this mosque thing is blowin up for Barry

[spence]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

put up the stats on religiously motivated violence against Americans and then we'll talk.

I'm not sure I'd really care why someone wanted to kill me, at least not during the moment.

I'd also wager that danger is highly localized. Around the borders or camps I'm sure a Western person would not want to be, even as an aid worker.

-spence

[Joe]

The casualties of Sept 11 were 2976. Makes you wonder what's going to happen to the principles the country was founded upon someday when the civilian casualty count is six figures or more? When they're pulling corpses out of schools on television? We're closer to loading up the boxcars than we think.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by Joe

The casualties of Sept 11 were 2976. Makes you wonder what's going to happen to the principles the country was founded upon someday when the civilian casualty count is six figures or more? When they're pulling corpses out of schools on television? We're closer to loading up the boxcars than we think.

I agree 100% Joe. However I sleep well at night knowing O and Joe are on the case.

[Joe]

It's not an endorsement. I just think it's important recognize that our freedoms are something we aspire to, representations of 'the better angels of our nature.' They have often been at odds with blood and vengeance.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Joe

It's not an endorsement. I just think it's important recognize that our freedoms are something we aspire to, representations of 'the better angels of our nature.' They have often been at odds with blood and vengeance.

It's a very good point.

I think the big picture issue here is that in this instance, there's a pretty direct closed loop correlation between our behavior and other factors that are influencing that exact same behavior!

Example.

The internment of Japanese in 1942 was wrong, but also a product of the times. That being said, did it hurt our ability to win WW2 in the Pacific? Not sure but wouldn't think so.

The negative reactions to the Islamic center in New York are fed by reasons we've stated above, most of which I'd argue are also "wrong". But this behavior is directly feeding an Islamic stereotype of Americans that we're anti-Islam - and to those who incite terrorism - out to destroy Islam. Which exacerbates anti-American sentiment and helps fuel more terrorism....

This of course feeds the American mistrust of Islam...and closes the loop.

-spence

[spence]

Originally Posted by Joe

The casualties of Sept 11 were 2976. Makes you wonder what's going to happen to the principles the country was founded upon someday when the civilian casualty count is six figures or more? When they're pulling corpses out of schools on television? We're closer to loading up the boxcars than we think.

We've already seen what happens when we're out for blood...the people won't care and the motivations of those in power at the time will have free reign.

God help us if there's a really big attack like a small nuke and we don't know how to respond. People will want retribution and won't really care who gets whipped.

Something to think about.

The number of Americans killed in terror attacks in the last few decades is probably around 3500 people, most on 9/11. A lot for sure and there's an economic impact that's big as well.

In response to this, we've already lost almost 5,700 fighting men and women since 9/11, perhaps another few thousand contractors and have created collateral damage in the tens to perhaps hundreds of thousands of civilians depending on who's count you take. Oh and how much spending? Well over a trillion dollars.

In the process, I think we've squashed any hope al Qaeda might have had of establishing a caliphate, but have we addressed any of the root cause issues?

Not so sure...

-spence

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

We've already seen what happens when we're out for blood...the people won't care and the motivations of those in power at the time will have free reign.

God help us if there's a really big attack like a small nuke and we don't know how to respond. People will want retribution and won't really care who gets whipped.

Something to think about.

The number of Americans killed in terror attacks in the last few decades is probably around 3500 people, most on 9/11. A lot for sure and there's an economic impact that's big as well.

In response to this, we've already lost almost 5,700 fighting men and women since 9/11, perhaps another few thousand contractors and have created collateral damage in the tens to perhaps hundreds of thousands of civilians depending on who's count you take. Oh and how much spending? Well over a trillion dollars.

In the process, I think we've squashed any hope al Qaeda might have had of establishing a caliphate, but have we addressed any of the root cause issues?

Not so sure...

-spence

We dont " incite terrorism" Spence.

We are now trying the Kiss A$$ approach to Islamic radicals and yet they still want to kill you,your wife and your children. Not to mention that now even our allies don't like us anymore.

Your math is way off. 3500??? Americans maybe, world wide...X10 easy.

Your formula also fails to take into account how many would have died had we not had a war on terror. Lest you forget, we didn't start this thing, although being the terrorist sympathizer you are, I'm sure you believe we did.

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

We dont " incite terrorism" Spence.

Who said we did? You can read can't you?

We are now trying the Kiss A$$ approach to Islamic radicals and yet they still want to kill you,your wife and your children. Not to mention that now even our allies don't like us anymore.

By your logic, trying to talk to people is kissing their ass, that's part of the problem. I'd note that under Obama we've don't a hell of a lot of killing of radicals, even perhaps pushing the targeting killings beyond Bush.

Your math is way off. 3500??? Americans maybe, world wide...X10 easy.

I said Americans, once again you fail to read.

Your formula also fails to take into account how many would have died had we not had a war on terror. Lest you forget, we didn't start this thing, although being the terrorist sympathizer you are, I'm sure you believe we did.

It's a safe bet that there would be less total dead had we done nothing, not that I'm advocating for that. I do value ours more than there's...

But your comment that "we didn't start this thing" is just stupid. We don't live in a vacuum. Where we are today is a complex mix of actions over the years that didn't just happen by random.

You can accept this, and work towards a solution, or keep your head in the sand and prepare for another attack. Thinking critically doesn't mean you have to admit guilt or culpability.

Your choice.

-spence

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

Who said we did? You can read can't you?


By your logic, trying to talk to people is kissing their ass, that's part of the problem. I'd note that under Obama we've don't a hell of a lot of killing of radicals, even perhaps pushing the targeting killings beyond Bush.


I said Americans, once again you fail to read.


It's a safe bet that there would be less total dead had we done nothing, not that I'm advocating for that. I do value ours more than there's...

But your comment that "we didn't start this thing" is just stupid. We don't live in a vacuum. Where we are today is a complex mix of actions over the years that didn't just happen by random.

You can accept this, and work towards a solution, or keep your head in the sand and prepare for another attack. Thinking critically doesn't mean you have to admit guilt or culpability.

Your choice.

-spence

"But this behavior is directly feeding an Islamic stereotype of Americans that we're anti-Islam - and to those who incite terrorism - out to destroy Islam. Which exacerbates anti-American sentiment and helps fuel more terrorism"

Seems clear enough....

You did say Americans, as I noted.

I would love to hear why you feel sitting back after being attacked and doing nothing would have saved lives.

Admitting guilt is what Obama does. It's the foundation of his Kiss A$$ policy.

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

"But this behavior is directly feeding an Islamic stereotype of Americans that we're anti-Islam - and to those who incite terrorism - out to destroy Islam. Which exacerbates anti-American sentiment and helps fuel more terrorism"

Seems clear enough....

To someone who can't read.

You did say Americans, as I noted.

Not really.

I would love to hear why you feel sitting back after being attacked and doing nothing would have saved lives.

Net dead, with the assumption that ours are worth more than theirs. I guess if you can't handle basic sentence structure we probably shouldn't get into algebra.

Admitting guilt is what Obama does. It's the foundation of his Kiss A$$ policy.

This doesn't surprise me considering you don't seem to be able to grasp the basics of cause and effect.

-spence

[buckman]

As we all know I'm the biggest racist on the net, but even I didn't start looking for Islamic driven yellow box trucks untill after they attacked the towers.

The Anti-Islam that you speak of is mostly a product of your imagination and low opinion of your fellow man. Like I said before we have an Islamic school here and I have never heard of this hatered that you profess is creating terrorism.

And please don't go all algebra on me....even in summer school taking it twice, I still don't get it

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

As we all know I'm the biggest racist on the net, but even I didn't start looking for Islamic driven yellow box trucks untill after they attacked the towers.

And to think, had you been looking for an Christian driven yellow box truck the Oklahoma city bombing might have been averted

The Anti-Islam that you speak of is mostly a product of your imagination and low opinion of your fellow man.

I thought you didn't drink?

Like I said before we have an Islamic school here and I have never heard of this hatered that you profess is creating terrorism.

Perhaps because they have electricity all the time and their parents drive insured cars.

And please don't go all algebra on me....even in summer school taking it twice, I still don't get it

I thought you were prep schooled?

-spence

[buckman]

Talk to me about drinking at half time

I remember the people of Kuwait celebrating in the streets and hugging US troops when they were free again .....

You forget the parties on the streets of Iran, celebrating the murder of thousands on 9/11.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I think Stewart was being pretty straightforward with this commentary.

Limbaugh, Beck, et al are also very straightforward. Being straightforward doesn't mean you're right--certainly doesn't mean you'll get 100% agreement.

The conditions about the issue didn't change, just the controversy surrounding it and how some were just out to stir the pot as we've discussed here at length.

FOX may get special attention, but are they more guilty of promoting
misleading or unfair accusations? While the video certainly isn't a
detailed report on the issue, I can say I sure don't hear the kind of
rhetoric (or it's inverse) on the other cable news networks.

I didn't say "conditions ABOUT the issue" changed. The commentator on the Fox clip reported that initially there WAS NO ISSUE. There is now an issue on which Fox and other networks report and comment. That you don't like how Fox is handling it is neither surprising nor relevant. Stewart's implication that Fox somehow flip-flopped or changed their story is not true.

Terrorist training center...there could be a Hamburg cell right downtown...And this is by FOX regulars...

Other cable networks have regulars who say things that many think are stupid.

The Heston remarks really had nothing to do with the NRA. It was about letting the actions of a few dictate your policy toward the many.

Two things were being interwoven in his analysis. The symbolism argument and the constitutional right. He brought up the Heston analogy, after other false analogies, as a similar occurence to the Columbine massacre where the Left demanded that the NRA not hold their convention near the sight OUT OF RESPECT to the victims and their relatives. Stewart says that this was painting too narrow a picture connecting irresponsibly the actions of two psychotics to an entire group of reasonable people expressing their constitutional rights.

It is was not only too narrow a picture, it was a totally false picture. The NRA had no connection to the psychotics or their massacre. There wasn't even a symbolic tie.

Stewart says he accepts the symbolic argument as valid. THAT IS THE ONLY ARGUMENT AGAINST PLACING THE MOSQUE NEAR GROUND ZERO. There is no argument about denying first ammendment rights by those opposed to the mosque. That is a manufactured counter argument. Stewarts analogies were somehow supposed to show how those protesting against the mosque on symbolic grounds lost his support. They don't do that. The Heston thing is a strong argument for the constitutional right to build the mosque there, but has nothing to do with the symbolic argument against it. And the analogy itself, is incompatible--false.

Sure it did, as he pointedly hammered on the shallowness of Beck's own attacks and how he's degraded the Nazi card to a cheap commodity.

He pointedly showed teeny clips out of context, not analyzing the total argument that Beck made in every case. Very easy to do with any argument to make it look silly. If the Nazi card has been degraded to a cheap commodity, it was done a long time ago by the left and right. Whether Beck's comments were shallow or untrue would have to be examined in the total context of what he said.

And god forbid it's employed by a comic. To think...the nerve.
-spence

Precisely--he's a COMIC. His video is funny. It is not to the point and has false references.

[scottw]

Krauthammer nails it as usual...no comedy necessary

The Last Refuge of the Liberal - Article - National Review Online

[Bronko]

Brilliant piece. Makes Ron Paul look like he wrote his in crayons.

Love Krauthammer

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by Bronko

Love Krauthammer

Brilliant guy, same league as Buckley.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Bronko

Brilliant piece. Makes Ron Paul look like he wrote his in crayons.

Love Krauthammer

Well, he is a writer after all and not a politician.

It's a good piece and he brings up some good points, but it's also blatantly hypocritical.

Within the anti-immigration movement there are real racists, people get harassed and attacked simply because they were born gay, I don't doubt for a second that Obama being black is a big issue for some and anti-Islam sentiment is there today threatening the rights of American citizens.

It's a fair argument to say these cards shouldn't be thrown about as cheap commodities (ala Beck and the Nazis), but for Kraut to write this all off as Liberal's lashing out is a great example of the pot calling the kettle black.

-spence

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

Well, he is a writer after all and not a politician.

It's a good piece and he brings up some good points, but it's also blatantly hypocritical.

Within the anti-immigration movement there are real racists, people get harassed and attacked simply because they were born gay, I don't doubt for a second that Obama being black is a big issue for some and anti-Islam sentiment is there today threatening the rights of American citizens.

It's a fair argument to say these cards shouldn't be thrown about as cheap commodities (ala Beck and the Nazis), but for Kraut to write this all off as Liberal's lashing out is a great example of the pot calling the kettle black.

-spence

"anti-immigration movement"??? So Spence like. Makes the rest of your points even more moot.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Precisely--he's a COMIC. His video is funny. It is not to the point and has false references.

Just because you're a comic shouldn't forbid making a statement, and the use of humor doesn't mean your point is any less valid. In the end it's simply a matter of the point ringing true.

This is quite different than what you usually get on Rush or Beck IMHO. They are very quick prey on stereotypes, fear, manipulation (in the name of argument) and gross insensitivity often at the expense of others (Club Gitmo anyone?). Are Rush and Beck so successful because of their message or because they titillate? I'd argue it's really more of the latter.

Rush of course laughs it up as part of his product, but his listeners seem to take him oddly seriously. As a note, I listened to Rush every day for years. Certainly there's bias everywhere, but there's also quality...

Stewart didn't "attack" FOX for flip flopping (although I do think Laura Ingram did), the bigger issue he was highlighting was that this story has been around for a while and wasn't a big deal...until what changed?

That FOX took it on the chin simply says something about the kind of reckless comments that frequent the programming.

Additionally, I'm not sure you can charge he's taken anything out of context...unless you know the context. Does Stewart have a history of fabrication? I didn't think so.

As for Heston (now understanding your point) and the idea the NRA analogy is invalid...I don't agree. There is a direct link between NRA members and the Columbine killers...they both own(ed) guns...that's exactly the point.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Just because you're a comic shouldn't forbid making a statement, and the use of humor doesn't mean your point is any less valid. In the end it's simply a matter of the point ringing true.


Who's forbidding? I didn't say using humor is less valid. Validity requires more than "ringing" true.

This is quite different than what you usually get on Rush or Beck IMHO. They are very quick prey on stereotypes, fear, manipulation (in the name of argument) and gross insensitivity often at the expense of others (Club Gitmo anyone?). Are Rush and Beck so successful because of their message or because they titillate? I'd argue it's really more of the latter.


Then argue. So far all you have done is say or accuse. You give opinions.

Rush of course laughs it up as part of his product, but his listeners seem to take him oddly seriously. As a note, I listened to Rush every day for years. Certainly there's bias everywhere, but there's also quality...

So your opinion is that Stewart's show has quality (whatever that is) and Rush's show doesn't. whoopee.

Stewart didn't "attack" FOX for flip flopping (although I do think Laura Ingram did), the bigger issue he was highlighting was that this story has been around for a while and wasn't a big deal...until what changed?

You put "attack" in quotes. Who are you quoting? What changed is that it became a big deal. You're certainly implying that it became so because of Fox. So if Fox would not report the groundswell of opinion, or if some commentators on Fox after reflection would not have an opionion on the matter, then there would be no controversy. Ignorance is bliss.

That FOX took it on the chin simply says something about the kind of reckless comments that frequent the programming.

Is this argument or insinuation?

Additionally, I'm not sure you can charge he's taken anything out of context...unless you know the context. Does Stewart have a history of fabrication? I didn't think so.

Don't know what you're referring to here.

As for Heston (now understanding your point) and the idea the NRA analogy is invalid...I don't agree. There is a direct link between NRA members and the Columbine killers...they both own(ed) guns...that's exactly the point.
-spence

No. The valid analogy was to the NRA's constitutional right and the Muslims constitutional right. As for the the analogy between the NRA members and the Columbine killers both owning guns, it stops there. There is no connection between their owning guns and their use of those guns. The direct links between NRA members and the Columbine psychos and the rest of us is legion. We all eat, sleep, hopefully love, walk, drive, think, have opinions, likes, dislikes, and on and on . . . None of these, including owning guns (most gun owners are not NRA members) are a direct link to the psychotic act of the Columbine killers. The analogy would have been valid if the killers had specificaly stated that they killed in the name of the NRA against those who were against the NRA and its mission.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

There is no connection between their owning guns and their use of those guns.

That is exactly the point.

As for arguments vs opinions, I can go drub up references that have helped form my opinions to construct a more rounded argument, but I'm not sure it's worth the time. In the middle of that post my wife blessed me with a 14 day old son, or well, at least she handed him to me

Perhaps quality is the wrong word, as Rush's show is very high quality in a perverted sort of way.

I never implied it became a big deal because of FOX, simply that the rhetoric used on the network isn't seen on other cable networks, at least that I see.

Context refers to the snippets in the video that you said were taken out of context.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

That is exactly the point.

First you say "the Heston remarks had nothing to do with the NRA. It was about letting the actions of a few dictate your policy toward the many." Then you say "there is a direct link between NRA members and the Columbine killers . . . they both own(ed) guns . . ." Well if the direct link is that they both owned guns and that it is about letting the actions of a few dictate your policy toward the many, isn't that a little too universal? The only link is owning guns? Who are the many and the few? Gun owners of the world? Law enforcement, criminals, military, hunters, citizens defending themselves from columbine types? Shouldn't there be something more substantial linking NRA members with the Columbine killers, such as the Columbine killers actually being NRA members (so it would be about the "actions of a few" NRA members "dict[ating] your policy toward the many" NRA members)--that is, if your using the Heston analogy to dissuade you from what Stewart considered being a valid point--sensitivity to the meaning of the mosque's location? Didn't that meaning involve members of the religion building the mosque killing the 9/11 victims in the name of that religion?

As for arguments vs opinions, I can go drub up references that have helped form my opinions to construct a more rounded argument, but I'm not sure it's worth the time. In the middle of that post my wife blessed me with a 14 day old son, or well, at least she handed him to me

I'm sure you could, and it wouldn't be worth it.

Children are a blessing and worth more than all the words in the universe. Bless you and your wife for bringing that blessing into our world. I sincerely mean that.


Perhaps quality is the wrong word, as Rush's show is very high quality in a perverted sort of way.

You've called him a whore. You've said he pedals porn. Now it's perversion. Hmmm. You sure that you don't avoid him for fear of some deep seated, perverse sexual thing?

I never implied it became a big deal because of FOX, simply that the rhetoric used on the network isn't seen on other cable networks, at least that I see.

That's why FOX is different from the other networks. They all use the same rhetoric. FOX's rhetoric is different.

Context refers to the snippets in the video that you said were taken out of context.
-spence

I was referring to the Nazi tourette video, not the Stewart, when I referred to out of context snippets. Just a misunderstanding.

Get back to the little ones. This stuff is unimportant.

[spence]

I think you missed my comment about not understand the entirety of your Heston comment at first...

That being said, I think you're trying to read too much into this one, perhaps just to undermine it. After all, if it required a dissertation to make a point I'm not sure the Daily Show demographic would get it.

From what I read above, if the Columbine killers were NRA members it would be a valid parallel, but if the only association is that they are all gun owners it's not.

What's the NRA's purpose? I thought it was to fight for the right to bear arms and fight against legal limitations on firearm possession. Looser gun control laws makes it easier for people like the Columbine killers to obtain them.

It would be unfair of course to presume the intentions of NRA members are illicit.

Ultimately we have an NRA meeting in Denver, seen as un-compassionate because of the proximity of "gun talk" and "gun people" and a terrible killing by people who used guns. And in New York we have an Islamic Center seen as un-compassionate because of the proximity of "Islamic talk and Islamic people" and a terrible killing by people who believed in Islam.

The irony is that while the NRA advocates legal and responsible gun ownership the Park51 Imam advocates moderate and responsible Islam.

So do guns kill people or do people kill people? That is exactly the question and why I think it was a perfectly appropriate analogy.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I think you missed my comment about not understand the entirety of your Heston comment at first...

That being said, I think you're trying to read too much into this one, perhaps just to undermine it. After all, if it required a dissertation to make a point I'm not sure the Daily Show demographic would get it.

I am not trying to read anything into the Stewart video. I think it is funny. But, beyond the humor, I just don't see a valid argument against what he accepts as valid--the symbolic argument--sensitivity to the locations meaning. The mini-second clips of those making various comments about Islam are, without context, meaningless--though they can be combined into a silly pastiche. But they don't discount the symbolic argument, and if they did, why does Stewart accept that argument. Are there actual clips that do favor the argument--which he conveniently omits. The somewhat prolonged clip of Bolling with the card and highlighter is chopped up enough to make him look silly. The screen text denotes that the segment was about funding for the mosque and the tax returns of the funders. Did we see any of that in Stewart's version? What we see is Bollling's burned money and his bullet point card with some discussion of the points. How much discussion? I can't be sure how much was edited. I thought it peculiar that the clip was noticeably edited after some words about the Muslim Brotherhood and then it totally skipped the Hamas bullet point and jumped to Iran. It might have been inconvenient for Stewart's discussion to have it pointed out that Imam Rauf refuses to call Hamas a terrorist organization. I am not reading too much here merely to invalidly undermine Stewart's video. Perhaps those who think he nailed it aren't reading enough out of it so as not to undermine it.

From what I read above, if the Columbine killers were NRA members it would be a valid parallel, but if the only association is that they are all gun owners it's not.

What's the NRA's purpose? I thought it was to fight for the right to bear arms and fight against legal limitations on firearm possession. Looser gun control laws makes it easier for people like the Columbine killers to obtain them.

It would be unfair of course to presume the intentions of NRA members are illicit.

Ultimately we have an NRA meeting in Denver, seen as un-compassionate because of the proximity of "gun talk" and "gun people" and a terrible killing by people who used guns. And in New York we have an Islamic Center seen as un-compassionate because of the proximity of "Islamic talk and Islamic people" and a terrible killing by people who believed in Islam.

The irony is that while the NRA advocates legal and responsible gun ownership the Park51 Imam advocates moderate and responsible Islam.

So do guns kill people or do people kill people? That is exactly the question and why I think it was a perfectly appropriate analogy.

-spence

If the only link between the NRA and the Columbine killers is the owning of guns (which is not true, by the way--there are a myriad of other superficial similarities) then would there have been an objection to meeting in Denver at that time by The International Association of Chiefs of Police, or the International Police Association, or the National Black Police Association, or NAPO--National Association of Police Organizations, or (closer to home) the Arizona Professional Police Officers Association, or the American Legion, or Amvets, etc.

The symbolic argument that Stewart says is valid was not about religious people and religious talk (in parallel to your "gun talk" and "gun people"). Though Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc., are religions having that specific trait in common with Islam, the symbolic argument against building a house of worship for one of the non-muslim religions at ground zero would not be valid even though they all have a direct link to Islam in that they believe in a deity (Christianity and Judaism even the same God). The symbolic argument is only valid because it was actual Muslims who killed the 9/11 victims in the name of that specific religion.

The Columbine killers were not generic gun owners killing in the name of gun ownership, or gun rights, or killing because of guns. Who they were and what they did was neither about guns nor about the NRA. The NRA analogy is not specific enough to compare with the symbolic argument against the mosque.

[detbuch]

Even though this thread is dead, and as a little change of pace from the post election chat, I couldn't resist posting this related quote. It is by Tarek Fatah, one of the "moderate" Muslims to whom Spence wants us to raise our ears. In speaking about the Ground Zero Mosque, he said "We Muslims know the . . . Mosque is meant to be a deliberate provocation, to thumb our noses at the infidel. The proposal has been made in bad faith, . . . as "fitna," meaning "mischief making" that is clearly forbidden in the Koran . . . as Muslims we are dismayed that our co-religionists have such little considerations for their fellows citizens, and wish to rub salt in there wounds and pretend they are applying a balm to sooth the pain."

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Even though this thread is dead, and as a little change of pace from the post election chat, I couldn't resist posting this related quote. It is by Tarek Fatah, one of the "moderate" Muslims to whom Spence wants us to raise our ears. In speaking about the Ground Zero Mosque, he said "We Muslims know the . . . Mosque is meant to be a deliberate provocation, to thumb our noses at the infidel. The proposal has been made in bad faith, . . . as "fitna," meaning "mischief making" that is clearly forbidden in the Koran . . . as Muslims we are dismayed that our co-religionists have such little considerations for their fellows citizens, and wish to rub salt in there wounds and pretend they are applying a balm to sooth the pain."

Sorry, I admit I'm delinquent in responding to all posts.

Few quick comments.

The quote appears to be from a piece from this summer before the funding was disclosed in more detail, or the use of the space was detailed. Perhaps this would have unclouded some mystery?

My personal read on the owner of the property is that he's a real estate guy out to make some money rather than an ideologue.

The wife of the Imam collaborated with the Jewish Community Center in New York in modeling the function of the space.

So, it doesn't seem like the thing stinks. I've yet to see any evidence that really indicates it does...just speculation.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Sorry, I admit I'm delinquent in responding to all posts.

Few quick comments.

The quote appears to be from a piece from this summer before the funding was disclosed in more detail, or the use of the space was detailed. Perhaps this would have unclouded some mystery?

My personal read on the owner of the property is that he's a real estate guy out to make some money rather than an ideologue.

The wife of the Imam collaborated with the Jewish Community Center in New York in modeling the function of the space.

So, it doesn't seem like the thing stinks. I've yet to see any evidence that really indicates it does...just speculation.

-spence

The Tarek Fatah quote is from an August 7 article. Has some further clarification on the mosque funding happened since then? Not sure how that would affect Fatah's opinion. Anyway, it's not just "right wingers" with "political agendas" that objected to the mosque's location. BTW, you inspired me to search for moderate Islam. It's been very interesting so far. Hasn't significantly changed my opinion, but there seems to be a ray of hope. I don't view events and policies that have occured to be mistakes (e.g.--9/11 extremism, Iraq and Afghanistan invasions), rather I see them as potential outcomes necessary to the evolution of Eastern and Western interface. Muslim Fundamentalists understandably resist secularization. They rightly see moderation and secularization, practically, as a shift toward irrelevance and extinction. They view the moderates such as Fatah, Dr. Muqtedar Khan, and others who are attractive to the West as being in error and dangerous to Islam. Though most Muslims are "peaceful," the majority are under the influence of fundamentalist scholars who preach against innovation and secularization. At this point in time, the "Ummah" loves the terrorists more than the secular, democratic, West. Interestingly, Dr Khan, who loves Islam AND loves western freedom and pluralism, says that "Muslims are good or can be good when they are minorities. As soon as Muslims get a state of their own everything goes wrong."