Ground Zero mosque wins approval !!

[Solomon2]

However, if by 'success of assault on America' you are referring specifically to terrorist attacks like 9/11, I am not sure why the congregation would tolerate such an Imam, and indeed such a man should be kicked out by the organization hosting the Imam and protested against by those frequenting the mosque.

But why give such an Imam the opportunity to do so in the first place? Kicking him out will only mean he'll have earned his stripes. You know the pattern. A few months later he'll be in the frontier areas brainwashing children to suicide-bomb Pakistani shrines.

If such a loony does make it into a position to preach, and preaches hatred and terrorism, it will be the response of the Cordoba Initiative and the congregationalists that will determine the character of both.

And if they defend their loony out of personal embarrassment or affection, what then? It's simply better not to have had such a mosque built at all, yes?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

But why give such an Imam the opportunity to do so in the first place? Kicking him out will only mean he'll have earned his stripes. You know the pattern. A few months later he'll be in the frontier areas brainwashing children to suicide-bomb Pakistani shrines.

Unless such an Imam volunteered the information that he would be taking such a position in his sermons when getting hired, there would be no way of knowing what he would say. An Imam could also end up getting radicalized after being appointed to the mosque, perhaps after several years. Not the community or organization's fault, in not detecting hidden extremist sympathies, in such scenarios.

In kicking out such an individual and taking a strong position against his/her ideology and condemning him, the congregation sends a strong message about what their values are and what they support.

And if they defend their loony out of personal embarrassment or affection, what then? It's simply better not to have had such a mosque built at all, yes?

Why would they all defend the loony if the case against him was clear cut? Has that happened with other Muslim communities in America, where the individual concerned made clear cut statements such as the one in the hypothetical scenario being discussed, and the community continued supporting the individual?

 

[muse]

We have seena great deal of Indian apprehension about the building of a Mosque in NY - The Indian, true to his Majoritarian instinct, has offered a number of arguments citing polls and other Indians have offered ideology based on revisionist, doctored up history - these have been entirely unhelpful -- But yet it is undeniable that the issue is controversial -- We have offered that the issue is best framed as an issue of private property and the constitutional gauantee of freedom of religion i America - not India, or elsewhere, but in America.

We further argued that Indians presenting arguments based on their Majoritarian Instinct, may realize that if constitutional liberties are challeneged succerssfully on the basis of polls and numbers, that is to say if a MAJORITARIAN INSTINCT is allowed to prevail, the future of Afghanistan, sorry USA, would appear to be bleak, given the primacy of the majoritarian instinct. That Indians under diaper head and Monkey god monkiers would suffer at the hands of those they seem intent on supporting as an expression of the desire tocut off one's own nose to spite others.


Below is a piece I hope you will examine critically and comment on, it is a vision of two Americas, two frames , two lens, with which we may examine the issue - The author of the Piece Mr. Douthat seeks to offer a challenege by attacking Imam abdul Rauf and by suggesting that one group in particular, name protestants of some sort have the right to demand behaviour and attitudes of other Americans -- Once, before and during Martin Luther King's agitation, similar arguments were made, how have they fared?




August 15, 2010
Islam in Two Americas
By ROSS DOUTHAT
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.

 

[fawwaxs]

Mosque near ground zero becoming political football

WASHINGTON: Republicans pounced on US President Barack Obama’s comments supporting the right to build a mosque near Ground Zero Sunday, painting him as out of touch less than three months before key mid-term elections.



Democrats and Republicans squared off on Sunday talk shows to hammer home their positions on the Islamic center which includes a mosque, and argue whether it was appropriate for Obama to wade into the fray.



“This is not about freedom of religion, because we all respect the right of anyone to worship according to the dictates of their conscience,” US Senator John Cornyn, a Texas Republican, said on Fox News Sunday.



“But I do think it's unwise... to build a mosque at the site where 3,000 Americans lost their lives as a result of a terrorist attack. And I think to me it demonstrates that Washington, the White House, the administration, the president himself seems to be disconnected from the mainstream of America.” The hot-button issue has stirred raw emotions in the United States, which marks the ninth anniversary of the September 11 attacks next month, and Cornyn said he believes it might resonate with voters at the polls.



“I think this is sort of the dichotomy that people sense, that they're being lectured to, not listened to, and I think that's the reason why a lot of people are very upset with Washington,” he said.



Polls show a majority of Americans oppose building the mosque near Ground Zero, but they also show that a majority support the right of Muslims to build it.



Senator Jack Reed, a Democrat, did not answer directly if he thought the mosque should be built, but said he supported its designed intention to provide interfaith communication and dialogue.



“But it can’t be there, and I don't think it should be allowed to be there, if it's going to be some type of way to undercut the truth, the reality, of 9/11 which was an attack by fanatical Muslims against the United States,” he told the program.



Republican Representative Peter King of New York acknowledged the right to build the mosque but challenged Islamic leaders to “listen to the deep wounds and anguish that this is causing to so many good people” and consider moving the center to a site further away.



“This is such a raw wound and they are just pouring salt into it,” King told CNN's “State of the Union” program.



Democrat Jerrold Nadler, also a New York congressman, said it was not up to politicians to decide.



“As to whether the imam wants to have the mosque somewhere else, that's up to them, and government should not pressure them one way or the other.”Obama on Friday said Muslims “have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country.”



But the next day Obama clarified that he was not commenting “on the wisdom of making the decision to put a mosque there.”Several Republicans have seized on Obama's comments, including Sarah Palin, who appeared to mock him on her Twitter feed by saying that taking a stance on the mosque “is not above your pay grade.”

 

[fawwaxs]

 

[muse]

Is Obama also playing politics with this as well and what will he do when draws too much heat?

When MLK began his movement in the South, how did a majority of those in the South see his movement?

For success, this movement must be framed in conscience (freedom of religion, private property) but as author Douthat ponts out, another venue, namely culture also has to be considered, for success in culture, it has to asserted that this is a project of US Muslims - in the same way that Black population in America did not agree to be a party to their own disenfranchisement, and by refusing to do so, changed culture and the content of conscience, so too must US muslims assert their constitutional liberties and in doing so, change culture and the content of conscience.

American laws and liberties apply to all Americans, whether Muslim or otherwise, or they become meaningless, just when the US needs them to be reinfused with meaning, with substance.

 

[gambit]

There is another Mosque 4 blocks away from Ground Zero.

Consider this a victory statement : despite all the military knowledge you might have, your heart is a cold rock.

And I say it is pretty cold hearted to propose to build that mosque there.

If you think you are fighting Islam you will lose. If you are fighting terrorists who happen to be Muslim, you should treat them as criminals and not representatives.

No one is fighting against Islam. Americans never bothered to think about Islam prior to Sept 11, 2001, so we had no reasons to be hostile towards muslims in the first place. However, this mosque, if built, will be one of those reasons that will move American attitude from antagonistic to hostility. You should pay close attention to the public opinion polls. Of those polled, overwhelmingly they oppose the mosque, but when asked about the legality of the proposal, overwhelmingly it is the opposite, that they will respect the rule of law and they will allow the build. And once it is built, Americans will see that as a reminder of the insensitivity of any muslims who goes there. You should also consider the opinions of muslims who oppose the proposal for the same reasons Americans do.

 

[muse]

once it is built, Americans will see that as a reminder of the insensitivity of any muslims who goes there

On the contrary, once built, greater numbers of Americans will come together and it will in fact change the content of conscience in the US.

The exact same kind of argument was presented in opposition ot the civil rights movement of MLK - and because he did not buy into this rubbish about "feelings" the content of public conscience in the US changed - did it change for the better? I think so but some may not. Today the effort is made to challenege the idea that US Muslims are as American as any other, it is being argued that if US Muslims were really American, they would not build a Mosque on private property they own and exercise their constitutional liberties -- "Americans" will be angry we are told, if the Mosque goes ahead, but it is imperative, not just for safe guarding the liberties of all Americans, but also to reinfuse the public conscience with substance - "feelings" are not substance, they must never allowed to be substitute for conscience.

 

[gambit]

On the contrary, once built, greater numbers of Americans will come together and it will in fact change the content of conscience in the US.

The exact same kind of argument was presented in opposition ot the civil rights movement of MLK - and because he did not buy into this rubbish about "feelings" the content of public conscience in the US changed - did it change for the better? I think so but some may not. Today the effort is made to challenege the idea that US Muslims are as American as any other, it is being argued that if US Muslims were really American, they would not build a Mosque on private property they own and exercise their constitutional liberties -- "Americans" will be angry we are told, if the Mosque goes ahead, but it is imperative, not just for safe guarding the liberties of all Americans, but also to reinfuse the public conscience with substance - "feelings" are not substance, they must never allowed to be substitute for conscience.

White Americans' sympathies for blacks' social status was already evident, however disparate across the country, before King. King's greatness was his stature as a moral figure, he was a preacher, and his oratory skills. Blacks were also truly victims in ways muslims in America never were. So you cannot conflate the two. Nice try, though. But Americans will see through.

 

[muse]

Imam Abdul Rauf may not be a MLK and US Muslims may not have been slaves, but more than half of all US Muslims are Blacks, and US Muslims percieve themselves as a religious minority that has faces discrimination.

For the last 20 years US policy makers and media have gone into a frenzied overdrive attempting to paint problems US policy faces in the world as being the responsibility of Muslims around the world - indeed, US policy is held is disregard aroiund the world and by overwhelming majority of Muslims around the world - it is not Muslims or Islam that has changed or will change, it US policy that has change.

The content of patriotism "Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right, when wrong to be put right. " Carl Shurz

When wrong it must be put right! and it will be, you are quite wrong about how majorities thought about blacks in the US, but the civil rights movement changed that and changed the content of conscience in the US. Today anger, and a thirst for revenge unsatiated after the deaths of 600,000 Iraqi (Johns Hopkins figure) passes for conscience - it is neither conscience nor sanity but rather a rejection of the most elemental of American virtues, respect for the law and the following wisdom: "If you want to be free, there is but one way; it is to guarantee an equally full measure of liberty to all your neighbors. There is no other."
Carl Schurz

 

[gambit]

Imam Abdul Rauf may not be a MLK and US Muslims may not have been slaves, but more than half of all US Muslims are Blacks, and US Muslims percieve themselves as a religious minority that has faces discrimination.

And they will fail to show evidences of their plight.

For the last 20 years US policy makers and media have gone into a frenzied overdrive attempting to paint problems US policy faces in the world as being the responsibility of Muslims around the world - indeed, US policy is held is disregard aroiund the world and by overwhelming majority of Muslims around the world - it is not Muslims or Islam that has changed or will change, it US policy that has change.

US foreign policy is not the same as average America's views.

The content of patriotism "Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right, when wrong to be put right. " Carl Shurz

When wrong it must be put right! and it will be, you are quite wrong about how majorities thought about blacks in the US, but the civil rights movement changed that and changed the content of conscience in the US. Today anger, and a thirst for revenge unsatiated after the deaths of 600,000 Iraqi (Johns Hopkins figure) passes for conscience - it is neither conscience nor sanity but rather a rejection of the most elemental of American virtues, respect for the law and the following wisdom: "If you want to be free, there is but one way; it is to guarantee an equally full measure of liberty to all your neighbors. There is no other."
Carl Schurz

Like I said, Americans will see through any attempt to conflate any perceived muslim oppressed status anywhere in the world to that of America's treatment of our own muslims.

 

[muse]

If as you suggest "Americans" will see through this, why then oppose the exercise of consstitutional liberties?

What greater example of perception of discrimination is required than the opposition to the exercise of freedom of religion on private property?

Sorry you are angry, but that's a personal problem.

 

[True_Pakistan_Zindabad]

And they will fail to show evidences of their plight.

Says who? The legal expert as well as the military expert? Theres enough evidence to compile a class action lawsuit against the government and the entire media. Just wait buddy, the truth will swing full circle one day, one day soon.

 

[gambit]

If as you suggest "Americans" will see through this, why then oppose the exercise of consstitutional liberties?

What greater example of perception of discrimination is required than the opposition to the exercise of freedom of religion on private property?

How? Or are you now saying that for the muslims, any criticisms of muslims constitutes Constitutional violations? The best way to call attention to one's plight is to exaggerate any violations against one's personage and one's social peers. Blacks do not need to exaggerate during King's era.

---------- Post added at 05:33 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:32 AM ----------

Says who? The legal expert as well as the military expert? Theres enough evidence to compile a class action lawsuit against the government and the entire media. Just wait buddy, the truth will swing full circle one day, one day soon.

And we will wait for a very looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong time.

 

[muse]

Gambit

It is unfortunate that regadless of how many times you read the expression of this perception of being discriminated against, so many are unwilling to be open to it - these are US citizens we are talking about, you understand? Americans. Is there really any evidence or proof that will satisfy those who refuse to admit it?

Mayor Bloomberg, I think, has got the proportion of the problem just right, when he says that this is issue is the challenge of our lifetime - See, the numbers of US Muslims are not going to decrease, and they are all kinds of people, from all kinds of walks of life and such ill-informed and malicious oppositon only serves to make people more aware and active - so while in many cornersof the US, there are now and will be be in the future, much opposition, such opposition will serve to get more and more people to think more and feel less - in other words, US Muslims as full Americans exercising their constitutional liberties, is something we are going to see more of, not less of - and for some this may be the beginning of the end, of the ghettoization of the US Muslim in public perception. I certainly hope so.