Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
After two months of silence, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the leader of the group seeking to open an Islamic center a few blocks from the World Trade Center site, has responded publicly to the controversy in an op-ed in the New York Times. He says that he was silent until now because he has been on a State Department-sponsored speaking tour abroad and did not feel it was appropriate to comment on it while overseas.
He says that the center will be much more multicultural and multireligious than previously discussed:
Our broader mission -- to strengthen relations between the Western and Muslim worlds and to help counter radical ideology -- lies not in skirting the margins of issues that have polarized relations within the Muslim world and between non-Muslims and Muslims. It lies in confronting them as a joint multifaith, multinational effort.From the political conflicts between Israelis and Palestinians to the building of a community center in Lower Manhattan, Muslims and members of all faiths must work together if we are ever going to succeed in fostering understanding and peace.
At Cordoba House, we envision shared space for community activities, like a swimming pool, classrooms and a play space for children. There will be separate prayer spaces for Muslims, Christians, Jews and men and women of other faiths. The center will also include a multifaith memorial dedicated to victims of the Sept. 11 attacks.
I think this is a good thing and I hope it comes to fruition. And this passage stuck out for me:
Lost amid the commotion is the good that has come out of the recent discussion. I want to draw attention, specifically, to the open, law-based and tolerant actions that have taken place, and that are particularly striking for Muslims.President Obama and Mayor Michael Bloomberg both spoke out in support of our project. As I traveled overseas, I saw firsthand how their words and actions made a tremendous impact on the Muslim street and on Muslim leaders. It was striking: a Christian president and a Jewish mayor of New York supporting the rights of Muslims. Their statements sent a powerful message about what America stands for, and will be remembered as a milestone in improving American-Muslim relations.
I have long said that we consistently draw the lines in the wrong place. Rather than drawing them between Christians, Jews, Muslims, atheists and so forth, we should be drawing them between the sane and decent people in all of those groups and the crazy, violent, bigoted people in all of those groups (and there are plenty of both kinds in each of them).
Politics
Comments
When they allow Christians to build churches in Saudi Arabia, perhaps I will be more comfortable with Muslims building a mosque so close to Ground Zero.
Posted by: Canny | September 9, 2010 11:54 AM
@Canny you sound like the annoying kid at school, who when caught dropping his lunch garbage on the floor shrilly complain that Billy spilled his juice and didn't wipe it up.
Posted by: m5 | September 9, 2010 11:58 AM
Yes, emulating Saudi Arabia will certainly improve the US no end.
Posted by: MartinM | September 9, 2010 11:58 AM
People who say things like "When they allow Christians to build churches in Saudi Arabia, perhaps I will be more comfortable with Muslims building a mosque so close to Ground Zero" fail to understand the whole point of the U.S., the Constitution, and religious freedom in general. The point is to be BETTER than other countries, not to match their petty insanities. Pay attention when adults are speaking, Canny, and you might learn something.
Posted by: ECOA | September 9, 2010 12:04 PM
This reminds me of all those people that go on about 'No churches in Mecca'.
If we believe people should be able to practice the religion of their choice, are we going to stoop down to the level of Saudia Arabia, or hold to our principles and hope they raise up to ours?
Posted by: Ashley Moore | September 9, 2010 12:04 PM
@Canny: *yawn* Troll harder. Parroting Newt Gingrich is just lazy.
@Ed: I have long said that we consistently draw the lines in the wrong place. Rather than drawing them between Christians, Jews, Muslims, atheists and so forth, we should be drawing them between the sane and decent people in all of those groups and the crazy, violent, bigoted people in all of those groups (and there are plenty of both kinds in each of them).
Thank you for saying this. If this community center gets built as planned, it will stand as a a refutation (even a refudiation) of the extremists on all sides who cannot fathom the idea of "Us" and "Them" peacefully coexisting.
Posted by: Emily | September 9, 2010 12:05 PM
"Perhaps I will be comfortable" is not the same as saying that I'd legally seek to hinder the construction of the mosque. Far from it. I simply believe that we should look at how the Muslim world operates when they are in charge and whether or not we want to be so careless with how we look at their motives.
Posted by: Canny | September 9, 2010 12:07 PM
Canny,
If you would take the time to read the Op-Ed piece referred to, you would learn that "Cordoba House" is named after the Spanish city which was a center of religious tolerance under Islamic rule.
Posted by: tms | September 9, 2010 12:12 PM
I'm with Canny.
In fact, I'd get pretty annoyed if someone built a Christian church or community center near the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City, which, as you recall, was bombed by a Christian jihadist killing about 500 people.
It's bad enough, right Canny, that within two blocks of OKC Ground Zero there are about 6 Christian churches. Downright offensive if you ask me and I'm sure Canny agrees.
Posted by: Doc Bill | September 9, 2010 12:14 PM
Let's see:
1) No non-Christian places of worship in the Vatican,
2) No non-Christians in positions of power in the Vatican,
3) Laws favoring Christians over non-Christians in the Vatican.
Yup, a world in which the Christians are in charge of government is just so nice. (If you are [the right kind of] Christian.)
Posted by: mercurianferret | September 9, 2010 12:17 PM
Timothy McVeigh was not a Christian. This is a popular atheist myth that is as shameful as it is inaccurate. The Guardian reported that McVeigh was, later in life, mostly an agnostic who professed a belief in natural law guiding the universe. He also claimed that science was his religion.
Posted by: Canny | September 9, 2010 12:18 PM
Canny, #7: I simply believe that we should look at how the Muslim world operates when they are in charge and whether or not we want to be so careless with how we look at their motives.
I dunno. Trying to figure out a person's motives by looking at how other people act in other countries instead of looking at the what the particular person himself is saying or doing -- that sounds pretty careless to me.
Posted by: Chiroptera | September 9, 2010 12:19 PM
@Canny: Do you really believe that the Muslims who want to build the Cordoba community center have the same motivations as the rulers of Saudi Arabia? Not all Muslims think the same way, you know. The "Muslim world" is not a monolithic big block of evil.
Posted by: Emily | September 9, 2010 12:28 PM
I had a knee-jerk reaction to this column when I first read it which still resonates. Mr. Rauf writes:
I highly doubt most Americans considered the President and Mayor's argument when establishing their own. It's ironic their words probably had more impact outside our borders.
Posted by: Michael Heath | September 9, 2010 12:31 PM
Even the most moderate Muslim cannot fully be described as civil. They would still seek to impose Shariah law on the United States because the culture of Islam is so fundamentally different from Western culture, especially in how our views are generally more progressive. Islam is one of the few "religions" that I would not hesitate to describe as political, a community that breeds violence.
Posted by: Canny | September 9, 2010 12:32 PM
@Canny: Even the most moderate [Christian] cannot fully be described as civil. They would still seek to impose [Old Testament] law on the United States because the culture of [Christianity] is so fundamentally different from Western culture, especially in how our views are generally more progressive. [Christianity] is one of the few "religions" that I would not hesitate to describe as political, a community that breeds violence.
I think your argument holds every bit as well with these emendations.
Posted by: Emily | September 9, 2010 12:38 PM
Re Canny @ #11
Mr. Canny repeats the lies promulgated by fascist sources like worldnutdaily and human events. The fact is that McVeigh was heavily influenced by the Christian Identity movement and admitted in an interview that he was a believer. The money quotes:
Time: Are you religious?
McVeigh: I was raised Catholic. I was confirmed Catholic (received the sacrament of confirmation). Through my military years, I sort of lost touch with the religion. I never really picked it up, however I do maintain core beliefs.
Time: Do you believe in God?
McVeigh: I do believe in a God, yes. But that's as far as I want to discuss. If I get too detailed on some things that are personal like that, it gives people an easier way [to] alienate themselves from me and that's all they are looking for now.
All this text discloses is that McVeigh distanced himself from Catholicism, not Christianity. It also reveals that he did not want to discuss his faith further because he knew most people would find it repulsive. What was repulsive about his faith? Was he an atheist? No. Was he a secular humanist? No. What do we know about his beliefs at the time he was bombing the federal building in Oklahoma City?
There is no doubt that Timothy McVeigh was deeply influenced by the Christian Identity movement. Christian Identity is a profoundly racist and theocratic form of faith that developed in the late 1970s and spread like wildfire through rural communities throughout the U.S. in the 1980s.
The chief guidebook for Christian Identity eschatology is "The Turner Diaries" written by William Pierce under the pseudonym Andrew MacDonald. The book is a fictional account of the "day of judgment" for which Identity adherents are preparing. Here's a summary of the book by Joel Dyer, author of "Harvest of Rage: Why Oklahoma City is Only the Beginning" (1997) – by far the best explanation in print for what led to the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City:
In his book "The Turner Diaries," Pierce describes a race war that ends with the government being overthrown. Pierce's book is more than fiction. The most radical elements of the movement view it as a vision or blueprint for action. In the book, the Aryan forces used armored car robberies to finance their revolution. In real life, the radical white supremacist group called "the Order" used Pierce's book as a guide to their armored car robberies in the Northwest. In the book, the revolutionaries blow up a federal building as part of their antigovernment war. In real life, the bombing of Oklahoma City's Alfred P. Murrah Building was almost a carbon copy of the incident in Pierce's book. As I mentioned earlier, Timothy McVeigh had photocopies of a portion of "The Turner Diaries" with him when he was arrested. McVeigh also sold copies of the book at gun shows around the country.
Posted by: SLC | September 9, 2010 12:42 PM
I predict that some far-right person(s) will now claim that the inclusion of prayer spaces for various religions is a new thing added because of the protests, meaning the protests have been successful, meaning people should do more protesting of mosques.
Posted by: JuliaL | September 9, 2010 12:44 PM
Also, returning to your earlier post:
I simply believe that we should look at how the Muslim world operates when they are in charge and whether or not we want to be so careless with how we look at their motives.
How exactly does allowing Muslims to build a community center (which isn't even a specifically Islamic building) come anywhere close to having them "in charge", as they are in a theocracy like Saudi Arabia?
Posted by: Emily | September 9, 2010 12:44 PM
Hmmmm, yes. Indeed.
And when crazed Christian fundies stop shooting abortion providers, I will stop shooting priests. Fair trade?
Posted by: James Sweet | September 9, 2010 12:44 PM
Re SLC @ # 17
Forgot to post the link.
http://www.ethicsdaily.com/news.php?viewStory=15532
Posted by: SLC | September 9, 2010 12:45 PM
SLC, how do you then explain McVeigh's well-documented claims about his belief in "natural law" and "Science is my religion"? If anything, he was not a Christian and could best be described as a confused agnostic.
Posted by: Canny | September 9, 2010 12:49 PM
Canny, #15: Even the most moderate Muslim cannot fully be described as civil.
Actually, even a bomb throwing extremist can be civil -- well, not when he's throwing a bomb, of course, but when he's buying his groceries he might very well be civil.. Do you even know what "civil" means? Or do we need to list it with "convicted" as words you need to look up?
Posted by: Chiroptera | September 9, 2010 12:49 PM
@ Canny
I agree.
Here in south Georgia every hospital has a chapel or room set aside for religious activities. And, again, since this is after all south Georgia, 90-plus percent of the prayin' going on will be of some Christian flavor.
And we all know that Christians in this area wiped out the native peoples, supported slavery and rebelled against their lawful government.
So these churches, diabolically disguised as benevolent hospitals, are a slap in the face of those victims of genocide, slavery and the most deadly war in American history.
Until the operators of these evil facilities that cure and care for the sick publicly refudiate those christianist outrages, they should cease their fraudulent operations.*
Wheeee! ... My oh my, aren't slippery slopes FUN?
* Sadly, this "argument" is more logical than any I've heard from those who are at the moment going full-retard over the not-a-mosque at not-ground-zero.*
* And having watched smokin' Soledad's show last night I have genuine sympathy for those who lost family members and friends on 9-11. However, I also remember Ann Coulter and Glennda Beck throwing scorn at those same people a short time ago.
Beck: "I hate 9/11 victims' families for asking questions." (Isn't that, like, his whole fucking act, the common-sense Real Merkin™ who's just asking questions)?
Coulter: "I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much."
Posted by: Fifth Dentist | September 9, 2010 1:05 PM
Re Canny @ #22
SLC, how do you then explain McVeigh's well-documented claims about his belief in "natural law" and "Science is my religion"?
1. How about a link to these well-documented claims. And links to web sites like worldnutdaily, the Washington Times, and human events are not reliable sources.
2. Of equal importance to whatever Mr. McVeighs' professed personal religious beliefs were, is his association with the Christian Identity Movement, hardly an atheist/agnostic organization. In setting of a bomb in the federal building in Oklahoma City, Mr. McVeigh was carrying out the ukases promulgated in the Turner Diaries, the bible of that terrorist organization.
Posted by: SLC | September 9, 2010 1:05 PM
Source of the "Science is my religion" quote:
Michel, Lou and Herbeck, Dan. American Terrorist. pp. 142–143
Posted by: Canny | September 9, 2010 1:14 PM
If you want to associate Timothy McVeigh with science and/or atheism, then you might as well blame his actions on the Republicans and the National Rifle Association. After all, McVeigh was registered under the Republican Party of New York when he resided in Buffalo and, during his military years, was a member of the NRA and a frequent gun show attendant. As for religious matters, at best he was a theist, stating that he believed in some universal higher power.
Posted by: SwedishSkinJer | September 9, 2010 1:18 PM
Yeah, Christianity isn't the least bit politicized.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fellowship_%28Christian_organization%29
It's trivial to find examples of Christians trying to legislate according to their doctrine. The only difference between that and Sharia is that Christians don't have a fancy name for it.
It's also trivial to find examples of Christian doctrine being used to foment violence, as well as all other sorts of bad behavior.
McVeigh is completely irrelevant. If the misbehavior of some Christians doesn't imply that Christianity in general is a horrible, destructive philosophy, then the misbehavior of some Muslims doesn't imply that Islam is in general a horrible, destructive philosophy. Frankly, I think all forms of superstition are horrible, destructive philosophies, but at least I'm not a hypocritical bigot like you.
I also like the "fundamentally different from western culture." You mean like the culture that gave us the crusades, the inquisition, Mormonism, the near-extinction of native north and central American cultures, the Atlantic slave trade, etc? Read some freakin' history, man. Christianity is not some religion of peace.
Posted by: Dan L. | September 9, 2010 1:41 PM
@Canny:
It turns out American Terrorist is up on Amazon, and allows you to search inside it. The quote is on page 170, not 142 or 143 (although this is probably just due to a different edition being scanned in), and placed in context it reads as follows:
Personally, I suspect I'd be rather hard pressed to find any atheist that believes in a "universal higher power".
Posted by: Technogeek | September 9, 2010 1:53 PM
Of course, there's also the fact that such a belief would not seem to lead to "science is my religion" in any logically coherent fashion, but I figured that was obvious already.
Posted by: Technogeek | September 9, 2010 1:56 PM
None of those things were true about the Ottoman Empire, and none of them are true about Turkey (though sadly I think Turkey is changing). The Ottomans (and Turkey) did not impose Shariah law, even in their own country. The Ottomans suffered from anarchists and communists, not religious extremists. It was not until the Western powers focefully broke up the Ottoman Empire and savaged its scattered parts that Islamic extremism rose up.
Face it, Canny. You (that is, people like you) created radical Islam. And now you're using their reaction to your depradations to brand them as uncivilized brutes.
The situation in the Middle East will not get better until people understand that the underlying problem is colonialism, not extremism. The colonialism created the extremism, and the extremism will fade after the colonialism ends.
Posted by: shargash | September 9, 2010 2:04 PM
My wife is an atheist who was born Muslim in the Middle East. Islam teaches that she should be put to death for her apostasy. Almost every single Muslim nation has mandated death or imprisonment for apostasy and blasphemy. Even Sufis teach this.
How am I supposed to be 'tolerant' of a belief system that teaches death for freethinkers - especially my wife?
Am I simply supposed to blithely ignore the actual mainstream teachings of Islam and assume that Islam never really matured until it came to the U.S. in the form of the glorious Imam Rauf?
I love it how you guys simply ignore the actual teachings of 99% of the world's Imams, the actions of 1300 years of Islam and
laws in place in most Islamic nations.
Its probably because most of you are white people who've never lived in an Islamic society - like the old 1950's Stalin supporters - its all an abstraction for you.
Posted by: richard | September 9, 2010 2:11 PM
The situation in the Middle East will not get better until people understand that the underlying problem is colonialism, not extremism. The colonialism created the extremism, and the extremism will fade after the colonialism ends.
This is such bullshit. Many former colonized nations (think India, China, Brazil) seem to be recovering fine from colonialism. This is just a pathetic excuse and more of the self-arrogated victimhood card.
Posted by: richard | September 9, 2010 2:15 PM
You (that is, people like you) created radical Islam.
Actually, if you look at Islam during the time of the Momo the 'Prophet' - I would say he created radical Islam.
Posted by: richard | September 9, 2010 2:19 PM
richard, #32: Am I simply supposed to blithely ignore the actual mainstream teachings of Islam and assume that Islam never really matured until it came to the U.S. in the form of the glorious Imam Rauf?
What you are supposed to do is react to what Imam Rauf himself actually says and does, working with him if and when the two of you agree on desired goals, and opposing him when you disagree with him. Kind of like what you are supposed to do with people who aren't Muslims.
What you are supposed to not do is react to Imam Rauf based on what different people in totally different countries say and do. Kind of like you are supposed to not do with any other people.
-
Its probably because most of you are white people who've never lived in an Islamic society....
Fortunately, since we're talking about how we are supposed to treat people who live here in the US, whether or not anyone here has lived in an Islamic country is pretty much irrelevant.
-
Islam teaches that she should be put to death for her apostasy.
If Imam Rauf kills someone for apostasy here in the US, he'll be tried for murder.
If he merely says that apostates should be killed without actually inciting a particular killing, that's protected speech. You can then use your own right to free speech to call him an asshole. I'll join you.
If Imam Rauf doesn't say that apostates should be killed then try to find something he did say, anything at all, and criticize that so that you'll end up changing the subject and not look like such a tool.
Posted by: Chiroptera | September 9, 2010 2:24 PM
@Canny #26
Excellent FAIL citation mining from the Timoth McVeigh Wikipedia article.
Posted by: The Other Lance | September 9, 2010 2:41 PM
So does Christianity - or are you unaware that non-Christians (which included Roman Catholics under Protestant rule and Protestants under Roman Catholic rule) were routinely put to death under Christian regimes for years? Are you unaware that the "bible" continues to call for death by burning of heresy and apostacy?
Posted by: CPT_Doom | September 9, 2010 2:41 PM
Canny,
I'm curious, do you actually know any Muslims? The broad nature of your statements lead me to believe that you could benefit from a little experience.
Posted by: tms | September 9, 2010 2:50 PM
It's folks like Rauf who are the best hope for ending these
insane wars.
Posted by: Paen | September 9, 2010 2:51 PM
Seriously people, don't feed the trolls!
Posted by: Brandon | September 9, 2010 2:52 PM
Canny the christianist troll @ #1:
So, now you're explicitly saying we should emulate an oppressive theocracy. Get the fuck out of my country, you traitorous swine.
I'll consider the possibility that these lying theocratic assholes are sincere about objecting to a worshippin' hut near the site of an act of relgious terrorism once they tear down every single christian church in the entire state of Georgia, where christian terrorist Eric Robert Rudolph set bombs to murder and maim hundreds of my fellow Americans. Allowing buildings devoted to the sick death cult that drove him to kill in the state he attacked is every bit as much of a desecration of the graves of his victims as a community center built by members of an islamic sect considered infidels by Al Quaeda put blocks from Ground Zero and out of sight of it.
So, Canny, get off your ass, head to Georgia, and start tearing down churches. They're a blight on the fucking landscape. Unless of course you don't actually MEAN the crap you're babbling.
Posted by: phantomreader42 | September 9, 2010 2:54 PM
Come on, people! Don't let them Muslems get away with this! First they take Manhattan, then they take Berlin!
Posted by: Modusoperandi | September 9, 2010 3:42 PM
Re The Other Lance @ #36
I would also note that, in addition to quote mining, Mr. Canny declined to address McVeighs' association with Christian Identity or the influence of the Turner Diaries on his thinking.
Re Richard @ #
Posted by: SLC | September 9, 2010 3:46 PM
I was actually at "Ground Zero" last week. I didn't really want to go. I felt that I've been forced to reflect on the events of that day just about every day for the last 9 years and I could live without actually seeing the hole in the ground, thank you very much.
However, it was hot, and my boyfriend and I decided to go see the "Mosque".
I can tell you that it is a sweaty, hot hike from "Ground Zero". You can't even see "Ground Zero" from where this proposed community/religious center is.
It's in a Muslim neighbourhood, at least that's what the falafel trucks and hijab were telling me, and I'm betting that neighbourhood has been there for longer than 9 years. Apparently Osama didn't know he'd be bombing fellow Muslims when he organized the attacks on the WTC...nah. I'll bet he did and didn't give a rat's ass. Osama is playing fundamentalist Islam like a Harp from Hell for political reasons, and neither of them like non-crazy muslims.
And people like Caddy or Candy or whatever would like to lump them all together...
Posted by: tamakazura | September 9, 2010 3:53 PM
What Brandon @40 said.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | September 9, 2010 4:31 PM
Uhm you know that Natural law is in no way in conflict with Christianity?
In fact a lot of arguments made by christians are base on what they consider natural law. For example they will say that their opposition to homosexuality is not based on religion, but on natural law, since Man, endowed by the creator with intelligence, recognizes that a penis goes in a vagina and not anywhere else, hence homosexuality is evil and wrong, since it is against the natural law.
Posted by: Soren | September 9, 2010 4:49 PM
Uhm you know that Natural law is in no way in conflict with Christianity?
In fact a lot of arguments made by christians are base on what they consider natural law. For example they will say that their opposition to homosexuality is not based on religion, but on natural law, since Man, endowed by the creator with intelligence, recognizes that a penis goes in a vagina and not anywhere else, hence homosexuality is evil and wrong, since it is against the natural law.
Posted by: Soren | September 9, 2010 4:49 PM
@Canny:
When you become a bit more comfortable with Muslims building a non-mosque not-really-that-close to Ground Zero, perhaps they'll allow Christians to build churches in Saudi Arabia.
@Soren:
In fact a lot of arguments made by christians are base on what they consider natural law
"What Christians consider natural law" may not conflict with Christianity (although, even then it usually does), but anything worthy of the name Natural Law most assuredly does conflict with Christianity and even more so with Christians.
Posted by: Miko | September 9, 2010 5:08 PM
"Come on, people! Don't let them Muslems get away with this! First they take Manhattan, then they take Berlin!"
What's wrong with Muslims taking Manhattan?
I saw the movie years ago with the green frog and the fat pig lady who loved him. It was a really great movie. What do you people have against lovable cartoon characters?
Jane Curtin: "That was The MUPPETS Take Manhattan, not the Muslims."
Never mind.
Posted by: Fifth Dentist | September 9, 2010 5:34 PM
Miko:
Natural Law has a long Catholic pedigree, dating back to at least Aquinas, so it seems quixotic to try to reclaim it. The concept of the law coming from nature (which is what natural law means, it is not a synonym for the laws of nature) pretty well requires some sort of religious world view. Non-theists don't have much excuse for mistaking nature's is for an ought, but people who want to claim that species are thoughts in the mind of the creator* are able to claim that the shape of the external genitalia is a self-evident demonstration of said creator's thoughts on the roles of human males and females in society.
*The creator spends a lot of time thinking about chest-bursting parasitoids.
Posted by: snurp | September 9, 2010 5:46 PM
This just in from Yahoo News:
" Minister cancels plan to burn Qurans"
but...
"The Rev. Terry Jones says he expects the controversial NYC mosque to be moved in exchange."
I laughed.
Posted by: Gonzo | September 9, 2010 7:04 PM
How many mosques (or synagogues or for that matter protestant or Orthodox churches) are there in Vatican City?
Posted by: Ian Gould | September 10, 2010 1:09 AM
Until the Vatican allows mosques (or synagogues, protestant churches, Hindu temples, Shintoist shrines and etc.) in their country I say no Christian churches should be allowed near anywhere anyone could be even slightly offended or upset in even the theoretical way!!!
I'm sure the Park51 protesters could get behind that sentiment, right? :D - Dingo
Posted by: DingoJack | September 10, 2010 1:19 AM
Richard: "Its probably because most of you are white people who've never lived in an Islamic society - like the old 1950's Stalin supporters - its all an abstraction for you."
I'm a white American atheist and I've lived for ~7 years total in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Bahrain.
I think that this is a perfectly reasonable place for a cultural center or a mosque.
When a taxi driver doesn't want to give a person a ride because they've got some liquor, I have a problem. When, as has happened in the UK, some hyper-sensitive Muslims get whiney about posters with puppies or pigs, I have a problem.
Allowing a mosque to be built is not "accommodating" beliefs because it doesn't involve us changing anything about our society or culture or laws.
Posted by: Gopiballava | September 10, 2010 1:22 AM
"Even the most moderate Muslim cannot fully be described as civil. They would still seek to impose Shariah law on the United States because the culture of Islam is so fundamentally different from Western culture, especially in how our views are generally more progressive. Islam is one of the few "religions" that I would not hesitate to describe as political, a community that breeds violence."
So what is it that keeps them imposing shariah law in approximately 90% of the countries where they're in the majority?
Posted by: Ian Gould | September 10, 2010 1:46 AM
"SLC, how do you then explain McVeigh's well-documented claims about his belief in "natural law" and "Science is my religion"? If anything, he was not a Christian and could best be described as a confused agnostic." - Canny
Considering that the took the Catholic Sacrament before his execution (meaning that if one is a Catholic you are required to believe that if he were sincere in his repentance he is now in Heaven) he must have been a VERY confused agnostic.
Here's a McVeigh timeline:
born into a Catholic family,
raised Catholic,
confirmed Catholic;
left the Catholic church to join a Christian Identity white supremacist church;
Murdered 500 people;
claimed he was actually an atheist;
went back to the Catholic church.
Posted by: Ian Gould | September 10, 2010 1:57 AM
Canny - you are aware that St. Joseph's Old Cathedral is less that a block from where the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building once stood.
Perhaps the Catholic Church should consider moving it x-number of blocks away so as not to offend the survivors and victim's families of that terrible day!
Nah didn't think so. - Dingo
Posted by: DingoJack | September 10, 2010 2:32 AM
re richard @32: "Its probably because most of you are white people who've never lived in an Islamic society - like the old 1950's Stalin supporters - its all an abstraction for you."
I lived in Turkey for over a year.
I've got to tell you, I faced a *lot* less religious bigotry and hostility from the Muslims in Turkey than I got from the Christians when I lived in South Carolina. And when I arrived in South Carolina, I even (naively) considered myself a Christian! Let me tell you, about the third time I was told I was going to burn in hell eternally because my Christian beliefs weren't "really" Christian (i.e., I didn't believe the world was 6000 years old) I learned I'd better not open my mouth about my religious beliefs.
Also, Richard, what is this about white people? Are you under the impression that Muslims from the Caucasus aren't Caucasians?
Posted by: hoary puccoon | September 10, 2010 3:12 AM
Richard - What makes you think most here
a) Have never lived in countries where the dominant religion is Islam?
b) Are white? (Whatever the hell that's supposed to mean).
c) People? [But that's another story :)]
Dingo
Posted by: DingoJack | September 10, 2010 3:40 AM
Fine, if you really want hold that argument without realizing why it holds for the Sufis in Park 51, let me be a little more direct;
No Christian Churches should be built anywhere in the USA, because of the horrific treatment Christians gave to Native Americans 'in the name of the Lord'. They should have the decency to atone for the mistakes made by their co-religionists.
Posted by: Rutee | September 10, 2010 3:55 AM
"My wife is an atheist who was born Muslim in the Middle East. Islam teaches that she should be put to death for her apostasy. Almost every single Muslim nation has mandated death or imprisonment for apostasy and blasphemy. Even Sufis teach this."
According to the ever fallible wikipedia, 10 Muslim-majority countries outlaw apostasy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy#Countries
that's 10 too many but it's a long way from "almost every single Muslim country"
According to the same source,there hasn't been a single state-sanctioned execution for apostasy anywhere in the world in recent decades. (There have been cases of private individuals killing apostates. Similarly, homosexuals continue to face violence and even murder in countries that have legalized homosexuality.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam#Apostasy_in_the_recent_past
Posted by: Ian Gould | September 10, 2010 4:56 AM
"Islam is one of the few "religions" that I would not hesitate to describe as political, a community that breeds violence."
Dear Cunny,
Do you also include Christianity in your short list? I only ask as here in England we have a state church, with Bishops in our House of Lords. The Vatican is internationally recognised as a state, whilst in the US of A you have to be pretty damn pious if you want to get elected.
Posted by: Coryat | September 10, 2010 5:44 AM
N.B
To clarify, the above was to address the idea that Islam is political, unlike other faiths - I don't mean to suggest, for example, that the good old C of E orchestrates violence.
Posted by: Coryat | September 10, 2010 5:54 AM
Telling richard that we shouldn't make judgments about Muslims based on over a thousand years of Islamic history and modern Islamic theology is a bit silly.
While he may be over-reaching in his generalizations about Islam, which several people correctly pointed out, there is very little evidence that their exists any substantial segment of Islamic thought that is consistent with the pluralistic and democratic principles that most of us here at Dispatches hold dear.
That doesn't justify hostility to Muslims but it should give pause to those that insist that we should support the efforts of those who wish to spread Islam.
I support the right of Imam Rauf to build the "Islamic community center" and I don't particularly care that it is in an old Burlington Coat Factory four blocks from "ground zero".
I do however oppose the spread of the virulent mind contagion that is Islam. (As well as Christianity and all the other infectious "faith based" memes that have plagued humanity for nearly all of its existence.)
Of course now that he is in the cross hairs he is genuflecting to all the other religions. Notice his "community center" makes no provisions for atheists or other free thinkers.
Although the number of Muslims in the US is increasing, Islam is currently practiced by less than 1% of people in the US. I would prefer that the trend be towards zero. That is why I philosophically oppose any Islamic community center anywhere.
Don't misinterpret this as xenophobia. I welcome anyone from anywhere to come to America. Just leave your barbaric superstitions at the border. We don't need any more irrational hatred and sectarian bigotry thank you.
I think many of the people here defending the good Imam should consider what they are supporting. If they, like me, are just supporting the constitutional right to build it they needn't lend support to its actually purpose, which is to spread Islam.
Think of all the things you hate about fundamentalist Christianity; intolerance or even hatred of homosexuals, creationism, subjugation of women.
Even so called "moderate" Muslims embrace these repugnant practices and more.
Then there is the ample and painfully obvious evidence for what happens when people lapse into "fundamentalist" Islam. Say what you will about Bible thumping fundies, and I have had my fill of the bastards, at least Christians stopped stoning people for adultery and haven't taken to the habit of blowing themselves and thousands of innocents to "kingdom come".
It looks to me that some of you are so anxious to poke the political right in the eye that you have sidled up to some very unsavory characters.
Posted by: Lance (Not | September 10, 2010 12:25 PM
Oops the above should have been "posted by" Lance (Not "the other Lance")
Posted by: Lance | September 10, 2010 12:27 PM
Richard: What you have to realize is that the countries you are talking about are not barbaric because they are Muslim; rather, they are barbarous countries that would be barbarous no matter what faith they ascribed to. Consider the Ugandan death-penalty for gays--that's a fully Christian-backed law there.
So yes, in a sense, Islam in America is a very different beast, simply because assimilation forces it to be so; a new immigrant can either surrender his affiliation with the faith, or he can alter the terms of his faith to be more accommodating to outside views. This process moves further with each generation after the first.
WHY these countries you speak of are barbaric in the current era, of course, is another issue entirely, one which has much to do with the effects of poverty, exploitation and imperialism.
Posted by: Freemage | September 10, 2010 12:44 PM
It seems to me that Islam is starting to grow up in much the same way that Christianity and Judaism are growing up. None of them is perfect, to be sure, but they are gradually moving toward a more enlightened, "live and let live" stance.
The way I see it, if we Americans want others to admire and emulate us, we must set a good example and live up to the best of our Constitutional values. We must stand strong on the Bill of Rights - particularly freedom of religion, speech and assembly - and show the world that people can tolerate disagreement and not resort to violence.
This is our chance to shine and theirs too.
Posted by: Skepticat | September 10, 2010 1:01 PM
I was taken to task by commenter "highnumber" on an earlier post's comment thread for making a snap judgement about Canny's being an idiotologue. He thought it quite surprising that I could make that diagnosis from one comment. I found it surprising that he could not.
It appears that I may not have been anywhere near harsh enough in my assessment of the fuckhead, Canny. He is a dickhead as well as being an idiotologue.
Posted by: democommie | September 10, 2010 2:30 PM
@Canny: You obviously don't care to travel and meet the muslims; I just have to laugh my ass off when you say none of them are civil. The opposite is true; very few are uncivil. Even in countries where barbarism is widespread, the majority are still civil. Some nuts may say they want sharia law, as some do in the UK - the thing to do then is point at them and laugh - who the hell says you have to do as they want?
Posted by: MadScientist | September 11, 2010 7:29 AM
Re Lancelot @ #64
do however oppose the spread of the virulent mind contagion that is Islam. (As well as Christianity and all the other infectious "faith based" memes that have plagued humanity for nearly all of its existence.)
Which, I assume, includes what Mr. Lancelot considers "religion" of AGW.
Posted by: SLC | September 11, 2010 8:58 AM
"their exists any substantial segment of Islamic thought that is consistent with the pluralistic and democratic principles that most of us here at Dispatches hold dear."
Other than the very existence of pluralistic democratic Muslim-majority states like Turkey and Indonesia.
Posted by: Ian Gould | September 11, 2010 9:20 AM
"at least Christians stopped stoning people for adultery and haven't taken to the habit of blowing themselves and thousands of innocents to "kingdom come"."
No, they just hack "witches" to death, seek legislation to impose the death penalty on homosexuality, "marry" pre-teen girls and kidnap children and force them to join their militias by drugging them and forcing them at gun-point to rape, murder and cannibalize members of their immediate family.
Oh wait, it's only a tiny unrepresentative minority of Christians who do those things and only a bigot would try to argue that their action are representative of Christians as as a whole.
Posted by: Ian Gould | September 11, 2010 9:27 AM
So, I was over at my aunt's yesterday. She rarely expresses political viewpoints, but my mother started talking about the upcoming anniversary of 9/11 and the issue of the "Manhattan Mosque" was brought up. Not only did my aunt say that the "mosque" (which, funnily enough, she couldn't even pronounce right) would be right "across the street" from Ground Zero (which is untrue), she then seemed to imply that "Obama approved the mosque" (it was already approved by the local zoning board and, even if Obama did "approve it" instead of simply saying that he acknowledges their legal right to do so, they legally own the property anyway). Horrifically enough, she went on to claim that Obama was "fucking around" and was most likely a Muslim himself because of the color of his skin.
Suffice to say, I didn't stay long after lunch.
Posted by: SwedishSkinJer | September 11, 2010 10:03 AM
Ian Gould,
Turkey was established as a secular republic. That is under threat from the current Islamic party that holds power. Kemal Ataturk installed a powerful military as a guarantor of democracy against Islamic theocrats that might attempt to install sharia law and other anti-democratic policies.
The current Islamic party has undermined the power of the military and is intent on pushing the country closer to becoming an official "Islamic" republic.
Sharia based laws have been passed in over half of Indonesia's provinces. The influence of fundamentalist Islam is increasing.
Calling me a bigot for pointing out the irrational and regressive policies of even "moderate" Muslims just illuminates your prejudices not mine.
Religion is a cancer on humanity and Islam is one of the more virulent strains.
Posted by: Lance | September 11, 2010 2:27 PM
@ Canny," When they allow Christians to build churches in Saudi Arabia, perhaps I will be more comfortable with Muslims building a mosque so close to Ground Zero."
I lived in Jeddah in Saudi Arabia for 2 years and went to church every Sunday.
Don't make assumptions and uneducated remarks about people. The people who are responsible for 9/11 were not Muslims.. suicide is banned in their religion as is the killing of innocent people.
Posted by: Katie | September 16, 2010 6:52 PM
what i mean is that Muslim people do not consider terrorists to be muslims..
people should be allowed to practice their religions peacefully.. if the christians in saudi arabia are ok with it, and we've lived there and its fine how can you say anything..
Posted by: katie | September 16, 2010 6:56 PM
Katie, #75: The people who are responsible for 9/11 were not Muslims.
I would disagree here. I think saying that these individuals were not really Muslims is just like saying that those people who want to live in a democracy and live in peace with people of different faiths and cultures are not really Muslims.
It's not for me to say who is and who isn't a Muslim. And that includes taking sides when different people who claim to be true Muslims argue who is or is not a Muslim.
All I can say is that there appear to be different versions of the faith. Some versions advocate violence as a means of achieving their political goals and for imposing a very strict version of religious law on society. Other versions seem to have different views on these things.
We have people on this very blog who insist that we demonize people because of the label they use to describe their faith, lumping them together with the worst examples from the worst sects, rather than judging each individual by his or her own deeds. It makes no more sense to me to try to avoid demonizing Muslims by insisting that there is only one kind of Islam; I think it is better to point out that the multiple paths that exist in Islam and judge each individual on how she travels down her own path.
Posted by: Chiroptera | September 16, 2010 7:05 PM