The "WTC Mosque" hysteria, in a nutshell

[Doktor Howl]

That's some serious fucking ownage there, Cain.

[Adios]

No shit!

[Cain]

Beinart was an idiot for a serious number of years over the past decade, but in the past year or so he's been putting ownage of that quality out once every week or two.  He's even written stuff on Israel-Palestine that doesn't make me want to gouge my eyes out, a most impressive feat.

[Doktor Howl]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-08-17/ground-zero-mosque-controversy-america-has-disgraced-itself/

Remember when George W. Bush and his neoconservative allies used to say that the "war on terror" was a struggle on behalf of Muslims, decent folks who wanted nothing more than to live free like you and me? Remember when Karen Hughes paid millions to produce glitzy videos of Muslim Americans testifying about how free they were to practice their religion in the USA? Remember Bush's second inaugural, when he said "America's ideal of freedom" is "sustained in our national life by the truths of Sinai, the Sermon on the Mount, the words of the Koran?"

Once upon a time, Republicans were so confident that the vast majority of Muslims preferred freedom to jihad that they believed the U.S. could install democracy in Iraq within months. Now, confronted with a group of Muslim Americans who want to build a cultural center that includes Jews and Christians on the board (how many churches and synagogues do that?), GOP leaders call them terrorists because they don't share Benjamin Netanyahu's view of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Once upon a time, the "war on terror" was supposed to bring American values to Saudi Arabia. Now Newt Gingrich says we shouldn't build a mosque in Lower Manhattan until the Saudis build churches and synagogues in Mecca—which is to say, we're bringing Saudi values to the United States. I wonder how David Petraeus feels about all this. There he is, slogging away in the Hindu Kush, desperately trying to be culturally sensitive, watching GIs get killed because Afghans believe the U.S. is waging a war on Islam, and back home, the super-patriots on Fox News have... declared war on Islam.

So please, no more talk about those idealistic neoconservatives who are willing to expend blood and treasure so Afghans and Iraqis can live free. People in Basra and Kandahar had better hope that America's counterinsurgency warriors create a society in which they can practice their religion free of intimidation and insult. Because it's now clear they can't do so on the lower tip of the island of Manhattan.

Bump for the new page.  Bolding mine.

[Aucoq]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-08-17/ground-zero-mosque-controversy-america-has-disgraced-itself/

Remember when George W. Bush and his neoconservative allies used to say that the "war on terror" was a struggle on behalf of Muslims, decent folks who wanted nothing more than to live free like you and me? Remember when Karen Hughes paid millions to produce glitzy videos of Muslim Americans testifying about how free they were to practice their religion in the USA? Remember Bush's second inaugural, when he said "America's ideal of freedom" is "sustained in our national life by the truths of Sinai, the Sermon on the Mount, the words of the Koran?"

Once upon a time, Republicans were so confident that the vast majority of Muslims preferred freedom to jihad that they believed the U.S. could install democracy in Iraq within months. Now, confronted with a group of Muslim Americans who want to build a cultural center that includes Jews and Christians on the board (how many churches and synagogues do that?), GOP leaders call them terrorists because they don't share Benjamin Netanyahu's view of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Once upon a time, the "war on terror" was supposed to bring American values to Saudi Arabia. Now Newt Gingrich says we shouldn't build a mosque in Lower Manhattan until the Saudis build churches and synagogues in Mecca—which is to say, we're bringing Saudi values to the United States. I wonder how David Petraeus feels about all this. There he is, slogging away in the Hindu Kush, desperately trying to be culturally sensitive, watching GIs get killed because Afghans believe the U.S. is waging a war on Islam, and back home, the super-patriots on Fox News have... declared war on Islam.

So please, no more talk about those idealistic neoconservatives who are willing to expend blood and treasure so Afghans and Iraqis can live free. People in Basra and Kandahar had better hope that America's counterinsurgency warriors create a society in which they can practice their religion free of intimidation and insult. Because it's now clear they can't do so on the lower tip of the island of Manhattan.

A few years back, I was having a pretty heated discussion over our wonderful wars and the Israel-Palestinian conflict with a conservative Southern Baptist woman (the kind who wants to defend Israel against those subhuman Mooslems and then, once that's done, convert the Jews to Christians).  I used the term "crusade" in its general, secular meaning.  She jumped all over me for using it because it is a "religiously-charged" word, and the wars aren't about religion.  They're about bringing freedom to others!  I don't know where she is or what she's doing right now.  But I can only hope she's somewhere out there regretting her ignorant stance.  (I doubt it.)

It's sad as hell that these people eat up their own hypocritical bullshit.  But at least it's out in the open and perfectly clear for everyone to see.  The Christian Taliban stands proudly against America and what she stands for.

[Cain]

Yeah, religion plays no part in Israel-Palestine at all. 

Also, Muslims should suck it up and stop desecrating the hallowed Ground Zero, so the Dems don't lose in November:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-08-17/the-ground-zero-mosque-litmus-test/

The November elections are very close to becoming—if they haven't already so become—the first national elections in the United States whose results are determined by the location of a mosque. Call them, in fact, the "Mosque Elections."

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.

[Adios]

Yeah, religion plays no part in Israel-Palestine at all. 

Also, Muslims should suck it up and stop desecrating the hallowed Ground Zero, so the Dems don't lose in November:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-08-17/the-ground-zero-mosque-litmus-test/

The November elections are very close to becoming—if they haven't already so become—the first national elections in the United States whose results are determined by the location of a mosque. Call them, in fact, the "Mosque Elections."

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.

I am now weeping for the loss of a nation. My nation.

[Thurnez Isa]

Like I said the whole thing makes me wanna jump out a window and Im not even American

[BabylonHoruv]

Yeah, religion plays no part in Israel-Palestine at all. 

Also, Muslims should suck it up and stop desecrating the hallowed Ground Zero, so the Dems don't lose in November:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-08-17/the-ground-zero-mosque-litmus-test/

The November elections are very close to becoming—if they haven't already so become—the first national elections in the United States whose results are determined by the location of a mosque. Call them, in fact, the "Mosque Elections."

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.

Argh, we totally deserve shitty leaders.  I just hope the republicans that get in are against federal government and I can retreat to a nice liberal enclave and have them leave me the fuck alone.

[Cain]

Common sense on CNN:

Lemon:  Don't you think it's a bit different considering what happened on 9/11?  And the people have said there's a need for it in Lower Manhattan, so that's why it's being built there.   What about 10, 20 blocks . . . Midtown Manhattan, considering the circumstances behind this?  That's not understandable?

Patel:  In America, we don't tell people based on their race or religion or ethnicity that they are free in this place, but not in that place --

Lemon:  [interrupting] I understand that, but there's always context, Mr. Patel . . . this is an extraordinary circumstance.  You understand that this is very heated.  Many people lost their loved ones on 9/11 --

Patel: Including Muslim Americans who lost their loved ones. . .  .

Lemon:  Consider the context here.  That's what I'm talking about.

Patel:  I have to tell you that this seems a little like telling black people 50 years ago:  you can sit anywhere on the bus you like - just not in the front.

Lemon:  I think that's apples and oranges - I don't think that black people were behind a Terrorist plot to kill people and drive planes into a building.  That's a completely different circumstance.

Patel:  And American Muslims were not behind the terrorist plot either.

Sadly, this common sense is not present in Congress, where Democrats are now attacking dissident Republicans, like the attacks by Rep. Michael Arcuri of New York on his GOP challenger, Richard Hanna, for supporting the Cordoba House initiative.

[Requia ☣]

I really wish there was a 'burn down capitol hill' option on the ballot right now.

[Cain]

I was prompted by BH over at TCC to do some Googling, and it turns out not only is there a statue to Jesus at the "hallowed ground"* of the OK City bombing, but there is also a cathedral less than a block away.  Why are Christians threatening our values and way of life?


*Is it just me, or is there something rather disturbing, if historically accurate, about describing a site of politically inspired mass murder in such religious terminology?  I mean it's like referring to the areas where Catholic priests have raped little kids as "sacred space".

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

I was prompted by BH over at TCC to do some Googling, and it turns out not only is there a statue to Jesus at the "hallowed ground"* of the OK City bombing, but there is also a cathedral less than a block away.  Why are Christians threatening our values and way of life?


*Is it just me, or is there something rather disturbing, if historically accurate, about describing a site of politically inspired mass murder in such religious terminology?  I mean it's like referring to the areas where Catholic priests have raped little kids as "sacred space".

Well, Timothy McVeigh appears to have been motivated by anti-federal dogma more than the fact that the Branch Davidians were Christian, while the 9/11 bombers seem more clearly motivated by religious dogma.

Regardless, the "hallowed ground" point is still a great point, I hadn't considered that. There is something deeply fucked up, and yes, oddly appropriate about it.

[Triple Zero]

Common sense on CNN:

Lemon:  Don't you think it's a bit different considering what happened on 9/11?  And the people have said there's a need for it in Lower Manhattan, so that's why it's being built there.   What about 10, 20 blocks . . . Midtown Manhattan, considering the circumstances behind this?  That's not understandable?

Patel:  In America, we don't tell people based on their race or religion or ethnicity that they are free in this place, but not in that place --

Lemon:  [interrupting] I understand that, but there's always context, Mr. Patel . . . this is an extraordinary circumstance.  You understand that this is very heated.  Many people lost their loved ones on 9/11 --

Patel: Including Muslim Americans who lost their loved ones. . .  .

Lemon:  Consider the context here.  That's what I'm talking about.

Patel:  I have to tell you that this seems a little like telling black people 50 years ago:  you can sit anywhere on the bus you like - just not in the front.

Lemon:  I think that's apples and oranges - I don't think that black people were behind a Terrorist plot to kill people and drive planes into a building.  That's a completely different circumstance.

Patel:  And American Muslims were not behind the terrorist plot either.

BAM! more ownage.

[Cain]

I was prompted by BH over at TCC to do some Googling, and it turns out not only is there a statue to Jesus at the "hallowed ground"* of the OK City bombing, but there is also a cathedral less than a block away.  Why are Christians threatening our values and way of life?


*Is it just me, or is there something rather disturbing, if historically accurate, about describing a site of politically inspired mass murder in such religious terminology?  I mean it's like referring to the areas where Catholic priests have raped little kids as "sacred space".

Well, Timothy McVeigh appears to have been motivated by anti-federal dogma more than the fact that the Branch Davidians were Christian, while the 9/11 bombers seem more clearly motivated by religious dogma.

Regardless, the "hallowed ground" point is still a great point, I hadn't considered that. There is something deeply fucked up, and yes, oddly appropriate about it.

I think it's a question of where you draw the line.  Most of the 90s antifederalist movement was religiously motivated, and even though McVeigh was an agnostic, he was moving within a milieu of people who believed in Christian Identity inspired ideologies and worldviews.  Equally, many Al-Qaeda members are highly educated men, who seem to believe in Islam for more cultural and political reasons than strictly for religious reasons (they believe Islam provides a blueprint for living which stops men from slipping into ignorant, hedonistic barbarism and becoming weak, rather than because Allah sent the Archangel Gabriel to Mohammed to strike up a new convenant).