Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
From Leon Wieseltier, writing on the Islamic center in lower Manhattan:
I have no quarrel with the construction of Cordoba House, but not because Islam is a religion of peace. It is not. Like Christianity and like Judaism, Islam is a religion of peace and a religion of war. All the religions have all the tendencies within them, and in varying historical circumstances varying beliefs and practices have come to the fore. It is absurd to describe the perpetrators of September 11 as "murderers calling themselves Muslims," as Karen Hughes recently did. They did not call themselves Muslims. They were Muslims. America was not attacked by Islam, but it was also not attacked by Jainism. Mohammed Atta and his band (as well as the growing number of "homegrown" Islamist killers and plotters) represent a real and burgeoning development within Islam, an actualization of one of Islam's possibilities, an indigenous transnational movement of apocalyptic violence that has brought misery to Muslim societies, and to us. It is not Islamophobic to say so. Quite the contrary: it is to side with Muslims who are struggling against the same poison as we are. Apologetic definitions of Islam will not avail anybody in this struggle.
And this makes me want to stand up and cheer:
In matters of principle, moreover, polling is beside the point, or an alibi for the tyranny of the majority, or an invitation to demagogues to make divisiveness into a strategy, so that their targets come to seem like they are the ones standing in the way of social peace, and the "decent" thing is for them to fold. Why doesn't Rauf just move the mosque? That would bring the ugliness to an end. But why don't Palin and Gingrich just shut up? That, too, would bring the ugliness to an end.
That is perhaps the most irritating argument in this whole situation. Regardless of the legal right, why don't the owners of the building just put it somewhere else and end the controversy? That would be a terrible outcome, a victory for demagogic bullying.
I think he finds that elusive balance here that I sometimes struggle to find when writing about this subject myself. This is what I mean when I say that there is not one Christianity, or one Islam, but many Christianities and many Islams. Every religion has elements that are peaceful and decent and elements that are barbaric and dangerous. We must recognize both at the same time if we are to confront the barbaric and dangerous elements without tarring the peaceful and decent ones and pushing them toward the barbaric and the dangerous.
I also like that Wieseltier recognizes the same of his own religion, saying of Imam Rauf:
In a time when an alarming number of Muslims wish to imitate Osama bin Laden, here is a Muslim who wishes to imitate Mordecai Kaplan. Turn away, from him? But he may be replaced at his center by less moderate clerics, it is said. To which I would reply with a list of synagogues whose establishment should be regretted because of the fanatical views of their current leaders.
Politics
Comments
I also feel he found that "elusive balance" that is so hard to achieve. For my part, I think Islam may be the most dangerous of the world's religions (though Christianity is neck and neck in that regard, for sure) because the violent potentialities are so near the surface and difficult to entirely avoid.
That has NOTHING to do with Park51 or the fact that, as religious leaders ago, Imam Rauf is most definitely a moderate. He wants to build a friggin' YMCA that's open to the public. Go for it!
Some -- including Hitchens and Harris -- have pointed out that some of Rauf's comments, if taken to their logical conclusion, are extremely dangerous and destructive. Yes, this is true -- I think that is true of pretty much ANY religious leader. So what?
Posted by: James Sweet | September 7, 2010 11:25 AM
I believe I read a story about one of the donors for the center (a religious organization) also funneled money that went directly to Hamas. Imam Rauf was hesitant to label Hamas a terrorist group despite the facts. Hmm.
Posted by: Canny | September 7, 2010 11:52 AM
I'm actually not aware of anything "dangerous" he's said that doesn't require ignoring lots of context and highly creative interpretation. Maybe Hitchens or Harris found something new, but the examples I've seen are extremely weak. This is a guy who's been writing and speaking for a quarter century; if he were really a radical there should be gobs of evidence, not just an occasional quote plucked out of context from many years ago. He also would not have written all the things he has written.
Posted by: Steve Reuland | September 7, 2010 11:57 AM
Ed stated:
I became convinced by the time of the 2004 election that the primary tribe for conservatives is not the U.S.A., but instead conservatism and to some degree their form of Christianity (mostly overlapping though two sets).
We see it with Rush Limbaugh hoping we'll fail on Obama's watch, we see it with conservatives wanting to take back power while arguing the same positions they had that caused so much damage to this country, and we see it in this debate where vilification of Muslims is more important than promoting the U.S.'s foreign policy objectives and saving our blood and treasure.
Democrats need to exploit this by playing more hardball. They need to point out that Republicans prefer hating Muslims who don't deserve their hatred even when it increases the casualty count of our soldiers.
Posted by: Michael Heath | September 7, 2010 12:23 PM
Re Canny
Of course, there is always Rabbi Ovadia, founder of the Shas Party in Israel (which, by the way is part of the governing coalition there) who last week endorsed an Eichmann solution for the Arabs living in Palestine. Real nice guy, a brother in arms with Osama bin Laden.
Posted by: SLC | September 7, 2010 12:26 PM
Canny, #2: Imam Rauf was hesitant to label Hamas a terrorist group despite the facts.
So do lots and lots of other people in the US, most of them non-Muslim. I suspect that if a white, non-Muslim actor who was hesitant to call Hamas a terrorist group were to make a movie filmed on location at Ground Zero, there wouldn't be nearly the hue and cry that we are seeing here.
Posted by: Chiroptera | September 7, 2010 12:33 PM
And how many Americans used to donate money to the IRA when they were busy blowing up policemen in Northern Ireland?
Posted by: tacitus | September 7, 2010 12:37 PM
That one's easy: they don't admit the causal relationship.
Yes, that's weapons-grade denial. It's comparable on a national level with the kind of medical denial that Orac describes. (Warning: not for those readily distressed. I kid you not.)
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | September 7, 2010 12:58 PM
Are you against Nazi philosophy? Do you like Nazis? How about guys who form Nazi
organizations, and become leaders of such organizations? You know like Imams are leaders in the front for spreading Islamic philosophy as contained in the Quran.
Would you trust someone who said they were a Nazi, were nice and polite, but refused to condemn Hitler and his acts. How about if they said that Hitler was a good guy, and that his message was peaceful and only about getting the trains running on time, justice, animal rights, and justice for Germany. How about if they said to you that there was no Holocaust and that was
just a lie by dirty Jews out to slander Nazism?
What if someone was born to a family of Nazis and taught all this kind of nonsense about Nazism?
What if Nazism was still a grave danger in the world and yet they denied the history, the acts against Jews, etc. had anything to do with Hitler? Is willful ignorance an excuse?
What if they were actively making excuses about an ongoing campaign where Jews were being thrown in ovens, blaming it on them for their involvement with banking, and general greediness?
Worse yet. Suppose that these Nazis believed that Hitler didn’t write Mein Kampf but only dictated what an infallible god had stated, at the beginning of time.
Suppose that the Hitler wasn’t so shy about calling for extermination of his enemies, the Jews, (for Mohammad it’s the Idolators and people of non-Judeaochristian backgroud who are his main targets for extermination. Although Jews are also targets for ethnic cleansing). Suppose Hitler was successful in his ethnic cleansing of Europe (Muhammad ethnically cleansed the Arab Pennisula of Jews and Idolators). Suppose Hitler had won, but did so 1400 years ago.
Suppose these Nazis claimed that not only were they for peace but that Nazism was the only valid path to it.
Those are more valid and analogous questions you need to ask yourself about Islam.
You also have to ask yourself why you don’t assume that you are using guilt by association when you denounce members of the KKK, the Nazis, the Stalinists, the Maoists, the Khmer Rouge, etc.
I’m sure there were nice and polite members of those groups who also didn’t open their mouths against those movements for fear of death.
You sure leap to condemn people against the mosque for rational reasons based bigoted statements by a few, by guilt by association. It’s clear that you haven’t even read the reasons given by the protests organizers. Reasons that have to do with Rauf’s support of terrorism.
You are ignorant and ill informed on the subject, and paint with a very broad brush. It’s not like the protest were organized on the bullshit arguments you put into their mouths. That’s a straw man. Islam on the other hand was founded on evil principles.
One of the methods I use for excusing Muslims for their membership in Islam is that they are ignorant of their own Quran. Another is that they are too scared to speak up because Islam itself advocates their murder if they do, and Mohammed directly practiced this method. Also there is lots of family pressure (your family with literally murder you) to tow the line.
So no, I don’t blame people who self identify as Muslim, by guilt of association, for terrorist acts.
I do however blame those who know the Quran, like Imams, and then lie about it. Especially when they advocate acting consistently with the very rights violating aspects of the religion that I find objectionable.
Islam has problems Christianity doesn’t. The Qur’an was directly written by an vicious infallible diety, the bible by man. Mohammad was a vicious psychopath, unlike “love thy neighbor, don’t cast the stone” Jesus.
Mohammad wrote down and provides an example of the most two faced double standard ethical rules, and the use new speak that the world has ever seen.
No Muslim can admit that the fault lies in Islam, and therefore Islam cannot reform. It will forever be spawning off violent sects just so long as the Imams teach that the Qur’an is infallible. That’s because it plainly calls for violence.
The proper solution is [analogously, admitting that Hitler was a mass murderer, and abandoning Nazis anti-semitism] cannot occur without a rejection of the message of the Qur’an. The whole religion falls to pieces the minute any truth is admitted about Mohammad.
The Ostrich head in the sand solution won’t work. Truly rejecting Islams violence while still calling oneself Muslim has been tried by two sects. Both sects are tiny and subject to violent persecution at the hands of “moderate muslims” who rightly view them as non-Muslim apostates and therefore worthy of death.
The violent nature of Islam was recognized by these peacefull sects long before 9/11, they attempted to correct it, and it is a dismal failure.
I’m certain that the only reason they even call themselves Muslim is to prevent the death penalty for apostates. It’s the only option available to them, and it is best for them that they truly believe it lest they be found out and murdered.
Just like many atheists used to profess their belief in god while at the same time criticizing Christianity. You don’t really think Thomas Paine was a theist, do you? He used god talk to sway because he knew the realities.
Not very hard for him given Christs message.
Things will not go well for such strategies with Islam. Mohammad was a terrorist, not a pacifist.
Posted by: Canny | September 7, 2010 1:09 PM
So I'm being a bit lazy about looking up the exact quote right now, but it was the comment regarding how it's not really a bad thing for Iran to have that whasitcalled incorporated into their legal system. It's basically the equivalent of someone in the US asserting that our country is founded on "Judeochristian ideals" and how great that is. (Ignoring of course that all of the nice parts of "Judeochristian ideals" are universal across cultures, and the only distinguishing characteristics are things like stoning gays and not combining mixed fibers in clothing)
In any case, the banality of the Christian equivalent I am highlighting is basically the point I am trying to make: One can extrapolate some of Imam Rauf's statements into some pretty nasty things, but that is only because you can extrapolate virtually any statement made in support of ancient dogma in that way. There is nothing uniquely dangerous about Rauf's theology -- the dangers inherent in his theology are shared by basically all religions.
A moderate liberal Christian would presumably praise the wisdom of Jesus, even though the Bible has him quite clearly stating that you should sell everything you own and turn your back on your family and other such horrible advice. That I can point this out does not undermine the fact that this hypothetical Christian is still a moderate and a liberal. The same goes, I think, for the numerous critiques of Imam Rauf's statements. The problem is not with Rauf or Islam in particular, but with religion in general.
And as anti-theistic as I am, I still pay for a monthly membership at the local YMCA, and I would find it rather silly for someone to suggest that I was encouraging extremism by doing so. That's exactly how I feel about the not-at-Ground-Zero not-a-Mosque. Yes, religion sucks. Why would that stop you from wanting to build a community center in Manhattan?!?
Posted by: James Sweet | September 7, 2010 1:10 PM
Canny: don't lecture others about "the facts" until you're able to demonstrate some understanding of them yourself. The fact is, Hamas isn't JUST a terrorist group -- they've done a shitload of non-militant community work for Palestinians as well; and if outsiders want to help with such activities, then they have no choice but to work with or through Hamas. That could be why that unnamed guy gave them money, and why Rauf is hesitant to label them "terrorists."
Funny how you try to sound all thoughtful with your "hmmms" but you don't even bother to look up or flesh out the allegations you heard somewhere -- or even remember where you heard them. Canny, you sound like just another bigot pretending to be an independent thinker.
Posted by: Raging Bee | September 7, 2010 1:15 PM
Canny wrote:
I believe I read a story about one of the donors for the center (a religious organization) also funneled money that went directly to Hamas. Imam Rauf was hesitant to label Hamas a terrorist group despite the facts. Hmm.
-----
At the time of the donation, the organization was actively hiding its support of Hamas; this fact was part of the government's case, which was prosecuted LATER. Many donors were deceived and not prosecuted. No donations were made after the connection became public.
Posted by: DaleP | September 7, 2010 1:18 PM
Canny, #9: Are you against Nazi philosophy? Do you like Nazis? How about guys who form Nazi organizations, and become leaders of such organizations? You know like Imams are leaders in the front for spreading Islamic philosophy as contained in the Quran.
For this analogy to work, there would have to be people who claim to be Nazis but disavow the racist, genocidal, and war mongering policies that other Nazis profess, and, in fact, explain that there is a core belief to Nazism that some have falsely interpreted to promote racism and genocide.
Since there are no such "Nazis" that I am aware of, but there are Muslims who are more than happy to promote aspects of the liberal democratic traditions that rose out of the European Enlightenment, the analogy simply doesn't work
By the way, if there were people who claimed that Nazism was an ideology that espoused peace and tolerance and the common humanity of all people, then, yes, I would be saying that each "Nazi" must be judged on his or her own actions, not just because he or she labels her ideology with such an unfortunate label.
--
I’m certain that the only reason they even call themselves Muslim is to prevent the death penalty for apostates.
Even in the West, where death is not a punishment for apostasy? Are you claiming that there is no Muslim any where in the world that has openly converted to another religion and escaped death? That missionaries in Muslim dominated countries are lying about the converts that they make?
At any rate, this is the problem with such a rigid refusal to acknowledge error that you show here. Muslims are a threat because no Muslim truly believes in peace and tolerance. The examples of Muslims who advocate peace and tolerance are really either crypto-terrorists or fake Muslims who aren't sincere in their faith. We know they have to by lying because no Muslim truly believes in peace and tolerance. This is all very circular.
Posted by: Chiroptera | September 7, 2010 1:26 PM
Indeed, and if this lends more credibility to what I am about to say in Canny's eyes, let me be clear that I have no reservations about asserting that Hamas is indeed a terrorist organization and I condemn them without qualification.
Adopting this strong stance does not have to preclude one from a nuanced understanding of what the organization does and why it appeals to so many Palestinians. I was struck by an anecdote in an article I read several years ago, so much so that it has stuck with me to this day: A Palestinian woman who had previously been very anti-Hamas, due to being in favor of peaceful coexistence and opposed to Hamas violent agenda, suddenly found herself a widow in dire straits with no way to feed her children. The Palestinian Authority has neither the budget nor the will to provide any sort of social safety net, so do you know who manages that function in Palestine? That's right, Hamas. Hamas provided for the woman's family in their time of need and got her back on her feet. Needless to say, the woman wasn't quite so firm in her opposition to Hamas after that, even though she still was firmly against the actions of the military wing.
And that's the complexity we are dealing with. Hamas is a terrorist organization, little doubt about that (at least as far as I'm concerned). But they also are the sole provider of basic social services in much of Palestine. And that matters a lot in terms of how you go about tackling the problem.
Posted by: James Sweet | September 7, 2010 1:37 PM
I don't know much about Hamas, but they also have a legitimate political party that won a free and fair election (the US and Israel supported their inclusion on the ballot, but then withdrew that support when they won). In that sense they are similar to the IRA, which of course was militant but had a separate political wing under a different name.
All of which is to say, the situation with Hamas is complicated. If someone refrains from giving them the blanket designation of "terrorist group", that doesn't mean they don't think that Hamas has committed terrorism.
Note that this is apparently the best evidence against Rauf. Not that he's ever voiced support for terrorist groups. Not that he even supports Hamas. Only that he refrained from denouncing Hamas during an interview that had nothing to do with Hamas.
Posted by: Steve Reuland | September 7, 2010 1:41 PM
We've heard their reasons, but this is the whole problem. There is no credible evidence that Rauf supports terrorism. The case against him is only notable for just how flimsy it is. And it requires ignoring the fact that he has consistently and strongly denounced terrorism.
I'm forced to conclude that mosque haters are committing the all-too-common fallacy of starting with their conclusion and working backward to rationalize it. Hence, Rauf's clear and unequivocal opposition to terrorism is ignored, while support for Hamas from his real estate developer's business partner's uncle is elevated to something highly meaningful.
Posted by: Steve Reuland | September 7, 2010 2:00 PM
"You also have to ask yourself why you don’t assume that you are using guilt by association when you denounce members of the KKK, the Nazis, the Stalinists, the Maoists, the Khmer Rouge, etc."
Do you blame all Christians for:
the actions of the Lord's Resistance Army;
pedophile priests;
the involvement of Catholic clerics in the Rwanda Genocide;
Russian Orthodox priests' support for Neo-Nazi killings of foreigners;
Serbian Orthodox priests' support for Bosnian Serb war criminals;
right-wing Colombian death squads that claim they're deending Catholicism from Marxist atheism; and
African Christian clergy actively promoting the murder of children suspected of witchcraft?
Why is it that the Christians involved in all these acts are somehow not representative of Christianity as a whole but Osama Bin Laden is representative of Muslims?
Posted by: Ian Gould | September 7, 2010 2:12 PM
"A Palestinian woman who had previously been very anti-Hamas, due to being in favor of peaceful coexistence and opposed to Hamas violent agenda, suddenly found herself a widow in dire straits with no way to feed her children. The Palestinian Authority has neither the budget nor the will to provide any sort of social safety net, so do you know who manages that function in Palestine? That's right, Hamas. Hamas provided for the woman's family in their time of need and got her back on her feet. Needless to say, the woman wasn't quite so firm in her opposition to Hamas after that, even though she still was firmly against the actions of the military wing."
As I've noted before, the PA elections essentially asked Palestinians to choose between two groups of violent anti-democratic thugs, one of which (Fatah) had also demonstrated their willingness to more or less literally steal the food out of their children's mouths.
Even with voters given that choice, HAMAS gto well under 50% of the vote in Gaza despite receiving the largest number of votes of any single party.
That plurality was translated into an absolute majority of Parliamentary seats only because the voting system had been designed by FATAH to favor the largest party (which they assumed would be themselves.)
Posted by: Ian Gould | September 7, 2010 2:22 PM
Interesting background on the PA elections, Ian, thank you for that.
I should have said, BTW (and this was probably obvious from a reading of the context) that the anecdote occurred prior to Hamas being elected. I guess that was obvious, since it would have been nonsensical post-election to talk about the PA failing to provide social services but Hamas doing it instead. heh...
It's frustrating how little room people have for nuance in these sorts of debates. And I don't mean nuance in terms of opinion -- I am most definitely not advocating the Fallacy of the False Middle -- I just mean nuance in terms of understanding the facts and the conditions. An acknowledgment of the messiness of the facts does not have to lead to equivocation. I can understand all of these things and still condemn Hamas without qualification. But when people plug their ears and fail to even acknowledge the facts... ARGH!
Posted by: James Sweet | September 7, 2010 2:34 PM
This argument is all bull. The Republicans lost the last election, and now they think they've got a hot-button issue to put them back in power. If Canny et. al. are so high-minded and opposed to terrorism, why aren't they condemning the people who sliced up that innocent cab driver? THAT was a hate crime. THAT occurred "right next to ground zero" ("right next to ground zero" being defined by the Tea Party as "in the state of New York. And mebbe parts of New Jersey and Connecticut. Or, anyways, somewheres out there on the East Coast. I can't keep them egghead places straight anyhow.")
People who go around slicing up innocent cab drivers because of their religion deserve the label of terrorist. Imam Rauf does not.
Posted by: hoary puccoon | September 7, 2010 2:38 PM
I cannot blame the actions of some violent Christians on the validity of the religion because, at its core, Christianity is a genuine religion of peace. Jesus was not a terrorist who encouraged his faithful to convert by the sword. Bloodshed, on the other hand, is taking Islam to its inevitable conclusion and is the reason why "moderates" cannot be sustained in a religion of violence.
Posted by: Canny | September 7, 2010 2:38 PM
If you people think that these Muslim "moderates" wouldn't be supportive of implementing Shariah law in the United States, look no further than a past Twitter post on the feed of the organization behind the center: they responded to the proposed construction of a gay bar near the area by complaining that it offends Muslim sensibilities.
Posted by: Canny55 | September 7, 2010 2:41 PM
"I cannot blame the actions of some violent Christians on the validity of the religion because, at its core, Christianity is a genuine religion of peace. Jesus was not a terrorist who encouraged his faithful to convert by the sword."
"Let he who has a cloak and no sword, sell his cloak and buy a sword."
"Think not that I am come to bring peace into this world for I am come to bring the sword."
But those verses aren't to be taken literally.
It's completely unfair to take them out of context.
Posted by: Ian Gould | September 7, 2010 2:47 PM
Canny:
Matthew 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
Who's right?
Posted by: T. Bruce McNeely | September 7, 2010 2:48 PM
Canny @21:
Are you saying that the book of Matthew is a forgery not followed by Christians? "I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword": Matt. 10:34.
The Crusades, I take it, had nothing to do with Christianity? Those Europeans who sacked Constantinople weren't really Christian? Nor were those who undertook the Albigensian Crusade, to murder "heretics" and take their property?
I could multiply examples past and present until the cows came home, of course, but I'll settle for an answer to the question about Matthew 10:34.
Posted by: Vicki | September 7, 2010 2:51 PM
This has exactly what to do with Shariah Law?
Also, I'm sure that building a gay bar next to a church would be just okey-dokey with YOU people, right?
Posted by: T. Bruce McNeely | September 7, 2010 2:53 PM
Canny says, "Christianity is a genuine religion of peace."
Jesus says, "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace but a sword." (Matthew 10:34)
Hence the Spanish Inquisition, the Spanish Conquest, the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre, the sacking of Christian Constantinople by Christians, the Thirty Year's War....
The fact is, the Republicans want back in office and they think they've got a hot-button issue. And the Dems are letting them get away with it! Aaargh....
Posted by: hoary puccoon | September 7, 2010 2:55 PM
"Interesting background on the PA elections, Ian, thank you for that."
As a further note, the Rafah electorate within Gaza is historically Christian and voted overwhelmingly against HAMAS.
Because they're on the Egyptian/Gaza border and the fcocus of smuggling between Egypt and Gaza, Rafah has been one of the main targets of Israeli reprisals against HAMAS.
Have I mentioned yet that over 50% of the current Gaza population were either too young to vote in the election that brought HAMAS to power or were born subsequent to that election?
Posted by: Ian Gould | September 7, 2010 2:56 PM
Canny55, #22: If you people think that these Muslim "moderates" wouldn't be supportive of implementing Shariah law in the United States, look no further than a past Twitter post on the feed of the organization behind the center: they responded to the proposed construction of a gay bar near the area by complaining that it offends Muslim sensibilities.
Well, seeing how they haven't bombed the gay bar, I would say that this, in fact, contradicts your point that these people are closet terrorists.
And if "Sharia" means that one should be offended if a gay bar is too near a Muslim version of a YMCA, just as "Christian values" leads some to be offended if a gay bar is too near a non-Muslim community center, then I just have to say, uh, so what?
Posted by: Chiroptera | September 7, 2010 3:01 PM
That's disturbing on a whole different level. What's the life expectancy in Gaza anyway???
If true, I agree that makes them total dicks. In fact, that makes them about as asshole-ish as your average Christianist demagogue in America.
Seriously, you are trying to compare Islam negatively to Christianity by pointing out that many Muslims don't support equal rights for LGBT individuals??! Really?!?!?? Um, do you read the fucking newspaper???!?
BWA-HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
Posted by: James Sweet | September 7, 2010 3:02 PM
"Bloodshed, on the other hand, is taking Islam to its inevitable conclusion and is the reason why "moderates" cannot be sustained in a religion of violence."
You mean moderates like Abdul Rahman Wahid?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gus_Dur
But obviously as the democratically elected President of the most populous Muslim nation AND the long-time leader of the largest organization of Muslim clerics on the planet, he's a minor trivial figure of no real significance.
Posted by: Ian Gould | September 7, 2010 3:04 PM
Re Canny @ #9
I really get a laugh out of people like Mr. Canny who like to point out the violence in the Quran. I have a flash for him, the Hebrew Bible ain't much better. Ever hear of what that Joshua guy did after the walls of Jericho came tumbling down? His forces marched into the town and put its inhabitants to the sword, on the demand of Yahweh so he said.
And for those who think the Christian Bible is an improvement, I suggest a reading of the Book of Revelations.
And for those that think that Christianity isn't a religion of violence, ever here what the Catholic Army did after the fall of Magdeburg during the 30 Years War? They marched into the town and put its inhabitants to the sword, aping Joshua at Jericho.
Posted by: SLC | September 7, 2010 3:06 PM
"That's disturbing on a whole different level. What's the life expectancy in Gaza anyway???"
It's more that the have a huge birth rate because, to put it bluntly, when you have no job and no prospect of a job and no real hope of political action making things better, TV and fucking are about all that's left to fill in the time.
Posted by: Ian Gould | September 7, 2010 3:08 PM
Canny, the vast majority of Muslims are Muslim for exactly the same reason that Christians are Christian. They learned as children what their god's name was, what book he wrote, and how to pray to him, what rites of passage marked them as his followers, in what mosque or church to celebrate marriages and bereave the dead, which are holidays are important to their god and what they should do on those holidays. Religion gets instilled literally at the mother's knee. All the rationalization comes later.
Posted by: Russell | September 7, 2010 3:08 PM
If you people think that these Muslim "moderates" wouldn't be supportive of implementing Shariah law in the United States, look no further than a past Twitter post...
Yeah, because one Twitter post is THE true representation of where all Muslim moderates really stand on Sharia Law. (Do you even know what Sharia Law IS, boy? Hell, do you even know what Twitter is?)
Notice how all of Canny's previous arguments got debunked, and now he's changing the subject completely? Sorry, boy, that's not how you get your credibility back after you've made a total ass of yourself.
Posted by: Raging Bee | September 7, 2010 3:10 PM
Russell, that's great.
Mind if I quote it?
Posted by: Ian Gould | September 7, 2010 3:11 PM
Raging Bee, #35: Notice how all of Canny's previous arguments got debunked, and now he's changing the subject completely?
He's also confused the talking points. Opposing a gay bar doesn't make one an unamerican subversive. It's those of us who support gay bars that are the unamerican subversives!
Posted by: Chiroptera | September 7, 2010 3:22 PM
Ian, please do. Just remove the extraneous "are" between "which" and "holidays." My typing fingers run ahead of my grammar. ;-)
Posted by: Russell | September 7, 2010 3:37 PM
Canny, #9: Islam has problems Christianity doesn’t.
The main problem that Islam has that Christianity doesn't is that Muslim dominated countries haven't yet been dragged through the Enlightenment like Chistian dominated countries were, with the more faithful screaming and kicking and resisting every single social advance.
The main problem that the majority of Muslims have that the majority of Western Christians don't is that they haven't been raised in a society that values the liberal democratic ideals of the Enlightenment. That appears to be changing as an increasing number of Muslims are born and raised in the US. Although, to be honest, it could be the rabid fringe of nutworthy Christians efforts to undermine Western liberal democratic ideals that will effect the change, although not in the direction I would like.
Posted by: Chiroptera | September 7, 2010 4:11 PM
You should tell that to the people in, and those who support, The Army of God.
Posted by: Leni | September 7, 2010 4:27 PM
Indeed, a between colonialism and Cold War anti-socialist doctrines, it could well be argued that those same "Enlightened" nations share a lot responsibility for the anti-democratic nature of middle-eastern Islamic nations.
Posted by: Left_Wing_Fox | September 7, 2010 5:05 PM
In one sense I guess the Imam is a moderate in that he seems rather ecumenical when it comes to religious delusions. But he has expressed his views of Sharia in more places than twitter. In a BookTV episode, he described the United States as a "Sharia compliant" nation. And in an interview with PBS Frontline in 2002, he argued that American principles of government are compatible to Sharia. He did not explain why no Muslim majority countries have have implemented these principles and why Muslim separatist movements emerge in non-Muslim countries that do have these principles.In that same interview, he finessed the interviewer's question about the death penalty meted out to women for infidelity. In a show of cultural sensitivity, the interviewer could not even muster the courage to focus on the death penalty or stoning, but only the abuse of the judicial process itself. The good Imam said one cannot judge a whole body of law by one instance of criminal law. Then he went on blabbering about principles, ideals, the Muslim search for justice, and recreating the original companionship and community established by Muhammed and his followers. He may be just a savvy but harmless spokesman for his particular delusion. But he also sounds like he also might be a moderate only in that he aims to spread Islam by insinuating it into the host culture instead of attacking it directly like radical terrorists. Then he can spread Sharia in piecemeal fashion as far as he can by demanding annoying legal accommodations for Islam later. Of course, such demands will be made on grounds of cultural diversity rather than on religion because of that pesky first amendment. I guess time will tell.
Posted by: secularsquare | September 7, 2010 5:41 PM
Heh, Left Wing Fox, good point. A depressing one too, of course.
Though counterfactuals are always difficult when it comes to history. Certainly the Shah was all our fault, but would Iran (for example) have avoided theocracy if we hadn't installed a backlash-creating dictator? It's not entirely clear. They could easily have fallen to the Ayatollahs anyway.
In any case, installing a dictator as a bulwark against socialism was clearly a mistake any way you slice it.
Posted by: James Sweet | September 7, 2010 5:45 PM
secular square, #42: Then he can spread Sharia in piecemeal fashion as far as he can by demanding annoying legal accommodations for Islam later.
And what kind of accommodations could he possibly demand that other religious leaders don't already demand?
Posted by: Chiroptera | September 7, 2010 6:09 PM
@secularsquare: You may be interested in reading my comment at #10. I agree with you that Imam Rauf has made some unfortunate endorsements of Sharia, though of course it is a kinder, gentler Sharia that he endorses. I see no difference between that and our almost-universally-Christian representatives making unfortunate endorsements of "Judeochristian values". Of course, they are advocating a kinder, gentler version of Judeochristian values that, conveniently, does not include stoning gays or avoiding mixed fibers. But it's still troubling nonetheless.
My point being -- Imam Rauf is still a damn moderate, as far as religious "authorities" go. They're all like that.
Posted by: James Sweet | September 7, 2010 6:10 PM
How is an Imam's notion that the US is "sharia compliant" any more wrong, stupid, or dangerous than the frequent Christian claim that US law is founded on the Ten Commandments? We have, fortunately, the 1st and 14th amendments, and a lot of case law, that puts the lie to both those claims, and that blocks the efforts to turn our secular law into religious law. The important thing is to maintain the separation of church and state against the efforts of the religious right, from whatever creed or sect. The Christian religious right will suffer paroxysms when they find out, the hard way, that "civic displays" in courthouses allow the Qur'an as much as the Ten Commandments, and perhaps then will come to a bit of understanding why civil libertarians try to keep such a bright line between government and religion.
Posted by: Russell | September 7, 2010 6:25 PM
@chiroptera
Do we need more of it?
And as I implied, the Imam might find sypathetic supporters, usually from the left, who will define Islam as a culture instead of religion.
@Russell
how is an Imam's notion . . . any more wrong, stupid, or dangerous?
It's not.
Posted by: secularsquare | September 7, 2010 6:39 PM
secularsquare, what difference does it make if Islam is viewed "as a culture instead of religion"? And which leftists do this?
Posted by: Russell | September 7, 2010 6:57 PM
The "why doesn't Rauf just move the mosque" is a load of crap; those assholes know they'll oppose the cultural center in most places. They might not complain about it being in the middle of the goddamned alkali dessert but I'm not even certain of that one.
Now for those folks who only get our American version of Pravda (I swear, fucking Pravda was/is far better than any US TV news today), these threats against the muslims in the US (most of whom are American) and the opposition to this building is really going down well in other countries. Bin Laden is laughing his ass off - he has more "proof" of the Great Satan's holy war against islam. The equivalents of Fox News in predominantly muslim countries are having a field day with this non-issue. We have a long list of mindless bigoted assholes to thank for that.
Posted by: MadScientist | September 7, 2010 7:04 PM
secularsquare, #47: Do we need more of it?
The problem is that we have it. And weakening the First Amendment to get rid of the demands for special accommodations of a weak group weakens our protections against the demands for special accommodations of a politically powerful group.
-
And as I implied, the Imam might find sypathetic supporters, usually from the left, who will define Islam as a culture instead of religion.
Sympathetic supporters for what, exactly?
I can understand why you remain vague over what exactly is going to happen if we let Muslims practice their faith on the same terms as the Christians do, seeing how anytime specific worries are explicitly mentioned they turn out to be laughably stupid.
Posted by: Chiroptera | September 7, 2010 7:18 PM
Poor example. Tilly lost control of his (more or less 100% mercenary -- something like even parts Catholic and Lutheran, with a fair number of Calvinists) troops.
The defenders didn't exactly help their cause, by the way: refusing an offer of terms before the final assault might be excused since the defenders were expecting relief any day by the Swedes, but sending the children of the town marching out to face the incoming troops singing Lutheran hymns didn't help.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | September 7, 2010 7:25 PM
Russell, #48: secularsquare, what difference does it make if Islam is viewed "as a culture instead of religion"? And which leftists do this?
Funny thing is, it's been vocal nuts on the right who have been claiming that Islam isn't a religion in order to justify denying them First Amendment protections.
Posted by: Chiroptera | September 7, 2010 7:27 PM
@ Russell-
I am no lawyer, but I can imagine someone suggesting that first amendment prohibitions regarding government support of religion might not be applicable if some aspect of Islam is called a culture instead of a religion.
As to which leftists do this, I can only remember one or two instances on universities (maybe UVA?) years ago when administrators funded Muslim student associations because they called them cutural but denied funding to Christian student associations because they called them religious. I do not see why colleges should offer any funding for any student group beyond providing a place to meet. Although the incident took place several years ago and I do not even know if I have the details correct, I remember it because the administrators seemed so dishonest about it.
Sometimes I wonder if this might explain,too, why some students on campus today get so revved up over a visit by Coulter but give the Muslim Student Asso. a pass on its invitation to some of the most obscene speakers imaginable.
Posted by: secularsquare | September 7, 2010 7:33 PM
Islam actually makes explicit provisions for living in a country which is not ruled by Muslims [1]. There are some, however, which make it impossible to comply with the demands of Islam; consider some of the cute things that European Christians imposed on Jews. Or consider societies where residents are required to participate in the national religion [2]. Since the USA promises free exercise there aren't any de jure obstacles to Islamic communities here.
[1] Big shock -- Muhammed was, after all, in international trade and started off with his followers living in non-Islamic lands.
[2] Obviously not a problem in Islamic countries but otherwise ...
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | September 7, 2010 7:38 PM
secularsquare, #53: ...when administrators funded Muslim student associations because they called them cutural but denied funding to Christian student associations because they called them religious.
Which must have gotten them sued. Once a school funds student organizations, it can't deny funding to any organization just because they are religious. This is not controversial; it is pretty firmly established precedent. Funny thing is, it has been leftist groups like the ACLU which argued for this.
It could be that the Christian groups declined to accept certain conditions for funding, like non-discrimination clauses, that the Muslim groups were willing to abide by.
Or it could be the administrators were jack-asses who didn't know the law. In which case they are open to a lawsuit.
Hard to say what the specifics of the case were.
In any case, it doesn't sound like Muslims demanding special privileges; it sounds like a school administration that didn't understand the law and was behaving in a discriminatory fashion in violation of the First Amendment.
Posted by: Chiroptera | September 7, 2010 7:47 PM
"The main problem that Islam has that Christianity doesn't is that Muslim dominated countries haven't yet been dragged through the Enlightenment like Chistian dominated countries were, with the more faithful screaming and kicking and resisting every single social advance."
And yet somehow the Muslim world for all it's faults has never produced the concentration camp; the "cultivation system" as applied in the Belgian Congo; the atomic bomb or Jim Crow.
Clearly they have a long way to go before they become as civilized as us.
Posted by: Ian Gould | September 7, 2010 7:54 PM
Ian Gould, #56: And yet somehow the Muslim world for all it's faults has never produced the concentration camp; the "cultivation system" as applied in the Belgian Congo; the atomic bomb or Jim Crow.
Hmm. So what you're saying is that Islam really is incompatible with Western values.
Posted by: Chiroptera | September 7, 2010 8:02 PM
"And in an interview with PBS Frontline in 2002, he argued that American principles of government are compatible to Sharia. He did not explain why no Muslim majority countries have have implemented these principles and why Muslim separatist movements emerge in non-Muslim countries that do have these principles."
What "American principles" do you think Indonesia and Turkey lack?
What countries with these "American principles" are facing Muslim separatist movements?
Whenever I hear people arguing that Islam is inconsistent with liberal democracy, I'm reminded of being in University in the late 80;s and being told, repeatedly, that Asian values were inconsistent with liberal democracy.
Good thing nobody explained that to the South Koreans, Taiwanese; Filipinos, Thais and Indonesians.
Posted by: Ian Gould | September 7, 2010 8:04 PM
@42:
This seems to come up a lot, but "Sharia" does not mean what most people, including yourself, seem to think it means. There is no Sharia code or list of Sharia rules. Sharia is an abstract (and hopelessly confused) concept that simply means "law", or more specifically, an idealized form of law that Muslims are supposed to aspire to. This article has a good explanation of it. The Taliban or whomever may reference Sharia when the institute their oppressive rule, but most Muslims using the term mean nothing of the sort.
I haven't seen the interview, but he was probably trying to make the banal point that Sharia per se has nothing to do with stoning adulterers, but is rather about all that wishy-washy stuff he specifically mentioned.
Since the guy is an imam, I think it's pretty obvious that he likes his religion (as he understands it) and would like to see it spread. Same is true of virtually every Christian priest or pastor. There is nothing remotely surprising or alarming about this.
What's bizarre is the idea that Americans are so impressionable that a small number of Muslims are going to turn the whole country Islamist in the span of a generation or two, and then we'll have repressive, Taliban-style law instituted against our will. Left unexplained is how Islam can be simultaneously so scary and yet win so many converts. Nor is it clear how a constitutional democracy is supposed to end up with a system of law that the majority hates and the courts wouldn't condone.
Posted by: Steve Reuland | September 7, 2010 8:08 PM
"How is an Imam's notion that the US is "sharia compliant" any more wrong, stupid, or dangerous than the frequent Christian claim that US law is founded on the Ten Commandments? We have, fortunately, the 1st and 14th amendments, and a lot of case law, that puts the lie to both those claims, and that blocks the efforts to turn our secular law into religious law."
Actually what he's saying is the underlying principles behind sharia, not the barbaric bullshit that's been practised using Sharia as an excuse are consistent with existing American institutions.
Much like how most christian leaders think Christianity is consistent with democracy and hnman rights.
Posted by: Ian Gould | September 7, 2010 8:16 PM
"Sometimes I wonder if this might explain,too, why some students on campus today get so revved up over a visit by Coulter but give the Muslim Student Asso. a pass on its invitation to some of the most obscene speakers imaginable"
Can we get some examples of those "obscene" speakers?
Are any of them on record calling for Muslims to kill christian leaders and forcibly convert theit followers to Islam?
Posted by: Ian Gould | September 7, 2010 8:21 PM
Much of that quote Ed posts is laudable but really, the problem is one of mindset. If you accept that books can be infallible, that the big questions of human existence can be answered by faith, and that there is a divine being with a plan for the individual, things like this are going to happen. It's not coherent to hold these views while also saying that some people have simply got it wrong. Using unreason results in unreasonable positions. That's why I disagree that religious moderates are of any use whatsoever to people wishing for a rational discourse and an ethical existence.
Posted by: Rokkaku/Ewan | September 7, 2010 8:56 PM
Rokkaku/Ewan, #62: That's why I disagree that religious moderates are of any use whatsoever to people wishing for a rational discourse and an ethical existence.
The point isn't whether religious moderates (or other religious people) are "useful," the point is that they exist, and any existence that can be considered "ethical" is going to require that we live in the same world with them, live next to them, and work with them.
In fact, here in the US, religious people tend to form more powerful political groups than us non-religious people. The only reason us non-religious people still have our rights to be non-religious is because we can find allies among the moderates against the extremists. Oops, I guess religious moderates are useful after all.
Posted by: Chiroptera | September 7, 2010 9:03 PM
Canny, here's something that might make your head spin. I absolutely, totally, 100% agree with you that Islam can be an extremely violent and bloody religion.
I also absolutely, totally, 100% disagree with banning this mosque.
You know why? Simple - it protects freedom of religion, not just for Muslims, but for everyone. If this mosque gets banned because people disagree with it, what's to stop Muslims demanding Christian churches be banned because they disagree with what is preached in those Christian churches? What's to stop the same thing happening with Judaism, Sikhism, Buddhism, etc, etc, etc?
Posted by: Zmidponk | September 7, 2010 9:12 PM
@Chiroptera 63: Well, the point rather is whether or not they're useful, because I'm directly addressing the original topic, which said this:
"It is not Islamophobic to say so. Quite the contrary: it is to side with Muslims who are struggling against the same poison as we are. Apologetic definitions of Islam will not avail anybody in this struggle."
What I'm saying is that rationalists are not struggling against the same poison. They may be struggling against the same symptom - the monstrous extremism that can and does result in bloody violence - but the poison is the taking of things on faith and the idea that writing can be infallible. The latter is something that many moderates would agree with, and the former is, I think, something that all moderates would agree with, that faith is a virtue. If you encourage someone to act off their faith then you can't act shocked and surprised when terrible things happen. In this sense I certainly do not consider myself on the same side, or fighting the same poison, as religious moderates, and I reject Wieseltier's assertion that I am, or should be.
Regarding your last point... am I supposed to be grateful? Oh, thank you, moderates, for suffering me to live! Are you sure it's not the US' implementation of a republican model that's more the situation here? The Constitution? The influence of Locke on toleration and Mill on the tyrrany of the majority? Forgive me for not prostrating myself before those moderates for their generous act of saving me from the extremists!
Posted by: Rokkaku/Ewan | September 7, 2010 9:25 PM
Sorry to double post, but it should - but won't - go without saying that I have no intention of singling out moderate Islam here, but anyone of any faith (or none) who believes that acting on faith is a virtue, and encourages others to do the same. I regard this as grossly irresponsible behaviour and as poisonous as anything.
Posted by: Ewan/Rokkaku | September 7, 2010 9:27 PM
Nothing so bad as that, but
Sheikh Khalid Yasin says homosexuals should be killed, WHO workers spread aids under the guise of vaccinations to Africa and the Jews planned 9/11, and sharia should be instituted worldwide
Muhammad al-Asi believes MOSSAD planned 9/11 and praised Aya. Khomeini as the living continuation of Hitler
Amir-Abdel Malik-Ali says Zionists control the media, created the Danish cartoon controversy, and planned to kill Gore if elected to make his jewish runningmate. Islam will rule
Imam Abdul Alim Musa called for destruction of Israel, destruction of the US,and of course, what else, the US and Jews conspired at 9/11 as an excuse to attack Islam
etc etc
Posted by: secularsquare | September 7, 2010 9:30 PM
Rokkaku/Ewan, #65: What I'm saying is that rationalists are not struggling against the same poison.
I think that is the wrong way to look at it. The way I see it, religious moderates and I have the same enemy, namely the extremists who would deny both of us the freedom to believe what we believe.
And when it comes to debating the social policies that affect us, the moderates will at least engage in a dialogue and try to achieve the compromises that are necessary in a functioning democracy. That is what ultimately matters.
-
Oh, thank you, moderates, for suffering me to live!
I think that's the wrong way to look at it. It should be more like: Good thing we both recognize we have a common foe! And that we agree on enough of the basic principles of democratic society that we can live peaceably together!
Posted by: Chiroptera | September 7, 2010 9:36 PM
secularsquare, #67:
And what is the connection between those people and the Cordoba Initiative?
Or are you now desperately floundering around trying to find anything that will stick together into a coherent point?
Posted by: Chiroptera | September 7, 2010 9:41 PM
QFT - and for the record, I think that forming alliances with the non-religious helps us religious moderates as well, since we are in fact often fighting for the same secular values. Facile arguments about "the poison of faith" only matter against those who seek to promote religious beliefs in the public square, and religious moderates tend not to do that so much, from my experience.
Posted by: The Christian Cynic | September 7, 2010 9:53 PM
@ Ian Gould 56
"And yet somehow the Muslim world for all it's faults has never produced the concentration camp; the 'cultivation system' as applied in the Belgian Congo; the atomic bomb or Jim Crow."
"Clearly they have a long way to go before they become as civilized as us."
Damn, that's good writing. I know good writing, and that's definitely it.
Posted by: Woody Tanaka | September 8, 2010 12:06 AM
Chiroptera: A69 "And what is the connection between those people and the Cordoba Initiative?
Or are you now desperately floundering around trying to find anything that will stick together into a coherent point?"
I think Secular Square's comment at 67 MAY have been a response to my question @61 re. radical speakers addressing Muslim student associations.
Emphasis on the "may" though.
Posted by: Ian Gould | September 8, 2010 12:28 AM
Re secularsquare @ #67
How about the Christian prelates in Africa who are calling for the execution of homosexuals? How about Rabbi Ovedia who calls for an Eichmann solution for Palestinian Arabs in Israel? The fact is that religion is the root of all evil, as the TV series by Richard Dawkins was titled.
Posted by: SLC | September 8, 2010 8:46 AM
they responded to the proposed construction of a gay bar near the area by complaining that it offends Muslim sensibilities.
There already is a bar next to the proposed Cordoba House site, it's called the Dakota Roadhouse. And the next block over is a strip bar called New York Dolls. So, the Muslims of Park51 are going to see a lot of things that offend there sensibilities.
Posted by: Tommykey | September 8, 2010 9:20 AM
Ugh! I meant "their sensibilities"!
Posted by: Tommykey | September 8, 2010 9:25 AM
In a BookTV episode, he described the United States as a "Sharia compliant" nation. And in an interview with PBS Frontline in 2002, he argued that American principles of government are compatible to Sharia.
Well, that's a LOT better than saying American principles of government have to change to accomodate Sharia, doncha think? Those statements alone put him in the "non-theatening moderate" camp. So what's your problem with this guy? He's doing what we expect all immigrants to do.
He did not explain why no Muslim majority countries have have implemented these principles and why Muslim separatist movements emerge in non-Muslim countries that do have these principles.
And YOU haven't acknowledged that significant numbers of Muslims in Muslim-majority nations are risking their lives trying to do just that. That's what all that terrorism is about: a minority resisting the adoption of Western democratic-capitalist principles. Remember Afghanistan and Iraq, boy? There are natives in both countries who are pissed at America, not for invading their countries, but for failing to establish the well-ordered liberty we'd originally promised them.
Posted by: Raging Bee | September 8, 2010 10:14 AM
Re canny's ludicrous claim that "I cannot blame the actions of some violent Christians on the validity of the religion because, at its core, Christianity is a genuine religion of peace", then Christianity must be just like monogamy; More honoured in the breach than in the observance.
Let me think, hmmmmm....Crusades, Thirty Years War, The Albigensian Heresy(some of Saint Dominic's words would make you puke), Northern Ireland, The Lord's Resistance Army, etc, ad nauseam.
"And yet somehow the Muslim world for all it's faults has never produced the concentration camp; the 'cultivation system' as applied in the Belgian Congo; the atomic bomb or Jim Crow. Clearly they have a long way to go before they become as civilized as us." @ Ian Gould 56. Very well put, sir.
Ultimately most people are about two meals away from barbarism, and there have been a few attempts by religious figures - Buddha, Mohammed, Jesus - to apply the idea of "Wouldn't it be good to be nice to other people, and to try to live peacefully together". Generally, after say three generations at most, the new vision has become "Women back to the kitchen and kill everyone who does not agree with everything we do".
Monotheistic religions are especially toxic for the female half of the human species.
Posted by: MacTurk | September 9, 2010 5:47 AM