The Muslim Community Center at Ground Zero: a Manufactured Controversy

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
The Rise of America's Idiot Culture

The Muslim Community Center at Ground Zero: a Manufactured Controversy

By ANTHONY DiMAGGIO

A substantial racist uproar is taking place in conservative America, particularly in right-wing radio and television. Reactionary pundits are drawing increased attention to plans to build an Islamic community center in downtown Manhattan, near Ground Zero. Republicans and conservatives have long been known to harbor racist views of Islam, although they?re hardly alone in this. Many on the right frame the entire religion as radical, fundamentalist, and a threat to national security. In light of this pattern, there?s little surprising about the right?s most recent attack on Muslim Americans as a secret, under the radar threat.

Islam has at times been portrayed on the right as the bedrock threat to American cultural values, and Muslims are depicted as uni-dimensionally set on overthrowing Christianity, enslaving the American public, and imposing ?Sharia law.? The last warning about ?Sharia law? ? repeated by pundits like Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh ? among many others ? comes off as extremely ignorant, considering that the term ?Sharia? itself means Islamic law. One should take the warnings of those who use the phrase ?Sharia law? about as seriously as someone who masquerades as a legal scholar while talking about the importance of ?American law law.?

The American right has also taken to paranoid conspiracy theories charging that Obama is a non-citizen. As the story goes, Obama was really born in Kenya, and his ?take over? of the White House represents a secret victory for radical Islam, since, as we all ?know,? Obama is a closet Muslim terrorist who is allied with Osama bin Laden and other radical Islamists. About half of Republicans believe either that Obama is not a citizen or that they cannot be sure of whether he is really an American citizen or not. These views are shared by nearly 60 percent of self-designated Tea Party supporters.

Of course, the nuances of the Islamic faith and the mainstream nature of the American Muslim community - the vast majority who oppose terrorism, fundamentalism, or repression of women - have been completely lost in the smug arrogance and incompetence of racists on the right.

The reactionary right has long been opposed to anything related to Arab culture and the Muslim religion in New York and around the country. One infamous example is New York?s Khalil Gibran Arabic language academy, the first of its kind for the city. Rabid right-wingers railed against it, especially those in the ?stop the Madrassa? campaign (many of whom worried about the dangers of ?Madrassa schools,? while apparently too ignorant to realize that the word Madrassa itself means school). I argued with one of the leaders of this group on Alan Colmes? radio show a few years ago. She seemed un-phased by the reality that there was never any concrete evidence that the Khalil Gibran academy was teaching Islamic values. As she announced on the show (despite my scorn for her comments), the very fact that there was no visible evidence of an Islamic curriculum was proof of just how good the schools? administrators and teachers were of hiding it. Such paranoia demonstrated how far conservative extremism and racism have come in recent years.

This brings us to the most recent ?controversy? related to Islam: the Muslim community center planned for Manhattan. Right wingers in radio and at Fox News have gone into overdrive attacking it as a fundamental threat to the American way of life and to American security. Their racist diatribes have been hard for me to listen to, but they remain important to address, if for no other reason than so we can fight the ignorant assumptions behind them head on.

Here?s a quick review of some of the most outrageous comments made in the American media:

- On Fox News, former Congressman Newt Gingrich attacked the community center for its planned location ?right at the edge of a place where, let?s be clear, thousands of Americans were killed in an attack by radical Islamists.? On his website, Gingrich announced that ?there should be no mosque near ground zero in New York so long as there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia.? Gingrich?s choice to spotlight the radical fundamentalist regime of Saudi Arabia (hypocritically supported by Gingrich himself when he was Speaker of the House in the 1990s) ? while neglecting moderate and secular governments in the Muslim world, speaks volumes about what he considers to be the ?essence? of Islam. Gingrich?s language is truly abhorrent; he frames those supporting the community center in Manhattan as part of the same ?they? as the Islamic fundamentalists who perpetrated the 9-11 attacks. As far as Gingrich is concerned, there are no distinctions to be made in the monolithic ?threat? that is the entire U.S. and world Muslim community.

- On Fox, Sarah Palin drew attention to ?those innocent victims, those families of those who were killed in the 9-11 tragedy, it saddens me to think that people don?t understand what building this mosque at such hallowed ground really represents.? Inextricably linked to Palin?s warnings is the assumption that the community center represents a single, overarching fifth column threat from American Muslims. This much was clear when she characterized its construction as ?an unnecessary provocation? against the people of New York and the American people more generally.

- Fox News host Sean Hannity claimed that the ?Iman? supporting the building of the community center is a figure who ?supports what happened on 9/11? and ?praises Osama bin Laden.? Hannity, of course, failed to present any evidence linking community center supporters to defending the 9/11 attacks, but this hardly seemed to matter to him or his guest, Jay Seculow (of the American Center for Law and Justice), who complained that ?you don?t get to build a mosque on a site that?s part of ground zero? because ?that would be like putting at Pearl Harbor a monument of the Kamikaze pilots who tried to destroy U.S. troops, you just don?t do that.? In this case, Muslim Americans who had nothing to do with 9/11 are apparently the equivalent of Japanese soldiers who killed Americans during World War II.

- Right wing radio icon Rush Limbaugh, not to be outdone, warned that ?the terrorists win? if the community center successfully moves forward. Limbaugh continued, posing a hypothetical comparing Muslim Americans to those who lynched blacks in the post Civil War era: ?Let me ask you: What would happen, do you think, if the Ku Klux Klan wanted to establish a memorial at Gettysburg?? Limbaugh also employed a World War II analogy, likening the dangers of the community center to the destruction brought upon Japan by U.S. nuclear weapons: ?Let?s go to Hiroshima and Nagasaki and let?s build giant monuments in the shape of nuclear bombs and call it the Manhattan Project. I mean you?d have Americans objecting to that, wouldn?t you??

What is most disturbing about the manufactured controversy involving the community center is the blatant arrogance and stupidity of the right in its warnings of an imminent ?threat.? Anyone who spends thirty seconds researching the Cordoba Group, the organization responsible for promoting the community center, would know that the group?s representative, Feisal Abdul Rauf (targeted in Hannity attacks as pro-bin Laden and pro-9/11) is actually a public critic of Osama bin Laden and the 9/11 attacks, and a vocal supporter of improving relations between the U.S. and the Muslim world. None of this is conveyed in any of the right-wing slander above, however, as these pundits are content to showcase their ignorance regarding the basic facts surrounding the community center fiasco they ?authoritatively? ?report? on.

I should note that all of the pundits above premise their attacks on the Manhattan community center with statements that promotion of religious tolerance and cultural diversity are important and necessary. These claims, however, mean nothing when they are followed by fear mongering and attacks on Muslims as part of an all-encompassing threat that derives from some sort of uniform ?Muslim culture? ? one that is seen as constituting a danger to U.S. security and the American way of life. These pundits refuse to distinguish between the tiny minority of those throughout the world who support terrorism in the name of Islam and the vast majority of Muslims who reject those beliefs. Their reluctance to take a reasonable, level-headed approach to the study of the Muslim faith is an indicator of their fanaticism, religious bigotry, and racism.

Rather than asking whether the Manhattan community center represents a threat, we should be asking ourselves what happened to our country when national discourse is hijacked by those who not only have no interest in facts, but see them as an active roadblock to advancing their racist agendas. The blatant racism and incompetence of those attacking the Manhattan community center should be obvious enough to those who pride themselves in promoting multi-culturalism, racial diversity, and respect for religious freedom. That the racist right remains so prominent in national television and radio is a sign, more than anything else, of the steep deterioration of American political discourse.
 

rusty

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 24, 2006
4,627
11
0
Under a mask.
Zero foresight on mosque
Naive pols enabled controversy
By Jonah Goldberg
Wednesday, August 18, 2010 - Updated 5 hours ago



The Ground Zero mosque controversy is one of the stupidest debates of our time. I don?t mean the substance of the debate (though there?s no shortage of stupidity on that front either). I mean that we are having it at all.

The CIA usually defends its existence by pointing out that we never hear about its successes, only its failures. The bombs that don?t go off don?t make headlines. Politics works the same way. Good politicians instinctively see down the road and around the corner. We call such foresight statesmanship.

With the Ground Zero mosque, we have gotten the exact opposite. The supposedly pragmatic political wise men have been blinded by ideology or incompetence and have failed to see what was so obviously around the corner. A big honking Islamic center built to capitalize on 9/11, in a building that was damaged on 9/11? What could go wrong?

It?s as if they?ve wanted to turn a dumb idea into an emotional and unwinnable national controversy.

Let?s start with the incandescent idiocy of New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. If Bloomberg had a scintilla of foresight, he would have prevented anyone from ever hearing the words ?Ground Zero? and ?mosque? in the same sentence.

He could have kept the molehill from becoming a mountain with an afternoon?s worth of phone calls. The center would be built, just not so close to Ground Zero; no big deal.

Which brings us to President Barack Obama (who himself could have quietly intervened months ago) and what may be his most embarrassing blunder yet. At a White House dinner with Muslim leaders Friday night, Obama offered what every major journalistic outfit took to be unqualified support for building the mosque. Indeed, Obama aides preened over his moral courage, telling The New York Times [NYT] that there was no doubt which side he would take.

?He felt he had a responsibility to speak,? said David Axelrod, as if he was drafting the inscription on Obama?s Profiles in Courage Award. But by Saturday morning, Obama tried to weasel out of it with the sort of lawyerly parsing everybody despises. Speaking in Florida, Obama claimed he had no position on the ?wisdom? of the project, and anyone who mistook his academic comments about building a mosque in Lower Manhattan for an endorsement misunderstood him.

Well, if his real intent was to remain agnostic, he should fire his speechwriter.

But of course that wasn?t his intent. He wanted to seem heroically principled. But when he was hit with an entirely foreseeable backlash (according to one poll, nearly 70 percent of Americans oppose the mosque), he once again led with his glass jaw and, in effect, told everybody they were too dimwitted to grasp the brilliant nuance of his remarks.

This was the opposite of statesmanship. By elevating an already stupid idea and a poisonous debate, he forced everyone to take a side on a polarizing issue (including vulnerable Democrats like Nevada Sen. Harry Reid, who, late Monday, came out against the mosque), while undermining his own credibility, not to mention America?s reputation.

And it all could have been avoided with some foresight and a few phone calls.
Jonah Goldberg is an editor-at-large of National Review Online and a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.
 

Duff Miver

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 29, 2009
6,521
55
0
Right behind you
Misunderstood and used as race bait!!

Nice signature line, rusty. What does it mean to be "used as race bait"? Does that mean you troll for black women?...black guys...or are you "bait" for some other race, Asians, perhaps?

I mean is it like - "you wanna catch a black guy, you needs to put a rusty on yer hook?":shrug:
 

rusty

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 24, 2006
4,627
11
0
Under a mask.
Nice signature line, rusty. What does it mean to be "used as race bait"? Does that mean you troll for black women?...black guys...or are you "bait" for some other race, Asians, perhaps?

I mean is it like - "you wanna catch a black guy, you needs to put a rusty on yer hook?":shrug:

No,no need for that you guys do just fine in your own mind.Another thread destroyed.Sorry Chad it was not my intent.:facepalm:
 

Terryray

Say Parlay
Forum Member
Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, president and founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy:

?This is not a humble Islamic statement. A mosque such as this is actually a political structure that casts a shadow over a cemetery, over hallowed ground. 9/11 was the beginning of a kinetic war, it is not an opportunity for cultural exchange. It was the beginning of a conflict with those who want to destroy our way of life,?


Stephen Schwartz, executive director of the Center for Islamic Pluralism:

?First of all, aside from the issues of conflict with jihad, Islam teaches us, especially Muslims living in non-Muslim societies, to avoid conflict with our neighbors...We think this is an incredibly heedless project."



Tarek Fatah, founder of the Muslim Canadian Congress:

?There is a widespread belief among Muslim teaching that anyone who opposes the construction of a mosque, which is the house of God, is committing a sin...So a lot of people who want to voice their opinion do not want to become a part of the controversy. But especially during the month of Ramadan it is important that our actions not cause pain to anyone. Any action by a Muslim that causes any pain to anyone else should be halted!?



Here's an NPR story on more muslims who oppose the project. Some did before it was "manufactured controversy"
 

Terryray

Say Parlay
Forum Member
Myself, I really don't care where the Muslim building gets built.

Nor do I put much weight with the 9/11 victims groups' wishes (which is what started all this). Authorities following their wishes, for example, have stopped all of us from seeing the actual video footage of the airplanes piloted by those Muslims hitting their targets. I think that footage would be the best reminder we can have.

but some Muslims I know do admit that this Muslim building project is definitely fitna.
 

Duff Miver

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 29, 2009
6,521
55
0
Right behind you
Terryray;2699991Authorities following their wishes said:
No shit? Well, here yah go, Terry -

<object style="height: 344px; width: 425px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/XELamUnF0EU"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/XELamUnF0EU" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></object>

satisfied now? Get a good stiffie out of that?
 
Last edited:

Trampled Underfoot

Registered
Forum Member
Feb 26, 2001
13,593
164
63
Nice signature line, rusty. What does it mean to be "used as race bait"? Does that mean you troll for black women?...black guys...or are you "bait" for some other race, Asians, perhaps?

I mean is it like - "you wanna catch a black guy, you needs to put a rusty on yer hook?":shrug:

Don't forget about Indians.

CryingIndian.jpg
 

Trench

Turn it up
Forum Member
Mar 8, 2008
3,974
18
0
Mad City, WI
Myself, I really don't care where the Muslim building gets built.

Authorities following their wishes, for example, have stopped all of us from seeing the actual video footage of the airplanes piloted by those Muslims hitting their targets.
Right. That's why on two threads on this subject now, you keep claiming the U.S. was attacked by a religion. That's such a simplistic and convenient explanation for what happened on 9/11.

We weren't attacked by a religion. We were attacked by terrorists, whose motives had little to do with Islam. Terrorist groups like Al Qaeda pervert and use religion because it's their best recruiting tool. Once you understand that, then and only then, can you begin to understand, or at least question, what their real motives were (and are to this day).
 
Last edited:

Duff Miver

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 29, 2009
6,521
55
0
Right behind you
Right. That's why on two threads on this subject now, you keep claiming the U.S. was attacked by a religion. That's such a simplistic and convenient explanation for what happened on 9/11.

We weren't attacked by a religion. We were attacked by terrorists, whose motives had little to do with Islam. Terrorist groups like Al Qaeda pervert and use religion because it's their best recruiting tool. Once you understand that, then and only then, can you begin to understand, or at least question, what their real motives were (and are to this day).

It makes as much sense to brand all Muslims as terrorists as it does to brand all Catholics as pedophiles. Good enough for the Terry/Hannity/doggie/rusty/Beck/skulnuts gang.
 

Terryray

Say Parlay
Forum Member
We weren't attacked by a religion. We were attacked by terrorists

Hey, no, we were attacked by Homo sapiens, not terrorist or a religion! Get it right! Jezze!

Once "you begin to understand, or at least question" when folks strictly separate such "simplistic and convenient" divisions, you'll discover it's a complicated world.

Those terrorist were also Muslim and Homo sapiens. All three are relevant to a degree.

Nearly all the prisoners in jails, both UK and USA, on terrorism charges are Muslims.

Isn't that a strong enough correllation that we ought then look into this "Muslim" thing a wee bit?

The fact is they are religiously motivated terrorists.

The Rev. Paul Hill I have no problem calling a Christian terrorist, or that he's one of those Christians who bomb abortion clinics.

Ikrime Sabri, Yunis al-Astal, Abu Bakar Bashir, Sheikh Muhammad Saleh Al-Munajjid, Ayatollah Khomeini, Abu Bakr Ba'asyir, Shaikh Omar Abdel-Rahman, Anjum Chaudri---all have (or had) tens millions of followers of their brand of Islam. Supporting terrorism. You gonna tell those millions they are a perverted form and you know the Koran and Islam better than them?

Sure, my Muslim friends argue with their kind, using their study of the Koran, many of those Hadith (which I find more interesting than the Koran, and not all have been even translated into English!)

Since Islam has no central pope deciding all, you have no way of objectively ruling which is perverted and which isn't. It's all just opinion.
 

Trench

Turn it up
Forum Member
Mar 8, 2008
3,974
18
0
Mad City, WI
Hey, no, we were attacked by Homo sapiens, not terrorist or a religion! Get it right! Jezze!

Once "you begin to understand, or at least question" when folks strictly separate such "simplistic and convenient" divisions, you'll discover it's a complicated world.

Those terrorist were also Muslim and Homo sapiens. All three are relevant to a degree.

Nearly all the prisoners in jails, both UK and USA, on terrorism charges are Muslims.

Isn't that a strong enough correllation that we ought then look into this "Muslim" thing a wee bit?

The fact is they are religiously motivated terrorists.

The Rev. Paul Hill I have no problem calling a Christian terrorist, or that he's one of those Christians who bomb abortion clinics.

Ikrime Sabri, Yunis al-Astal, Abu Bakar Bashir, Sheikh Muhammad Saleh Al-Munajjid, Ayatollah Khomeini, Abu Bakr Ba'asyir, Shaikh Omar Abdel-Rahman, Anjum Chaudri---all have (or had) tens millions of followers of their brand of Islam. Supporting terrorism. You gonna tell those millions they are a perverted form and you know the Koran and Islam better than them?

Sure, my Muslim friends argue with their kind, using their study of the Koran, many of those Hadith (which I find more interesting than the Koran, and not all have been even translated into English!)

Since Islam has no central pope deciding all, you have no way of objectively ruling which is perverted and which isn't. It's all just opinion.
Your posts are as random and disconnected as DTB's. Must be a common trait of neo-wingers. Your "Muslim friends" must find you quite a curiosity. But you have it ass-backwards my confused friend, Muslims don't recruit terrorists, terrorist groups recruit Muslims.

Please share with us a bit of the vast knowledge of Islam you've gleaned from all of your "Muslim friends" and tell us why Muslim extremists hate us Terryray. :0corn
 

Trench

Turn it up
Forum Member
Mar 8, 2008
3,974
18
0
Mad City, WI
It makes as much sense to brand all Muslims as terrorists as it does to brand all Catholics as pedophiles. Good enough for the Terry/Hannity/doggie/rusty/Beck/skulnuts gang.
Good point Duff.

If these neocons actually believe that all 1.2 billion Muslims are potential terrorists, it's no wonder they support our policies of imperialistic aggression and intervention in the Middle East.

Kind of makes me wonder why Terryray's pal'ing around with terrorists though... :shrug:
 

Terryray

Say Parlay
Forum Member
Muslims don't recruit terrorists, terrorist groups recruit Muslims.

How about that! You've added Muslim back to your equation!

That's some progress! :idea:

All I said was they were terrorist, Muslim and Homo sapiens.

Now, focus on the H.sapiens part, look at the brand of Islam that captures them, then explore their sociological/political assumptions. Simple. Not easy, simple.

They hate us because much of our cherished values are strictly against theirs. Those middle-class British Muslim terrorists would probably have been fanatics of a Roussean variety a few hundred years ago, if I'm reading their underlying assumptions correct, for example.

What drove Rosseau to argue for fanaticsm and burning books, similar to Socrates arguments, are powerful ones and have exerted much force, in many ways, over the centuries.

I hang with Muslims of the Sufi variety, but would like to meet more of the other type:0corn
 

Trench

Turn it up
Forum Member
Mar 8, 2008
3,974
18
0
Mad City, WI
They hate us because much of our cherished values are strictly against theirs. :0corn
So your position is much like Dubya's then... "They hate us for our freedom".

Why would I have expected anything else?

You disappoint me Terryray... :facepalm:
 

Terryray

Say Parlay
Forum Member
So your position is much like Dubya's then... "They hate us for our freedom".

Nope, you don't understand values and the ways they affect US policy.

our cherished values as expressed politically around the world.

In other words, our support for stable decent goverments in Arabian Peninsular, support for Israel, exerting our influence to do good empowering women and human rights, etc. and so on.

They don't like this, and their rage--over what is a wide range of political positions (derived from our values), fuels the hate.

funny thing is, if you talk to many Muslims overseas--what they ask Americans is "why the US hates" them so much!
 

Trench

Turn it up
Forum Member
Mar 8, 2008
3,974
18
0
Mad City, WI
Nope, you don't understand values and the ways they affect US policy.

our cherished values as expressed politically around the world.

In other words, our support for stable decent goverments in Arabian Peninsular, support for Israel, exerting our influence to do good empowering women and human rights, etc. and so on.

They don't like this, and their rage--over what is a wide range of political positions (derived from our values), fuels the hate.

funny thing is, if you talk to many Muslims overseas--what they ask Americans is "why the US hates" them so much!
Well at least your lack of understanding of the dynamics at play and the history of U.S. intervention in the Middle East is, if nothing else, consistent with your like-minded neocon brethren.

Given that history, why wouldn't you expect them to ask "Why the U.S. hates [them] so much?" If you were a citizen of Iraq, Iran, Pakistan or Afghanistan, wouldn't you be asking that question? In the modern age of high-tech weaponry, soldiers are no longer the primary victims of war. Civilians are. You're probably not familiar with the statistics I'm about to give you. Most neocons aren't and you're sure not going to get them from Fox News or The Weekly Standard.

In WWI, the ratio of military to civilian deaths was about 10 to 1 (10 military deaths for every civilian death). In WWII, the ratio was about 1 to 1 (50% military/50% civilian). In Vietnam, the ratio was 30% military deaths to 70% civilian deaths. In recent wars in the Middle East, the ratio has climbed to 80-85% civilian deaths and one third of those civilian deaths are children.

Given that statistic, if you're a citizen of one of the countries in which we're fighting the "War on Terror", wouldn't you ask "Why the U.S. hates your country?"... or... "Why the U.S. is terrorizing your country?" :shrug:

:0corn
 

Terryray

Say Parlay
Forum Member
Given that history, why wouldn't you expect them to ask "Why the U.S. hates [them] so much?" If you were a citizen of Iraq, Iran, Pakistan or Afghanistan, wouldn't you be asking that question? In the modern age of high-tech weaponry, soldiers are no longer the primary victims of war. Civilians are.

:rolleyes: They were asking that question (and sending terrorists at us) long before the recent wars there you go on and on about.

and some folks south of the border, or in Indo-China, could ask that question repeatedly, given US foreign policy, but don't. Why is that?

No, I'm not interested in doing a series of lectures here...

Here's the best recent book I've read exploring the causes of Anti-Americanism in the region

This is the best one I've read on the conflicts there in the last 100 years. Very good background. Will also enable you to understand why high civilian casualties in recent conflicts don't have quite the impact you believe.

and then you leaven these with Bernard Lewis discussing our values and the Middle East.
 
Last edited:
Bet on MyBookie
Top