Pharyngula

Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | September 1, 2010 9:43 AM

Incident at Orleans County mosque leads to arrest of five teens

Police say the teenagers drove past World Sufi Foundation Mosque in Carlton on Monday yelling obscenities, beeping car horns and firing a gun, and allegedly struck one worshipper with a vehicle.

Posted by: irenedelse | September 1, 2010 9:51 AM

I don't like the Manhattan mosque, but they've got the right — as long as I've got the right to point and laugh

Totally agree. As #2 said, spot on.

Posted by: gussnarp | September 1, 2010 10:00 AM

Hitchens supports stupid wars too. No real surprise that he doesn't support freedom of religion unless the religion is OK by him. Remember Hitch, if we don't support freedom of religion, atheism will be the first to be outlawed.

Posted by: palefury | September 1, 2010 10:03 AM

I agree completely.

But where are all the retired mentally ill clowns going to go now?

Posted by: bcoppola | September 1, 2010 10:15 AM

Hitch used the example of Islam in Europe (where Muslims have indeed been, shall we say, obstreperous) and suggests the same would happen here.

But there's a key difference: Up to now, Muslims have integrated and assimilated far better in the US than in Europe; we don't have improvrished Muslim ghettos full of disaffected youth such as the Paris suburbs. Muslims have merely had the same issues of other immigrant groups: initial distrust and discrimination followed by assimilation.

Here in the Detroit area and especially in Dearborn, Muslims started out as typical outsider immigrants, viewed with suspicion and hostility. Now, they're on city councils, members of Chambers of Commerce, and their kids play high school football and listen to rap. And you can't swing a cat around here without hitting a joint that serves really good shawarma. And we've had mosques, including some big sniny ones, go up without so much as a peep for years.

So it seems unlikely that the bulk of Muslims in the US will be appreciably more or less fundamentalist/dominionist that the bulk of Christians or Jews - unless the current Islamophobia takes root and puts increasingly marginalized Muslims on the defensive.

Wish I'd bookmarked it but a recent study found that in the US, radical Islam isn't found much in immigrant communities, but among Afican-American men who converted to Islam in prison. In other words, among our own long marginalized citizens.

Posted by: Aaron Baker | September 1, 2010 10:15 AM

Well, yet another example of Hitchens being admirable AND infuriating in a single editorial.

I don't know enough about the concept of Vilayet-e faqih to express an opinion about it. But in addition to griping about Rauf's support for that idea, Hitchens also takes issue with Rauf's assertion of some degree of American responsibility for 9/11, and for his unwillingness to call Hamas a terrorist organization.

As for American responsibility for 9/11: Rauf seems to me to be expressing an opinion not terribly controversial among most people acquainted with the facts. The 9/11 attacks would not have taken place, but for a number of American policies in the Middle East. It wasn't "our freedoms," or our secular, hedonistic lifestyle that motivated the attacks (why no airplanes flown into Swedish skyscrapers then?); it was most likely our support for Israel; our propping up of a number of unpleasant regimes in the region; the presence of American troops in Saudi Arabia. Osama bin Laden has mentioned all of these as motivations for his actions in more than one of his pronouncements. And even if he were being completely cynical in doing so, obviously these motivations matter to his followers, or he wouldn't have brought them up. It's also hard to avoid the conclusion that bin Laden was a significant beneficiary of the American decision to throw support behind the Mujahideen in Afghanistan during the Russian occupation. No one's ever found a check made out to bin Laden by Uncle Sam; but that was never necessary; he was being funded by our cat's-paw, Pakistan.

As for Rauf's failure to call Hamas a terrorist organization--I agree that's a moral failing. One sees a comparable moral failing in those who won't bring themselves to call even the most brutal of Israeli policies terroristic. The patriotism and moderation of such undiscriminating defenders of Israel, however, is not called into question the way Rauf's has been; they are not denounced 24/7 on Fox News the way Rauf is. It's a failing, after all, not the mark of Cain.

It should also be added here that, as an emissary to Muslims in the Middle East (as he was at least twice during the Bush administration), it's impolitic, to put it mildly, to call some of the people you're trying to get through to terrorists. An emissary to Israel who used the word "terrorist" of this or that Israeli policy would soon be sent packing (quite regardless of whether the word was warranted).

Posted by: spencertroxell | September 1, 2010 10:17 AM

You would think constitutionalist-folk like Hannity would be on board with my thinking in number 10 up there, but they're the ones perpetuating this b.s. controversy. Total hypocrisy.

Posted by: Ken | September 1, 2010 10:19 AM

But where are all the retired mentally ill clowns going to go now?

2 E Capitol St NE
Washington, District of Columbia 20543

Posted by: Free Lunch | September 1, 2010 10:25 AM

Isn't it nice to see Hitchens sounding just like Hannity and Beck? No believing in any gods does not by itself make you a competent thinker.

Posted by: mrmonist | September 1, 2010 10:27 AM

@gussnarp

"he seems to think that Islam is so bad that there can be no such thing as a good Muslim"

Not the sort of ignorance I expect to read at Pharyngula.

Also your assumption that he "seems to be fairly on board with the standard anti-Islamic, pro-Israel world view that dominates Western politics" is another demonstration that you clearly have never read any of his work.

Posted by: griffiths.guy | September 1, 2010 10:29 AM

This was a nice take on the whole thing, by the mostly excellent Charlie Brooker

Posted by: Karstark | September 1, 2010 10:33 AM

"There's much to be said for a plan that would scoop up Phil Johnson, Lou Engle, Pat Robertson, the hierarchy of the Catholic church, the leadership of the Discovery Institute, and every tinpot crank preaching a generic fundie gospel in a converted grocery store and throw them into prison..."

Hey, let's play a game: how long before just this part of PZ's quote gets quote-mined completely out of context in an anti-atheist screed by DI or Bill Donohue? And how many years will they keep using it long after we've pointed out it's completely out of context?

Posted by: irenedelse | September 1, 2010 10:35 AM

But there's a key difference: Up to now, Muslims have integrated and assimilated far better in the US than in Europe; we don't have improvrished Muslim ghettos full of disaffected youth such as the Paris suburbs. Muslims have merely had the same issues of other immigrant groups: initial distrust and discrimination followed by assimilation.

Well, in Paris too, the Muslim immigrant face the same problems as all other groups, including the Evangelical Christians from Africa or the West Indies. They don't have it easy either when it comes to find a job or get elected, mostly because the majority of French people still distrust those who originate from the former French colonies. It's a major part of xenophobia fears in this country, alas.

There's still even more distrust of Muslims, it's true, but not related to French Muslims being more obnoxious than elsewhere. In fact, compared to what goes on in, say, the UK, most Muslim clerics in France are remarkably soft-spoken and conciliatory.

But oh, no, "Islamophobia" is a myth invented by the pro-Muslim lobby! Yeah, right.

Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom | September 1, 2010 10:45 AM

What about Imam Rauf is supposed to make him actually bad? I'm not invested in him being a saint (Or even an average decent person), but Hitchens, in the article I saw, regurgitated that sad, sad example of "OMG! HE TOTES THINKS THE US HAS SOME OF THE BLAME FOR 9/11 BECAUSE OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF POLICIES! BAD MAN!" While I understand why an old british dude would feel invested in making sure brown people can't point out why other brown people would be pissed at what an empire did 50+ years ago, I'm assuming y'all have something more concrete.

Posted by: KG | September 1, 2010 10:48 AM

There's a considerable amount of bullshit in Hitchens' article:

As Western Europe has already found to its cost, local Muslim leaders have a habit, once they feel strong enough, of making demands of the most intolerant kind. Sometimes it will be calls for censorship of anything "offensive" to Islam. Sometimes it will be demands for sexual segregation in schools and swimming pools.

Hitchens gives no actual examples of such demands (although I'm sure some have been made); but they have certainly not been accepted and have had, AFAIK, no cost whatever.

This is why the fake term Islamophobia is so dangerous: It insinuates that any reservations about Islam must ipso facto be "phobic." A phobia is an irrational fear or dislike. Islamic preaching very often manifests precisely this feature, which is why suspicion of it is by no means irrational.

A phobia is an irrational or exaggerated fear or dislike. People have phobias about dogs, snakes, heights, crowds... all of which can indeed be dangerous. Islamophobia is a perfectly valid description of exaggerated fear or dislike of Islam.

Posted by: gussnarp | September 1, 2010 10:50 AM

@Peter Ashby - Doner Kebab is not synonymous with schawarma. Sometimes they are, but not always. But I've also enjoyed Doner Kebab sober.

Posted by: halfdeaddavid | September 1, 2010 10:55 AM

I would love to see the ground zero memorial have a portion devoted entirely to understanding Islam, it's heritage, and how it was misused to create the 9-11 tragedy.

Islam was not misused, the koran is quite clear on whats to be done to us non-believers, there is no equivocation in it. Most Muslims may be peaceful now but its actually the peaceful ones who are not following their book from god. Just as the Phelps are actually the ones following the bible as it is written.

Fundamentalists are not the ones who are wrong about their religion its the moderates who want to live in the modern world who are misusing their religion.

Personally I think the only difference between islam and cristianity is the bible has the sermon on the mount loophole that lets christians pretend the bible doesn't say all those horrible things. The Koran has no such loophole.

As for the mosque/YMMA they own the property they should be allowed to build it, not much room to even debate the issue. I took Hitchens article to mainly be pointing out that if you wanted to criticize the guy building it, there were other real things that he could be criticized for and you shouldn't use made up reasons. I don't think he was advocating blocking them from building anything.

Posted by: Free Lunch | September 1, 2010 11:02 AM

The Koran is no more blood sotted and vile than the Bible, halfdeaddavid. The Koran, like the Bible, does have nice things in it, but we ignorant westerners tend to be unfamiliar with the whole thing because we know so few Moslems.

Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom | September 1, 2010 11:06 AM

Islam was not misused, the koran is quite clear on whats to be done to us non-believers, there is no equivocation in it.

It would still be misused; The Koran states People of the Book are to be more or less left alone, and the US is (overwhelming majority still) Christian. Apostates and pagans can have shit done tot he them in the name of the sky fairy, but not Christians or Jews. Or at least, that's what the Koran says.

Posted by: beyondbelief007 | September 1, 2010 11:15 AM

Your final sentence says it all. You can be a part of our society, you just can't insist that our laws be set aside to accommodate your "beliefs and practices" that flout/contradict our laws. One law for all in a civil society.

Posted by: beyondbelief007 | September 1, 2010 11:19 AM

Oh.... and further, how many discussions about the mosque have to get diverted into lame-ass carping about whether islamophobia is a term?

When the topic can't be discussed because people want to focus more on whether or not mentioning the topic is taboo, or racist, or phobic.... well, then.... the terrorists have won. :-)

Posted by: Vicki, Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief | September 1, 2010 11:21 AM

Does Hitchens not realize that there are already mosques in Manhattan? There's one a few blocks from my old high school. I've not heard any stories about the people who worship there complaining about their neighbors' dogs. Nor about the people who worship at the mosques that already exist near Ground Zero.

It's not as though it's that difficult to get information about New York City, including demographic information.

I can cope with the idea that I live on a small island off the coast of the United States. But it would be nice if people who don't live or work here, or even come to visit, would check their facts now and then.

Posted by: Q.E.D | September 1, 2010 11:27 AM

Hitchens: is not a "for" or "against" proposition. He is great on some issues, not so much on others.

"Islamophobia", like "antisemite" or "racist", is real and it does exists but can be used as an ad hominem attack to shout down a legitimate argument held by a non-Muslim speaker.

The proposed "Muslim, YMCA style, centre somewhere near the site of the twin towers destroyed by fundamentalist suicide bombers": I know it's ungainly but can we all stop repeating and giving currency to the idiot, fact-free,far right meme?

Americans reacting to anything "Muslim": My dog is more discerning about dog whistles.

Posted by: BluTexan | September 1, 2010 11:35 AM

Equality should demand that if the mosque has to be 20 blocks away from Ground Zero then someone needs to go to Oklahoma City and start knocking down christian churches too close to the Murray Bldg

Posted by: Stushie | September 1, 2010 11:41 AM

For it to be a true test of tolerance, Christians, atheists and Jews should be able to build a community center next to the Ka'aba stone in Mecca.

Good post. I'm glad to see that someone is really following the money behind this project.

Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom | September 1, 2010 11:42 AM

For it to be a true test of tolerance, Christians, atheists and Jews should be able to build a community center next to the Ka'aba stone in Mecca.

Good post. I'm glad to see that someone is really following the money behind this project.

Posted by: swedishskinjer | September 1, 2010 11:44 AM

Stushie: Why should we base our religious freedoms on the restrictions of other countries? Yes, it's distasteful that such things happen in other countries and are more often than not sanctioned by religious leaders, but the fact is that that's not enough to determine how we should conduct ourselves in this country.

Posted by: Frank b | September 1, 2010 11:50 AM

The Hamas political party matches some Israeli political parties plank for plank. No Israeli party I know of recognizes Palestine, so Hamas is reciprocating. Israeli authorities are constantly interfering with and attacking Palestinian sovereignty, Hamas tries to reciprocate. Land for peace has been the recognized basis for negotiations since Camp David. Since Israel refuses to give back the land, all Palestinians including Hamas are forced into the terrible position of withholding peace. Words of judgement like "terrorists" are irrelevant to a people under siege. Give them their freedom, and give them control over their own lives, then see what they do after that.
Sorry for the rant, just ignore me.

Posted by: SteveM | September 1, 2010 11:57 AM

For it to be a true test of tolerance, Christians, atheists and Jews should be able to build a community center next to the Ka'aba stone in Mecca.

You are a complete moron if this is your idea of tolerance.

Posted by: conelrad | September 1, 2010 12:07 PM

I grew up in Kansas listening to Baptist ministers rail against the X-rated bookstore just outside the town limits. The imams in the U.K. seem to be following the same playbook. Now, the difference would be if they encouraged their flock to take to the streets..O wait, the Xtians are already doing that. Never mind.

Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | September 1, 2010 12:25 PM

I think that it is fairly self-evident that some of the foreign policies of the Western powers, and in particular some of the policies of the US, contributed to the 9/11 attacks. This is not to suggest that the terrorist themselves were blameless, or that Al Qaeda was in any way justified in its actions, but the fact remains that the polices of Western governments msot likely did contribute to a global situation where a group like Al Qaeda could garner the adherents and financial support required to launch such an attack.

Up to a point,Al Qaeda is our own creation, and if we are to learn from our mistakes we must accept this.

As for militant Islam, to be honest I do not care if some fundie, who happens to be of the muslim persuasion, starts spouting incoherent garbage anymore than I care about their christian opposite numbers, just so long as they do not try to force their beliefs on others by subverting the secular rule of law or through the use of discrimination or violence.

AS PZ says, if I can point and laugh without some crazy person trying to cut my hand off, then I am happy enough. The problems begin when theists start to demand that everyone, including people of other faiths and none, should treat their chosen flavour of delusion as sacred.

Posted by: Dianne | September 1, 2010 12:30 PM

If people wanted to stop the Mosque from being used legally, it might help to paint a huge picture of Mohammad kissing a pig and petting a dog on a building across the street.

The owners of the building, a medium rise office building being remodelled to attract more upscale clients, may have something to say about that. Unless you're planning to buy said building, vandalizing it that way wouldn't be even close to "legal."

If any of the opponents of the 51 Park project really wanted to stop the porject legally their path is clear: outbid the current buyers and build whatever the heck you want there. Oh, wait, that would require inconveniencing yourselves instead of just New Yorkers. Never mind then.

Posted by: Dianne | September 1, 2010 12:37 PM

They are that Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the man behind the building, holds odious and undemocratic views,

If we prohibited people with odious and undemocratic views from owning buildings, where would we get our landlords?

and that encouraging Muslims leads to their attempts to impose their rather unpleasant moralistic views on their neighbors.

I used to live 2 blocks from a mosque. I regularly ran by said mosque, wearing shorts. Often while members of the mosque were going in and out or sitting outside selling incense. Never once got so much as a harassing comment about my lack of proper attire. I even ended up on a "smile and wave at each other" sort of basis with some of the incense sellers. Nor did I ever witness them harassing people walking their dogs or snearing at the kosher butcher shop down the block. While this community center/mosque may be different, the precedent with NYC mosques is mutual tolerance and even positive interactions.

Posted by: truthspeaker | September 1, 2010 12:47 PM

Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom Author Profile Page | September 1, 2010 10:45 AM

What about Imam Rauf is supposed to make him actually bad?

That's a good question. Apparently, many other Muslims think he's a stooge for the US government.

Posted by: Steve LaBonne | September 1, 2010 12:53 PM

We're heading for a Kristallnacht, and some who pride themselves on being "rationalists" will clearly enjoy being among the rock-throwers. For shame.

Posted by: truthspeaker | September 1, 2010 12:59 PM

Chad - is building a mosque religious abuse?

Posted by: Steve LaBonne | September 1, 2010 1:03 PM

I don't know what you "think" I'm saying, but I'll say as plainly as possible that there is a dangerous wave of anti-Muslim violence just waiting to be unleashed in this country, and that those who egg on the yahoos in any way are going to bear a considerable share of the guilt when the storm break and has flesh and blood victims.

Posted by: Steve LaBonne | September 1, 2010 1:06 PM

I'm just wondering why you're bringing it into this thread.

The thread is about Hitchens, and he is very clearly one of the guilty ones.

Posted by: skepcheck | September 1, 2010 1:08 PM

#29

There's a considerable amount of bullshit in Hitchens' article:

No there is not. Demands such as Hitchens describes are made frequently by Muslim leaders in the UK. Barely a day goes by without something coming up in the UK press. Sometimes they are accepted, sometimes they are not, but these demands are real and insidious.

A phobia is an irrational or exaggerated fear or dislike. People have phobias about dogs, snakes, heights, crowds... all of which can indeed be dangerous. Islamophobia is a perfectly valid description of exaggerated fear or dislike of Islam.

You appear to have missed the point. Fear of Islam is completely rational from any objective point of view. I fail to see how one could exaggerate a fear of a religion whose followers would commit murder for drawing a cartoon...

Posted by: Steve McMahon | September 1, 2010 1:09 PM

A community center with a teeny-tiny little prayer-room within it?

Look, when it comes to batshit religious whackos who are ACTUALLY dangerous, it doesn't get any better'n this:

http://maxblumenthal.com/2010/08/how-to-kill-goyim-and-influence-people-leading-israeli-rabbis-defend-manual-for-for-killing-non-jews/

Israelis now have an instruction manual for how to KILL non-Jews, in Israel, and - GET AWAY WITH IT.

I don't know, but actually murdering anyone you want, with impunity, just might be more radical than ANY-thing in Sharia or Christian doctrine, don'cha think?

But yet, ALL we ever hear about is radical wacky Christians & Muslims. *Never* jews.

Hmmmmmmmmm.

Posted by: Steve LaBonne | September 1, 2010 1:10 PM

Adding, the Muslim community in this country (I don't want to hear any nonsense about Europe, I don't live there) is in its overwhelming majority peaceful, law-abiding, and on the whole far less troublesome than Christians. In the current climate there is simply no excuse for singling them out for abuse. Anybody with open eyes should be able to see what that can lead to.

Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | September 1, 2010 1:13 PM

Steve LaBonne @ 69;

We're heading for a Kristallnacht,

Please don't Godwin the thread. It leaves a terrible mess and stinks the place up.

...and some who pride themselves on being "rationalists" will clearly enjoy being among the rock-throwers.

Noone who actually understands the meaning of rationalism would be eager to start a pogrom against anyone. Even if a person says or writes something that is by any measure intolerant, this does not automatically mean that they are waiting with baited breath for the first opportunity to engage in violence.

I hope this is not going to go down the all-too-often travelled road of "all atheists/rationalists/skeptics are neo-fascist nazis in waiting!!11!!1"

Posted by: truthspeaker | September 1, 2010 1:15 PM

Posted by: Q.E.D Author Profile Page | September 1, 2010 1:10 PM

there is a dangerous wave of anti-Muslim violence just waiting to be unleashed in this country, and that those who egg on the yahoos in any way are going to bear a considerable share of the guilt when the storm break and has flesh and blood victims - Steve LaBone @73

Ok, the above sounds like a sensible reminder that the ignoramus bigotted hordes are looking for an excuse to do harm to muslims. Comparing "rationalists" to nazis during Kristallnacht in your post at 69 is dumb-ass hyperbole.

He was talking about Hitchens, who has expressed some agreement with the ignoramus bigoted hordes.

Posted by: raven | September 1, 2010 1:18 PM

We're heading for a Kristallnacht,...

google captures:

Fire At Tennessee Mosque Construction Site Now Under Federal Arson ...
Aug 29, 2010 ... MURFREESBORO, Tenn. — Supporters from across the country have called to give encouragement to a suburban Nashville mosque where a fire was ...
www.huffingtonpost.com/.../murfreesboro-mosque-fire-atfe-investigation_n_698336.html - CachedFire at Tennessee Mosque Site Has Islamic Groups Worried
(Aug. 30) -- As federal investigators search for the cause of an equipment fire at the future site of an Islamic center in Tennessee, a Muslim civil rights ...
www.aolnews.com/nation/.../fire-at-tennessee-mosque.../19613990 - CachedFederal Agents Investigating Fire at Tennessee Mosque That Appears ...

Feb 10, 2008 ... Federal Agents Investigating Fire at Tennessee Mosque That Appears to be Arson, A mosque was destroyed Saturday by a fire that federal ...
www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,330216,00.html - Cached - Similar

Attacks on Moslems and Mosques have happened in the USA.

Since the latest Fox news hate campaign, one Moslem cabbie was stabbed in NYC, and construction equipment building a mosque was burned in Tennessee.

As to where this will go, wait and see. Terrorism hasn't been real popular in the USA in the last few decades.

Posted by: truthspeaker | September 1, 2010 1:19 PM

Posted by: Gregory Greenwood Author Profile Page | September 1, 2010 1:13 PM

Steve LaBonne @ 69;

We're heading for a Kristallnacht,

Noone who actually understands the meaning of rationalism would be eager to start a pogrom against anyone. Even if a person says or writes something that is by any measure intolerant, this does not automatically mean that they are waiting with baited breath for the first opportunity to engage in violence.

Intent is irrelevant. Results are what matter. When you single out one religion for different treatment, you are advocating some form of religious intolerance, and we know where that leads. As atheists, we should be aware that we are no lower than #3 on the list of groups the Christian theocrats want to get rid of.

Posted by: skepcheck | September 1, 2010 1:19 PM

#64 You miss the point about the Koran. One of the central tenets of Islams is that The WHOLE THING is the unedited WORD OF GOD.

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/hairychris444#96384 | September 1, 2010 1:26 PM

I had Shish Kofte on a pizza once. I could have had the whole thing deep fried in batter but I declined.
Aberdeen in Scotland fwiw. The legends about deep frying up there are true, or at least in that particular takeaway!

Posted by: bcoppola | September 1, 2010 1:30 PM

Peter Ashby #28: At least around here, Shawarma seems to refer to the style of seasoning. Here it's typically easily identifiable lamb, beef, or chicken with vegetables, generally onions and sweet peppers, either on a plate with rice or in a pita. I'm not privy to what goes on in the kitchen but it seems that all the ingredients are sauteed together.

Most of what we call "Middle Eastern" restaurants in the Detroit area have been owned by Lebanese, many Maronite Christian, but now immigrants from other countries are doing so. I've heard that Lebanese cookery was influenced by the French so that might be part of it. Anyway, the Lebanese community here dates back a century at least.

What you and the Canadians call "Doner kebab" is more like Greek gyros here, or shish kafta (cooked ground seasoned meat).

Speaking of pissed and Scotland: got memorably pissed years ago while staying at a B&B in Musselburgh (near Edinburgh) when an Irish guest who was a union official - industrial union, not Irish Unionist :) - invited us to the union hall for a pint or several. Nothing like sitting at a table of inebriated Irishmen and Scots telling Texan jokes. Good times.

Posted by: lautrec85 | September 1, 2010 1:31 PM

Like I said at Hemant's, if this is a center that's open for everyone, and they're all for super multifaith collaboration and happy feelings as they say they are, then how about them sponsoring an Everybody Draw Mohammed Day every year? That would be a good test on their theoretical tolerance.

Sure, they don't have to like it, but that's what tolerance is all about: to be able to live among things you don't like.

Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom | September 1, 2010 1:34 PM

I said ISLAM not MUSLIMS. I would have thought pople posting here might just be able to tell the difference, but it seems not.

Nonetheless, the stupid shit you're talking about is no less present in the holly babble and 'pure' Christianity (Both of which are utterly irrelevant belief systems, on their own. Our concern should be how they're filtered through people.)

Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | September 1, 2010 1:39 PM

truthspeaker;

Intent is irrelevant. Results are what matter.

Agreed, but I would still argue that there is an important difference between saying something intolerant and;

...enjoy[ing] being among the rock-throwers.

Offensive and discriminatory language is most empahtically not equivilent to acts of violence.

When you single out one religion for different treatment, you are advocating some form of religious intolerance, and we know where that leads.

Once again, agreed. However, it still does not amount to a contemporary Kristalnacht. The langauge was alarmist to say the least.

As atheists, we should be aware that we are no lower than #3 on the list of groups the Christian theocrats want to get rid of.

Actually, I think we might clinche the #1 spot on such a list.

Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom | September 1, 2010 1:43 PM

Actually, I think we might clinche the #1 spot on such a list.

Posted by: raven | September 1, 2010 1:45 PM

You miss the point about the Koran. One of the central tenets of Islams is that The WHOLE THING is the unedited WORD OF GOD.

A lot of xians believe the bible is the Inerrant Word of god. The fundies, the creationists and so forth. That is how one ends up believing the earth is 6,000 years old and the sun orbits it.

Same thing with devout Jews and the Torah.

Do you have a point, or were you just in the mood to babble like an idiot?

Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | September 1, 2010 1:53 PM

Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom @ 103;

I'm not sure, I think it really is muslims right now.

You are probably onto something there. I like to think that, if a fundie theocracy does ever come to pass in the UK, I would take a stand to protect the rights of whoever is targeted by the domnionist xians. I would not want to be the guy in a prison somewhere saying;

"First they came for the muslims, and I did nothing, for I was not a muslim..."

I'm pretty sure I'm in groups 2, 3, and 4, I just don't know what order Gay People, Atheists, and Feminists go in.

When you are a fundie, and you are just so utterly outraged by 'uppity' women and godless baby eaters and 'teh ghey', how do you keep your hate-list priorities straight?

So many people to despise, so little time...

Posted by: Samantha | September 1, 2010 1:58 PM

Q.E.D. @ #68:

On another note: the Koran hates dogs? Gotta look that one up.

- Mattando @ 52

Most muslims believe that dogs are unclean.

As with all things involved in "Holy Scripture" whether the "Koran hates dogs" is a matter of interpretation and there are conflicting references in the Koran leading to differing interpretations

Definitely concur. I have a number of Muslim friends and even they (who are not so fundamentalist that they shun an atheist like me) are all over the place about my dogs. Some believe that they are just not supposed to have dogs for non-working purposes, some are fine with my dogs because they are retired "working" dogs (they are retired racing greyhounds), some just ask that my dogs are put away when they come to my house so that they don't have to touch them and some won't come over at all.

Overall, the people I can clearly identify as Muslims (mostly because their is a woman in a hijab and/or burkha among them) have been more "tolerant" of my dogs than dog-haters who aren't clearly Muslim. Muslims will walk around us or cross the street. Dog-haters will shriek if my dogs even look at them or stand right next to them and then give me crap because the dog they're not even a foot away from has sniffed their hand. Obviously, I've had bad experiences with Muslims (one group of women wouldn't get out of the stair-well but also wouldn't go by when I had my dog pinned up against the wall but then swung laundry baskets at him when he came a couple feet away from them when I finally decided that if they weren't going to go, I was) and good experiences with non-Muslim dog-haters (a relative who had a fear of dogs due to an attack from her childhood was willing to meet with my dogs on-leash and outside and has learned to trust them if not all dogs), but the general lean still stands. Talking to my Muslim friends, they generally feel that the Koran tells them to avoid dogs because they are unclean, which means that they're far less likely to harass dog-owners than cross the street. The opposite seems to be the case for the non-Muslims: they seem to blame the dogs and/or their owners for their fear/hatred and thus want to take it out on them by being pains-in-the-backside.

Just my 2c, though.

Posted by: skepcheck | September 1, 2010 2:09 PM

@Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom

I said ISLAM not MUSLIMS. I would have thought pople posting here might just be able to tell the difference, but it seems not. When one stops being a figurehead used to bash the other in an acceptable way, we'll talk. Nonetheless, the stupid shit you're talking about is no less present in the holly babble and 'pure' Christianity (Both of which are utterly irrelevant belief systems, on their own. Our concern should be how they're filtered through people.)

I tell you what. Why don't you just tell me exactly what I mean, put some more words in my mouth (because after all you know my mind far better than I do) and then you can go *talk* to yourself. Your arrogance is astounding.

Posted by: skepcheck | September 1, 2010 2:18 PM

#105

You miss the point about the Koran. One of the central tenets of Islams is that The WHOLE THING is the unedited WORD OF GOD.

A lot of xians believe the bible is the Inerrant Word of god. The fundies, the creationists and so forth. That is how one ends up believing the earth is 6,000 years old and the sun orbits it.

Same thing with devout Jews and the Torah.

Are fundamental Christians killing people for breaking the Sabbath?

Do you have a point, or were you just in the mood to babble like an idiot?

The point was that cherrypicking the "good" bits of the Koran (at least at this juncture in history) for some believers is not an option. Of course you might have got the point had you read the thread. Sadly you just thought you'd accuse me of babbling like an idiot instead.

Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom | September 1, 2010 2:27 PM

I tell you what. Why don't you just tell me exactly what I mean, put some more words in my mouth (because after all you know my mind far better than I do) and then you can go *talk* to yourself. Your arrogance is astounding.

I pointed out bigoted shit is done with the rhetoric you just used ("I'm criticizing ISLAM, not MUSLIMS! GAW"), and offered you the chance to differentiate yourself from the bigots.

And uh, you're the one who seems to give a shit about the Koran, not me. Pointing out that the opinions of muslims on the koran is more relevantt hen what the koran actually says is a perfectly legitimate counterpoint.

The point was that cherrypicking the "good" bits of the Koran (at least at this juncture in history) for some believers is not an option.

Posted by: raven | September 1, 2010 2:30 PM

The point was that cherrypicking the "good" bits of the Koran (at least at this juncture in history) for some believers is not an option.

Fundie xians and devout Jews say the exact same thing.

Of course you might have got the point had you read the thread. Sadly you just thought you'd accuse me of babbling like an idiot instead.

You aren't making any sense but that is OK. At this point, not only are you an idiot, it is even worse. You are boring.

Posted by: Chad | September 1, 2010 2:41 PM

Vicki gets it.

Posted by: raven | September 1, 2010 2:44 PM

moron:

Are fundamental Christians killing people for breaking the Sabbath?

No, are Moslems or Jews in the USA? Not that some fundie xians wouldn't like to but we do have laws, police, and courts and they would rather not spend life in prison.

In Israel, the ultra-orthodox might not kill people but they have been known to stone cars being driven on the sabbath.

www.rickross.com/reference/ultra-orthodox/ultra28.html - Cached - SimilarUltra-Orthodox and Secular Israelis Clash in Jerusalem - About Judaism For the third Sabbath in a row, thousands of ultra-orthodox Jews ... In addition to throwing stones at cars being driven on the Sabbath, ... Israel - Judaism in Israel · Israel - Judaism in Israel · Jerusalem: Dome of the Rock above the ... judaism.about.com/library/1.../bl_ultraorthodox_jerusalem.htm - Cached - Similar

Posted by: KG | September 1, 2010 2:47 PM

I should mention also the considerable percentage of Americans who believe, or claim to believe, that Obama is a Muslim, that he has given covert signals to Muslims that he is "one of them", etc.

Posted by: skepcheck | September 1, 2010 2:48 PM

@Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom

If you want to read muslims when someone types islam be my guest, that is your prejudice and you are welcome to it.

Who exactly are you to offer people a chance to differentiate themselves from bigots when they have only said something bigoted in your imagination? Give me a break.

Why isn't it an option? Because you say so?

Because that is what some people have been indoctrinated to believe. They are literally rendered incapable of believing anything else.

Posted by: hznfrst | September 1, 2010 2:49 PM

I have no doubt at all that many (if not most) of the right-wingers protesting this building have a racial component to their objections, but goddammit Islam is a *religion* not a race, and I am frankly sick of seeing how many people here automatically assume that particular motivation for anyone opposed to the idea.

Get a grip, people, *I'm* opposed to the idea but on grounds of RECENT HISTORY which has nothing to do with race! There are Muslims all over the world of all different races, so show some intelligence and lay off that lazy accusation - you sound like a bunch of postmodernist idiots when you indulge in it.

I won't be firing off incendiary letters to the editor if the damn thing gets built because there is the constitutional issue after all. I would suggest that the building across the street from it might have big posters with statement form the Quran and Hadith demanding that infidels be killed, though - including the nasty ones which are said to supersede older, not-so-nasty ones about us infidel dogs (guess which ones the defenders of Islam always quote?).

Posted by: KG | September 1, 2010 2:56 PM

Get a grip, people, *I'm* opposed to the idea but on grounds of RECENT HISTORY which has nothing to do with race! - hznfrst

Why exactly should we just take your word for that?

Posted by: skepcheck | September 1, 2010 2:57 PM

Wow, a lot of name calling going on here. If that is what you have to resort to, then I would suggest that this reflects more on your on your own intellectual capacity than that of others.

@KG- You want examples? There are plenty. Google is your friend.

Furthermore if you cannot differentiate between religion and race, then might I suggest that this is your problem. Please don't project your own prejudices onto others.

@raven You have spectacularly missed the point again. Well done.

Posted by: KG | September 1, 2010 2:59 PM

Stuart@126, like Stushie, is one of those fuckwits who thinks that intolerance justifies intolerance.

Posted by: mattand08 | September 1, 2010 3:01 PM

@Stuart:

Christ, what is it with people and the whole "when I can build a church at Muslim Location A, they can build a mosque/community center near Ground Zero" bullshit?

We have freedom of religion in the US. The fucking Constitution lays it all out. No government interference with religion AT ALL.

Most of these other countries cited can't claim that. What aren't you Gingrich wannabes getting?

PS: Where exactly does Hitchens make the quid pro quo argument for church exchanges? It wasn't in the linked Salon article.

Posted by: hznfrst | September 1, 2010 3:04 PM

PS: I'm no fan of Israel either, and have always said that we'd be doing a whole lot of people a big favor by simply ending all foreign aid to that crybaby of a country - and that statement will probably have some of you screaming anti-semite!

Posted by: skepcheck | September 1, 2010 3:05 PM

@Steve LaBonne

We're just calling ignorant bigots like you by their correct name. Don't like it? Tough shit. I'm not afraid of bullies.

One of the finest pieces of self-satire on this entire thread. Kudos.

Posted by: Chad | September 1, 2010 3:08 PM

skepcheck, you are a hoot!

Posted by: skepcheck | September 1, 2010 3:16 PM

@Chad Thank you :-) To get back on topic and for the record I think you nailed the issue in post #62.

@Raven Okay. Take a breath. Everyone gets it. You are the best at missing the point entirely. You win at it. You can stop now.

Posted by: KG | September 1, 2010 3:21 PM

@KG- You want examples? There are plenty. Google is your friend. skepcheck

You made the claim, you back it up. Failure to do so is an admission that you can't.

Furthermore if you cannot differentiate between religion and race, then might I suggest that this is your problem. Please don't project your own prejudices onto others.

What a dishonest little shit you are. I was quite clear in what I said: that anti-Islamic rhetoric is used as a cover for racism. I gave instances that show there very clearly is racism behind the anti-mosque protests @116. In the UK, we have a group called the "English Defence League", which claims to be opposed only to extremist Islam. A number of the leaders and prominent supporters are known racists and fascists: Sean Corrigan, Chris Renton, "Tommy Robinson" (real name Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, a convicted criminal) are all BNP members (the BNP is the main UK fascist party). You can see photos from EDL rallies here.

Posted by: MosesZD | September 1, 2010 3:23 PM

Posted by: Stushie | September 1, 2010 11:41 AM

For it to be a true test of tolerance, Christians, atheists and Jews should be able to build a community center next to the Ka'aba stone in Mecca.

Good post. I'm glad to see that someone is really following the money behind this project.

It's not a test of tolerance, that's just one of the many red herrings surrounding the project. It's a First Amendment issue.

Which we have because until the Constitution was ratified, various Christian faiths persecuted other faiths HERE IN AMERICA USING THE POWER OF THE STATE. Which really sucked for some of MY ancestors who were, as Mennonites, persecuted in America, where they had (ironically) fled in order to get away from persecution in Europe.

To address another red herring, our secular state's test of rights doesn't to other states. So, like it or not, since Mecca isn't part of the US, we don't have a say so your argument is a silly red herring that just wastes time and muddles the water.

So, the bottom line is we have no say in Saudi Arabian laws and practices. We have no say whether the mosque/mall/whatever is built.

The only right we have is to whine about it. This being that damn first-amendment-thing again. So, just as much as you have the right to whine about it, they get to build their mall/mosque/mini-mart and good for them. It's their right, like it or not. Period. And that's regardless of Mecca or any other Islamic douche-move some Islamic faction can dream up and you can drag in as another red herring.

And you know what else, just as they have their right to build, it's my right to criticize their iron-age, regressive, misogynistic, pig-shit-eating fuck-stick of a religion that can't die soon enough for me. Which is pretty much how I look at all the Abrahamic (and non-Abrahamic) faiths -- the sooner they die the better.

In fact, I could also whine about their building the mosque/mall/community center/whatever. It's my right, after all. But I still have NO VOTE in it's being built. Or any legitimate/legal interest in the matter.

Regardless of my "feelings" in the matter.

Posted by: mikerattlesnake | September 1, 2010 3:25 PM

@143

No, chad does not nail it. There is no reason to bring up "freedom of speech" for the morons who can't just let them build it and move on except to feign persecution. No one is trying to take away anyone's right to speech, we're telling you that your speech is irrelevant to the principles of this country that govern the building of said mosque and furthermore that this is not an issue that should be debated on the international level and even doing so speaks of a hostile, xenophobic environment for american moderate muslims. No other religious building has spurred you fools into thinking that you need to chime in about its construction or that any sort of global consensus has an impact on whether it gets built or not. We're telling you that you're focusing on a non-issue, and raising your ignorant voice in a way that harms the foundations of this country.

The fact that your best response is "THE CONSTITUTION TELLS ME I'M ALLOWED TO HAVE A DUMB OPINION" speaks volumes about your understanding of the document in question.

Posted by: skepcheck | September 1, 2010 3:34 PM

#KG

You made the claim, you back it up. Failure to do so is an admission that you can't.

Is it? Why? Seriously, try a little research. Go on. You know you want to.

Posted by: Dark Matter | September 1, 2010 3:39 PM

If the community center is blocked...then the rest
of us atheists, freethinkers, agnostics, skeptics,etc.. will see the bunker
cultists and their hysterics at our places of
meeting ( and our labs, classrooms ) soon enough.

Their kind always feed on the most vulnerable
prey first...and the wolves get bigger and bigger...

Posted by: MosesZD | September 1, 2010 3:43 PM

Posted by: raven | September 1, 2010 3:10 PM

I hate to godwin the thread but haven't the xians been massacring the Jews for a few thousand years.

Horrible things, great and small:

The Catholic Church in 1466 when Pope Paul II, for the amusement of his Roman citizens, forced Jews to race naked through the streets of the city. An eyewitness account reports, “Before they were to run, the Jews were richly fed, so as to make the race more difficult for them and at the same time more amusing for spectators. They ran… amid Rome’s taunting shrieks and peals of laughter, while the Holy Father stood upon a richly ornamented balcony and laughed heartily.”

As part of the Saturnalia (Christmas) carnival throughout the 18th and 19th centuries CE, rabbis of the ghetto in Rome were forced to wear clownish outfits and march through the city streets to the jeers of the crowd, pelted by a variety of missiles. When the Jewish community of Rome sent a petition in 1836 to Pope Gregory XVI begging him to stop the annual Saturnalia abuse of the Jewish community, he responded, “It is not opportune to make any innovation.”

This, and similar abasements, continued until at least the late 1800's. The last great Christmas humiliation of the Jews, that I have read about, happened in Warsaw in 1881. Twelve Jews were killed, many Jewish women raped and over two-million rubles (in those rubles, not adjust for inflation) worth of property was destroyed.

So, as I've said many times. Islam today is much like the older, less enlightened versions of Christianity. In our not-so-distant past I might add.

There are liberals, the Muslim equivalents of Unitarians. But, like that "old time religion" the body itself is still pretty damn regressive. And that the best course of action, that I can see, is a long-term, multi-generalational assimilation/liberalization of Muslims.

Posted by: MrFire | September 1, 2010 3:55 PM

FWIW:

http://www.butterfliesandwheels.org/2008/dogs-in-islam-according-to-the-hadith/

Posted by: Chad | September 1, 2010 3:57 PM

MosesZD,

I agree with you. Muslims have a long way to go to reach the number of killings brought by Christianity (wait, are you saying that religious text actually inspires people to kill and not their personality? Shocking!)and that Islam is very much in the same kind of ancient mindset that Christianity used to be in the middle-ages. But there is a difference. The technology has changed. Christians back then couldn't get their hands on a nuclear weapon, today they could. But that's not the primary group that people worry about doing that. It is indeed Muslims who are most active in the black market looking for nuclear material to kill the infidels. Don't extrapolate that to all Muslims, of course, but for various reason, the other religions have calmed a bit and are a little bit less worrisome in this one area.

Posted by: skepcheck | September 1, 2010 3:59 PM

Someone is beseiging the discovery channel-->

Posted by: KG | September 1, 2010 4:02 PM

Christians back then couldn't get their hands on a nuclear weapon, today they could. But that's not the primary group that people worry about doing that. - Chad

Really? I'm fucking petrified by the prospect of Sarah Palin and other Christian lunatics getting their hands on them.

Posted by: Chad | September 1, 2010 4:10 PM

Stuart,

I think everyone is saying the same thing but just not listening to each other. Everyone here, every single person, has stated that they have the right to build it. I think where people get upset is that they don't want anyone to say anything bad about Islam in the same breath. Any other time is perfectly okay, but not after, "they have every right to build the Mosque, or whatever it is." At least that's what I'm hearing.

Posted by: Stuart | September 1, 2010 4:19 PM

Chad

I agree that there is no argument that they have a right to build it.

The issue is, is it a smart thing to do given the sensitivities? It seems to me Rauf demands tolerance be shown for himself while he has no tolerance for the feelings of New Yorkers. Or are New Yorkers only entitled to feelings that uber-left douchebags agree with?

Stuart

Posted by: mikerattlesnake | September 1, 2010 4:20 PM

@165

No, our point is that the debate itself is indicative of a higher standard for muslims than other religions and that that in-and-of itself is a sign of widespread xenophobia and, to some extent, racism. The point is that a bunch of morons feel that it is their duty to weigh in on an issue that has no bearing on their lives (unless they happen to live in that neighborhood) in a way that creates a hostile environment for muslims. No one is stopping you from criticizing islam. The religion has it's flaws, and they are pointed out on this website all the time. The point is that this issue has nothing to do with any of them.

Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom | September 1, 2010 4:22 PM

What is it with you people who have a problem building a Church in Srebrenica?

But I get where you're coming from in particular. Let me just go ahead and speak for myself on a similar matter.

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2010/08/egypt_prosecuting_for_insult_t.php#comment-2760105

In case it's unclear, I think it's just as big a dick move when Muslims do it to Christians. They should leave each other in peace to follow whatever stupid rituals they want. I live in Merika though, for now, and this has become indicative of islamophobia in this country. I have to focus on where I live first.

Exactly and before Imam Rauf presumes to lecture us on "tolerance" he should spend more time spreading his gospel where it is sorely needed.

I guess the persecution of Xtians in Muslim countries is OK with you cuz, after all, those countries don't have freedom of religion.

He makes the argument for tolerance to be a two way street. If one uses church or mosque building as a mechanism for illustrating tolerance my suggestion logically follows.

Posted by: mikerattlesnake | September 1, 2010 4:35 PM

Also, the way other countries govern themselves RE: freedom of religion has nothing to do with the way we govern ourselves. Muslim-americans are AMERICANS, not saudis, iranians, iraqis, etc. Their rights are determined by the constitution of our country, not some bizarre, trans-atlantic equivilency test.

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | September 1, 2010 4:38 PM

It seems to me Rauf demands tolerance be shown for himself while he has no tolerance for the feelings of New Yorkers. Or are New Yorkers only entitled to feelings that uber-left douchebags agree with?

Posted by: Susan Silberstein | September 1, 2010 4:45 PM

So, if I understand some comments correctly, the Community Center is okay because 9/11 was the fault of the Jews/Israelis who caused it because of their oppression against the Palestinians.

Posted by: Steve LaBonne | September 1, 2010 4:51 PM

That's a big "if".

Indeed. As quality of trolling goes, Susan gets about a 2 on a scale of 10. C'mon, try harder.

Posted by: Dianne | September 1, 2010 4:53 PM

how many of the people protesting that thing are actually New Yorkers?

Very few. The mayor supports it. The downtown development counsel supports it. The plurality of Manhattanites support it. The graffiti outside 51 Park is supportive. Because anyone looking at the area knows how incredibly stupid the opposition is. Why do they want us to continue to have an empty building where there could be a community center?

Posted by: mikerattlesnake | September 1, 2010 4:56 PM

@177 (longer version)

We, as a country, have taken it upon ourselves to attempt to bring peace and democracy to the middle east. If one actually wants to do that, one must understand the motivations of those that want us there the least. Firstly, THERE IS NO EXCUSING THE ACTIONS OF THE HIJACKERS ON 9/11, but it does us no favors to pretend it was because they "hated our freedoms". We, as a country, have made a bad habit of arming insurgents, funding coups, propping up dictators, and generally sticking our nose into a lot of political business in the middle east. We have to understand that, at least in part, those things came back to bite us in the ass on 9/11. It doesn't mean we were wholely responsible for the attack, but rather that we might want to rethink how we intervene in the politics of other countries for fear of breeding more terrorists like the monsters who chose to murder 3000 blameless people that day.

Posted by: Stuart | September 1, 2010 4:58 PM

Diane,

please cite any poll that shows a majority of Manhaatanites favor the construction of the 9/11 Mosque or retract your claims. You fail to mention that a number of contruction unions have pledged not to help build it.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20015351-503544.html

63% of New York City residents say it should be moved.

Again, please produce support for your claims.

Thanks.

Stuart

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | September 1, 2010 5:03 PM

Why do they want us to continue to have an empty building where there could be a community center?

Posted by: Dianne | September 1, 2010 5:06 PM

please cite any poll that shows a majority of Manhaatanites favor the construction of the 9/11 Mosque or retract your claims.

First, I didn't say majority but plurality. Second, see here.

Posted by: Stuart | September 1, 2010 5:11 PM

"First, I didn't say majority but plurality. "

63% is enough to override a veto.

"Second, see here."

Translation: I don't like the poll's results

Posted by: stevieinthecity#9dac9 | September 1, 2010 5:15 PM

New Yorkers are from the City. It's a poll of New York state voters. New York city voters are much different than those upstate.

Posted by: KG | September 1, 2010 5:17 PM

Why exactly should I waste my time finding information for people who are (I'm fairly sure) capable of finding it themselves? In all seriousness though if at any point I thought any evidence might be critically considered then I probably would have posted some links. As it turned out it was just much more fun not to. - skepcheck

Translation: "No, I can't produce any evidence."

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | September 1, 2010 5:29 PM

also from that article that supposedly refuted me:

However, by a 54 percent to 40 percent majority, voters agree "that because of American freedom of religion, Muslims have the right to build the mosque near Ground Zero."

Posted by: Finch | September 1, 2010 5:41 PM

Just based on looking at the wikipedia article on "Guardianship of the Islamic Jurists" it looks as though Hitchens may have overplayed his cards. Admittedly, I don't think I'd want to live in Imam Rauf's version of an ideal society, as the laws there would probably have me killed (quickly) and would make for a more repressive society, but at the same time, I don't think Rauf is as extreme as Hitchens is painting him to be. I'm hoping that he (along with most American Muslims) are of a more moderate cloth, and that they can bring the Islamic world into a more human rights centered, think-skinned to criticism, international community.

Hitchens can be very entertaining to read, but sometimes I think he fires his rhetoric at the wrong target. I definitely think that the real target should be Newt Gingrich and the Islamaphobic republicans. America is stronger than Islamic extremism, and our bedrock principles protect us from the exact type of problems which would be encountered if the republican Islamaphobes nightmares were implemented.

Quite frankly, we're better than this nonsense, and we atheists need to be pointing the rhetoical guns at the dangerous ones in this situation, the Christian extremists.

Posted by: Stuart | September 1, 2010 5:46 PM

Diane writes:
"Stuart, click on the link. You asked for my source and there it is. For that matter, read your own link. The 63% number includes suburbs. It is not an expression of the opinions of Manhattanites.

From the link:

"Among voters in New York City, 63 percent say the community center should be moved"

read with comprehension next time.

Posted by: KG | September 1, 2010 5:58 PM

skepcheck@202

I can: you're a liar.

Posted by: mikerattlesnake | September 1, 2010 6:02 PM

@201

Are you missing the question every time I post it or what?

@202

Can you guys stop having the most boring argument on the planet? Links are REALLY easy to copy and paste. Skepcheck, if you have sources, you should just post them rather than play the victim.

Posted by: mikerattlesnake | September 1, 2010 6:08 PM

@204

A national debate over whether they should is different than a local debate over whether they should. The former is a xenophobic attempt by a mob to supercede the law, the latter has the POTENTIAL not to be, but still needs to be undertaken in the appropriate context in a respectful manner.

Posted by: mikerattlesnake | September 1, 2010 6:14 PM

@208

Trolling is a bannable offense and, more importantly, it's pointless and obnoxious. So either make with the sources or kindly shut the fuck up, please.

Posted by: Finch | September 1, 2010 6:18 PM

@Stuart

That question is immaterial unless Imam Rauf decides to cave to pressure. It's not a bad idea, he could try and turn it into a big PR stunt and try to make American Muslims look better. The fact is though, this argument is just a spark to set off religiously inspired violence by Christians against Muslims. It's a bunch of divisive nonsense that, from an alien's eye view, makes American conservative Christians look like big hypocrites.

Posted by: KG | September 1, 2010 6:29 PM

With regard to imams etc making unreasonable demands once they feel comfortable. Well isn't there an example of this within the story cited? The 4 century old pub being shut down due to someone converting their home into a mosque the week previous? - the_leander

*Sigh*
No-one has denied such demands are made. In fact, I said I am sure they are in my very first comment@29. The question is: do they get accepted (specifically, in Europe)? Skepcheck claimed@77 that they are, but has produced no examples. The pub example@38 is specifically of a demand; Steven Dunlap does not say it was accepted.

Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom | September 1, 2010 6:35 PM

And this thread, as a matter of fact, is about the fact that they legally can, and opposing it on the basis that "muslims did 9/11" is bigoted unless accompanied by the desire to ban christian churches from the vicinity of the Oklahoma City bombing site, for example.

Or from the Americas in their entirety. And the lion's share of Europe. And Japan, and...

Posted by: Dianne | September 1, 2010 6:41 PM

I lived and worked in Manhatten (midtown) in the Finance industry until 1999. I was born and raised in New York (Long Island).

That would be a "no" then.

I lost about a dozen friends that day. My brother, a stock trader, had breakfast that morning in the WTC and saw the first plane hit on his way back to Wall Street. He also lost a number of friends and clients and is till in therapy.

I'm sorry for your loss and your brother's loss as well. I'm glad they're getting the help they need.

I was living and working in Manhattan on 9/11/01. At Bellevue Hospital. I was lucky enough not to lose any close friends but a number of friends and acquaintances who happened to be paramedics went into the WTC buildings that day. Some never came out. At one point, they were asking if anyone would be willing to play backup paramedic if the paramedics got too exhausted as time went on (this was before the towers collapsed, obviously). I said I would. So I suppose I'm alive only because the towers collapsed one hour after they were hit instead of 24 hours after they were hit.

I'm not sure what difference this makes to whether or not either of us has a say in a real estate deal that neither of us put down any money on, though.

Posted by: KG | September 1, 2010 6:49 PM

For that matter, the_leander, UK Christian extremists demanded that Jerry Springer, the musical be shut down - and the Christian extremist Mary Whitehouse used to make regular demands that TV programmes they disliked should not be shown, and successfully brought a private prosecution for blasphemous libel against the publisher of a poem "The Love that Dares to Speak its Name" by James Kirkup (couldn't be done now, as the offence has been abolished, fortunately). At least according to her supporters, she successfully influenced legislation and halted at least one TV series she disliked. Sikh extremists demanded that Beshti, a play by a Sikh woman about sexual abuse inside a gurdwara (Sikh temple) be banned. Scientologists tried to have a protester outside their place in Tottenham Court Road charged under the Public Order Act for holding up a placard describing it as a "cult". So extremists from multiple religions have tried this sort of thing, but AFAIK, only Christians have ever succeeded in the UK.

Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom | September 1, 2010 6:57 PM

In Denmark you'd probably get a fine.

In the UK... Certainly in some parts of the Civil Service there is an attitude toward minorities (not just Muslim) that is described as "diversity". It is a cancer to society that is all to readily taken up with gusto by many sides.

Diversity is basically a rebranding of positive discrimination, which comes with the dubious disclaimer that group X has been discriminated against in the (possibly distant) past, so will be given more help than others.

Whilst in principle the idea behind it might be noble, the reality is that such thinking is incredibly divisive

This is a good example of where this line of thinking gets you.

Posted by: KG | September 1, 2010 7:11 PM

Rutee,

Here's a recent case apparently related to, er, attitudes to "diversity" in the UK Civil Service. Maybe not quite the sort of thing the_leander needs to make his point, though.

Posted by: the_leander | September 1, 2010 7:50 PM

Gosh, it must have caused a lot of deaths then.

Heh. Funny guy.

So extremists from multiple religions have tried this sort of thing, but AFAIK, only Christians have ever succeeded in the UK.

Mary Whitehouse? Damn that is going back a fair while.

To hear Walton and several others tell it, this is so beyond wrong it could only be apt on Bizarro World.

Not really, but it tends to create plenty of situations where if you look at decisions it leads to purely from the outside it seems like weapons grade burning stupid.

And of course, the likes of the Daily Mail lap it up. Hell the EDL is practically built on the output of reporting on such.

How's that white male middle class privilege workin' out for you anyway?

I wouldn't know, I have to work for a living.

Nice to see your prejudice showing there though.

Looks like an unbacked assertion, this is me caring.

Actually it looks like I linked to the wrong story. http://inspectorgadget.wordpress.com/2010/08/25/in-the-fight-between-you-and-the-world-back-the-world/

Posted by: Iris | September 1, 2010 8:32 PM

@Stuart:

The issue is, is it a smart thing to do given the sensitivities? It seems to me Rauf demands tolerance be shown for himself while he has no tolerance for the feelings of New Yorkers. Or are New Yorkers only entitled to feelings that uber-left douchebags agree with?

Given the tender fee-fees and fragile "sensitivities" of all these Real Americans who object - as evidenced by the stream of nearly incoherent, xenophobic tirades I hear every day on TV - does anyone actually think moving Park51 would be a smart idea? Surely doing so would only embolden these fools and their ilk to escalate their attacks on Muslim Americans. For now. Has anyone objecting thought through where this will stop? Will these guardians of the precious "sacred ground" stand for an atheist organization taking over the lease at Park51? How about an LGBT cultural center?

Of course, if Park51 turns out to be, on balance, a positive asset to the downtown community, you can bet you won't see that story on the front page of the New York Post - or a news camera in sight.

-Iris,
Uber-Left Douchebag
Downtown New Yorker

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | September 1, 2010 8:40 PM

What part of " registered to vote in New York City"

do you not understand?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | September 1, 2010 8:43 PM

Yawn, this the_leander sounds as trite as an old Leander. That latter one was a bit of a tone troll. Said stupid things, then didn't like getting called on it.

Posted by: the_leander | September 1, 2010 8:46 PM

Surely doing so would only embolden these fools and their ilk to escalate their attacks on Muslim Americans

Seems to me whichever side "wins" will be emboldened.

I honestly can't think of an outcome to this that doesn't end up with race relations taking a shoeing.

Too many nuts on either side with polarised positions to allow for it.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | September 1, 2010 8:53 PM

Since when are local groups allowed to cast a popularity vote on suspending constitutional rights that can actually suspend them?

Posted by: the_leander | September 1, 2010 8:58 PM

I can.

the fucking media ignoring non issues would be a great outcome, frankly.

*sigh*

wishful thinking on my part.

I'll sign up for that too.

Posted by: Dianne | September 1, 2010 9:13 PM

Kind of off topic to the thread but in response to the title: Of course you have the right to point and laugh! Come point and laugh all you like. When you're done come point and laugh at the silly WTC cross and the two churches across the street from one corner of the WTC site. Walk a bit in the other direction and you can point and laugh at my apartment building for a while too. A few blocks the other way is a bridge over the West Side Highway from which you get an excellent vantage for pointing and laughing at the WTC site itself...But sooner or later you'll get tired or hungry or bored and have to find some place to eat, sleep, or get (further) entertainment. At NYC prices. Who'll be laughing then tourist boy? All your money are belonging to us!

Posted by: the_leander | September 1, 2010 9:43 PM

#238

Living in a mainly Muslim area (predominantly Pakistani/Bangladeshi with a few Persians) and regularly attending zikr meetings (a gathering where there is prayer, discussion of news as well as the sharing of a meal - has the effect of helping to bind the community together, almost like a family) I've a fairly robust working knowledge in the sorts of issues Muslims/Asians face as they're often brought up and for my (and others) benefit explained where things aren't clear.

I understand the term privilege, both in the general context and this specific one. Living where I am and within the community that I am in I can't help but know what it means. There is however a limit to how far it works - going beyond that limit becomes counter productive. Levelling the playing field is something no sane person could disagree with, the problem is that "diversity" goes beyond simply levelling it out and actively tilting it in favour.

I am of the view that doing that going, or even just being perceived as going that extra step is divisive. Every bit as much as not bothering to level anything out.

This is exacerbated by individuals on both sides who absolutely take the mick. The Daily Mail as an example is more than happy to point out inconsistencies that are created as a result of diversity, groups such as the BNP and EDL then go on to point to these news reports as a means of recruitment.

Then you have these so called community leaders. They are only too happy to have the game tilted in their favour (and to be fair, who wouldn't?). They push ever harder for more and more, some of it is necessary (extra help for those new to the UK to learn English, for instance). But some isn't (the pub across the road from my house turned mosque offends my religious sensibilities). And when these individuals start making the sorts demands that hit the news... It hurts everyone.

Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom | September 1, 2010 10:21 PM

Actually it looks like I linked to the wrong story. http://inspectorgadget.wordpress.com/2010/08/25/in-the-fight-between-you-and-the-world-back-the-world/

Let's break these down:
We have "Don't put stickers on that say 'Pay Me'" vs. "You can show that institutions contain homosexuals as well".

That sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

The police showing "DONATE PLZ" signs while actually on duty, policing an event can easily be taken as an implicit threat, an offer that can't be refused. I can see why there might be a similar problem with the officer in uniform marching with the comfortable majority, but there's really no way to look at the position of gay people in general and conclude they're in a position to exert serious, oppressive political power; Thus, to me, at least, the message is "Police can belong to minorities too", an important message both for the minority and the majority. The minority learns they're also protected by the law, and the majority realizes that their society is more inclusive then they perhaps thought.

"Don't let what appears to be an English Nationalist group pass through ethnic minority neighborhoods, to minimize public problems" vs. "Don't use your power to further subjugate a group that, if I'm not mistaken, is one considered one of the most bitchslapped in the EU".

Reasonable stances on their own. My only quibble is that I'd rather have the English Nationalist group be forced to change their marching direction, rather then say "Nope, never again". But without a link to the larger story in question, it's entirely possible that they refused to change, and that's actually what happened...

If I'm reading this third set, it's "You don't audit the central government, you audit each other". That could be bad, if your government is famously bad at it, but it isn't necessarily a problem unless your policemen are being barred from pursuing criminals who are also government officials.

Fourth Set:
After the whole Flag Pin bullshit in the US, you're not going to get a lot of sympathy on a request to just do away with all of them. I don't see how it would be comparable at all to flying a rainbow flag.

Fifth Set:
And they ask why i'm a socialist. I can't say that's at all unusual, but yes, it sucks that people at the top can never be asked to give up benefits while people at the bottom are having their livelihoods slashed. Stopped Clocks and all that.

There is however a limit to how far it works - going beyond that limit becomes counter productive.

I'm going to dos omething you don't deserve, because you appear to have no fucking idea what privilege means. What would be an example of this? Not a hypothetical. Give me a real world example, and not from this fucking idiot police officer; A real news source.

Posted by: Iris | September 1, 2010 10:31 PM

Seems to me whichever side "wins" will be emboldened...I honestly can't think of an outcome to this that doesn't end up with race relations taking a shoeing...Too many nuts on either side with polarised positions to allow for it.

To emphatically, unequivocally support First Amendment rights, to work towards tolerance and inclusion even - especially - for those with whom we vehemently disagree, and to enthusiastically encourage equality and fairness for all people, is to aspire to the very highest ideals of what it means to be an American and a New Yorker.

If that opinion puts me squarely in the polarising "nut" category in the_lender's mind, then I'll take that as a compliment. I love this city, and I don't want to see any of my law-abiding neighbors, American fucking citizens, chased away by ignorant, intolerant bullies. Despite how it might appear in the short term, that outcome would not be a "win" for anybody.

Posted by: Stuart | September 1, 2010 10:52 PM

Iris writes:

"Given the tender fee-fees and fragile "sensitivities" of all these Real Americans who object - as evidenced by the stream of nearly incoherent, xenophobic tirades I hear every day on TV - does anyone actually think moving Park51 would be a smart idea? "

I see, so the only people who express sensitivity are insincere about their true motives.

you're not a douchebag.

Just a dope.

Posted by: Susan Silberstein | September 1, 2010 11:23 PM

@179, I am not a troll. I am in favor of the Community Center; there is no legal or moral reason to be against it. I was commenting on comments, not the center.

While I do not comment extensively here, my history will show no pattern of trolling.

Posted by: the_leander | September 1, 2010 11:56 PM

but nothing other than that that would reasonably count as real reverse discrimination

Thankyou. I've read a few of the articles on "What Privilege?" (specifically the Colourblind parts 1/2/3 and an article that gives daily examples of how I benefit from being white) Interesting stuff that I'll continue to read up on.

Would you consider having a pass rate for an exam different between races discriminatory?

If so, assuming I've read this correctly, you'll go nuts for this.

"Don't use your power to further subjugate a group that, if I'm not mistaken, is one considered one of the most bitchslapped in the EU"

It isn't the Romany that he's talking about. Most of those settled on more permanent parks years ago in the UK. When you hear about "travellers" these days, they are describing either new age hippies (harmless), Irish Tinkers (mostly harmless though they tend to be a bit hard on camp site amenities) and a few select, well known travelling families that pretty much live upto the stereotype as seen in Snatch.

If that opinion puts me squarely in the polarising "nut" category

It doesn't.

Ichthyic pretty much covered it for me.

I'm going to do something you don't deserve, because you appear to have no fucking idea what privilege means. What would be an example of this? Not a hypothetical. Give me a real world example,

I can give you a couple of first person example off the bat. I used to work in a call centre. One of my colleagues was a fella from Bradford although his name badge had a distinctly Asian sounding name, gave another name over the phone, an English one.

Why? Because although he had an accent that most airline pilots strive for, his name was enough to cost him around 2/3rds of his sales as well as generate no end of complaints about "foreign call centres" (we were in Sheffield).

That in itself is pure racism, but privilege? I've Never having had to lie about my name over the phone to a customer or even having considered it just to get my foot through the door.

Another example from the same call centre. Asking my mate if he wanted to go to a pub that had a live rock band playing, only for him to turn and ask me if it would be safe for him, as an Asian to go there. Privilege in that it would never have occurred to me before that to ask that question of myself.

So, still have any questions with regard my understanding of the term privilege or is it settled?

Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom | September 2, 2010 1:51 AM

I'd put the "assholes wanting to march thru neighborhood of people they hate and oppress" into that category, and in the US it would likely be treated as such. Kind of similar to this.

I see the claim for freedom of speech, then. My opinion stands unchanged. The threat of violence and riots, possibly deliberately provoked, is at least one tiny iota more important to me then the right to provoke said violence.

And it's certainly not equivalent to the government not necessarily constantly pursuing legal action against what is apparently a highly discriminated against group; I've never heard of the Irish Travellers' before today, admittedly, and my galfriend seems to concern herself more with the Roma, but the European Parliament Committee of Enquiry on Racism and Xenophobia probably knows european racism and xenophobia better then I do.

Would you consider having a pass rate for an exam different between races discriminatory?

That said, uh, no, I'm familiar with the case Jadehawk mentioned. They were using racially biased tests (And if you don't know how that can happen, go google "Cultural Bias" + "Intelligence Test". Even if they weren't, it would be entirely seemly to preferentially hire for minority groups (Preferably not those that fail a non-biased test), particularly as a government entity. The majority doesn't need an ego boost; White people in the united states live in an environment that more or less celebrates them, even still, and assures them of their place as no. 1. They don't need representatives amongst the government to help remind them that they're not actually hated (A lot of other things would help too, but every little bit helps).

So, still have any questions with regard my understanding of the term privilege or is it settled?

You know why I didn't ask for a hypothetical? Because I've never heard of that shit happening. I've heard of white people CLAIMING it happened, but whenever I look at their examples, they fizzle as spectacularly as your fire department example.

Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom | September 2, 2010 1:57 AM

You mean that having a test that has a differing pass rate based on race isn't an example of this?

Posted by: namteo | September 2, 2010 4:41 AM

Interesting debate. I want to add my little rebuttal to those who claim that criticism of Islam and 'Islamophobia' is a mask for racism (I think I'm responding mostly to a poster named 'KG' here):

Well, you've surely played your trump card now. Post civil-rights, and the nauseating egalitarian "political correctness" that it devolved into, the charge of racism is the charge that anyone interested in ideas of right and wrong must be sure to avoid. Critical of a group? Racist. Bigot.

But just think about what is being claimed here. The claim is that people have such an irrational fear of Arabs (and Persians, and some South Asians, and some South East Asians, and even some Caucasians), that they will criticize the religion of Islam--a set of beliefs--as a proxy.

To own this argument one would have to say that someone critical of Islam is only conveniently opposing an irrational system of beliefs that espouses enslavement of infidels, women, death to apostates, eternal damnation of unbelievers, and a whole laundry list of other intolerant ideas, as a mere cover for racism against...well against what? People with brown skin? What is the underlying fundamental hatred of Arabs (and Persians, etc.) that 'Islamophobes' cannot square themselves with that they must criticize the 'religion of peace'? Or perhaps maybe some rational thinking humanists out there might not like the intolerant tenets of Islam that are written in black and white and easily accessible in religious texts? Before you can criticize those who take exception to the Qu'ran, please spend some time with it yourself and honestly ask yourself: "Well is there anything in here that might be intolerant and extreme?" Then ask yourself: "If someone wholeheartedly embraced these ideas, what would be the result?"

Seriously, all of you who can't criticize a clearly outlined religious doctrine, please grow up and realize that not every issue in the world can be regurgitated in terms of race. You remind me of my kindergarten days when I would see other kids try to stick star-shaped pegs in square-shaped holes when playing the Milton Bradley game "Perfection." Grow some balls and call a spade a spade.

Posted by: KG | September 2, 2010 8:23 AM

Actually it looks like I linked to the wrong story. http://inspectorgadget.wordpress.com/2010/08/25/in-the-fight-between-you-and-the-world-back-the-world/ - the_leander

That's the best you can do? Pfft.

namteo,
You're a moron. I've already given examples showing clearly that both the anti-mosque protests in NY (#116), and Islamophobia in the UK (#145), are used as covers for racism. As you say, open racism is no longer respectable; so racists cover it in whatever way is to hand - whining about "political correctness", pretended concern for Muslim women, whatever.

Posted by: Rorschach | September 2, 2010 8:38 AM

pretended concern for Muslim women

And you can tell this is pretended concern how ? I'm quite astonished how otherwise intelligent people can dismiss every single aspect of any criticism of Islam as mere islamophobia and racism.Yes, undoubtedly some kooks, especially in Europe, are using those debates as cover to pursue their racism agenda, but that does not mean that all the voiced concerns can be dismissed as solely motivated by racism.

Posted by: skepcheck | September 2, 2010 8:49 AM

KG: I'm afraid I did not say that I could not think of one; what I said was that I didn't want to link them. I still don't. Learn to read more carefully. It also looks like your claim that I am a liar is now unfalsifiable. Interesting.

I'm also afraid that it would not be worthwhile me posting anything now, since I suspect you might respond in the same way to any reasonable critisism of your rediculous assertions as you have to Namteo. "You're a moron" is not an argument. It says far more about you than it does the person to which it is directed. You are flailing and you appear to be so worked up that you are not thinking straight. Take a couple of deep breaths and relax. Realise that if someone disagrees with you then this is a good thing. It also means that they are probably right.

Posted by: KG | September 2, 2010 9:09 AM

I'm afraid I did not say that I could not think of one - skepcheck

You're the one that needs to read more carefully, fuckwit: you said you could not think of a reason why you did not want to link to them. I could: that you didn't actually have anything worth linking to, and were lying when you said you did.

Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom | September 2, 2010 9:19 AM

@257

tl;dr version of my response:
If you want to claim humanist reasons for opposing PArk 51, tell me what positions that Imam Rauf and the Cordoba Initiative specifically take that you oppose.

Long version response to the idiot:

Well, you've surely played your trump card now. Post civil-rights, and the nauseating egalitarian "political correctness" that it devolved into, the charge of racism is the charge that anyone interested in ideas of right and wrong must be sure to avoid. Critical of a group? Racist. Bigot.

To own this argument one would have to say that someone critical of Islam is only conveniently opposing an irrational system of beliefs that espouses enslavement of infidels, women, death to apostates, eternal damnation of unbelievers, and a whole laundry list of other intolerant ideas,

espouses enslavement of infidels,

"Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."
Jude 1:7
Genocide is probably worse then enslavement. Probably. I wouldn't know.

Christian Theocracies in Europe and the early colonial Americas actively hunted down and killed adherents of other faiths on a regular basis, which again, is probably worse then the enslavement of those of other faiths.

Qur'an 5:77-80 Surah Al-Ma'idah:
"O people of the Book! exceed not in your religion the bounds (of what is proper) trespassing beyond the truth nor follow the vain desires of people who went wrong in times gone by who misled many and strayed (themselves) from the even way.

Curses were pronounced on those among the Children of Israel who rejected faith by the tongue of David and of Jesus the son of Mary: because they disobeyed and persisted in excesses."

Contrast with People of the Book, a doctrine that protects the religious who are descendants of the Abrahamic Religion, granting them certain legal rights.

Obviously this only applies to some religions; Christianity and Judaism were explicitly given protection, and some other religions with a monotheistic element have been given similar (If they had a scripture, which doesn't apply to all religions, by a long stretch), such as Hinduism and Zoroastrianism. Obviously, these protections have not held as absolute, particularly in the modern age, but hey, you're the one who cares more about 'the philosophy' then what any individual muslim is doing.

So on point 1, Islam is, relative to Christianity, a more tolerant and livable system. That makes it irrational to hold this over against Islam, but not hold it against Christianity.

death to apostates,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copernicus

Islam is even with Christianity. It's irrational to hold this against Islam, but not Christianity.

eternal damnation of unbelievers,

[enslavement of] women

To the woman he said, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you." -Genesis 3:16

Equally bad, irrational to focus on one over the other.

What is the underlying fundamental hatred of Arabs (and Persians, etc.) that 'Islamophobes' cannot square themselves with that they must criticize the 'religion of peace'?

That's just the easy example of a high profile black man. God forbid I get into how badly we treat so many Others, because I want to have some free time on my fucking hands!

Or perhaps maybe some rational thinking humanists out there might not like the intolerant tenets of Islam that are written in black and white and easily accessible in religious texts?

And either way, you're missing the fucking point if you think the religious texts should be your primary target. You have to focus on what a given group of people is doing with their text:

Quick, which should be your higher priority: People who more or less live the same as everyone else but happen to follow the muslim faith (Such as this young woman) or murderers and traitors justifying killing and rebellion in the name of their holy book? (Such as this asshole or these assholes). If more or less everyday people bother you more then murderers, reconstructionists, and oppressors, merely on the basis that they're muslims, then you're not being a very rational humanist.

SAy it with me now: It's irrelevant what a holy book says, as far as atheists and rational people should be concerned. They're all horrible, horrible guides to ethics and morality and anyone following any of them literally is a recipe for what we in the modern age would call a monster. The only thing that matters is what an individual or a group actually does in the name of their holy book.

And before you try, neither the wahhabist murderers who crashed planes into towers, the Mullahs of Iran, nor the Saudi Royal Family speak for the people in America (Or even for the people within their own countries) who happen to be muslim. This is the courtesy that we extend to human beings who are not part of a hive mind collection. A quick demonstration of this basic courtesy, when we stop applying it to the majority:
http://slacktivist.typepad.com/slacktivist/2010/08/please-forgive-me-for-the-actions-of-extremists-i-have-never-met-who-commit-acts-of-violence-that-i-.html

If you would like to denigrate any of those groups, by all means, but be specific, and don't do this equivalency bullshit where every muslim is automatically the same. If you insist on doing it, at least don't pretend you're being rational.

Sidenote: I hate pretty much every group that requires voluntary membership to be counted as one. Don't pull that "You just love islam" bullshit, because I hate muslims too (Along with Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Geeks...)

Posted by: the_leander | September 2, 2010 9:27 AM

is that what vdare claimed happened in the firefighter case,

Yes.

Following some of the linkbacks to previous articles they've done to support their key argument (the above) you're right - they aren't even trying to hide the racism.

So if you'll excuse me I'm going to try and wash off this horrible dirty feeling I just picked up going through their site in depth.

Posted by: Dianne | September 2, 2010 10:18 AM

And you can tell this is pretended concern how ?

One clue is that the concern suddenly appears when the oppressive country or group annoys the US, UK, or whatever other country the "concerned" person lives in. There is very little in the press about, for example, the problems that women in Saudi Arabia face, although from what I've seen they are likely more oppressed than women in Iraq under Hussein or even current day Iran. Nor was this "concern" clearly evident when Clinton was negotiating with the Taliban.

Which is not to say that any given individual isn't disgusted and concerned when they read about girls being stoned for the "crime" of being raped in Somalia or subject to FGM in Islamic areas in Britain. But the outrage is very much media directed and if the focus goes away 99+% of people will probably forget all about it and go on to the next outrage of the week.

I'm quite astonished how otherwise intelligent people can dismiss every single aspect of any criticism of Islam as mere islamophobia and racism.

Are we reading the same blog? PZ regularly writes posts about some of the more disgusting bits of Islam. And I suspect very few people here would defend, say, the Taliban's policies. At the same time, some criticism of Islam is motivated by racism and political gain. Much like not all criticism of Israel is antisemitic but it's probably best to consider the context of any criticism of Israel before taking it at face value because so much of it is.

So, coming back to Park51, why are we worried about it but not about, for example, the people standing in front of the "WTC cross" with large US flags and yelling about vengence? Or (different group) passing out pamplets asking people to pray-using Christian rites-for the souls of those who died in the WTC? I felt deeply offended by that group, for a number of reasons but mostly because they seemed to be trying to erase the Jews, Muslims, atheists, Hindis, pagans, Buddhists, etc who died in the WTC. Far more offensive than an attempt to put a YMMA in an old Burlington Coat Factory site several blocks from the WTC.

Posted by: Iris | September 2, 2010 10:59 AM

Seriously, all of you who can't criticize a clearly outlined religious doctrine, please grow up and realize that not every issue in the world can be regurgitated in terms of race.

Are you new here? Pharyngula is probably the quintessential blog wherein "clearly outlined religious doctrine" is criticized on a daily - if not hourly - basis. PZ titled this very post "I don't like the Manhattan mosque, but they've got the right — as long as I've got the right to point and laugh."

Grow some balls and call a spade a spade.

Okay: you're an idiot.

Rutee & Dianne: Spot on. Bravo.

Posted by: skepcheck | September 2, 2010 1:47 PM

Nerd of Redhead, OM: I gave up trying to win any arguments quite a long time ago. But thanks for the support, I think KG should do his/her own legwork too. I wouldn't go as far as to call KG an ignorant loser though, just misguided.

Posted by: namteo | September 2, 2010 2:28 PM

@ Rutee

This is great. First comment here and I'm already getting a pretty good response (I see 'moron' and 'idiot' have been employed already, nice).

First of all, if I'm to believe what people are saying, that religion is routinely criticized here, then I'm glad to be here. Let's keep on doing it.

My point was made to KG who was claiming that statements critical of Islam could be considered a mask for racism. I asked him to answer me this question: What is the nature of this irrational underlying hatred of these racial groups, and why is it that criticism of Islam is a mask for this instead of the obvious repulsion to an intolerant and crazy belief system? So far this hasn't been answered, but a point was made that this had to do with "fear of the other." This idea should be unpacked but I'll respond briefly by saying that this is not inherently 'racism.' "The other" can be a group defined by their beliefs too, and it's not bigotry to expose beliefs to rational criticism. Some people do conflate the two concepts but if they do so, it's because of stupidity or general conservative xenophobia (perhaps you want to call this racism?).

Commenting on your post, which seemed like an attempt to respond to my post line-by-line but which somehow failed to counter my point at all (if I'm misinterpreting it then my apologies). You state:

"SAy it with me now: It's irrelevant what a holy book says, as far as atheists and rational people should be concerned. They're all horrible, horrible guides to ethics and morality and anyone following any of them literally is a recipe for what we in the modern age would call a monster. The only thing that matters is what an individual or a group actually does in the name of their holy book."

I wholeheartedly agree with this statement and so I'm a little confused by the exasperated tone. Just because I only mentioned Islam doesn't mean I don't have equal scorn for other "horrible guides." But in using that term you do acknowledge that people are guided by these ideas. If a fundamentalist Christian does something despicable in the name of his religion, let's "call a spade a spade" (seriously, I don't know why I'm automatically an idiot for using that phrase--do people really dislike cliche that much on this board?) and be critical of Christianity. If someone came out and said 'well, this is just a mask for hatred of white folk and racism' then you'd have people like me justifiably scratching their heads.

Eagerly awaiting new ad hominems, your new friend,
Namteo

Posted by: KG | September 2, 2010 2:35 PM

My point was made to KG who was claiming that statements critical of Islam could be considered a mask for racism. I asked him to answer me this question: What is the nature of this irrational underlying hatred of these racial groups, and why is it that criticism of Islam is a mask for this instead of the obvious repulsion to an intolerant and crazy belief system? - namteo

You're either unable to read, or a liar. I answered that @259:

open racism is no longer respectable; so racists cover it in whatever way is to hand - whining about "political correctness", pretended concern for Muslim women, whatever.

Posted by: KG | September 2, 2010 2:53 PM

Isn't the claim about sexual segregation in swimming pools a specific claim? - skepcheck

Seriously, that's the best you can do? Women-only swimming sessions are by no means new, and many non-Muslim women like them, so the only difference in any of the links I can find is that swimmers have to wear more than swimmers in Europe usually do, a few hours in the week. Muslims, believe it or not, are citizens, and pay rates (local taxes) like anyone else. If it was a demand that all swimming sessions in public pools should be sexually segregated, and that had been conceded, you (and Hitchens) would have a case. He talks about "the most intolerant demands", so I assumed that was what he meant. Do you have any links to that kind of demand being made and accepted?

Posted by: Shala | September 2, 2010 2:59 PM

Namteo, it is time to shut the fuck up and eat the Cupcake of Shitstains From The Panties of Life.

Posted by: namteo | September 2, 2010 3:17 PM

@ Shala

"Namteo, it is time to shut the fuck up and eat the Cupcake of Shitstains From The Panties of Life."

Om nom nom nom...

Posted by: namteo | September 2, 2010 3:25 PM

@ CJO

"Your question either answers itself, or demonstrates its own incoherence. Racism is irrational, and so asking for its "nature" if by this you mean "process of ratiocination by which it is adopted and held" doesn't make any sense."

KG: It's not really criticism of Islam, it's racism.

Namteo: Racism against who? Arabs, South Asians, Southeast Asians, Anglos? Why should people be concerned about undefined racism against these disparate groups instead of obviously extreme and intolerant ideology?

You: Well racism itself is irrational and undefined so your question is stupid. It's racism.

Seems like you've found an unbeatable argument. Using the phrase "process of ratiocination" made it sound a lot cooler too.

Posted by: skepcheck | September 2, 2010 4:03 PM

@namteo Clearly you are right, but I fear you might as well bang your head against a brick wall.

@KG No, that it not then best I can do. I just got that from your what you posted of Hitchens' article, I didn't actually say anything at all new. You might have missed it before, but I'm not going to be posting you any links.

@ Nerd of Redhead, OM- Guess what? I discovered another option! Here I am typing away quite happily. Awesome!

@KG & Nerd of Redhead, OM- This is part what I said back in post #208

TBH at this point I'm just waiting under the bridge for some goats to cross.

Now clearly neither of you grasp what I was implying here. What I suggest you do is open up your favourite search engine and find out who it might be that waits under bridges waiting for goats to cross (while you are at it KG you could also try a little research on a different subject).

You should be proud. Not many people get to make themselves look quite as spectacularly stupid as you have. Seriously. Well done.

Posted by: KG | September 2, 2010 4:34 PM

"You're either unable to read, or a liar. I answered that @259"

Yes, and I'm glad you've softened your position (or perhaps clarified? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt). I was responding to a response to my @257 post, so you'll forgive me not including future information in doing so. - namteo

WTF are you on about? I have neither softened my position, nor did I need to clarify it. Here are things I said on the thread before you poked your halfwitted head in:

Pretending it's just about religion is a convenient cover for racists.

clear examples of an irrationally exaggerated fear and dislike of Islam. Behind which, in the majority of cases, lies racism.

I was quite clear in what I said: that anti-Islamic rhetoric is used as a cover for racism. I gave instances that show there very clearly is racism behind the anti-mosque protests @116. In the UK, we have a group called the "English Defence League", which claims to be opposed only to extremist Islam. A number of the leaders and prominent supporters are known racists and fascists: Sean Corrigan, Chris Renton, "Tommy Robinson" (real name Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, a convicted criminal) are all BNP members (the BNP is the main UK fascist party).

You claimed@277 that I had not answered your question@257. I answered it@259, so this is not "future information" relative to #277.

You say that 'Islamophobia' is now a mask for hatred of an already hated group. How are you so sure of the causation here?

Answered @145, repeated above.

the idea that racists are now caring about the rights of Muslim women, which I don't believe either (but why point that out if we're going to concede they're racist to begin with?)

Again, WTF are you on about? Many Islamophobes claim to be concerned about the rights of Muslim women. Evidence that many leaders of the "anti-Islamic-extremist" movements making these claims are in fact, long-standing racists, is obviously relevant.

Your points-of-agreement-seeking pal,

You're no pal of mine.

Now clearly neither of you grasp what I was implying here. - skepcheck

Oh, I know quite well you're a fuckwitted racist troll. We get quite a lot of them here, and they're easily recognised by the stench.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | September 2, 2010 5:45 PM

Here I am typing away quite happily. Awesome!

Posted by: Iris | September 2, 2010 6:44 PM

@namteo 280:

My post was directed at those that would believe that PZ Meyers [sic] pointing and laughing at a Mosque is masked racism instead of disdain for the irrationality of Islam. Would you agree that PZ is a closet racist in saying that? If you don't then you might have missed my point.

PZ Myers, like me and many others on this thread who have openly and repeatedly declared their "disdain for the irrationality of Islam" (to put it mildly...), are not the ones screaming about moving Park51. We could all be closet racists here, but it wouldn't matter in this debate.

It's entirely disingenuous of you to imply that KG or anyone else here has stated anything remotely like "ALL OPPONENTS OF PARK51 ARE RACISTS." Fact: All of the protesters waving crosses around and shrieking on Fox about this being a "Christian Nation" are clearly not acting out of some principled "disdain for the irrationality of Islam." So, hmmmm... let's think now, what could possibly be their motivation?

There may indeed be rational arguments for moving Park51, but I've heard none that I find compelling.

Posted by: namteo | September 2, 2010 7:14 PM

@ Iris

"PZ Myers, like me and many others on this thread who have openly and repeatedly declared their "disdain for the irrationality of Islam" (to put it mildly...), are not the ones screaming about moving Park51. We could all be closet racists here, but it wouldn't matter in this debate.

It's entirely disingenuous of you to imply that KG or anyone else here has stated anything remotely like "ALL OPPONENTS OF PARK51 ARE RACISTS." Fact: All of the protesters waving crosses around and shrieking on Fox about this being a "Christian Nation" are clearly not acting out of some principled "disdain for the irrationality of Islam." So, hmmmm... let's think now, what could possibly be their motivation?

There may indeed be rational arguments for moving Park51, but I've heard none that I find compelling."

I haven't found any arguments for not building at Park51 compelling either. I'm all for it. PZ Meyers says it's their right. You say it's their right. I say it's their right. It doesn't matter what we say in any case since it's their right. We seem to be in complete agreement. I'm going to go a step further and say it's a good idea since it does outline the discrepancy in tolerance of secular societies with theocracies.

Most of what I've posted here was in response to KG, who wants to argue that much of Islamic criticism is due to underlying racism. I take umbrage to that claim because I prefer live in a world where one can be critical of any religion on its own terms without fearing being called a racist or a bigot.

One argument that KG makes which disturbs me is the one about how former racists now are pretending to care about Muslim women's rights. Well, unless that person is telling you he's a racist, how do you know he's one for doing so? Who makes that judgment that one is only "pretending" to care about Muslim women's rights when they speak against Islamic beliefs since it's merely underlying racism. JG seems to think he should. If someone is out there criticizing Islam's treatment of women, I don't think it's possible to discern (and why should we even care?) where the motivations come from. I think we take arguments on face value. "Call a spade a spade" (I know you hate that phrase but I'm putting it in here to clarify what I meant). We can deal with racism on separate terms.

Posted by: namteo | September 2, 2010 7:28 PM

@ Iris again

I've read through some of your posts and agree 100% with them. So where is the disagreement here?

I've never said that most or even many people against Park51 are acting out of some "disdain for the irrationality of Islam." Most are either Christians intolerant of another religion (not racism) or people who believe it to be offensive in some way (not racism, but I share your disdain against these people) or nutcases (not racism either, but some nutcases are happen to be racists).

I think the small minority of us rational thinkers who actually DO hold Islam accountable as an irrational belief system also believe in secularism and the right of the people to build at Park51. So I don't see what arguments I've made to earn such rebuttals.

Do you believe, like KG, that most criticism of Islam masks underlying racism? That's the only thing I've talked about on the board so far.

Posted by: namteo | September 2, 2010 11:37 PM

@ Iris

Okay, I see now. You're a bitch that likes to snick her nose into posts obviously not intended for her to call people idiots. Don't know why you do it but I'm guessing that perhaps it gives you pleasure. Perhaps I like the abuse? Got any more zingers for me darling?

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | September 3, 2010 8:20 AM

Okay, I see now. You're a bitch that likes to snick her nose into posts obviously not intended for her to call people idiots. Don't know why you do it but I'm guessing that perhaps it gives you pleasure. Perhaps I like the abuse? Got any more zingers for me darling?

Oh that's nice.

Misogyny much?

Posted by: KG | September 3, 2010 8:37 AM

namteo,

I've answered you already, with specific examples, and now you've shown yourself to be a misogynist shitbag, I've no further interest in anything you say.

Posted by: Iris | September 3, 2010 9:39 AM

No, no, no. I'm an "Uber-left Douchebag." Please pay attention.

Maybe this just isn't the blog for you, namteo. See, when people come in here smugly spewing ignorant bullshit - like you did at 257 - they tend to get called on it. ("Grow a pair?" Please.) And whatever you think your "point" was in that little rant, in the context of a blog that is notoriously critical of Islam and every other religion, it was idiotic. Then you continued to insist on minimizing the racism, bigotry and xenophobia that is clearly fueling much of the furor over Park51. KG and others have repeatedly called you on it, but when I do, you lash out like a snot-nosed little toddler and call me a "bitch."

Oooh. Good burn.

There are plenty of other forums on the net where you can be secure in the knowledge that no uppity bitches would ever dare stick their pretty little noses into the bullshit you post in an open forum. (Maybe try the MRAs? They're always looking for assholes like you.) Now run along, darling.

Posted by: skepcheck | September 3, 2010 10:43 AM

Nerd of Redhead, OM: Are you still replying to me? Just how thunderingly stupid are you? Even KG has stopped.

namteo: It's clearly only okay to insult people who don't agree with the bullies on here. Sure, it's fine to call someone a moron or an idiot, racist or tell them to fuck off or whatever, but only after they have made a single intelligent post refuting one of them. Clearly if you make atttempts at rational discussion and after persistent harassment you call one of them a name then this makes you a mysoginist shitbag; never mind whether you knew if you were replying to a male or a female. It probably makes you an idiot or a moron too, only you are one already, because you made one of the bullies look stupid.

Iris, KG etc: Just because you don't seem to be able to separate religion from race doesn't mean that others cannot. Frankly your arguments are absurd.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | September 3, 2010 7:35 PM

Just how thunderingly stupid are you?

Posted by: John Morales | September 4, 2010 6:11 AM

skepcheck, what you had to say was duly jeered at; your current indignant posturing is barely amusing.

Posted by: John Morales | September 4, 2010 6:51 AM

skepcheck, why you imagine I haven't read it before posting is beyond me.

Pray enlighten me: How do you see "the situation"? :)

Posted by: skepcheck | September 20, 2010 5:10 AM

Nerd of Redhead, OM: I'm afraid you have to be proved right once to be proved right again.

John Morales: If you were to read the thread you might see how I know you haven't read the thread.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | September 20, 2010 5:23 AM

Yawn, boring idjit skepcheck is. Can't even say anything new on the topic after 16 days...

Posted by: A Pissed Off Roman | December 8, 2010 3:07 AM

I read so much here, about people being called white, brown, black.... have anyone seen the colour of someone's skin 'white' as the background of this page? NO – so get over it, you are not White! When do we want to go beyond the colour of the skin and see each other as human beings?

Posted by: skepcheck | August 21, 2011 4:49 PM

Check it out. Looks like I won. Go me.