|
|
Post by dj on Aug 1, 2010 15:40:46 GMT -5
The ADL made a number of errors in their characterization of this issue. The guard did not tell them to stop praying. In fact he said "I'm not going to tell you you can't pray. You just can't do it here." According to statute you may not gather as a group to do anything on the courthouse steps. It prohibits the simple act of standing in a group. It does not matter if you're praying or listening to the NBA championship. The case the Alliance Defense Fund is trying to make is that the group was barred specifically because they were praying, since they don't believe they were doing anything that was not allowed. In reality, the opposite is true. They were moved because no matter what their intent, they may not stand in a group in the court house or on the grounds. The statute which the security guard cited when telling the group to go elsewhere to continue their activity is 40 U.S.C. §6135, which reads: (The emphasis on the word "or" is added by me, and I will explain momentarily) The ADL argues that the group "was not engaging in a parade, procession or assembly." First of all the word is not "assembly" it is "assemblage" and this makes a big difference. Assemblage is a gathering of things or people. It is a "group." And there is no denying, the group was in a group. And, the ADL leaves out an important word from the statute when saying what the group was not doing. That word is "stand." The statute says it is unlawful to STAND in an assemblage. Meaning, you can't stand in a group in the courthouse or the grounds. This is not hard to understand. The real question is, what are the definitions of 'stand' and 'group'? Surely a family of five may wander across the steps, stop and take pictures, or point things out, correct? Probably that which constitutes unlawful behavior would be a number of people all facing each other with the intent of remaining in place for some number of minutes, or more. The ADL also conflates the second half of the statute with the first. The first part of the statute, BEFORE the word "or" is the behavior, of standing or parading in a group. AFTER the word "or" is the behavior of displaying a sign or a banner to draw attention to the group. I emphasized the word "OR" in the statute, because the ADL either has a hard time understanding the structure of a sentence in standard English, or they are being disingenuous by smashing the two parts into one, on purpose. ADL in its letter says: "There is no reason to silence Mrs. Rigo's activities since these activities do not attract attention..." and, the prayers "are 'not designed or adopted [sic] to bring' Mrs. Rigo's group 'into public notice.'" The ADL is saying the group's activity (standing and praying) was not "designed or adopted to bring" the group into "public notice" so they weren't doing anything wrong. However, the statute says it's unlawful to display a sign or banner which is designed or adapted to get noticed. This is separate from the clause BEFORE the "or" in the statute, which prohibits parading or standing as a group. The group only has to do one or the other to be unlawful. The ADL then also brings a secondary argument to the table, which is that since they were singled out when other groups can supposedly assemble on the steps without interference, then they were denied their due process rights. Essentially, they are claiming that they were not getting equal application under the law. Since the guard moved them for breaking a pretty clear statute, then it would stand to reason that the guards there should be moving ALL groups who are doing the same thing (standing/loitering). We don't have first-hand knowledge of other groups passing through or getting moved off the steps that day, but it is not a valid argument to claim you shouldn't have been held to the restrictions of the law if you assume others are not held to it too. This is the equivalent of claiming that when you got a ticket for rolling through a stop sign, it was because of the color of your car, because you see OTHER cars are getting away with the same infraction all the time. Besides, the guard didn't detain or arrest anyone. He simply advised them of the rules and they moved to a place nearby where they could stand in an assemblage legally. |
|
|
|
Post by dj on Aug 1, 2010 15:54:49 GMT -5
The ADL made a number of errors in their characterization of this issue.... To put it another way, the group can't claim they should be able to violate statutes BECAUSE they were praying. My opinion is that you are doing a disservice to the concept of freedom of worship when you start trying to make a case that you are being religiously persecuted for doing something which nobody is otherwise allowed to do under the law. |
|
|
|
Post by Tired in CV on Aug 1, 2010 22:55:46 GMT -5
The ADL made a number of errors in their characterization of this issue.... To put it another way, the group can't claim they should be able to violate statutes BECAUSE they were praying. My opinion is that you are doing a disservice to the concept of freedom of worship when you start trying to make a case that you are being religiously persecuted for doing something which nobody is otherwise allowed to do under the law. Fully understand this! JUST LIKE THE RACE CARD IS USED FOR MINORITIES TO GET AWAY WITH DOING THINGS THAT ARE AGAINST THE LAW. I.E. IMMIGRATION, etc. |
|
|
|
Post by animal on Aug 1, 2010 23:56:23 GMT -5
Pretty much, yes
|
|
|
|
Post by nikki on Aug 2, 2010 1:06:10 GMT -5
To put it another way, the group can't claim they should be able to violate statutes BECAUSE they were praying. My opinion is that you are doing a disservice to the concept of freedom of worship when you start trying to make a case that you are being religiously persecuted for doing something which nobody is otherwise allowed to do under the law. Fully understand this! JUST LIKE THE RACE CARD IS USED FOR MINORITIES TO GET AWAY WITH DOING THINGS THAT ARE AGAINST THE LAW. I.E. IMMIGRATION, etc. There are already screams of "racism" by the Congressional Black Caucus that Rangel and Waters under investigation at the same time proves that blacks are being targeted! |
|
|
|
Post by Tired in CV on Aug 2, 2010 22:20:39 GMT -5
Fully understand this! JUST LIKE THE RACE CARD IS USED FOR MINORITIES TO GET AWAY WITH DOING THINGS THAT ARE AGAINST THE LAW. I.E. IMMIGRATION, etc. There are already screams of "racism" by the Congressional Black Caucus that Rangel and Waters under investigation at the same time proves that blacks are being targeted! Did these charges not originate from within Congress? Hmmmm. It is an interesting point. One would question going after blacks while we have a black President (actually only half black!  ) as he would run interference through his party. Then again, maybe they do it now as the President wouldn't want to be caught up in influencing the outcome. But Obama is to damn arrogant to not get involved somehow. ;D Is it that charges cannot be leveled against a black member of Congress (particularly a Democrat) without being called race related? But a white Republican can be charged AND CONVICTED? Sounds like the people being charged on immigration related charges while government officials (particularly Democrats) avoid prosecution for violating federal immigration regulations/laws! |
|
|
|
Post by Tired in CV on Aug 18, 2010 3:25:32 GMT -5
Some interesting facts presented during a tour of the Capital!
|
|
|
|
Post by dj on Aug 22, 2010 18:12:42 GMT -5
Some interesting facts presented during a tour of the Capital! Ouch. From when Barton starts to speak, holding up the Bible, to about a minute later, his "facts" are complete falsehoods. Ouch! Strike One. No bible has ever been printed, nor even contracted to be printed, by the U.S. Congress. The Bible was printed by Robert Aitken, fully paid for by himself, with the expectation that a shortage of British-printed Bibles would create a great need for an American-printed version. He printed 10,000 of them but nearly eight years later had sold very few of them and had lost a small fortune in the process. Aitken at first asked the Congress to help subsidize or lend funds for the printing of the Bible. They did not. He asked for a recommendation by Congress for the Bible. What he got was a committee recommendation of the ACCURACY of the print, as vouched by the Congressional Chaplains. After his above fabrication that the U.S. Congress printed the Bible, Barton follows that with Cute. This quote was not from Congress or any U.S. government representative. It was from the pen of Robert Aitken himself, in a letter touting his work. Strike two. So Barton summarizes Strike three. Three sentences in, three sentences of bull. Next sentence It almost sort of kind of says that, if you cut out the vast majority of what is printed inside the coverpages, and you combine the beginning and end of a very long sentence. A little backstory on the "recommendation" of the Congress: Aitken asked congress to review and endorse his bible, asked congress to help him finance it, and asked congress to authorize and oversee its printing and distribution. He later asked congress to buy about a quarter of his stock, after the dread realization that even with a monopoly on supply in the wartime colonies, he was selling very few of them at all. What Congress actually did, was send a copy of the bible to a committee for review of accuracy, and the committee sent it to the chaplains, who reported back that after review of a number of portions of the work that it was accurate and with few typographical errors. Here's why that was important. Almost ALL printed books in America at the time of the revolution had been imported from England. American printers had experience mainly with pamphlets and newsletters and bills. The quality of most American printing was lacking. Aitken produced a Bible which by all accounts far surpassed almost all book printing in America at the time in terms of quality. But it was also expensive. Aitken was hoping for the aid and protection of the Congress in order to print and distribute upwards of 10,000 copies of his new bible. Here is the actual full resolution of congress, with the small part Barton recited in bold: It's generally acceptable to snip quotes in order to save space as long as the general intention of the quote is preserved. This quote, however makes clear that the congress is referencing another report, and not only do they mention Aitken's undertaking as being in the interest of religion, but also refer to it as an instance of the progress of arts in this country. The progress of arts in the country, in case a translation is necessary, refers to the improvement in printing and binding techniques of the time. In the actual cover pages of Aitken's bible, not only is the entire quote above included, but so is the other report referenced in the quote (from the chaplains), along with a copy of the request from the congressional committee to the chaplains. The request from the Congressional committee to the chaplains: The report by the Chaplains: Two details to make note of: 1. Both the Chaplain's letter and the committee request both alluded to Aitken's personal financial risk in publishing this work on his own. Congress NEVER intended to loan funds or oversee his work, nor did congress ever buy a single copy of Aitken's bible. In other words, this bible was not printed by Congress as Barton claims. 2. Neither the committee letter nor the chaplains' recommendation nor even the congressional resolution EVER makes mention of the use of the Bible in schools. Again, Aitken himself penned this little marketing phrase and Barton has somehow slipped it into the narrative of this Bible. Barton again summarizes is utterly inaccurate contention: Ugh. As a footnote, Aitken tried a number of times to get assistance from the U.S. Government with the printing and sale of his bible. He wrote to the congress at one point and asked that they buy a quarter of his stock which he said would amount to about 200 bibles per colony. They did not respond. He also wrote to a friend asking him to prevail upon General George Washington to get congress to buy bibles to give to all the discharged soldiers as the war was ending. The friend wrote to Washington, telling him that with the great debt of gratitude the new country owed to Washington congress would not deny such a request if Washington made it himself. Washington declined. Years later, Barton wrote to President Washington looking for a job. He wanted to be the official printer of the U.S. Congress. In his request he reminded Washington of the bible he printed and made special note to describe the overwhelming losses he endured in not being able to sell his edition. Again, nothing. Although the reality is kind of a sad tale for one Robert Aiken, I think sadder still is the completely false story being propagated by David Barton that this Bible was printed by Congress for the schools in the U.S. And it's not that Barton has not been corrected numerous times on this account. He first began speaking of this bible nearly two decades ago and has been roundly debunked on the story for most of that time. The fact that Barton to this day is standing before tour groups who are without doubt sincerely interested in how religion fits in with the founding of the nation, and claiming without qualification that this bible was "printed by the U.S. Congress for use in the schools" amounts to an astonishing level of dishonesty. In case no one remembers, I have mentioned David Barton before. He has published a book of quotes from the founders, and like the Bible story above, many of the quotes have been proven to be complete fabrications or misrepresentations or out-of-context constructions. (He has in fact admitted that a certain few quotes from that book don't seem to have any real documented support.) Like gay marriage or ground zero mosques or immigration, David Barton the person is a subject unto himself which can provide hours of lively conversation and debate. Too bad for him, he makes reference to actual real documents which can be researched and checked for accuracy and relevance. Too bad for his fans and listeners, he doesn't do that. |
|
|
|
Post by dj on Aug 23, 2010 12:20:59 GMT -5
A new Cross dispute has arisen in Vermont, this time pitting a private property owner against the local community. I wanted to quickly give my take.
The issue in a nutshell: A couple (Richard and Joan Downing) with 800 acres near Lyndonville VT built a chapel about 5 years ago, with permits issued by the local town board.
About 3 years ago, the couple added a 24 foot tall Latin Cross and illuminated it at night. Neighbors complained that the lighted cross is brighter than a neon sign at night. The lighting was ordered turned off at night and the Downings were told they need to apply for an amended permit for the cross addition.
Later, the permit was denied and the Downings were told to remove or mitigate (reduce the size of) the cross. They are now fighting the decision saying they have a constitutional right to freely practice their religion. They say the height of the cross and nightly illumination are part of their free exercise. The stories currently hitting the cable and airwaves are portraying this couple who says they think they are being discriminated against because of a bias against Christianity, and have resolved to take this all the way to the Supreme Court.
My take: As usual, in situations like this many facts are omitted and timelines are condensed, and so the media reports a story that is very black and white, and not entirely accurate. For example, the stories out this week say simply that these people were told by the government to remove the cross because it is "out of character" for the community. If this were the true, complete, unedited story, it of course smacks of government interference in the free exercise of religion. But such things are never so simple.
Part of the confusion is that there are two land use authorities involved, in two different aspects to the case. It is not just "the government" ordering the removal of a cross from private land.
The illuminated cross, when it was erected, brought the attention of neighbors who asked the local Lyndonville Zoning Board to order the lights turned off at night. Seems simple enough. The board had hearings and eventually issued a compromise ruling which said the Downings could illuminate the cross during Christmas season, reasoning that it's additional lighting would be much like most other neighbors' decorations consistent with the season.
The first indication that there would be trouble is that the Downings rejected this ruling and appealed to the Vermont Environmental Court. They claim - now, see if you can establish where I think they went over the cliff on this one - that raising and brightly lighting the cross and lighting it was fulfilling a promise they made to the Virgin Mary, and that she has since interceded in their businesses and made them successful. They claim further that lighting the cross for at least 13 weeks out of the year is crucial to fulfilling their promise to proclaim and spread the faith. Put simply, they say that restricting any of this is restricting their ability to practice their religion.
Now, while the lighting issue was still before the local zoning board, the issue of the construction permit under Vermont's ACT 250 was brought before the Land Use Panel of the Vermont Natural Resources Board. This panel investigated and found the couple in violation because the cross was never included in the permit. This issue also went to the state's Environmental Court separately.
In July 2008, the Environmental court found the Downings in violation of ACT 250 which regulates land use because they had not included a cross on their permits. The court and the Downings entered into an Assurance of Discontinuance, which was an agreement that the Downings would pay a fine ($1400), stop illuminating the cross pending an appeal on the lighting issue, and within 90 days apply for the proper permit amendment for the cross, OR remove the cross.
The agreement also said that if the permit is denied, the Downings would have to remove the cross within 60 days from the denial becoming permanent.
As of December 2009 the permit was in fact denied. The Downings were ordered to either remove the cross or make it smaller and dimmer.
The Downings say that making it smaller, and making it dimmer, would negate the point of having it in the first place. This is where the problem lies. The Downings pretty much insist that an exception must be made because of their religion. Their claim that their religious freedom is being infringed is faulty. Any 24 foot illuminated sign built without permits in the area would have been disallowed and ordered either removed or reduced. The very fact that they have been given an option to alter it seems to me to be eminently fair.
Recently there was an issue of a group standing on the Lincoln Memorial steps and singing the national anthem, and another group standing and praying on the Supreme Court steps. In both cases, there were rules against the action, not the contents of the meaning of the action. Meaning, congregating as a group on the Supreme Court steps is against the rules. They were asked to move. The issue was not that they were praying. And they could not and should not be able to demand an exception specifically because they were praying. Same with singing at the Lincoln Memorial. All singing is prohibited, and it matters not that it was a patriotic song.
This situation with the cross is the same. (And if anyone is insistent that this is about squelching religion, explain how it is there is a 2500 square foot Catholic Chapel sitting right there on the property with full permits and access and parking). The Downings are insisting that because their motivation is religious, they be allowed to ignore the zoning board with regard to lighting the cross, and ignore the state law regarding land use for not getting a construction permit for the 24 foot structure in the first place.
My 2 dollars and 2 cents.
|
|
|
|
Post by dj on Aug 23, 2010 13:25:37 GMT -5
Couple thoughts about the mosque and cultural center now called "Park51."
If you see Islam itself as an enemy to America, you will be insulted by a new Islamic center being built 2 blocks from the WTC site.
If you see Islam as a major religion which does NOT seek the destruction of the west, and you see Muslims in America as friends and colleagues, you will consider the 9/11 attacks to be the work of a small number of fanatics, and you will have no problem at all with a new Islamic center being built 2 blocks from the WTC site.
About the argument that a mosque so close to the 9/11 site is some sort of a monument to the triumph of Islam over America. Savage says it is a symbol of conquest, and likens it to the practice of building mosques upon the ruins of christian and jewish sites upon the military subjugation of that country or region by Muslim armies. (Of course he ignores the fact that the Jews and Christians and Muslims all did that every single time they overran a foe. It is not an exclusive Islamic habit). The only problem with the analogy is that no foreign army conquered New York. Terrorists destroyed buildings. The mosque being proposed is not an act of conquest by an invader, it is a project to build an Islamic center exactly where an Islamic center currently exists.
This will shock some of you; others will say it's exactly what you expect of me: I think that two blocks away from WTC isn't close enough. I think a mosque, a synagogue, a christian rch, a buddhist temple and shinto shrine should all be built ON the WTC property, surrounding an interfaith center where study and symposia can be jointly held by all faiths together in the furtherance of religious harmony and understanding. I think the presence of an Islamic cultural center directly within the new WTC would go a long way toward showing that Muslims celebrate and support the American culture and way of life. Not only are they rejecting the actions of the terrorists, but in the act of inhabiting part of the space of the new improved bigger better grander WTC, they are actively participating in the re-birth of the symbol of American prosperity and tolerance.
This of course, is what I get from the developers regarding the center 2 blocks away. I think it is a shame the level of misunderstanding and intolerance they are experiencing over this issue. It is a stain on what has been our tradition of tolerance and freedom, for so many people to insist that this project be moved away from WTC for the sake of "sensitivity" toward the victims and their families. Again, if a mosque is considered insensitive to the victims of 9/11 it is because Islam itself is blamed for the attacks. What of the 200+ Muslim victims and their families. I'm not one of them but it occurs to me that the "sensitivity" with which they've been treated for the last 9 years is probably not something I would wish on my own enemies.
Let me turn this around for a second. The intent of terrorists is to change our way of life. To make us angry and afraid and to act out in a way that is not in the interest or the spirit of our proclaimed life of constitutionally protected liberties and freedoms. Judged in this light, if the mosque developers give in and move the project or it is in any way infringed upon, the terrorists win.
2 more bucks plus 2 cents.
|
|
|
|
Post by EscapeHatch on Aug 23, 2010 14:47:30 GMT -5
Here's my take: Had there been a noticeable outcry from Muslims immediately after 9/11, I may feel differently about the mosque. A peep here and there does not an outcry make. Making excuses or blaming America didn't help, either.
There wasn't. I don't.
Had we seen Muslim Americans come out right away and condemn the actions of their counterparts elsewhere in the world, that would be cast themselves in a better light.
They didn't and it didn't.
Late isn't always better than never.
Then, there is the question about sensitivity. I'll be sensitive to the sensitivities to those that practice the same. This scheme was agenda driven and insensitive. I'll stand up for constitutionally protected liberties. I would not demand that they build elsewhere.
Nor will I forgive them if they proceed.
|
|
|
|
Post by nikki on Aug 23, 2010 15:58:54 GMT -5
First off, the name change from Cordoba House to Park 51 was only done after the Imam was exposed as to his involvement in the Cordoba Initiative and its symbolism.
Second, DJ, your continued broad brush and compartmentalism that you must be either in one camp or another is insulting, but again, I guess true to your form of needing to set others straight on their own thinking.
Against = Then you see Islam as the enemy and should be ashamed for your level of misunderstanding and intolerance.
Pro = Then you see Muslims as your friends and colleagues.
Hogwash! And may I say smacks of the typical SOP of if you disagree, you must be "Islamophobic." I guess you have been deaf and dumb to the many Muslims who have been speaking out against the building of this center (it is in no way just Savage, but nice try) and mosque and the many, many more who say they are opposed to it but are afraid to speak in public for fear of retribution BY OTHER MUSLIMS.
But, good gosh, DJ, for you to say, "Terrorists destroyed buildings" is shocking in its callousness!!!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by EscapeHatch on Aug 23, 2010 16:35:28 GMT -5
First off, the name change from Cordoba House to Park 51 was only done after the Imam was exposed as to his involvement in the Cordoba Initiative and its symbolism. Second, DJ, your continued broad brush and compartmentalism that you must be either in one camp or another is insulting, but again, I guess true to your form of needing to set others straight on their own thinking. Against = Then you see Islam as the enemy and should be ashamed for your level of misunderstanding and intolerance. Pro = Then you see Muslims as your friends and colleagues. Hogwash! And may I say smacks of the typical SOP of if you disagree, you must be "Islamophobic." I guess you have been deaf and dumb to the many Muslims who have been speaking out against the building of this center (it is in no way just Savage, but nice try) and mosque and the many, many more who say they are opposed to it but are afraid to speak in public for fear of retribution BY OTHER MUSLIMS. But, good gosh, DJ, for you to say, "Terrorists destroyed buildings" is shocking in its callousness!!!!! Can we say that on ProBoards?  |
|
|
|
Post by dj on Aug 23, 2010 16:46:31 GMT -5
I don't think American Muslims should have been or still should be required to apologize for radical terrorists from the Middle East. American Muslims don't embody or represent terrorist middle east factions any more than you or I do. That is what is so unfair about this. American Muslims had no more to do with the tragedy than American Christians and Jews. They should be compelled no more than Christians or Jews or Buddhists or Atheists should be to protest loudly and flail their arms to prove to the rest of us how outraged and unaffiliated they were with the attacks.
As I've said before I know more than quite a few Muslims. They were without exception as sickened as I was by 9/11. There is no sense in suggesting that they should have more vociferously and publicly condemned the attacks than I did, lest one day they not be forgiven for building a mosque near a place or near people who consider them in some way connected to the tragedy, because the religion - in name only - is the same.
It is no more fair to demand Muslim Americans dance the jig, do the whatoosie, and step&fetchit and proclaim their outrage loud enough and long enough to satisfy the rest of us they are as appalled and disgusted by 9/11 - just because we INSIST on tying them emotionally to the actions of suicidal nutballs from the other side of the world - than it is to demand that Christians en masse stand up and apologize for or condemn survivalist nutball terrorists who bomb the Atlantic Olympics or the Oklahoma City federal building. I don't think it would be fair of me or anyone to say I will allow you to build a Christian rch near the new federal building, because legally I must, BUT since you didn't cry and gnash your teeth sufficiently immediately after the event such that I was satisfied how sincerely you disavowed the destruction, I will hate you for building the rch. You and your congregation didn't stage enough protests swiftly enough to prove to me you didn't support McVeigh in any way. I didn't see you take out any commercials on the major broadcast networks showing how bereft you were that a white Christian blew up innocent men women and children in the name of their religion. So if you build that rch too close to the new federal building I will never forgive you.
It is, simply, wrong to condemn the adherents of a religion because terrorists have hijacked their faith and turned it into a weapon. It is not American Muslims you need apologies from, it is the jihadist freak jobs in the middle east (and we know those are not forthcoming). You're going to tie your tolerance for this faith center on whether or not the American Muslim community as a whole was able to set themselves above and beyond the already mountainous levels of grief and rage being expressed by Americans and others in the weeks and months after 9/11? Their signs weren't big enough? They need to produce copies of the checks they sent to the victims' funds? Should they reveal exactly all and every one of them who helped ferret out would-be terrorists from their own mosques and communities of the next 9 years?
I don't know if I should describe this as short-sighted or petty or ignorant... but it's just wrong to say you might look more kindly on their current gesture only if back in 2001 they had shouted louder and protested longer and furrowed their brows and cried more deeply, and did it more immediately, and organized large condemnation press conferences and had bake-sales to raise money for shaking a big angry finger at the Arab freaks - EVEN THOUGH THEY HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ATTACKS AND COMPLETELY DISAGREED WITH THE TWISTED IDEOLOGY in the first place.
There WAS condemnation from Muslim groups, but nobody would hear it. And true to form, nobody is hearing the claims that this mosque and cultural center is designed to help bridge those gaps and heal those wounds. Same old same old.
In the 40's and 50's there were unspeakable acts of terror against black americans and activist whites who attempted to aid them in their struggle for equal rights. The terrorists were uniformly white guys, almost all if not all Christians. These fine upstanding standard-bearers for WASP America tortured, shot, hung, burned, dragged and drowned their victims. Although there was no single defining mega-attack which might have focused the tragedy into a single namesake event, like "9/11", I still don't think I'm off my rocker if I state that I don't think anyone who was around at the time can recall that the southern rches those terrorists belonged to made an effort to dance the dance and condemn in no uncertain terms the horrors their "representatives" were wreaking on society.
Sorry for the stretched analogy. Perhaps this one is better. I don't think there are any published reports of any Japanese Americans coming out en masse and condemning the brazen attacks of Japan on Pacific nations and America, in the early 40's. And there needn't be. Americans of Japanese descent had NOTHING to do with Japan's aggression. It wouldn't make a whit of sense to demand their loud and anguished protests against the nation of their ancestors, lest we withhold from them the decency of leaving them the hell alone to live their lives in peace here some six or ten or twenty years later.
My position in sum: Muslims in America had nothing to do with the 9/11 terrorism. Muslims in America should not under any circumstances be expected to condemn or apologize for those terrorists. Muslims in America should not be spited now for not dancing that dance nine years ago. Like you and me they had families and jobs and lives to attend to. They also had to do this with the specter of unfair and misplaced retribution hanging over them and everyone they knew in their religious communities despite the fact that the perpetrators of the crime which also affected them, were twisted psychos from the other side of the world. Despite that they went on with their lives like most of the rest of us, raising their families and participating in their communities and worshiping their god.
I see now an attempt by a group of lower Manhattan Muslims to build a community center and mosque with the ability to open doors, establish outreach, and offer proof of peaceful intent and hopefully heal and rejuvenate the very scarred area around the site of tragedy.
I also see a rash of ideological bigotry threatening to inflame misunderstandings, foster hate, embolden antagonism, and ultimately stamp out and snuff the attempt.
As I said earlier, if they move this project, the terrorists got exactly what they were hoping for.
I have a hope. That the developers stick with it. That the developers and the Muslim community ignore the slings and arrows and that when this center opens, to remain magnanimous and continue what they claim they are attempting to do, build bridges. I have a hope that they will indeed foster interfaith understanding and cooperation, and I have a hope that those of you who say they will never forgive, will ultimately see their effort as sincere and true.
Call me crazy.
|
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Aug 23, 2010 16:48:03 GMT -5
That this is an issue at all shows there is not a lot going on in the world.
|
|
) as he would run interference through his party. Then again, maybe they do it now as the President wouldn't want to be caught up in influencing the outcome. But Obama is to damn arrogant to not get involved somehow. ;D
