This story about Muslim Republicans on the mosque issue is worth a read.
A commenter in a previous post compared the chief person behind the mosque project, Iman Feisal Abdul Rauf, to Fred Phelps.
Obviously some people are suspicious of Muslims Americans, but how did it get to this? Comparing a man who advocates democracy and moderation for Muslim believers and countries, to someone as villainous as Fred Phelps?
It is interesting how much this issue has unleashed the latent fears and hostility toward Islam and those who practice it. Is it not the same fear that those who attacked us used to propel themselves? Fear of another belief system. Fear of being encroached upon, or forced to understand, another social and religious way of life. Fear that different ideology will somehow pollute our own and therefore threaten our existence?
Except that in America, we have a constitution, and set of laws, that humble all religions and belief systems and tribal longings. Those laws and principals force us to accept individual and group freedoms, however at conflict with our own, because we know that if we don't, our own liberties to pursue our chosen way of life are surrendered.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
"Except that in America, we have a constitution, and set of laws, that humble all religions and belief systems and tribal longings. Those laws and principals force us to accept individual and group freedoms, however at conflict with our own, because we know that if we don't, our own liberties to pursue our chosen way of life are surrendered."
That is exactly how the Imam can be compared to Phelps. They are both doing something hurtful to so man, yet is protected by law.
You don't get it. It is not an Anti-Islamic issue, it is a sensitivity issue. The NY Governor even offered the the people who are planning to built the community center land somewhere else in the city, and they refused. Why did they refuse? Why is it that they want to build right there?
And SG was using Phelps as an example of people using the First Amendment to hide behind, and get their way, even if it is in-sensitive. MO just struck down a law that preventing protesting at a funural because of the First Amendment. Some idiot judge in CA just sruck down a law where it was illegal to wear military medals that you didn't earn (which, being ex-military, burns my butt) because of First Amendment. Where does it end? Just because you are protected by the First Amendment to do something, doesn't mean it is the right thing to do.
I'm with SG on this one. Just because something can be done does not mean it should be done. Think of the victims families.
Can we remember this the next time someone decides to picket and harass a woman whose chosen to terminate a pregnancy.
The law allows for picketing and handing out of "insensitive" literature. But think of the hurt inflicted on the woman.
Folks, you can't have it both ways. The pro-life political agenda tramples all over the feelings of women to press their agenda.
I have not once heard them utter any words of sensitivity towards those women. I have not heard them say, we want to protest but let's not do it in the face of women coping with emotional distress. Let's just get in their face and call them babay killers and murderers.
Sensitivity would be offering them the choice to come to an office or sanctuary for counseling in a private setting.
People who scream the loudest tend to just scream. None of them really hear what they are saying. They just get themselves worked into an indignant rage and start screaming.
12:53,
The difference is the victims. Our governemtn has flipped the scropt on who is a victim and who is not. In the mosque case, the victim is not the people wanting to build the mosque, it is the people who lost loved ones on 9/11. In the funeral protests, the victims are the family members of our fallen soldiers, not Fred Phelps and his crew. And, in the protests of abortion clinics that you are so concerned about, the victim is not the woman who terminated an unwanted pregnancy, but the baby who died as a result of her selfishness.
We should care more about the victims than the perpetators in my opinion. But I know, my opinion is way out there on the fringe. Call me crazy!
Also today, our courts decided that lying is also covered under the first amendment. The "Stolen Valor" act has been deemed unconstitutional. For those not familiar, the Stolen Valor act was used to punish these fake soldiers who wear the ribbons and medals of servicemen, but did not serve. They are a slap in the face to anyone who did serve this country. But our courts have decided that lying about your military service should not be a crime because it is covered under free speech.
My question is this: If it's okay to lie according to the first amendment, then how can we be made to tell the truth in court, or when being questioned by law enforcement? or how can we be fired from a job for saying we graduated from Harvard instead of Cowley? Slippery slope my friends.
SG
you usually make some profound points. But now you have wandered into extremists opinions.
(That's th stuff that terrorists are made of BTW).
It seems there is a building cache of social issues with which you do not agree. Now, that would be ok if left there. But, when you migrate into the realm of sticking your fingers into your ears in effort to reject anyone else's perspective, you lose your own (perspective that is).
You are correct... from your own vantage point anyway. However, others live by their own foundational tenets. And so, we learn to tolerate the confident correctness of others as they attempt to tolerate yours.
There's an old negro spiritual for which the refrain goes something like this:
"I know the Bible is right and somebody's wrong."
Weigh your opinions versus the Bible and you may find that there is a splinter (just a little speck) that is distorting, ever so slightly, your vision.
Trust in the Lord with all your heart and do not embrace your own understanding. In all your ways defer to the wisdom of the Lord and the Lord himself will guide you into a path of life everlasting AND he will use you to reach out and embrace people instead of lashing out and "beaning" people.
SG makes some interesting points especially in the last post. In America we have always held our rights and freedoms dear yet have been willing to sacrifice them in whole or in part for one special interest or another. This is just another special interest.
As the military idiom states
"Freedom is not free". To be free we must allow those things are distasteful to some be enacted by others. That is part of the cost. As Americans we should temper what we allow with our core values. The framers wrote a preamble that begins with "We the people". Not we the Christians, or we the Baptist, or Catholics, or we the white, black, rich or poor. It's "We the people". All the people. The first amendment guarantees the freedom of religion to, presumably, all the aforementioned people. All the people.
The Muslims are not the terrorists but some of the terrorists do happen to be Muslims. The victims of the WTC were victims of malicious acts by terrorists who happen to be Muslims. Should we create more victims by sacrificing another right, the right for all the people to exercise the freedom of religion? I think not.
The terrorists aren't building a mosque. Some of the practitioners of Islam are. Leave them to one of the very freedoms that made this country great.
SG makes some interesting point especially in the last post. In America we have always held our rights and freedoms dear yet have been willing to sacrifice them in whole or in part for one special interest or another. This is just another special interest.
As the military idiom states
"Freedom is not free". To be free we must allow those things are distasteful to some be enacted by others. That is part of the cost. As Americans we should temper what we allow with our core values. The framers wrote a preamble that begins with "We the people" not we the Christians, or we the Baptist, or Catholics, or we the white, black, rich or poor. It's we the people. All the people. The first amendment guarantees the freedom of religion to, presumably, The aforementioned people. All the people.
The Muslims are not the terrorists but some of the terrorists do happen to be Muslims. The victims of the WTC were victims of malicious acts by terrorists who happen to be Muslims. Should we create more victims by sacrificing another right, the right for all the people to exercise the freedom of religion? I think not. The terrorists aren't building a mosque. Some of the practitioners of Islam are.
SG makes some interesting point especially in the last post. In America we have always held our rights and freedoms dear yet have been willing to sacrifice them in whole or in part for one special interest or another. This is just another special interest.
As the military idiom states
"Freedom is not free". To be free we must allow those things are distasteful to some be enacted by others. That is part of the cost. As Americans we should temper what we allow with our core values. The framers wrote a preamble that begins with "We the people" not we the Christians, or we the Baptist, or Catholics, or we the white, black, rich or poor. It's we the people. All the people. The first amendment guarantees the freedom of religion to, presumably, The aforementioned people. All the people.
The Muslims are not the terrorists but some of the terrorists do happen to be Muslims. The victims of the WTC were victims of malicious acts by terrorists who happen to be Muslims. Should we create more victims by sacrificing another right, the right for all the people to exercise the freedom of religion? I think not. The terrorists aren't building a mosque. Some of the practitioners of Islam are.
Well I think the Muslims have their own laws within our Society! Actually so do many of the other cultures like the Asians!
They don't necessarily recognize our constitution and our beliefs or laws!
They may want to live in America because of the Freedom and Standard of living/opportunities!
But America is not the Middle East, Asia, Mexico or South America! They want to change America, not change to "LIVE" in America!
This along with other attempts at changing the "core" structure of an America built on the God of the Bible! Will only result in more and more challenges until the Freedom we have today is lost in a constant Conflict!
"(That's th stuff that terrorists are made of BTW)."
So you think I'm a terrorist? I bet the founding fathers fit the profile of terrorists once too. At least I am in good company (in your mind).
"The terrorists aren't building a mosque. Some of the practitioners of Islam are. Leave them to one of the very freedoms that made this country great."
... No matter who it hurts! That is what it all boils down to.
No matter that the loved ones of the 9/11 terrorist attacks will have to see this mosque as a symbol of the people who murdered their loved ones.
The imam in charge of building this mosque was offered land by the city to build it farther away from ground zero. He refused. He said he was not interested in building it anywhere but there. That lends some credence to the theory that some have of a shrine to their victory on 9/11. Even if that is not his motive, it can and will be interpreted as such by the victims' loved ones. Now I am hearing that our tax money is paying for this imam to travel to other countries? Possibly raising funds for this mosque? And the many anti American statement that he made in the days following 9/11.
How tolerant is too tolerant? Are we so ashamed of being Americans that we must bend over backwards to bow and scrape to everyone else? I am a pretty tolerant person, but if someone I loved had been murdered on 9/11 I would do everything in my power to stop this mosque from being built.
But alas, I am just an infidel... what do I know.
Lets put a Japanese memorial at Pearl Harbor, or a militia memorial where the Federal building was in Oklahoma City. How about a Nazi memorial at Auschwitz? We wouldn't want to deny anyone their freedoms for god's sake.
But don't forget that infidels are not allowed in Mecca. Try telling them to be tolerant! Maybe they will put in a synagogue.
The founding fathers were certainly not terrorist in my book (although Native Americans may disagree). Radical extremest. I think King George would have said yes. I am not sure being radical is a bad thing. It's all in the intent.
America is a great country. Largely because those that founded our country and framed our constitution didn't come here to live. They came here because of the freedom and standard of living/opportunity. They did not accept the country as it was but sought to change it into what it could become. Along the way a constitution was written that preserved the right for future generations to do the same.
How tolerant is too tolerant? That's a collective social decision. For me personally allowed a terrorist to kill is too tolerant. Allowing someone to practice a religion of their choosing is not. Calling a relationship between two persons of the same gender a marriage is to tolerant. Calling the same relationship a civil union is not. The acceptable level of tolerance is in the eye of the beholder. As long as civil rights are preserved I say to each his own.
The most puzzling aspect of this whole issue to me is the attention it is getting. The theocracy that the Supreme Court has become quite possibly violates the constitution as much or more than any public entity in American history but view pay attention. Raise an issue that, in reality, does nothing more than offend the delicate sensitivity of the masses and all of the sudden the foundation of America must be changed.
I am all for freedom of (or from) religion, and I am all for free speech, but in my book, you have to mix in a little common decency.
To bring it closer to home, our first amendment right would allow people to legally march up and down the sidewalk in from of the Sanderholm's business with a sign reading FREE JUSTIN THURBER, but no one in their right mind would do so. The common decency not to inflict further pain on people is what is missing in this argument.
SG said...
So you think I'm a terrorist? I bet the founding fathers fit the profile of terrorists once too. At least I am in good company (in your mind).August 18, 2010 5:25 PM
No one said you were a terrorist. That is the root of the problem. Hyperbole in response! You don't hear what you want so you MUST twist it inot some attack that justifies your position and damns any other.
I am saying that is the path of reasoning that those 19 people had been led down prior to boarding those planes on 9/11. "Anyone who does not embrace our views is anti - fill in the blank"
Then I read about people who do not honor our laws and values in America. That is an argument in a county where we just enlarged our jail???? We did not do that to accommodate terorists.
In fact more prisons are being built all over this nation for people who do not honor our laws and values. That began three decades ago.
Even though John M is speaking a more moderate view, it's also important to remind everyone that the first to come here were not the heroes that we want to celebrate on Thanksgiving day.
These Americas were first established a penal colonies. We were intended to inhabit and inherit the reprobates and criminally degenerate from England.
The first who came were the exiled and the wardons/corrections officers. That we became a great nation is in spite of our ignominious beginnings.
Let's don't muddle facts with our passions and illusions, lest we become Tea Partyers. Or worse yet, Republicans. Whooo! that was funny even if someone gets angry about it.
S.G., I love your thinking and your posts. You tend to provoke thought. This time you let your passion steamroll your rationale. But, you still carry an A- on my books for what you contribute to the blog discussions.
Just stay away from the "see it my way or get out of my country thinking, please?"
I never said everyone had to see it my way, I just wish people would stop saying that any opposition to this mosque is caused by religious intolerance or bigotry. My point is that it isn't about any of those things, it's about doing what is right. Putting a big reminder of one of the most painful days in American history right there for the world to see is not right, no matter what the reason or how tolerant we are. Every time a loved one has to walk by that place it will be like a slap in the face. I have no ties to New York, or to the Trade Center murders, but I know that the actions being undertaken in the name of religious freedom will hurt people who do have ties to those things, and that is why I oppose it.
The article I read today said that getting it built is a long shot, and I hope that's the case.
That is my opinion.
So then if we are not able to forgive, then we aren't Christians at all.
I say that because you can only be followers of Christ (Chirstians) by embracing His truths and teachings.
Take a moment before you respond and read how many times Jesus taught on forgiveness - of debts, of trespasses, of slaps in the face (I believe one of you used that euphemism), of deceit, of persecution etc).
He said if you do not forgive you will not be forgiven. If you are not forgiven, you are not of Him.
Finally, the only reason there is power through believing on Christis if you believe the resurrected Christ who was crucified - not thousands by nineteen but THE ONE - THE ONLY ACCEPTABLE SACRIFICE - whose life was given before thousands.
Remember that He stopped dying long enough to plead for our forgiveness. What an example to apply here. So, can we be Christians and let forgiveness work in our hearts or shall we forever continue this "He stole my pig so I'll steal his cow" approach to life.
Post a Comment