![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png)
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
David Harsanyi writes about the recent meme of "if you're against the mosque at Ground Zero, you're intolerant against Muslims." The exit quotation is the commentary's finale, a few essential questions about the project. Major food for thought for the weekend ahead.
Link: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/08/04/how_is_this_tolerance_106604.html
Exit quotation: "Though the Cordoba Initiative is under no obligation to do so, if its purpose is to battle extremism within Islam and build cooperation with other faiths, why not divulge the funders of the project? Why not unconditionally condemn Islamist terrorism?
"Neither has happened.
"Then again, even if we were boundlessly tolerant, there is an inescapable fact: This 13-story community center is going to be built two blocks from the worst modern atrocity committed in the name of Islam.
"Such a project is not just in poor taste; for many Americans, it confirms their concerns about Islam's provocative nature.
"How that helps interfaith dialogue remains a mystery."
Link: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/08/04/how_is_this_tolerance_106604.html
Exit quotation: "Though the Cordoba Initiative is under no obligation to do so, if its purpose is to battle extremism within Islam and build cooperation with other faiths, why not divulge the funders of the project? Why not unconditionally condemn Islamist terrorism?
"Neither has happened.
"Then again, even if we were boundlessly tolerant, there is an inescapable fact: This 13-story community center is going to be built two blocks from the worst modern atrocity committed in the name of Islam.
"Such a project is not just in poor taste; for many Americans, it confirms their concerns about Islam's provocative nature.
"How that helps interfaith dialogue remains a mystery."
no subject
Date: 2010-08-06 04:43 pm (UTC)If the answer is "no", I still have no idea why this is such a problem. And I don't get how this is a Conservative issue. We can't say we're for small government and then try to use the government to stop people from building a community center because they're the same religion as some recent terrorists.
no subject
Date: 2010-08-06 07:02 pm (UTC)Um no, because McVeigh didn't do it in the name of his religion. He wanted to revolt against the government, not the American people as a whole. Christianity had nothing to do with it.
no subject
Date: 2010-08-07 04:01 am (UTC)The memorial itself is incredible, if you ever get the chance to go.
Now, if they wanted to build some sort of Branch Dravidian compound next to the building, I bet there'd be issues there.
no subject
Date: 2010-08-06 11:44 pm (UTC)Oh, completely agreed. I just felt like it should be noted that not everyone thinks this is necessarily a conservative issue. It's that every time I've seen it brought up around here it always seems like proponents of the mosque are necessarily "liberal".
no subject
Date: 2010-08-07 03:08 pm (UTC)Show me where Timothy McVeigh claimed to be a Christian.
She me where Timothy McVeigh claimed any religious motivation for his crimes.
Show me where the Bible either commands or in any way condones such behavior.
Even if you could show me any of these things, we are not talking about Christianity. We are talking about Islam.
no subject
Date: 2010-08-07 03:24 pm (UTC)Just because he didn't claim it doesn't mean it didn't exist (in fact, in a Times interview in 2001, he specifically says he wasn't claiming it because "it would alienate" people.)
Here (http://nobeliefs.com/DarkBible/darkbible3.htm)
If you don't think McVeigh's a proper "Christian, would you have a problem with a YMCA or Christian community center near the scene of, say, abortion clinic bombings? Those are usually specifically religiously-motivated killings.
Just because we're talking about Islam doesn't mean we can't draw parallels, seeing as how they're extremely similar religions.
no subject
Date: 2010-08-06 08:46 pm (UTC)A hostile group wants to exist and proclaims its existence in the name of tolerance. The mainstream group says "okay, we'll accept you." So small group begins active hostilities, violence, bigotry, etc., and expects the mainstream group to accept all that. I am starting to see it with the dismissal of honor killings as domestic violence, and the American Academy of Pediactrics once considered performing nicks.
Furthermore, liberals like to claim that every group that conservatives oppose is somehow an innocent victimized group. Liberals do not realize that those groups have their own prejudices and bigotry, but to portray them as innocent victims means to be willfully ignorant of some very serious flaws. And this wilfull ignorance would be permissive and blind to the hate those groups would commit in our country, thus encouraging more hateful acts.
no subject
Date: 2010-08-07 04:05 am (UTC)Like anybody opposing the recent Prop 8 ruling - for ANY reason, religious/ethical/moral/philosophical/legal/on principle - is called a "HATER!" or "narrow-minded religious" or some ridiculous insult.
Oh, or the Gates vs. Cambridge showdown and Zero's "stupidly" comment. Nice job, Mr. Post-Racial.
Furthermore, liberals like to claim that every group that conservatives oppose is somehow an innocent victimized group.
Guess the African-Americans speaking out in favor of the Tea Party aren't as victimized as the Democrats argue every other African-American is...
no subject
Date: 2010-08-07 03:44 pm (UTC)That is a philosphical way to explain liberal bigotry. Every society/culture throughout history has had some sort of prejudice. Our society is devoid of prejudice, so this is why we have liberal bigotry.
no subject
Date: 2010-08-07 03:11 pm (UTC)Being tolerant of evil is evil in and of itself.