Who Cares What Pols Think About The Cordoba Center?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 10:42:00 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

In an editorial today, the NYTimes demands President Obama say more about the Cordoba Center (or as the GOP haters call it, the "Ground Zero Mosque.") Conversely, I demand that politicians stay the hell out of it, other than to say what we all know - the owners of the site get to decide what they will do with it.

Similarly, Greg Sargent is obsessed with getting pols to talk about the "Ground Zero Mosque," just as the Wingnuts:

Right on cue, the NRSC just blasted out a release attacking Chuck Schumer thusly: "As Hamas Weighs In On Ground Zero Mosque, New York's Senior Senator Remains Silent."

Schumer's office has actually said he is "not opposed" to the center, but he hasn't said anything beyond that. What we're seeing here is that it does Dems no good to try to duck this issue. Republicans will attack them anyway.

(Emphasis supplied.) That's precisely the point Greg - the GOP will attack them anyway so don't let the GOP dictate what you say and do. Is there any rational reason why I should care if Chuck Schumer "supports" or "opposes" the Cordoba Center? Would Greg Sargent even think of asking Schumer's (or Obama's or Reid's) opinion about this except that Pam Geller decided it mattered? Is Newt Gingrich now Greg Sargent's assignment editor or Chuck Schumer's political consultant? Has everyone gone insane? More . . .

Matt Yglesias wrote:

[O]ver the weekend some kind of hair-splitting distinction opened up between the idea of publicly and forcefully acknowledging the legal and constitutional right of the organizers to place their community center at 51 Park Place in Lower Manhattan and supporting construction of the mosque. I sort of see what the distinction is. People have the right, legally speaking, to go stand on the sidewalk outside my office and scream obscenities at me when I go to lunch. But I really wish they wouldn’t do that, and I think sensible people would condemn the decision to behave in that manner.

But when it comes to matters of religion, I think this distinction gets a bit confusing. I’m after all not a Muslim. And if pressed, I’d have to say that I think Islam is a false doctrine. It’s not the case that there’s is no God but Allah, nor is it true that Mohammed is his prophet. If everyone collectively decided that nobody should ever build a mosque anywhere again, that would be fine by me. Which is just to say that people simply don’t actively support the construction of other people’s religious monuments. You don’t expect Jews to stand up and applaud the construction of new Mormon temples, but I do expect them to acknowledge the right of Mormons to build temples and to stand up to demagogues who would try to abridge that right. And this is what we have going on in Lower Manhattan today. [. . .] There’s no real need to introduce dozens of new layers of nuance into it.

I don't support the building of a mosque or a church or a temple anywhere. I don't particularly oppose the building of mosques, temples or churches either. More importantly, who cares what I think about such things and who cares what President Obama and any other pol thinks about it? I surely do not.

Everyone says President Obama was "courageous" in his statements on Friday. Perhaps so. But politically, he was stupid and clearly counterproductive.

Before President Obama decided we just had to know what he thought about it, the story was about Abe Foxman and the ADL and Fareed Zakaria. Once Obama stepped in, now it is about what every politician thinks about it. Just dumb.

I wish for once a pol would say, who give a sh*t what I think about it? Is there some legislation being proposed about it? No? Then let's move on.

Speaking for me only

< Stanford Law Students Win Release For Third Striker Who Stole Food From Church | Progressive Agenda: How About Some Progressive Taxation? >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Who Cares What Pols Think About The Cordoba Center? | 182 comments (182 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Hear, hear (5.00 / 2) (#1)
by andgarden on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 08:05:51 AM EST

I have to admit that it's hard to respect any pol who decides to talk about it and takes a line different from Bloomie.

But of course it's all stupid posturing over an issue out of almost anyone's control.

Well (none / 0) (#99)
by squeaky on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 11:48:11 AM EST

Bloomberg is not running again, and Bloomberg is the Mayor of NYC, so it is appropriate for him to accept and encourage a $100million dollar redevelopment plan in a economically dead zone of his city.

But other than him it is a political trap as the GOP has defined the argument and there is no coming out clean, other than to quote the constitution, if pressed.


The way the Dems are going (5.00 / 2) (#128)
by hookfan on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 12:29:33 PM EST

they'll likely give them a good run for their money for extinction.


: We can dream... (5.00 / 1) (#149)
by kdog on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 01:36:43 PM EST

both parties find their rightful place on the scrap heap of history in the not too distant future.

Though it is a decent litmus test... (5.00 / 2) (#2)
by kdog on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 08:31:22 AM EST

to see how a pol feels about freedom...it is good to know which pols would sacrifice essential liberty to islamophobia, and which pols can at least spare a word in defense of the American dream.

Is it totally unimportant? Yes, but that never stopped pols before...they make a living on dodging the important stuff and focusing on little wedge issues...the important stuff is hard.

What they say tells you nothing (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 08:44:44 AM EST

What they DO is what matters.


True... (5.00 / 2) (#12)
by kdog on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 09:08:17 AM EST

but since there is nothing that can be done here to stop the community center except void some of the Bill of Rights, what they say is all there is...the people can judge if they're bullsh*tting or speaking from the heart...all are indicators, if imperfect ones.


"void some of the bill of rights"? You (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by tigercourse on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 09:23:13 AM EST

can ask them to reconsider the location in the name of community healing (which I suppose religion is theoretically supposed to be concerned with). That doesn't void anything.


I guess... (5.00 / 3) (#37)
by kdog on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 09:58:41 AM EST

but that's been asked repeatedly, the developers want it to serve the downtown NYC community, and there isn't exactly lots of open space in that area.

Is 10 blocks away really any different than 5? How wide does the "no free speech sensitivity zone" have to be? I'm all for being a considerate neighbor, but when your neighbor is unreasonable there is only so much you can do.


I think a few more blocks away would have (5.00 / 1) (#52)
by tigercourse on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 10:31:56 AM EST

saved everyone involved a bunch of trouble.


really (5.00 / 1) (#76)
by TimNCGuy on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 11:22:27 AM EST

if a few more blocks away would make the difference, then why are proposed mosques being protested in TN, WI and CA. A few states away hasn't stopped the protests? Why is Newt proposing no mosques anywhere in the US until a church is in Saudi Arabia? A few blacks wouldn't shut him up. This more about anti-Muslim feelings than about proximity and that is proved by these other examples. Because I don't see any of those protesting the NYC mosque jumping in and defending the mosques in the other locations.


also (5.00 / 1) (#79)
by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 11:24:05 AM EST

I read there is already a mosque 4 blocks away.
is that far enough or should it be moved?


Again, can't speak for anyone else, but the (5.00 / 1) (#84)
by tigercourse on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 11:32:08 AM EST

Mosque currently there (I think it's closer to the trade center then the new one will be) isn't a problem because it's been there for years prior to the attack. No one thinks of it as a symbolic attempt, it's just another house of worship.


You Think? (none / 0) (#106)
by squeaky on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 11:53:42 AM EST

This is a obviously purely abstract excursive for you tigercourse.

Your logic is absurd and you know nothing of what you speak.

I find it patently offensive that you attempt to speak for my community for the sake of mouthing GOP talking points.


Absurdity and discussions about religion (none / 0) (#114)
by tigercourse on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 12:10:04 PM EST

go hand in hand.


: Not About Religion (none / 0) (#118)
by squeaky on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 12:16:22 PM EST

Your position is about a fundamental constitutional right. Not to mention that you are supporting your arguments by going on about what "the community" wants, which you know nothing about and do not belong to.

Woweee, when did you become so intolerant? (none / 0) (#173)
by BrassTacks on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 04:00:10 PM EST

Really Squeaky, you won't tolerate any disagreement or discussion without resorting to name calling and degradation. Those kinds of things do not help garner support for your position.


: Name Calling? (none / 0) (#174)
by squeaky on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 04:27:01 PM EST

Degradation? Where did I do that?
I simply disagree with tigercourse, and and am expressing my lowly opinion in the best way I can.
Sorry for being so limited, but we all can't do it like you.

I can't speak for anyone else. The other (none / 0) (#82)
by tigercourse on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 11:30:32 AM EST

protests seem like pure hypocritical bigotry.

But in the case of the one at Ground Zero, 4 more blocks over would have meant that it was no longer in a building damaged by the attacks. It would have meant alot more distance between the site and the Mosque. Enough to counter any argument that it was at Ground Zero.


: oh, so (none / 0) (#175)
by TimNCGuy on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 04:31:17 PM EST

the hypocritical bigotry for the "community center", not a mosque, in NYC is able to be masked by the fact that it is 2 blocks away and not at ground zero, nor can it even be seen from ground zero.

No, that would be to admit (5.00 / 2) (#53)
by MKS on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 10:34:10 AM EST

collective guilt. American Muslims are not responsbile for 9/11.

If the mob can intimidate Muslims into building elsewhere, it can initimdate others.

The anit-mosque crusade is not confined to just NYC. The wingers are protesting mosques in Tennesee and in Temecula, California--en exburb in Riverside County.

The First Amendment is the bedrock of American values. Let it be for Muslims too.


: they are in fact (5.00 / 1) (#54)
by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 10:38:32 AM EST

saying no more mosques period.
which is a stunning thing to say IMO.

: The mob always desires to intimidate (none / 0) (#58)
by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 10:45:50 AM EST

I didn't stand in front of George Bush's ranch trying to look statuesque :) If we didn't get media attention we were going to start marching toward it until we were arrested :)
The mob is always a feature of society. I have been a part of the mob so I tend to plan for it now too :) And the organizers of the mob will use you too.

Ask away (none / 0) (#40)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 10:02:53 AM EST

Pols should not be doing it though.


Communtiy Healing (none / 0) (#103)
by squeaky on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 11:49:37 AM EST

You mean GOP trouncing. The community is fine, and you know nothing of it, so please STFU.


Thought you were intent on defending (5.00 / 1) (#105)
by oculus on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 11:52:52 AM EST

First Amendment rights of everyone.


: Yes (5.00 / 1) (#108)
by squeaky on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 11:55:30 AM EST

Particularly mine.

Anytime the center is mentioned the GOP (5.00 / 3) (#3)
by tigercourse on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 08:34:06 AM EST

gains a few votes. This almost couldn't come at a worse time.

I had originally thought Obama's statement "1st amendment blah, blah, blah" was good. But he shouldn't have brought it up at all.

Sensible? (5.00 / 2) (#7)
by cal1942 on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 08:50:10 AM EST

Ygelsias:

"sensible people would condemn the decision to behave in that manner"

Any pol who counts on sensible in the political climate of the past couple of decades is a fool.

An entire political party, siezed by a movement, has based it's electoral strategy on pandering to the worst in people. The 'movement' has massive media at its disposal and we read the word 'sensible.'

A President who's supposed to be a smart guy weighs in on a nothing matter that plays into the hands of his opponents. Sensible?

One thing today isn't is sensible.

The excerpted Yglesias post is (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by Anne on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 08:59:48 AM EST

disturbing to me - the part where he declares that Islam is a false doctrine and that the particular tenets he mentions are categorically false is a little too militant for me; if he's an atheist, he ought to say so, but with or without that context, his comments seem to be dismissive of and lacking respect for the beliefs of others. Like everyone else, he is entitled to believe or not, or be somewhere in the middle, but he at least ought to consider that he may be wrong just as easily as he may be right.

My suggestion for Matt and for the politicians who seem to think they must give us the benefit of their beliefs, would be to go read Arthur Silber; he is, as always, enlightening, and is spot-on in his assessment of what this Cordoba Center controversy really sounds like.

Why? (5.00 / 2) (#17)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 09:23:22 AM EST

I don't believe any religious doctrine.

Would that offend you also?


+1 (none / 0) (#30)
by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 09:38:57 AM EST

an I personally revel in any "offense" taken at that statement.

freedom of religion absolutely means freedom FROM religion.


It doesn't offend me at all that (none / 0) (#41)
by Anne on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 10:04:33 AM EST

you or Yglesias do not embrace any religious doctrine: believe - or not - what you want. As will I. But I don't declare that your beliefs are based on falsity, and I don't attempt to speak for the ubiquitous "most" or "some" people that Yglesias uses to support his opposition to the center.

I think it is safe to say that while you and I may not agree on religious doctrine, we at least respect each other's decisions in that regard; I wasn't feeling much respect from Yglesias for the beliefs of others, and that was kind of my point.


You can declare what you like (5.00 / 1) (#43)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 10:09:48 AM EST

Christians declare I am going to burn in hell.

Muslims do too I think.

I'm not offended.


Well, maybe I missed the memo, (5.00 / 1) (#71)
by Anne on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 11:06:03 AM EST

because, even though I was baptized and confirmed in the Episcopal Church, I have no idea who or what is going to burn in hell - for all I know, I will be toasting away for all eternity.

But I have the same problem with the you're-going-to-burn-in-hell sector as I do with the Islam-is-a-false-doctrine group: what they or you or I think is not - at least I don't think it is - going to control anything because none of us is going to know what the real story is until we shuffle off this mortal coil - and then what are the chances we will be able to communicate what we learned?

The biggest problem I have with religion is the constant need, on the part of large segments of the organized variety, to convert, convince, shame and scare people into coming over to "their" side, and the sometimes terrible things that are done using religion as justification; I may have faith, but it isn't of the variety that depends on dogma or someone in official garb telling me not only what I can and cannot believe, but how I must live my life.

Matt - like a lot of other pundits and bloggers and pols weighing in on this - is engaging in mind-reading at best, and at worst - even if it is not his intention - is subtly lending credibility to those who don't see the anti-Muslim discrimination and prejudice as the same as that directed at people because of their race, their gender or their sexual orientation.


People can't choose their gender, race or (5.00 / 1) (#74)
by tigercourse on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 11:18:28 AM EST

sexual orientation. You can pick up or drop a religion at a moments notice. I think there is a big difference.


Actually (none / 0) (#81)
by hookfan on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 11:28:29 AM EST

many sects believe their "God" (and thus their religion) chooses you, or not. so the clarity of your point may be in dispute.


not to mention (none / 0) (#85)
by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 11:33:07 AM EST

all the people who were given the choice by christian "missionaries" of converting or dying.


Just like in Stalinist Russia (none / 0) (#129)
by hookfan on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 12:36:06 PM EST

people were "given" the choice (well sometimes-- others were just disappeared, people who were artistic like you Capt)to be a member of the Party or disappeared.


: Before that they were straving. . . (5.00 / 1) (#169)
by Untold Story on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 02:46:16 PM EST

There was the 5 year plan - something like Newt's 45 day plan (was it?), but, much like Newt's it just didn't work out as planned - darn, corruption and greed at the leadership level took hold!

: I was thinking more (none / 0) (#137)
by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 12:53:17 PM EST

of the brown people but ok.

Race (none / 0) (#109)
by squeaky on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 11:58:11 AM EST

There is only one race and that is the human race. People can choose their race in the way you speak of, it is cultural identification more than anything else.


you are completely missing the point (none / 0) (#44)
by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 10:09:48 AM EST

it seems to me. try reading this again:

You don't expect Jews to stand up and applaud the construction of new Mormon temples, but I do expect them to acknowledge the right of Mormons to build temples and to stand up to demagogues who would try to abridge that right. And this is what we have going on in Lower Manhattan today. [. . .] There's no real need to introduce dozens of new layers of nuance into it.

you say

I think it is safe to say that while you and I may not agree on religious doctrine, we at least respect each other's decisions in that regard

perhaps you could explain the different meanings of those two statements.


here: (3.00 / 2) (#56)
by jeffhas on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 10:42:15 AM EST

And if pressed, I'd have to say that I think Islam is a false doctrine.

He doesn't say that about the Jewish Religion or the Mormon faith - just Islam.... and without knowing/stating he is an Atheist, I could see where this might seem a little offensive - to Muslims and anyone else who proclaims to support religious freedom.

Why single out Islam?... for that matter why even 'insult' any religion as being false?

I can respect Matt's an Atheist (if he is) without adding that it's false (if I think it is).


again (5.00 / 3) (#57)
by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 10:44:45 AM EST

its what is being discussed. he says he believes that and then goes on to defend their right to build it.

I believe that statement is being taken completely out of context.


: much like he defends building temples, churches, (5.00 / 1) (#93)
by jeffhas on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 11:40:39 AM EST

etc... without calling them 'false'...
You're probably right, that it's 'taken out of context' - but with written words, the context is there for everyone to read specifically... His columns do state 'clairvoyance required'...right?

Well, I think you are just (none / 0) (#62)
by Anne on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 10:55:45 AM EST

ticked off that I'm not offended by BTD's position on religion.


Islam is very dismissive ot (5.00 / 2) (#24)
by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 09:34:50 AM EST

and lacking respect for your beliefs unless you are Muslim :) I am not one for organized religion. But to pretend that Islam isn't a vehicle for oppression and abuse and sometimes even terrorism is to pretend that Sarah Palin is another Gloria Steinem IMO.


I wonder if the reason Islam may (5.00 / 2) (#33)
by observed on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 09:47:44 AM EST

be intolerant is that it is practiced in countries where observance is almost universal.
Roman Catholics are quite vile when they hold ascendance, from my reading.
Only when atheism is the dominant religion will there be hope for the human spirit, IMO.


Like in Stalinist Russia (5.00 / 1) (#63)
by hookfan on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 10:57:18 AM EST

right? Or Mao's China, right? Atheists can be just as authoritarian as any theistic sect. Just to keep the record straight. . .And, for fairness, it should be noted that many conservative religious sects, although authoritarian for themselves, fully support separation of church/state and think it ludicrous to impose their beliefs or morality on "unbelievers"-- what's the point? They won't "be saved" by becoming "more moral" anyway. Conservative Baptists (that's a sect, not Baptists who are conservative--i.e. some Southern Baptists) are so, and so are many Mennonites.


Islam is intolerant (none / 0) (#36)
by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 09:56:55 AM EST

because the text of the religion say it should be.
and they do the horrible things they do for one simple reason. they can. if the extreme right wingers in this country were running things we would be stoning people to death for adultery, well stoning women and fags to death at least, and forcing people to dress a certain way and on and on.

Disagree (5.00 / 1) (#68)
by hookfan on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 11:03:18 AM EST

Unless you begin restricting "Islam" to the very Conservative sects this is very false and inflammatory. Moderate Islamic sects, do not follow that. You are probably referring to Wahabbi Islam. But that is not close to all of Islam.


you cant get away (none / 0) (#70)
by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 11:05:05 AM EST

from what the koran says. any more than you can get away from what the bible says.


There are 'Christians' (5.00 / 1) (#72)
by Molly Pitcher on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 11:14:59 AM EST

who do not think the Bible is the final word. A 'domination group' many hundreds of years ago put their own views into that book. If God exists, He is quite capable of communicating His way to individuals today. And it may be that 'what the Bible says' was never the whole and only Truth.


and Im sure (none / 0) (#75)
by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 11:18:42 AM EST

there are muslims who think the koran is not the final word.

not the point.


: Yeah? But I'm not Muslim, (5.00 / 1) (#164)
by Molly Pitcher on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 02:27:50 PM EST

so I don't answer for them. I will say I recall that Muslims at one time did not persecute the Jews, tho' 'Christians' did. Brotherly concern supposedly went to all 'people of The Book'--Koran and the Bible, Old and New.

Sure you can (5.00 / 2) (#88)
by hookfan on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 11:36:53 AM EST

Millions of moderate Islamists and Christians do. In fact I'd hazard that MOST Christians and Islamists in the twentieth century forward have. You are trying to tie discredited perspectives to every sect in both religions due to your religious hatred. That's called a "smear". It's both intellectually dishonest and inflammatory.
Besides, who made you Pope to declare what religions can or cannot do?


you can make up any religion you like (5.00 / 1) (#91)
by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 11:39:55 AM EST

but if you are ignoring the bible you are not a christian. at least according to all the christians I know. and I know quite a few. and if you are ignoring the koran you are not a muslim. or is there another text I am not aware of?


that would in fact (none / 0) (#98)
by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 11:48:10 AM EST

be why the texts were written down in the first place I believe.


There you go again (none / 0) (#113)
by hookfan on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 12:06:35 PM EST

declaring in your infinite egoism who is and is not a christian. Seems to me, you're being just as intolerant as the Islamic or Christian fundamentalists in that regard.
Last I knew (like today) not all Lutherans are limited to the Missouri Synod, nor Presbyterians limited to Orthodox. Their seminaries sure are not.


For example, ELCA {Evangelical (5.00 / 1) (#122)
by oculus on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 12:21:29 PM EST

Lutheran Church of America] opens ordination to noncelibate homosexuals


they may orinate dogs (none / 0) (#133)
by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 12:41:45 PM EST

for all I know or care but I bet you my next paycheck they use the bible as the basis of their religion.


Well--some of the Bible. Obviously not (none / 0) (#134)
by oculus on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 12:45:01 PM EST

the oft-cited portions of Leviticus.


which is exactly my point (none / 0) (#136)
by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 12:50:31 PM EST

those texts are so open to interpretation that you can, literally, find justification for anything. any horror or injustice can be justified if you look long and hard. which is the problem.

those who wish to find justification for their heinous acts will continue to find them in the bible and the koran.

but to say you can be a christian WITHOUT the bible or a muslim WITHOUT the koran is absurd.

whats the point. you think jesus was a good guy.
then, damn, Im a christian!


Didn't Squeaky recently tell us the Koran (5.00 / 1) (#138)
by oculus on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 12:56:49 PM EST

is not accepted by all Muslims? something like that.


quite possibly (none / 0) (#139)
by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 01:00:33 PM EST

even if true, not the point.


Im sure there is some (none / 0) (#140)
by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 01:03:18 PM EST

fringe muslim group someplace that accepts lesbian Imams.


Nice Spin (none / 0) (#142)
by squeaky on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 01:10:49 PM EST

Not sure what you are referring to, but I am sure it is more

something like that

Than my saying that the Koran is not accepted by all Muslims.


Official retraction and apology. (none / 0) (#182)
by oculus on Wed Aug 18, 2010 at 12:06:09 PM EST

: Apology Gracefully Accepted (none / 0) (#183)
by squeaky on Wed Aug 18, 2010 at 03:09:28 PM EST

Ignorance (none / 0) (#145)
by hookfan on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 01:21:17 PM EST

doesn't serve you well. You ought to come into the twentieth century and out of the sixteenth and see where the progress of christian religious scholarship has led. Hell, the whole ecumenical movement disagrees with you, and if you're Unitarian you would also likely not agree. Many modern Quakers who emphasize religious experience would also likely disagree. So, you with your magical papal wand and self assumed pulpit now proclaim them non- christian. Many modern Christians now view the ancient texts as mere cultural expressions, in all their glorious human imperfections and grandiosities and limitations and NOT normative. So why do you attempt to impose on them a box that doesn't fit?
I think it's just your religious hatred spewing forth.You need your ignorance to support it.


as BDT likes to say (none / 0) (#146)
by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 01:27:09 PM EST

its not what they say its what the do. WHERE are these moderate voices. where are the people standing up against the hate and divisiveness being ladled out day after day by the christian right?

why dont these progressive voices do something, anything, to counter it?

to be honest it strikes me as apologists. not unlike our own jim whateverhistagis.


There are plenty of moderates... (5.00 / 1) (#155)
by kdog on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 01:55:10 PM EST

plenty of sane people of limited superstition...they just aren't interesting, they're everyday people.

It's the fundamentalist loons who get all the press and all the attention...blowing up buildings and stoning adulterers will do that, they people who pray and live peaceful lives just can't compete for recognition with that mess.


fine (none / 0) (#158)
by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 02:00:08 PM EST

I am all for letting them sit at home and do their thing. but then dont complain when the others are seen as representative and they are not. if they dont wish to speak up against the haters dont complain when they are lumped in with them.

personally if it was my faith I would fight for it.


: I don't know... (5.00 / 1) (#162)
by kdog on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 02:16:50 PM EST

it's my country and I ain't fighting for that...why get locked up for nothing...ya can't win.
I'd could see the moderately superstitious taking a similar stance...people are gonna believe what they're gonna believe about their religion, and the whack-jobs of their religion are gonna do how they do...why freakin' bother ya know? It's not their job to convince people all muslims aren't like Osama, no more than it is our job to convince people all Americans aren't like Bush & Obama...if you don't know that, it's your f*ckin' problem...I got my own life to live, I ain't got time to educate the willfully ignorant.

perhaps I should say (none / 0) (#147)
by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 01:29:50 PM EST

that my entire family is deeply and, IMO, insanely religious. I KNOW what its about. first hand. I grew up in spite of it. they are the face of Christianity in the world today. not the hapless reformers you talk about.

do they exist, sure. I know some Lutherans.
afaiac its all the same koolaid. just different flavors.


They speak (none / 0) (#157)
by hookfan on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 02:00:04 PM EST

but who listens? Not the corporate media-- it doesn't fit their idea of controversy to increase sales. Not the religious right wingers- doesn't fit their agenda-- but theirs is more useful to our current conservative political establishment-- so that's whom you hear about.
Look up United Presbyterian Church USA for the community outreach programs in serving the poor and needy for starters. They're there-- just not getting press-- like the rest of us liberals. . .


: then maybe we all (none / 0) (#159)
by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 02:01:52 PM EST

need to change our tactics.

So maybe you are. (none / 0) (#167)
by Molly Pitcher on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 02:39:23 PM EST

All I am willing to say is that God IS. Who or what Jesus was/is I do not know. But having been raised in Baptist/Catholic/Presbyterian traditions, I think the principles he enunciated are worth my attention, so I borrow the title of Christian. (Luke 9:50 "But Jesus said to him, "Do not forbid him, for he who is not against us is on our side."


: Yes (5.00 / 1) (#168)
by squeaky on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 02:45:02 PM EST

Clearly being closed minded and dogmatic is equally distributed among all humanity despite affiliation to ideas or groups that are agnostic, christian, jewish, buddhist, muslim... etc.
Wisdom is non-denominational in its broadest sense of the word.

The texts are completely irrelevant, because (none / 0) (#90)
by observed on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 11:39:10 AM EST

they are word salad. What matters is what the religious leaders claim they mean. What doesn't matter is what some westerner who knows nothing of the history claims.


: see comment (none / 0) (#92)
by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 11:40:26 AM EST

#91

Agree (none / 0) (#39)
by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 10:01:39 AM EST

So is Christianity and Judaism (5.00 / 1) (#47)
by gyrfalcon on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 10:18:07 AM EST

for heaven's sake. Islam actually has both doctrine and a history of respecting other religions and permitting their practice. Far as I can tell, Christianity has by far been the most intolerant of other faiths over the course of history. Talk about your vehicles for oppression and abuse!


: absolutely agree (none / 0) (#49)
by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 10:21:51 AM EST

more blood has been shed for the cause of Christianity than probably any other excuse in the history of civilization.

: I think you've nailed (none / 0) (#51)
by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 10:26:35 AM EST

why I cannot seem to condone organized religion, because it eventually becomes about power and eventually someone must lose their humanity in order for religious power to be in play.
If you want to judge overall horrific atrocity, I'd say of all the biggies we have a solid tie for first place.

Honestly (none / 0) (#34)
by CST on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 09:48:35 AM EST

this is how I feel about a lot of organized religions:

"to pretend that Islam isn't a vehicle for oppression and abuse and sometimes even terrorism is to pretend that Sarah Palin is another Gloria Steinem IMO"

At least the oppression and abuse bit. But what do I know, I grew up in Catholic Boston...

Actually I think that experience and the Catholic church are what turned me off of the whole religion thing to begin with.


So is the State (5.00 / 1) (#94)
by hookfan on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 11:41:29 AM EST

It's often the vehicle of oppression and abuse. So?


So in that case (none / 0) (#112)
by CST on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 12:06:33 PM EST

the state is also a problem. What's your point?

I'm not arguing to get rid of religion - or the state. Just pointing out that Islam is far from the only one with those problems.

The difference being that I think the state actually has some other usefull function. I have yet to personally discover a function of religion other than control of the masses. You are free to disagree with that.


Actually (none / 0) (#125)
by hookfan on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 12:26:51 PM EST

there are religions that don't attempt to control the masses (sects of Taoism for example) and don't want to if they could. Some sects of Wicca also come to mind, and some nature mysticism.
What my point is- every type of social organization can be abused and turned to antihumanitarian purposes by those with authoritarian and misanthropic propensities. That doesn't discredit social organization, but does those who abuse it.


there is just a difference (none / 0) (#130)
by CST on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 12:38:20 PM EST

of opinion here. I do not see any positive value in religious organizations. Perhaps some philanthropy but there's no reason I can see for religious orgs to do that vs. someone else.

If that's your thing, feel free to worship, I'm not gonna try and stop you. I just don't get it.

Also, frankly, I think some of the core teachings of the church are antihumanitarian. So it's not about those who abuse it, it's about those who follow every aspect of it to the letter.


Who's arguing that (none / 0) (#163)
by hookfan on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 02:22:39 PM EST

religious organizations are or should be the only ones doing humanitarian activities? I'm not. Nor am I arguing that they are superior to any other organization. Nor am I arguing that atheist or agnostic organizations are useless (that might include Buddhists who consider themselves-- at least some of them-- atheists). I only argue that there is much gratuitous smearing of religious organizations, when the same faults apply to other organizations just as well. The whole argument of who is useless or not is rather haughty and grandiose.


: I think we're talking past each other here (none / 0) (#166)
by CST on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 02:38:41 PM EST

I wasn't accusing you of saying any of those things.
I don't find the criticism gratuitous, I find it justified. The same way I find critiques of the state justified. And you're right, it is not just those who are religious who oppress, as the athiests in China/Russia have shown. That doesn't mean it's not also religion.
Just because a) is bad doesn't mean we can't also call out b).
If you think athiests/agnostics are useless that's fine, say that, I won't be offended. I find organized religion useless on a personal level, and often a tool that's used to fight against what I believe in. I'm sorry if that's haughty. It's just my opinion.

could you possibly (none / 0) (#132)
by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 12:40:09 PM EST

throw up any more smoke?

wiccan??

pfft


Wicca (none / 0) (#161)
by hookfan on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 02:12:45 PM EST

is now an officially recognized religion, or didn't you know that?And Wicca is a fast growing religion. Or didn't you know that either? Church of Wicca established by Gavin Frost was the first federally recognized church of the religion. Look it up. By the way, many wiccan approaches to their religion do not fit the prejudicial views of fundamentalist Christians. Perhaps you don't know that either.


and I am supposed to care its (none / 0) (#171)
by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 03:09:05 PM EST

"recognized" because?

Scientology is recognized. do I care?

I was curious about your growth stat so I googled.

The fastest growing religion (in terms of percentage) is Wicca -- a Neopagan religion that is sometimes referred to as Witchcraft. Numbers of adherents went from 8,000 in 1990 to 134,000 in 2001

cool
in 6 or 7 hundred years they will have themselves a voting bloc.


: Nice red herring (none / 0) (#172)
by hookfan on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 03:38:55 PM EST

And it's not "my growth rate"-- I'm not Wiccan. Too bad for you and your bigotry.
Besides, the topic had nothing to do about voting blocs, or the size of the religion (although the rate of growth in that period of time is phenomenal).
Here's what CST said:
The difference being that I think the state actually has some other usefull function. I have yet to personally discover a function of religion other than control of the masses. You are free to disagree with that.
It was the purpose of religions being disputed, not the size of their political dick. Apparently your bigotry doesn't allow for that.

I agree (none / 0) (#38)
by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 10:00:21 AM EST

I carry an inner contempt for the Catholic Church since my best friend died when I was 12. She was very ill and her family was Catholic. They took her to a mass to pray and she became comatose there, died a few days later. I was not allowed to see her in the hospital. Her brain had swelled and my family was told her head was mishapen. Also they were not sure what her illness was due to, so I was not permitted to see her for fear I would be traumatized or made ill. They had thought at first she had died of a mysterious Meningitis but now Reye's syndrome seems the likely diagnosis. I have never been able to shake though that "mystification" killed my best friend. I don't know that if she had been taken to the hospital sooner anything would be any different, but I'm still so angry she was taken to a church. It makes me furious to think about it.


I could rant for a long time on this issue (5.00 / 2) (#42)
by CST on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 10:07:09 AM EST

but at a bare minimum I'll say this - when the first big Catholic child-abuse scandal broke - it broke in and around the Boston diocese. The most surprising part of the whole thing is that no one, least of all anyone Catholic, was surprised by any of it.


During Jon Stewart's "interview" (5.00 / 1) (#61)
by KeysDan on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 10:54:33 AM EST

on last night's show with 'Senior Muslim Correspondent', John Oliver, the difference between could and should included John's discernment that the Catholic Church could build a church next to a playground, but should it.


they sure (none / 0) (#95)
by CST on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 11:42:12 AM EST

have a lot of schools. Many of those schools have playgrounds. I don't see any protests against those...

Also, to nitpik, "senior religion correspondent".


: Sorry, on the incorrect (none / 0) (#126)
by KeysDan on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 12:27:45 PM EST

title of the correspondent. I was mining my memory from an ll pm show.

Islam Does Nothing (none / 0) (#111)
by squeaky on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 12:01:44 PM EST

People do things in the name of religion.

IOW-People are dismissive, not Islam.


The definition of Islam (none / 0) (#117)
by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 12:15:41 PM EST

*the civilization of Muslims collectively which is governed by the Muslim religion

Islam is people


Whatever You Say... (5.00 / 1) (#120)
by squeaky on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 12:18:13 PM EST

Semantics is not going to change the fact that people do things in the name of religion, not the other way around.


Let me know when those running (none / 0) (#121)
by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 12:19:32 PM EST

"Islam" have evolved.


Those Running Islam? (5.00 / 1) (#141)
by squeaky on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 01:05:17 PM EST

Wow, that covers all of humanity. May try taking a trip to Dearborn, for starters. Many Sufi's are pretty interesting too.

Qawwali singerNusrat Fateh Ali Khan comes to mind...

And then there is Rumi...


thats a noble sentiment (5.00 / 1) (#143)
by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 01:11:56 PM EST

but the people MT is talking about would chop you into very tiny pieces if given the chance.

but I think we agree on one thing. that the reaction to this mosque does in fact amount to its detractors equating ALL muslims with the people who brought down the towers. and that, among other things, will do nothing to improve our relationship with that community. and in fact only make things worse and more dangerous.


Nice Bedwetter Story (none / 0) (#148)
by squeaky on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 01:35:45 PM EST

Hope you hold your teddy bear tight and cry yourself to sleep over the terror of it all...


well (5.00 / 1) (#150)
by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 01:40:00 PM EST

if I am getting it from the muslim apologists and the christian apologists I must be doing something right.


Apologists? (5.00 / 1) (#152)
by squeaky on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 01:46:41 PM EST

Calling out bigotry is hardly an apologist position.

Do you also consider the Jews Savage? According to your system of using a small part to represent the whole (metynomy), Right Wing Israeli policies should represent all Jews.

And why shouldn't the torture we wreaked at Abu Ghrab and the Secret prisons not represent Christianity?

Bottom Line: you cannot tar 1.5 billion people by the actions of a small section of the group, even if they claim to represent the whole. That is bigotry.


: 4 comments up (none / 0) (#156)
by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 01:55:54 PM EST

I said exactly the same thing

Not a story for many people (none / 0) (#153)
by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 01:47:29 PM EST

And because so many people watched what happened that day over and over and over again via videos, like it or not we have a mob out there that is extremely inciteful in a fight or flight response about this proposed Mosque now.

That is why the President needs to stay out of this and so does any other politician who doesn't plan on being seen on Fox News. It is trauma, it is a very real component out there right now, and sadly some people are inciting the out of control feelings which lead to busloads of people showing up at the site. The wounds are too fresh for too many, any Dem touching this debate outside of New York state Dems replying very very thoughtfully is an idiot.


Trauma, BS (5.00 / 1) (#154)
by squeaky on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 01:55:07 PM EST

It is a combination of right wing politics and bigotry.

The wounds are too fresh for too many

What a load of Malarky. American exceptionalism at it's most ugly.

I lived through 9/11. My neighbors lived through 9/11. The only wounds we feel are those wrought on us by the wannabe fascists who used 9/11 to give the police state unprecedented powers. The Patriot act, the AUMF, Torture, Illegal wiretapping... etc

That is the wound we are suffering from. Defending American principals is never wrong, caving to bigotry and fascism is always wrong.


: Well I can agree with your last (none / 0) (#178)
by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 09:47:29 PM EST

bit, but I'd say pick your battles in order to win the war. And just for the record I will not cave to bigotry or facism either and I WILL DRAW MUHAMMAD, anytime my artful hand wants to :)

Downtown NYC Sufi Center (none / 0) (#180)
by squeaky on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 10:49:55 PM EST

Wow, just read that the downtown NYC group that is building the Community center practice Sufism. Now that is exciting.

I do remember back in the early to mid 80's going to a Sufi whirling dervish event, and male singers on White street...

Bet it is the same Sufi group... nice bunch, imo. They gain spiritual enlightenment though dancing, singing and playing music.

The Wahhabi's hate them, even though they are Sunni as well... Tried to wipe them out in Iraq. Mystics...


: Oh, And (none / 0) (#181)
by squeaky on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 10:59:19 PM EST

Both Rumi, and Qawwali singing are linked to Sufism.
I am really psyched about this center now.. It is personal.
Found out the Center is Sufi from Juan Cole but just saw a NYT op-ed about Sufism and the Center... worth a read...

MT, *nobody* "runs" Islam (5.00 / 2) (#170)
by gyrfalcon on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 03:02:04 PM EST

I think you'd find reading up on Islam interesting. It has zero hierarchy, no credentialing, no required degrees or oaths or anything else for its imams. Imam, if I remember right, actually only means something like "very wise person." They are basically self-nominated leaders and need have no religious training whatsoever. If some guy gets up and speaks at a mosque from time to time and folks like what he says and start coming regularly to hear him, pretty soon he's an imam and either ends up running the mosque or starts his own mosque.

Islam's very democracy is the source of a lot of the trouble. Nobody is "authorized" to make religious pronouncements, and therefore anybody can-- like Osama bin Laden or Anwar al Awlaki, etc.

The radicals are only the noisy ones we hear from. The vast majority of the X billion people in the world who are Muslim largely mind their own business and go about their lives.

Nobody runs Islam.


: I have so many books on Islam via (none / 0) (#179)
by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 09:49:06 PM EST

my spouse it isn't even funny. I have only read about half. I live studying Islam though. I don't think I'm the one short on Islam study here, and the Imams run Islam.

Thank you BTD (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by NealB on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 09:08:03 AM EST

Yours is the first post stating what I've been thinking since this idiotic issue started getting headlines two weeks ago. Who cares? The idiocy of it is revolting.

It's no wonder America can't solve its problems, its government is run by political retards.

I trust New York to take care of itself (5.00 / 2) (#14)
by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 09:15:10 AM EST

on its own matters. Now, back to no jobs and other such direct Obama concerns.

The flowering of states rights (none / 0) (#21)
by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 09:29:43 AM EST

advocates in the past month or so has been truly amazing.

I had no idea so many had been hiding in the bushed all these years.


I don't know if I would go so far as (none / 0) (#31)
by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 09:41:32 AM EST

to declare this a state's rights moment :) Let us say it's about priorities. New York hasn't failed to "deal with this" yet :) If and when that happens then I suppose the "concern" enlarges. But is this me angrily suggesting that leaders stay out of the pointless wedge? Yes!


States' rights (none / 0) (#50)
by gyrfalcon on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 10:23:19 AM EST

has absolutely nothing to do with this. How silly.


: It's not even the state (5.00 / 2) (#100)
by CST on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 11:48:26 AM EST

it's the local zoning board.
I guarantee there is virtually no one in this country (and by no one I really mean less than 10% because you can never account for what 10% believe) who thinks the federal government should control all the local zoning issues in their town.

: OTOH (none / 0) (#60)
by Harry Saxon on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 10:52:24 AM EST

As my genetics teacher used to say, I'd be willing to bet garbage to doornails that this PPJ fellow is for states rights in AZ regarding immigration, so it just depends whose ox is gored for many folks, left and right.

"Has everyone gone insane?" (5.00 / 1) (#22)
by Untold Story on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 09:32:54 AM EST

Yes, except, perhaps, me and thee (but at times I do worry about thee!)

Great post (5.00 / 1) (#29)
by star on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 09:38:41 AM EST

Thanks BTD. I wish people could keep their beliefs(non-beliefs) to themselves.
Really isnt there better things for president to concentrate on - like joblessness maybe.. or is it a perfect deflection from real issues???

: Deflection... (5.00 / 1) (#45)
by kdog on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 10:13:14 AM EST

you nailed it...what pol wouldn't want the first question at their presser to be regarding something that is as good as done and they have zero control over?
It sure beats talking about the unemployment rate, especially if you're an incumbent.

I feel no connection to ANY religion... (5.00 / 1) (#55)
by Dadler on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 10:39:45 AM EST

...and therefore, like BTD, I couldn't give a rat's ace about any of this "controversy." It is simply more bullsheet distracting the country from real problems. And why Obama felt the need to chime in, except that he seems to ALWAYS have to chime in, is beyond me.

: From that perspective, it would all seem (5.00 / 1) (#144)
by MKS on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 01:14:52 PM EST

a waste of time--and perhaps somewhat comical.
However, I see it as liberals standing up (again) for a discriminated and hated minority against the mob.....Championing the underdog against bigotry.
This is a pitch right down the middle. Atticus Finch type stuff. Standing up for this principle--even in the face of majority opposition--is what being a liberal is all about.

: You are so correct! (none / 0) (#78)
by Untold Story on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 11:23:10 AM EST

Obama needs to start thinking about taxing all religious entities so that there will be money for the many social programs we are lacking, and, which, imo, would be much more beneficial than altars made of gold and religious representatives multi-millionaires.

who cares? (5.00 / 1) (#73)
by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 11:17:14 AM EST

Forget health-care reform and unbridled stimulus spending; forget perceived errors in Iraq and Afghanistan; forget unemployment and our economy's endless night; forget, if you can, the toxic questions of illegal immigration and oil spills in the Gulf of Mexico. If the promoters of the mosque near ground zero do not pack up their Korans and prayer mats within the next week or so, there is every danger that they will cause the Democrats grievous harm in November--in an election that is already one in which the Democrats are bracing for a rout.

Good question in article (5.00 / 1) (#80)
by MO Blue on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 11:27:05 AM EST

Lost in this swirl, ironically, is the fact that the real, crying shame of ground zero is that the World Trade Center is still a hole in the ground. Why does no one mention this disgrace to New York City, and to the nation?

: Families held up progress (5.00 / 2) (#96)
by vicndabx on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 11:44:30 AM EST

in that initial designs were not to their liking, compounded by NYPD safety concerns with the original designs.
Classic case of you can't please all the people all the time....

an sane republican statement (none / 0) (#77)
by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 11:23:00 AM EST

and why sanity is not allowed:

Chris Christie: Stop playing politics with the Ground Zero mosque

An Obama-esque statement, not only in terms of his stance on the mosque (like O, he's voting present) but in the way he's trying to position himself above the fray of normal party politics.


"or as the GOP haters call it, ... (5.00 / 1) (#87)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 11:36:06 AM EST

or as the GOP haters call it, the "Ground Zero Mosque."

Why do these people who call it the "Ground Zero Mosque" hate the GOP?

This is interesting (to me): (5.00 / 1) (#101)
by oculus on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 11:48:55 AM EST

Slideshow re Refined Master Site Plan
for the World Trade Center Site

Check out the last bullet point on this slide.

: And Hugh Hewitt (5.00 / 1) (#124)
by MKS on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 12:25:27 PM EST

said that in order to be consistent, all religious uses should be prohibited. It was like trying to preserve a Civil War battlefield from development, so it was really not anti-Muslim.
And, yes, they are going to preserve the site as is, as a memorial. No development whatsoever....
Krauthammer has tried this argument.
Dishonest demagogues....

: foul!! (none / 0) (#104)
by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 11:51:08 AM EST

not allowed!! not on a sacred site!!

: In the LMDC's defense (none / 0) (#110)
by vicndabx on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 12:00:32 PM EST

the church was there prior to 9/11

: Thanks for the link (none / 0) (#123)
by Untold Story on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 12:24:23 PM EST

Don't care too much for the design personally. I feel it represents a religious sphere rather than the statute of liberty since its spiral is placed in front, as with churches. Reminds me more of a Mormon church steeple.
Just my opinion - a building with a steeple much like a christian or jewish place of worship.

Personally, I'm Glad Obama Said They Have a Right (5.00 / 2) (#107)
by vicndabx on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 11:54:44 AM EST

to build. He should've been firmer in saying none of us should have a problem with it either - regardless of any reasons based in emotion. We are a nation of laws.

The president should be leading the nation on this as the chief law enforcement officer. He should also lead from a moral standpoint since that is where our laws are derived from.

Harry Reid and others who waffle with "is it a good a idea? maybe not..." are clowns.

Other than to say what we all know? (5.00 / 1) (#119)
by steviez314 on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 12:16:25 PM EST

Wrong-o! What do you mean by "we"?

Half the country only thinks we have 2 amendments--the 2nd and 10th. Oh, I guess the 14th also, but they're working on that.

The party of "property rights" obviously doesn't quite believe in them in this case.

: Kind of ironic, given the brouhaha (none / 0) (#135)
by oculus on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 12:49:37 PM EST

over the SCOTUS condemnation decision. Good point you make.

Ah, Matt has decided to open (none / 0) (#4)
by MO Blue on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 08:34:08 AM EST

up another can of worms. Matt declaration that in his opinion "Islam is a false doctrine." Maybe he would like to give us his opinion on which religion or religious sect is teaching the true doctrine. Is it based on Christian teaching, Jewish teaching or something else. Whose prophets are real and which are false?

My impression is he is an atheist (5.00 / 6) (#5)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 08:44:11 AM EST

I'm pretty sure he is entitled to his opinion. I hope you agree.

I'm an agnostic myself and detest organized religion. I hope I am entitled to my opinion too.


I agree that (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by MO Blue on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 09:07:02 AM EST

he is entitled to his opinion. In the context of a discussion of the Cordoba Center, selecting Islam as THE religion that teaches false doctrine was not germane to the right of the center to build two blocks away from ground zero. It was IMO harmful to the discussion as now we have a "false religion" building close to "sacred ground."

I am not a fan of organized religion but nether am I a fan of giving one religion the designation of being a "false religion" in a discussion of rights granted religion entities. Why should a "false religion" be eligible for the same rights as the "true religion." Very dangerous ground IMO.


Meh (none / 0) (#18)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 09:25:22 AM EST

You are reading too much into it.

Indeed, imo, it strengthens Yglesias' point - the practice of false religions, be they Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism or whatever religion, is a personal matter, not a public one.


It may have strengtened (none / 0) (#26)
by MO Blue on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 09:35:32 AM EST

the point of personal vs public if he had stated

the practice of false religions, be they Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism or whatever religion, is a personal matter, not a public one.

He did not do that. He isolated Islam as the religion teaching false doctrine.

I guess this will be a case of us agreeing to disagree.


: it is the one being discussed here (none / 0) (#28)
by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 09:37:16 AM EST

after all.

also (none / 0) (#27)
by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 09:36:25 AM EST

being an atheist and impartial observer I would say that Islam, particularly the militant sort, is a little more false than most of the others.

but only a little.


: Heh (none / 0) (#46)
by Faust on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 10:17:24 AM EST

More dangerous maybe, but I don't think falsity comes into it at that point.

Sorry, all religions, imo (none / 0) (#127)
by Untold Story on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 12:29:19 PM EST

are 'false' religions. They have been created by man solely for the purpose of power and domination.


thank you (none / 0) (#131)
by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 12:38:40 PM EST

I think you need to make an (none / 0) (#151)
by Anne on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 01:41:08 PM EST

important distinction between "religion" and "faith," because there are a lot of people who believe in a higher being, who live good, and generally unselfish lives, who have respect for others and the earth and are not in any way about power and domination. Their faith works for them in some meaningful way that has nothing to do with religious texts or how various religious leaders have decided they should be interpreted or carried out; these are people who often act out of a well-developed sense of right and wrong, who think for themselves, and recognize that the answers to some of the most challenging questions cannot always be answered in a black-or-white way.

These people do not deserve your condemnation or your vitriol; save that for the "religious" leaders who use the power of their position for domination, and for those, it is sad to say, who use secular governments for the same purpose.


I regard that as one's spirituality (none / 0) (#160)
by Untold Story on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 02:11:10 PM EST

while I view religion as a named organized entity.


: I agree (none / 0) (#177)
by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 05:37:58 PM EST

and I think the two have little in common

There is nothing wrong with Islamic Doctrine (none / 0) (#19)
by Slado on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 09:28:38 AM EST

or any religious doctrine.

The problem is how people apply it and in the case of Islam how certain countries use it as a means to oppress their people.

That is the reality that causes the emotional backlash of many people in this country. Matt is taking a rather crude stand on an arguable point.

The ironic thing in this whole matter is some Muslims come to this country because they can practice a more pure or less radical form of Islam free of the political influences found in many Islamic countries.


Can't agree. (none / 0) (#32)
by observed on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 09:43:21 AM EST

I think Islam is nonsense---even dangerous nonsense. I hold the same opinion of all other religions that I know anything about.
However, the question is completely irrelevant, and deciding to disallow a permit because a religion is "bad" should only be allowed for Scientology.


: I agree mostly (none / 0) (#35)
by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 09:52:40 AM EST

and Scientology is a tempting punching bag. but L. Rod did was I believe in some ways a service because if you take a couple of steps back, are the tenets of Scientology really THAT much sillier than 'fill in the blank'?
but I agree that if you allow one you have to allow them all and disallowing something because a religion is "bad" or makes no sense is the slipperiest of slopes. and frankly ridiculous on its face.

Unfortunately, most religious (none / 0) (#165)
by Untold Story on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 02:31:42 PM EST

doctrine dictate specific beliefs to be adhered to within a stringent structure. There is no room for tolerance of other doctrines. And therein lays the problem at its very core!


Couldn't agree more BTD (none / 0) (#8)
by Slado on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 08:52:29 AM EST

This is a loose loose for Obama.

This is a purely emotional issue. Both sides IMHO are right in a way with the legal facts falling on the side of the Mosque/Center.

Think of what happened at the PGA. The rules where the rules but it simply wasn't fair what happened to Dustin Johnson.

There was a legitimate argument that he might not have been in a trap but in the case of that tournament and on that course he was and he should have known it.

Obama might feel that it wasn't fair to DJ or that the rules are the rules but he doesn't need to comment because he will instantly turn 40-50% of the country against him on a pure emotional basis.

This is a tough one and unless Obama is prepared to make a portion of the country mad either way he should keep his mouth shut.

: Agree with you (none / 0) (#25)
by star on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 09:35:20 AM EST

This is a loose loose.. espescially so close to the mid terms. What was he thinking wading into this issue ? He has made it a mess for so many dems.Now all and sundry will be asking each and every senator/congrssman on where he/she stands on this. Totally unwanted.
O has to get over this urge he has to please who ever is in front of him at a given time . It truly was a NY issue and he should have left it as such.

are all pundits idiots? (none / 0) (#13)
by TimNCGuy on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 09:13:02 AM EST

Obama made two public statements on this issue. One last Friday and one on Saturday. I defy anyone to find in either of Obama's statements a position on whether he does or does not believe the community center "should" be built.

But, large numbers of pundits have insisted on "interpreting" Obama's remarks to mean he voiced support for building the center on Friday and as a "walking back" of that support and voicing a lack of support on Saturday.

This despite the fact that on Saturday he said directly that he was not and would not comment on the wisdom of locating the center at that location.

What is the obsession of manufacturing conflict by looking for a "hidden meaning" even when the subject directly states there isn't one?

"What is the obsession" (5.00 / 2) (#23)
by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 09:34:23 AM EST

conflict and discord sells papers and gets web hits.

if every democrat is "forced to commit" on this issue they will have even more divisive crap to print and blog about.


"Dog whistle" (5.00 / 1) (#48)
by gyrfalcon on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 10:21:35 AM EST

is that the "wisdom" word was interpreted to be, a coded signal to the antis that he agreed with them.

It's just the presidential version of WORM game (What Obama Really Meant) played endlessly during the campaign.


Sure (none / 0) (#15)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 09:22:27 AM EST

And no one could have predicted that.


: Except Condi Rice. (none / 0) (#20)
by observed on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 09:29:17 AM EST

Former Pres. George W. Bush will (none / 0) (#59)
by oculus on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 10:49:08 AM EST

not be commenting on this issue, per his press office. See TL sidebar.

: Buwhahahahahahahahahahaha! (5.00 / 1) (#64)
by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 10:57:50 AM EST

: talk about (5.00 / 1) (#69)
by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 11:03:33 AM EST

who cares . . .

Obama made it political just by wading into (none / 0) (#65)
by BTAL on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 10:58:44 AM EST

the fray.

According to this report, he didn't even do the "Political part" correctly for his own team.

Democrats: We were blindsided by President Obama's Ground Zero mosque comments

Rahmbo is now playing fireman.

Rahmbo (none / 0) (#66)
by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 11:02:17 AM EST

is on vacation. along with the entire senior white house staff. there are no firemen. that is the problem.


well (5.00 / 1) (#67)
by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 11:02:32 AM EST

one of the problems.


There are no phones at Rahm's vacation (none / 0) (#83)
by BTAL on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 11:31:25 AM EST

location and he's just happily setting on the beach oblivious to all this?

Somehow, I don't think so.


knowing Rahm (5.00 / 1) (#86)
by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 11:34:06 AM EST

he is probably sipping a pina colada and laughing his a$$ off.


If so, you guys are so screwed. (none / 0) (#97)
by BTAL on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 11:47:13 AM EST

: meh (5.00 / 1) (#102)
by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 11:49:28 AM EST

we have been screwed before

moving? (none / 0) (#89)
by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 11:38:13 AM EST

Rep. Pete King's camp tells me he spoke with Gov. David Paterson this morning and that the governor said he is meeting later this week with the developer and leader of the ground zero-area mosque project to discuss the possibility of moving it to an alternate site.

Weiner (none / 0) (#116)
by squeaky on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 12:13:14 PM EST

To be fair, he was keeping his mouth shut on the affair and was pressed over and over to make a statement. His carefully worded statement, appeared in letter form to Mayor Bloomberg, much as I did not like it, threw a bone to both camps.

wow (none / 0) (#176)
by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 04:54:14 PM EST

I am pretty sure a pig just flew by the window:

Question for a colleague....
Greta Van Susteren | August 17, 2010
On August 28th my colleague Glenn Beck is going to lead an event on the mall in Washington, DC. It is the anniversary of Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" speech. The event is causing much controversy ...some support and some don't support and some are even furious and upset. Yes he has a First Amendment right to do it...but what about the wisdom of it? Remember...the Muslims in NYC have a First Amendment right to build a mosque but most Americans don't want it...and you have to ask the wisdom of the Muslims to push the issue. Just because you have the right to do something does not mean you should. My view? No mosque at ground zero and Glenn should move his event.
It does not help heal the country on so many fronts if we poke a stick in eyes.