It’s a thought Jeff, but his action is so stupid, idiotic, and counterproductive that I don’t think you can ignore him. You’ve got to hope public reaction will either change his mind or counter balance the damage he is doing.
Precisely how does the building of a cultural center open to all, designed to educate the entire community about one religion in order to increase tolerance for all faiths (even no faith), four blocks from Ground Zero, a place where people of many faiths were hurt or killed—how does that act equate with the act of declaring one religion “evil” and using a day of American tragedy to burn that religion’s sacred text?
How do these two acts equate, Ms. Benson? Please explain.
The guy is “pastor” of a 50 person “church”.
He is doing this strictly for publicity.
Because it’s a slow news week and there are a bazillion 24-hour news networks, he’s getting it.
If anyone is fanning the flames of hatred, it’s the idiots in the media.
Ignore this bozo. He is just trying to sell books.
The “cultural center” will include a mosque, so calling it a cultural center is just a twisting of words. And it’s two blocks. Oh, and while many people of different faiths were killed, it was committed by those professing one faith in particular. The faith that is now being intolerant to anyone else about the location of their new mosque.
Answer me this: If 66% of all Americans have a problem with where you are locating a place of worship, do you think you might do more for your religions image if you locate it elsewhere, rather than thumb your nose at them?
^ It’s not illegal. While it’s not something I would do it’s not something I would take particular interest in stopping. Flag Desecration Amendments have failed and aren’t supported by the majority of the public, and really, where does it stop? Does it become illegal for someone like Stephen Colbert to wrap himself in the American flag (that would fall under desecration)? I think we have larger things to worry about than someone burning a piece of cloth – or book.
Camealy, thank you for not being able to find anything equal between the building of Cordoba House & Mr. Jones’s desire to burn a pile of Qur’ans. We will take as given that Lisa Benson’s cartoon demonstrates faulty or no reasoning.
Now, to your points about Cordoba House: Including a mosque, one open to people of all faiths, does not mean that the building IS a mosque. When you build a house, should we refer to it as Camealy’s living room?
If the Cordoba House is two blocks from Ground Zero and not four blocks, then does that mean that you would not gripe about it if it WERE four blocks away? If four blocks is still too close, then please tell me what distance do you find acceptable and why.
Your calling the builders of Cordoba House “intolerant” and your claims of interest in the “religions [sic] image” and that the founders of Cordoba House are thumbing their noses at anyone are risible. There is nothing intolerant about putting up a Muslim Cultural Center open to all and designed to educate, enlighten, & spiritually refresh all visitors.
As for your citation of “66% of all Americans”, no one has polled all Americans on this matter nor do all Americans care about this matter nor are all Americans informed enough to hold an opinion on this matter. In addition, what percentage of Americans’ approval should any building have before it can be built? Moreover, should every new religious building halt until we survey “all Americans” on its appropriateness?
I have found something equal, but you just don’t like fact. Both actions willfully ignore the fact that such actions are offensive to a large number of people. Mrs. Benson’s cartoon is actually quite logical.
It’s a mosque. Even the proponents of the project state that it is a mosque. Just because you would prefer they didn’t call it that, doesn’t change that fact. Your analogy makes no sense.
I don’t care if it’s two or four, the fact is that it’s two, and you said four. The only reason for stating false information is that you feel there is something wrong with saying two. Why? Probably for the same reason the majority of Americans have a problem with it being two blocks away.
I doubt I would be spiritually “refreshed” going to the Cordoba House. Somehow I doubt I would find it “refreshing” to find that the founder of Islam had sex with a 10 year-old girl. I don’t know, maybe you are into that sort of thing. The fact is, clearly a lot of people are not happy with the location they chose. If they were truly interested in portraying Islam as a tolerant religion, they would respect the opinions of the majority, and move it elsewhere.
I’m not saying any building has to have the approval of the majority of Americans. That’s actually the whole point of this cartoon that you clearly missed. They have every right to build that building. Should they? I don’t think they should, and the majority of Americans agree with me, but that won’t stop them, and I’ll think even less of Islam as a result.
Camealy….so it is OK to have a strip joint within a few blocks of ground zero because that doesn’t offend anyone, right? Your ignorance is as appalling as Terry Jones’.
I honestly would prefer there were no strip joints anywhere. They are demeaning to women, and they allow men a venue to be perverts. Does the law say you can’t build strip joints? No, in most states they are legal. So while I would not like a strip joint near ground zero, or anywhere else, it doesn’t matter. It will be built if it’s legal.
It’s the same for the mosque. Islam was used as the justification for one of the most awful acts of terrorism that ever happened in this country. Now Islam wants to build a place of worship close to the place where that act occurred. Do I want it built there? No. Is it illegal for them to do so? No. Could they pick a less divisive location for their mosque? Yes. Are they going to, and show how tolerant and respectful they are? No, they are going to go ahead and build it anyway. Which is why I respect Islam less.
ccamealy; By today’s standards, that’s gross, but values were different back then (girls were married right after puberty) and the marriage was for dynastic reasons.
Girls finish puberty at age 15-17. It doesn’t start until age 10. He was married to her when she was 6-7. If he was capable of waiting 3 years until she was 10, he was capable of waiting until she had at least finished puberty. The only reason to consummate the marriage that young, is if he was attracted to young girls. Which is sick, by any standard, past or present.
It’s a freaking YMCA, fellas (or an Islamic version of one)! It’s going to have a prayer room in it. But the majority of the building will house a gymnasium, swimming pool, food court, childcare center, performing arts center, art gallery, and a memorial to those who died on 9/11. All of which will be for the enjoyment of all visitors, be they Muslim, Christian, Jewish, humanist, atheist, agnostic, or whatever. How many Jews do you know who won’t go to a YMCA because of wrongs done to their people in the name of Christ?
“Even the proponents of the project state that it is a mosque”
In Object Oriented programming we use terms called “is-a” and “has-a.” The community center has-a Mosque, but is not itself a Mosque. Just like some gyms has-a pool, but is not itself a pool, it’s a gym.
( I don’t want to edit my bolds )
Girls nowadays are starting puberty as early as 8 and 9 and this age is continuing to drop. Some are even recommending pills to offset puberty because it stunts growth.
Some are missing the main point of both the toon and the situation. We operate under a Constitution and a Bill of Rights. Because of the breadth of these rights some actions one might choose to do although legal are not civil.
One main platform of Libertarianism is to live in ” A Civil Society”. Voluntarily not by government fiat.
Both the actions depicted are legal and constitutional. In addition there are actually millions who support both actions. But also in both cases there are many more millions who not only oppose them but are personally horrified by them.
Are they equivalent? Not the least part of the equation. They are legal. In a civil society both parties would step back. It is morally wrong, although legal, to burn the Koran.
It is insulting and terribly upsetting to millions to build any edifice built to honor Muslims within the footprint of the World Trade Center. (to answer a question asked by Brian Crook- James Taranto in the WSJ, literally yesterday, said the minimal distance should be 1.3 miles).
So for the sake of a civil society please both parties, step back, and consider the sensibilities of others and (a) do not burn and (b) do move the edifice.
The AP style book says that the proper designation of this structure is “A mosque and a cultural center”, and that’s how our president and our speaker of the house have described it as. I don’t care if it’s a mosque and a Dairy Queen, a mosque and a car wash, or a mosque and a WalMart…. the ” it’s not a mosque” talking point was invalidated long ago.
Let’s forget about the funding, the questionable motives of those who are building it, and the ethical reasoning of those who wish to put it there. The real sticking point is that the “mosque and a _” will be a seen as a victory and cause for pride, celebration and encouragement by the murderous types who drive airplanes into buildings, stick bombs in their underwear, or plant vans full of explosive in Times Square. We’re still at war with these dolts… why encourage them?
It’s true that all types do looney things in the name of religion. When Christians get looney, they communicate their loonyness by burning books. When Muslims get looney, they blow up children, cut off infidels’ heads, or stone women to death to make their points. I guess we could say that both approaches are “wrong”, but in the spirit of multiculturalism, they stand on equal footing.
However, back to topic, it’s true that building a mosque that validates a mass murder 9 years ago is the least of our current events to worry about, but both are acts that are purposefully offensive. Miss Manners says that purposefully offending others is wrong, and so does Lisa, and so they are. Nonetheless, both are allowed by the Constituion, as they should be, and as those who speak against them are on equal moral footing. In the words of John Adams, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
ccamealy said: “Islam was used as the justification for one of the most awful acts of terrorism that ever happened in this country. Now Islam wants to build a place of worship close to the place where that act occurred.”
I think there may be a grammatical confusion and a category error here. In the first sentence, “Islam” is what is called the “patient” of the clause, that is, something acted on by an “agent”: because the sentence is passive, the agent can be left out – but we can reasonably assume that there were specific people using Islam as a justification for the attacks of 9/11, though these people are not named and “Islam” is left in the topic position of the sentence. Another formulation would be, “The 9/11 attackers used Islam as a justification….” In this formulation, the topic of the sentence is the attackers, not Islam.
In the second sentence, “Islam” has become an agent, which wants to do something. I don’t think that “Islam” is the sort of entity that can want to do things. It would be odd, I think, to say that “Christianity” wants to do some action, and I think it’s equally odd to say that “Islam” wants to do something. Individual Christians do things, and individual Muslims do things, but Christianity as such and Islam as such do not do things. We have to look at the individuals and judge what they do and want to do and with what justification.
ccamealy; in those days, people got married for dynastic reasons and they didn’t let age get in the way, Muhammad is hardly the only example; Samuel de Champlain, in the 1600’s, married a 13-year-old girl named Hélène Boullé. Charles the Bad, an important character of the hundred Years War, married a girl of eight years old. Anne of Austria was married to Louis the thirteenth at age 11.
Those marriages were for dynastic reasons. In 2010, marriage is no longer a contract between families and we can afford to let kids have a teenage life and marry whoever they want after that. It wasn’t always so. It is wrong now to marry people so young BECAUSE WE CAN DO OTHERWISE.
Also, to be a peadophile, one has to be turned on by children, prefer them over adult people. In all the cases above (there are doubts over Samuel de Champlain), they did not actively seek young wives, they married for dynastic reasons and often had mature mistresses before.
“So for the sake of a civil society please both parties”
Civility would be nice. But we certainly don’t do things to be “civil” anymore. For example, holding up a sign saying “God hates f**s” at someone’s funeral is legal, but it’s certainly not civil.
Camealy: Find me something that IS NOT offensive to large numbers of people. By that criterion, we can equate the Cordoba House to the Mormon Church, to Rush Limbaugh, to Christmas, to The New York Times, to the space shuttle, to the 1960s civil rights movement, to Darwin’s theory of natural selection, and to almost anything that you can name. THAT’S your defense of this cartoon? With friends like you, Lisa Benson doesn’t need enemies.
You did not answer my question. I shall repeat: If the Cordoba House is two blocks from Ground Zero and not four blocks, then does that mean that you would not gripe about it if it WERE four blocks away? If four blocks is still too close, then please tell me what distance do you find acceptable and why.
My next question would be what you have against building the Cordoba House in its present location, but I need not ask it. It is apparent that you are simply against Islam. Thus, this is not about a “mosque”. This is about your irrational hatred of Islam. You stand beside Mr. Jones. Congratulations. The founder of every religion or philosophy or political system or business has done unsavory things. Thomas Jefferson had sex with one of his slaves. Are you against America? Socrates slept with underage boys. Are you against western philosophy? Gandhi slept with underage girls. Are you against non-violence? Henry Ford & Charles Lindbergh supported Hitler. Are you against Fords & air travel?
Good luck, Camealy. You will need it.
Thanks, Penna, for your remark. The Big Fat Mouth ended the issue about Cordoba House (for all but Benson & Camealy) with his rally on August 28th. He exercised the same right that the Cordoba-folk are exercising.
Libertarian, find me the millions who support burning the Qur’an. In addition, find me anyone with a reason to be personally horrified by the building of Cordoba House. As the Gainesville Fire Department has not allowed a permit for a bonfire, Jones’s burning may not be legal. The Cordoba House has passed all local ordinances. How and to whom is Cordoba House, which is NOT “built to honor Muslims” “insulting & terribly upsetting”?
(What was Taranto’s rationale for 1.3 miles? Did this figure come from the heavens?)
Thank you, Nemesys. The AP Style book states that simply calling Cordoba House a mosque is wrong, so STOP DOING IT. The rest of your remark is incorrect: When Christians get loony, they blow up buildings, and they slaughter millions. Bush-Dick was a Christian: 100,000 Iraqis are now dead. Timothy McVeigh was a Christian: The Murrah building was destroyed. Hitler was a Christian: millions died.
Cordoba House does not validate any mass murder.
Corrosive Frog, thanks for the history note. Lonecat, thanks for trying to reason with Camealy. It’s no go. He simply hates Islam.
fennec and Brian – thanks for the kind words – I’m just doing my best to improve my own thinking, and I find that you two, among others, help me think – so thanks for all of your posts.
Lakoff is one of my favorite linguists – his book “Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things” is a masterpiece. I haven’t read “The Political Brain”, but I expect it’s good.
The “mosque” is not at ground zero, and the pastor IS a zero. HIs comments go way beyond just burning the Quran- his swastika tattoo is well-hidden, well, maybe not so well.
The fact OUR military took great pains NOT TO DAMAGE or destroy any mosques in Iraq led to several notable incidents, and some failures.
What’s also interesting is that this “pastor” knows nothing about the book he’s burning and apparently admits he’s never read any of it. He’d be shocked at how often Moses and Jesus are quoted in it.
On the issue of “right”. I’ve seen situations where folks were “right”, and ended up “DEAD right”. Sometimes a little tolerance, and intelligence, is called for.
Sadly, in America today, both are as in short supply as in any radical “Muslim” culture.
My question was directed at Justice22, Jade. I guess we posted at the same time and yours was put up first. Accordingly, I have corrected my number of carets.
the first amendment does not give anyone the right to build anywhere in America they decide they want. It takes a lot of nerve and gall and arrogance for Muslims, who should know that the 9/11/01 Mass Destruction and Murder of nearly 3,000 innocent people was done by 19 Muslims carrying out violent Jihad, to even think of putting a Moslem religious monument of a building that close to the WTC ruins.
the Imam proves his ill intentions by not changing his choice of a building site, further away from the WTC property.
and the Florida minister would not be burning a book he called “holy”……..just the opposite.
Brian, even its supporters don’t call it the “Cordoba House” anymore because that name is far too illustrative of what the building’s intent is all about. “Park51” is presently PC. You’re welcome.
If you lump Bush into the “Christian Loony” category, you’ll have to include President Obama in there too (he is a Christian too, of course), since he’s responsible for escalating the war in Afghanistan, and in particular for causing the death of many Muslims through his hated “attack drone” program. Otherwise, if you have to go back into 20th century history to find examples of “Christian” murder, your comparison becomes very weak, especially when none of examples cited were performed in the name of Christianity. If you wish to cite stupid examples, you should have also included Mao and Stalin killing more than all others combined as examples of “Loony Atheists”.
We could even go back to medieval times, and we’re sure to find multiple examples of everyone pissing off everyone else. The problem we have, of course, is that the Islamic loony folks are trying to kill us now…. I can easily guarantee that over the next week, and for many more weeks, months, and years, you’ll be able to read of their latest worldwide adventures of the murder of innocents in the name of God. At least here in the United States, we’ve evolved to admit that we kill on a national scale in the name of capitalism, which if nothing else makes the atheists happy. As the targets of Islamic morality as preached by hidden high explosives, however, our concerns over the right and wrong of that religious position and the loons who preach it must logically shift to our future, not our past.
By definition, moral issues are subjective, and your own (and my own) opinions about right and wrong, while not irrelevant, are in truth meaningless, but are only relevant in context to the arguments presented. That reality is consistent with Lisa Benson’s argument. Neither of the examples she cites are the right thing to do according to the professed moralities of the parties involved, and thus must remain equally suspect as measured by their own moral yardsticks. Methinks they’ve answered their own questions without our assistance.
You know, one of the reasons (besides that they lean to the right) that the mainstream media dislike President Obama is that the media consistently dislike those people, particularly those leaders, who are more intelligent than are the members of the media AND do not have a high likability-to-intelligence ratio.
Over the last thirty years, we have had two presidents who were more intelligent than were the members of the media: Bill Clinton & Obama. Clinton had a high likability ratio, however, so the media did not lambaste him the way that they do Obama. We have had three presidents who were decidedly less intelligent than were the members of the media: Ronald Reagan, G.H.W. Bush, & Bush-Dick. The media went kindly on Reagan & Bush-Dick, less kindly on G.H.W. Bush, but mostly because he followed the highly telegenic Reagan; in addition, Bush was much less likable.
Obama demonstrated his intelligence again today, in reference to Terry Jones’s anti-Muslim bigotry. He got to the heart of the matter, saying that burning the Qur’an “is completely contrary to our values as Americans”.
Nothing more succinct highlights the difference between this destructive, hate-filled act and the constructive tolerance-filled act of the Cordoba House.
(By the way, if anyone wants to read (or see) an analogue to the matter of Cordoba house, I recommend Lorraine Hansberry’s play, A Raisin In The Sun, which also became a movie. Things have not changed nearly enough yet.)
DisTax, what is your problem with Cordoba House? Muslims also died in the atrocities of September 11th, and al-Qaida has no more relation to Islam than British Imperialists of the 19th century had to Christianity.
Thanks, Libertarian, for the link to the Washington Post’s poll.
Nemesys, Mao Zedong was a Confucian, not an atheist, and Stalin was a Russian orthodox Christian. As for the Christianity of Bush-Dick & that of Obama, I agree that Obama’s tactics to try to manage the mess of occupation in Afghanistan begun by Bush-Dick has led to the deaths of Muslims, but the numbers killed by Obama pale before the tens of thousands killed by the loudly Christian Bush-Dick. The rest of my examples remain, and one could easily find more.
You are correct that there are Muslim fanatics who want to kill Americans, just as there are Christian fanatics who want to kill Muslims. Should we poll the building of churches, too?
So far, no one has brought up a substantial objection to the building of Cordoba House, and no one can claim that the law- & regulation-abiding building of a Moslem cultural center is cnotrary to American values. Americans celebrate freedom of religion and freedom from religion, and Cordoba House—unlike Jones’s envious destructiveness—is part of that celebration.
In any case, no one should pay any attention to Terry Jones. The man is an attention-seeking, hate-filled, little bigot who should be pitied for his reptilian sensibilities. I am sorry that DisTax, Nemesys, & Camealy refuse to speak against Jones’s behavior & rhetoric.
BrianCrook, Cordoba is the name of a city in Spain (Europe, the West) that was conquered and turned into a caliphate by Muslims in the eighth century. Even the name of the “cultural center” is provocative. It is not tolerant, it is clearly an affront, the vast majority recognize this. The building was actually damaged by pieces of airplane after the attack.
The media does not lean to the right. That is such a preposterous statement that it hardly warrants a response. Members of the media donate money to the Democratic Party for elections at a consistently 90% level, for one example of thousands.
You totally miss the point re the press. If they conduct a poll and it shows the Republicans are winning. They actually publish it. They don’t bury it the way a true liberal would and most of the MSM does for other disappointing news.
I will teach you how to tell the party with which a corrupt politician is associated. Read the NYT. if he is Republican it will be in the first sentence. if he is Democrat it will never be mentioned.
Um… HabaneroBuck, it looks like you started reading up on Cordoba but then stopped where it suited your argument. The Cordoba caliphate is celebrated as a great historical example of interfaith tolerance and cultural diversity. This peaceful referent, and not conquest, is the purpose of the original name for Park 51 in Manhattan. Honestly, you’d have to be pathological to believe that Imam Rauf is a violent jihadist.
I just read the article in wikipedia, which stated that Cordoba was “conquered” by a Muslim army in 711 and turned into a caliphate. Because it was established so close to Catholic strongholds, it hoped for “interfaith tolerance”, certainly. But, again, notice that the edge of the Islamic empire is the locale of the interfaith tolerance, and it was only established by force.
I have little opinion of Imam Rauf. He seems nice. He is polished, and he speaks against “extremists”. He does not, however, condemn Hamas, nor does he or anyone else have any assurance of what will happpen in the future when new blood takes over the Cordoba project.
myming over 13 years ago
oh, puhleez
Kvasir42 Premium Member over 13 years ago
It’s not a mosque, it’s not at ground zero, and they have a right to a community center. Is a porn place more worthy?
And we have the right, as does the media, to totally ignore the bozo pastor. I wish they would just totally ignore him.
Gypsy8 over 13 years ago
It’s a thought Jeff, but his action is so stupid, idiotic, and counterproductive that I don’t think you can ignore him. You’ve got to hope public reaction will either change his mind or counter balance the damage he is doing.
BrianCrook over 13 years ago
Dear Ms. Benson:
Precisely how does the building of a cultural center open to all, designed to educate the entire community about one religion in order to increase tolerance for all faiths (even no faith), four blocks from Ground Zero, a place where people of many faiths were hurt or killed—how does that act equate with the act of declaring one religion “evil” and using a day of American tragedy to burn that religion’s sacred text?
How do these two acts equate, Ms. Benson? Please explain.
Michael Scott Premium Member over 13 years ago
The guy is “pastor” of a 50 person “church”. He is doing this strictly for publicity. Because it’s a slow news week and there are a bazillion 24-hour news networks, he’s getting it. If anyone is fanning the flames of hatred, it’s the idiots in the media. Ignore this bozo. He is just trying to sell books.
ccamealy over 13 years ago
@Brian:
The “cultural center” will include a mosque, so calling it a cultural center is just a twisting of words. And it’s two blocks. Oh, and while many people of different faiths were killed, it was committed by those professing one faith in particular. The faith that is now being intolerant to anyone else about the location of their new mosque.
Answer me this: If 66% of all Americans have a problem with where you are locating a place of worship, do you think you might do more for your religions image if you locate it elsewhere, rather than thumb your nose at them?
Let’s face it, both of these acts are stupid.
Justice22 over 13 years ago
You are both God’s children. GIVE EACH OTHER A HUG!
I predict more U.S. civilians will be killed than troops. They are more vulnerable.
4uk4ata over 13 years ago
^ Only the US ones?
Justice22 over 13 years ago
^ They are the only ones burning the Koran in public (in the eyes of the Muslim world).
Jaedabee Premium Member over 13 years ago
“Let’s face it, both of these acts are stupid.”
Why? There is ALREADY a mosque not too far from the proposed Community Center + Mosque already. There’s a Shinto Temple at Pearl Harbor.They can burn a Koran if they want to. We shouldn’t be giving them any attention, though.
TheFinalSolution over 13 years ago
^^ What was your opinion during the burning of the American flag controversy a few years back? I’m not being confrontational, just asking.
Jaedabee Premium Member over 13 years ago
^ It’s not illegal. While it’s not something I would do it’s not something I would take particular interest in stopping. Flag Desecration Amendments have failed and aren’t supported by the majority of the public, and really, where does it stop? Does it become illegal for someone like Stephen Colbert to wrap himself in the American flag (that would fall under desecration)? I think we have larger things to worry about than someone burning a piece of cloth – or book.
sydtaki over 13 years ago
@Jade, I had not heard of the Pearl Harbor Temple, and it sure provoked some thought.
After a bit of research, I found mention of Catholic crosses at an Auschwitz site provoking the ire of Jews.
http://www.scrapbookpages.com/poland/Crosses/Crosses.html
BrianCrook over 13 years ago
Camealy, thank you for not being able to find anything equal between the building of Cordoba House & Mr. Jones’s desire to burn a pile of Qur’ans. We will take as given that Lisa Benson’s cartoon demonstrates faulty or no reasoning.
Now, to your points about Cordoba House: Including a mosque, one open to people of all faiths, does not mean that the building IS a mosque. When you build a house, should we refer to it as Camealy’s living room?
If the Cordoba House is two blocks from Ground Zero and not four blocks, then does that mean that you would not gripe about it if it WERE four blocks away? If four blocks is still too close, then please tell me what distance do you find acceptable and why.
Your calling the builders of Cordoba House “intolerant” and your claims of interest in the “religions [sic] image” and that the founders of Cordoba House are thumbing their noses at anyone are risible. There is nothing intolerant about putting up a Muslim Cultural Center open to all and designed to educate, enlighten, & spiritually refresh all visitors.
As for your citation of “66% of all Americans”, no one has polled all Americans on this matter nor do all Americans care about this matter nor are all Americans informed enough to hold an opinion on this matter. In addition, what percentage of Americans’ approval should any building have before it can be built? Moreover, should every new religious building halt until we survey “all Americans” on its appropriateness?
ccamealy over 13 years ago
I have found something equal, but you just don’t like fact. Both actions willfully ignore the fact that such actions are offensive to a large number of people. Mrs. Benson’s cartoon is actually quite logical.
It’s a mosque. Even the proponents of the project state that it is a mosque. Just because you would prefer they didn’t call it that, doesn’t change that fact. Your analogy makes no sense.
I don’t care if it’s two or four, the fact is that it’s two, and you said four. The only reason for stating false information is that you feel there is something wrong with saying two. Why? Probably for the same reason the majority of Americans have a problem with it being two blocks away.
I doubt I would be spiritually “refreshed” going to the Cordoba House. Somehow I doubt I would find it “refreshing” to find that the founder of Islam had sex with a 10 year-old girl. I don’t know, maybe you are into that sort of thing. The fact is, clearly a lot of people are not happy with the location they chose. If they were truly interested in portraying Islam as a tolerant religion, they would respect the opinions of the majority, and move it elsewhere.
I’m not saying any building has to have the approval of the majority of Americans. That’s actually the whole point of this cartoon that you clearly missed. They have every right to build that building. Should they? I don’t think they should, and the majority of Americans agree with me, but that won’t stop them, and I’ll think even less of Islam as a result.
JPTewel over 13 years ago
Camealy….so it is OK to have a strip joint within a few blocks of ground zero because that doesn’t offend anyone, right? Your ignorance is as appalling as Terry Jones’.
ccamealy over 13 years ago
I honestly would prefer there were no strip joints anywhere. They are demeaning to women, and they allow men a venue to be perverts. Does the law say you can’t build strip joints? No, in most states they are legal. So while I would not like a strip joint near ground zero, or anywhere else, it doesn’t matter. It will be built if it’s legal.
It’s the same for the mosque. Islam was used as the justification for one of the most awful acts of terrorism that ever happened in this country. Now Islam wants to build a place of worship close to the place where that act occurred. Do I want it built there? No. Is it illegal for them to do so? No. Could they pick a less divisive location for their mosque? Yes. Are they going to, and show how tolerant and respectful they are? No, they are going to go ahead and build it anyway. Which is why I respect Islam less.
CorosiveFrog Premium Member over 13 years ago
ccamealy; By today’s standards, that’s gross, but values were different back then (girls were married right after puberty) and the marriage was for dynastic reasons.
ccamealy over 13 years ago
Girls finish puberty at age 15-17. It doesn’t start until age 10. He was married to her when she was 6-7. If he was capable of waiting 3 years until she was 10, he was capable of waiting until she had at least finished puberty. The only reason to consummate the marriage that young, is if he was attracted to young girls. Which is sick, by any standard, past or present.
tpenna over 13 years ago
It’s a freaking YMCA, fellas (or an Islamic version of one)! It’s going to have a prayer room in it. But the majority of the building will house a gymnasium, swimming pool, food court, childcare center, performing arts center, art gallery, and a memorial to those who died on 9/11. All of which will be for the enjoyment of all visitors, be they Muslim, Christian, Jewish, humanist, atheist, agnostic, or whatever. How many Jews do you know who won’t go to a YMCA because of wrongs done to their people in the name of Christ?
CorosiveFrog Premium Member over 13 years ago
ccamealy; I had my period at age 11, january 27, 1997.
I should know a thing or two about girls puberty.
ccamealy over 13 years ago
Sorry, was using the information the textbooks had on the subject. I’m sure you know way more about it. I really don’t understand your point.
Are you trying to tell me you would have been fine with having sex with a 50 year-old man 1-2 years prior to that date?
Jaedabee Premium Member over 13 years ago
“Even the proponents of the project state that it is a mosque”
In Object Oriented programming we use terms called “is-a” and “has-a.” The community center has-a Mosque, but is not itself a Mosque. Just like some gyms has-a pool, but is not itself a pool, it’s a gym.Jaedabee Premium Member over 13 years ago
( I don’t want to edit my bolds ) Girls nowadays are starting puberty as early as 8 and 9 and this age is continuing to drop. Some are even recommending pills to offset puberty because it stunts growth.
wwwjw over 13 years ago
The ignorance level of our right-wing fanatics is more repulsive than that of your right-wing fanatics!
oneoldhat over 13 years ago
burning books wrong
building a monument to 9/11 martyrs ?
Libertarian1 over 13 years ago
Some are missing the main point of both the toon and the situation. We operate under a Constitution and a Bill of Rights. Because of the breadth of these rights some actions one might choose to do although legal are not civil.
One main platform of Libertarianism is to live in ” A Civil Society”. Voluntarily not by government fiat.
Both the actions depicted are legal and constitutional. In addition there are actually millions who support both actions. But also in both cases there are many more millions who not only oppose them but are personally horrified by them.
Are they equivalent? Not the least part of the equation. They are legal. In a civil society both parties would step back. It is morally wrong, although legal, to burn the Koran. It is insulting and terribly upsetting to millions to build any edifice built to honor Muslims within the footprint of the World Trade Center. (to answer a question asked by Brian Crook- James Taranto in the WSJ, literally yesterday, said the minimal distance should be 1.3 miles).
So for the sake of a civil society please both parties, step back, and consider the sensibilities of others and (a) do not burn and (b) do move the edifice.
Nemesys over 13 years ago
The AP style book says that the proper designation of this structure is “A mosque and a cultural center”, and that’s how our president and our speaker of the house have described it as. I don’t care if it’s a mosque and a Dairy Queen, a mosque and a car wash, or a mosque and a WalMart…. the ” it’s not a mosque” talking point was invalidated long ago.
Let’s forget about the funding, the questionable motives of those who are building it, and the ethical reasoning of those who wish to put it there. The real sticking point is that the “mosque and a _” will be a seen as a victory and cause for pride, celebration and encouragement by the murderous types who drive airplanes into buildings, stick bombs in their underwear, or plant vans full of explosive in Times Square. We’re still at war with these dolts… why encourage them?
It’s true that all types do looney things in the name of religion. When Christians get looney, they communicate their loonyness by burning books. When Muslims get looney, they blow up children, cut off infidels’ heads, or stone women to death to make their points. I guess we could say that both approaches are “wrong”, but in the spirit of multiculturalism, they stand on equal footing.
However, back to topic, it’s true that building a mosque that validates a mass murder 9 years ago is the least of our current events to worry about, but both are acts that are purposefully offensive. Miss Manners says that purposefully offending others is wrong, and so does Lisa, and so they are. Nonetheless, both are allowed by the Constituion, as they should be, and as those who speak against them are on equal moral footing. In the words of John Adams, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
lonecat over 13 years ago
ccamealy said: “Islam was used as the justification for one of the most awful acts of terrorism that ever happened in this country. Now Islam wants to build a place of worship close to the place where that act occurred.”
I think there may be a grammatical confusion and a category error here. In the first sentence, “Islam” is what is called the “patient” of the clause, that is, something acted on by an “agent”: because the sentence is passive, the agent can be left out – but we can reasonably assume that there were specific people using Islam as a justification for the attacks of 9/11, though these people are not named and “Islam” is left in the topic position of the sentence. Another formulation would be, “The 9/11 attackers used Islam as a justification….” In this formulation, the topic of the sentence is the attackers, not Islam.
In the second sentence, “Islam” has become an agent, which wants to do something. I don’t think that “Islam” is the sort of entity that can want to do things. It would be odd, I think, to say that “Christianity” wants to do some action, and I think it’s equally odd to say that “Islam” wants to do something. Individual Christians do things, and individual Muslims do things, but Christianity as such and Islam as such do not do things. We have to look at the individuals and judge what they do and want to do and with what justification.
CorosiveFrog Premium Member over 13 years ago
ccamealy; in those days, people got married for dynastic reasons and they didn’t let age get in the way, Muhammad is hardly the only example; Samuel de Champlain, in the 1600’s, married a 13-year-old girl named Hélène Boullé. Charles the Bad, an important character of the hundred Years War, married a girl of eight years old. Anne of Austria was married to Louis the thirteenth at age 11.
Those marriages were for dynastic reasons. In 2010, marriage is no longer a contract between families and we can afford to let kids have a teenage life and marry whoever they want after that. It wasn’t always so. It is wrong now to marry people so young BECAUSE WE CAN DO OTHERWISE.
Also, to be a peadophile, one has to be turned on by children, prefer them over adult people. In all the cases above (there are doubts over Samuel de Champlain), they did not actively seek young wives, they married for dynastic reasons and often had mature mistresses before.
Jaedabee Premium Member over 13 years ago
“So for the sake of a civil society please both parties”
Civility would be nice. But we certainly don’t do things to be “civil” anymore. For example, holding up a sign saying “God hates f**s” at someone’s funeral is legal, but it’s certainly not civil.BrianCrook over 13 years ago
Camealy: Find me something that IS NOT offensive to large numbers of people. By that criterion, we can equate the Cordoba House to the Mormon Church, to Rush Limbaugh, to Christmas, to The New York Times, to the space shuttle, to the 1960s civil rights movement, to Darwin’s theory of natural selection, and to almost anything that you can name. THAT’S your defense of this cartoon? With friends like you, Lisa Benson doesn’t need enemies.
You did not answer my question. I shall repeat: If the Cordoba House is two blocks from Ground Zero and not four blocks, then does that mean that you would not gripe about it if it WERE four blocks away? If four blocks is still too close, then please tell me what distance do you find acceptable and why.
My next question would be what you have against building the Cordoba House in its present location, but I need not ask it. It is apparent that you are simply against Islam. Thus, this is not about a “mosque”. This is about your irrational hatred of Islam. You stand beside Mr. Jones. Congratulations. The founder of every religion or philosophy or political system or business has done unsavory things. Thomas Jefferson had sex with one of his slaves. Are you against America? Socrates slept with underage boys. Are you against western philosophy? Gandhi slept with underage girls. Are you against non-violence? Henry Ford & Charles Lindbergh supported Hitler. Are you against Fords & air travel?
Good luck, Camealy. You will need it.
Thanks, Penna, for your remark. The Big Fat Mouth ended the issue about Cordoba House (for all but Benson & Camealy) with his rally on August 28th. He exercised the same right that the Cordoba-folk are exercising.
Libertarian, find me the millions who support burning the Qur’an. In addition, find me anyone with a reason to be personally horrified by the building of Cordoba House. As the Gainesville Fire Department has not allowed a permit for a bonfire, Jones’s burning may not be legal. The Cordoba House has passed all local ordinances. How and to whom is Cordoba House, which is NOT “built to honor Muslims” “insulting & terribly upsetting”?
(What was Taranto’s rationale for 1.3 miles? Did this figure come from the heavens?)
Thank you, Nemesys. The AP Style book states that simply calling Cordoba House a mosque is wrong, so STOP DOING IT. The rest of your remark is incorrect: When Christians get loony, they blow up buildings, and they slaughter millions. Bush-Dick was a Christian: 100,000 Iraqis are now dead. Timothy McVeigh was a Christian: The Murrah building was destroyed. Hitler was a Christian: millions died.
Cordoba House does not validate any mass murder.
Corrosive Frog, thanks for the history note. Lonecat, thanks for trying to reason with Camealy. It’s no go. He simply hates Islam.
lonecat over 13 years ago
fennec and Brian – thanks for the kind words – I’m just doing my best to improve my own thinking, and I find that you two, among others, help me think – so thanks for all of your posts.
Lakoff is one of my favorite linguists – his book “Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things” is a masterpiece. I haven’t read “The Political Brain”, but I expect it’s good.
Dtroutma over 13 years ago
The “mosque” is not at ground zero, and the pastor IS a zero. HIs comments go way beyond just burning the Quran- his swastika tattoo is well-hidden, well, maybe not so well.
The fact OUR military took great pains NOT TO DAMAGE or destroy any mosques in Iraq led to several notable incidents, and some failures.
What’s also interesting is that this “pastor” knows nothing about the book he’s burning and apparently admits he’s never read any of it. He’d be shocked at how often Moses and Jesus are quoted in it.
On the issue of “right”. I’ve seen situations where folks were “right”, and ended up “DEAD right”. Sometimes a little tolerance, and intelligence, is called for.
Sadly, in America today, both are as in short supply as in any radical “Muslim” culture.
WarBush over 13 years ago
It didn’t take long for the right wing toons to try and make connections, like the Saddam and 9/11.
TheFinalSolution over 13 years ago
My question was directed at Justice22, Jade. I guess we posted at the same time and yours was put up first. Accordingly, I have corrected my number of carets.
disgustedtaxpayer over 13 years ago
the first amendment does not give anyone the right to build anywhere in America they decide they want. It takes a lot of nerve and gall and arrogance for Muslims, who should know that the 9/11/01 Mass Destruction and Murder of nearly 3,000 innocent people was done by 19 Muslims carrying out violent Jihad, to even think of putting a Moslem religious monument of a building that close to the WTC ruins.
the Imam proves his ill intentions by not changing his choice of a building site, further away from the WTC property.
and the Florida minister would not be burning a book he called “holy”……..just the opposite.
Libertarian1 over 13 years ago
BrianCrook
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/08/AR2010090806231.html?omrid=C0LjC6&ommid=_BMiNX8B8Um8prK
Nemesys over 13 years ago
Brian, even its supporters don’t call it the “Cordoba House” anymore because that name is far too illustrative of what the building’s intent is all about. “Park51” is presently PC. You’re welcome.
If you lump Bush into the “Christian Loony” category, you’ll have to include President Obama in there too (he is a Christian too, of course), since he’s responsible for escalating the war in Afghanistan, and in particular for causing the death of many Muslims through his hated “attack drone” program. Otherwise, if you have to go back into 20th century history to find examples of “Christian” murder, your comparison becomes very weak, especially when none of examples cited were performed in the name of Christianity. If you wish to cite stupid examples, you should have also included Mao and Stalin killing more than all others combined as examples of “Loony Atheists”.
We could even go back to medieval times, and we’re sure to find multiple examples of everyone pissing off everyone else. The problem we have, of course, is that the Islamic loony folks are trying to kill us now…. I can easily guarantee that over the next week, and for many more weeks, months, and years, you’ll be able to read of their latest worldwide adventures of the murder of innocents in the name of God. At least here in the United States, we’ve evolved to admit that we kill on a national scale in the name of capitalism, which if nothing else makes the atheists happy. As the targets of Islamic morality as preached by hidden high explosives, however, our concerns over the right and wrong of that religious position and the loons who preach it must logically shift to our future, not our past.
By definition, moral issues are subjective, and your own (and my own) opinions about right and wrong, while not irrelevant, are in truth meaningless, but are only relevant in context to the arguments presented. That reality is consistent with Lisa Benson’s argument. Neither of the examples she cites are the right thing to do according to the professed moralities of the parties involved, and thus must remain equally suspect as measured by their own moral yardsticks. Methinks they’ve answered their own questions without our assistance.
BrianCrook over 13 years ago
You know, one of the reasons (besides that they lean to the right) that the mainstream media dislike President Obama is that the media consistently dislike those people, particularly those leaders, who are more intelligent than are the members of the media AND do not have a high likability-to-intelligence ratio.
Over the last thirty years, we have had two presidents who were more intelligent than were the members of the media: Bill Clinton & Obama. Clinton had a high likability ratio, however, so the media did not lambaste him the way that they do Obama. We have had three presidents who were decidedly less intelligent than were the members of the media: Ronald Reagan, G.H.W. Bush, & Bush-Dick. The media went kindly on Reagan & Bush-Dick, less kindly on G.H.W. Bush, but mostly because he followed the highly telegenic Reagan; in addition, Bush was much less likable.
Obama demonstrated his intelligence again today, in reference to Terry Jones’s anti-Muslim bigotry. He got to the heart of the matter, saying that burning the Qur’an “is completely contrary to our values as Americans”.
Nothing more succinct highlights the difference between this destructive, hate-filled act and the constructive tolerance-filled act of the Cordoba House.
(By the way, if anyone wants to read (or see) an analogue to the matter of Cordoba house, I recommend Lorraine Hansberry’s play, A Raisin In The Sun, which also became a movie. Things have not changed nearly enough yet.)
DisTax, what is your problem with Cordoba House? Muslims also died in the atrocities of September 11th, and al-Qaida has no more relation to Islam than British Imperialists of the 19th century had to Christianity.
Thanks, Libertarian, for the link to the Washington Post’s poll.
Nemesys, Mao Zedong was a Confucian, not an atheist, and Stalin was a Russian orthodox Christian. As for the Christianity of Bush-Dick & that of Obama, I agree that Obama’s tactics to try to manage the mess of occupation in Afghanistan begun by Bush-Dick has led to the deaths of Muslims, but the numbers killed by Obama pale before the tens of thousands killed by the loudly Christian Bush-Dick. The rest of my examples remain, and one could easily find more.
You are correct that there are Muslim fanatics who want to kill Americans, just as there are Christian fanatics who want to kill Muslims. Should we poll the building of churches, too?
So far, no one has brought up a substantial objection to the building of Cordoba House, and no one can claim that the law- & regulation-abiding building of a Moslem cultural center is cnotrary to American values. Americans celebrate freedom of religion and freedom from religion, and Cordoba House—unlike Jones’s envious destructiveness—is part of that celebration.
In any case, no one should pay any attention to Terry Jones. The man is an attention-seeking, hate-filled, little bigot who should be pitied for his reptilian sensibilities. I am sorry that DisTax, Nemesys, & Camealy refuse to speak against Jones’s behavior & rhetoric.
HabaneroBuck over 13 years ago
BrianCrook, Cordoba is the name of a city in Spain (Europe, the West) that was conquered and turned into a caliphate by Muslims in the eighth century. Even the name of the “cultural center” is provocative. It is not tolerant, it is clearly an affront, the vast majority recognize this. The building was actually damaged by pieces of airplane after the attack.
The media does not lean to the right. That is such a preposterous statement that it hardly warrants a response. Members of the media donate money to the Democratic Party for elections at a consistently 90% level, for one example of thousands.
SuperGriz over 13 years ago
Again, who was burning the American flag.
Libertarian1 over 13 years ago
habanero
You totally miss the point re the press. If they conduct a poll and it shows the Republicans are winning. They actually publish it. They don’t bury it the way a true liberal would and most of the MSM does for other disappointing news.
I will teach you how to tell the party with which a corrupt politician is associated. Read the NYT. if he is Republican it will be in the first sentence. if he is Democrat it will never be mentioned.
BoxCar66 over 13 years ago
What if “They” wanted to build a Christian Church in Mecca?
tpenna over 13 years ago
Um… HabaneroBuck, it looks like you started reading up on Cordoba but then stopped where it suited your argument. The Cordoba caliphate is celebrated as a great historical example of interfaith tolerance and cultural diversity. This peaceful referent, and not conquest, is the purpose of the original name for Park 51 in Manhattan. Honestly, you’d have to be pathological to believe that Imam Rauf is a violent jihadist.
HabaneroBuck over 13 years ago
I just read the article in wikipedia, which stated that Cordoba was “conquered” by a Muslim army in 711 and turned into a caliphate. Because it was established so close to Catholic strongholds, it hoped for “interfaith tolerance”, certainly. But, again, notice that the edge of the Islamic empire is the locale of the interfaith tolerance, and it was only established by force.
I have little opinion of Imam Rauf. He seems nice. He is polished, and he speaks against “extremists”. He does not, however, condemn Hamas, nor does he or anyone else have any assurance of what will happpen in the future when new blood takes over the Cordoba project.