Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
The Worldnutdaily has its typically hysterical overreaction to the fact that a Muslim mosque has opened just a few blocks from where the World Trade Center was before 9/11. Never mind that the head of the mosque is a guy who works with the FBI teaching Islamic culture to their agents and has helped the United States in reaching out to the Muslim world to repair the damage done by Abu Ghraib and other atrocities. He's a Muslim and Muslims are terrorists, dontcha know, so get that outrage machine cranked up.
The funny thing is that they can't even find some mildly respected right winger to inveigh against this so they have to quote anonymous commenters on unnamed blogs instead, saying things like this:
Readers of various blogs are outraged at the news of the mosque. Comments include the following:* Muslims are doing this only to see if they get away with it. It's the way Islam spreads in every country these days, like a cancer - through incremental totalitarianism. In this case, they'll quietly open the mosque, then, as they get away with it, they'll ramp up their outrages until someone finally points it out. At that time, their lawyers, backed by the ACLU and various liberal organizations, will pounce.
* This is not different than allowing the Nazis to establish their headquarters and propaganda office in NYC in 1938. How come people could tell right from wrong then and not now?
* What bonehead allowed this to happen?
* That's disgusting. That truly is low. I feel bad for the people who lost family members.
* This is outrageous. I just don't have word.
* This is called "staging" for the KSM trial.
* You've got to be kidding me. If this is true, our beloved country is already gone. We no longer have the America I know and love.
* Who wants to bet this place becomes a "tourist attraction" for Muslims? This mosque will become one of Islam's holiest shrines as it sits upon the site of their greatest modern military victory.
* Good idea. Maybe terrorists will be less likely to bomb this area if there's a mosque there.
It's as if the concept of freedom of religion just disappears when you're talking about Muslims.
Politics
Comments
"*How come people could tell right from wrong then and not now?"
Because people back then shared your bigotry?
Posted by: History Punk | December 21, 2009 9:10 AM
You mean something like this?
I'm willing to bet the German American Bund had a lot more connections to the NSDAP than the sponsors of this mosque have to Al Quaeda.
Posted by: Matty | December 21, 2009 9:36 AM
Posted by: WScott | December 21, 2009 9:37 AM
OH MY JONAS! THE WORLDNUTDAILY HAS STRUCK AGAIN!
At the rate they are going; I'm going to kill more than my voicebox. I might have to invoke the Snuggie on them.
I wonder why they didn't name their blog sources? If you want to be a bigot; at least be memoriable, loud and proud. Otherwise; this shit is getting older than the Earth itself.
Posted by: Gregory Weagle | December 21, 2009 9:40 AM
"Islamic mosque built at 9/11 Ground Zero"
I like the subtle admission that their readers are as dense as lead. Seriously, are there Jewish mosques? I've never seen a Christian mosque either, but I've never been to Europe. Do they have them there?
Posted by: History Punk | December 21, 2009 9:44 AM
Shhhh, don't tell those commenters about the other 100+ mosques already in New York City. The last thing we need is a bunch of yahoos running around yelling "Wolverines!" as they fighting back against the
redcrescent menace.Posted by: Abby Normal | December 21, 2009 9:46 AM
I bet Barack HUSSEIN Obama is happy about this.
Posted by: kehrsam | December 21, 2009 9:52 AM
WScott: Make that "non-Christians" in general.
Yup. I wonder how many of those comment writers would freak at the idea of a Hindu temple being built near them? I read on another blog recently of a Hindu guy whose temple was built after facing fierce opposition from the local Southern community. But hey, God hasn't struck it with lightning yet.
So here's the even bigger question: are the Muslims going to build minarets for their new mosque???? Oh, the horrah.
Posted by: Adrienne | December 21, 2009 9:57 AM
Matty - I was thinking of this Funeral in New York State in 1937*.
Adrienne - ah they could always go the Swiss route. - DJ
-----------
*Couldn't find the 'money shot' with the Nazi salutes from those paying their respects.
Posted by: DingoJack | December 21, 2009 10:07 AM
Ah, Free Republic to the rescue...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2408932/posts
Note that these are the comments that are left after their moderators have deleted the worst of them.
Posted by: tacitus | December 21, 2009 11:03 AM
Calling a rival religion's spread a "cancer" just cracks me up, because I recall that 20 years ago, the church I grew up in was just desperate to spin off another church. Not that our own pews were overcrowded or anything, but we had the only church of our denomination in a city of 200,000 and it just didn't seem like enough. The project straggled on for years, tiny little congregations of a dozen or so meeting in a home or another church's basement - basically, trying to sell a vanilla product in a glutted market.
There's a term for that ... something about pots and kettles ....
Posted by: Scott Hanley | December 21, 2009 11:11 AM
Umm Dingo, isn't that the hanger where the bodies from the Hindenburg were prepared for return to Germany?
Posted by: dogmeatib | December 21, 2009 11:14 AM
"You've got to be kidding me. If this is true, our beloved country is already gone. We no longer have the America I know and love."
Good!!!
Posted by: JusticeLeague | December 21, 2009 11:19 AM
I believe that's Lakehurst - in NEW JERSEY. Well I was geographically close. :)
But it's still an chilling image, in America! - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | December 21, 2009 11:19 AM
Actually it's entirely normal. Had the British had a similar disaster in the US, they would have had a series of Union Jack draped coffins. Japanese, rising sun. Russian, hammer and sickle.
Posted by: dogmeatib | December 21, 2009 11:25 AM
Right. Because NYC is a practically devoid of Muslims. Except for every other newstand, cab, candy store, Atlantic Avenue (and other neighborhoods) in Brooklyn, vast sections of Queens, and this.
Seriously, do these people ever get out of fly-over country?
Posted by: Molly, NYC | December 21, 2009 11:38 AM
Sorry, dogmeatib but shouldn't that have been: "Soviet, hammer and sickle" or "Russian, the Триколор (Tricolor)"?
Posted by: Umlud | December 21, 2009 11:40 AM
This is a similar meme that was being used during the election last year and the pseudo-outrage over health care this last August: the "real America" is disappearing. If "real America" was some sort of 1950s USA (which seems to have been an image that people were trying to evoke at the time), then what does this mean?
* Jim Crow laws in the South
* Fewer women's rights
* A military draft (and possibly an ongoing war)
* Polio, tuberculosis, mumps, measles, and rubella
* The Cold War & the threat of nuclear annihilation
* Anti-miscegenation laws
* No Internet, cellphones, or HDTV
* No FOXNews (and mandatory "equal time provisions")
I'm not sure of other social problems that could be added to the list above, but I sure don't want that as part of MY America.
Posted by: Umlud | December 21, 2009 11:50 AM
*chuckle*
True, I was referencing to the time period but didn't refer to them as Soviet.
Posted by: dogmeatib | December 21, 2009 11:53 AM
Dogmeatib - Of course. Still Nazis within 'spitting' distance of NYC, a rag similar to the WND (in that time) would have had a head 'splosion.
Umlud - But, but don't forget 'Leave it to Beaver', Ron Howard would never be outta of work! :s - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | December 21, 2009 12:08 PM
The whole "the 'real America' is disappearing!!!!!!" schtick smacks of survivalism to me. These people literally see themselves as fading away against the backdrop of cultural change and freedom of expression for those different from them.
As far as this goes:
I don't even want to think about how bad those comments must have been for the Free Republic mods to consider them out-of-line.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | December 21, 2009 12:11 PM
Why does modern-day conservatism and xenophobia go hand in hand so often?
Seriously, is it part of the right-wing pathology? Because it seems to surface everywhere on the conservative blogosphere.
Posted by: CHV | December 21, 2009 12:18 PM
Hooray! Something has finally been built on some of the world's most valuable real estate. And it only took eight years.
Posted by: mingfrommongo | December 21, 2009 12:23 PM
'cept the ancestors of folks who love the WND still thought that NAZI Germany was great up until December 1941. Conservatives referred to it as "Mr. Roosevelt's war," a reference to this is made in In Harm's Way. A lot of the conspiracy nuts who believe that Roosevelt allowed Pearl Harbor to happen tend to be conservatives. In fact I was never asked this question as an educator until I moved into a very conservative area. Now, every year, I have at least one student ask me if it "is true that Roosevelt knew Pearl Harbor was about to happen," and "is it true that Roosevelt caused the Great Depression." That latter one appears to enjoying a big resurgence in right wing stupidity lately. I hear that Palin includes it in "her" book.
Personally I could see the predecessors of WND readership support a headline like:
"EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT JEWS BLEW UP HINDENBURG!!!"
Just as stupid, just a different target for their stupidity.
Posted by: dogmeatib | December 21, 2009 12:26 PM
dogmeatib - I thought it was communist electricity that blew up the Hindenbug! [/jk]
Posted by: Umlud | December 21, 2009 12:31 PM
I do think it is somewhat insensitive to put a mosque so close to Ground Zero, though. Sort of on the order of putting a Christian memorial close to a Jewish graveyard or concentration camp.
But I don't think it should be *illegal* by any means. The purchase of the land sounds a bit fishy, though. From what I read, the money was paid all in cash? And less than $5 mill for a lower Manhattan piece of real estate? That's a bit cheap, no?
Those FReeper comments are scary, though. Sounds like some of them are actually contemplating violent action. Some of them are talking about bad mannered but funny solutions, though.....like spraying pig effluent, blood, and intestines all over the area before construction.
The teabaggers want to turn into pigpoopers, it looks like. Imagine a bunch of guys with badly spelled signs with reactionary conservative slogans all covered in pig sh*t and bacon fat.
Posted by: Adrienne | December 21, 2009 12:36 PM
You are so right dogmeatlib - most of the support, not tolerance but actual support, for Nazi Germany in the US in the '30's was by right wing Christian Republicans. Heck, the Bund-approved candidate almost won their nomination for president in'40.
Posted by: Rob Jase | December 21, 2009 12:44 PM
Rob Jase @27:
most of the support, not tolerance but actual support, for Nazi Germany in the US in the '30's was by right wing Christian Republicans.
Were they Republicans back then or Democrats? Didn't the two US political parties basically switch ideological positions in the civil rights era?
Posted by: Adrienne | December 21, 2009 12:46 PM
How is it insensitive? Ed noted that the leader of this mosque has worked with the U.S. government and, presumably, wholeheartedly condemns terrorism. I could see your point if the mosque in question were a Wahhabist worshipping place, but it's a standard mosque. There's nothing remotely insensitive about it.
And how would putting a Christian memorial near a Jewish graveyard or concentration camp be insensitive? Are you suggesting that Christianity is to blame for the Holocaust?* I've been to Auschwitz and Birkenau, and there were memorials and tributes from all three Abrahamic religions on the grounds.
*Yes, centuries of anti-Semitism in Europe were largely shaped by the Catholic Church and Martin Luther's ramblings, but the Third Reich was largely a secular movement.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | December 21, 2009 12:48 PM
Sadie @29:
I could see your point if the mosque in question were a Wahhabist worshipping place, but it's a standard mosque. There's nothing remotely insensitive about it.
True, it's a Sufi mosque. Pretty liberal Islam, I think.
And how would putting a Christian memorial near a Jewish graveyard or concentration camp be insensitive? Are you suggesting that Christianity is to blame for the Holocaust?* I've been to Auschwitz and Birkenau, and there were memorials and tributes from all three Abrahamic religions on the grounds.
Re: the crosses at Auschwitz controversy: A quick google search turned up this page, which talks about the cross controversy, which apparently started in 1979 and had the latest dustup in 1998: http://www.misterdann.com/reldiswarofthecrosses.htm
I dunno, Sadie, I'm torn. I don't dispute the legality by any means, and I absolutely uphold the Muslims' right to have a mosque there. In no way do I condone any violence directed against it. But I do still think that putting a mosque there is a bit thoughtless and insensitive.
Posted by: Adrienne | December 21, 2009 12:58 PM
Perhaps, unless you listen to why they chose that spot. It is a direct attempt to counter the actions of radical Muslims on 9/11. They specifically chose a building damaged by the attack for their attempt to create a peaceful Mosque. This act is the opposite of thoughtless and insensitive.
Posted by: dogmeatib | December 21, 2009 1:06 PM
And if lightening hits all of the local churches simultaneously, they'll interpret it as a sign that they didn't try hard enough to keep the heathens out.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | December 21, 2009 1:10 PM
dogmeatib@31:
Well, Pope John Paul II visited Auschwitz as an interfaith gesture too, but at least some Jewish groups still saw his visit and subsequent cross memorial as offensive. Even though many of the people protesting the papal cross's relocation were concentration camp survivors (I'm not sure if they were Jewish survivors or not). *Shrug*
I read about why the founders of the mosque are doing what they are doing. But even with their good intentions, is putting a mosque there going to soothe tensions between non-Muslim Americans and Muslim Americans, or increase them? Time will tell. Needless to say, I do hope the end results are positive.
Posted by: Adrienne | December 21, 2009 1:15 PM
@Adrienne: I think that the presence of the mosque will--hopefully--combat unfairly unfavorable views about Islam.* In that sense, I completely support its erection (sorry, folks, but the word does have more than one meaning).
*Yes, Islam is generally a very patriarchal religion (although Sufism is, as you note, progressive), and such regressive politics need to be condemned. But many Americans conflate Islam as a religion with terrorism, and that is completely wrong and should be corrected. If this mosque helps accomplish this, then I say have at it, hoss.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | December 21, 2009 1:16 PM
Sadie @34:
But many Americans conflate Islam as a religion with terrorism, and that is completely wrong and should be corrected. If this mosque helps accomplish this, then I say have at it, hoss.
Yep, I do hope it does just that.
D.C. Sessions @32:
And if lightening hits all of the local churches simultaneously, they'll interpret it as a sign that they didn't try hard enough to keep the heathens out.
No, they'll interpret it as a sign that Hindu demons are attacking the churches. Time for spiritual warfare!
Posted by: Adrienne | December 21, 2009 1:18 PM
This directly contradicts your earlier argument that this move is thoughtless and insensitive. You can disagree with their reasoning, but to claim that the effort is thoughtless and insensitive is contrary to your own admission here.
Posted by: dogmeatib | December 21, 2009 1:29 PM
dogmeatib@36:
This directly contradicts your earlier argument that this move is thoughtless and insensitive. You can disagree with their reasoning, but to claim that the effort is thoughtless and insensitive is contrary to your own admission here.
Fair enough. I said thoughtless and insensitive, and that was incorrect. I meant actually meant "tasteless and borderline offensive".
Posted by: Adrienne | December 21, 2009 1:36 PM
How so? It's not as if they built an amusement park, a mall, a commercial enterprise of some sort. They built a house of worship in a building that was damaged by misguided believers in that faith.
Posted by: dogmeatib | December 21, 2009 1:40 PM
They built a house of worship in a building that was damaged by misguided believers in that faith.
Yes, but you could say the same re: the Roman Catholic Church and the Holocaust. Still, the 911 killers were motivated by their desire to die for Islam. That has been well established. Paradise with 72 virgins and all that.
Call their interpretation of Islam misguided if you want, but that smacks to me of the similar "No True Scotsman" dodge used by Christians to justify all sorts of wrongdoing on behalf of their fellow believers.
As I said, I'm a bit torn on this. I see that all sorts of good intentions are behind establishing this mosque, but at the same time....I cringed when I read this story. Emotional reaction? Yes. But no doubt the Pope had good intentions when he visited Auschwitz and decried the terrible injustices there. But still, some Jews saw the Pope's visit and memorial as an attempt to co-opt one of their most important historical sites by a representative of the very faith that helped to perpetuate the injustices that occurred at that site.
Granted, the relationship between the RCC and its influence on the Holocaust is far more direct than the relationship between Sufi Islam and 911. I'm absolutely NOT going to argue stridently that NO, the Muslims should NOT put a mosque there. I've already said that. I hope the mosque brings better understanding, I really do.
Posted by: Adrienne | December 21, 2009 1:53 PM
Adrienne--
The terrorist attacks didn't spare people because of their religion. The firefighters who died that day didn't sort themselves out by religion.
Plenty of terrorist acts have been committed in the name of one or another branch of Christianity; we don't ban churches on that basis.
A significant part of the problem, I think, is guilt by association: and that's not limited to terrorists, to victims, or to the vast majority of us who are neither. Saying "they are Muslims, therefore this is their fault" leads in the same direction as "they are not Muslims, therefore they are the enemy."
Posted by: Vicki | December 21, 2009 2:05 PM
I don't see the people of this mosque trying to make the "no true Scotsman" argument, instead they seem, from what I've read, to be trying to combat what they see as a false implementation of their faith.
I could be wrong, I don't understand faith to begin with. It doesn't matter to me if it is Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, etc., it all seems like a load of wishful thinking combined with a fear of death to me. But it seems to me that these religious leaders are trying to say "this is how Islam should be" rather than "these men who did this weren't true Muslims." More of an attempt to heal Islam than an attempt to distance themselves or avoid ties.
Posted by: dogmeatib | December 21, 2009 2:10 PM
Vicki @40:
Plenty of terrorist acts have been committed in the name of one or another branch of Christianity; we don't ban churches on that basis.
Whoa there. Who's talking about bans?
I picked the Auschwitz cross case as a comparison because again, it had to do with perfectly legal actions on the part of the RCC that were nevertheless objected to by Jews as being offensive.
Although I think the Polish government did actually enact a law prohibiting the erection of crosses on certain sections of the Auschwitz site, in response to some crazy Polish guy who decided to add something like 320+ million extra crosses in the wake of the Jewish protests over the papal memorial cross.
Remember, I'm all for free speech, even when it offends. I see this as a case of free speech and free expression of religion that is also questionable in taste and manners.
Posted by: Adrienne | December 21, 2009 2:10 PM
Regarding the "real America" of the fifties, Umlud mentions:
Actually, we still have equal time. You're thinking of the fairness doctrine.Posted by: william e emba | December 21, 2009 2:11 PM
A mosque. Okay. How is that any different than a church? Or a synagogue?
Oh... right, it's for those "filthy" Muslims.... *eyeroll*
Posted by: WMDKitty | December 21, 2009 2:40 PM
A few comments: DJ@20, in fact, one of the most important centers of pre-War American Nazism was Yorkville, the then-German section of Manhattatn centered at 3rd Ave. and E. 86th St. In fact, if you read "John Roy Carlson's" UNDER COVER -- which used to be the most likely book to be found in a thrift shop in NYC 40 years after publication, you'll find a surprisingly large number of Nazi centers in NYC, from parts of Park Avenue to Harlem.
As for Muslims in NYC, there are quite a few mosques and Islamic Centers here in my part of Brooklyn, many along Coney Island Avenue -- including one (approx Ave. W & CIA) nestled between a Jewish Day Care center and a kosher supermarket. I love Brooklyn.
Adrienne @28: No, except for racial matters. Democrats were still the progressive/liberal party, but for many of them, it was 'progressive for Whites Only" (John Rankin, one of the half dozen worst racists and anti-Semites in Congress ever, was also a fervent New Dealer.) And the Republicans included both extreme conservatives (for the time (they'd be 'moderates now') and many 'Eisenhower/Rockefeller Republicans who are probably to the left of most of today's Democrats. It was the twenties and thirties when you find the majority of Progressives in the Republican Party (including Norris,
Johnson, the LaFollettes, and LaGuardia).
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | December 21, 2009 2:48 PM
There are, fundamentally, two pillars to "modern conservatism:" plutocracy and xenophobia. The first is a hard sell if you want votes, which is why Richard Nixon built the modern Republican Party on his "Southern Strategy:" offering racist, fundamentalist Southerners a home after the Democrats lost them over the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | December 21, 2009 2:55 PM
Adrienne @27 - I meant just what I said. Sure the Dixiecrats were still a fair sized chunk of the Democratic party & many of them did support the Nazis but virtually all the Republicans were Nazi supporters.
Do the names Prescott Bush & Herbert Walker ring a bell?
Posted by: Rob Jase | December 21, 2009 3:17 PM
w.e.emba "fairness doctrine" is correct. Thank you. (And I want to point out that I personally believe that "No FOXNews" is a good thing, as opposed to the rest of my list.)
Posted by: Umlud | December 21, 2009 3:31 PM
Umlud "(And I want to point out that I personally believe that "No FOXNews" is a good thing, as opposed to the rest of my list.)"
Really? I think that a bunch of clips of FoxNews talking about how great it is that "in Italy, the trains run on time" and "fascists are standing up to the elites" from back then could've saved us a lot of trouble now. (Of course, with the "no True Conservative" thing, probably not. Alternately, if the Foxaganda had succeeded, we could have been an Axis power. Oh, corporate-funded faux-populism, how you've hurt us so...)
Posted by: Modusoperandi | December 21, 2009 6:18 PM
Uh, wake up, please.
Feisal Abdul Rauf is an extremely dangerous man. His work with the FBI consists of denying and obscuring any link between Islam and Islamic terrorism. He's the kind of Muslim who says things like, "Of course I respect freedom of speech, but cartoons that offend Muslims shouldn't be published", and "It's a gross misconception that Islam oppresses women." This last message is something he says to non-Muslims, of course, not to his fellow imams in Muslim countries.
Ed likes to talk like the only dangerous Muslims are the terrorists, and perhaps also those who fund terrorism. In reality, any Muslim who does anything to sneak Sharia law into Western society is a threat, and any Muslim who spreads the lie that Islam is just as peaceful, tolerant, and enlightened as modern Christianity, is necessarily protecting the two previous kinds of Muslim, whether they realize it or not.
Posted by: Janus | December 21, 2009 7:38 PM
Janus @50:
Citations needed, please.
I found one column by Rauf where he praised the Dutch prohibiting the showing of the Geert Wilders film, so he's not an advocate of free speech. But I couldn't find anything he said regarding the cartoons directly.
Also, I found a column of his where he stated that Sharia should be incorporated into law where Muslims live, but only those provisions of Sharia that don't conflict with the law of the land. While the adoption of sharia law in Western countries isn't something good, IMHO, it's not like the guy is advocating overthrowing Western democracies with Islamic theocracies.
Posted by: Adrienne | December 21, 2009 8:11 PM
What, you've got an objection to having Muslims sugar-coating Christianity for you?
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | December 21, 2009 8:14 PM
I was paraphrasing from memory. Here's what I found:
http://www.tbsjournal.com/Chronicles%20III.htm
"While we recognize the importance of free speech and agree that religions should not be privileged in this regard, the publishing of such insulting cartoons is expectedly being seen by many around the world as an affront to a world faith. This only deepens the suspicion between the West and the Muslim world. At a time when the need for understanding has never been greater, it is sad to see some participate in willful fomentation while others tirelessly advocate for mutual respect and compassion."
As for his statements about Sharia, well, you don't really expect him to publicly state that Sharia should supplant secular law, do you? Smart Islamic supremacists know they have to work subtly and patiently. Besides, regardless of Rauf's true intent, even a small fraction of Sharia getting implemented is too much. Look at Sharia courts in Britain, for example. They've barely been around for a year and there's already evidence of human rights transgressions, and there's obviously intimidation going on to prevent some Muslims from going to a mainstream court.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196165/Britain-85-sharia-courts-The-astonishing-spread-Islamic-justice-closed-doors.html
Posted by: Janus | December 21, 2009 8:44 PM
I guess I should have said, "any Muslim who spreads the lie that Islam is just as peaceful, tolerant, and enlightened as modern Christianity is perceived to be by the majority of people."
Posted by: Janus | December 21, 2009 8:46 PM
Posted by: Modusoperandi | December 21, 2009 8:51 PM
Janus,
I'm not so sure I believe that modern Christianity is "peaceful, tolerant, and enlightened". If you read sites like Free Republic, many of the self-professed Christians on there don't meet any of those three adjectives.
Generally speaking, religion is not a promoter of peace, tolerance, or enlightenment.
I did read your report on the sharia courts in the UK. Barf. But, I think one of Faisal's defenses of allowing sharia courts in the UK was that there were already Jewish religious courts operating in the UK for matters of Jewish religious law, so allowing sharia courts was analogous to allowing these Jewish courts. Which, honestly, does sound like a basic matter of fairness. If you allow one religion to police its adherents to some degree on matters of law that intersect with religious practice, then you have to allow others the same right.
Probably an excellent reason for not allowing any religious courts to have precedence over secular courts, IMHO.
Posted by: Adrienne | December 21, 2009 8:52 PM
Janus "...and enlightened as modern Christianity is perceived to be by the majority of people."
And "by the majority of people", you mean "Christians"?
Posted by: Modusoperandi | December 21, 2009 8:54 PM
Adrienne,
I don't think it's fair to Judaism to put it on equal ground with Islam. Judaism and Islam (as they are practiced in the 21st century) are equally ridiculous, but not equally barbaric. Still, the ideal solution would be to get rid of religious courts of any kind.
Modusoperandi,
No, I mean Christians, the majority of Jews, generic theists, deists, and agnostics, and a big fraction of atheists.
Posted by: Janus | December 21, 2009 9:06 PM
" Some of them are talking about bad mannered but funny solutions, though.....like spraying pig effluent, blood, and intestines all over the area before construction."
Bad mannered, yes. Funny, no.
Posted by: daniel rotter | December 21, 2009 9:17 PM
Janus, the only reason 'Modern Christianity' can be called better then 'Modern Islam' is that there aren't many Christian Theocracies left. Just listen to the bullshit most Evangelicals spew. Not having to wear the veil is not a significant and meaningful bonus compared to the fact that the oppression (Or wishful oppression, anyway)of women is just as bad.
Posted by: Rutee | December 21, 2009 9:21 PM
And the only proof you've presented for this assertion is your apparent belief that, because he's Muslim, he must be a scary person. Oh, and maybe where you live some majority of people believe that Christianity generally promotes tolerance and enlightenment. Maybe you're reading a different Bible than most other Christians do.
Janus, why don't you turn away your commenting face? Hopefully the other one's not so ignorant.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | December 21, 2009 9:28 PM
http://books.google.ca/books?id=Dw1mHo6zjKwC&pg=PT23&lpg=PT23&dq=%22Feisal+Abdul+Rauf%22+fbi&source=bl&ots=3FF94Y5I5B&sig=13lDKsjrMJKLGA_-sWiPzeOrKgY&hl=en&ei=-TAwS43EN5XllQfbpq3uDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CBcQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=%22Feisal%20Abdul%20Rauf%22%20fbi&f=false
Posted by: Janus | December 21, 2009 9:47 PM
....Janus, that is the opposite of what you said. He acknowledged the link, but stressed that it was not the correct interpretation.
As to the reinterpretation of Jihad, well, he's not alone in that. Gandhi, for instance, decided that the call to arms in the Bhagavad Gita was spiritual, not martial. I'm pretty sure that Jesus saying "No, not violence" is also a big change from, you know, ass-kicking Jews like David. For that matter, I'm pretty sure Terrorism, Murder, and Mayhem aren't advocated even if you interpret it as armed struggle; Mohammed waged symmetrical warfare, rather then 'inventing' guerilla warfare. It's probably meant to refer specifically to knock down drag out fights between armies.
Posted by: Rutee | December 21, 2009 9:57 PM
...and? It's an attempt to educate FBI agents about the nature of the threat they're facing, and the difference between ordinary Muslims and terrorists. In other words, attempting to counteract the natural tendency to stereotype what is primarily an out-group and ensure that their agents act on good intelligence rather than bigoted assumptions. That you have a problem with it speaks volumes.
Posted by: Kyorosuke | December 21, 2009 10:00 PM
Various - I wasn't saying there weren't Nazis in America. The original argument (by the anonymous comments in the article quoted by Ed), was:
And as I showed, and you amplified, Nazism in America was not 'banned' by any means (Wasn't there a guy called 'the Black Fuhrer'?) Surely there was a German Embassy in NY, and that Embassy would have had an 'information officer' or the like. Ignorance of history and WND, why am I not surprised at the combination?
Janus - You stated that Feisal Abdul Rauf was "a very dangerous man" who planned to 'sneak' sharia law into American courts and preached violet Jihad. So far you've shown that he:
a) deplores insensitive cartoons that insult Muslims, just at the time when he is trying to build rapport between the two mutually suspicious groups, because such cartoons only increase the fear and suspicion.
and
b) considers 'jihad' to be a Muslim's struggle with their own evil impulses that prevent them from approaching their god. And that he said so in a training course he ran for the FBI.
Neither are even close to your initial (rather hysterical) statements about how dangerous this man is supposed to be. - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | December 21, 2009 10:33 PM
Rutee,
Uh, saying that Muslim terrorists "misinterpreted the Koran" is kind of the opposite of acknowledging the link between Islam and terrorism. It's usually followed by blaming Islamic terrorism on economics, politics, and the West, which, if the reviews of Rauf's book I've read are accurate, is exactly what he does.
Kyorosuke,
No, it's an attempt to hide the fact that Muslim terrorists are acting on beliefs that are mainstream Islam in many parts of the world, not a 'misinterpretation' caused by economic conditions, or something.
Posted by: Janus | December 21, 2009 10:37 PM
Right.
I raised the question, I didn't make an assertion.
I've never said anything of the kind. I think that although he's probably less moderate than he tries to appear, Rauf honestly believes that terrorism and the worst bits of Sharia are un-Islamic. The problem is that many of the most influential imams and Islamic scholars disagree with him, and (when he's talking to Westerners, at least), he dismisses them as a small minority of extremists.
Posted by: Janus | December 21, 2009 10:50 PM
It's pretty obvious that Islam has been hijacked, as Judaism has been, by bloodthirsty zealots who have done a really good job of convincing even non-believers that it is those same zealots who are in sole possession of the "true" Islam or Judaism.
It's also pretty obvious that the biggest, baddest motherfucker on the block always acts like it, just as it is obvious that our epoch is no exception despite the desperate claims on the part of the jingoists.
Posted by: jws | December 21, 2009 10:50 PM
@ 18 re. the disappearing real America, you wrote:
* Jim Crow laws in the South
* Fewer women's rights
* A military draft (and possibly an ongoing war)
* Polio, tuberculosis, mumps, measles, and rubella
* The Cold War & the threat of nuclear annihilation
* Anti-miscegenation laws
* No Internet, cellphones, or HDTV
* No FOXNews (and mandatory "equal time provisions")
You left out the use of black men as lab rats for the study of chronic syphilis progression.
Posted by: Dr X | December 21, 2009 10:50 PM
Janus,
I have to say, while I disagree with Rauf regarding free speech issues, and while I find Islam as it is practiced in many parts of the world to be a scary and backward religion (as Christianity used to be in large parts of the Christian world, and still is in spots), I can't agree that Rauf is dangerous. In fact, Rauf sounds like one of the "good guys" in Islam because, based on the little I've read, he preaches a moderate form of the faith that could more or less coexist harmoniously with Western culture. If he can coax other Muslims away from the more radical Islamist factions, then more power to him.
It's usually followed by blaming Islamic terrorism on economics, politics, and the West, which, if the reviews of Rauf's book I've read are accurate, is exactly what he does.
While I agree with you that radical Islam is mainstream thinking in some parts of the Islamic world, these other factors do play a role too. And hey, let's not forget about GWB's "war on terror".
If Rauf has espoused the idea that everything but Islam itself and the Koran are to blame for Islamic terrorism, he's basically said the same thing as the neocon pundit Dinesh D'Souza did in one of his books. Do you consider Dinesh D'Souza a dangerous man?
Posted by: Adrienne | December 21, 2009 10:53 PM
Didn't he cite/link the Daily Mail as a source further upthread?
Posted by: Azkyroth | December 22, 2009 12:28 AM
Janus - you have a long line of suspicions, but a dearth of evidence.
You state that Feisal Abdul Rauf advocates incorporating Sharia law everywhere (whilst speaking in Muslim countries at least) but where are the citations that confirm this belief?
You claim that Feisal Abdul Rauf tactily approves of 'terrorism', where is the evidence of that belief?
You claim that there is something intrinsically violent about Islam* (as opposed to Christianity say), but where is the proof of that belief?
Here in the West we (theoretically) convict on evidence, not vague suspicions. - DJ
---------------------------
* you posted at #66:
Is there any proof that Muslims become 'terrorists' intrinsically because of the Koran alone? Do economics, politics and the the West's history of behaviour toward the Muslim World play a greater or lesser part? Are these factors (along with racism and Islamophobia) the starting point for the radicalisation of young Muslims, an initial condition that is preyed on by Clerics for their own reasons?
Could the same be said of people like Timothy McVeigh, for example? Is the Bible inherently a 'terrorist' manual, because some use it as this? Does the actions of a few reflect on the reflect the beliefs of all Christians? Does that mean that Rowan Atkinson (certainly not a man who preaches violence) is tacitly condoning 'terrorism'?
Also one should remember that Christianity is some five or six centuries older than Islam. How peaceful and civilised was the Christian church in 15th century?
The way to diffuse 'Terrorism' is to engage the Muslim World, treat them like humans, cut out the economic and political inequalities across the region that fuels the feeling of discontent. Without this discontent the radicals will have no-one left to recruit (theoretically).
Note I have placed terrorist in inverted commas because this is a word that 'we' define in a way that 'we' decide. Remember, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
Posted by: DingoJack | December 22, 2009 12:31 AM
About the spread of religion...
I was a Chatuchak Market (in Bangkok) this past weekend, and on the streets outside of the park, there were a bunch of students and young adults (all of them Thai) handing out Christian literature and holding up megaphones. But instead of preaching themselves, they were just playing the same recorded messages over and over again over the loudspeakers.
Hell, in my mind, this is just plain laziness! At least the fundies in America at least make an effort to engage others (for better or for worse). But they were just preaching that even though the Buddhists might think they are moral, that they aren't unless they accept Jesus this Christmas season.
I mean, for fuck's sake, I was passing by this one fundie at the same time that an orange-robed monk was passing by in the other direction, and he didn't even feel the least bit guilty about his actions. He actually turned up the volume and glared at the monk as he passed.
At least the girls around him didn't try to force their literature into his hand like they were doing to everybody else. But that probably has more to do with respect for his position as a monk, and less about respect for his religion.
Posted by: doctorgoo | December 22, 2009 12:39 AM
"Of course I respect freedom of speech, but cartoons that offend Muslims shouldn't be published"
I condemn just about everything that appears in WorldNut Daily as offensive to reason, decency and truth. I think the paper shouldn't be published.
Now, by that I mean that Mr Farah should come to his senses and stop his lies or his readers should turn away in droves from his rag causing it to go out of business. What's wrong with that? Many here would share that wish. So Mr Rauf is expressing a difference with the editorial judgement of the papers that published the cartoons. The question is, is he exercising his freedom to condemn other peoples' editorial judgements (perfectly justified) or demanding government censorship (not justified)?
Posted by: JusticeLeague | December 22, 2009 7:30 AM
Perhaps you were thinking of Rowan Williams?
Posted by: kai | December 22, 2009 8:19 AM
Nope, Mr Bean. (Nice catch) :D - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | December 22, 2009 9:38 AM