites, etc., that's additional salt in the wounds of the local folks. That part bothers me.

What can I say, I'm a sensitive guy.... :grouphug:

I admire your sensitivity.

My concern, however, is that the bad guys will always have something to trumpet about. I mean, you're hardly advocating we be beholden to everything they may choose to cheer, so I guess I have to ask where we finally say, "No. This is ridiculous -- who will we become, if we let their public statements dictate this too?"

That being said, the convent seems more tenuous and remote to me than does this mosque/community center, so I still think moving it would have been the more reasonable thing to do.

May I ask you to expand on this reasoning a little bit? I'm not sure I understand the definition or the significance, of "tenuous and remote" in this context.

Now, it's a just a giant fuckstain, and no matter what ends up happening, it will have driven a wedge. And at this point, I think it's probably passed the point where backing down is an option, because I agree the rhetoric has gotten too high now. The time to exit was early, before it got ugly. The situation is beyond retrieval now, though.

I entirely agree, on pretty much every point here. Yet, I think the longer the center persists, not only will it have a tendency to undo the wedge it has driven but will end up being a symbol for our commitment to pluralism, and that our children and grandchildren will take that pluralism the more for granted. "Of course we let that mosque be built there. Our parents weren't perfect, but even they weren't going to be swayed by prejudice, gross or otherwise. Plenty of muslims are Americans -- what, doesn't the Constitution apply to them, too?" I think that kind of tolerance, that kind of victory far outweighs anything we lose in the way of trophy points.

And, I hope I'm not mis-characterizing what you've said, but if you're saying that it pretty much has to go through now, or else necessarily be seen caving to the very worst of the opposition's opinions, including gross prejudice and intolerance, does that mean you'll turn your opinion around and outright support the mosque's construction? *hopeful*

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Indeed they have. And if the radicals were a set group with a cap on membership, it really wouldn't matter. They couldn't hate you any more or less. But they're not. They actively recruit and one of their strongest recruiting tools is trying to convince the devout that the requirement for jihad has already been met because the US is pursuing an active crusade against Islam, not Al Qaeda.

So let me get this straight: whatever the U.S. was doing prior to 9/11 that inspired Al Qaeda to strike at the U.S. in Dar Es Salaam and Nairobi, to attack the U.S.S. Cole, and to strike the WTC, wasn't enough to convince someone on the fence to go radical. Having U.S. troops in Iraq for 7 years, Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, and all sorts of reported atrocities, rapes, murders weren't enough. Having troops in Afghanistan for nearly 10 year, bombing weddings, civilians caught in crossfires, support for supposedly corrupt regimes in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere still wasn't enough.

But when we asked that mosque to move, well, that was the last straw.

On the extremely remote possibility that is true on any significant level, I don't care. If people are going to convert to terrorism because we in the U.S. offer immensely more religious freedom than they ever do in their countries to other religions, but didn't bend over for everything, we may as well put those 2-3 guys in our gunsights as well, because they need to be exterminated too.

Which brings us back to the momentous own goal of giving the impression that they might have a point.

Sheesh, I always took you for a smart guy, but if you're going to equate asking a mosque to move a few blocks with a crusade, you might need to repeat a couple of history courses.

Rant on:

I have a question. Why is it that in this whole "we need to get along better with islam" debate, the degree of religious freedom and tolerance offered in moslem countries is apparently irrelevant? Why are the majorities in those countries essentially graded on the world's biggest curve, like the ill-mannered two year old in a restaurant whom everyone cuts slack because he's doing the best he can? There is rarely any discussion here about that. When it's mentioned, the response goes something like "well, yes, the moslem world does have a tiny little issue with allowing any other religion to proselytize...." If the people in those countries want a dialogue of equals and fair consideration, then perhaps they should grow the fuck up and start acting half as tolerant towards other religions as they expect the rest of the world to behave towards them.

Rant off:

[sologdin]

But when we asked that mosque to move, well, that was the last straw.

it's a good point you've made, but the case is not unreasonable--symbolic defeats can have a disproportionate effect in comparison to material defeats--a fortiori if we're merely talking about the last straw.

Why is it that in this whole "we need to get along better with islam" debate, the degree of religious freedom and tolerance offered in moslem countries is apparently irrelevant?

it's completely irrelevant to a discussion of how moslems are treated in the US, unless one wants fallacious moral equivalence arguments.

Why are the majorities in those countries essentially graded on the world's biggest curve, like the ill-mannered two year old in a restaurant whom everyone cuts slack because he's doing the best he can?

it's no secret that the US made most of these horrors about which the complaint is urged. the US, its sycophants, its julius streichers, its stormtroopers, &c. should now be estopped from raising the issue of these tyrannies as if they were created ex nihilo, when the US and its moronic citizens have created them. other than that, the "majorities" don't really have to agree with whatever particular brand of troglodyte politics that the teabaggers have adopted for this week, do they?

There is rarely any discussion here about that.

this isn't really a serious statement.

When it's mentioned, the response goes something like "well, yes, the moslem world does have a tiny little issue with allowing any other religion to proselytize...." If the people in those countries want a dialogue of equals and fair consideration, then perhaps they should grow the fuck up and start acting half as tolerant towards other religions as they expect the rest of the world to behave towards them.

moral equivalence. objection to this testimony is sustained under rule 402 if the thread is about domestic policy. the whole world does not have to conform to US policy, yaknow.

ETA--

i might also add a paraphrase of chomsky's objection to this line of rightwing argument:

only pussies complain about other people's errors--there's no reasonable likelihood that the foreign evildoer will listen to such complaints and the complainer is very unlikely to suffer anything in making them. such complaints about foreign governments, especially if they are official enemies of the complainer's state, are gratuitous and mere propaganda for one's own state. but the person who complains about his own: this type of complaint takes a certain courage and also has some chance of making an effect.

i can't really see the difficulty. so, e.g., the teabaggers, insofar as they complain about iran or AQ or russia or mexico, are pussies, mouthing propaganda for the state they claim to loathe. on the other hand, their complaints about obama display precisely the courage and potential efficacy noted above.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

My concern, however, is that the bad guys will always have something to trumpet about. I mean, you're hardly advocating we be beholden to everything they may choose to cheer, so I guess I have to ask where we finally say, "No. This is ridiculous -- who will we become, if we let their public statements dictate this too?"

As I've said, I think it's a balancing test between the burden of moving the mosque, and the harm caused by building it there. The less available reasonable alternatives, the less I'd oppose this particular locations. And if was less serious than 3000 people being killed, I'd also be less opposed. I don't know how to quantify that exactly, though.

May I ask you to expand on this reasoning a little bit? I'm not sure I understand the definition or the significance, of "tenuous and remote" in this context.

I think the connection between Catholic nuns and Nazi atrocities is less than the connection between generic islam and the 9/11 hijackers. It also makes a difference that this current dispute is happening while we're still hunting down the people who were behind 9/11. The convent at Auschwitz controversy started nearly 40 years after WWII was concluded. 30 years from now, I don't think the present controversy would happen.

And, I hope I'm not mis-characterizing what you've said, but if you're saying that it pretty much has to go through now, or else necessarily be seen caving to the very worst of the opposition's opinions, including gross prejudice and intolerance, does that mean you'll turn your opinion around and outright support the mosque's construction? *hopeful*

No, I'm not. I still think it would be better to move it. However, I do think that the rationale for not moving it is a bit stronger because of some of the over the top things that have been said.

Let me say it this way. Suppose the backers of this project came out and said they didn't anticipate the reaction, and if they had, they might have done it differently. They were caught off guard, and in retrospect, wish they had moved it. The problem now is that some people have gone from understandable opposition to truly anti-moslem behavior, with the stabbing of the cab driver, protests around the country, etc. And that they honestly are troubled because they are worried that if they move or cancel the project, they'll just encourage more hatred and violence. Apologise for failing to anticipate the future, etc. Tell people that the American Flag will fly outside their facility every day, promise to be the best neighbor possible, and then announce a significant donation to the families who have lost people. Or offer something to show that they understand the feelings.

Personally, I'd get that, and be okay if they went ahead with it. But it won't happen.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

it's completely irrelevant to a discussion of how moslems are treated in the US, unless one wants fallacious moral equivalence arguments.

No its not. If the larger issue is to build bridges between islam and the west/U.S./Christianity, then the treatment of minority religions in those countries should be on the table just as much as the treatment of moslems in the west. Why is it such a one-way street? Especially given the disparity that already exists. Why isn't that more of an issue, and wholly apart from this particular controversy? Is islam just a freaking diode or something?

it's no secret that the US made most of these horrors about which the complaint is urged. the US, its sycophants, its julius streichers, its stormtroopers, &c. should now be estopped from raising the issue of these tyrannies as if they were created ex nihilo, when the US and its moronic citizens have created them. other than that, the "majorities" don't really have to agree with whatever particular brand of troglodyte politics that the teabaggers have adopted for this week, do they?

So it's the U.S. fault that islam doesn't tolerate other religions very well. Was the Great Flood our fault too?

[sologdin]

. fault that islam doesn't tolerate other religions very well

that's how it's played, eh?

we're talking about states in which moslems are a majority, but now it's simply islam is intolerant?

please avoid being the surly US citizen who, when confronted with evidence of US crimes, resorts to YORE IN TEH BLAM AMAMERICA FURST LIBRAL ELITES!!!!1

FFS, man, you're smarter than that. the thesis is that your average rightwing moslem regime is a historical ally of the US through the cold war, wherein each state was the beenficiary of US aid, sometimes overt, sometimes covert, always money, in attaining the state, maintaining rule, crushing internal enemies, and so on.

the basic list includes, just glancing a map west to east: morocco, libya (briefly), egypt, somalia, coup in sudan, bosnia, several interventions in albania (but of course the problems there are more east bloc derived), early coups in syria, lebanon several times, turkey, iraq at times, jolly arab land monarchs since FDR, iran until 1979, afghanistan for a number of periods, pakistan, recently acquired interests in central asian FSU, indonesia post-1965--i miss anywhere?

the history is long and brutal, and mere denials of with mocking are ya gonna blame armerica for the Big Crunch when it comes, too? don't cut it.

the point is that the US fostered this attitude, picking one set of quasi-medievalists, fascists, royalists, whomever on the rightwing (out of a much larger spectrum of opinion in these areas) to fight the cold war; more liberal and progressive forces were systematically destroyed on the behalf of and subject to the control of the unted states. this is all very basic, and it's difficult to see any reasonable controversion.

[DanteGabriel]

So it's the U.S. fault that islam doesn't tolerate other religions very well. Was the Great Flood our fault too?

I'd say the geopolitical games that the US played with the USSR for the last half of the previous century enabled the creation of brutal dictatorships and repressive regimes that have used fundamentalist Islam as a tool to manipulate their populaces. Of course, some of these dictatorships and dysfunctional states were originally set up by the British and other European powers in the half-century previous to that, so it's not just a Cold War thing. I come from a country that was strategically important and thus had a right-wing dictator propped up for years on it by the US, on account of they didn't want it going to the commies. So I can see how these things come about in the Middle East, which is also full of strategically important countries created by Western fiat or molded into their current predicaments by Cold War forces.

In short, you're barking up the wrong tree by blaming this on "Islam." Islam, too, has been warped and affected by the geopolitical struggles occurring in the Middle East. Look at the House of Saud's sponsorship of the Wahhabi sect.

[Guest Raidne]

Just to keep the discussion from getting stale - I'd like to raise a new question: Who here would support the right of Tablighi Jamaat, an Islamic sect that has been tied to Al Qaeda, from building a mosque that would be the largest on the Continent set to open up in the largest city in the country on schedule with the Olympic Games being hosted in that city?

Or, who would support a 48,000 sq ft mosque intended to accommodate 4,000 worshippers financed by the Turkish-Islamic Union for Religious Affairs, a branch of the Turkish government, when the Turkish Prime Minister has said "the mosques are our barracks, the domes our helmets, the minarets our bayonets and the faithful our soldiers."

Just curious to see where the lines are.

[Guest Raidne]

I've read Solo's post and your response over four times now and I have no idea what you're talking about. And Solo is right - there is absolutely no controversy amongst either left or right wing scholars of the history of this region regarding anything he posted there.

ETA: And NM, also. I see you apparently came to the same conclusion. If anyone ever answers my not-hypo, I assume things will get more interesting for you. For myself, I'm still thinking it over. I really don't know.

[Guest Other-in-Law]

Or, who would support a 48,000 sq ft mosque intended to accommodate 4,000 worshippers financed by the Turkish-Islamic Union for Religious Affairs, a branch of the Turkish government, when the Turkish Prime Minister has said "the mosques are our barracks, the domes our helmets, the minarets our bayonets and the faithful our soldiers."

I'm not sure that his language there is all that different from the song "Onward, Christian soldiers"; military terms employed in a symbolic sense. It doesn't particularly make me shudder in horror, personally. But then I hadn't really gotten the impression of Islamic Turks having a particularly violent agenda aside from their involvement in the Gaza relief flotilla.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I've read Solo's post and your response over four times now and I have no idea what you're talking about. And Solo is right - there is absolutely no controversy amongst either left or right wing scholars of the history of this region regarding anything he posted there.

ETA: And NM, also. I see you apparently came to the same conclusion. If anyone ever answers my not-hypo, I assume things will get more interesting for you. For myself, I'm still thinking it over. I really don't know.

I've read Solo's post and your response over four times now and I have no idea what you're talking about. And Solo is right - there is absolutely no controversy amongst either left or right wing scholars of the history of this region regarding anything he posted there.

ETA: And NM, also. I see you apparently came to the same conclusion. If anyone ever answers my not-hypo, I assume things will get more interesting for you. For myself, I'm still thinking it over. I really don't know.

No, that's not the reason for the NM.

I think Solo's statement is full of holes, from condemning the U.S. for religious intolerance that arose in countries where it has never had a significant presence, to overlooking other nations and regions where there was outside repression that did not develop an intolerant religious strain, to ignoring islamic religious intolerance that predated the Cold War and even colonial periods, to religious intolerance in islamic majority nations that have always been autonomous. So no, Sologdin's version of history is popular among the Blame America First crowd, but it's overstated, inaccurate, and biased. If you wanted to blame any outside nation for the modern rise of a more aggressive islamic intolerance, I'd point to the Brits, who were running much of the Mideast when Hasan al-Banna got going. Or maybe the Turks, who were running that region rather oppressively before the Brits. But if you're an unrepentant Marxist, it's better to blame the U.S.

Of course, even if Sologdin were correct, that still would not excuse present-day religious oppression of religious minorities in those countries. A religious rapprochement requires not just that the West "understand" islam better, but also that islam itself become far more tolerant of other religions. Until that happens, it would seem that "understanding" islam (subtract out Sufis if you wish) as generally being intolerant of other religions would be a fairly accurate POV.

The second NM was the realization that as soon as I pointed to undisputed religious intolerance in the moslem world, and said that was under-discussed and should be considered if we're talking about advancing religious relations, a suggestion was made to change the discussion to other examples of possible intolerance of islam. I don't think it was an intentional red herring, but it did rather effectively deflect the discussion from islamic intolerance. I NM'd my response because I reconsidered joining in that discussion at this time.

I was going to leave it at the two NM's, but you posted an assumption that was a concession on my part to Sologdin's version of history, and I wanted to make it clear it was not.

[TerraPrime]

I have a question. Why is it that in this whole "we need to get along better with islam" debate, the degree of religious freedom and tolerance offered in moslem countries is apparently irrelevant? Why are the majorities in those countries essentially graded on the world's biggest curve, like the ill-mannered two year old in a restaurant whom everyone cuts slack because he's doing the best he can? There is rarely any discussion here about that. When it's mentioned, the response goes something like "well, yes, the moslem world does have a tiny little issue with allowing any other religion to proselytize...."

Frankly, you'd need to elucidate more clearly the relevance of the behavior of countries with Islam as the dominant religion to how we live our lives in the U.S. If you're frustrated and/or angry at some of the things that happen in in countries like Iran or Indonesia, when it comes to gender equality or religious freedom, then yes I'd share your ire. But I don't know how, or why, that's relevant to the discussion about Park51, or how the U.S. is reacting to the presence of Islam within its borders. I mean, we're not striving to be not as bad as those countries, because I'd say it's a given that we are better in our treatment of people who're different. The argument here has been, as far as I'm concerned, whether we live up to the ideal that we created for ourselves, where we celebrate religious plurality.

If the people in those countries want a dialogue of equals and fair consideration, then perhaps they should grow the fuck up and start acting half as tolerant towards other religions as they expect the rest of the world to behave towards them.

I'd agree to that, save for maybe that we ought to take the high road and act according to our own ideals regardless of whether others do so or not.

But more importantly, we're talking about moslems who live in NYC, not moslems of some other countries. The ire and the rhetoric used against the Park51 project were directed at them, not these faceless moslems in other countries. I can't say whether moslems from Iran or from Turkey wish a dialogue with the U.S. about the state of Islam in our country, but I do know that many moslems in the U.S. who do not wish to be grouped with terrorists who happen to share their faith would like to see a conversation about their place in this country.

[Guest Raidne]

I think the general idea is that it probably would have gone better for us had we refrained from arming them and giving them military training.

Or, if we'd been just a little more, you know, discreet about our intentions. That's really my main criticism of America - we have no finesse when it comes to foreign policy.