Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
From someone named streiff at Redstate:
We've learned a great deal about the liberal mindset that thinks a Christmas creche on a courthouse lawn, or a cross on a desolate Mojave hilltop, is a grave affront to the "separation of church and state" yet the building of a mosque/islamic community center/target beacon on land made available for development by the 9/11 terror attacks is a testimony to our tolerance.
And we've learned that clueless dolts like streiff can't figure out the difference between religious symbols paid for by the government and put on government property (and the Establishment Clause problems this can create) and property owned by a private organization that want to put up a religious building on it in full compliance with all local zoning regulations (and the obvious Free Exercise problems created by trying to get the government to stop it).
Streiff then links to a Washington Post article about Muslim students at a university being shocked by the hostility they've encountered, and says:
The story details the whining of a bunch of rich, privileged muslim kids at American University about how bad things are for them in the United States. They're attending a private university, a university that offers a special cafeteria offering for their religious observance and they don't see the irony of bitching about "swelling hostility."
Yeah, kinda like so many Christians in this country, safely in the overwhelming majority and in full control of every lever of government in the entire nation, whining about the courts not allowing them to force other people's children to pray in school or about a store clerk telling them "Happy Holidays" instead of Merry Christmas. Sorry streiff, but in the ridiculous whining category it's pretty hard to top American evangelicals.
But this is where streiff goes seriously off the rails into the loonisphere:
But for the sake of argument, let's color the principled opposition to the GZM in the worst possible light and stipulate for a couple of paragraphs that the opposition is rooted in religious bigotry.So what?
The argument that this bigotry is somehow unusual is nothing more or less than a simple butchering of American history. This country has a long heritage of being less than welcoming to religious minorities. Bay Colony Puritans hanged Quakers. Dissenters were banished from Anglican colonies. Catholics were subjected to virtual pogroms in New York, Philadelphia and Boston in the 1840s and 1850s and the shameful legacy of anti-Catholicism is still evident in 37 states by way of the Blaine Amendments. Mormons. Jehovah Witnesses. Etc. So to say that being the object of religious hostility and bigotry makes muslims somehow unique is ridiculous.
Perhaps streiff can identify the straw man who has ever made the argument that what is happening is unique. It certainly is not. But you'd think we would have learned something from those many examples of religious bigotry in the past. The men who wrote the Constitution certainly tried to learn from the many examples of bigotry in the original 13 colonies and put an end to it by outlawing religious tests and writing the First Amendment to guarantee equal rights for all religions.
This argument collapses down to "hey, we've engaged in religious bigotry as a nation in the past, so what's the big deal about doing it again?" And that is breathtakingly moronic.
Politics
Comments
This is such a simple concept. Why don't more people get it?
Posted by: MS | September 1, 2010 10:05 AM
"Catholics were subjected to virtual pogroms in New York, Philadelphia and Boston in the 1840s and 1850s..."
They MMPRPP's* in the 1840's in the US? Wow! Who knew? :) - Dingo
----
* Massively Multi-player Role-Playing Pogroms
Posted by: DingoJack | September 1, 2010 10:12 AM
Just curious: I know that you're not a fan of Redstate, Ed, but what do you (and fellow users, feel free to also answer) think about Hotair, another conservative network that supposedly exposes liberal biases, hypocrisy, etc?
Posted by: swedishskinjer | September 1, 2010 10:14 AM
They have, Ed. They learned that you've got to stamp them out before they take root.
Personally, I rather appreciate people like streiff who eschew obfuscation regarding the precious "traditions" they want to preserve. Like lynching, for instance.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | September 1, 2010 10:15 AM
That's really the core worldview behind the right-wing "special rights" rhetoric: "Throughout history we've always bullied and tormented anybody who is different from us, why should queers and muslims have 'special rights' not to be maimed by the well-deserved wrath of we the people?"
I also love how easily right-wingers go from defending tax-cuts for the hard-earned fortunes of the right (white, Christian) kind of rich people to being jealous of the undeserved privileges enjoyed by the spoiled brats of the wrong kind of rich people.
Posted by: Phillip IV | September 1, 2010 10:25 AM
How about not being able to understand that the former factory was not in any way destroyed by the attacks, nor even damaged significantly, IIRC. A few bits of debris were found on the roof, but that happened in Jersey and Staten Island as well.
What a maroon.
Posted by: CPT_Doom | September 1, 2010 10:29 AM
Ah. But that was Christian against Christian religious bigotry. Or Christan against crazy-upstart-American-cult religious bigotry. This is different, because (to paraphrase the unthinking) "3000 Americans died by the Islamists on 9/11". In other words, this bigotry is completely different from the other bigotry of the past.
The argument of the unthinking this forgets -- conveniently -- that there were Muslim Americans as well as foreign nationals that were killed amongst that 3000 number. Which means that 9/11 was as much a painful attack on Muslims as it was on non-Americans.
Posted by: Umlud | September 1, 2010 10:34 AM
They're attending a private university, a university that offers a special cafeteria offering for their religious observance and they don't see the irony of bitching about "swelling hostility."
This is such a typical ploy by these people. "Hey, your private university serves Halal food, which you were generously allowed to pay tens of thousands of dollars for. That means you can't complain when we hold rallies and protests at your place of worship and encourage our constituents to see you as radical extremists who want to overthrow the government and eat white babies!"
Posted by: rob | September 1, 2010 10:35 AM
As I understand it, this is at the core of the Scalia judicial philosophy: that violations of Constitutional principles become legal, if they have a respectable pedigree. It reminds me of work done on 19th Century Mexican censuses, where they could trace individuals claiming a more pure Spanish heritage from one census to the next, to match their growing wealth and prestige.
Posted by: Scott Hanley | September 1, 2010 10:47 AM
Once you understand that "freedom of religion," for these people, means "the freedom to worship Jesus in your own way," (to paraphrase Stephen Colbert), the consistency is totally clear. Totally wrong and without any kind of legal foundation, but clear.
Posted by: Sanjiv Sarwate | September 1, 2010 10:50 AM
Jehovah's Witnesses are worse fanatics than many mainsteam churches.
Thet are extreme in their control of followers.
Scientologists declare their outcasts "suppressive persons."
Another Scientology policy - called "disconnection" - forbids Scientologists from interacting with a suppressive person. No calls, no letters, no contact.
An SP is a pariah. Anyone who communicates with an SP risks being branded an SP himself.
Jehovah's Witnesses disfellowshiped person (DF) is exactly the same as Scientology suppressed person (SP)
Jehovah's Witnesses are EXACTLY the same.
Posted by: Mark Davis | September 1, 2010 10:51 AM
Mark - hello! Can you spell 'excommunication'? It's not uncommon feature of many western religions (I'm not all that familiar with eastern ones). - Dingo
Posted by: DingoJack | September 1, 2010 10:55 AM
um, what do Jehovah's Witnesses have to do with this thread?
Posted by: mad the swine | September 1, 2010 11:01 AM
...yet the building of a mosque/islamic community center/target beacon on land made available for development by the 9/11 terror attacks...
Wait, did this wackaloon just say al Qaeda did the whole 9/11 thing just to make land available for development? Or did he say we should take it as a development opportunity?
I've heard of "shock doctrine," but this is ridiculous. Is this a new form of Trooferism?
Posted by: Raging Bee | September 1, 2010 11:03 AM
Well, one of the guys funding this community centre is an old friend of the Bush family, as are the Bin Ladens.
Hey I'm just connecting some dots here, asking questions, teaching the controversy & etc. - Dingo
Posted by: DingoJack | September 1, 2010 11:11 AM
Well, looks like streieff's logical conclusion is that because this country had a history of slavery slavery ought not to have been made illegal. Can he be my cabana boy?
Posted by: Shawn Wilkinson | September 1, 2010 11:16 AM
Well true of Catholicism and some of the old line protestant churches. But you do have the issue that among many newer protestant groups have no strong unifying authority and so no real authority to definitively "excommunicate" someone like Catholics could back in the day. So for example if a particular Southern Baptist preacher starts leading his church in a crazy direction, its much more difficult for any central group to decide he's no longer part of the church.
On the other hand JH's and Mormons and Scientologists have such a central authority.
Posted by: Ben P | September 1, 2010 11:23 AM
So you can just change a word and argue against the revised claim? You go from "the bigotry seen here is bad" to "the bigotry seen here is unique", and argue against the latter?
Wait here while I write up my proof that the Apollo Camel Landing was faked. I will make millions and go on all the talk shows. Stephen Colbert, here I come!
Posted by: xebecs | September 1, 2010 11:31 AM
@Ed: This argument collapses down to "hey, we've engaged in religious bigotry as a nation in the past, so what's the big deal about doing it again?"
Well, that's conservatives for you-- whatever we did in the past must be right, because the past was by its very nature so much better than the present.
Posted by: Emily | September 1, 2010 12:17 PM
I know! All those zero people that made that argument are an embarrassment!
Posted by: AL | September 1, 2010 1:56 PM
Ben P:
two questions.
1. How can you tell the direction is crazy?
2. Isn't this why there are more than 40,000 protestant sects (and the very definition/foundation of sectarianism)?
Posted by: TonyC | September 1, 2010 2:53 PM
RB @ 14
Actually it's the a new version of the old "Larry Silverstein did it" argument.
The jooos are very devious that way.
Posted by: Chilidog | September 1, 2010 2:54 PM
The WT Society and Jehovah's Witnesses are a human originating, men-run, high controlling religious cult-like institution, rather than what they tell people they are (God's appointed Channel/Organization/People etc etc).
The facts prove without a doubt that God was never behind any of this:
http://home.tiscali.nl/t661020/wtcitaten/part2.htm
ALL FROM THEIR OWN LITERATURE WITH DATES AND PAGES TO SEE FOR YOURSELVES!
We got false predictions all over the place, medical disasterous policies - FORCED on JW's.
We got flip flops, blinking lights, wacky science, historical failures, arrogance, judging and loads of WT Society embarrassments and humiliations throughout their entire 100+ year history!
God had nothing to do with all that nonsense that was called, "Food from God" by all JW's.
It was WRONG when it first came off the presses!
So why are some today opposed to Jehovah's Witness and their policies?
Dead People is why.
Ruined lives is why.
False prophecies is why.
A controlling Religious Institution is why.
They are WRONG ON BLOOD TODAY (for 68 years now).
They are WRONG ON SHUNNING those that simply walk away from the JW religion today.
They are WRONG 607 BCE and 1914.
They were WRONG ABOUT FORBIDDING Vaccinations, Organ Transplants, Alternative Service and more.
They were wrong on ALL OF THEIR End of World Predictions in writing. Wrong on marital infidelity rules, rape rules, beards, 1935, Beth Sarim and too many things to bother listing here.
Did ((( GOD ))) make all of these terrible decisions to force on all the JW's as "food at the proper time, and then change his mind later on?
Or did a few OLD MEN, that make up the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses (sitting up in some Brooklyn office somewhere) MAKE these poor decisions, FORCE them on all JW's and then afterwards conveniently change their mind?
Does God serve Bad Food like this?
Perhaps He is not a very good cook?
Shunning people for disagreements is NOT scriptural!
Shunning people for walking away from the JW faith is NOT scriptural!
This is a CONTROL mechanism. And it often works. It is a gross misapplication of scripture to keep the average JW towing the line.
THERE IS A BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN UNITY AND FORCED UNIFORMITY.
Jw's are not allowed to even THINK differently.
I WAS a JW, and an elder as well, until recently in 2006 when I walked away. I am very familiar with how they are actually WORSE than most other faiths today. I am shunned for walking away. People today and for the last 80 years have died, without reason, due to the WT medical policies forced on all JW's.
Each week is filled with a list of JW obligations that basically OWN YOU. You are told what you can read, what movies are acceptable, what association is acceptable, what facial hair is okay. What you can celebrate and cannot. What words you are allowed to use.
What is allowed in your own bedroom with your wife. And too many other things to list here again. Before knowing all the facts and believing they were God's True Channel, one can go a very long way to justify all of these things. Take away that one true faith belief and so falls the rest.
I have been there and done all that.
JW's are told they cannot take blood transfusions in situations where they might need one (such as through accidents or complications with surgery, pregnancy or child birth).
So, naturally, more JW's will die.
Just like this mother died unnecessarily!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/shropshire/7078455.stm
And now her husband has no wife and her two new twins have no mother.
And all for what?
This is very simple. JW's NEEDLESSLY die for this sorry blood policy today.
From the same organization that has an entire 100 + year history of similar bad policies.
This is why I suggest to anybody thinking of becoming a JW ... to READ READ AND READ UP ON THIS RELIGION FIRST!
The proof will clearly stand out that the JW faith is not what they try to tell people they are!
The facts are irrefutable.
Vinny
Posted by: vinny | September 1, 2010 2:54 PM
It goes north?
Posted by: Chilidog | September 1, 2010 2:57 PM
Vinny, I know this must be hard for you to grasp but:
This makes them different from the others ... how?
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | September 1, 2010 3:21 PM
Thank you so much, Vinny, for your brave attempt to cheer us up by changing the subject and acting like an easy target for mockery. The effort is much appreciated, but you're much less entertaining than this post is depressing. Fail.
Posted by: Michael Hoaglin | September 1, 2010 3:34 PM
How can you tell the direction is crazy?
Ask Vinny?
Posted by: eric | September 1, 2010 4:43 PM
streiff's studied obtuseness and obfuscation is one of the new right's standard plays. False premises, irrational rhetorical twists, intentional misleading, straw men; Faux News is making millions attacking statements folks not made, concepts not endorsed, problems not extant. The sad thing is that we have so many citizens who are too stupid to see it (or to care).
Again and again I think: we will get exactly the government we deserve.
Posted by: saintbad | September 1, 2010 7:21 PM