I had intended to merely to defend, on moral grounds, the now fully born opposition to the Ground Zero mosque. The Left frames any forthright censure of the project as xenophobic and unjustified; I was primarily concerned with offering a counter argument based on the practical effectiveness of nationalism and patriotic symbolism:
This debate isn't necessarily about Ground Zero, but rather about the national capitulation we must endure if diversity and tolerance, instead of national vigor, become the highest values. Too much of a great thing, constitutional republicanism, can ultimately cause a nation's downfall.Further, leftists purvey the specious claim that any opposition tacitly castigates all Muslims. This romantic statement neglects the inherent ethos of Islam, a religion premised on military conquest and a Holy book rife with diktats to that end and lacking in allegorical sentiments that now underpin Christian liberalism. But ignoring the sickening argument of America's culpability in the attacks, Muslims undeniably did it. Opposition to the mosque doesn't impugn all Muslims, but simply notes the correspondence between the attacks and the religion that supported their actions.
Basically, mosque opponents view this as an unnecessary symbolic gesture. Perhaps the mosque's backers repudiate this extreme ideology, but nonetheless, you can't fault people for making the trivial jump given such an emotion charged situation. Is it logical? Maybe not. But again, reductionist and naively philosophical thinking ignores the primacy of emotion in our personal and national lives.
A nation must maintain a cohesive narrative and spirit to prosper. It must inculcate its citizens with an unshakable patriotism and a collective loyalty, pragmatic values that admittedly don't always vibe with rigid logic. Allowing a foreign entity to erect such a structure implies we no longer have that backbone. It showcases the complete enervation of our national solidarity. It illustrates how we've lost the ability to differentiate between ourselves and our nation and that of another peoples.
The mosque fits squarely in with this gradual decay of American sovereignty, commenced with the degradation of private rights and now continuing with the stigmatization of any conservative view as well as the political and popular glorification of foreign peoples. The elite have perverted the American narrative, once a celebration of our singular success, morality, and daring, into a globalist doctrine that consciously denigrates the Republic's creators and fully lacks a cultural tradition. This paradigm demands we ignore our own emotional desires because a foreign entity intends to insensitively trample on them. And a nation that sees itself merely as a vehicle for others, a nation that has no loyalty to its own peoples or traditional institutions, is doomed to fail due to its own divisiveness and delusional Marxism.
The solution is rather simple. Protest this until they can't handle it and then outlaw Muslim immigration. Funny though that the White House initially eschewed comment on this local matter and continues to dodge an actual judgment, yet last year, Obama "stupidly" and hastily discussed a local disorderly conduct arrest.
32 comments:
'Dave', a sanctimonious liberal interlocutor, pointed out a contradiction in my post; namely, that I accept the notion of fundamental religious freedoms, yet somehow foresee banning the mosque via state intervention.
Funny, I was thinking about this issue the past few days. Rod Dreher has an interesting post on this topic also, a hypothetical thought experiment where a group of American Orthodox Christians wish to build a chapel and cultural center in Srebrenica. I wonder what 'Dave' would think about that?
http://www.bigquestionsonline.com/blogs/rod-dreher/a-thought-experiment
I also thought about a hypothetical situation where the Mormons wished to build a temple on Christopher Street in New York City, right across from the Stonewall Inn. (Christopher Street is the "gay area" of NYC, and the Stonewall Inn was the site of the gay riots in the 60's)
What do you think would be the reaction from the "Lefties" to the Mormon plans on this issue? Would 'Dave' have any opposition to the Mormons, or is he steadfast in his belief in freedom of religion?
I don't think anyone believes the "State" should step in and prevent the mosque, but most people agree it is in bad taste.
I think many of those in favor of the mosque are simply playing politics - it's a way of them "giving the middle finger" to their perceived enemies on the right, i.e. "those middle American dolts who love Sarah Palin".
Message to 'Dave' - Wow! You've made an amazing discovery! You've found out that we're all hypocritical and inconsistent in our political beliefs! Welcome to the real world!
As well as next month's anniversary of 9/11, there's a more imminent though lesser known Islamic anniversary - the murderous child-rape orgy at Beslan in early September 2004.
Muslim terrorists killed and tortured countless victims. Young girls were raped with gun barrels and other objects. Children were forced to drink their own urine before being executed. And to make matters worse, the MSM tried to cover up all Islamic involvement, and have done so ever since.
Both anniversaries provide grim but necessary 'teaching moments' to educate the American people about Islam. We owe it to the victims to tell the truth and clear through the Islamic lies.
The 9/11 attack wasn't an abberation caused by 'militants' who had hijacked the 'peaceful religion' of Islam. The attack was a direct consequence of standard Islamic teaching on the need to kill Harbis.
Terrorism and intimidation are essential features of Islam without which it cannot survive.
Similarly, the sadism and pedophilia of Beslan stem directly from the example set by the 'Perfect Man', the murdering, child-raping false prophet Mohammed.
In commemorating these anniversaries, we need to avoid just preaching to choir. We need to copy the tactics of the jihadists with their mosques in every town and 'Think Globally, Act Locally'.
The blogosphere is fine for communicating globally with other Islamically Aware bloggers, but to reach the bulk of the people we also need to use local forums, online local news media, social networks etc.
All necessary information is HERE - http://crombouke.blogspot.com/2010/01/everything-you-need-to-know-about-islam.html - Go forth and multiply it!
Unbelievable dissembling from the Associated Press:
http://www.ap.org/pages/about/pressreleases/pr_081910b.html
1. We should continue to avoid the phrase "ground zero mosque" or "mosque at ground zero" on all platforms. (We’ve very rarely used this wording, except in slugs, though we sometimes see other news sources using the term.) The site of the proposed Islamic center and mosque is not at ground zero, but two blocks away in a busy commercial area. We should continue to say it’s “near” ground zero, or two blocks away.
WE WILL CHANGE OUR SLUG ON THIS STORY LATER TODAY from “BC-Ground Zero Mosque” to “BC-NYC Mosque.”
In short headlines, some ways to refer to the project include:
_ mosque 2 blocks from WTC site
_ Muslim (or Islamic) center near WTC site
_ mosque near ground zero
_ mosque near WTC site
Gosh, wonder why people have trouble trusting the media.
It is an accurate statement. The mosque is two blocks from Ground Zero and a building sits between where the mosque would be an WTC. Personally, that makes a big difference to me. If the mosque were actually on Ground Zero, I'd think the govt should step in to prevent it getting built. That area is so densely built up that two blocks away does not equate right next to. Hundreds of businesses and organizations can exist between two blocks.
"I had intended to merely to defend, on moral grounds, the now fully born opposition to the Ground Zero mosque. "
What exactly is the point of this opposition if it has no potential force to it? There can be no legal opposition to a mosque being built on private property. Even if the building were a historical landmark, the mosque could still be there, they just wouldn't be allowed to alter the appearance of the building. If 90% of manhattan decided to vehemently oppose the mosque, how exactly would that justify the mosque not being built? Is it going to be forced out due to an angry mob? That would be even subpar to the govt deciding what religion can be practiced where because that would not even be representing a rule of law.
If the goal of the right is to whine until the Muslims feel so unwanted that they voluntarily move their mosque, then the right is even more stupid than the left. Practicing Muslims don't care if their behavior is offensive or unwanted by the west.
It is infantile to call a mosque near Ground Zero a symbol of Islamic imperialization. It is a fact that pretending that the other 250+ mosques in New York City are any less a form of Islamic imperialization is a symbol of delusion.
Holy Shiva!!!
Someone get "FemX" OUT of here!!!
My boys in India knew how to deal with the "Religion of Peace"!!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babri_Mosque
Surely you American firangis can at the very LEAST deal with this "woman"!!!!
Or do I have to send some of my Shiv Sena boys to America and have them take care of her for you!!!!!
Are you firangis that LAME that you have to outsource all your problem solving to India????
This from "The Price of Altruism":
"Xenophobia, Hamilton stated - even relishing cruelty to others - was selected for in the evolution of man, since altruistic groups must expand at the expense of other groups and to do this they need to fight them.
"What produces altruism and kindness at one level only serves to produce hatred and violence at the other."
* W.D. Hamilton
I personally am in favor of continuing a culture of altruism and kindness.
FeministX,
Lucretia was just one woman, raped at a time when that crime wasn't considered all that big of a deal. From her victimization the Republic of Rome was born.
Movements are often built around outrages. Nations can be created by such movements. Will it succeed, or fail? I can't predict the future. Nor can others, no matter what they claim.
"Lucretia was just one woman, raped at a time when that crime wasn't considered all that big of a deal."
Yet outrageous enough to bring down the powerful?
It can't be both "no big deal" and "outrageous".
Rape was a big deal. It got you the death penalty.
I guess I wasn't as clear as I thought.
Rape per se was not considered a big deal in Rome before the Code of Justinian.
The Rape of Lucretia was considered a big deal, because it was considered a direct insult to the people of Rome. Surely the important elements were:
(1) Lucretia was considered the most virtuous of Roman women,
(2) her attacker was the king's son,
(3) the king was a foreigner,
(4) Lucretia took her own life rather than living with the shame (making the symbolic link between an insult and a mortal wound more literal and undeniable).
On Sept. 11, the landing gear assembly of one of the planes used in the attack [United Flight 175] crashed through the roof of what was then a Burlington Coat Factory.
"I don't think anyone believes the "State" should step in and prevent the mosque, but most people agree it is in bad taste."
The State already stepped in and APPROVED the Mosque.
Commenters around the blogosphere seem to be under the collective delusion that New York City (of all places in the US) is some kind of laissez-faire utopia where anyone who owns a plot of land can build whatever they want. Have you people ever heard of "zoning"? This mosque required approval from the government, which it received. Unfortunately, the people trying to rebuild a Greek Orthodox (Christian) Church that was destroyed on 9/11 haven't been so lucky. You idiots still think this is about "religious freedom"?
The article says that church is demanding more than 60 million dollars worth of public money. I see no evidence that anyone was denying them permission to build the church. The city just denied them additional moneys for the project. Is the mosque asking for public funding?
Exactly what part of conservative philosophy supports the use of 60 million+ dollars to reconstruct a church?
Exactly what part of conservative philosophy supports the use of 60 million+ dollars to reconstruct a church?
So where is the "Cordoba Initiative" going to get the $100 million to build their "center for tolerance"?
Not to mention that $100 million cost. $100 million? To build a tribute to peace and tolerance, they need $100 million? Couldn't that money be better spent, say, aiding Haiti?
http://www.forbes.com/2010/07/07/ground-zero-mosque-islam-opinions-columnists-abigail-esman.html
http://www.forbes.com/2010/07/30/imam-faisal-ground-zero-mosque-money-opinions-columnists-claudia-rosett.html
I wonder where the "Cordoba Intiative" is going to raise $100 million from?
Maybe "FemX" could enlighten us on that point as well?
FemX,
Liberalism is a suicide pact. It is not a sustainable basis on which to maintain a society.
Wade Nichols,
Raising $100 mil to build a mosque near the WTC location will be easy. What wealthy closet jihadist will be able to resist the appeal?
This is what is so funny about the Ground Zero Mosque. It costs $100 mil and the money will be raised in Muslim countries. What will be the biggest motive by far for donations? Location, location, location.
What's so special about the location? Wink, wink.
Great idea for where to put the mosque because the location makes fund-raising so easy.
Exactly what part of conservative philosophy opposes adherents (of any nationality) of a religion from funding a place of worship?
Exactly what part of conservative philosophy opposes adherents (of any nationality) of a religion from funding a place of worship? - FeministX
It sounds like you're still thinking of us as classical liberals or libertarians or something. Better to understand the HBD / alternative right as conservative nationalists. Not perfect, but better. Surely there is more to rightism than anti-tax and anti-regulation.
Technically, I can't answer your question, but the aspects of conservative nationalism that militate against the mosque are:
- the sense that not all religions are created equal, since behavior matters and not all religionists behave in the same patterns,
- the sense that national pride is a real and important thing, and that from time to time it needs state protection,
- the sense that national defense is about more than missiles and troops,
- the sense that before national enemies attack, they often test the mettle of the nation with insults and provocation.
If you vehemently disagree with all those positions, you're probably not a conservative nationalist.
FemX,
You support a philosophy that is a suicide pact in the long run. Why do you do this?
To have a rights-based society requires that people have values and attachments that cause them to want to respect the rights of others. The Koran has basic teachings about Muslims versus non-Muslims that are incompatible with a rights-based society. It is the worst major religion in the world. The Koran holds that non-Muslims should be second class citizens or slaves or dead.
@ B Lode:
Very Nicely put. I hope I got the same point across in the post (last 2 paragraphs).
"Surely there is more to rightism than anti-tax and anti-regulation."
What you propose has never been part of rightism in America. It might be upism or downism. Honestly, what you propose most resembles the social aspects of facism.
"Technically, I can't answer your question, but the aspects of conservative nationalism that militate against the mosque are:
- the sense that not all religions are created equal, since behavior matters and not all religionists behave in the same patterns,"
Fine if that is your sense. It's even factually accurate if that is your sense, but it is not constitutional, and it is not American. A religion can preach anything that does not violate other laws. They can even preach the virtues of human sacrifice so long as they don't actively incite people to commit human sacrifice. Islam was around in the time of the founding fathers, and several of them specifically noted that they took no particular issue with that religion. That is probably because of their ignorance and because of the relative disorganization of the religion at the time, but there is nothing in American tradition which opposes Islam so long as Islam is defined as a religion.
"- the sense that national pride is a real and important thing, and that from time to time it needs state protection,"
It's of no importance to me. Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious as far as I am concerned. A nation simply defines a scope of where a set of laws applies. It has no sentimental value to me. I am no more loyal to the US than I am to Canada, the UK or Scandinavia. Any westernized country with a good human rights record is acceptable to me.
"- the sense that national defense is about more than missiles and troops,"
And?
"- the sense that before national enemies attack, they often test the mettle of the nation with insults and provocation."
This is just silly. There are more than 1 billion muslims in the world, and they are not a monolithic enemy. Granted, all of them that practice any form of Islam according to the Quran believe in a vile and inhumane system, but they cannot all be classed as a single enemy planning an attack. The people building this mosque believe themselves to be progressive. The second main leader of the mosque project is an unveiled woman. I doubt they are proposing an insult to America on behalf of the Taliban and their fellow jihadis.
This mosque project in no way resembles the conquest of Constantinople. Muslims were already in the US, then some other muslims caused 911, then some muslims in the US want to build a mosque two blocks from WTC. I don't think there is any such thing as moderate Islam, but I at least believe there are people that delude themselves into thinking that Islam is progressive. I do not think such people enjoy provoking, attacking or insulting.
I should add that the extremism or lack thereof of the mosque builders does not affect my stance towards them. Even if they were Wahabbi extremists that wanted to paint "death to America" in giant arabic letters all of their mosque, I wouldn't oppose their right to build it there. Allowing them to build such a mosque would clearly show that even they cannot infringe on the absolute religious freedom of the people of this country. The concept of religious freedom remains unscathed.
However, I will note simply that it is illegal for a religion to preach behavior that is illegal. Thus, one cannot have sex with a 5 yr old boy because it is sanction by a religion. Similarly, when Imams preach in favor of shariah law, they are commiting a crime by advocating a legal system that is in conflict with our own. It is already illegal to incite people to ignore US law in favor of some other kind of law. Hence, I would find it quite fair to prosecute all who prosteletyze Islamic fundamentalism in the US.
What you propose has never been part of rightism in America. - FeministX
"Never" is a strong word. Never been any opposition to anti-Western religion, never been any state religion, never been any support of official retaliation against insults by foreigners?
Do you consider yourself a rightist? If not, is it odd for a non-rightist to be defining us?
It's even factually accurate if that is your sense, but it is not constitutional, and it is not American.
There has to be something motivating you to defend what you see as Americanism, but it can't be patriotism. In any case, the First Amendment doesn't refer to any state action and thus it cannot bind the states. It only binds Congress. New York should (and won't) take the steps necessary to stop the mosque.
They can even preach the virtues of human sacrifice so long as they don't actively incite people to commit human sacrifice.
A fine-line distinction to possibly be settled by a jury. But "settled" online in a small area for a short time. Islamic rulers will continue to preach war against the unbelievers until the unbelievers pay their special tax. Islamic individuals will continue to kill us. I'm not going to sit around waiting to die.
That is probably because of their ignorance and because of the relative disorganization of the religion at the time, but there is nothing in American tradition which opposes Islam so long as Islam is defined as a religion.
Increasingly, people are defining it as a politico-military ideology with religious frosting, or something like that. Over the next few years, as Western obsequiousness encourages Islamic arrogance, this new definition will become increasingly valid.
A nation simply defines a scope of where a set of laws applies. It has no sentimental value to me.
But surely there is a pattern as to what the laws are and how they are enforced? Can't the pattern generate a somewhat emotive sort of goodwill?
I am no more loyal to the US than I am to Canada, the UK or Scandinavia. Any westernized country with a good human rights record is acceptable to me.
Out of curiosity, why did you pick the United States? I can only guess that the lack of a national religion has something to do with it ... with the Queens of the UK, Denmark, etc. the heads of their national churches, it's harder to make the case that all other religions must be officially tolerated no matter how wickedly their members act.
"- the sense that national defense is about more than missiles and troops,"
And?
... Sometimes it includes protecting the objects of our pride, like national monuments, parks, battlefields, and cemeteries.
There are more than 1 billion muslims in the world, and they are not a monolithic enemy.
Agreed, they simply have joined a religion which declares them to be, and encourages them to believe they are, our monolithic enemy.
Granted, all of them that practice any form of Islam according to the Quran believe in a vile and inhumane system, but they cannot all be classed as a single enemy planning an attack.
One of the ways to figure out who is and who isn't advocating an attack is whether or not they acquire buildings that their co-religionists destroyed in a kamikaze attack and use them to erect buildings dedicated to a religion which orders them to attack us. I mentioned this before and I didn't see your response ... are you aware that it was the landing gear of the United flight that destroyed the Burlington Coat Factory? It was a fortunate accident that no one died there.
The people building this mosque believe themselves to be progressive. The second main leader of the mosque project is an unveiled woman. I doubt they are proposing an insult to America on behalf of the Taliban and their fellow jihadis.
You and I have different guesses as to the mindsets of the people planning the mosque. Why did they invoke the name of Cordoba? Couldn't they have named the proposed mosque after a piece of land they didn't take from Christian Visigoths several centuries before the Crusades? Isn't it natural to be ginger with the feelings of a group your co-religionists have harmed so much so recently? If a bunch of Presbyterians went on a religiously-motivated killing spree in south-central Buenos Aires, I wouldn't want propose a new Presbyterian church there for a generation or so unless I thought very little of Argentines.
Hence, I would find it quite fair to prosecute all who prosteletyze Islamic fundamentalism in the US.
Okay, so maybe you would oppose the giant Arabic letters if they said, "You must go and deliver death to America". Is that right?
I don't think you're being inconsistent but I wouldn't have guessed anyone would draw lines quite where you have.
I am no more loyal to the US than I am to Canada, the UK or Scandinavia. Any westernized country with a good human rights record is acceptable to me.
This is a deplorable, despicable attitude that I've encountered several times amongst ungrateful naturalized U.S. citizen "persons of color".
One woman in particular was a Filipino woman that worked in my office when I was in Tokyo, Japan. Several times when I was having lunch with co-workers and clients, clients would ask her if she was an American, and she was always adamant in her reply: "No, I'm not an American, I'm ASIAN". (Even though she carried a U.S. passport)
But one day someone asked her where she lived in Japan, and tellingly she said: "I live near the American Embassy (in Tokyo), because if there's ever a disaster such as an earthquake, I want to be near the U.S. Embassy."
Believe me, if the "shit ever hits the fan", and "FemX" is ever in trouble overseas or even here in New York, she's going to be the first person whining and screaming that she's an American, and that she should be given priority in an emergency.
No one expects you to break out and sing Lee Greenwood's "God Bless the USA", but have some respect for the country that accepts "wretched refuse" such as YOU.
"Exactly what part of conservative philosophy opposes adherents (of any nationality) of a religion from funding a place of worship?"
Generally speaking, conservatives oppose groups which wish to destroy their own country, religion, and traditions.
Obviously I don't speak for all conservatives.
"However, I will note simply that it is illegal for a religion to preach behavior that is illegal. Thus, one cannot have sex with a 5 yr old boy because it is sanction by a religion. Similarly, when Imams preach in favor of shariah law, they are commiting a crime by advocating a legal system that is in conflict with our own. "
That's complete nonsense. People have a first amendment right to advocate for sharia law.
"Liberalism is a suicide pact. It is not a sustainable basis on which to maintain a society."
I would say it depends on how you define "liberalism," but I basically agree.
If you want to have a (lasting) state with religious freedom, you need to keep out people whose religion says that other peoples' religious freedom needs to be destroyed.
If by "liberalism," you mean modern Leftism, it's not really a matter of sustainability since the goal of Leftism is, in effect, to destroy the West.
Hey, thanks for the shout out. I was at a wedding or I'd have thanked you sooner. (As sanctimoniously as possible.)
Anyway, I don't agree with every point you've made in this post, but think the spirit of the argument is really commendable.
"This romantic statement neglects the inherent ethos of Islam, a religion premised on military conquest and a Holy book rife with diktats to that end and lacking in allegorical sentiments that now underpin Christian liberalism."
But you're comparing the most primitive expression of Islam with the most evolved (or degraded) versions of Christianity. Evoking the evolution of Christian liberalism demonstrates that religions can change, that assimilation is possible.
That's why professedly moderate Islamic institutions should be encouraged, and shouldn't be lumped in with the extremists that attacked us. Using examples from the Koran as proof that Islam is hostile to Americanism seems to ignore the way religion actually functions in life. Every religion is filled with little rules that aren't kept.
"A nation must maintain a cohesive narrative and spirit to prosper."
But the narrative I was taught was that we as a nation preached humble adherence to a set of principles. That America was defined by the flame we kept.
"Protest this until they can't handle it..."
What would the signs say?
I was at a wedding or I'd have thanked you sooner.
Let me guess - you were in Massachusetts, it was 2 gay guys getting married, and you were the flower girl!
Dave claims:
But you're comparing the most primitive expression of Islam with the most evolved (or degraded) versions of Christianity. Evoking the evolution of Christian liberalism demonstrates that religions can change, that assimilation is possible.
There are some problems with this argument:
1) Christianity did not evolve from a religion of savage conquest to what we know of it today. It didn't become the religion of conquerors until invaders overran the Roman Empire and converted to Christianity. Then they retained much of their warrior ethos. Though Christianity did reduce the amount of conquest tendencies. Look at what it did to the Vikings for example.
2) Islam has been most resistant to modernity. Among the likely reasons for this:
- Muslim countries have lower IQs than European countries.
- Islam, founded by a military leader and charismatic ruler, is a far more political religion defining behaviors for states. Read the Koran and compare to the New Testament. The subject matter and teachings are different in ways reflected in how Muslim governments rule today and how Jihadists want to change the world. Compare this to Jesus' famous "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's". Much less confronting of the state.
Cultures and religions are different in ways that matter and are enduring. The liberal hope that Islam is going to turn into fluffy puppies reflect liberalism's argument presumption of universalism. No, the world is not all going to become secular and liberal. Liberalism does not represent the End Of History.
I wrote those three posts for nothing. I guess arguing with feminists really is a waste of time, even if they profess a belief in HBD, the wickedness of Islam, etc.
"Cultures and religions are different in ways that matter and are enduring. The liberal hope that Islam is going to turn into fluffy puppies reflect liberalism's argument presumption of universalism."
There are thousands of examples of an evolving, modernizing Islam. We are talking about one of them now.
Meanwhile, I appreciate you numbering your arguments, but the first is completely incoherent nonsense and the second is more like pointless babble. I'm not sure how you get from these two word-salads to the conclusion that in all possible future universes there exists no such thing as a modernized version of today's Islam. My guess is that you already "know" the conclusion in your heart-bone, and so assume that any random collection of thoughts thus prove what you wish to be true.
"No, the world is not all going to become secular and liberal."
Oh, darn. Along the same lines, what are tomorrow's winning lottery numbers?
Post a Comment