- Gilad Schwartz z"l
- The bigoted non-bigots
- Tolerance is a two way street
- Will still in israel
- Submitted 08/26/10
- The need for bigotry
Posted: 26 Aug 2010 11:09 AM PDT
Based on the searches for "Gilad Schwartz," I assumed the worst.
Unfortunately, I was correct. Info is here.
Posted: 26 Aug 2010 04:13 AM PDT
Nina Shea in Ground Zero Mosque:Who's in Charge? concludes:
Regarding the Ground Zero mosque, based on the information provided by the two partners in the project, we know very little about who will eventually be its directors, or who will fund it. It is the answers to these questions that will determine whether the Ground Zero mosque will be an "affront to extremists everywhere," or, alternatively, whether it will threaten our homeland security by hindering our war against a dangerous idea that has "corrupted" Islam.
However, even if Imam Rauf is not going to play a significant role in the project, currently he (along with his wife) is the public face, so I don't think it's unfair to judge the project by Imam Rauf.
Jeffrey Goldberg defended Imam Rauf last week for saying at a memorial for Daniel Pearl, "I am a Jew." (via memeorandum). Goldberg asserted that by making such a declaration, Imam Rauf put his own life in danger.
Such appearances seem unlikely to sway at least one opponent of building an Islamic center so close to Ground Zero at this time -- Judea Pearl, Daniel's father and a computer science professor at the University of California at Los Angeles.
Had the statement not just been a one time thing, it might have convinced Dr. Pearl that there had been a change is Islam. Apparently Dr. Pearl wanted to see actions to match the words.
New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg charges that opponents of Imam Rauf's mosque "should be ashamed of themselves" and are bigots.
I don't think that anyone else would consider Judea Pearl and Nat Hentoff to be bigots. Yet by opposing (verbally) Park51, there are many of our political elite who would deem them bigots.
There's a lot more to Imam Rauf and the Islamic Center than its supporters let on. By framing the issue as one of "religious tolerance" and conveniently deeming its opponents bigots, the Islamic Centers supporters are refusing to face uncomfortable facts about the project.
Crossposted on Yourish.
Posted: 26 Aug 2010 03:52 AM PDT
The New York Times collected reactions to the Park51 controversy from around the world. I have no idea how representative the reactions are to the societies they're from, but some are interesting. I thought this one was particularly good:
One Cambridge University researcher, writing in the Palestinian daily Al Ayyam, said Muslims could win their case for a center near ground zero in a court of law, only to end up losing in the court of public opinion.
Posted: 26 Aug 2010 03:48 AM PDT
Today he writes, In the Mideast the peace process is only a mirage:
The biggest threat to peace might be the peace process -- or, more precisely, the illusion that there is one. The mirage becomes the reason for maintaining its imaginary "momentum" by extorting concessions from Israel, the only party susceptible to U.S. pressure. Israel is, however, decreasingly susceptible. In one month, history will recycle when the partial 10-month moratorium on Israeli construction on the West Bank expires. Resumption of construction -- even here, in the capital, which was not included in the moratorium -- will be denounced by a fiction, "the international community," as a threat to another fiction, "the peace process."
Crossposted on Yourish.
Posted: 26 Aug 2010 03:42 AM PDT
This week's Watcher's Council nominations are up!
Non - Council Submissions
Read. Enjoy. Be informed.
Posted: 25 Aug 2010 04:13 AM PDT
If you believe that an entire religion of upward of a billion followers attacked the United States on Sept. 11, 2001, then it is understandable that locating a mosque near the fallen World Trade Center might be upsetting. But the facts are otherwise. Islam was not in on the attack -- just a sliver of believers. That being the case, those people with legitimate hurt feelings are mistaken. They need our understanding, not our indulgence.
To Cohen the choice is binary - either you're for the Islamic center or you're a bigot - but Lynn shows that it is not.
The 9-11 terrorists did attack America in the name of Islam and their associates continue in their attempts to do so today.
There are many reasons why one could be opposed to the building of Ground Zero Mosque. Given that the public face of the effort, Imam Rauf, has said that the United States is an "accessory" to 9/11, he's hardly the one to be claiming that his Islamic center is being built to promote understanding. It's one thing to say that America has made mistakes in its foreign policy, but to use the term "accessory" is inflammatory. The position of another of the Islamic center's proponents that the effort wouldn't rule out taking funds from Sauid Arabia or Iran is also troubling.
Until two years there was a question if America was ready for a black president. In November, 2008, the country showed that it was. Most of those who did not vote for Barack Obama didn't because they viewed him as too liberal, not because they didn't approve the color of his skin. America was shown to be sufficiently open minded.
Now 62% oppose the building of a mosque near where the World Trade Center stood in Lower Manhattan, compared to 54% in the previous survey. Twenty-five percent (25%) favor allowing the mosque to go ahead, and 13% more are not sure.
So in two years Americans went from being open minded to being a bunch of bigots? I don't buy it.
The poll numbers, of course, show the difference between the political class and the overall population of the country.
J. E. Dyer shrewdly observed:
The U.S. media have comfortably framed the debate over the Park 51 mosque as a case of Middle America versus Islam, but in a very real sense, as others have noted, it's a case of Middle America versus our leftist cultural elite.
In essence. our elites are saying to those who feel that building the Islamic center near Ground Zero, "We don't feel your pain; you shouldn't either." That's a very insensitive approach. Quite a few of those who feel that way actually lost relatives and friends on 9/11. So attributing opposition to the Islamic center is a defense mechanism. If the other side consists of victims, telling them that you don't care about their sensitivities is cruel; if they're bigots it's the proper approach.
By attributing opposition to the Islamic Center to bigotry it allows our elites to feel better about themselves. Sensitivity is not required.
|You are subscribed to email updates from Soccer Dad |
To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now.
|Email delivery powered by Google|
|Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610|