Um, that's not much of an assumption considering it's cited as the primary motivation for the hijackers...
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...s-to-refudiate-ground-zero-mosque.php?ref=fpa Sarah Palin Tweet: Ground Zero Mosque supporters: doesn't it stab you in the heart, as it does ours throughout the heartland? Peaceful Muslims, pls refudiate Peaceful New Yorkers, pls refute the Ground Zero mosque plan if you believe catastrophic pain caused @ Twin Towers site is too raw, too real. Peace-seeking Muslims pls understand. Ground Zero mosque is UNNECESSARY provocation; it stabs hearts. Pls reject it in interest of healing Obviously, her Tweet connotes that Muslims who are not peaceful are the ones who are supporting the mosque -- despite all evidence to the contrary -- but it equally egregiously mashes together the words "refute" and "repudiate" to create out of whole cloth the word "refudiate."
Last one before I derail the thread. <object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/WJFHxcccbkw?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/WJFHxcccbkw?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
You need to post the link. Just an FYI. As for the topic (if I haven't posted about this yet... I can't remember), while I can understand the feelings of those in New York who are maddened by this issue, the fact remains that we have a constitution that gives us freedom of religion. All the arguing, bellowing, chest thumping and angst about it won't change that fact, not should it. If they own the land and local zoning allows it, the religious facility can be built. People simply have to accept that fact, or move to a different country with a different form of government.
And I honor those who are arguing, bellowing, chest thumping and feeling angst about this. I totally understand where they're coming from.
And that's the final word on the subject from Refman? Not too concerned then, I guess, about the fact that while some lefties (none elected, btw) might have called people bigots (for shame), your own party continues to fan the flames of hatred toward an entire religion and uses ideas of being pro-Muslim (bad) versus anti-Muslim (good) as an election strategy. Not too worried about the effects that kind of thinking and speech might have on our long term security (not to mention anything approaching the relative religious harmony we used to enjoy in this country)? In other words, are you cool with this? And, given your other problems with the GOP of late, are you actually going to vote Republican again in November?
Good lord. Why? I mean I can see how you could understand it. I can too -- I can understand all sorts of intolerance, ignorance, misplaced anger born from grief or reasonable outrage over the original attacks. But to honor it? To "honor" transferring that into protesting an entire religion? I think you might have chosen the wrong word there.
The mosque is the very thing some of the victims of 9/11 believed in. There were Muslim victims of 9/11. Surely it isn't an insult to them to put a mosque there. And surely it is an insult to them to act like having a mosque there is insulting to the victims of 9/11. Or do the non-Muslim victims deaths mean more than those of the Muslim victims?
This afternoon at 3:07pm, I think I made my feelings on the subject pretty clear... I am not going to vote Republican. Nor am I going to vote Democrat. I am going to do something novel in today's political culture. I am going to listen and educate myself about the candidates and vote in each race ignoring party affiliation. For governor, for instance, I will likely vote for Bill White. If I do not like either candidate, I will probably vote for the Libertarian or Mickey Mouse or Superman (he'd make a great Senator).
That's cool, Refman. Here is an interesting take by Josh Marshall, in which he gives props to George W. Bush (as do I by re-posting): http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2010/08/i_few_weeks_back_i.php?ref=fpblg Embracing the Holy War Josh Marshall | August 15, 2010, 8:16PM A few weeks back I asked whether we weren't seeing a perceptible rise in Islamophobia, paradoxically many years after the 9/11 attacks. And if we are, why? There are many potential and probable reasons. But of all the emails I received, the couple that struck me most were the ones that pointed to George W. Bush. Yes, him, George W. Bush. Whatever his other errors and shortcomings, with the exception of a few very poorly chosen words at the outset (calling the War Against Terror a "crusade"), Bush was quite consistent in arguing that America was not in a war against Islam. And that put a real brake on the forces of xenophobia, extremist religion and religious hatred, almost all of which were in his own party. For those of us who believe his policies in the Middle East were close to catastrophic, this fact may seem of somewhat trivial importance. But in the US I think it was actually a pretty big deal. Conservatives' ability to play on xenophobic fears about President Obama's race and Islamic ancestry has clearly played into the politics. But as TPM Reader CB wrote last month ... His being President and the nominal head of the GOP basically kept a lid on many of the fanatical Islamophobes and the few who did rear their ugly heads (Tancredo, Bachmann and others) were essentially kept away from the Party and to some degree the media (by being told to keep their mouths basically shut on the issue or just being ignored by the media because they were viewed as merely the fringe). Which brings me to a very interesting piece in Politico today. In this piece by Ben Smith and Maggie Haberman argue that the GOP's harsh turn against Islam represents an effort to repudiate the former president's legacy on this front and embrace the 'Clash of Civilizations' worldview or what might more properly be termed a Holy War between America and Islam.
Interesting thing, this mosque is something that those radical wahabi exclusivist would be entirely against, it has an interfaith center, in which people of all religions are there, it has a community center and its all about pluralism and teaching to understand more about the misconceptions about the religion and its multi faceted ways as in you don't have to be a muslim to go in. This is what those terrorist are against and this is another way to fight them, their message, and their legitimacy to say its not sensitive is to say the builders or the believers of that mosque have something to do with the death, thats like some crazy guy at your church or prayer hall or just small crazy group doing something, and then when you want to go and pray or build another prayer hall of that type people say no way your doing that, all you guys, your ideas are just wrong and off... this sort of issue, this gap, that it creates between islam and america, as if they coudl not coexist, as if there are not patriotic muslims in the army fighting for the country, or so many muslims born in america who adore the country like myself and the freedom of religion and the opportunity that it has, this sort of desperation and dehumanization of muslims is exactly what those terrorist would've wanted, to create a gap, and toe create an issue of us vs them, its sad to see in the people who hate them indirectly are supporting their causes
Calm down, Batman. It's a reference to an on-going conversation in another thread. What I honor is the right of people to publicly protest. I'm having an argument about the value of public demonstrations and protests. People like Major believe that such things are essentially outdated, that hundreds or thousands of people taking to the streets and demonstrating about an issue, pro or con, (think Vietnam and Civil Rights) has been replaced by the internet and "modern technology." I think that's bull ****. OK?
I'm calm. I think you're probably a little more heated up here than I am. And sure, that's okay. I appreciate the right to protest very much, but I don't honor it. We just differ there. When it comes to hate protest (KKK, that guy who takes his family to protest military funerals because "god hates ****," these people burning Korans and calling for an end to all new mosques), I tolerate it but I would never 'honor' it. I deplore it actually, while defending their right to do it. Regarding that, we're probably not too far apart; I'd just use a different word than "honor" in this context. Also, I'd think Major is probably right. People making a difference in the streets seems a little antiquated - or, more to the point, pretty well impossible - these days. I'd love for that to make a comeback though.
How do you know its not an insult to the Muslim victims? You don't get to speak for them. Maybe they feel like me that no religious structure should be at this sacred ground. This is how its been done at Gettysburg, Auschwitz, and other similar places. Like I stated earlier, Pope John Paul II asked some nuns to remove their convent from Auschwitz. I bet I can find at least one Catholic victim at Auschwitz (Nazis didn't just slaughter Jews). The Pope understood that the religious structure could be offensive to others and thus should not be built. Are Muslims unable to come to the same conclusion? Personally if someone killed in my name (even if I did not condone it), I wouldn't want a statue of me built in the person's front yard. People in this thread keep arguing for freedom of religion and the Constitution, which is fine and appropriate, but almost half the people who oppose this mosque don't want legal action and just want the Islamic group building the center to understand how much we disapprove of their actions for the above reasons.
