View Full Version : The Two America's And The WTC Mosque Debate
And here's the gist of it all for Americans and for America - the best OpEd piece I've read on the topic.
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Islam in Two Americas
Ross Douthat, NYT, 15 Aug 2010
There’s an America where it doesn’t matter what language you speak, what god you worship, or how deep your New World roots run. An America where allegiance to the Constitution trumps ethnic differences, language barriers and religious divides. An America where the newest arrival to our shores is no less American than the ever-so-great granddaughter of the Pilgrims.
But there’s another America as well, one that understands itself as a distinctive culture, rather than just a set of political propositions. This America speaks English, not Spanish or Chinese or Arabic. It looks back to a particular religious heritage: Protestantism originally, and then a Judeo-Christian consensus that accommodated Jews and Catholics as well. It draws its social norms from the mores of the Anglo-Saxon diaspora — and it expects new arrivals to assimilate themselves to these norms, and quickly.
These two understandings of America, one constitutional and one cultural, have been in tension throughout our history. And they’re in tension again this summer, in the controversy over the Islamic mosque and cultural center scheduled to go up two blocks from ground zero.
The first America, not surprisingly, views the project as the consummate expression of our nation’s high ideals. “This is America,” President Obama intoned last week, “and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakeable.” The construction of the mosque, Mayor Michael Bloomberg told New Yorkers, is as important a test of the principle of religious freedom “as we may see in our lifetimes.”
The second America begs to differ. It sees the project as an affront to the memory of 9/11, and a sign of disrespect for the values of a country where Islam has only recently become part of the public consciousness. And beneath these concerns lurks the darker suspicion that Islam in any form may be incompatible with the American way of life.
This is typical of how these debates usually play out. The first America tends to make the finer-sounding speeches, and the second America often strikes cruder, more xenophobic notes. The first America welcomed the poor, the tired, the huddled masses; the second America demanded that they change their names and drop their native languages, and often threw up hurdles to stop them coming altogether. The first America celebrated religious liberty; the second America persecuted Mormons and discriminated against Catholics.
But both understandings of this country have real wisdom to offer, and both have been necessary to the American experiment’s success. During the great waves of 19th-century immigration, the insistence that new arrivals adapt to Anglo-Saxon culture — and the threat of discrimination if they didn’t — was crucial to their swift assimilation. The post-1920s immigration restrictions were draconian in many ways, but they created time for persistent ethnic divisions to melt into a general unhyphenated Americanism.
The same was true in religion. The steady pressure to conform to American norms, exerted through fair means and foul, eventually persuaded the Mormons to abandon polygamy, smoothing their assimilation into the American mainstream. Nativist concerns about Catholicism’s illiberal tendencies inspired American Catholics to prod their church toward a recognition of the virtues of democracy, making it possible for generations of immigrants to feel unambiguously Catholic and American.
So it is today with Islam. The first America is correct to insist on Muslims’ absolute right to build and worship where they wish. But the second America is right to press for something more from Muslim Americans — particularly from figures like Feisal Abdul Rauf, the imam behind the mosque — than simple protestations of good faith.
Too often, American Muslim institutions have turned out to be entangled with ideas and groups that most Americans rightly consider beyond the pale. Too often, American Muslim leaders strike ambiguous notes when asked to disassociate themselves completely from illiberal causes.
By global standards, Rauf may be the model of a “moderate Muslim.” But global standards and American standards are different. For Muslim Americans to integrate fully into our national life, they’ll need leaders who don’t describe America as “an accessory to the crime” of 9/11 (as Rauf did shortly after the 2001 attacks), or duck questions about whether groups like Hamas count as terrorist organizations (as Rauf did in a radio interview in June). And they’ll need leaders whose antennas are sensitive enough to recognize that the quest for inter-religious dialogue is ill served by throwing up a high-profile mosque two blocks from the site of a mass murder committed in the name of Islam.
They’ll need leaders, in other words, who understand that while the ideals of the first America protect the e pluribus, it’s the demands the second America makes of new arrivals that help create the unum.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/16/opinion/16douthat.html?_r=1&src=me&ref=general
LongWire
08-16-2010, 14:04
Good Post, Thanks Richard...........
That was an outstanding article. I think many Americans find their feet in both camps
greenberetTFS
08-16-2010, 14:44
Interesting article.................;)
Big Teddy :munchin
Irishsquid
08-16-2010, 14:56
That was an outstanding article. I think many Americans find their feet in both camps
I'm definitely one of those. I DO see America as having a distinctive culture, but I think it is (or at least should be) a culture of allegiance to the Constitution, where the newest arrival is just as American as anyone, provided he/she shows allegiance to the Constitution before the "old country." Sadly, most native-born Americans have no such allegiance to the Constitution...in fact, most don't even know what it says.
Good article, sums things up well IMHO
Although it has been expressed already, I still must commend you on this post. A quality find which brings together both perspectives.
Ian
Did John Edwards write that :confused: :D
alright4u
08-16-2010, 21:11
And here's the gist of it all for Americans and for America - the best OpEd piece I've read on the topic.
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Islam in Two Americas
Ross Douthat, NYT, 15 Aug 2010
There’s an America where it doesn’t matter what language you speak, what god you worship, or how deep your New World roots run. An America where allegiance to the Constitution trumps ethnic differences, language barriers and religious divides. An America where the newest arrival to our shores is no less American than the ever-so-great granddaughter of the Pilgrims.
But there’s another America as well, one that understands itself as a distinctive culture, rather than just a set of political propositions. This America speaks English, not Spanish or Chinese or Arabic. It looks back to a particular religious heritage: Protestantism originally, and then a Judeo-Christian consensus that accommodated Jews and Catholics as well. It draws its social norms from the mores of the Anglo-Saxon diaspora — and it expects new arrivals to assimilate themselves to these norms, and quickly.
These two understandings of America, one constitutional and one cultural, have been in tension throughout our history. And they’re in tension again this summer, in the controversy over the Islamic mosque and cultural center scheduled to go up two blocks from ground zero.
The first America, not surprisingly, views the project as the consummate expression of our nation’s high ideals. “This is America,” President Obama intoned last week, “and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakeable.” The construction of the mosque, Mayor Michael Bloomberg told New Yorkers, is as important a test of the principle of religious freedom “as we may see in our lifetimes.”
The second America begs to differ. It sees the project as an affront to the memory of 9/11, and a sign of disrespect for the values of a country where Islam has only recently become part of the public consciousness. And beneath these concerns lurks the darker suspicion that Islam in any form may be incompatible with the American way of life.
This is typical of how these debates usually play out. The first America tends to make the finer-sounding speeches, and the second America often strikes cruder, more xenophobic notes. The first America welcomed the poor, the tired, the huddled masses; the second America demanded that they change their names and drop their native languages, and often threw up hurdles to stop them coming altogether. The first America celebrated religious liberty; the second America persecuted Mormons and discriminated against Catholics.
But both understandings of this country have real wisdom to offer, and both have been necessary to the American experiment’s success. During the great waves of 19th-century immigration, the insistence that new arrivals adapt to Anglo-Saxon culture — and the threat of discrimination if they didn’t — was crucial to their swift assimilation. The post-1920s immigration restrictions were draconian in many ways, but they created time for persistent ethnic divisions to melt into a general unhyphenated Americanism.
The same was true in religion. The steady pressure to conform to American norms, exerted through fair means and foul, eventually persuaded the Mormons to abandon polygamy, smoothing their assimilation into the American mainstream. Nativist concerns about Catholicism’s illiberal tendencies inspired American Catholics to prod their church toward a recognition of the virtues of democracy, making it possible for generations of immigrants to feel unambiguously Catholic and American.
So it is today with Islam. The first America is correct to insist on Muslims’ absolute right to build and worship where they wish. But the second America is right to press for something more from Muslim Americans — particularly from figures like Feisal Abdul Rauf, the imam behind the mosque — than simple protestations of good faith.
Too often, American Muslim institutions have turned out to be entangled with ideas and groups that most Americans rightly consider beyond the pale. Too often, American Muslim leaders strike ambiguous notes when asked to disassociate themselves completely from illiberal causes.
By global standards, Rauf may be the model of a “moderate Muslim.” But global standards and American standards are different. For Muslim Americans to integrate fully into our national life, they’ll need leaders who don’t describe America as “an accessory to the crime” of 9/11 (as Rauf did shortly after the 2001 attacks), or duck questions about whether groups like Hamas count as terrorist organizations (as Rauf did in a radio interview in June). And they’ll need leaders whose antennas are sensitive enough to recognize that the quest for inter-religious dialogue is ill served by throwing up a high-profile mosque two blocks from the site of a mass murder committed in the name of Islam.
They’ll need leaders, in other words, who understand that while the ideals of the first America protect the e pluribus, it’s the demands the second America makes of new arrivals that help create the unum.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/16/opinion/16douthat.html?_r=1&src=me&ref=general
No SOG man I know would buy the NY Times unles out of toilet paper. Not a single SF old timer I know would welcome the folks who fail to assimilate. Yes, I grew up with Italians who spoke that language, but; they learned English. They damn sure did not demand press 1 or 2.
FWIW - my parents read about anything they could get their hands on to get as many points of view as possible to be considered (whether they agreed with the author or not) when forming an opinion and encouraged us to do the same - I found that same mentality of value while serving in the Army and as an educator - still do. I also served with many who had served in SOG, who found the NYT to be a valuable source of info when doing our ODA area studies and who taught me how to glean valuable bits of information from an article - usually a smaller back page piece and not a headline. ;)
I also grew up in an area where there were quite a few first generation immigrants who never learned English but absolutely made sure their kids did so - learned a lot of lessons which stuck with me visiting the homes of friends who had to translate for their parents - Chinese, Japanese, 'Slavonian' (a common term for Southeastern Europeans and Russians in that area), and Mexicans. My Mom only spoke English but my Dad spoke Spanish and encouraged my brothers and I to learn at least one other language - he always said it helped to better understand someone's POV and gave you an edge when doing business or working with them. I found the people who did not learn English were no less American in their ideals than we were - something I've seen over the past couple of decades whenever I return to the family ranch and find myself mingling with Hmong, Vietnamese, Chinese, or Sikh immigrants throughout the area. I also came to realize that many people struggle in their native languages and not everyone is capable of learning a second language - something else I witnessed throughout my Army career and as an educator.
I'll never forget one time when on an FTX in Northern Arizona and meeting with a US Forest Service Ranger whose wife was Russian and spoke no English - we were 'gold' because our 11F, a Polish Lodge Act recruit and old 10th Grouper, spoke Russian...and several other European languages plus a smattering of English. He also served in SOG and was a Sunday NYT reader. You never know.
I also cannot remember all the times I heard Americans in another country complaining about why 'these people' can't learn to speak English - and to assimilate in a country as diverse as America, does one have to know the language? :confused: IMO - something is lost and you cannot fully benefit from all a society has to offer if you don't - but it doesn't mean you have to do so to live here and be a good citizen.
However - this is MOO and YMMV - but so it goes...
Richard's $.02 :munchin
......... - and to assimilate in a country as diverse as America, does one have to know the language? :confused: IMO - something is lost and you cannot fully benefit from all a society has to offer if you don't - but it doesn't mean you have to do so to live here and be a good citizen.......
Depends on if the individual wants to become an American - or just wants to live here and make it into the place they came from.
Depends on if the individual wants to become an American - or just wants to live here and make it into the place they came from.
American citizenship doesn't have a language requirement - neither does loyalty to our nation and its national ideals. I knew many people who either could not or spoke very little English but were better citizens than many I have met who can claim membership in groups such as the DAR.
However - YMMV - and so it goes...
Richard's $.02 :munchin
I'm definitely one of those. I DO see America as having a distinctive culture, but I think it is (or at least should be) a culture of allegiance to the Constitution, where the newest arrival is just as American as anyone, provided he/she shows allegiance to the Constitution before the "old country." Sadly, most native-born Americans have no such allegiance to the Constitution...in fact, most don't even know what it says.
I agree with you. I have no problem at all with someone who wishes to immigrate here, but if they do, I expect them to live by our rules. It aggravates me to see anyone refer to themselves as (put name here) - American. They are either American or they are not. I have no problem with anyone celebrating their own unique heritage, but if they have decided to become citizens here, they need to observe our customs as well.
I think we, as a country are blessed, in that we have melded the customs of many countries, and cultures, into our own. We are able to see and enjoy the customs of various cultures equally, while simultaneously remaining loyal to the constitution and our own national pride. Yes, we as a nation have made many mistakes when dealing with others; the treatment of Native Americans, the Japanese internments during WWII, the treatment of black Americans, etc. I would hope that we have learned from these mistakes.
On the other hand, when a group sets themselves apart, demanding recognition of their own customs, which may run counter to our constitution; i.e. Sharia law, I find that unacceptable.
Peregrino
08-17-2010, 08:27
Nor is the solution new.
'In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language.. And we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.'
Theodore Roosevelt 1907
alright4u
08-17-2010, 09:47
FWIW - my parents read about anything they could get their hands on to get as many points of view as possible to be considered (whether they agreed with the author or not) when forming an opinion and encouraged us to do the same - I found that same mentality of value while serving in the Army and as an educator - still do. I also served with many who had served in SOG, who found the NYT to be a valuable source of info when doing our ODA area studies and who taught me how to glean valuable bits of information from an article - usually a smaller back page piece and not a headline. ;)
I also grew up in an area where there were quite a few first generation immigrants who never learned English but absolutely made sure their kids did so - learned a lot of lessons which stuck with me visiting the homes of friends who had to translate for their parents - Chinese, Japanese, 'Slavonian' (a common term for Southeastern Europeans and Russians in that area), and Mexicans. My Mom only spoke English but my Dad spoke Spanish and encouraged my brothers and I to learn at least one other language - he always said it helped to better understand someone's POV and gave you an edge when doing business or working with them. I found the people who did not learn English were no less American in their ideals than we were - something I've seen over the past couple of decades whenever I return to the family ranch and find myself mingling with Hmong, Vietnamese, Chinese, or Sikh immigrants throughout the area. I also came to realize that many people struggle in their native languages and not everyone is capable of learning a second language - something else I witnessed throughout my Army career and as an educator.
I'll never forget one time when on an FTX in Northern Arizona and meeting with a US Forest Service Ranger whose wife was Russian and spoke no English - we were 'gold' because our 11F, a Polish Lodge Act recruit and old 10th Grouper, spoke Russian...and several other European languages plus a smattering of English. He also served in SOG and was a Sunday NYT reader. You never know.
I also cannot remember all the times I heard Americans in another country complaining about why 'these people' can't learn to speak English - and to assimilate in a country as diverse as America, does one have to know the language? :confused: IMO - something is lost and you cannot fully benefit from all a society has to offer if you don't - but it doesn't mean you have to do so to live here and be a good citizen.
However - this is MOO and YMMV - but so it goes...
Richard's $.02 :munchin
This must have been prior to 73 or he just was never informed that the NY Times plus another newspaper ran stories about SOG OPS. Now, I cannot imagine a military man period reading this rag as the NY Times has time and time again put their story above National Security. From cell phone tracking to you name it. This bunch at the NY Times has helped our enemies, not our military men and women.
Politics or not, I will not read a rag that endangers our military and national security.
I agree with you. I have no problem at all with someone who wishes to immigrate here, but if they do, I expect them to live by our rules. It aggravates me to see anyone refer to themselves as (put name here) - American. They are either American or they are not. I have no problem with anyone celebrating their own unique heritage, but if they have decided to become citizens here, they need to observe our customs as well. Maybe people refer to themselves as hyphenated Americans because one of this nation's oldest and strongest customs is exclusion. That is, the haves finding reason after reason after reason to argue why the have nots are not worthy of all the rights and privileges of being American.
This bunch at the NY Times has helped our enemies, not our military men and women.
Sir,
For my own edification is there a major newspaper/publication military folks consider consistently fair, accurate and objective? It would seem with changing editors etc, the face of most papers changes often?
Maybe people refer to themselves as hyphenated Americans because one of this nation's oldest and strongest customs is exclusion. That is, the haves finding reason after reason after reason to argue why the have nots are not worthy of all the rights and privileges of being American.
As old as the hills, plebians and patricians redux? Sigaba I would hope the above analysis is a bit strong, Instead is it possible intra-national xenophobia is exacerbated in times of crisis, war and economic crisis cause us to turn on our own.
Something to consider.
GALLUP
August 13, 2010
In U.S., Confidence in Newspapers, TV News Remains a Rarity
No more than 25% say they have a "great deal" or "quite a lot" of confidence in either
by Lymari Morales
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Americans continue to express near-record-low confidence in newspapers and television news -- with no more than 25% of Americans saying they have a "great deal" or "quite a lot" of confidence in either. These views have hardly budged since falling more than 10 percentage points from 2003-2007.
The findings are from Gallup's annual Confidence in Institutions survey, which found the military faring best and Congress faring worst of 16 institutions tested. Americans' confidence in newspapers and television news is on par with Americans' lackluster confidence in banks and slightly better than their dismal rating of Health Management Organizations and big business.
The decline in trust since 2003 is also evident in a 2009 Gallup poll that asked about confidence and trust in the "mass media" more broadly. While perceptions of media bias present a viable hypothesis, Americans have not over the same period grown any more likely to say the news media are too conservative or too liberal.
No matter the cause, it is clear the media as a whole are not gaining new fans as they struggle to serve and compete with growing demand for online news, social media, and mobile platforms. The Pew Project for Excellence in Journalism's annual report on the State of the News Media, released in March, found for a third straight year, only digital and cable news sources growing in popularity, while network news, local news, and newspaper audiences shrink. These findings align with a similar 2008 Gallup poll that found cable and Internet news sources growing in popularity while all others held steady or declined.
While it is unclear how much respondents factored in the online and cable offshoots of "newspapers" and "television news" when assessing their confidence in these institutions, their responses do not provide much encouragement for the media more broadly. Confidence is hard to find, even among Democrats and liberals, who have historically been the most trusting of the news media. While 18- to 29-year-olds express more trust in newspapers than most older Americans, Gallup polling has found they read national newspapers the least. Younger Americans also expressed more confidence than older Americans in several other institutions tested, including Congress, the medical system, and the criminal justice system, suggesting younger Americans are more confident in institutions in general.
Implications
With nearly all news organizations struggling to keep up with the up-to-the-minute news cycle and to remain profitable in the process, Americans' low trust in newspapers and television news presents a critical barrier to success. The Pew report asserts that 80% of new media links are to legacy newspapers and broadcast networks, making clear that traditional news sources remain the backbone of the media. But so long as roughly three in four Americans remain distrustful, it will be difficult to attract the large and loyal audiences necessary to boost revenues.
Survey Methods
Results for this Gallup poll are based on telephone interviews conducted July 8-11, 2010, with a random sample of 1,020 adults, aged 18 and older, living in the continental U.S., selected using random-digit-dial sampling.
For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points.
Interviews are conducted with respondents on landline telephones (for respondents with a landline telephone) and cellular phones (for respondents who are cell phone-only). Each sample includes a minimum quota of 150 cell phone-only respondents and 850 landline respondents, with additional minimum quotas among landline respondents for gender within region. Landline respondents are chosen at random within each household on the basis of which member had the most recent birthday.
Samples are weighted by gender, age, race, education, region, and phone lines. Demographic weighting targets are based on the March 2009 Current Population Survey figures for the aged 18 and older non-institutionalized population living in continental U.S. telephone households. All reported margins of sampling error include the computed design effects for weighting and sample design.
In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.
For more details on Gallup's polling methodology, visit http://www.gallup.com/.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/142133/Confidence-Newspapers-News-Remains-Rarity.aspx
One should beware of using an 'upper-crust' politician like Teddy Roosevelt - a friend and endorser of Madison Grant's 'scientific racism' (whose book, The Passing of the Great Race, argued for a strong eugenics program in order to save the waning "Nordic race" from inundation by other racial types and suggested the state had a moral obligation to put certain immigrant types to death) - when arguing the idea of 'Americanism.'
Grant's book was praised by his friend, former president Theodore Roosevelt, who wrote: "The book is a capital book: in purpose, in vision, in grasp of the facts that our people must need to realize.... It is the work of an American scholar and gentleman, and all Americans should be grateful to you for writing it." Much depends, obviously, on how one interprets words like "elimination" and "worthless race types". The Passing of the Great Race was translated into German in 1925, and Grant received a fan letter from aspiring politician Adolf Hitler as well: "The book is my Bible," wrote Hitler to Grant.
http://personal.uncc.edu/jmarks/eugenics/eugenics.html
Richard
alright4u
08-17-2010, 10:58
Maybe people refer to themselves as hyphenated Americans because one of this nation's oldest and strongest customs is exclusion. That is, the haves finding reason after reason after reason to argue why the have nots are not worthy of all the rights and privileges of being American.
Class Warfare. Unreal.
Class Warfare. Unreal.Sir, you may be reading my post too narrowly. I did say "rights and privileges."
American citizenship doesn't have a language requirement - neither does loyalty to our nation and its national ideals. I knew many people who either could not or spoke very little English but were better citizens than many I have met who can claim membership in groups such as the DAR.
However - YMMV - and so it goes...
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Once again Richard, you read write past what I typed, go off in a different direction and reply to something I was not even taking about.
You don't have to speak English to be an American.
If you come to America for what it stands for and want to be one fine.
The people I'm talking about are the ones who don't want to "be American". They come here to change it into what they left behind.
People have come from all over the world to "Be American".
I can think of only one group that wants to change it into something else.
American citizenship doesn't have a language requirement
However - YMMV - and so it goes...
Richard's $.02 :munchin
According to A Guide to Naturalization (http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Office%20of%20Citizenship/Citizenship%20Resource%20Center%20Site/Publications/PDFs/M-476.pdf), page 26, you do, with a few exceptions.
Pat
greenberetTFS
08-17-2010, 12:31
No SOG man I know would buy the NY Times unles out of toilet paper. Not a single SF old timer I know would welcome the folks who fail to assimilate. Yes, I grew up with Italians who spoke that language, but; they learned English. They damn sure did not demand press 1 or 2.
I absolutely concur.................:lifter
Big Teddy :munchin
alright4u
08-17-2010, 12:45
Sir, you may be reading my post too narrowly. I did say "rights and privileges."
This Mosque is not about that. This mosque, in my opinion, is a slap in the face to more dead then Pearl Harbor.
Originally Posted by Richard
......... - and to assimilate in a country as diverse as America, does one have to know the language? IMO - something is lost and you cannot fully benefit from all a society has to offer if you don't - but it doesn't mean you have to do so to live here and be a good citizen.......
Depends on if the individual wants to become an American - or just wants to live here and make it into the place they came from.
American citizenship doesn't have a language requirement - neither does loyalty to our nation and its national ideals. I knew many people who either could not or spoke very little English but were better citizens than many I have met who can claim membership in groups such as the DAR.
Once again Richard, you read write past what I typed, go off in a different direction and reply to something I was not even ta{l}king about.
FWIW - my remarks were a reply to your response regarding the subject (language) you referenced in your response to my original post.
As such, I did misread your post in thinking we were discussing that subject - language.
We are now on the same sheet of music. ;)
Richard :munchin
Peregrino
08-17-2010, 13:36
Richard - Why do you feel the need to discredit the message by attacking the messenger? Awfully progressive of you. I don't have to agree with everything someone says/does to find value in some of it - I even agree with you occasionally. I can think of a myriad of other, to my mind more important, reasons to denigrate Teddy R (or at least his politics later in his career). His progressive political rhetoric had far more impact on the growth of American liberalism than his "glowing endorsement of a friend's book". To what degree are you condemning eugenics when most modern "progressives" (again TR's self description, strongly supported by his politics) adamantly defend abortion? Is that not a form of eugenics too?
According to A Guide to Naturalization (http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Office%20of%20Citizenship/Citizenship%20Resource%20Center%20Site/Publications/PDFs/M-476.pdf), page 26, you do, with a few exceptions.
Pat
Interesting - and it is 'waiverable' under the exceptions listed on pp. 26-27. Thanks.
Richard :munchin
greenberetTFS
08-17-2010, 15:15
Richard - Why do you feel the need to discredit the message by attacking the messenger? Awfully progressive of you. I don't have to agree with everything someone says/does to find value in some of it - I even agree with you occasionally. I can think of a myriad of other, to my mind more important, reasons to denigrate Teddy R (or at least his politics later in his career). His progressive political rhetoric had far more impact on the growth of American liberalism than his "glowing endorsement of a friend's book". To what degree are you condemning eugenics when most modern "progressives" (again TR's self description, strongly supported by his politics) adamantly defend abortion? Is that not a form of eugenics too?
I don't know Richard,sometimes you get into more "hot water" than Dozer!..........:(
Big Teddy :munchin
Irishsquid
08-17-2010, 15:50
They damn sure did not demand press 1 or 2.
I don't know anything about SOG or the NYT, so this is the only part of your post I have a reply for. I don't think most immigrants "demand," press 1 or 2.(I know some do, particularly some of my neighbors to the south, but MOST don't.) That said, if I start a business, you can bet I'll make damn sure my secretary or admin assistant or whatever is AT LEAST bilingual. Why? Better profit margins for me. Press 1 or 2 is not about a group demanding concessions...it's about a business trying to expand their customer base and profit margins.
So it is wrong to consider both the character of the message and of the messenger within the broader context of the time and cultural periods in which they existed to better understand their substance?
Personally, I admire many things about Teddy Roosevelt's character - but not so much other aspects of it. He was a man, a politician, and a product of his time...and he was certainly not alone in his thinking.
Richard
And here's the gist of it all for Americans and for America - the best OpEd piece I've read on the topic.
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Islam in Two Americas
Ross Douthat, NYT, 15 Aug 2010
There’s an America where it doesn’t matter what language you speak, what god you worship, or how deep your New World roots run. An America where allegiance to the Constitution trumps ethnic differences, language barriers and religious divides. An America where the newest arrival to our shores is no less American than the ever-so-great granddaughter of the Pilgrims.
But there’s another America as well, one that understands itself as a distinctive culture, rather than just a set of political propositions. This America speaks English, not Spanish or Chinese or Arabic. It looks back to a particular religious heritage: Protestantism originally, and then a Judeo-Christian consensus that accommodated Jews and Catholics as well. It draws its social norms from the mores of the Anglo-Saxon diaspora — and it expects new arrivals to assimilate themselves to these norms, and quickly.
These two understandings of America, one constitutional and one cultural, have been in tension throughout our history. And they’re in tension again this summer, in the controversy over the Islamic mosque and cultural center scheduled to go up two blocks from ground zero.
The first America, not surprisingly, views the project as the consummate expression of our nation’s high ideals. “This is America,” President Obama intoned last week, “and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakeable.” The construction of the mosque, Mayor Michael Bloomberg told New Yorkers, is as important a test of the principle of religious freedom “as we may see in our lifetimes.”
The second America begs to differ. It sees the project as an affront to the memory of 9/11, and a sign of disrespect for the values of a country where Islam has only recently become part of the public consciousness. And beneath these concerns lurks the darker suspicion that Islam in any form may be incompatible with the American way of life.
This is typical of how these debates usually play out. The first America tends to make the finer-sounding speeches, and the second America often strikes cruder, more xenophobic notes. The first America welcomed the poor, the tired, the huddled masses; the second America demanded that they change their names and drop their native languages, and often threw up hurdles to stop them coming altogether. The first America celebrated religious liberty; the second America persecuted Mormons and discriminated against Catholics.
But both understandings of this country have real wisdom to offer, and both have been necessary to the American experiment’s success. During the great waves of 19th-century immigration, the insistence that new arrivals adapt to Anglo-Saxon culture — and the threat of discrimination if they didn’t — was crucial to their swift assimilation. The post-1920s immigration restrictions were draconian in many ways, but they created time for persistent ethnic divisions to melt into a general unhyphenated Americanism.
The same was true in religion. The steady pressure to conform to American norms, exerted through fair means and foul, eventually persuaded the Mormons to abandon polygamy, smoothing their assimilation into the American mainstream. Nativist concerns about Catholicism’s illiberal tendencies inspired American Catholics to prod their church toward a recognition of the virtues of democracy, making it possible for generations of immigrants to feel unambiguously Catholic and American.
So it is today with Islam. The first America is correct to insist on Muslims’ absolute right to build and worship where they wish. But the second America is right to press for something more from Muslim Americans — particularly from figures like Feisal Abdul Rauf, the imam behind the mosque — than simple protestations of good faith.
Too often, American Muslim institutions have turned out to be entangled with ideas and groups that most Americans rightly consider beyond the pale. Too often, American Muslim leaders strike ambiguous notes when asked to disassociate themselves completely from illiberal causes.
By global standards, Rauf may be the model of a “moderate Muslim.” But global standards and American standards are different. For Muslim Americans to integrate fully into our national life, they’ll need leaders who don’t describe America as “an accessory to the crime” of 9/11 (as Rauf did shortly after the 2001 attacks), or duck questions about whether groups like Hamas count as terrorist organizations (as Rauf did in a radio interview in June). And they’ll need leaders whose antennas are sensitive enough to recognize that the quest for inter-religious dialogue is ill served by throwing up a high-profile mosque two blocks from the site of a mass murder committed in the name of Islam.
They’ll need leaders, in other words, who understand that while the ideals of the first America protect the e pluribus, it’s the demands the second America makes of new arrivals that help create the unum.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/16/opinion/16douthat.html?_r=1&src=me&ref=general
IMO, anything written in the NY Times should be taken with a grain of salt. I also do not find it worthy of wiping my arse with it. That being said, I wonder which AMERICAN Mr. Douthat is. I can tell you which one I am...a little of both. My mother was an immigrant, albeit she came here as a military spouse. BUT I was born HERE, in the good ol' US of A. I was raised in Germany but...I was an army brat! I don't mind anyone coming here, LEGALLY for starters and being LOYAL to America secondly.
I do think there is nothing wrong with we American's having the expectation of immigrants that they
1. learn the language and culture
2. integrate into our culture
3. work and pay taxes
4. be loyal to the US
5. figure out how to be the best possible American they can be and what they can DO FOR THEIR NEW HOMELAND!
I don't think anyone should be here if they cannot do those 5 things, at minimum. And there is nothing wrong with Americans feeling that way. If your only reason for being here is to whine and complain about how messed up we are and "when I was in my country we..blah blah blah...." and speak of ways to destroy the US, then get the F out!
Furthermore, I am sick and tired of hearing about the poor lil ol' muslims and their right to worship freely. When are people going to understand that it is NOT a religion, it is an ideology. Just like Nazism (since folks like to keep throwing Adolph and the Nazis into every conversation about islam) and our fight against communism...an ideology.
greenberetTFS
08-17-2010, 16:27
IMO, anything written in the NY Times should be taken with a grain of salt. I also do not find it worthy of wiping my arse with it. That being said, I wonder which AMERICAN Mr. Douthat is. I can tell you which one I am...a little of both. My mother was an immigrant, albeit she came here as a military spouse. BUT I was born HERE, in the good ol' US of A. I was raised in Germany but...I was an army brat! I don't mind anyone coming here, LEGALLY for starters and being LOYAL to America secondly.
I do think there is nothing wrong with we American's having the expectation of immigrants that they
1. learn the language and culture
2. integrate into our culture
3. work and pay taxes
4. be loyal to the US
5. figure out how to be the best possible American they can be and what they can DO FOR THEIR NEW HOMELAND!
I don't think anyone should be here if they cannot do those 5 things, at minimum. And there is nothing wrong with Americans feeling that way. If your only reason for being here is to whine and complain about how messed up we are and "when I was in my country we..blah blah blah...." and speak of ways to destroy the US, then get the F out!
Furthermore, I am sick and tired of hearing about the poor lil ol' muslims and their right to worship freely. When are people going to understand that it is NOT a religion, it is an ideology. Just like Nazism (since folks like to keep throwing Adolph and the Nazis into every conversation about islam) and our fight against communism...an ideology.
Well said Saoirse,well said....................:lifter:lifter:lifter
Big Teddy
When are people going to understand that it is NOT a religion, it is an ideology. Just like Nazism (since folks like to keep throwing Adolph and the Nazis into every conversation about islam) and our fight against communism...an ideology.FWIW, I continue to find this formulation unpersuasive. While the latter seeks to impose a racialized vision of modernity upon the world, the other signals the rejection of modernity.
Just my $0.02.
FWIW, I continue to find this formulation unpersuasive. While the latter seeks to impose a racialized vision of modernity upon the world, the other signals the rejection of modernity.
Just my $0.02.
I don't get your meaning.
Somebody has been reading Sayyid Qutb.
Thomas Paine
08-17-2010, 18:27
I don't get your meaning.
I believe both of you are correct.
Sigaba's point is that the Nazi's painted a vision for a new future (the 3rd Reich). Islam strives to re-establish the primitive traditions of islam and the "glory days" of the ancient caliphate.
Your point, I believe, was that they're both totalitarian supremacist ideologies that thrive on antisemitism.
Fair assessment?
I believe both of you are correct.
Sigaba's point is that the Nazi's painted a vision for a new future (the 3rd Reich). Islam strives to re-establish the primitive traditions of islam and the "glory days" of the ancient caliphate.
Your point, I believe, was that they're both totalitarian supremacist ideologies that thrive on antisemitism.
Fair assessment?
Yes, Mr. Paine...a more than fair assessment. At least from my point of view. (OMG, I will be glad when I get thru the bitchy phase of my smoking cessation!)
Thomas Paine
08-18-2010, 04:42
August 18, 2010
When Rights Make Wrongs
By Ralph Peters
Well-meaning Westerners are quick to point out that jihad doesn't have to be violent. That's true. Jihad expands Islam's domain by any means available.
The 13-story mosque complex to be built a home-run's length from Ground Zero is jihad--not a gesture to promote inter-faith tolerance.
We are also told that we must be sensitive to the feelings of Muslims. This, too, is true. But isn't it equally true that Muslims should be sensitive to non-Muslims?
Would it not be wise and virtuous to respect the memory of our dead, the emotions of victims' families, and the sanctity with which so many Americans imbue Ground Zero?
Is the establishment media correct that the two-thirds of Americans opposed to a mega-mosque complex at that site are bigots? Or is willful insensitivity-even gloating-at play on the side of Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf, the Cordoba Initiative's point-man on this project?
Finally, we are told-daily-that those behind the planned facility have the legal right to build. This, too, is irrefutably true.
But no one has questioned the legal right to construct this mosque complex. Far more than a First Amendment issue, this is a question of wise judgment, of good citizenship, of calculated insult and deep emotion.
Social peace requires reciprocity. Each day, each one of us chooses not to do many things that would be legal but offensive to those around us. Even in our permissive society, restraint keeps the peace.
Imam Rauf is not being a good citizen. He is not "building bridges," but exploiting the arrogance of our cultural elite toward their fellow citizens. He is an exuberantly divisive figure, not a healer.
The glaring failure of our media has been their unwillingness to question the Cordoba Initiative with the same rigor they apply to the mosque's opponents: Who will fund the mosque complex? Why should so grandiose a project be built so far from the center of mass of New York's Muslim communities? Why scorn out of hand Governor Patterson's remarkably generous offer of free state land elsewhere in New York City?
The key to unlocking the Cordoba Initiative's secrets may lie in the funding. Why should Imam Rauf-so vocal in other regards-play coy about who will pay the center's bills (estimated at a minimum of a $100 million)?
The money probably will come, directly or indirectly, from Saudi Arabia and Persian Gulf states. If that's the case, it suggests divisive purposes. From Africa through Asia, I've seen Wahhabi "charity" at work. Invariably, the Saudi purpose in funding religious schools and mosques abroad (including in the US) has been to prevent Muslims from integrating into majority non-Muslim societies.
What if the purpose of the Cordoba Center is to provoke, to alienate non-Muslim and Muslim Americans from one another? That certainly would explain Imam Rauf's intransigence when it comes to insisting that his chosen site is the only acceptable site.
Are the intended victims of this travesty our Muslim fellow citizens, so many of whom are integrating successfully? Is the Cordoba Initiative really about aggravating social divisions? How does it serve our society for our media to refuse to ask such questions?
Even the use of the name "Cordoba" is brilliantly cynical. To Atlantis-will-rise-again! Leftists, medieval Cordoba, in Spain, is a fairy-tale example of Muslims, Christians and Jews living together amicably in a social compact called the convivencia.
What's left out of the fable is that Christian and Jews were distinctly second-class members of society heavily taxed for their faiths and subject to the whims of Muslim rulers. After a brief cultural flowering, Cordoba's rulers for centuries were Islamist fanatics from North Africa.
One cannot help but suspect that Imam Rauf and his backers are mocking us, gleefully turning our Constitution against us, and exploiting a media terrified of being accused of bigotry.
Last, but not least, this Ground-Zero mosque complex would be a symbol - not of reconciliation and tolerance, but of the greatest triumph of violent jihad in three centuries: 9/11.
Islam's ghazis-religious warriors--have always understood symbols. That's why the hijackers struck the Twin Towers, not a housing project. This mega-mosque complex will be interpreted by hardline fanatics as a monument to their 9/11 "victory."
Imam Rauf and his backers have every legal right to build their extravagant Islamic center within the lethal radius of Ground Zero. But the rest of us have the right to question why they insist on doing so.
Ralph Peters' latest book is "Endless War."
LINK:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/08/18/when_rights_make_wrongs.html
I just hope there doesn't come a day when I have to "Press 1 for English"
Um, you forgot your smilie.
Right?
The Ground Zero mosque debate is garnering increased attention in the world press, with Muslims coming down on both sides of the proposed center two blocks from the former World Trade Center.
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
Ground Zero Mosque Debate Swirls In World Capitals
CSM, 18 Aug 2010
After nearly a month of debate, the controversy surrounding the so-called “Ground Zero Mosque” continues to roil, both domestically and worldwide.
Atlantic blogger Chris Good points out that the proposed Islamic community center has dominated much of the US news cycle and political discourse.
It's also gaining traction in the world press, with Muslims coming down both for and against the proposed center two blocks from the former World Trade Center.
"Many Muslims fear that the mosque will become a shrine for Islamists, which would remind Americans of what Muslims did on 9/11," Gamal Abd Al-Gawad, director of Al-Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies in Cairo, told Arab News.
“Some people express concern that if the mosque will be built, it will harm Muslims and Islam in America. It’s not good for Muslims and Islam to be in the heart of such a controversy,” he told the agency.
Abd Al-Rahman Al-Rashed, general manager of Al-Arabiya television, also criticized the project in a column titled “A House of Worship or a Symbol of Destruction?” in the Arab daily A-Sharq Al-Awsat on Sunday.
“Muslims do not aspire for a mosque next to the September 11 cemetery,” Mr. Al-Rashed wrote. He added that "the mosque is not an issue for Muslims, and they have not heard of it until the shouting became loud between the supporters and the objectors, which is mostly an argument between non-Muslim US citizens!"
Shakib Bin-Makhlouf, president of the Federation of Islamic Organizations in Europe, told Arab News that he supports the proposed Islamic center and appreciated President Obama coming out in support of it. “Islam has nothing to do with the events that happened on 9/11,” Mr. Bin-Makhlouf told the agency. “Unfortunately, the media has contributed in tying terrorism to Islam. When a non-Muslim commits an act of terror, no one refers to his religion.”
As the so-called "Ground Zero Mosque" has turned into a political debating ground, it's also become a barometer for the world to assess how America treats Muslims. One British blogger suggested that the mosque is evidence that America is experiencing the same “Islamitization” allegedly happening in Europe, where many Europeans worry that Muslims are gaining undue influence. In a pointed summary of the project, Qatar-based newspaper Al Jazeera writes:
Critics say it would be inappropriate to build a mosque on the "hallowed ground" of Ground Zero.
Yet there is already a mosque two blocks north of the Cordoba House site, Masjid Manhattan, which has been open since 1970.
As several commentators have pointed out, there is also a strip club – New York Dolls – just one block north of the mosque site. No one has complained about that profaning of the sacred.
In France, The Christian Science Monitor reported, opinion appeared divided between those who support the mosque and those who see it as an unnecessary provocation. And the view presented of Islam was often unnuanced:
Yet striking among pundits, websites, and bloggers is an often articulate though sometimes churlish depiction of Islam as a single monolithic form of faith, inherently violent and extreme, and of Muslims as incapable of being moderate.
But while the controversy appears to dominate airwaves, it seems few Americans are paying much attention – questioning the assumption that the controversy is roiling all of America. Only 1 in 5 Americans say they follow news about the planned mosque “very closely,” and only 5 percent say it is the news story they’ve followed the most closely, according to a recent Pew Poll.
The mosque's director, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, was vilified last week in some American media outlets for suggesting in the aftermath of 9/11 that US policies had encouraged groups like Al Qaeda. "I wouldn't say the United States deserved what happened on 9/11, but the United States's policies were an accessory to the crime that happened," Abdul Rauf said then.
On Fox News, conservative host Sean Hannity claimed that Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf wants to "shred our Constitution" and replace it with sharia, or Islamic law. Greg Gutfeld, part of the Fox News program “Red Eye,” suggested that someone should build a Muslim gay bar next to the mosque to test the tolerance of those behind it.
Meanwhile, The Huffington Post spoke from the left, lauding Mr. Rauf as a hero who helped the FBI combat terrorism post-9/11.
FBI officials in New York hosted a forum on ways to deal with Muslim and Arab-Americans without exacerbating social tensions. ...[Rauf] offered what was for him a familiar sermon to those in attendance. "Islamic extremism for the majority of Muslims is an oxymoron," he said. "It is a fundamental contradiction in terms." It was, by contemporaneous news accounts, a successful lecture.
On the liberal blog the Daily Kos, Lauren Monica has also come to the imam's defense, detailing his long history of working with the US government in support of counterterrorism operations. She writes that attacks on his character could inspire hate crimes.
Beyond politics, HDS Greenway, writing for the GlobalPost, says the controversy has turned into a matter of foreign policy:
It is a controversy that can do irreparable harm to United States foreign policy and its struggle against Islamic extremism. For it punctures the image the United States was trying so hard to project: that America is a place where Muslims can freely worship and co-exist with other religions in peace and harmony; that Islam can coexist with modernity and tolerance. It gives strength to Osama bin Laden’s contention that the West is at war with Islam, and that it is the duty of every Muslim to resist.
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-News/2010/0818/Ground-Zero-mosque-debate-swirls-in-world-capitals
The US debate over the so-called ground zero mosque in New York tracks similar fights that have taken place in European capitals in recent years over national identity and the impact of growing Muslim populations.
Richard :munchin
Ground Zero Mosque Debate Echoes Europe's Fears Of Muslims
CSM, 12 Aug 2010
As they weather a steamy August, Europeans are dimly aware of a convulsing US debate over the so-called ground zero mosque in New York, an Islamic center scheduled to be built two blocks from where Al Qaeda destroyed the World Trade Center in 2001.
Here, America is seen as a harbor of religious freedom whose embassies promote interfaith dialogue and protection of minority faiths. President Obama’s Cairo speech to harmonize Islam and American values was perceived as typical, as is the American inclination to push Europeans not to ban small churches and “cults.”
In Paris and London, opinion seems split between those who support and even admire New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s acceptance of the Islamic center and those who say the 16-story center is inappropriate or a provocation Americans shouldn’t accept.
In France, stories on Mr. Bloomberg’s decision registered surprise that an America often seen here as narrow-minded and Arab-hating proved more open and tolerant in some ways than current French opinion.
“What we see [in New York] is a fair, balanced treatment of communities ….Let the Americans do it their way….most of their founders settled in the US in order to obtain absolute religious freedom, and this is what is being upheld by this [New York City] decision,” comments one François Bogard, in a Le Monde forum.
Yet striking among pundits, websites, and bloggers is an often articulate though sometimes churlish depiction of Islam as a single monolithic form of faith, inherently violent and extreme, and of Muslims as incapable of being moderate.
An essay on a French leftist website Agoravox spoke of incomprehension and shock that on the same week German authorities closed a radical Hamburg mosque New York approved the Islamic center: “The Mayor, instigated by an imam who is said to be ‘moderate,’ plans to build a mosque extremely close to Ground Zero, where stood the Twin Towers that Islamist fanaticism reduced to rubble…You rub your eyes and read again. No, it is not a hallucination...you look for the justification…but instead of understanding, you dive deeper into an impression of unreality.”
More free?
To be sure, Europeans familiar with the US do see the ground zero brouhaha as largely driven by the same nativist sentiments they hear about in the upstart US “tea parties.” They know the US has something called a First Amendment that guarantees religious rights even when faiths are unpopular or different.
“I understand the sensitivities of many speaking against the mosque; their wounds are still raw, nine years later,” points out Nick Spencer at Theos, a faith and public policy center in London. “But reacting against it is counterproductive…for reasons of religious liberty... But it also is a positive opportunity. Those responsible for building the center know the eyes of the world, and America’s eyes, will be directly on them. That’s a chance to show Islam as conciliatory, and a chance for Islam and the US to exchange.”
Yet the ground zero controversy plays out as a Europe long proud of its cosmopolitan tolerance is roiled by rising Muslim populations and now bans minarets and burqas, and is seeing populist anti-Islamic sentiment in its politics. The rise five years ago of “Islamophobia” here has not ended. Rather, it has become more comfortably settled. Social politeness and taboos on talking about Islam are eroding.
The fact is, Europeans aren’t exactly sure what they think about Islam, analysts say. Educated classes here grew up in a multicultural world and imbibed values of getting along. But between the idea and the reality a shadow is falling. The French and Belgian government burqa ban is a symbolic pushback against growing numbers of Muslims not yet embraced by the country, but who the states want to assimilate. The burqa discussion powerfully hit Great Britain in July, before the new Conservative government put its foot down against such a ban.
New identities?
One British religious scholar points out that public opinion in Great Britain today on the Islam question bounces back and forth between the “positions of guys like Tony Blair, who argue absolutely about positive pluralism and the need to support moderate Muslims – and the concerns of us who for the first time are thinking it isn’t that simple, as we see the identity of Britain changing.”
In early January a “mega-mosque” in London was sidelined after four years of increasing opposition. The mosque would border a London Olympics 2012 site. The symbolism of the site and the size of the mosque – to hold 12,000 worshippers, when most British churches hold 500 persons – brought considerable opposition, led by a Christian evangelical politician. Many Muslims also opposed the project, initiated by the controversial Islamic missionary group Tablighi Jamaat.
Even many hardcore religious pluralists finally said they felt the idea was a bad one. But the four year debate itself added to poisonous and exaggerated positions in the general atmosphere.
London, Parisian, or Barcelona cosmopolitians still insist on an ethic of tolerance and fairness. But there’s an uneasy fear about how a growing mélange of peoples and faiths is going to turn out. The Swiss, Austrian, and Dutch have elected political figures committed to curbing Islamic expression, if not erasing it – as in the case of Geert Wilders, the anti-Islamic Dutch figure who recently scored third in the supposedly tolerant lowlands.
Noam Chomsky, the MIT linguist and public intellectual, a Jew long critical of Israeli policies, recently stopped in France after being prevented from lecturing at an Palestinian university in the West Bank, and observed that, “Europe has always actually been more racist than the US.”
Such opinions are deeply unappreciated here. Yet in the past week of comment on the lively web site Rue 89, and on Le Monde, the majority of those choosing to express themselves on the Ground Zero subject, though a self-selected group, were expressed hostility to Muslims without much qualification. There were other views, including the humorous French position that a mosque or any other building would be fine on the site, so long as it was “not a McDonalds.” But a majority took the ground zero case as a chance to air a “clash of civilizations.”
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2010/0812/Ground-zero-mosque-debate-echoes-Europe-s-fears-of-Muslims
Rag (slang): A newspaper, magazine, or other type of printed publication not worthy of your respect. Something with which you would wipe up a mess, as with a cloth rag.
...the NYT is just another big city rag. I only recognize one America.
I didnt vote for the current POTUS. I wont vote for him in the next election.
I find myself at odds with nearly all of his ideology and rhetoric; does that mean there are two Americas because I have my own opinion?
Lots of people didn't vote for Bush... and wouldn't vote for him if he could run again. Does that mean there are two Americas because a democrat wont vote for a Republican?
It seems like there are many in the media that like to tout free speech as long as no one is offended.
Hey NYT... go F#(K yourself. Op-Ed or front page, who cares.
Two Americas my ass....
rag
Well...we can always build a gay bath house on one side of the mosque, a strip club and bar on the other side, and move a NOW chapter HQs across the street. ;)
Richard :munchin
Well...we can always build a gay bath house on one side of the mosque, a strip club and bar on the other side, and move a NOW chapter HQs across the street. ;)
Richard :munchin
Investment Opportunity: My Ground Zero Islamic Gay Bar
by Greg Gutfeld
So, the Muslim investors championing the construction of the new mosque near Ground Zero claim it’s all about strengthening the relationship between the Muslim and non-Muslim world.
As an American, I believe they have every right to build the mosque – after all, if they buy the land and they follow the law – who can stop them?
Which is, why, in the spirit of outreach, I’ve decided to do the same thing.
I’m announcing tonight, that I am planning to build and open the first gay bar that caters not only to the west, but also Islamic gay men. To best express my sincere desire for dialogue, the bar will be situated next to the mosque Park51, in an available commercial space.
This is not a joke. I’ve already spoken to a number of investors, who have pledged their support in this bipartisan bid for understanding and tolerance.
As you know, the Muslim faith doesn’t look kindly upon homosexuality, which is why I’m building this bar. It is an effort to break down barriers and reduce deadly homophobia in the Islamic world.
The goal, however, is not simply to open a typical gay bar, but one friendly to men of Islamic faith. An entire floor, for example, will feature non-alcoholic drinks, since booze is forbidden by the faith. The bar will be open all day and night, to accommodate men who would rather keep their sexuality under wraps – but still want to dance.
Bottom line: I hope that the mosque owners will be as open to the bar, as I am to the new mosque. After all, the belief driving them to open up their center near Ground Zero, is no different than mine.
My place, however, will have better music.
For investment information, contact me at dailygut.com
And remember, kids, I’m dead serious on this one. (You can tell by the lack of humor in this particular piece).
Cheers!
http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggutfeld/2010/08/09/investment-opportunity-my-ground-zero-gay-bar/
I wonder what he's going to name it?:munchin
I wonder what he's going to name it?:munchin
Some I have seen on the web:
Turban Cowboy
Suspicious Packages (http://www.newser.com/story/97826/glenn-beck-greg-gutfeld-talk-gay-bar-names.html)
Al Gayda
The Velvet Sword
The Ba’ath Party (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/242916/greg-gutfelds-gay-bar-stephanie-gutmann)
Greg Gutfeld blogs that the mosque developers 'tweeted' him that his plan to open a gay bar catering to homosexual Muslims "...wasn't respecting their sensibilities." :rolleyes:
WEDNESDAY'S GREGALOGUE: OF MOSQUES AND MORONS
So on last night's show, we discussed the Ground Zero mosque's Twitter account.
After releasing some mildly sarcastic tweets, the mosque developers announced they were dumping "the interns" on the account, and bringing in "a new team."
Didn't know you needed "a team" to write "just sayin!"
Anyway, here's some background. Last Tuesday, after my gay bar proposal went public, I called the mosque to talk to them about it. I called everyone from the developers to their PR consultant Oz Sultan.
No response.
So I tweeted them (I think they had three followers). I got a curt response, saying I wasn't respecting their sensibilities.
And then the fun began. Their tweets started including stale catch phrases like "just sayin" and "fail." It read like a closed-captioned "Head of the Class" rerun. There was even a nod to Olbermann - to get a lefty seal of approval.
But then Tweetie made jokes about the Amish and a Jewish paper... and was removed.
And there you have a perfect example of the mosque's "communication" outreach. And by pristine, I mean poopy. I only tweeted them because they wouldn't respond elsewhere. And then when the tweeter responded, he got yanked.
This is not building bridges. Or building dialogue. It's not even a bridge of dialogue. It's more a bidet of baloney.
So, as host of Red Eye, I'm officially offering the mosque tweeter a job at my gay bar. Not sure what that job will be yet - but you can bet the uniform will involve some sort of mesh.
Cuz it's holy.
Totally related: check out how Norah O'Donnell, on MSNBC's Morning Joe characterizes anyone who opposes the mosque.
Somebody's got to say that, "We're not going to act like the people who stole freedom from Americans, the people who attacked America and killed 3,000 people.
So as I understand it - because I think it's rude to build a mosque near Ground Zero, I'm just like the dude who left a crater downtown.
If she wasn't so hot, I'd be pissed.
Meanwhile, Captain Angrypants Nancy Pelosi says she wants to investigate those who are against the building of the mosque.
How funny is it she'd rather look at that "funding," rather than the funding behind the mosque. I guess, in Pelosi's pinball eyes, the real bad guy is the average American who finds the mosque distasteful.
But hey, with the left: it's never them, it's always us.
Anyway, let her investigate me. All she's going to find are some unicorn stencils, a bag of edible glitter and an original pressing of "I Am What I Am," by Gloria Gaynor.
It's signed.
And if you disagree with me, you're a racist homophobe who won't buy me a banana daiquiri.
http://www.dailygut.com/?i=4710
Greg Gutfelds blogs on this issue are quite humorous.
TUESDAY'S GREGALOGUE: WHEN MUSLIMS MAKE FUN OF THE AMISH (http://www.dailygut.com/?i=4708)
MONDAY'S GREGALOGUE: THE MICKEY MOSQUE CLUB (http://www.dailygut.com/?i=4706)
THURSDAY'S GREGALOGUE: MOSQUE-ETEERS AND FOX NEWS FEARS (http://www.dailygut.com/?i=4702)
WEDNESDAY'S GREGALOGUE: OF MICE AND MOSQUES (http://www.dailygut.com/?i=4699)
There are more.
Irish_Army01
08-20-2010, 14:09
Hardhats vow not to work on mosque near Ground Zero :lifter:lifter:lifter
A growing number of New York construction workers are vowing not to work on the mosque planned near Ground Zero.
"It's a very touchy thing because they want to do this on sacred ground," said Dave Kaiser, 38, a blaster who is working to rebuild the World Trade Center site.
"I wouldn't work there, especially after I found out about what the imam said about U.S. policy being responsible for 9/11," Kaiser said.
The grass-roots movement is gaining momentum on the Internet. One construction worker created the "Hard Hat Pledge" on his blog and asked others to vow not to work on the project if it stays on Park Place.
"Thousands of people are signing up from all over the country," said creator Andy Sullivan, a construction worker from Brooklyn. "People who sell glass, steel, lumber, insurance. They are all refusing to do work if they build there."
"Hopefully, this will be a tool to get them to move it," he said. "I got a problem with this ostentatious building looming over Ground Zero."
A planned 13-story community center and mosque two blocks from Ground Zero, Park51 has exploded into a national debate.
Louis Coletti, president of the Building Trades Employers' Association, said unions have not yet taken a "formal position" on Park51, but he understands why members would be hesitant to work there.
"It's a very difficult dilemma for the contractors and the organized labor force because we are experiencing such high levels of unemployment," he said. "Yet at the same time, this is a very sacred sight to the union guys."
"There were construction workers killed on 9/11 and many more who got horribly sick cleaning up Ground Zero," Coletti said. "It's very emotional."
L.V. Spina, a Manhattan construction worker who created anti-mosque stickers that some workers are slapping on their hardhats, said he would "rather pick cans and bottles out of trash cans" than build the Islamic center near Ground Zero.
"But if they moved it somewhere else, we would put up a prime building for these people," he said. "Hell, you could do it next to my house in Rockaway Beach, I would be fine with it. But I'm not fine with it where blood has been spilled."
Spina, who sells 9/11 apparel on his website, said he's printed thousands of stickers and plans to produce thousands more.
"They're going all over the country," he said. "They got pretty popular fast."
Popularity aside, there are some construction workers choosing not to set themselves against the project.
"Hundreds of guys here are wearing stickers as a sign of protest, but I'm on the fence about it," said Frank Langan, 50, a site superintendent from Queens working at Ground Zero.
"It's a tough debate," he said. "I sympathize with workers' position, but at the same time, you can't single out all Muslims because of a small number of terrori
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/08/20/2010-08-20_we_wont_build_it_hardhats_say_no_way_they_will_ work_on_wtc_mosque.html#ixzz0xBB9FSwo
http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/08/20/2010-08-20_we_wont_build_it_hardhats_say_no_way_they_will_ work_on_wtc_mosque.html
While I applaud folks like Mr. Kaiser for his convictions, I would caution in taking too much solace in the solution of a grass roots construction strike. Capitalism is a double edged sword, while there may be delays, this building will eventually be built.
Also, while the notion of a Gay Muslim Bar etc, Pig Rodeo, are all humorous and legal, let us not lose site of the fact this area is in fact Sacred Ground and not cut off our noses to spite our faces. We are collectively outraged at the notion of a Cali doggy park going up over the grave of a Civil War soldier, hallowed ground is hallowed ground.
While I applaud folks like Mr. Kaiser for his convictions, I would caution in taking too much solace in the solution of a grass roots construction strike. Capitalism is a double edged sword, while there may be delays, this building will eventually be built.
No, don't strike. Rather, work to rule. Very carefully, very methodically, and observing each and every safety regulation, building regulation, company policy, and so on. That alone should expand the time and cost substantially. Saftey first, right? :lifter
And wouldn't it be a shame if shoddy construction practices made the building unusable from inception? The sort of thing that couldn't be fixed, but would represent some fatal flaw in the building. Golly, I hope no one gets that idea. ;)
This Mosque is not about that. This mosque, in my opinion, is a slap in the face to more dead then Pearl Harbor.
Respectfully i disagree allright4u. My sister was at WTC on 9-11 the building were she worked directly opposite (later "pulled")she wasnt hurt "physically "thank God/Allah(Same).
Around 50 Muslims were murdered on that day in WTC (One a NYC Police Academy Cadet/ Rescue Team Member). And there must of been several Muslim Prayer rooms in the WTC.
We are Americans We are Muslims and like the German Kaiser Wilhelm II said : "We Germans fear only God...and NOTHING else in the world!"
We got Muslim SF-SSGT Ayman Taha KIA 2005 in Iraq (5th SFG) we got Selim "Sal" Baskurt SF Rep. VN.
My sister is a LIVING Victim of 9-11 . We now our constitutional rights and we will be damned if we dont stick up for them like Muhammad Ali did!
I personally know a former Vice-Director National Security Agency who has reverted to Islam some 4o years ago.
so my 2 cents
Hardhats vow not to work on mosque near Ground Zero
"A growing number of New York construction workers are vowing not to work on the mosque planned near Ground Zero.
"Spina, who sells 9/11 apparel on his website, said he's printed thousands of stickers and plans to produce thousands more."
SO THIS SPINA GUY IS "MAKING A BUCK OFF "OF OTHERS (9-11) MISERY MY SISTERS INCLUDED...THATS DISPICABLE NAUSEATING AND UNAMERICAN!
BUT HECK THEY ARE SELLING LIKE HOTCAKES!!
Raschid - no need to shout (text in all capitals) - we can hear {read} you just fine. Richard
The Reaper
08-20-2010, 17:01
Respectfully i disagree allright4u. My sister was at WTC on 9-11 the building were she worked directly opposite (later "pulled")she wasnt hurt "physically "thank God/Allah(Same).
Around 50 Muslims were murdered on that day in WTC (One a NYC Police Academy Cadet/ Rescue Team Member). And there must of been several Muslim Prayer rooms in the WTC.
We are Americans We are Muslims and like the German Kaiser Wilhelm II said : "We Germans fear only God...and NOTHING else in the world!"
We got Muslim SF-SSGT Ayman Taha KIA 2005 in Iraq (5th SFG) we got Selim "Sal" Baskurt SF Rep. VN.
My sister is a LIVING Victim of 9-11 . We now our constitutional rights and we will be damned if we dont stick up for them like Muhammad Ali did!
I persomally know a former Vice-Director National Security Agency who has reverted to Islam some 4o years ago.
so my 2 cents
Raschid:
This is not your house, and you are a guest here.
As such, you might want to tread lightly for a while till you get a feel for the board. SA will be very important.
TR
IMO
"Furthermore, I am sick and tired of hearing about the poor lil ol' muslims and their right to worship freely. When are people going to understand that it is NOT a religion, it is an ideology. Just like Nazism (since folks like to keep throwing Adolph and the Nazis into every conversation about islam) and our fight against communism...an ideology."
I DO NOT consider myself as you say "poor lil ol´muslims" nor do i think Muhammad Ali or Erik Schrody aka EVERLAST of "jump around"(THE IRISH IN THE HOUSE!!") fame considers themselves either.
This being said i say to you "Saoirse" ENJOY being "sick and tired" for a long long time because we Americans of The Islam faith are not going away nor will we stint in our duty to the red white and blue.
(Note: I have edited this as i was a wee bit harsh in my wording)
That being said so long as U.S.Government ,i.e. Justice Department and Supreme Court Rulings hold Islam to be a Faith a Religion
to be on equal par with others i see absoutely no reason to backtrack or "flip flop" on countering accusations of putting Islam on par
with National Socialism /Communism et al...and furthermore i see conclusively no reason whatever that a site of former and perhaps active
members of our beloved U.S. Special Forces / USN/USMC/USAF/DOD etc. does not due justice in following suit in upholding constituional rights per forma.
Finally It would never come in my mind to say "poor lil Christians or poor lil´Jews" not just that i have christian and jewish relatives and that in itself would also be against Islam.
The Reaper
08-20-2010, 17:43
"
Sooo looky here!
I DO NOT consider myself as you say "poor lil ol´muslims" nor do i think Muhammad Ali or Erik Schrody aka EVERLAST of "jump around"(THE IRISH IN THE HOUSE!!") fame considers themselves either.
This being said i say to you "Saoirse" ENJOY being "sick and tired" for a long long time i.e. til the day you die because we Americans of The Islam faith are not going away nor will we stint in our duty to the red white and blue.
Slander all you like but like Obi Wan Kenobi if you strike us down we just get even more stronger by the grace of God/Allah (Same)
Achmed The Terrorist says Hello to YOU Saorse"!!!!
Despite your exceeding UnAmerican Prejudices and Religio-centerism´s!!
That is strike two.
You might want to look at the number of American Muslim soldiers who have killed their comrades as well as those who have served honorably. The ratio is not as favorable as you would seem to believe. People who disagree with you are not necessarily slanderous. How old are you, anyway?
Show others on this board the respect you would like to receive, or your time here will be brief.
TR
Slander ? Really daamn :rolleyes:
Everything I need to know about Islam, I learned on 11 Sep 2001!
Raschid:
This is not your house, and you are a guest here.
As such, you might want to tread lightly for a while till you get a feel for the board. SA will be very important.
TR
REGROUPING
I stand by my words as they are authentic
but will in future do my utmost
to abide by the rule of PS-Law until i learn the ropes.
There is a wide range of opinions here which is refreshing
i must give my arguments forcefully and mean no disrespect to anyone
as arderntly as i do put forth my argument for : "THIS WE WILL DEFEND!"
Thomas Jefferson gave a Ramadan Iftar for his "Staff"
"OPPRESS NOT , And LET YOURSEVES BE NOT OPPRESSED!"
Words of The Prophet Muhammad
The Reaper
08-20-2010, 19:46
Dear Reaper!
Thanks for your kind advice ...
Request clarification on"SA"(meaning etc.)
I stand by my words as they are authentic
but will in future do my utmost
to abide by the rule of PS-Law until i learn the ropes.
There is a wide range of opinions here which is refreshing
i must give my arguments forcefully and mean no disrespect to anyone
as arderntly as i do put forth my argument for : "THIS WE WILL DEFEND!"
Thomas Jefferson gave a Ramadan Iftar for his "Staff"
"OPPRESS NOT , And LET YOURSEVES BE NOT OPPRESSED!"
Words of The Prophet Muhammad
Understood.
Now follow this.
One argument at a time.
No name calling.
Stick to the facts.
If you are forceful again or ignore the instructions, you will be banned without any further warning.
Is English your native language?
Your quotes are not impressing me, BTW.
TR
I personally know a former Vice-Director National Security Agency who has reverted to Islam some 4o years ago.
Why revert? Why not convert?
Is it because the prophet Muhammad said “No babe is born upon Fitra (as a Muslim). It is his parents who make him a Jew or a Christian or a Polytheist” (Sahih Muslim, Book 033) ???
Just curious...
That is strike two.
You might want to look at the number of American Muslim soldiers who have killed their comrades as well as those who have served honorably. The ratio is not as favorable as you would seem to believe. People who disagree with you are not necessarily slanderous. How old are you, anyway?
Show others on this board the respect you would like to receive, or your time here will be brief.
TR
Strike two?? Are we talking Bowling or Baseball Sir?
( Am I allowed to Joke or is that "verboten"?)
OK Reaper i get your point.
I would like to know the exact ratio (which in future i will get)and would be very grateful on any statistics anyone may have i just know my father my uncle have served honorably and we have a Silver Star "in The Family"
I am not saying this to be facetious (sorry sounds very Dick Cavett-ish)
I will write a Handbook on Islam for the U.S. Army when i am finsihed with my current project(Islam in The German Army/ Waffen SS ;have been offered full support from The US Consulate Munich Press Attache´)
..but thats a year off...
And since you asked how old i am...i will say truthfully 43 years old.
but i am like Bugs Bunny kissing Elmer J. Fudd and then diving into my hole.
Why revert? Why not convert?
Is it because the prophet Muhammad said “No babe is born upon Fitra (as a Muslim). It is his parents who make him a Jew or a Christian or a Polytheist” (Sahih Muslim, Book 033) ???
Just curious...
HI T-Rock !
Its´actaully the other way around:
"Every child is born into Islam its just that later his parent turn him into
their religion" Deen ul Fitra = "The Religion Of Your Natural State/Condition"
Which means Absolute Mono-Theism not Trinitarism or Poly Theism.
thanks for asking
So I'm not even aware that I am a Muslim?
OK, from your POV on the issue of reverting to Islam, taking into consideration Sharia Law, if you consider me a Muslim who has yet to revert, and you give me the invitation to do so, and I do not accept, what happens next - under the Sunni Jurisprudence of Islamic Law?
-------------------
ETA
Since you have bowed out, allow me to quote your Sharia, I take it you are Sunni...
Unbelief (Kufr)
o9.6 (A: though if there is no caliph (def: o25), no permission is required).
c2.5 The unlawful (haram) is what the Law giver strictly forbids. Someone who commits an unlawful act deserves punishment...
(3) and unbelief (kufr), sins which put one beyond the pale of Islam (as discussed at o8.7) and neccessitate stating the Testification of faith (Shahada)...
o4:17 There is no indemnity for killing a non-Muslim...
(pgs 588-595)
o8.7 (2) to intend to commit unbelief, even if in the future. And like this intention is hesitating whether to do so or not: one therby immediately commits unbelief:
(15) to hold that any of Allah's messengers or prophets are liars, or to deny their being sent:
(19) to be sarcastic about any ruling of the Sacred Law:
(these are but a few)
BACK TO o8.0
o8.1 When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed.
o8.2 In such a case, it is obligatory for the caliph (A: or his representative) to ask him to repent and return to Islam. If he does, it is accepted from him, but if he refuses, he is immediately killed
(Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law Pages 30-45, 588-595, 595-610).
Pardon my French, but that's Fucked up...
Some I have seen on the web:
Turban Cowboy
Suspicious Packages (http://www.newser.com/story/97826/glenn-beck-greg-gutfeld-talk-gay-bar-names.html)
Al Gayda
The Velvet Sword
The Ba’ath Party (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/242916/greg-gutfelds-gay-bar-stephanie-gutmann)
The Ba'ath Party...Haaaaaaaaa!!!, I laughed so loud my dog started barking:D:D:D
Around 50 Muslims were murdered on that day in WTC (One a NYC Police Academy Cadet/ Rescue Team Member).
Islam is an ideology and Muslims are individuals living under that ideology. Of all those who have been oppressed and victimized by the religion of Islam, including the nearly 3,000 murdered on 9/11, the greatest victims are the Muslims themselves...
alright4u
08-21-2010, 00:20
Islam is an ideology and Muslims are individuals living under that ideology. Of all those who have been oppressed and victimized by the religion of Islam, including the nearly 3,000 murdered on 9/11, the greatest victims are the Muslims themselves...
Are you out of you damn mind?:o
Are you out of you damn mind
IMHO, Islam is a political ideology rather than a religion because it is inherently political.
Its doctrine and laws (Sharia) puts pressure on everyone to follow that ideology, and it requires rules and laws on how the non-Muslim, or the Kafir are to be treated and governed.
The laws of Islam attempt to govern folks like me who do not adhere to their religion, which is Supremacist in nature, an ideology that requires subjugation.
If I have lost my mind for coming to this conclusion, Oh well :D I do pity those who cannot escape, and those who do not chose it, those born into Islam, their children... :(
alright4u
08-21-2010, 02:26
Your Interests include Navy SEALS in RVN. Please tell Captain Bailey you are a nice guy.