Some disappointing reader reaction to my post about the racism surrounding the opposition to the proposed Muslim mosque near ground zero in New York:
I believe it is a stupid idea to build a muslim shrine on the very ground where American citizens were murdered. The muslim community has no right to go anywhere near Ground Zero in my opinion.
Oh yeah, they absolutely should be able to build a mosque at ground zero. Don't all great victories in battle get a shrine built to them? Gettysburg? Bull Run? thermopylae? Let's remember the great victory of the brave men who flew a plane into the WTC and killed all those enemies of the muslim faith.
How many Christian churches are allowed to be built in Muslim countries ? Zip zero nada ....
The level of stereotyping and discrimination here is stunning. But alas, in the blogosphere, things sometimes tend to balance out. Here are some other comments:
I forgot it was Islam that attacked us on 9/11. So yeah, basically all Muslims should be held responsible.
You folks realize 300 of the victims were muslim, right? And the terrorists were extremists?
Throughout history entire races of people have been blamed for the actions of a few from said race.
There are a couple facts that have to be agreed upon here by any sane-thinking person.
1) The proposed mosque is NOT on ground zero, but a couple blocks away.
2) Other than sharing the same general religion, there is absolutely no connection between the people proposing the mosque and the terrorists who flew the planes into the towers. (This would be like holding all Christians accountable, and restricting their practices, because of people like Fred Phelps.)
3) The free exercise of religion is a constitutional right.
Thank God the mayor of New York gets it. Bloomberg supports the building.
"Everything the United States stands for and New York stands for is tolerance and openness," he said.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
While we're at it, let's pass sharia law and get these women folk back in line. They been way too mouthy ever since that whole women's lib thing.
It's all Bush's fault.
Everything!
Pearl Harbor? That was Bush!
Nazi's? Yep. Bush!
Anonymous said...
McVeigh was a former member of the NRA, renouncing his membership because he didn't like there stance on the AWB (NRA wasn't extreme enough) July 22,2010 9:36PM
And there you have it Mr. or Ms. Debate Champion.
Read for yourself and of your own writings the hypocrisy of all your rhetoric.
You opt not to indict the NRA for spawning Mr. McVeigh and his accomplices. He, you maintain, went over the wall and into extremism. He, you argue, was independent of the structured agenda of the NRA and his "former" association with an cult organization is in no way a reflection of the mainstay of the NRA cult and their structured political agenda. The NRA disavowed his asssociation and exspunged his membership once they saw how their dogma had warped his mind and provoked his anti-government (or shall we say terrorist extremist) attack.
NRA, is as far removed from the actions of Tim McVeigh as is... lets see.... er ummmmm..... we ll lets say as far as the extremist terrorists such as bin Laden from the more benign Muslim disciplined faith.
And so perhaps you are wrong to infer that that any Muslim male might snatch any vulnerable female from off the street and subject them to your perception of what their gender limiting teachings are.
Hypocrisy. There are fundamental beliefs (although they are horribly misguided in my opinion) on what is appropriate for the women of their culture. They strictly effort to enforce those laws. I personally view the Muslim faith as misguided devotion to a humanisitc cult leader.
On the other hand, the puritanical left, the moral majority, the mainstream republican base holds similar views on women's rights. They call it pro-life (sounds nicer huh?) and somehow convince themselves that CONTROL of certain aspects of womanhood are their responsibility and, therefore by Republican morals and law, ought to be made for the women. I view the conservative political movement (Modern Republicanism) as misguided ideological remedies to be applied by oppressing wealthy towards the vulnerable and impoverished and as rules that the rule makers exempt themselves from when convenient.
(Example: You defend our democracy and freedom of speech but meet differing opinions with insults and a threatening tone in your words. You want your opinion respected while dissenting opinions are to be mocked and squashed under overtly condescending and aggressive responses)
Yes, in 2010 the Oklahoma Supreme court is continuing deliberation on the legislation that FORCES (wish I could bold and underline that word) a woman to the mental cruelty of viewing sonograms of their unborn before allowing them to "CHOOSE" to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.
The Catholics assert that a woman is a murderer if she practices birth control of any form. So too do the Normons.
The Glass House rule applies here. Look at everyone's attempt to control women before you throw stones at any one religion or faith.
As one sage stated: "Your actions speak so loudly that I cannot hear a word you are saying."
So, my anonymous super ego, call me an idiot. However, I am an idiot who knows yours are the writings and words of a hypocrit.
So which of us has the real problem. You look like a hypocrit to an idiot. Can somebody say "duh".
To everybody all freaked out about a Mosque being built near the WTC site? There's already a mosque right there, actually even closer to the WTC site. Oh noes!
http://wonkette.com/417009/attention-bigots-there-is-already-a-mosque-near-the-wtc-site
Post a Comment