The Spirited Atheist

Ground Zero mosque protected by First Amendment--but it's still salt in a wound

I wrote a column about the proposed Muslim community center within sight of Ground Zero in May, before right-wing Republicans who hate everything about New York City got into the act and started lecturing us about what we ought and ought not to do to respect the 9/11 victims. I had not planned to write any more about this subject, but the past week's debate has revealed an astonishing obduracy on the part of both sides. On the one hand, right-wing Know-Nothings are displaying their ignorance of the First Amendment for all the world to see; on the other, many liberals--including New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg--seem incapable of distinguishing between what is legal and what is wise.

First, any attempt to prevent the building of a Muslim community center near Ground Zero because the World Trade Center was attacked by other Muslims is a clear violation of the First Amendment. You don't like the idea, you'll have to repeal that amendment. And although Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-FLA SC) wants to repeal the Fourteenth Amendment to deny citizenship to American-born babies of illegal aliens, I doubt that there will be much support for jettisoning the entire Bill of Rights. (I could be wrong about this, though. Some days it seems that nothing is too crazy in the current political climate.)

Second, if the local imam and Muslim developer who are behind this project had possessed any sensitivity and foresight, they would have bought a piece of property further uptown and built their center on a spot where it could have done the same work of promoting interfaith understanding (which is what they say they intend) without reopening what remains a deep wound for many New Yorkers. In my first column, I described it as politically inept to locate a Muslim center within sight of Ground Zero, but I now realize that was a tremendous understatement. Pushing to build a conspicuous Muslim institution near this site demonstrates a profound lack of emotional intelligence and understanding of the raw emotions that are the legacy of the terrorist attacks.

Third, Mayor Bloomberg--who is playing the role of a defender of tolerance in this dispute--was the one who displayed true political ineptness. What he should have done, long before this story went public, was organize a private meeting with everyone involved. He should have tried to persuade the imam and the developer that far from promoting tolerance, this center on this site would arouse destructive passions on all sides and should therefore be built at another location.

I'm not going to waste any more space on the hypocritical right-wing Republicans--the same people who voted last week against federally guaranteed medical care for first responders whose health has been permanently damaged by the toxic fumes they breathed in during the hours, days and weeks after 9/11. The Right's representatives hate New York's ethnic, racial and religious mix and its cultural sophistication--in fact, they hate just about everything about my city except the dividend checks they get from Wall Street investment banks.

And let me say this again: if I were a judge, and one of the lawsuits devised to block the construction of this facility reached my court--I would rule that the First Amendment clearly protects the construction of any religious facility, anywhere.

But there is so much more at issue here than legality. The New York Times, in an editorial titled "A Monument to Tolerance," praises Mayor Bloomberg for calling the plan "as important a test of the separation of church and state as we may ever see in our lifetime." Bloomberg is acting as if Ground Zero is the perfect place for this so-called test of the separation of church and state and implying that the feelings of this project's opponents count for nothing. What this mosque is going to be is not a monument to tolerance but a monument to bitter divisions.

The Times editorial also attacked the Anti-Defamation League for joining in the "rationalization of bigotry" attributed by the newspaper's editorial board to all who oppose this mosque in this location. Robert B. Sugarman, national chairman of the Anti-Defamation League, pointed out that the organization had not challenged the legal right to build a mosque at Ground Zero. "We simply appealed to the initiators to consider the sensitivities of the victims and find another location," he wrote. As it happens, the ADL, which originated to fight anti-Semitism, has spoken out many times since 9/11 and decried bigotry against Muslims, including the ignorant right-wing criticisms of Minnnesota Rep Keith Ellison, the first Muslim Congressman, for taking his oath of office on the Koran. To be classified as bigoted for objecting to the location of this project--without denying the First Amendment right to build it--is completely unjust.

Several On Faith panelists have ridiculed opposition to this mosque by asking, "How far is far enough away?" from Ground Zero. In fact, just a few blocks farther away probably would have been far enough to avoid this controversy. If this center were being built ten blocks to the north, Bloomberg could have presided at the groundbreaking along with imams, rabbis, ministers, priests, and those among the 9/11 families (yes, they are real people whose feelings count too) who have supported the proposed project near Ground Zero.

Thomas L. Friedman, a columnist for whom I have great respect, describes opposition to this project as "resistance to diversity." He writes, "When we tell the world, `Yes, we are a country that will even tolerate a mosque near the site of 9/11,' we send such a powerful message of inclusion and openness. It is shocking to other nations. But you never know who out there is hearing that message and saying: `What a remarkable country! I want to live in that melting pot, even if I have to build a boat from milk cartons to get there.'"

This is an utterly ridiculous statement, based on the kind of wishful thinking Friedman generally eschews. First, Islamist theocracies certainly are not going to portray this mosque as a symbol of "tolerance." That would mean admitting that freedom of religion is embedded in American law. Does Friedman seriously think that theocracies scared of Blackberries are going to publicize a monument to American openness? Is a mosque near Ground Zero going to convince deluded terrorists-in-waiting that America is really a wonderful place?

And why do we have to prove our "tolerance" to Islamic countries anyway? Let them prove to us that an atheist, a Jew, a Christian, an unveiled woman of any faith or no faith is as safe on their streets as women wearing the hajib and the niqab were on a recent flight I took from New York to Detroit.

A great many non-Muslim Americans are never going to see this mosque--precisely because of its location--as anything but an in-your-face insult. I don't know how anyone who lives in New York, from journalists to the mayor to the imam and the real estate developer, can have failed to realize this in advance.

And finally, this Muslim community center is going to be an expensive security nightmare for the City of New York. It could be a target for extremists of all varieties--including radical Islamists themselves. In Muslim countries, suicide bombers have not hesitated to attack mosques if that serves their political purpose of the moment. And the city will also have to worry about non-Muslim terrorists of the sort who propose "Second Amendment" solutions for everything they don't like.

This eruption of base passions could so easily have been avoided by advance planning and compromise. But if and when this center is finally built, it will stand as a monument not to tolerance but to utter political stupidity and to a religious correctness devoid of common sense.

By Susan Jacoby |  August 4, 2010; 2:15 PM ET Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati  
Previous: Is 'any religion' better than no religion? | Next: Biblical religion the only--and illegitimate-- basis for anti-gay laws

Comments

Please report offensive comments below.



And Susan, one mopre thing:

"And why do we have to prove our "tolerance" to Islamic countries anyway?"

We are not proving our tolerance to others. We are proving it to ourselves. And we must do this everyday, as you can see from your own threads here, intolerance never stops.

Posted by: Greent | August 10, 2010 2:16 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Susan, I am avid reader of your musings, so here's my response.

It is legal to build this center, and while it may be insensitive.... that may not make it unwise.

I am an agnostic, so I distrust all religions. I find it abhorent that DC has a "National Cathedral".... but it is there nonetheless.

It is up to free thinkers to support secular law. It is up to freethinkers to be involved in discussions of morality and wisdom. This center has no issues of morality or wisdom that need addressing by an agnostic.

Terrorists tore down the towers. All of them were muslims. This still does not equate muslim with terrorist.

Timmy2: post on brother, post on.

Posted by: Greent | August 10, 2010 2:14 PM
Report Offensive Comment

"And why do we have to prove our "tolerance" to Islamic countries anyway? Let them prove to us that an atheist, a Jew, a Christian, an unveiled woman of any faith or no faith is as safe on their streets as women wearing the hajib and the niqab were on a recent flight I took from New York to Detroit."

One, we are showing tolerance to members of our own society by allowing this Mosque to be built on this location. It is a fundamental pillar of our shared ideals to allow the practice of religious freedom in this nation. The debate shouldn't even matter as to how other countries feel about it.

Secondly, directly to the question you proposed: We are an open democratic society. The countries you are referring to (or giving a Red Herring to) are religious Theocracies. Arguing that we should not be tolerant because they aren't tolerant is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. It sounds eerily similar to comments made concerning the treatment of 'detainees,' and objections raised to naming them POWs due to the treatment of our soldiers by militants overseas. It's just not a logical train of thought, friend. We lead by example (or should), and need not regress backwards to more prejudiced viewpoints.

Sometimes what is legal is wise. And this Community Center that will be built will do nothing but educate the masses.

From one Atheist to another.

Ciao.

Posted by: Cthulu | August 10, 2010 11:34 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Try it the Buddhist way then:

To Grieving mother: Go out and bring me someone who has not suffered such grief and your loss will be undone.

Of course, she found none and enlightenment happened.

The loss will never be undone; grieve, remember, learn, and move on.

New York used to be a great city... being permanently stuck in Rudy-thought can only mean that Chicago has regained it's preeminence.

Posted by: mrbradwii | August 10, 2010 10:21 AM
Report Offensive Comment

9/11 families need to get over themselves, build their monument, and move on.

Posted by: mrbradwii
----------------------------
Err, no. They don't "need to get over themselves, build their monument, and move on." You, perhaps, need to do the first, knock down the second, and then, perhaps, do the third.

Posted by: farnaz_mansouri2 | August 10, 2010 9:51 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Well, THAT essay is certainly all over the map, so I'll respond in kind.

I really can't comment on the content, never having been to the city. The lack of green and anything to do outdoors would kill me quicker than any terrorists.

As far as amendments go, SJ seems not to have a grasp of #2.

I hear a lot of teeth gnashing about ignorant, know-nothing, stupid republicans, yet no similar invective hurled towards similarly challenged liberals.

"Advance planning and compromise"... one wonders, between whom? Buyer and seller? Licensor and licensee? City and church? Heckuva job Bloomie...

I'll say again, the right, and the good are different things -- and right must always be permitted, even when it is not good.

A victory mosque, or any church for that matter, seems poor use of a property in a town where money talks and commerce rules. But if they paid, they can play; those are the rules of the game.

9/11 families need to get over themselves, build their monument, and move on.

Posted by: mrbradwii | August 10, 2010 9:14 AM
Report Offensive Comment

A Multicultural Story

A few weeks ago up in old Connecticut, my daughter Az, who is "white" and I were strolling with a Pakistani friend (not white), a woman of Italian descent (white), and one of the few remaining WASPs in America.

The topic moved to lowbrow multiculturalism, nominated by the IA, who continually referred to the "multiculturals" in her tiresome chatter. It took me a while to realize I was being patronized, while Az, with wrinkled brow, tried to grasp the IA's meaning. My Pakistani buddy (a formidable scholar) endowed the IA with all the grace that inheres in politeness Pakistani-style. (Translation: All those close to her would be in for an earful later.)

Trying to ignore Az, painful, but necessary, I cast about for a distraction, settling briefly on the WASP, who, as it turned out was doing likewise. Finally, Az asked gently, "Who are the "multiculturals? We say multicultural this or that, not THE "multiculturals."

The IA smiled knowingly, looking at me for assistance with my ignorant child.

"Yes, indeed, Az. It is as you say. I have never heard the word used as this lady is employing it. Can you please explain it to us?"

At this, my Pakistani friend looked down, but then up, since, after all, it was I who was about to disgrace us both, not to mention my innocent daughter, who must learn how to behave with inferiors.

"You know," she explained, adding, almost in a whisper, "minorities."

"Mommie, aren't we a minority?"

"Yes, you are, Az. YOu are one hell of a minority. You've got a brilliant mother, and you're a smart young lady," said the last of the gentlemen in America.

"Please forgive me if I am being rude, but I was wondering if you might tell us your ancestry"--Moi.

"My grandparents were born in Naples, but what has that got to do with anything?"

"Nothing, whatsoever," sayeth PF, whose eyes met mine, through which I endeavored to assert, "If you think you're going to b.i.t.c.h. to me later about insensitive, parochial, backward Americans after you pandered to that idiot, reconsider--Ain't gonna happen."

"Nothing whatsoever. Except that Italians are a minority in the US," replied PK, smiling brilliantly.

Laughter from IA. "Perhaps, numerically, but we are fully acculturated. One would never know I was Italian, for example."

"I did, and so did Farnaz," offered the remaining American WASP.

"You didn't."

"We did. It was obvious. You look Italian, your voice modulates in the way of Italians, and you dentalize." That was Moi speaking. PF's smile blinding.

"Mommie, is this lady "a multicultural?"

"Yes, Az, but she isn't multicultural," sayeth the WASP, for whom PK later cooked a splendid meal, and whom she invited to stay with her family in Islamabad.

Posted by: farnaz_mansouri2 | August 10, 2010 9:11 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Dabielinthelionsden,

The reason I posted that link and a brief intro of what Cordoba used to be was to expose the lies being perpetrated by the likes of Newt Gingrich and Pam Geller that this is a victory mosque.

You wrote,

"There is a lot of very, very deep-seated hostility in America against the Islamic Center at Ground Zero, which runs accross all segments of society, from left to right, from rich to poor. That is just a fact; that is how it is."

I will have to agree with you on that after listening to the debate regarding this Mosque and reading these blogs. Hatred for muslims and islam is so deep rooted in US and Europe that this mosque can never be built. Poor souls like Feisal Rauf and his wife Daisy Khan who are harboring false notions that they are equal citizens despite being muslims, because the US constitution says so, are in for a reality check. They thought americans would be true to their word when they asked moderate muslims to come out and change the face of Islam. Muslims, moderate or otherwise, they should all know their place in America. They have to live with the burden of 9/11 for the rest their lives and probably a couple of generations after that. Ground Zero, it is being argued, is a sacred place which cannot be dishonored with muslims being around. And yet there were muslims who died saving their fellow Americans on 9/11. Never mind that Americans fought two wars of revenge absolutely destroying two countries and causing the death of more than a million muslims. Those 3000 people were worth more than 2 countries!

Frankly I do not have a bone in this contest. I do not live in America. Its your country and you are free to do what ever you like to your minorities. You can be as irrational as you like when it comes to muslims as ADL says.

So here you go, I agree with what you say regarding muslims and their place in US. Hope you're happy to hear it.

Posted by: yasseryousufi | August 10, 2010 7:04 AM
Report Offensive Comment

the delusional past and future of western culture.

it start at the delusional god who was nailed on the cross 2010 years ago and his tourture and blood is due on every mankind neck ,multi cultures necks,red necks yelow black ,name it!!!

the renaisancetists and futurest came in and and spirited atheists says,

the delusion is to be kept in the church box and the future is for the no god secularism that is due on every mankind neck,ready to cook multi cultureim in one melting pot.

the western culinary school is still in the primitive cave of original sin and original ape or original grass eaters mentality of work eat multiply and then die and prey on other nations and steal their land and property.

WEMD is about apeism,
very good ilustrated in the wars of last 100 years.

and befor i forget ,
the delusional muliculturism of the mission of santos georgious democraxious in iraq (compare how civilized iraq befor and after g bush the democraz)

oh god save humanity from the multicultureim apeism of western cultur.

Posted by: mono1 | August 10, 2010 3:59 AM
Report Offensive Comment

DITLD

"There is a lot of very, very deep-seated hostility in America against the Islamic Center at Ground Zero, which runs accross all segments of society, from left to right, from rich to poor. That is just a fact; that is how it is"

Some of are here to talk not only about how things are, but also how we think they should be. The phrase "That is just a fact; that is how it is" did not get rid of slavery, or desegregate the south.

It is not enough to say "that's just how it is".

Sometimes things are not how they should be, and we need to make them right. Not right according to me. Right according to to the ideals that make the USA what it is.

Posted by: timmy2 | August 10, 2010 1:22 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Yasseryousufi

Your comments about Cordoba are a wistful longing for the past.

But that was then, all done, and past.

This is now.

Islam has a bad reputation in the West, in Europe, and in America. That is a problem for Islam. You do not seem able to face it, but that is how it is. You can call Islam's bad reputation "Islamaphobia," but that does not change the fact of its bad reputation.

If Islam and Muslims want respect, they must earn it. Maybe that is unfair, but that is how it is. They must show with words and actions that they deserve it. Continued, hostile denial of responsibility is not working.

There is a lot of very, very deep-seated hostility in America against the Islamic Center at Ground Zero, which runs accross all segments of society, from left to right, from rich to poor. That is just a fact; that is how it is.

If you reply, I am expecting a very snarky, hostile, mean-spirit; that is fine if that is the best you can to, but it is not going to help your problem.

Posted by: DanielintheLionsDen | August 9, 2010 5:02 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Tim pontificates to me thus:
“And what of the thousands of other mosques in the country? Shut them all down because it is a fact that they are all terrorist breeding grounds? Someone needs to look up the word "fact".”
I say somebody needs to look in on those dens. A person needs to be dumb and mute not to see the “facts”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undercover_Mosque

Posted by: abrahamhab1 | August 9, 2010 4:55 PM
Report Offensive Comment

In my opinion, the muslum community center is an offer of peace and understanding, held out by an Imam who understands that much of the fear of Islam in this country come from misunderstanding. This holds no matter the location. 9/11 was a tragic event, not only for Americans, but also for the muslum community around the world. It has drawn hatred and judgement toward an almost an entire race. This next statement I make as a christian, and as a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom. The Arabic people's desires differ very little from our own. If America didn't stick it's nose in where it didn't belong, most of the Arab population would care very little about us. They would simply be trying to make a living, care for their families, and instill the values that they hold dear. But because a few radicals were blamed for a single event, now they live with American soldiers invading their lives on a daily basis. Of course they don't like us. We bombed their country, destroyed their infrastructure (which we haven't rebuilt), arrested their family members, and shot their houses full of holes (While I was in Iraq I did my fair share of that, it was Standard Opperating Proceedure if we took fire from a neighborhood to fire back, often indiscriminately, because all we needed to do so was positive identification of where the threat was. Official dotrine on the Rules of Engagement state positive identification of a single target, but in practice this typically means an area, not a single person). The fact is that the reason we have soldiers there in the first place is because our cultures do not understand each other. It amazes me that it has had to be the muslums, who are so persecuted, to hold out the olive branch first. This country was founded on religious freedom. Does the location matter this much?

Posted by: areilly13 | August 9, 2010 3:02 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Jihadist

"The necessity too, of recognising extremist positions of all sides"

I know of no extremists on the side of seeing the world come together in one human culture and race. So far there are just advanced thinkers living and acting on this wonderful transformation and making it a reality through example.

We all know of the extremists on the segregated culture side. But where are the extremists on the coming together as one culture side? I see none.

Posted by: timmy2 | August 9, 2010 2:33 PM
Report Offensive Comment

It's no secret that I have only the harshest criticism for the religion of Islam. But I make a distinction between Islam and muslims. One is a religion and the other is people caught up in that religion. The people themselves are just like us. They have families that they love and want the best for and they have compassion for their fellow man. They see their religion as a true path to peace both inner and external.

Whatever I think of this religion, the people who practice it are good intentioned like all of us. And I hope sincerely that more and more of them modernize it and steer it away from the dark side of religious belief and towards the spiritual side.

And so I am in favor of Cordoba House as proposed. Innocent until proven guilty. That's what this country is supposed to be all about. By all means investigate the organizers of this place and make sure that they do not have any terrorist ties, and continue to keep an eye on it to make sure that the extremists do not take it over.

But innocent, until proven guilty. If you have already condemned the religion of Islam as nothing but a terrorist breeding ground, then you should be in favor of shutting down all mosques across the country. If you have not, then your only argument against Cordoba House is the "sacred ground" argument which has cause more death and suffering in our world than any of us can stomach.

Posted by: timmy2 | August 9, 2010 1:39 PM
Report Offensive Comment

There will be no battle between these two groups invented out of thin air by Jihadist, "The multiculturists and the monoculturists."

- Timmy2

*******************************************

Neccesity is the mother of invention. So the saying goes. The necessity too, of recognising extremist positions of all sides on any given matter in the so-called "culture wars" and "clash of civilisations". And, of course, in the battles for hearts and minds related to such "wars" and "clashes".

Good night.

Posted by: Jihadist | August 9, 2010 1:30 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Abrahamhab1

"It took 9 years for Hamburg mayor to realize that a mosque is not necessarily a house of worship but most likely a breeding den for terrorism. When will the Bloomberg- likes recognize this simple fact?"

It's a fact that Cordoba House will be a breeding den for terrorism? Where did you get this fact from?

Preemptive strike?

The Germans did the right thing in not shutting down the mosque until they had hard evidence that it was being used as a terrorist breeding ground. When Bloomberg has such evidence on Cordoba House, I'm sure he'll do the right thing. The legal thing.

The only other option is to break the first amendment. To become what we are not. To play into the hands of the extremists who brought down the towers.

And what of the thousands of other mosques in the country? Shut them all down because it is a fact that they are all terrorist breeding grounds?

Someone needs to look up the word "fact".

Posted by: timmy2 | August 9, 2010 1:24 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Culture evolves and has always evolved.

A general one world culture will eventually evolve naturally and peacefully, thanks to world travel, the internet, cross culture sharing and interbreeding. This world culture will not be homogenous. It will still consist of subcultures, but ones who's differences are not so extreme and strange to each other and they will be based on geographical community rather than based on race and ethnicity as they are today.

This is not going to happen because I say so, or because some strong man makes it happen. This is already happening and will happen because humans are 99.9% identical and it is a natural progression which we can already see taking place.

There will be no battle between these two groups invented out of thin air by Jihadist, "The multiculturists and the monoculturists."


This is no ideological struggle. It is natural forward progress for a species that was one small group of 600 people just 140,000 years ago, and became separated by vast distances, therefore developed different cultures and skin tones and facial features, but not that different. Now we are brought together again by world travel and media and finally the internet, which has turned the temperature of the burner under the melting pot to high.

Let the wonderful melting begin.

Of course there are those who will fight to their last breath to hang on to their old world segregated culture because deep down, they think that "their people" are actually better than the rest.

Posted by: timmy2 | August 9, 2010 1:13 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Monoculturalist : I believe in one belief, one people for eternal peace.

Multiculturalist : How can that be when there are many ethnic, religious and political affiliations?

Monoculturalist: One people! One nation! Indivisible! Under God!

Multiculturalist: You twit! You want everyone to be just the same in thinking, in belief! And they are not!

Monoculturalist: That is a slander and you are politically incorrect! You are bigoted! You are racist! You are ignorant!

Multiculturalist: What!? It is my right to be politically incorrect in what I see as hyper-political correctness on race and religion so they will see the error in their thinking and ways! And political correctness is an impediment to free speech! Is that not a right?

Monoculturalist : But what is politically correct and what is politically incorrect? How do we define them? By whose definition should we use?

Multiculturalist : Never answer a question with a question!!!!

Monoculturalist : But, what is the question?

Multiculturalist : What is a multiculturalist?

Monoculturalist : Multiculturalism is over-rated. It is the cause of all divisions and discords. One people! One nation! Indivisible!Under God!

...and so it goes.



Posted by: Jihadist | August 9, 2010 12:34 PM
Report Offensive Comment

FARNAZ

"The amusing thing is my ten-year-old is far more multicultural than you could ever hope to be. As am I, needless to say"

Quite the opposite I suspect. I was brought up multicultural in arguably the most multicultural city in the world, and through that have developed a world culture as opposed to the segregated culture that you live in by choice and teach to your daughter. Bloodline. So primitive.

By your backward looking thinking, I am a child who was ripped off of my true heritage because my grandmother never told me about how her parents were killed in a russian gulag as part of an ethnic cleansing until I dragged it out of here in my mid 20s.

My grandmother is so much smarter than you, and has truly learned the path to "never again." She did not want to tell me about it, not just because they were painful memories but because she did not want to fill her grandchildren with the hate from past.

The intelligence and foresight of my grandmother to keep this from me and her children as she made a new life for them in a new country with a forward looking attitude makes you look like fumbling bumbling fool. A backwards looker. A racist revenge seeker.

Thank god I was brought up by intelligent people who learned from history rather than become bitter and enraged by it. Thank god I was taught to see people as people, just like me, wherever they come from, whatever their bloodline. Thank god it was not drilled into my head that what happened to my grandmother's parents actually happened to me, because those were "my people." Thank god I was not raised to be FARNAZ, or raised by FARNAZ.

Thank god I was not raised by a woman who spends all of her time seeking revenge and atonement for things that happened to other people in another era, who she thinks she shares a special connection with through bloodline.

Posted by: timmy2 | August 9, 2010 11:59 AM
Report Offensive Comment

The Associated Press has released to day this bit of news.
“German mosque used by Sept. 11 attackers shut down.”
It took 9 years for Hamburg mayor to realize that a mosque is not necessarily a house of worship but most likely a breeding den for terrorism. When will the Bloomberg- likes recognize this simple fact?

Posted by: abrahamhab1 | August 9, 2010 11:35 AM
Report Offensive Comment

THOES THAT FILE TAX EXAMPT DO NOT HAVE TOTAL FREEDOM OF SPEECH FOR THEY MUST COMPLY WITH THE TAX EXAMPT LAW'S RULES WHICH PUTS A RULE ON SPEAKING ON POLITICS. THE 14TH ADMENDMENT WAS WRITTEN FOR PEOPLE AND THEIR CHILDREN THAT WHERE FORCED INTO THIS COUNTRY AGAINST THEIR FREE WILL AS WELL AS THE CHILDREN OF AMERICAN CITZENS. PLEASE READ THE DRED SCOTT CASE OF 1857 AS WELL OF CHIEF JUSTIC TANEY'S REMARKS. A IMMIGRANT IS A PERSON FROM ANOTHER COUNTRY WHO BECOMES A CITZEN OF A NEW COUNTRY *THEN* BECOMES A IMMIGRANT OF THE PERSONS OLD COUNTRY. THE 14TH AMENDMENT WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR ANY PERSON IN OUR COUNTRY ILLEGALY AND PRODUCEING A CHILD OR HERE TO PRODUCE A CHILD AND GO BACK TO THEIR COUNTRY WITH THE CHILD WITH DUAL CITZENSHIP. ALL ILLEGAL PEOPLE IN OUR COUNTRY ARE NOT IMMIGRANTS BUT ILLEGALS AND A LIBILITY TO OUR COUNTRY AND THE AMERICAN TAX PAYERS. IT TIME THAT THE SUPREME COURT HEARS A CASE ON THIS MATTER OF CITZENSHIP. KNOW THE REAL MEANINGS OF WORDS AS WELL THE RULES OF THE TAX EXAMPT LAW THAT ARE BEING VIOLATED. I SAY TO ALL AMERICAN IMMIGRANTS, WELCOME TO * YOUR * NEW COUNTRY AND I HOPE YOU HAVE A FULL AND HAPPY LIKE. TO ALL YOU ILLEGALS, YOU ARE ILLEGAL FROM THE FIRST STEP AND ARE NOT WELCOME IN OUR COUNTRY AND MUST NEVER HAVE AMERICAN CITZENSHIP IN YOUR ILLEGAL CONDITION. TO ALL GREEN CARD HOLDERS AS WELL AS YOU THAT ARE HERE UNDER A FEDERAL WORK PROGRAM, TRY WORKING ON GETTING YOUR CITZENSHIP. THE GROUPS THAT SPEAKOUT FOR THE ILLEGALS, FILE YOUR INCOME AND PAY YOUR TAX. AMERICA HAS A GOVERMENT OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE, AND FOR THE PEOPLE. IT IS A COUNTRY " UNDER GOD " BUT OF NO RELIGION OF ANY TYPE.

Posted by: usapdx | August 9, 2010 10:48 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Islamic Cordoba was the New York city of the time at the turn of previous millenia (1000 AD). It was the biggest, richest and most cosmopolitan city in Europe. Christians, Jews and Muslims all lived side by side in the most peacefull manner Europe has ever known. When the richest people of London and Paris lived in wooden shacks Cordoba had houses with running water and sewerage system. They had paved roads, thousands of libraries and Public Baths. Muslims brought cutting edge technology to Spain which was a barren poor country and turned it into the richest country of the world. These are all facts that bigots like Newt Gingrich, Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer would never tell you. Just have a look at what European Historian said about Muslim Cordoba.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBsDDGCIFLQ&feature=related

Posted by: yasseryousufi | August 9, 2010 10:44 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Farnaz,

Thanks for you elaboration on "Jewishness", including Jewish ethnicity and identity.

The trolls and trogs and Neanderthal men are out as always in Jacoby's threads. A thread to study prejudices in all sizes, shapes, forms and styles.

Chocolates in heaven you say? I just love the arsenic, dungy ones covered in white chocolates, milky chocolates or dark chocolates proffered by some posters here.

When they die, in hell they will all get dumped with their own chocolate covered arsenicated dung, and eat it. But perhaps they are already doing so now, and are dying and/or dead from self-poisoning due to their own arsenic and dung.

Posted by: Jihadist | August 9, 2010 9:16 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Farnaz

I understand.

That poster, Whistling, bragged to us about the purity of his DNA, as though there really is any such thing as pure DNA, and as though there is a standard of DNA pride that most people agree with.

But there is no such thing as pure DNA. And most people do not think about their own DNA in this way.

But even aside from all of that, we don't know him; we don't know his real name; we will never see him; we will never have any sense at all of his DNA except by second hand implication about himself, that he might type on a computer keyboard, which may or may not be reliable.

Poof! he is just an ugly mirage, as transient as a fatulent cloud.

Posted by: DanielintheLionsDen | August 9, 2010 6:06 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy,

I will say this. I require very little sleep.
I blog at lightening speed in between writing and doing other things, but you win may actually require less rest than I do, if that is possible.

I'm off.

Goodnight.

Posted by: farnaz_mansouri2 | August 9, 2010 4:46 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Yes, a veritable cultural pastiche, such as when white women wear the scarf of sharwah kameez around their wastes. Very nice.

Two Chinese dumplings and a slice of pizza.

The amusing thing is my ten-year-old is far more multicultural than you could ever hope to be. As am I, needless to say.

Your superficiality is breath-taking, needless to say.

We have, among our friends, a Honduran married to a Japanese woman. He has been to Japan many times, and she to Honduras. They have learned one another's languages.
They are teaching their daughter her dual heritages.

Oh, Man without a country. I beg of you, read a book. Or, I'll send one for you to c/o David Waters, if you'd like.

Posted by: farnaz_mansouri2 | August 9, 2010 4:43 AM
Report Offensive Comment

FARNAZ

"I mean, Jeez Louise, Adolf. Who is "we"?"

Good god, look around you. I see white people taking up cultural practices of Hindus and buddhists and Africans and Spaniards and adding them to their own to come up with a new worldly culture. I see people in Russia and china adopting things from western culture and I see people of different ethnicities and races interbreeding, and intermingling.

I see children giving up their ethnic identities because they want to be just like their friends, not like their parent's friends. They don't want to be different. They don't wan to have different holidays and different religions because they know that it is all false. They go to school with kids from all races and cultures and they are colorblind. It's truly inspiring to see.

"All I see is "thee." And that is all thou see'st, truly"

You are either blind or you spend all of your time with your head buried in these blogs looking for antisemetics to attack, and can't see the changes happening in the world around you.

We will all be one race again one day. There will be no different human ethnicities. Not because someone like Hitler made it all happen. But because we are getting over our tribal past and that's just the way it's going. Naturally. It's a result of freedom.

I talk about this new emerging world culture and you and Onofrio always try to make it sound like the only way that's going to happen is if some strong man makes it happen. Like this is something I want to force on the world. It's happening all on it's own. Look around you.

Posted by: timmy2 | August 9, 2010 4:22 AM
Report Offensive Comment

DITLD

"And other people are cranky and suspicious of strangers, even from the next town, even from just over the hill, even from another household in their own neighborhood, on their own street"

There is nothing fundamentally different about these people. They have the very same amount of potential to be kind and loving of their neighbors and of people from other cultures. They were just brought up wrong. They were taught to be suspicious of the "others".

If they had been raised like me to just see people as people then they would probably do just that. We're all capable of being good. Some of us are just raised badly. And it's a viscous cycle because children who were raised badly pass that on to their children, and so on and so on. We have to break that cycle by speaking out. Not by saying "oh well, some humans are just bad."

There are anomalies, but most humans are good at heart. That has been my experience having met people from all over the world.

Posted by: timmy2 | August 9, 2010 4:01 AM
Report Offensive Comment

F A R N A Z _ M O N S O U R i 1


OYE-VAY!

Posted by: rule-of-secular-law | August 9, 2010 3:08 AM
Report Offensive Comment

T i M M Y 2

Poshalista,

Eeee-deee Spot.

Spa-coina-no'ch.

She-sleevee!

DrrRoog.

-

Pleaza, goto sleep. good night. best luck! Friend.

Posted by: rule-of-secular-law | August 9, 2010 3:03 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Back on topic.

Stop this mosque legally and break the first amendment.

Stop it with protest and pressure and break the spirit of the first amendment.

Welcome it with open arms and send a powerful message to the non-combative muslims of the world (most of them) that hurts the recruitment abilities of the terrorist organizations and the leaders of Islamic theocracies.

Posted by: timmy2 | August 9, 2010 2:19 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy2,

We are moving towards one culture and one race of people. If you are not, you are out of touch, and an anchor around our necks.
-------------------------
I mean, Jeez Louise, Adolf. Who is "we"? All I see is "thee." And that is all thou see'st, truly.

Posted by: farnaz_mansouri2 | August 9, 2010 2:16 AM
Report Offensive Comment

COLLIN NICHOLAS,

PLEASE come back. It's chilly here in the Klondike, damp in the Amazon, etc.

Sincerely,
Farnaz

Posted by: farnaz_mansouri2 | August 9, 2010 2:12 AM
Report Offensive Comment

One

Oh no Frio

Primitive tribesmen see it the way you see it. You need some more awareness raising, smart as you are. Pay close attention.

"It's easy for you to say "Aw get over it already" because you ARE *whitey*."

I am whitey? Says you, I do not identify by skin color, that's ugly old thinking. I am a human like any other.

But what does a child born today have to get over? Nothing. Until you put it in their head. And what a horrible thing to do to them. My great grandparents were worked and starved to death in Russian gulags. My grandmother (their daughter) had to escape from East Germany after suffering horribly during the war, getting raped by drunk russian soldiers. She had to risk her life swimming across a river in the dark of night with her teenage kids (My father) and managed to get her family to Canada. But none of that is anything that I need to get over because it didn't happen to me. It's something the world needs to learn from and move on from. Some of us have done that learning already and have moved on to the changing stage. How long are you going to be stuck on the learning phase?

"As am I. It is the very least *we* can do to own - and not forget - *whitey's* part in the pain – for many still a "living thing"

Again I don't identify by skin color and I don't owe anybody for what people did hundreds of years ago. These are racist thoughts. People acting badly were responsible for the pain. No one I know acts like that today. The "least" I can do is to see everyone as equal as we make a fresh start. That's fair to everybody and does not dwell on the past. Children born today did not have any land stolen from them.

Posted by: timmy2 | August 9, 2010 1:56 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Twofrio

"Then, perhaps, *whitey* can shut the f up for once, and stop preaching that the still *primitive* masses should rasa their tabula and be gathered into some utopian supermall of *whitey's* design"

There you go again. No one is "designing" this new world culture as you try to insinuate with some of your classic demagoguery. This new culture is coming about naturally like all culture always has. But some people are stuck in the archaic tribal mode of separate cultures that are frozen in time.

"Surely, the lesson of history is that such grand visions are mirages, yea verily, their sheen is ostensible only"

Nonsense. Getting rid of slavery and the desegregation of the south was a grand vision that turned out to be no mirage. And it was part of what I am talking about. It was the beginning of what I have been talking about. It's not a grand mirage. It is happening as we speak. You are missing out if you are not part of it.

My life is filled with influences from all of the world's cultures having grown up in arguably most multicultural city in the world (Toronto). I eat foods and wear clothing from all cultures of the world, I use chinese words to express certain thoughts and french words for others and yiddish words for others. I read the religious scriptures and histories from all cultures and take from them many wonderful and helpful lessons and tidbits of wisdom. I think about the words of Jesus and I meditate the way Buddha taught every day, and I do yoga from three different cultures every week. The art in my house is from all over the world and I travel all over the world and visit my fellow humans and learn as much of their language as I can. I have also dated women from different cultures and religions and my friends in a room would look like a united nations meeting.

We are moving towards one culture and one race of people. If you are not, you are out of touch, and an anchor around our necks.

Posted by: timmy2 | August 9, 2010 1:55 AM
Report Offensive Comment

D12,

If you're under the impression that Jews have some kind of extended family type community, forget it. Ain't no such animal, at least not here in the US. Maybe, somewhere.

It seems to me that people develop that sort of thing through interests, church affiliations, etc.

You should take a writing workshop, even online. I think you would love it. They are a lot of fun.

Posted by: farnaz_mansouri2 | August 9, 2010 1:48 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Daniel12,

But you do have an "identity." You are Catholic, and you must have an ethnicity. Doesn't everyone in a sense? Do you mean you are of English descent? I know an an American Catholic of English descent--a poet.

And you are a man, and your parents' children. You could convert to Judaism, if you wished, and claim the Right of Return! Just kidding.

You could also apply to live in Israel, but not everyone speaks English. An awful lot of people do not.

We're all just floating. At any rate, I am.

Enjoy your vacation!

Posted by: farnaz_mansouri2 | August 9, 2010 1:46 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Farnaz, it might seem strange but a couple times I wished I could be Jewish and able to emigrate to Israel, but I know the wish came from a desire to firmly belong to something at least...I am adrift from everything it seems. No real religious identity (Roman Catholic, but so what?), no ethnic identity, no racial identity (white, but so what?). Even interests such as books and music seem to cling to me lightly. I never feel stuck to the ground, just floating. Floating is nice in that you can be observant about some things others take too seriously, but then again you just float away to someplace else...I should have started a family, but never got around to it. I just visit my mom or dad or my sisters and their kids. On vacation at my mom's now...been swimming in her pool, watching movies on TV, using internet and so on. Hope all is well with you.

Posted by: daniel12 | August 9, 2010 1:41 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Ok, I sort of understand Farnaz. Sorry about last post--we overlapped in writing and you posted answers to what I was asking before I posted...

Posted by: daniel12 | August 9, 2010 1:30 AM
Report Offensive Comment

D12,

Susan once wrote to me that is was not her job to make minorities feel good about themselves. I was the minority in question. So, I did not see that as an affirmation of Jewish heritage on Susan's part. Correct me if I am wrong.

Majoritarians have been making themselves feel good about themselves since the beginning of time, and insisting that everyone else do the same, note.

Posted by: farnaz_mansouri2 | August 9, 2010 1:30 AM
Report Offensive Comment

daniel12,

I have no wish to deny Susan her Jewish heritage, but we are talking about someone, whom I do respect, who "OT's," someone who until recently did not recognize that Judeo-Christian is oxymoronic.

I embrace Susan's claim of her Jewish heritage. But, she must embrace it as well. I mean, it comes with more than being knowledgeable about the HOlocaust, and believing Judaism and Jewishness are as intuited by having friends in Manhattan.
No offense, Susan.

I'm not suggesting that she go and study Talmud. A bit more reading might help, however. More understanding of the complexity of Jewish identity. She has not shown much.

I rather wish she would read what Roth has to say about his own Jewishness, rather than take what he writes in his fiction as somehow revelatory. Just an example.

I could go on. I have Muslim relatives. That does not make me Muslim. Yet, I am more Muslim than Susan is Jewish, at this point.

I welcome her her, D12. But she must advance a bit.

Posted by: farnaz_mansouri2 | August 9, 2010 1:25 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Daniel12,

Reread my post. Her life would have to be in danger because she was Jewish.

That was the case for the two hundred fifty Jews left in Yemen, remnants of an ancient civilization, who were rescued in May and June.

They were in danger of murder because they were Jews.

That was the case with the Ethiopian Jews, whom the Israelis airlifted out of Ethiopia.

That was the case with the Iranian Jews, for whom the Israelis devised various methods.

If Susan were facing death or persecution because her father was Jewish (it's been known to happen), she could rightfully claim the Right of Return, and I have no doubt she'd be welcome.

Now, let us say that she claimed it today. I don't know what would happen. Even if her mother were Jewish, it would be problematic.

That is why I gave you the example of the priest. Do you see? He was in no danger. He was a priest. It didn't matter that his parents had been Jews, murdered in the Holocaust.

Posted by: farnaz_mansouri2 | August 9, 2010 1:19 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Farnaz, what you say about being Jewish, criterion for such, seems odd to me. According to you Jacoby is not Jewish--unless her life is in danger, then she can claim to be Jewish. But life in danger from what? Anything? Or just somebody calling her Jewish and threatening her? It seems a rather elastic sense of being Jewish that you define. It seems you have some Jews in mind that really are Jews, regardless of danger to their lives. Then you have sort of Jews who are not Jews unless in danger. Then of course you have complete non-Jews, those with neither Jewish father nor Jewish mother. Why not just call anyone with Jewish heritage regardless of family side Jewish and be done with it? It seems strange that a Jew such as yourself would deny some people their Jewish heritage unless they come banging on your door in danger for their lives. Which ones do you allow in if knocking on your door? Do you check them out and say either "you're Jewish you stay", or "as for you, get out of my house"? Should Jacoby run to your door or go somewhere else?

Posted by: daniel12 | August 9, 2010 1:10 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Daniel12 and SUSAN,

Here is a story about Jewish identity.

Nature or Nurture

Years ago, some friends introduced me to their friend, Bill. After Bill had left, Dan (Jewish), Jim (Catholic), and I were alone in Jim's car.

Dan turned to me and smiled: "Bill's not Jewish, you know."

"Impossible."

"I know."

"He isn't Jewish," said Jim. "I went to Catholic school with him."

"There's a Jew in there somewhere," said Dan.

Dan and I giggled.

And so, time passed. (A few weeks.)

Dan to Farnaz, "Bill's Jewish."

"We've been through that."

"No, I mean. He's Jewish, factually, in a sense, at least. HIs mother is Jewish. She just told him. All these years, he thought she was Catholic, like his father."

"We are redeemed."

"Of course."

Bill's mother and father were Germans. HIs father was Catholic. His mother had hidden her Jewish identity all her life, like Susan's father.

Imagine the suffering. And yet, according to Bill, she was conscious of none of it. She warned him, however, never to let anyone know. But, being Bill, he told everyone.

We are all still friends.

The End

Posted by: farnaz_mansouri2 | August 9, 2010 1:08 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy,

"Or don't. Tell first nations children that their land was stolen from whitey"

It was and is.

"and tell jewish children that "their people" have been horribly wronged"

They were and are.

"and we can all keep living in the past and repeating the same old mistakes and suffering the same of atrocities caused by these false divisions"

It's easy for you to say "Aw get over it already" because you ARE *whitey*. As am I. It is the very least *we* can do to own - and not forget - *whitey's* part in the pain – for many still a "living thing", Timmy; current, like the "culture" you cite. Then, perhaps, *whitey* can shut the f up for once, and stop preaching that the still *primitive* masses should rasa their tabula and be gathered into some utopian supermall of *whitey's* design.

Surely, the lesson of history is that such grand visions are mirages, yea verily, their sheen is ostensible only.

Regards,

A Twisty Offensive Fantasist Scarecrow

Posted by: onofrio | August 9, 2010 12:56 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Onofrio,

Thank you so much for your post, Onofrio. I appreciate your "pebbles" more than I can say.

Farnaz

Posted by: farnaz_mansouri2 | August 9, 2010 12:53 AM
Report Offensive Comment

daniel12,

That is an interesting question, and I will try to do the best I can with it. It is true that Jews trace lineage through the mother, just as Muslims trace it through the father, and Christians through either or both parents--whatever seems to suit them.

As for Jews, Susan's status would probably be somewhat different if her mother were Jewish, but I find it difficult to explain.

She was raised Roman Catholic. That is where religion kicks in. For Jews, she is not Jewish.

For Israel, the situation is different. If like the Yemeni Jews, this past June, her life were at risk because her father or mother is Jewish, then whatever her religion, she could claim the Right of Return.

If she could not return, Israel would have to help her. Just as they helped the Yemeni, and the Ethopians, and they tried to help us.

Now, there was a fascinating case. A priest, who had two Jewish parents, was converted to Catholicism to save his life, raised by a Catholic family. He went to divinity school because he chose to and he was ordained.

Later on in life, still a priest, and in no danger, he claimed the Right of Return.
He was denied. He was told he did not have that right.

If he had been endangered because his parents had been Jewish, I believe the case would have been different.

Part of Jewish identity hinges on survival. Can you understand that? Am I making any sense?

Posted by: farnaz_mansouri2 | August 9, 2010 12:48 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Good Danielinthelionsden,

Thee:
"And other people are cranky and suspicious of strangers, even from the next town, even from just over the hill, even from another household in their own neighborhood, on their own street."

That's me to a T, Danielinthelionsden :^)

Regards,

Anybody

Posted by: onofrio | August 9, 2010 12:40 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Farnaz,

To say "I understand" is not to understand. Am dimly aware, and sense horror even from that distance. "No man is an island," so I cast what pebbles I have - rather uselessly - in the direction of the horror, with which you and others contend directly and mightily.

Am ghost of a token.

Rest you.

Posted by: onofrio | August 9, 2010 12:38 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Farnaz, why is it you say Jacoby is not Jewish when she is Jewish on her father's side? Does she have to be Jewish on her mother's side to be jewish--is that what you are getting at? If so, it seems strange, in fact mysterious, that one would become a Jew only through the female line, as if something tangible descends only there and not through the male line. But explain it to me--I seem to be ignorant. Jacoby seems to be ignorant as well, otherwise she would not consider herself half Jewish.

Posted by: daniel12 | August 9, 2010 12:34 AM
Report Offensive Comment

I am sorry for any decent people I offended, and that includes you, Little Guy. :)

Posted by: farnaz_mansouri2 | August 9, 2010 12:12 AM
Report Offensive Comment

ONofrio, DITLD,

Sorry, but the offensive strategy works with racists. I plan to use it whenever they turn up.

Just tune it out. At this point in my life, I'm all but numb to it.

Posted by: farnaz_mansouri2 | August 9, 2010 12:06 AM
Report Offensive Comment

MOron,

You write, "9/11 was caused not by the
akhtarman

Islamic religion but by Christian and Jewish fanatics who run America and used it to back dictators for cheap oil and give Israel weapons to kill Arab Muslims. Atheists (like Hitchens) who support this looting and exploitation are equally guilty."

NOw, is anyone forcing you to live among fanatics? Do Jews, Israeli or other, Christians of any sort, particularly want to be near you?

May I suggest you return to your homeland, chop off a few heads, rape a few Christians, flog and stone folks as is your wont, etc.

If you have left any Jews in your ancestral land, well more's the pity.

Oh, and bigot, get ready to hear much, much more of this.

I'm quite good at it. I learned everything I know from the Muslims and Christians.

Dead Israeli Jewish children say hello. You might be meeting them sooner than you think.

In this day and age, who knows. I mean, one can never tell.
-----------------------
I'll be looking out for you. I've seen you before. Many times.

But, the way I figure, it's up to me to be certain my daughter never does.

Sorry, Jihadist, but I've had it with racists.

FOR good.

Posted by: farnaz_mansouri2 | August 9, 2010 12:04 AM
Report Offensive Comment

DITLD,

You are a very kind and good man. You are also a natural philosopher. I am none of those things.

I enjoy knowing people of different cultures and religions, but I will not let them destroy my minoritized life.

After 9/11 there were forty-nine antisemitic incidents in colleges across the country. My sister, who is much like you, a gentle, peaceful, peaceable soul, who has never raised her voice in my presence, slapped a colleague across the face for racist remarks she had make.

I would have given everything we have, except what I'd saved for my daughter's tuition, to see that.

I wonder if you can understand. I think if anyone can, you and Onofrio and Schaum, wherever he may be can.

I'm sorry, DITLD. I respect you greatly, but I am not so good as you or as my sister.

My father is certain I will go down fighting. So is my husband.

Posted by: farnaz_mansouri2 | August 8, 2010 11:50 PM
Report Offensive Comment

I would like to know why I, or any Jew, should be subject to the rantings of Racist Pigs, like akhtarman, and then be called racist when we fight back? Or be expected to stand up for Muslims.

Well, akhtarman, KISS MY BROWN JEWISH ARSE.

Ditto, Whisting, the Christer.

And Moderate, the A Hole.

KISS my brown Jewish arse.

And I will ask the next pro-mosque rabbi I meet, and there are a ton of them just who and what they are supporting.

Yo, Christians and Muslims, get out my face.

Posted by: farnaz_mansouri2 | August 8, 2010 11:45 PM
Report Offensive Comment

akhtarman,

Pig, please scroll down, you racist pig of a Whistling and Moderate's brother or sister.

There I posted on two rabbis, two of many who support the mosque.

Now, Pig, I ask you, why should any Jew support Muslims when Pigs like you speak for them? (Pig.)

Kindly explain. I await your reply. (Pig.)

Posted by: farnaz_mansouri2 | August 8, 2010 11:42 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Jihadist, Farnaz, anybody,

To make a long story short, in a nutshell, some people are curious about others and open to meeting them and learning all about them, no matter how different they may seem, no matter from what far away place they may have come.

And other people are cranky and suspicious of strangers, even from the next town, even from just over the hill, even from another household in their own neighborhood, on their own street.


Posted by: DanielintheLionsDen | August 8, 2010 11:34 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Akhtarman,

Thee:
"Personally, I live in Canada and don't give a damn about this."

Personally, I live at the arse-end of the world; pleased to e-meet you. Reread your screed. Given the tone, I think it fair to say you give a whole swag of damn.

9/11 was an atrocity committed by deluded fanatics as retribution for both real and perceived intolerables. In reaction, deluded fanatics in the US government (with the support of O/S allies) wrought further atrocities - shock-and-awe whoopsies, nude pyramids and the like - also under the hallowed aegis of retribution. And on that basis, you no doubt relish yet further counter-counter retributions, from Canadian comfort.

Atrocity you, atrocity me, atrocity we...

How about a compromise. A nice anodyne mosque within sight of Ground Zero; a shiny milquetoast megachurch hard by Abu Ghraib. Let the adhan and the hymns ring out! Fair?

The rufous, cooling sun
will cook to a coal our blue-skinned ball:
a crucible for everyone,
the nuptial bed of None and All.

BTW *Judeo-Christian* is a proven chimera. Yet though Bellerophons aplenty have tried to fill its maw with lead and fell it, it has a zombie's persistence.


Posted by: onofrio | August 8, 2010 11:32 PM
Report Offensive Comment

One

Well well well,

or should I say, Dwell dwell dwell.

Onofrio, your twisty scarecrow fantasies are more offensive than anything I could ever dream up. Shame.

I am far from alone in this thinking, there are many of us who have taken the obvious lessons of history and moved on towards developing a one world culture instead of continuing to identify with the old world cultures of our grandparents, who's culture was already archaic. This is because we understand that culture is a living thing it evolves daily and there is nothing a-historical about this. History is for learning from not dwelling on. Such primitive attitudes displayed here. Desperately holding on to tribal pasts.

But it's not all their fault. This is how they were taught to think. "our people" were wronged. And don't you ever forget it. Oh but of course this is not a call for revenge, no we wouldn't do that. We're just saying "and don't you ever forget that it was OUR people who were wronged."

That is not the path to "never again." It is the path to a repeat of the same old tribal bs of the past.

The lessons to be learned from the history of ethnic and racial atrocities are that these are false divisions between a people who are actually one race. We have science now to tell us that we are 99.9 percent the same. All of our cultures are like scouts from one tribe sent out to explore and populate the earth, and now we are reunited. And now we can share our experiences and come together as one tribe again. As one we could easily solve all poverty problems and end most if not all wars, and save the environment from future catastrophes, and educate the entire world, and end the third world.

All of these things are possible if we learn the lessons of our entire history going back 150,000 years when an ice age wiped out all but 600 of us. Your thinking is so small picture.

Posted by: timmy2 | August 8, 2010 11:28 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Two

The lesson to be learned from history is to end race and ethnicity. It is going to end anyway. We are on that path now. We can just do it now by teaching our children that we no longer identify as separate races and ethnicities. We can chose to do that instead of holding on to that deep down tribal feeling that, "hey maybe I don't want to let this thing go because I think my tribe is the best"

No one is talking about hiding history we're talking about learning transformative lessons from it and moving on. Yes tell your children their history. Tell them where they come from, but then tell them that the world is getting over all of that now. Tell them about our whole history going back 200,000 years and tell them that about 150,000 years ago, we were just 600 survivors. Tell them that we are all survivors.

Or don't. Tell first nations children that their land was stolen from whitey and tell jewish children that "their people" have been horribly wronged, and we can all keep living in the past and repeating the same old mistakes and suffering the same of atrocities caused by these false divisions.

But I know that won't happen. It's going to go like I said it's going to go. We are going to get over it. I'm just a little ahead of you guys at the moment. Look backwards by all means, but think forward. Please.

Posted by: timmy2 | August 8, 2010 11:27 PM
Report Offensive Comment

I missed out on some of these comments. I'm not Jewish.

Of course, one has two sides from which to claim this or that heritage.

But on my mother's side, my heritage is fairly directly Irish. My people were swept up in the whirlwhind of the Irish famine, and washed up on the shores of America. Everything of the old country was forgotten. If we were Cathoic back in the old country, that has been long forgotten. (I know we weren't Jewish).

I have very white skin, with black hair, like the character in the Twilight movie, a sort of Irish type. Now, we don't even do Saint Patricks Day, because that is from the old Irish ways, which have been long forgotten.

Nowadays, some people have a sense of losing an ethnic identity and feel bad about it, worried, anxious. But I am a person whose recent ethnic identity has been annihilated. And I don't really worry about it because what I am now is all I have ever known. Besides, my new ethnic identity in the New World is WASP, which is kind of boring, but also has perks, despite the Tea-Partiers claims to the contrary.

Posted by: DanielintheLionsDen | August 8, 2010 11:23 PM
Report Offensive Comment

5amefa91,

Still waiting on that bile-choking exhibition from you, Samefag.

You've produced a surfeit of the stuff, so I'm looking forward to a truly Charybdian display.

Gorge and purge away!

Posted by: onofrio | August 8, 2010 10:48 PM
Report Offensive Comment

The opposition to a mosque near ground zero shows how pathetic, illiterate and childlike the US- 9/11 has turned mainly white America (esp. fanatical Christians) into a bunch of "9/11 Nazis" and revealed how scared and intolerant they really are. This also includes some Jews, Hindus and apparently Athiests like this foolish author. BTW, the ADL is actaully quite Conservative and in bed with rightwing Christian fanatics who hate Islam frequently and uses the "Anti-Semite" line too often to be taken seriously.

9/11 was caused not by the Islamic religion but by Christian and Jewish fanatics who run America and used it to back dictators for cheap oil and give Israel weapons to kill Arab Muslims. Atheists (like Hitchens) who support this looting and exploitation are equally guilty.
This is what led to the anger that caused 9/11. Americans are so shallow, ignorant and small-minded that they know nothing about the attacks except the "Muslims did it". If the mosque rubs salt then I guess every American institution rubs salt on Native wounds and should be banned too!

Personally, I live in Canada and don't give a damn about this. However, if it bothers the ignorant American jackasses (especially the bigots on the Judeo-Christian Right and this intolerant Atheist author) then dammit man, you have to support this!!!

Posted by: akhtarman | August 8, 2010 10:45 PM
Report Offensive Comment

5amefa91 aka Moderate aka Skrewtape (should have been Screwed UP)

Demento,

Did you read my earlier post to you? Why don't you stop being an A Hole, and just post as your ridiculous self. You obviously cannot stop obsessing about me, since when I don't post for a while you do not show up.

Have you read Psychpathy in Everyday Life?
Lived by you?

Posted by: farnaz_mansouri2 | August 8, 2010 10:27 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Farnaz

"... but I think you'd be better off speaking to a Christian anti-Jewish racist or a Muslim one."

You are a well-known hater, so people naturally ask you about your one tiny area of competence. Anti-Jewish hatred, anti-Catholic hatred, anti-Muslim hatred. Its all the same. You could improve the public discourse by logging off and getting a real life.

Have you ever thought about what you are missing by spending your life hopped up on stimulants and making incoherent comments to a blog where no one cares? Get into rehab. You and Mel Gibson could room together while you both dry out and take some anti psychotics.

Posted by: 5amefa91 | August 8, 2010 10:06 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Actually, Timmy is quite short, microscopic some say. And like a lot of teensties he's burdened with dreams of Shakeel. Hallucinating height, he.

But after all, some of the great gods of history were short. For example, Napoleon, Tom Cruise, and, if I'm not mistaken, Vulcan and Allen Ladd.

These are fitting subjects for Tiny Tim to contemplate.

Posted by: farnaz_mansouri2 | August 8, 2010 10:04 PM
Report Offensive Comment

ONofrio,

YOu see Timmy has got this ahistorical thing going, as Runnin' has frequently noted. I'm not entirely sure he understands what some of us say to him. It's as if he just entered the world, assuming he's EyeTalian.

He reminds me of the people who called Sotomayor a "racist," or said the same of Shirley Sherrod, before the facts came out.

Perhaps, it's because we finally elected a black president, but the whites hereabout have gotten noticeably whiter, and that includes the nonwhite whites, as well.

So the whites are demanding an "equal playing field" (I swear to God), an equal playing field with blacks, even handedness.

It is as if they have forgotten whatever itsy bitsy thing they learned about one discreet population.

The country is filled with Timmys.

Posted by: farnaz_mansouri2 | August 8, 2010 9:56 PM
Report Offensive Comment

A strapping 6'3" *Aryan* comedian pushes in front of a Jewish ten year old (whom the *Aryan* urNazis would not have allowed to be unJewish, even if she wanted to) and asserts loudly that the Shoah is all about him, too. And he berates her parents for not respecting her mental tabula rasa, which, by rights, should be filled only by such as agree with him. And so Ladino poetry ought to be left sealed up in *history* books and not transmitted by parents, lest it perpetuate racist outrages. And by no means should the Jewish ten year old be told the reason why her mother left her native land, lest that, too, turns her into a racist, i.e. leads her to deny the *Aryan* comedian of his rightful stake in the Shoah.

Yes, it is about him too, but not in the way he thinks.

Posted by: onofrio | August 8, 2010 8:57 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Btw., Guy,

You should tell your fellow nationals about tabula rasa next time they make plans for the First Nations.

Posted by: farnaz_mansouri2 | August 8, 2010 8:16 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Little Guy,

Oh, yeah. I forgot. Tabula rasa. I think you must be an Eyetalian.

Posted by: farnaz_mansouri2 | August 8, 2010 8:16 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Tiny tiny tiny little girl,

No baby is born with an ethnicity. Babies are born with certain skin tones and hair color, but beyond that babies are born tabula rasa. Ethnicity is then thust upon them by their parents and the society they are born into.

"By a common history, I mean common language(s"

Babies are born with no language at all let alone common languages. Languages are taught not innate.

You do understand the word culture.

Yes. But you obviously do not. Culture is today. Culture is right now. Culture is not frozen in time or attached to any bloodlines. It evolves daily. And today, the most advanced cultures are forward moving melting pots not museums as you seem to think they are.

You seem to see culture as a history of strangers from the past that is thrust onto children and taught by their parents. But like I said, you think primitively on this matter.

"They have a shared history and culture, some of it joyful. I wouldn't want my daughter to be ignorant of those things"

They're not in the history books? History is there for all to see and not be ignorant of, but your daughter has no more connection to the people who died in the shoa than I do except the one that you thrust upon her. Or is it because of bloodline that she has more of a connection to them? I mean she wasn't born with their religion or culture was she? She was born tabula rasa and you put this whole history upon her.

As for all of that racist sounding stuff about poles and jews you wrote, I cringe when I think of you putting all of this hate into your daughter's life.

The path to "never again" is what I am talking about. But you still seem to dumb be a half to figure that out. You are consumed by revenge.

Posted by: timmy2 | August 8, 2010 6:22 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Little Guy,

Do you know of the mythical town of Chelm? It was originally an I.B. Singer story. I learned a lot about Askenazic Jewish culture when I came here.

Legend has it that when the earth was created and the time came to fill it with people, two angels were chosen to deposit wise and foolish souls evenly over the land. But one angel tripped on a mountain peak and the entire sack of foolish souls emptied out over one spot, a tiny town in Poland called Chelm.

Now, the Polish Catholics, who raped Jewish women, kidnapped Jewish children, tore the beards off Jewish men consider this "racist." They remind me of you, Little Guy.

Any time you want to be sure you're dealing with a Polish Catholic, give him/her time and you'll read this, "The Jew hits himself and then he screams."

Now, my Askenazic buddy, Mike, has devised a wondrous answer, "The Polish Catholic kills Polish Jews, and then screams, Racists."

I've posted it as a responsive gesture to Polish Catholics, after they graced me with their spectacular wit, but somehow, they were unappreciative.

Go and figure. OR, is it go figure. Go figure.

Posted by: farnaz_mansouri2 | August 8, 2010 5:50 PM
Report Offensive Comment

By a common history, I mean common language(s) that persist even unto this day, eg., Yidish, Ladino, poetry written in those languages and in Hebrew, Yidish theatre, fiction, etc. They lived together, were forced to for the most part.

You do understand the word culture. They have a shared history and culture, some of it joyful. I wouldn't want my daughter to be ignorant of those things. Fat chance, as she is more interested in them than we are, but there you have it, Little Guy.

Posted by: farnaz_mansouri2 | August 8, 2010 5:39 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Wow. Farnaz has more farewell tours than The Who.

"Timmy, you are such an idiot"

I will not respond to this bluster because I do not respond to bluster. Oh wait I just did. Doh!

"Jews are an ethnic group, or arguably more than one because they have an ethnic history"

What is an ethnic history? Is it something like a religion? What history are babies born with? Saddled with? Owing for? Responsible for? Ethnicity is a choice, unless of course you are talking about race or skin color or hair texture. What are you talking about? How can babies have a shared history? They just got here? I know that's how you think, but you need an awareness raising.

What you are saying is that babies are brought into this world having shared a history with people who they never met and many of them whom that would want nothing to do with. And I'm pretty sure you are basing this on bloodline which is very racist. That is what you are saying with this "ethnicity is a shared history" crap. The minute they are born you saddle babies with a history they are not responsible for, and maybe want nothing to do with. But don't worry, you are not alone. Most people do this. It's a very primitive way of thinking and it is no path to "never again." But you are too dumb by a half to get this.

"Must you go on with this insanity. I mean can't you blog on something like weight-lifting?"

Boom! Snap! Got me! Oh wait minute. I just realized that is bluster, and I do not respond to bluster, I only respond to ideas. But wait, I just did respond to it. Doh!

"You must have a large and very tolerant, sympathetic family"

I do. It's exactly the same size of the population of the world. Imagine thinking like that. Or at least try to, it may be to advanced for someone who says things like "my people" when referring to.... what we're not sure? Bloodline? A shared history with ancient strangers that you are automatically saddled with at birth?

Kids born today should not be saddled with these things. They should not be owing for what people they never met from another era did just because they have the same skin color and they should not be born needing to grieve and be tormented by things that happened to perfect strangers from another era just because they share a bloodline. New born babies do not share a history with anyone.

But this thinking is far too advanced for you, little girl. You're still stuck in tribal mode. But don't worry. You are not alone. Most of the world is.

But some of us are not.

Farwell. B'bye. Never again will I speak to the. Until the next time. ;)

Posted by: timmy2 | August 8, 2010 5:22 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Back in 2005 I had a job, a contract really, writing software for a company in Pasadena, right there, 5th floor, on the corner of Morengo and Colorado.

So downstairs was a coffee shop, real espesso and some interesting breaded meat whatevers. I made friends with the young man who owned the shop, since I went down there every few hours to have a smoke and a couple of espressos.

He told me, as time went by and we became friends, that his family was Armenian, that his father had immigrated from Iran when the shah went belly up. He had been born in Glendale, so he never knew anything about Iran, and was quite clear about his general happiness with that fact.

So one day a very pretty young Armenian girl came into the shop. I of course remarked on how striking she was, totally black eyes and white skin ,,,, my friend informed me that this was his sister ... gulp, oops ...

He laughed, and told me not to worry about it, that she would be growing a moustache in the next couple of years anyway.

What does this have to to with the topic at hand?

Absolutely nothing.

Posted by: jontomus | August 8, 2010 5:07 PM
Report Offensive Comment

thousands of people pay good money to hear me speak every week
-------------------------
You must have a large and very tolerant, sympathetic family.

Posted by: farnaz_mansouri2 | August 8, 2010 3:56 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Btw., what do you have against short people?
Sounds suspect to me, little guy.

Posted by: farnaz_mansouri2 | August 8, 2010 3:54 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy, you are such an idiot. Jews are an ethnic group, or arguably more than one because they have an ethnic history.

Must you go on with this insanity. I mean can't you blog on something like weight-lifting?

Posted by: farnaz_mansouri2 | August 8, 2010 3:52 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Wow! Another post from Farnaz after the last one ever.

Alright now that's more laughs than anyone needs or deserves.

And "little man"?

I'm 6,3 195 lbs and thousands of people pay good money to hear me speak every week. Don't you just wish I was "little man".

Posted by: timmy2 | August 8, 2010 3:32 PM
Report Offensive Comment

FARNAZ sez: "Lest you get confused, one is Jewish by ethnicity"

Or so Hitler thought.

Some people tell me that I am white because that is my race. And others tell me that I am Germanic because that is my ethnicity. While others try to label me as Canadian because I was born in that country.

I tell these people to go to hell. I identify as a human. All of those other things are their antiquated primitive hang ups.

Hitler may have thought that jews can be identified as such by their ethnicity, but to self identify as a jew because of your ethnicity is a choice.

Just like self identifying as a white. It's a choice some people make and they identify themselves as white, often thinking that they have no choice. But they do. Others can call me white, but I do not. I identify myself only as human. I have no extra special connection to whites, Germanics, or Canadians. These are not "my people." All humans are "my people."

I do share a connection and sort of kinship with people who have similar ideals as me regardless of what race, culture or country they come from.

Shalom. ;)

Posted by: timmy2 | August 8, 2010 3:27 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Little man,

An orthographer, you ain't. (See dictionary for orthography, or ask someone to help you.)

Timmy, I'm off.

Later.

Posted by: farnaz_mansouri2 | August 8, 2010 3:11 PM
Report Offensive Comment

BTW, If you spell it "Anti-Semite" it means you are antisemitc.

lol

It must drive Farnaz nuts that every time she spells it "antisemitic" the spell check puts that racist squiggly red line underneath. Spell check is racist, or at least it's programmers are.

Thank you for entertaining me today, Farnaz. I Needed a good laugh.

Posted by: timmy2 | August 8, 2010 3:06 PM
Report Offensive Comment

FARNAZ

"Bluster away, little man. This is the last post you'll receive from me"

Say it ain't so!

From the racist bluster queen herself.

Posted by: timmy2 | August 8, 2010 2:59 PM
Report Offensive Comment

ON SEMITES: There ain't no such thing. Here is the post in which I explained this.

Jihadist,

Lest you get confused, one is Jewish by ethnicity. That is why I can be both an atheist and a Jew. In fact, I have no choice.

RACISM is what is directed against me because I am Jewish, not because I am brown.

I had a student in my Literature of the Holocaust once. She spoke eloquently of dealing with more anti-Jewish racism than with anti-black racism. It was okay for her to be black. Not okay for her to be Jewish.

Antisemitism is a word meaning anti-Jewish racism. The hatred directed against us is racist. It has nothing to do with religion.

The word "anti-semitism" was coined by Wilhelm Marr, the word in its current usage. Prior to that, "semitic" referred to a group of languages. Marr, used anti-semitic in a racial sense, and thought it positive. Very well-known European elites agreed.

Since there never was nor will there ever be a people, "Semite," Jews stopped capitalizing the letter, eliminating the hyphen. It is now common to spell the word antisemitic, which points to the non-ness of it.

Dictionaries, however, now define "semites" as a people. In other words, they have reified it. I have published two articles relating to this phenomena. I wish I could give you the links.

This is all difficult to understand, but in the racist gentile mind, it makes complete sense. Antisemitism is the inaugural racism of the west, ushered in by Christianity, then Catholicism, and spread abroad throughout the Middle East and Asia.

I have also published numerous lengthy bibliographies on this. Use google if interested.

Posted by: farnaz_mansouri2 | August 8, 2010 12:32 PM

Posted by: farnaz_mansouri2 | August 8, 2010 2:42 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Jihadist,

And an Ethiopian Jew is more discriminated due to his/her skin colour than a Caucasian-looking Polish Jew in the States on top of being a Jew or Jewish?
----------------------
Really, I wish I could be of more help, but I think you'd be better off speaking to a Christian anti-Jewish racist or a Muslim one.

True, I've written on this, but one cannot get a grip on it from the inside. I've even interviewed the schmucks.

I have never faced descrimination because I am brown, which surprises me. I have faced it when I told folks I was Jewish, after they'd assumed I was something else.

I remember one time, someone I barely knew introduced me to an Iranian. The woman I knew did not know I was Persian, but the Iranian recognized it immediately and spoke to me in Farsi. Later, when this woman started talking to me about Islam, I answered her questions, but realized she'd assumed, wrongly, that I was Muslim. When I corrected her, I found out what she was.

Jews identify with one another, regardless of where they come from or how they are complected. HOWEVER, they have inherited, some of them, Christian racism, so that does show up more often than one would like to see.

On the other hand, when it came to rescuing the Yemeni Jews a few months ago, no one even thought of color. They still aren't. How to comprehend it all I do not know.

I wish it would all go away, though. Recently, my father has taken to identifying himself as Other. He says Jews are Other, sui generis, so let's make it official!

Posted by: farnaz_mansouri2 | August 8, 2010 2:38 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Oh, Timmy,

Here's jes' one more. The word I used was "bluster." Just want to make sure you comprehend.

And I haven't commented on anything you've written to anyone else. Why would I? I don't like bluster.

Now, Roadrunnin', Non bless him, doesn't mind bluster, but that is not the case with yours truly.

If you'd like to bluster less, and address the issues I raise with something akin to information and ideas, read

Rosemary Reuther, Faith and Fratricide
Edward Said, Orientalism

Said said that the hallmark of imperialism is the theft of another person's culture or part thereof and subsequent explanation of it to the conquered.

Reuther was explicit on the "OT" (sic) theft.

Read, or bluster on. Learn or bluster away.
The choice is yours. If you want to be a blusterer, so be it.

Posted by: farnaz_mansouri2 | August 8, 2010 2:27 PM
Report Offensive Comment

timmy2,

Bluster away, little man. This is the last post you'll receive from me.

B'bye.

Posted by: farnaz_mansouri2 | August 8, 2010 2:23 PM
Report Offensive Comment

"Race is a fiction of course, so I cannot quite fathom what it means"

Neither can scientists. There remains no official scientific breakdown of the races. That's because we are all 99.9% identical.

We all come from a group of approximately 600 breeding adults who were the only survivors of our species after an ice age that started almost 200,000 years ago and had wiped almost all of us by 140,000 years ago.

Then we left africa as one race and populated the world. Then, through separation of vast distances and different climates we developed the cultural and ethnic differences that we see today as race. In the big picture they mean nothing.

But those vast distances have been closed now and with interbreeding and globalization there is no doubt that we will all be one race again one day, and we can learn from each other's cultures both the good things to keep and the bad things to throw away (or put into a museum).

Thus we should hopefully all be heading not only for one race but for one melting pot culture as well. The only thing that gets in the way of this is superstition, racism and nationalism.

So sad. We are one, and now have the science to prove it but some of us are still too primitive minded to see it. This of course is the fault of an on going cycle of childhood indoctrination into these foolish old superstitions and separate cultures which will continue until we stop it.

Why can't we all just stop thinking so primitively and separately ? Religion mostly.

Posted by: timmy2 | August 8, 2010 2:20 PM
Report Offensive Comment

W O W!

Me Baby's came to roost. NOt kidding!

This Blog is very Lucky; or make folks so.

As soon as i[WE] posted the last one here; THAT

me [Brown] elder D O V E S (Wild ones) whom i've trained for 3 years (unlike Pigeons) AND their Baby's have come too to me Window. I'm a Grand Father already?

I Need to go Feed (dry rice) me kids.

O' Praise Ye/Yo our HOLYI-NO-MO MON/WOM!

HAILLALUYA! Praise "IT"!

Posted by: rule-of-secular-law | August 8, 2010 2:01 PM
Report Offensive Comment

FARNAZ

I have my own on going dialogue/debate with Jihadist. Butt out! In my most recent post to Jihadist, I neither referred to you nor did I make specific reference to Jihadist's post to you. Paranoid much?

As for asking to be left alone. The best way to achieve that is not to go around expressing your passions and views in public forums. I'll bet Garbo was not a big political and religious blogger for this reason. It's not fair for you to voice your opinions in a public forum and expect no one to bother you with their comments on them. And I have seen numerous posts by you towards people who were not addressing you, so physician heal thyself. If you post something here that I disagree with, I will comment. Tough if you don't like it. We've been through this before.

And hey would you look at that you just posted something that I think needs addressing.

I have never criticized the jewish ethnicity or any ethnicity for that matter. Nor have I ever criticized any race. I do however have criticisms of all kinds of cultural practices from around the world including cultural practices of Americans and Canadians.

Personally I do not identify with my race as I believe that we are all one race of humans, and skin color and hair texture are meaningless physicalities. So you'll never hear me refer to white people or Canadians as "my people" for this is such a racist and or nationalist way of thinking.

It seems to me and to everyone else here that you do not just identify yourself as a jew ethnically but also culturally and it seems you do an awful lot of time defending the jewish religion whilst bashing all others.

Racism is when someone thinks that a cultural religious book written thousands of years ago was "stolen from her people" because she is of the same ethnicity as them, or at least assumes that she is of the same ethnicity as them. Who really knows? With no other connection to those people other than through ethnicity and or race, how could such a statement be anything but racist?

Posted by: timmy2 | August 8, 2010 2:00 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Farnaz,

As you can see from my post before this one here, I am really confused re "Jewish Americans" and "American Jews".

If you say "Jewish Americans" are like Hispanics in the States as a group, with all shades of skin colours, kinds of belief, and countries of origins, it perhaps makes sense to call all, both religious and secular, "Jewish Americans".

Posted by: Jihadist | August 8, 2010 2:00 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Jihadist,

For clarification sake.

Ethnicity and race should never be criticized or vilified because people do not chose there ethnicity or race.

- Farnaz

*******************************************

Bear with me here from the perspective where terms such as "cultural Muslims" and "atheist Muslims" and "ethnic Muslims" are regarded as nonsense by Muslims. Or the term "anti-Semitic" is regarded by some Arabs as odd for they are also Semites.

Secular Jews, cultural Jews, Jewish atheists call themselves "Jewish" in the same way an Irishman would call himself Irish in spite of being either Protestant or Catholic or athiest. Or an Arab to call himself an Arab in spite of being Christian or Muslim or atheist. That is understandable.

Is the term "Jewish Americans" different from "American Jews"?

American Jews, as a religious group, are those practicing Judaism in various shades of orthodoxism or liberalism, are of all colours and shades, from Algeria or Ethiopia to Russia? Of course, by history and religion, they originated from the Holy Land. And by some DNA studies, from the Middle East.

"Jewish Americans" is cultural and ethnic and encompass those who are atheists, secular Jews, HinJews, BuddJews etc?

To what extent do "Jewish Americans"
practice Jewish culture, including those infused in influence by the culture of their countries of residence for hundreds of years, including food?

"Jews" and "Jewish" are usually racially categorised as Caucasian or "white" in the US as most are from Europe. I don't know how Ethiopian and Iranian Jews are categorised as.

I agree with you one is not responsible for one's skin colour and racial background. But, I find it a bit perplexing for "Jewish Americans" to assert themselves as "Jewish" when they are completely American, or "assimilated" Americans, with little interest in practicing the religious beliefs and traditions of their forefathers which makes them "Jews" or "Jewish" in the first place.

If one or two of the 13 Lost Tribes of Israel/Hebrews/Jews were secular spawning Jewish atheists, than easier to comprehend the culturally secular ethnic Jews.

It is easier to understand an Iranian Jew or an Iranian atheist or an Israeli Jew or a secular Isreali rather than a "Jewish American" as a term and all it entails.

Sorry, can't resist teasing you on this "American Jews" and "Jewish Americans" terms as used in the public domain. Some of eldest brother's spawns are sometimes confusing in how they define and/or redefine words and terms to mean specific specific things as accepted and correct use.

And an Ethiopian Jew is more discriminated due to his/her skin colour than a Caucasian-looking Polish Jew in the States on top of being a Jew or Jewish?


Posted by: Jihadist | August 8, 2010 1:54 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Jihadist,

I agree with you on all points. Jews are not just an ethnic group and religion for many; they are a "race." Historically, that is what we have been called. Race is a fiction of course, so I cannot quite fathom what it means.

The worst "victim" of this Muslim-bating is our President, who is endlessly referred to as Barack Hussein Obama, Muslim, by right-wing lunatics. It reached a point--you may have read about this--where he went to Congress to ask that this stop, since it was not factual.

During the election, I discussed this with my students, who looked at me cluelessly. The unanimous comment was, "Who cares?" Followed by how is that relevant, what difference does it make, etc.

This vitriol directed at the president continues to gain him support in many quarters. The idea that there would be something wrong if he were Muslim, the falseness of the "accusation," etc., repel many.

My students make me hold out hope for the future, which is good, because the present looks lousy.

Btw., thanks for your reply to me on the Main Page, but what did you think of my Chocolate in the Afterlife Vision?

Posted by: farnaz_mansouri2 | August 8, 2010 1:16 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Onofrio,

"I recall many threads ago you argued strenuously against me for saying exactly that!"

I do not recall ever being of the belief that we are not responsible for our ideas and beliefs, or arguing as such. Oh well.

Posted by: timmy2 | August 8, 2010 1:14 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Jihadist,

Re: My post

Perhaps, you do understand what I mean by ethnicity/race and Judaism. In your country recent accusations of Jewishness by well-known people have made their way to the New York Times.

Now, multiply those accusations by hundreds of millions.

Posted by: farnaz_mansouri2

*******************************************

Come now...I do understand the differences between "Jews" as a religious term, and "Jewish" to describe an ethnic group, as like Hispanics and possible to have Jewish atheist as opposed to Orthodox or Conservative Jews.

As for Malaysia, the land of oddness in thinking and behavior in the public and private sphere, you are talking about the spectacle of Mahathir Mohamad making bigoted Jewish remarks several times, and now Anwar Ibrahim. The spectable of blaming who are "Jewish agents" in a "conspiracy" to undermine the country's economy - from financier George Soros to Jewish neocons and consultants etc.

Most Malaysians regard those as deflections, distractions and misdirection from domestic religious, political, economic and ethnic issues and divisiveness to the phantomic international sort.

As for multiplying religious racism and religious bigotry, the percentages of such sorts in actual numbers would be interesting as per groups.

Parliamenterians here have no compunctions in calling one another "racist monkeys" or ethnic "ultras" while in sessions. Which do embarass the public in seeing their "leadership by examples".

Looking at the vitriols on race and religions in the States, it is surprising the number is not higher than it is. Perhaps they lied in surveys they "hate" this and that group.

For religious and racial bigotry is certainly there in the US in ways both crude and subtle.

I notice a few elected US officials in Congress and state legislative bodies also said some interesting things about Muslims which are no-no's for other religious groups in America.

We keep electing idiots to public offfice here and there.

Posted by: Jihadist | August 8, 2010 1:08 PM
Report Offensive Comment

JJ,

Are you sort of saying that there is going to be a greater, almost unimaginable monopoly on internet communication?

I'm probably not reading you right.

Posted by: farnaz_mansouri2 | August 8, 2010 1:04 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Ooooppps.

Here are two links that makes the New Newsweeks Mag et al technology more clear. And a blogger will have a good idea how THIS operates. Note: These links are No TRADE SECRETS; only Tools for Any one who can afford'm & use'm.

Please see Excerpt "Apture is currently being used by several large organizations and publishers including The Washington Post, The San Francisco Chronicle, O'Reilly Radar, and the World Wide Fund for Nature as well as individual bloggers."

"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apture"

AND see Excerpt "We give readers the power to search and explore rich content and media from the web without even leaving the page. We have users from.."

http://apture.com/

___

Please see Doubleclick (who Yahoo etal envy). Excerpt: "DoubleClick is a subsidiary of Google that develops and provides Internet ad serving services. Its clients include agencies, marketers (Universal McCann Interactive, AKQA etc.) and publishers who serve customers like Microsoft, General Motors, Coca-Cola, Motorola, L'Oréal, Palm, Inc., Visa USA, Nike, Carlsberg among others. DoubleClick's headquarters are in New York City, United States."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DoubleClick

-
POiNT: Soon, Some or Most MEDIA via the Electronic PUBLISHING Industry's will start Charging for Viewing Whole Atricles It will come in 4-Four possibilities,

1) Visitors Get to see FRESH/new Article only Once (on same IP adress) and maybe like 3 times [Includes Links; which can stop after so many clicks to the Landing Page. OR

2) Visitor Gets to see an Excerpt of said article with options to sign-up for a Subscription making it free at first but pay in full to see ALL of them. OR

3) Allow Visitor to read full article and allow for "Micro-Payment' option, or say Pre-Pay for said Magazine/subscription every 2 or 3-Months etc. OR

4) Just totally FREE, no strings attached but visitor must tolerate Popups and more Ads coming at ye/yo.

Note: Because of JEALOUSY & the COMPETITION in the Corporate World (which i/WE love & Hate) There are other things ye honest Bloggers should know; but our promising and innovative new/fresh ideas as Paradigms for growing the NEW NEWSWEEK is currently (like a Patent or Intellectual Property not yet registered and cannot be divulged) a Proprietary and Trade Secret.

Can't say much more, Soon Ye will understand.

Posted by: rule-of-secular-law | August 8, 2010 12:59 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Excellent column. Ms. Jacoby raises the very valid point that although Cordoba Initiative has the absolute right to build their project at this location, given the opposition to it, the question is really SHOULD they.

I don't think that the backers of Park51 (inexplicably renamed from "Cordoba House" a few days ago), if they are truly interested in "healing" and "building bridges" are doing much to further their cause by continuing to pursue this project in the face of such opposition, whether or not it's justified.

I'd also question whether there is a substantial enough population of Muslims below Canal St. to justify the need for Park51's location as a "neighborhood" religious center. Does this project really serve the needs of the local community, or is it just intended to be a "destination" for Muslims from outside lower Manhattan? And if the latter is the case, why?

Posted by: EddietheInfidel | August 8, 2010 12:58 PM
Report Offensive Comment

ONofrio,

I'm not sure you and Timmy mean the same thing. I would be quite heartened if that were the case. However, his clarification leaves me doubtful. It is also extremely heavy-handed. He is "clarifying," you see--for Jihadist, who was in a chat with me. Although no "clarification" was asked for or needed--and his obfuscates, no offense.

I request only to be left alone by bloggers who have declared their hostility to me. I leave them alone, and ask the same. (Stay out my face, in other words.)

When they are bored, they can intrude on someone else's chat, could they not? Or, post independently? I hope I'm not being too direct for any third party, and I do mean no offense, only wishing to be left alone. Alone, like Greta Garbo (Mansouri).

At any event, my Austral friend, it is very good to see you back. Family is now venturing forth to Botanic Gardens.

Farnaz

Posted by: farnaz_mansouri2 | August 8, 2010 12:58 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy,

Thee:
"We are all "accountable" for our ideas and beliefs."

I recall many threads ago you argued strenuously against me for saying exactly that! Good to see that you've changed your tune. Look out, you could start sacralising space next...

Posted by: onofrio | August 8, 2010 12:41 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Jihadist,

Re: My post

Perhaps, you do understand what I mean by ethnicity/race and Judaism. In your country recent accusations of Jewishness by well-known people have made their way to the New York Times.

Now, multiply those accusations by hundreds of millions.

Posted by: farnaz_mansouri2 | August 8, 2010 12:35 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Religion kills period.People murder others because they do not buy into their fantasies and myths.

Posted by: fcs25 | August 8, 2010 12:35 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Jihadist,

Lest you get confused, one is Jewish by ethnicity. That is why I can be both an atheist and a Jew. In fact, I have no choice.

RACISM is what is directed against me because I am Jewish, not because I am brown.

I had a student in my Literature of the Holocaust once. She spoke eloquently of dealing with more anti-Jewish racism than with anti-black racism. It was okay for her to be black. Not okay for her to be Jewish.

Antisemitism is a word meaning anti-Jewish racism. The hatred directed against us is racist. It has nothing to do with religion.

The word "anti-semitism" was coined by Wilhelm Marr, the word in its current usage. Prior to that, "semitic" referred to a group of languages. Marr, used anti-semitic in a racial sense, and thought it positive. Very well-known European elites agreed.

Since there never was nor will there ever be a people, "Semite," Jews stopped capitalizing the letter, eliminating the hyphen. It is now common to spell the word antisemitic, which points to the non-ness of it.

Dictionaries, however, now define "semites" as a people. In other words, they have reified it. I have published two articles relating to this phenomena. I wish I could give you the links.

This is all difficult to understand, but in the racist gentile mind, it makes complete sense. Antisemitism is the inaugural racism of the west, ushered in by Christianity, then Catholicism, and spread abroad throughout the Middle East and Asia.

I have also published numerous lengthy bibliographies on this. Use google if interested.

Posted by: farnaz_mansouri2 | August 8, 2010 12:32 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Jihadist,

For clarification sake.

Ethnicity and race should never be criticized or vilified because people do not chose there ethnicity or race.

However religions and cultural practices are chosen and are up for scrutiny and criticism and ridicule just like any other chosen ideas such as Republican ideas, or liberal ideas etc.

Some people confuse the two and think that religious ideas and cultural practices should have the same kind of protection from criticism as race and ethnicity. This is why you get people misusing words like bigotry and racism when referring to harsh criticisms of religious ideas and cultural practices.

We are not responsible for our skin color and racial background but we are all responsible for our ideas and cultural practices. Bad ideas and bad cultural practices can be dispensed with and are not attached to your ethnicity and race so if you choose to hang on to ancient religious ideas and cultural practices, you can not cry bigotry or racism when they are harshly criticized. We are all "accountable" for our ideas and beliefs.

Posted by: timmy2 | August 8, 2010 12:14 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Jihadist,

Once again, Susan Jacoby is NOT Jewish, in any sense that I can understand. She was raised Roman Catholic. Her father kept his Jewish identity hidden until she was well into her adulthood. He later converted to Roman Catholicism.

If she were to be deemed "Jewish" in the Nazi sense, and therefore found her life threatened, akin to what just happened in Yemen to the Yemeni Jews, then, like them, she could probably claim the Right to Return, probably. Otherwise, I cannot see how she is Jewish, but welcome her claim to this heritage. It is a way of honoring her father, tightening her kinship with him and his heritage, I think.

Posted by: farnaz_mansouri2 | August 8, 2010 12:12 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Jihadist:

There is no comparison between the vilification of any minority group with the vilification of Jews. They are sanctioned targets of Christians/Catholics (observant and cultural) and Muslim (observant and cultural). An increasing number of Hindus are joining the historic hatefest.

Christians/Catholics consider themselves victims here. This is hilarious but true. When Jews like me stand up to them, we are bigots.

But stand up, we do. At least, I do. On one level, I'm enjoying it immensely.

There were following 9/11 antisemitic incidents at forty-nine American colleges, one sponsored by the Muslim Students Association at NYU. My peaceable, peace-loving sister, she who has never raised her voice in my presence, slapped a female colleague across the face.

I would have given my life-savings (not much), sans what we have put away for our daughter's education to see that.

Posted by: farnaz_mansouri2 | August 8, 2010 12:09 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hellofrio!

I knew you'd pick up on the sarcasm to be sure. That aside was for those who might not know me well enough to figure it out.

But you know me better than I do, I know that, and therefore you know it even better.

Shalom

Posted by: timmy2 | August 8, 2010 11:55 AM
Report Offensive Comment

So, perhaps, all this venting, fear, loathing, and posturing is not a bad thing.

Posted by: farnaz_mansouri2

*****************************************

It's just another day in blogs from America to Zimbabwe, to vent and rant on anything and everything we don't like.

^_^

Posted by: Jihadist | August 8, 2010 11:52 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Hello Farnaz,

Yes. I do know of Ms. Jacoby's Jewish and Catholic background as she mentioned it several times before in her blogs here.

It would seem that the folks expressing displeasure with her with varying degrees of vitriolic language are those upset with her renounced Catholicism/belief in God and current written and activist atheism against warped and weird believers.

As for bigotry, frankly, the vitriol against specific groups in western countries, especially the US, is startlingly high for societies which are comparatively rich and educated.

I am more concerned with what you termed "competitive victimhood". It seems bad form for members of the majority religious and/or ethnic group of any given country to compalain of "victimhood" by the state. But one cannot subsume the politically, economically and socially marginalised and disadvantaged members of the majority religious and ethnic group.

The treatment of ethnic and religious minority groups in Muslim majority states are reprehensible, and rightly condemned and deplored and pressured by human rights activists.

Jews/Jewish, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Pagans, Mormons, Scientologists etc, are Jews or Jewish in the United States, are a religious and/or ethnic minorities in the US. No surprise they are vilified in various degrees by other groups, especially the majority religious or ethnic group.

Surprisingly and unsurprisingly, members of minority religous ethnic groups do vilify one another. So, you have American Indian Hindus vilifying American Indian Muslims and vice versa. You have American Jews vilifying American Muslims and vice versa etc.

The wounds and scars of political, economic, religious, ethnic marginalisations, disadvantates, discriminations, persecutions of and from the old world are brought to the new world by various ethnic and religious groups are played out since the time America came into being till now and tommorrow.

With groups such as Cuban-Americans, Armenian-Americans, Indian-Americans, Iranian-Americans etc wanting and having a say in America's domestic and international relations, including and especially on their countries of origin (to punish as in the case of Cuba, or to enhance as in the case of India); or with other countries seen to be unjust towards their fellow ethnic and religious group (say Turkey in the case of the Armenians and Saudi Arabia in the case of "all" Muslims), America's domestic and international policies is the most challenging and complicated in the world.

Posted by: Jihadist | August 8, 2010 11:48 AM
Report Offensive Comment

The more I think about it's really quite brilliant. A little zone that is so sacred that the First Amendment does not even apply there. Gosh that's smart.

Hey here's another thought. The terrorists utilized American Freedom to carry out their attacks, so to honor our dead, lets make ground zero a freedom free zone. Of course maybe we should extend that beyond ground zero for, what, say 7 or 8 square blocks? No let's make it 9 square blocks, but definitely not 10 that's too much, maybe.

The founding fathers knew the moronic futility of making God zones and God free zones. Because God is in people's heads and hearts and you can not control what is in there.

If one believes in God, then God is everywhere, even in no God zones. If one does not believe in God the God is nowhere, not even in churches and mosques.

Every Jew, Muslim and Christian who visits ground zero will bring God with them, and walk right past that "No God Zone" sign. They will think about God there, and most will probably pray to God there. The founding fathers were smart enough to know this could never be stopped. And smart enough to know that any attempt to stop it is futile and counterproductive.

If only Americans were as smart as their founding fathers.

Posted by: timmy2 | August 8, 2010 11:47 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Timmy,

Thee:
"PS. I hope the sarcasm came through. In case it didn't, I was being sarcastic."

Thanks for that helpful aside, Timmy. Without it your sly wit would have completely bypassed this patently nongod-sacralising dunce.

Posted by: onofrio | August 8, 2010 11:43 AM
Report Offensive Comment

ONe cannot get away from articles about this mosq. They are on blogs in WaPo and the Times, as well as in articles. I wonder if this is a good thing. It is, of course, good for the media corporations because the more "hits" the greater the interest from advertisers. But, does all this venting and discoursing provide an outlet or is it incendiary?

The only hope opponents might have is to start staging massive demonstrations, perhaps, outside of City Hall, but they don't seem to be forthcoming, do they?

So, perhaps, all this venting, fear, loathing, and posturing is not a bad thing.

Posted by: farnaz_mansouri2 | August 8, 2010 11:19 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Have the families of those who died been involved in this decision making, or is it like other times; decisions made by outsiders, without due consideration or adequate consultation?

Posted by: oncewac | August 8, 2010 11:15 AM
Report Offensive Comment

5 A M E F A 9 1

[THIS] Blog is a aTHEIST BLOG. But

The Whole [THIS] 'Website' is NOt entirely atheo.

i [WE] know that the biggest stake holder of Newsweek/onfaith, before it was sold, was the monopoly of the Roman Catholic Church via Proxy.

i.e., take the 'Jesuit-University' known as "GEORGE TOWN" who's Alma mater was, say his Famous, BILL CLINTON et al.

iMportant: Please see N E W S - W E E K S New Boss,

excerpt: "With your purchase of Newsweek, you've now joined the ranks of the vanity mogul, that restless breed of fat cat who, upon consulting his net worth, decides that he'd like to burn tens of millions of it to join the mug's game that we call journalism."

http://www.slate.com/id/2262992/pagenum/all/#p2

Note: 'SLATE' is a 'Sister' n Brother News si(y)ndicate of WAPO; not Newsweek any longer. And on "PATHEOS" here, i [WE] art not sure where they fit in here; or there. Note again: John Meacham now Owns or runs "NEED TO KNOW" broad casted Friday's 8:30p via PBS & CO;. But

but Keep in Mind that THE [Federal mid-term] ELECTION IS COMING, THE [State] ELECTIONs IS COMING...! So Slate, WAPO, New Newsweek & the RELIGIONists behind them, etal will be making ton's om money (via NEW campaign Donate Laws) and Ton's of Noise, for their Paid in Candidates.

PS: Sound like the Critic, Sir JACK SHAFER is very Jealous. OR was told to write this "AGE DISCRIMINATING" rant by the very same folks who sold Newsweek to Brother SIDNEY HARMAN? Note: there' a Rumor going around saying that it was WARREN BUFFET who nodded on the sale of N.W by J. Meacham et al. Hay, ye never know.
____

Posted by: rule-of-secular-law | August 8, 2010 11:11 AM
Report Offensive Comment

You know, according to his blog, Paul Krugman received a death threat this morning.

Things have an apocalyptic feel, as it were.

Posted by: farnaz_mansouri2 | August 8, 2010 11:10 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Yes yes yes, what a great idea. Let's create another piece of sacred ground. Sacred ground has been so good for the world. So let's create piece of sacred ground in the heart of NYC. Only most sacred grounds are all about God, we'll make this one all about "no God". Brilliant! This zone is to be God free, because this zone is sacred. Brilliant!

Sacred ground rocks! So so smart. A sacred ground in the name of "no God". Love it!

PS. I hope the sarcasm came through. In case it didn't, I was being sarcastic.

God bless America, except for this zone, because it is sacred. lol.

Posted by: timmy2 | August 8, 2010 11:09 AM
Report Offensive Comment

"This is preeminently the time to speak the truth, the whole truth, frankly and boldly. Nor need we shrink from honestly facing conditions in our country today. This great Nation will endure as it has endured, will revive and will prosper. So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance."

FDR, First Inaugural Address 1933

Posted by: farnaz_mansouri2 | August 8, 2010 10:31 AM
Report Offensive Comment

On the other hand, I and numerous others, including one Muslim (not you), have taken on the Islamophobes.

SUSAN JACOBY, I thank you for taking on this idiot, Whistling. I don't know how to keep all racists off OnFaith. Their speech is NOT PROTECTED, they yet they are allowed to post their filth here.

Posted by: farnaz_mansouri2

******************************************

As fo the "Islamophobes", after 9/11 and on to the Danish cartoons and the Pope's remarks etc, I have become somewhat "desensitised" to what they say about Islam, Muslims and the Prophet, including in "On Faith".

In "On Faith" and other blogs pertaining religions, you can never, ever keep off bigots and racists. They do complain about their free speech if taken to task regardless of it being incitements to hatred, slurs, slanders etc.

Reader-posters are not ones I fret much about. It is not just terrorist and extremist groups, but seemingly respectable folks heading seemingly respectable organisations, leaders of established faith groups and politicians that one should be concerned in what they say and do.

Of course, there are interesting notions by "On Faith" panelists and not just posters. Cal Thomas, for one, never fails to be entertaingly beyond belief in what he wrote. And, as a columnist, he is carried by hundreds of newspapers across the US.

Posted by: Jihadist | August 8, 2010 10:28 AM
Report Offensive Comment

To deplore and lament the abomination, its site would best be left a desolation, and all idols kept far hence.

Not good for business, I grant.

Posted by: onofrio | August 8, 2010 10:13 AM
Report Offensive Comment

JIhadist,

Susan Jacoby is not Jewish. I don't see any Jews on this thread besides me.

Of course there are Islamophobic Jews, but then there are Muslim antisemites--tens of millions of them, if not more.

So, what is the point? What does that justify?

It is very difficult, quite honestly, for many Jews to remain sane, when so much sick, sick vitriol is directed against us, and right now, by Muslims. Yet, we make an effort. It is the way we are taught. What is right for Jews is right for everyone.

After 9/11, many Muslims were suddenly cornered in universities here. They found refuge time and again in Hillel houses.

Now, where do Jews subject to antisemitic attacks at, for example, UC Irvine, find refuge? Also at Hillel House.

Now, who is attacking them? Sorry, but in this round of competitive victimhood, Jews win, hands down.

Frankly, and I mean no offense, I'm quite sick of this.

Posted by: farnaz_mansouri2 | August 8, 2010 10:13 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Jihadist:

Another thing. Susan does not characteristically take on antisemites. This is the only time I have seen her do so, and it was in response to accusations directed against her. She does take on Holocaust deniers and others who deny other histories.

So, rest easy, my Malaysian friend. Do not catch the sibling rivalry disease. Your Jewish siblings' history is nothing to desire.

Posted by: farnaz_mansouri2

******************************************

Hello Farnaz :)

As for your two posts addressed to me here, ah.... eldest sibling chiding youngest sibling for tantruming here on the tantruming of other siblings who remain in the family or otherwise.

Sorry. Before coming to "On Faith" the previous night, I had been casually reading other blogs on this Park 51 row. I did see some members of the eldest sibling's spawns really venting colourful notions and colourful language against the youngest sibling's spawns.

Bigotry may also not only have its roots in unreasonbleness and ignorance, but also as a result of victimisation. I can't tell if they are real, imagined or manufactured.

So, for the "phobics" and the "mitics", nowadays I leave alone the known, the recognised, the persistent and consistent Islamophobes, anti-Catholics, anti-Christians, anti-Semitites etc here in "On Faith".

I don't really know their particular background and personal experienence shaping them into, making them unrelenting and relentless phobics and anti-mitics. But sometimes, I do have a go at them like a spawn from hell. I become "Hellgirl".

Posted by: Jihadist | August 8, 2010 10:07 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Jihadist,

I always liked Lionel Ritchie. Once, when I was miserable with a cold, alone in the house, I lay in bed staring half-blind at the television. Oprah came on and had as her guests (I thought) Lionel and his daughter for a reconciliation of sorts.

Oprah chastised him for having been a bad father and the famous fils poured out her heart or rather leaked it tastefully. I was certain I was either dreaming or hallucinating since the entire discussion was in such bad taste it seemed positively unreal. At all events, I soon drifted off into a restless sleep.

Later that evening I confirmed via the web that the show had, in fact, aired.

That is the end of this story.

Posted by: farnaz_mansouri2 | August 8, 2010 9:46 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Onofrio,

Meant to write: There must be one somewhere ONEsuch?

Posted by: farnaz_mansouri2 | August 8, 2010 9:41 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Onofrio,

On a god-free sanctuary, I'm afraid I'm with you, although this is probably not a popular view. Others have suggested much the same, however.

But, we are a Religion, if not a God-tormented nation now. Frankly, I see very little of God, as I understood/understand It. Not in this country, or in any other.

There must be one somewhere onsuch?

Posted by: farnaz_mansouri2 | August 8, 2010 9:40 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Farnaz,

I hope you and yours are better than well. It has been a while, certes, away from Wapo for this punter. Sad to see that troglodytism is ugly-heading again. Always with, eh?

Whether the mosque in question is-or-is-not a masque is beside the point. The sites of atrocities committed in the name of god should be designated god-free sanctuaries, in my nonBook.

Dream on...

Posted by: onofrio | August 8, 2010 9:35 AM
Report Offensive Comment

ONE MORE TIME:

- Whistling

******************************************

You're once
You're twice
Three times a vuvuzela

..with apologies to the Commodores/Lionel Ritchie. One of my mother's favourite songs and groups.

Posted by: Jihadist | August 8, 2010 9:26 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Samefag1,

Thee:
"The hatred you spew, well you should choke that down and keep it to yourself."

Why not bless us with a demonstration, O bilious retcher!

Posted by: onofrio | August 8, 2010 9:20 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Hale Onofrio,

Thank NON! Also, God, gods, et al! You have been sorely missed, my friend. I hope you will return for awhile.

What an unmitigated pleasure to see a post from you!

Regards,
Farnaz

Posted by: farnaz_mansouri2 | August 8, 2010 9:18 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Farnaz,

This is an atheist website, but all you talk about is your religion and your hatred for catholics. There are excellent pages like Hirshfield, and Wolpe if you want to talk about jewish religion and culture.

The hatred you spew, well you should choke that down and keep it to yourself.

Posted by: 5amefa91
-------------------------
MODERATE, AKA 5amefa91, AKA Screwtape (should have been Screwed Up)

Though flattered, I cannot believe that you are still obsessing and posting lies about me. Ah, well, it is unfortunate that you do not consult your fellow retirees on more constructive ways to spend your golden years, or whatever it is that they are.

You are a very confused man. Confused about race, religion, ethnicity. You remind me of another black man, one I knew well. I believe his blackness murdered him.
He was horrible to me and to everyone else. It took me awhile to understand. I remember speaking to a close friend, a black woman, who worked with him. When I told her my theory, she thought it probably correct. It changed nothing for her, however.

NOw, for me, it changed everything. But, you wouldn't understand that. He did everything he could to harm me. Years after we'd stopped working together, I heard through the grapevine that he was dying. I also heard that he was on chemo and had done something so reckless that he had been arrested and was out on bail.

Through it all, he continued to work. I dashed off a letter on his behalf, and sent it to his lawyer. Then, I went to see him in his office on the same day.

He embraced me. I thank NON that I saw him before he died. I dream about him. They are good dreams.

But, you wouldn't understand any of this, would you, Moderate?

Posted by: farnaz_mansouri2 | August 8, 2010 9:16 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Farnaz,

This is an atheist website, but all you talk about is your religion and your hatred for catholics. There are excellent pages like Hirshfield, and Wolpe if you want to talk about jewish religion and culture.

The hatred you spew, well you should choke that down and keep it to yourself.

Posted by: 5amefa91 | August 8, 2010 8:44 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Here is a link to a current, interesting OnFaith essay by Rabbi Robert Levine and Rabbi David Ellenson.

Why Jews Should Support Mosque at Ground Zero

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2010/08/why_jews_should_support_mosque_near_ground_zero.html#more

Posted by: farnaz_mansouri2 | August 8, 2010 4:53 AM
Report Offensive Comment

*ground zero mosque protected by first amnendement--but -----*

BUT,
not only open the door for hypocrisey and bigotry and racism and favorism and injustice ,

but ,
also is another proof that the constitution is not always holy ,no more no less holy than juchristianity and her daughter secularism???

one died on the cross for the sake and sin of mankind and the other one died on the other side of the cross for the sake and sin of mankind??? what a combination for mankind!!

but,
also prove that people are still stuck in between the 2 old bigotry cave of

cave1,
the original sin

cave2
the original secular human being spiritual apeism .

but,
also put sensitivity aside!!!!!

the constitution is active only when people put it in the action gear other than this it stay in the delusion state no less delusional than the god who died on the cross and no less delusional than human secularism that also died on the other side of the cross.

now let me speak my mind for a minute or at least let me put my *BUTS* here,
now who is going to protect who? juchristianity is going to protect the secular constitution or the secular constitution is going to protect religion??????

nothing fail nation like HYPO on both scale,religion as well as human spiritual hallucination .

Posted by: mono1 | August 8, 2010 4:24 AM
Report Offensive Comment

DanielIntheLionsDen

Glad I got to you, detested of the world.

Sorry youre jealous...still believe you and yours to be ruinous, where ever you
roam.

And Danielinthelionsden is YOUE full legal name?

Posted by: whistling
--------------------------------
Und hier again ist Whistling (Vhistling), antisemitic racist pig, par excellence.

Pig, DITLD is Methodist. Hard to believe for a Christian like you, but there you have it. (Pig)

Posted by: farnaz_mansouri2 | August 8, 2010 2:37 AM
Report Offensive Comment

"... devoid of common sense."

Indeed you are.

Posted by: 5amefa91 | August 7, 2010 10:45 PM
Report Offensive Comment

"I'm not going to waste any more space on the hypocritical right-wing Republicans..."

Soozy, I am surprised there is any hypocrisy left for wing-nuts after you got done monopolizing it.

BTW, Muslims have a right to put a Mosque anywhere they can afford one. Just like churches and synagogues. No difference.

Posted by: 5amefa91 | August 7, 2010 8:55 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Upholding the first amendment is not just a legal thing it needs to be done in spirit by Americans as well.

The Little Rock Nine caused much more trouble than this mosque will cause. Fortunately upholding the first amendment in both spirit and law was deemed more important than the nuisance factor.

Fortunately the president did not bow down under pressure from the people who ignorant and racist just to avoid a whole lot of trouble. Fortunately he did not consider the "cost to the taxpayer" when deciding to send in the army to enforce the law and show the people who were wrong how important the spirit of our ideals are.

Stop this mosque either legally or with pressure and protest is a victory for the terrorists.

Imagine the headline around the globe "Americans and New Yorkers Welcome Mosque Near 911 Site With Open Arms" accompanied by a photo of Mayor Bloomberg and President Barack Hussein Obama cutting the ceremonial ribbon in front of cheering New Yorkers.

If Americans and New Yorkers were smart enough to do that, that headline would be the loudest shot heard round the world. Nothing could keep that headline from the eyes and ears of every muslim living in the most restrictive of theocracies in the darkest corners and caves. And nothing would be more harmful to the leaders of those theocracies and to the leaders of Islamic terrorist organizations.

It would dispel "The Narrative", one of the most dangerous ideas and movements floating around out there today.

Posted by: timmy2 | August 7, 2010 7:37 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Part one

I'm late into this one and sorry for the two parter but sometimes Susan Jacoby misses by a country mile and there is much to address here.

We need to think forwards not backwards. And so I'm with Friedman.

JACOBY: "First, Islamist theocracies certainly are not going to portray this mosque as a symbol of "tolerance.""

But their captives, oops, I mean their citizens will see it that way.

JACOBY: "Does Friedman seriously think that theocracies scared of Blackberries are going to publicize a monument to American openness?"

The fact that they won't publicize it shows that it is trouble for them. It proves that it will be a powerful statement to their people. And their people will find out about it whether they publicize it or not.

JACOBY: "Is a mosque near Ground Zero going to convince deluded terrorists-in-waiting that America is really a wonderful place?"

Of course not. What it will do is hurt their recruitment abilities because it will show the non-combative muslims (most of them) that America not out to get Islam.

JACOBY: "And why do we have to prove our "tolerance" to Islamic countries anyway?"

We don't. We have to continuously prove it to ourselves, and to our irresponsibly ignorant masses.

JACOBY: "Let them prove to us that an atheist, a Jew, a Christian, an unveiled woman of any faith or no faith is as safe on their streets as women wearing the hajib..."

They won't. So now what? We should act more like them in retort then if they won't act like us? Or should we continue to act like us and not like them?

Posted by: timmy2 | August 7, 2010 7:16 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Part Two

JACOBY: "And finally, this Muslim community center is going to be an expensive security nightmare for the City of New York"

Only because we continue to placate the sensitivities of the uneducated. There is no intelligent argument against this thing, only a religious like "sacred ground" type of argument or the argument that we shouldn't do it because our stupid people will get all up in arms. We are to respect the "sacred ground" argument? What year is this? We should not placate the sensitivities of our lowest common denominator?

JACOBY: "This eruption of base passions could so easily have been avoided by advance planning and compromise"

You make the assumption that if Mayor Bloomberg had just held a meeting with them and tried to talk them out of it that they would have caved. I don't think they would have.

JACOBY: "But if and when this center is finally built, it will stand as a monument not to tolerance but to utter political stupidity and to a religious correctness devoid of common sense"

So you are saying that it was a religion that attacked us and not an extremist terror group?

I'm with Freidman. If Americans could find the intelligence and pragmatic sense to let this mosque go ahead without protest, it would send an incalculably strong and positive message to the captive citizens of muslim theocracies around the globe that their leaders do not want them to hear.

How can you make the comment that theocratic leaders will try to keep this news from their people without realizing that means that it is not good news for them or the terrorists whose recruitment levels will be hurt by it.

If this were a game of chess, welcoming this mosque would be a deadly blow to the enemy. It's not quite a check-mate but it's capturing their queen at the very least.

Posted by: timmy2 | August 7, 2010 7:16 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Jihadist:

Another thing. Susan does not characteristically take on antisemites. This is the only time I have seen her do so, and it was in response to accusations directed against her. She does take on Holocaust deniers and others who deny other histories.

So, rest easy, my Malaysian friend. Do not catch the sibling rivalry disease. Your Jewish siblings' history is nothing to desire.

Posted by: farnaz_mansouri2 | August 7, 2010 2:44 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Apparently, some of the anti-Semites on the thread this week think that having a Jewish parent is something to be ashamed of. I should point out that if one wishes to conceal one's background, one does not write a book about it.

Posted by: Susan_Jacoby
-------------------------
Interesting. I think you are right. Good for you to say so, since you are not now nor have you ever been Jewish, as you have pointed out.

I, however, am Jewish. That would be J.E.W.I.S.H.

Anyone who doesn't like it and who knows me is welcome to bite me.

Ah, Susan, like the poor, the bastards will always be with us.

DITLD, thank you for replying to the bastard, Whistling. So far, like me, you are the only OnFaith blogger, the only WaPo blogger, of thousands and thousands, to take him on.

Posted by: farnaz_mansouri2 | August 7, 2010 2:38 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Jihadist:

Re: your post

Oh, come on. Jealous? You shouldn't be. If you want to calculate the number of Judeophobes and the number of Islamophobes, I assure you the former far outweigh the latter. I can give you entire threads on which the Judeophobes appear, and you would be surprised at some of the monikers.

Whistling is a notorious antisemitic bastard, who shows up on thread after thread and all over WaPo. I, until now, am the only person who has ever taken him on, and I have. If I ignore him, he posts until I acknowledge his depraved self.

On the other hand, I and numerous others, including one Muslim (not you), have taken on the Islamophobes.

If you want to be "jealous" of another target of lunatics, I suggest you chose another group. Jews are and will be subject to racists until the end of time.

SUSAN JACOBY, I thank you for taking on this idiot, Whistling. I don't know how to keep all racists off OnFaith. Their speech is NOT PROTECTED, they yet they are allowed to post their filth here.

Posted by: farnaz_mansouri2 | August 7, 2010 2:29 PM
Report Offensive Comment


ONE MORE TIME:

If it's fine to discriminate against Muslims because they're Muslim...

it's JUST FINE to discriminate against Jews because they're Jews.

And

who is more American, a second generation Muslim...

or a second generation Jew who's also a dual loyalist.

and as to keeping Muslims out of this or that territory...there are still, in many places, real or unspoken covenants in
prestigious neborhoods stipulating that houses shall not be sold to Jews.

Because they don't want them in their neighborhoods.

But continue to mouth off, Jacoby and On Faith, it's gonna do you a world of good, like in history.

Posted by: whistling | August 7, 2010 10:59 AM
Report Offensive Comment

You have to believe a true religion of peace would do whatever necessary to avoid creating dissension, being divisive or inciting the passions of people they live among and who may have rational reasons for misinterpreting their intentions. There are no religions of peace.

Posted by: slim2

******************************************

Point taken.

Unfortunately, all faith groups and, for that matter, those sans faith and belief, have members who are the toxic waste poisoning members of their own group and with other groups.

The toxic waste among Muslims are easier to identify, for they are most clear in their words and actions of their toxicity expecially the radicals and terrorists.

The other faith and no faith groups have categories of toxic waste which ranges from the obvious and unsubtle to those that are so smooth, so insidious in words and actions that one don't know one is intoxicated and toxicated by their poisoning causing divisiveness and conflicts among groups.


Posted by: Jihadist | August 7, 2010 10:34 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Hmmmm.....Ms. Jacoby "intervened" in the thread to take to task on the anti-Semite comments. That may give the perception to some posters that it is all right to make Islamphobic comments but not anti-Semite comments.

Do roll on here, all those with fear and loathing of all Muslims and Islam. Some certainly would make a strong case or are living examples of what Ms. Jacoby herself calls the dumbing down of America in the Age of Unreason.

But, of course, it can also be called the Age of American Hyper-Sensitivity, and in the same breath, asking Muslims not to be sensitive on criticisms directed to them, and Muslims to be more sensitive towards the feelings and sensitivities of others.

Perhaps, an uncertain economy, a sense of political, economic and social helplessness which affects the most vulnerable or newly dispossessed groups highten their fears and anger in looking for scapegoats be it the President, or specific groups.

The combination of not liking a President's policies and beliefs of a specific group brewed with a defined alternative of a specific political-religious mix is toxic. This is the poisoning of the American political-religious landscape I recognise as also present in my own country. No greater clear and present danger for our respective countries.

Posted by: Jihadist | August 7, 2010 10:07 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Dear Susan,

Until you can tell the difference between some Muslims and the Muslims you are going continue writing posts as politically stupid as this one.

Godlessly yours,
Boomslang

Posted by: Boomslang | August 7, 2010 9:53 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Rename it Mosque Bloomberg in honor of Mayor Bloomberg's assistance to Islamo-Supremacy world wide.

Posted by: OldAtlantic

******************************************

I was thinking, perhaps some of these possible choices:

(a) Centre of Intolerance

(b) Centre of Ignorance and Bigotry

(c) Centre of Insensitivies

(d) Centre of Emotional Idiocies

(e) Centre of the Fireworks of Insanity

(f) Centre of Hyperventilating Fear and Loathing

And I don't quite mean pertaining just Muslims as you would think and hope.

Posted by: Jihadist | August 7, 2010 9:38 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Have at it, little boys and girls! Enjoying multiculturalism yet?

Posted by: argo

*******************************************

Yessssssssss!!!

Very Technicolor. More crayons please?

Posted by: Jihadist | August 7, 2010 9:28 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Jesus, Moses and Muhammad,

Can't you endless squabbling spawn of Abraham see the real issue here?

Posted by: areyousaying

*******************************************

It certainly look like the spawns fighting over dad's inheritance.

:) *_-

Posted by: Jihadist | August 7, 2010 9:24 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Whistling the antisemite yammers -

'As for me, 15th generation here, mostly English and German...no axe to grind,'

More German than English, by the content of the posts that we're cursed with from time to tome... probably a healthy dose of whatever's left of that good ol' Third Reich bloodline.

They're out there - goosestepping and all gussied up in their brown shirts and swastika armbands. Do you have an 88 tatooed on your behind??

Exactly the kind of whacko that building this mosque is certain to attract. Unless he's a Saudi donor in disguise....

Posted by: persiflage | August 7, 2010 9:18 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Excellent line of reasoning by Jacoby on this one, and as usual, well written.

Posted by: daniel12 | August 7, 2010 1:12 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Jesus, Moses and Muhammad,

Can't you endless squabbling spawn of Abraham see the real issue here?

It's The First Amendment being threatened by intolerant wannabe theocrats.

Posted by: areyousaying | August 6, 2010 11:35 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Couldn't agree more. The Muslims are building a shrine to themselves. It reeks of denial, selfishness and just plain ego. The Imam has publicly stated that American policy is an accessory to the horrors of 9/11. And we are to believe that this shrine is not a victory monument? Please. Bloomberg and the NYTimes got it wrong.

Posted by: woof3 | August 6, 2010 11:15 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Very well thought out and written.

Posted by: rcc_2000 | August 6, 2010 11:07 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Mosques have always been used as symbols of rising from their enemies defeat. They are sorepoints around the world as a spot to infest neighborhoods and promote social unrest, and violence. Though they might have a religious component the largest effort and money goes to undermining the host country and by it written doctrine to spread islam and islamic goals. The Koran states it is permissible to lie and be manipulative and deceitful while waiting to gain power and momentum to overthrown islamic opposition. They act docile till the time is right and then the long knives come out. Let them do this in another country To better understand why there is opposition to this affront to decency and the United States read the books of the muslim doing this, there will be no mistake, his books his words. Go to Borders, Waldenbooks, Amazon etc

Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf’s 2004 book had two different titles – one in English and the second in Arabic. In the U.S., his book was called, ‘What’s right with America is what’s right with Islam.”

The same book, published in Arabic, bore the name, “The Call from the WTC Rubble: Islamic Da’wah from the Heart of America Post-9/11.”

Posted by: hakam1 | August 6, 2010 10:33 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Before 1975, we never heard of Muslims. Now, the number of horrors perpetrated by Muslims continues. Today's ABC TV told of "honor" murders and they showed a lady who had been mutilated by a Muslim. Today's news told how an American Muslim has become the replacement for Osama bin Laden. Our national security systems are all geared to find Muslim terrorists before they do something horrible. A Muslim country may still stone a lady to death because of her alleged infidelity. Our president is developing a complex because he has told how wonderful Muslims are and yet Eric Holder has told of homegrown Muslim terrorists. Nations in Europe are limiting Muslim immigrants and they are outlawing those ugly things that Muslim women wear. Most nations on earth are suffering because of Muslims, and they are limiting some of their terrible practices. Australia tells them to assimilate or leave. Do we want another Mosque anywhere in our nation?

Posted by: hurleyvision | August 6, 2010 10:26 PM
Report Offensive Comment

It's interesting to see how the liberal elites are falling all over themselves to preen their virtue of tolerance by facilitating the construction of a mosque, the intent of which is a clear provocation and a marker. Has anyone noticed how the facility shown to the mosque builders has not been extended to the Greek Orthodox Church as it tries to rebuild St. Nicholas which was destroyed with the twin towers on 9/11. Obstacle after obstacle has been thrown in its way. Greeks and Greek Americans are much more familiar with Islam than most Americans and are far less apt to be taken in by all this drivel about tolerance for a predatory cult dressed up in monotheistic robes. That is because here should be a 100,000,000 Greeks today instead of barely 10,000,000 and that is because of a thousand years of relentless Jihad in the form of slaving and butchery on an unimaginable scale followed by 400 years of brutalized subjugation. Beware this same fate, America, at the hands of a so-called religion founded by a bloodthirsty 7th century desert barbarian. The same brutality that tormented the Greeks for a 1,400 years showed its face on 9/11. Nothing has changed.

Posted by: Hellene2 | August 6, 2010 10:22 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Have at it, little boys and girls! Enjoying multiculturalism yet?

Posted by: argo | August 6, 2010 10:06 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Earth calling all Christian Warrior freaks, hey MORONS, there's already a Mosque in that building!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Stupid Idiots.

Posted by: YesDear | August 6, 2010 9:41 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Leave it Obama and the lib Democrats to make sure that those that murdered 3000+ Americans at home and countless more overseas get their rights and to hell with the AMericans they are trying to kill every day. Maybe they can get their AMnesty the same day Obama and the Dems in Congress grant amnesty to all the ILLEGAL ALIENS. That should make Obama and Polosi proud to be the great American traitors that they are.

Posted by: Hopinghere2 | August 6, 2010 8:58 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Ms. Jacoby,
Your assessment of the situation seems very thoughtful and pragmatic, which stands in stark contrast to most opinions on this matter with both sides spewing excessive hyperbole and rhetoric. So thank you for such a refreshing change of pace on this issue. But unfortunately, thoughtful, pragmatic articles seem to attract trolls, which makes further discussion difficult. Isn't there somewhere that adults can go to have reasonable conversations and debates?

Posted by: leecal | August 6, 2010 8:32 PM
Report Offensive Comment

You have to believe a true religion of peace would do whatever necessary to avoid creating dissension, being divisive or inciting the passions of people they live among and who may have rational reasons for misinterpreting their intentions. There are no religions of peace.

Posted by: slim2 | August 6, 2010 8:28 PM
Report Offensive Comment

ahhh, who cares.

Posted by: jontomus | August 6, 2010 7:40 PM
Report Offensive Comment

For a different take on this, lets consider that this will be one more parcel of land taken off the tax rolls to do a favor for a group of folks in the thrall of a mythology-based belief system. Why not finally get rid of the tax exclusions for mythology-based belief system property and revenue and let them live like the rest of us. Cant we shake off our fealty to Odin and Zeus and Ganesh and the whole bag of fairies, djinns, saints, angels, little grey aliens, leprechauns and The Fantastic Four.

Posted by: pioneer1 | August 6, 2010 7:09 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Fear mongering and and preaching racial or religious haterd will not help win the War on Terror. On the contrary, unlike WW II where simply dropping the biggest bomb or killing the most people helped bring victory or during the Cold War where outspending and out-propagandizing the other side helped us achieve our goals of toppling the enemy, the War on Terror will only be won when all sides decide that they can live together. By spewing hatred and preaching intolerance, we are actually PROLONGING the conflict and are helping the Terrorists achieve their goals of sowing discord and misunderstanding between the Islamic East and the Judeo/Christian West. So yes, the Answer is once again-"Give Peace a Chance".

Posted by: oregonbirddog | August 6, 2010 7:02 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Rename it Mosque Bloomberg in honor of Mayor Bloomberg's assistance to Islamo-Supremacy world wide.

Posted by: OldAtlantic | August 6, 2010 6:57 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Ms Jacoby,
Your hypocisy is showing and your usual common sense is adrift on this topic. If you feel so righteous that a certain building is in the wrong location, how do you reconcile that with someone who feels the other way with as much conviction. And please answer: how much distance is "too close" for a mosque from ground zero, and is that distance absolute for all members residing in US or even have lost family members on 9/11? And remember, excessive forms of persecution start out as well-intentioned "small" slights - please study the rise of nazism: indeed, the death camps were not the initial, but the "final solution" to the jewish problem in Germany. I would have to defer to the wisdom of the founding fathers (as opposed to your sensitivity) and not tinker with our constitution on as important a topic as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness

Posted by: Kingofkings1 | August 6, 2010 6:48 PM
Report Offensive Comment

ooopps.

Because of a Technical error, Please Excuse the Duplication.

HAPPY EVERY DAY.

Posted by: rule-of-secular-law | August 6, 2010 6:46 PM
Report Offensive Comment


Just remember Jacoby

IF it's all right to blast Muslims for being Muslim

it's fine to blast Jews for being Jews.

And hasn't the world proved again and again in history who they do NOT prefer?

Would it be smart to think twice before
opeing you hasty prejudiced mouth?
Read much history?

Posted by: whistling | August 6, 2010 6:41 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Right on girl! Far the best opinion I have read in the NYT in a long time!

Posted by: KrautKiller | August 6, 2010 6:39 PM
Report Offensive Comment

There are several mosques already built in some other states of the union. And as far as I know, since the 1980's, and nobody has ever protested or raised an objection to their establishment. So the point here is not about american intolerance toward religions, sects, esoteric schools or spiritual organizations. There IS tolerance.
Always has been. Period.
The reason why the mosque pretended to be erected TWO blocks from Ground Zero is becoming controversial, precisely....... THE LOCATION. Understood ? The Twin Towers and other adjacent buildings that were located at Ground Zero, were the financial symbol and the economic strenght of the U.S.
They were destroyed and so morally and symbolically so was its financial muscle.
Now an islamic organization, financed probably by Saudi Arabia, (check it out)
pretends to build a mosque TWO BLOCKS from
Ground Zero.
It's like thumbing their noses at americans and saying: " Look, we have destroyed your symbol of power, and now we'll build ON TOP of it a mosque and finish the work to crown our effort."
It is an insult to the memory of those who were brutally sacrificed.
Tha's how MOST americans see it.
To the apologists of the islamic nations,
who allegue that a terrorist minority doesn't represent the whole islamic or moslem world, let me say this: You cannot
hide the Sun's light with your hands.
Al Quaeda was financed by saudi billionaries, among them Bin Laden.
Why the Iman sttunbornly insists on building the mosque TWO BLOCKS from Ground Zero ?
Maybe poster ASODERS22 was right when he said:
" I think the purpose of the Iman and the developers (I would say the financiers) is to provoke and attack on their mosque. And
for this reason, the risk of a counterattack by the moslems."
So some republican representatives are going to sue....and with a very good reason, whether the Fifth Amendment protects the rights of the developers or not.
This controversial mosque building falls into the realms of National Security.
If not, let time take its course........

Posted by: infinitus | August 6, 2010 6:37 PM
Report Offensive Comment


JACOBY and her kind

scream about anti-semitism

as they write anti-Muslim columns.

Is this not stupid and disgusting? Alwasy the same. Jacoby thinks she's what IS...everyone else is 'other' apparently.

Posted by: whistling | August 6, 2010 6:23 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Ms Susan Jacoby,
Your article reminded me of people who start by saying: "Some of my best friends are jewish, but....". And how far exactly from the former twin towers would the proposed mosque have to be to make you comfortable? And is that comfort level constant thruout this land at the distance that you feel is appropriate for the proposed mosque? Seems to me, Ms. Jacoby, you like to talk from both sides of your mouth, and methinks you would benefit from a course such as logic 101

Posted by: Kingofkings1 | August 6, 2010 6:17 PM
Report Offensive Comment


DanielIntheLionsDen

Glad I got to you, detested of the world.

Sorry youre jealous...still believe you and yours to be ruinous, where ever you
roam.

And Danielinthelionsden is YOUE full legal name?

Posted by: whistling | August 6, 2010 6:17 PM
Report Offensive Comment

(1 of 2)

SUDDENLY; When Asking a Ishlami "HOW Did Mr. Muhammad Die", as REPLY: the AL TAQIYAH 'Fatwah' tells all American islami's to instead ask Kafirs,

"HOW DO YOU THINK HE [Muhammad/Prophet/Messenger] DIED, YOU TELL ME [Kafir]?" NOW, After a 'Kafir' like i ("PROUD TO BE A KAFiR") Explains to a Ishlami that Mr. Muhammad Died by a JEWISH-Concubine by "POiSON-Lamb Met" or died via Revenge Killing because Mr. Muhammad and Company murdered her Jewish HUSBAND in "YATHRUB" MEcca, Saudi Arabia. NOW

The Fatwah, Al Taqiyahist Ummah's newly taught/trained Response is "First Time I Heard That" and or "I'm a Muslim and first Time heard of that" [Muhammad died by the Hands of His stolen Jewess-Concubine etc.]. Unless The English/American Translation of the "Magnificent Koran" or "Holy Quran" are a Publishing Mistake?

HA! And they call their WTC located Building a "Ishlami CULTtural Center"?? REVEALation: The American Islamic Community, From a Mosque attendee and Imam in Middle to their Elders of Wahhabi (Saudi Arabia's Central Theocracy & Monarchy) vintriloquist international have SECRETLY sent-out a silent MEMO (via Fatwah) to NOt discuss How Mr. Muhammad Died or "AVOiD" talking about certain aspects of the Quran/Koran of the Prophet when by Kafir's (none Islami) start questioning their Quran (Holy Book) of 999 AD/CE.

Remember less, ye forget; that JAPAN (a Imperialist Nation) Attacked PEARL HARBOR via Fanatic/Spread/Creep of the "SHINTO" (way of the gods) religion. But unlike The Audacious Ishlami's; "JAP"s Never Built a Shinto Temple/Shrine on Pearl Harbor Island [WTC site] nor a Japanese [Shinto/Buddhist] Only Cultural Center. (continued)

Posted by: rule-of-secular-law | August 6, 2010 6:00 PM
Report Offensive Comment

SUDDENLY; When Asking a Ishlami "HOW Did Mr. Muhammad Die", as REPLY: the AL TAQIYAH 'Fatwah' tells all American islami's to instead ask Kafirs,

"HOW DO YOU THINK HE [Muhammad/Prophet/Messenger] DIED, YOU TELL ME [Kafir]?" NOW, After a 'Kafir' like i ("PROUD TO BE A KAFiR") Explains to a Ishlami that Mr. Muhammad Died by a JEWISH-Concubine by "POiSON-Lamb Met" or died via Revenge Killing because Mr. Muhammad and Company murdered her Jewish HUSBAND in "YATHRUB" MEcca, Saudi Arabia. NOW

The Fatwah, Al Taqiyahist Ummah's newly taught/trained Response is "First Time I Heard That" ands or "I'm a Muslim and first Time heard of that" [Muhammad died by the Hands of His Jewess Concubine etc.].

HA! And they call their WTC located Building a "Ishlami CULTtural Center"?? REVEALation: The American Islamic Community, From a Mosque attendee and Imam in Middle to their Elders of Wahhabi (Saudi Arabia's Central Theocracy & Monarchy) vintriloquist international have SECRETLY sent-out a silent MEMO (via Fatwah) to NOt discuss How Mr. Muhammad Died or "AVOiD" talking about certain aspects of the Quran/Koran of the Prophet when by Kafir's (none Islami) start questioning their Quran (Holy Book) of 999 AD/CE.

Remember less, ye forget; that JAPAN (a Imperialist Nation) Attacked PEARL HARBOR via Fanatic/Spread/Creep of the "SHINTO" (way of the gods) religion. But unlike The Audacious Ishlami's; "JAP"s Never Built a Shinto Temple/Shrine on Pearl Harbor Island [WTC site] nor a Japanese [Shinto/Buddhist] Only Cultural Center. Note: The average Joe, Jane Jap-Citizen, did not know or want a catastrophe befall them as an Apocalypse. Same as the 911-Attackers; the average Islami did not want that to happen either; but it Did. Japs got in HUmanity's History Books for millennium to come and so did IShlami Ummah (even those not born yet) whom benefited from their FANATICS.
-
SOLUTION: Let's Build or rent a Office next to Every Islamic place and educate the Passerbye's by handing out pamphlets reading, "ISHLAMi Quran/Koran FOR DUMMIES". Note: "SHiNTO FOR DUMMIES" too Or "XRSTIANi Bible FOR DUMMIES" or "JUDHI Chumash FOR DUMMIES" or "HINDi Geeta/Gita FOR DUMMIES" or "BUDDAHi Kangyur/Tangyur FOR DUMMIES" etc..! So

the average "JOE PUBLIC" and "JANE Public" can decide, under [THIS] SECULAR Rule-By-Law (morally) Blessed Nation, the TRUTH, the SINs, the CURSE's, the Good or Bad et.. in Every one of Those so-called Apocalyptic Published Pamphlets called "Pre-Apocalyptic Religion For Dummies" et al!

PS: There is NOthing Wrong with YE/YO if hath bouts/thoughts or some experience via "ISHLAMi-PHOBiA". Reverse Psychology [a silent (religious) War here]? REMEMBER: The "Religion Of Everything Before the Science Of Everything" is Finally; BORN [made] IN U.S.A. [NOt Imported]. Pure American!

This Is NOt a Cartoon; It is More Than That!

Posted by: rule-of-secular-law | August 6, 2010 5:53 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Your argument (and espically your use of Saudi Arabia as an example - where a woman cannot step foot outside without her entire body covered for fear of death) is very weak considering that there are Islamic theocracies on this planet actively seeking to forcibly convert or persecute their religious minorities. Couple that with several international polls among Muslim-dominated nations that suggest quite a bit of animus against the US and its western values, an exponential rise in "honor-killings" among Muslim communities in Western nations in definance of their national laws protecting individual rights, numerous fatwas against non-Muslims in Western nations for portraying Islam negatively (or portraying Prophet Mohammad), and I think you're the ignorant one.
Posted by: crcody08

+++++++++++++++++++
When my wife was pregnant, I began noticing pregnant women all around in amazing numbers. Now a few years later, I'm equally amazed about how few pregnant women there are.

In other words, you state of mind affects your perceptions.

What you have is a motley aggregation of this and that which do not add up into the kind of institutionalized persecution the Jews received from Christian Europe.

So Saudi public decorum and values are different. Do they charge us more for oil because of it? Do they come over here to campaign against our indecency?

Can you name the "Islamic theocracies on this planet actively seeking to forcibly convert or persecute their religious minorities"? What percentage of Islamic countries or the worldwide Islamic population do they represent?

Can you show me a graph of the "exponentially" rising honor killings, and then explain to me how enforcement of harsh behavioral codes WITHIN their own families constitutes the same kind of persecution Christians that Christians visited on the Jews?

Is all happy? Of course not. Do we have a war of civilizations here? Only if "Christians" force it.

As to my ignorance - I am ignorant of many things (who is not?), but I try not to confuse my ignorance with knowledge. I try to learn and keep an open mind. Conflating Al Qaeda or the 9/11 terrorists with Islam is much worse than ignorance, it is dumb. Pointing out only that shewholives is ignorant was an act of kindness.

Posted by: j3hess | August 6, 2010 5:53 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Who is Feisal Abdul Rauf, the man with the leadership of the move to erect the Cordoba House Mosque near Ground Zero in New York City? Read in Wikipedia his Views on 9/11 and Hamas:

“Some U.S. politicians have voiced concerns about his views.[2][3][4][5] Speaking at his New York mosque in 2004, Abdul Rauf said: The Islamic method of waging war is not to kill innocent civilians. But it was Christians in World War II who bombed civilians in Dresden and Hiroshima, neither of which were military targets. He also said that there could be little progress in Western-Islamic relations until the U.S. acknowledged backing Middle East dictators and give an "American Culpa" speech to the Muslim world, because there are "an endless supply of angry young Muslim rebels prepared to die for their cause and there [is] no sign of the attacks ending unless there [is] a fundamental change in the world".[6]

In a 60 Minutes interview on September 30, 2001, shortly after the September 11 attacks, Abdul Rauf said, "Fanaticism and terrorism have no place in Islam", and went on to say, "I wouldn't say that the United States deserved what happened, but the United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened."[7] When the interviewer asked Rauf how he considered the U.S. an accessory, he replied, "Because we have been accessory to a lot of innocent lives dying in the world. In fact, in the most direct sense, Osama bin Laden is made in the USA."[8][9][10] Peter T. King and Sarah Palinexpressed concern about his remarks, when discussing Abdul Rauf as the driving force behind the Cordoba mosque.[9][11]”

“... Lazio also raised questions as to Abdul Rauf's connections with Islamist extremists, which Abdul Rauf strongly denied.[3][11] Abdul Rauf also disputed a rumor that he was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood.[3][11]”
*******************************************
A man that says "United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened" and that if the US doesn't give an "American Culpa" and that there is "an endless supply of angry young Muslim rebels prepared to die for their cause..." is not a man of peace. For me rather sounds as an accessory to violence and terrorism that should be investigated more in deep as such. Also he should be mocked as the double face liar he is.

Posted by: JUSTACOMMENT | August 6, 2010 5:51 PM
Report Offensive Comment

The opposition to the site of the mosque is a general anti-Muslim statement hiding behind a shabby raiment. It is directly analogous to anti-Semitism. The caliphate in Cordoba ended in 1492, for gosh sake! And the Catholic rulers of Spain who ended the caliphate were the same rulers who drove the Jews out of Spain in the same year. Yet we see commentors here and in other media condemning the use of the name Cordoba for the mosque.

Posted by: mmurray2 | August 6, 2010 5:42 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Susan

The article shows that you have good sense.

A lot of the comments run along these lines ...

" ... how does building this center rub salt in people's wounds ... ?"

" ... how can building this center upset people ... ?"

" ... can't people see that this is a good thing ... ?"

It is rubbing salt into people's wounds, it does insult people, it does offend people, it does make people feel bad. It does, it does, it does.

These are dumb questions. Better to just say what you really mean, "I don't care how insensitive it is to peopole to build this center, they should build it anyway ..."

Not building the center is not hurting anyone, it is not persecuting anyone, it is not causing anyone any pain, nor depriving anyone of anything. Those aruguments are ALL dumb, when held up against the wealth, power, and aggression of Islam.

Better to just say, " ... freedom of religion ... " and end it at that.

Posted by: DanielintheLionsDen | August 6, 2010 5:28 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Whistling

You are an anonymous nobody, without even a real name.

So why brag about the DNA content of your body? We will never get a chance to see it.

Go see a shrink.

Posted by: DanielintheLionsDen | August 6, 2010 5:20 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Sorry, Ms. Jacoby, but you've tied yourself into an ethical knot here. Although the tone of your piece is politically correct,the argument you make fuels the bigotry and ignorance that made the ridiculous debate over where to build a place of worhsip an issue in the first place. We're not talking about a conflict of rights here or two competing, legitimate claims. The only people possibly offended by a mosque built near Ground Zero are those who conflate the perpetrators of 9/11 with Islam. Should we capitulate to that way of thinking or should we push back against it? I vote for the latter.

Posted by: fabiola1 | August 6, 2010 5:20 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Ms Jacoby is a joke. Do you REALLY think the organizers for this mosque didn't deliberately pick the site as a message? It's just an accident that they didn't pick some place in Queens to build.

Your gratuitous remarks notwithstanding, your opinion on this matter is the SAME as the overwhelming majority of Republicans. No one, or very few, is saying the mosque can't be built on religious grounds. They're saying it shouldn't be done for decency's sake.

Posted by: silencedogoodreturns | August 6, 2010 5:20 PM
Report Offensive Comment

And on the call to prayer - not all mosque have a minaret and make a public call to prayer. I come from the city which has the first mosque built in the US, opened in 1934. The new mosque is a half-mile from my mother's house. They are good neighbors!
*************************************
True. Not all mosques have minarets. However, I have not heard anyone say that this mosque (at the top of a 13 story building - overlooking the WTC area destroyed in 9/11) will not have a minaret and will not be heard outside the building....

Posted by: dbmn1 | August 6, 2010 5:15 PM
Report Offensive Comment

The anti-Semitic tone of some of these comments is, as always, disturbing. Just for the record: The title of my 2000 memoir is "Half-Jew: A Daughter's Search for her Family's Buried Past." I've referred to it many times in The Spirited Atheist, when it's relevant to whatever I'm writing about. As I have to the Roman Catholic side of my upbringing.
Apparently, some of the anti-Semites on the thread this week think that having a Jewish parent is something to be ashamed of. I should point out that if one wishes to conceal one's background, one does not write a book about it.
POSTED BY: SUSAN_JACOBY | AUGUST 6, 2010 4:14 PM
REPORT OFFENSIVE COMMENT
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Susan,

That is just Whistling and his usual rants. Most of us just ignore him particularly when he is trolling, like his comment below.

“As for me, 15th generation here, mostly English and German...no axe to grind,
and delighted with
the affirmation of a generation of new Americans.” Yeah, that’s by way of some Arab country.

Posted by: shewholives | August 6, 2010 5:13 PM
Report Offensive Comment

I wonder if the local imam and Muslim developer have considered that supporters of Timothy McVeigh might choose to take action to teach the Mosque patrons what terrorism actually feels like.

Posted by: htgcr | August 6, 2010 5:04 PM
Report Offensive Comment

So you are ok with illegal aliens but not ok with Muslims in your neighborhood.

So if the Muslims move out of your neighborhood where you don't have to see them or live with them then that is ok?


Susan you are a NIMBY hypocrite of the first order.

I hope they move in and then i hope they all rent in your apartment building and raise goats and camels in the courtyard.

Hypocrite!

Posted by: PennyWisetheClown | August 6, 2010 5:03 PM
Report Offensive Comment

"The Catholic Church was an institution that practiced anti-Semitism for centuries. The Islamic world has never displayed that level of animus to the US."
---------------------
Hello, anyone home?
Posted by: shewholives
*****
Yep. Right here.
First, the Islamic world extends far beyond the Middle East. The largest Muslim population is in Indonesia.
There is no single institution that can speak for it, as with the Catholic Church, which instituted the Inquisition and for centuries called for the conversion of Jews and included denigrating words in it's official prayers. Islam has been generally tolerant of Christianity and Judaism, even during the wars of conquest.
Saudi Arabia, official keeper of the shrines of Islam, is an ally of the US.
Your comment suggests that 1) you are ignorant; 2) you are not a nice person. Sad but true.
Posted by: j3hess | August 6, 2010 4:04 PM


J3hess,

Your argument (and espically your use of Saudi Arabia as an example - where a woman cannot step foot outside without her entire body covered for fear of death) is very weak considering that there are Islamic theocracies on this planet actively seeking to forcibly convert or persecute their religious minorities. Couple that with several international polls among Muslim-dominated nations that suggest quite a bit of animus against the US and its western values, an exponential rise in "honor-killings" among Muslim communities in Western nations in definance of their national laws protecting individual rights, numerous fatwas against non-Muslims in Western nations for portraying Islam negatively (or portraying Prophet Mohammad), and I think you're the ignorant one.

All religions have dark periods in their histories, including current day practices. But sitting here trying to say that yours is not as bad as this or that one, and therefore yours is superior, does not change the fact that yours has done/continues to do bad things and you are ignoring them.

Posted by: crcody08 | August 6, 2010 4:55 PM
Report Offensive Comment

President Bush and later President Obama have worked very carefully to avoid any outburst of general anti-Islamic outrage in the nation, fortunately for all of us. Just exactly what have all of the loyal American Muslims done to provoke this opposition to a mosque in the area of the 9/11 attack? Nothing. This opposition is an outrage and unworthy of our nation.

Posted by: mmurray2 | August 6, 2010 4:47 PM
Report Offensive Comment

This is the best thing I have seen on this whole issue. Thank you.

Posted by: tdiaz | August 6, 2010 4:43 PM
Report Offensive Comment

It is true that the first Amendment clearly protects the construction of any religious facility, anywhere."
EXCEPT when the religious activity is carried out by a national state. The fact of the matter is that a single oil rich country is financing this mosque as well as over 80% of the mosques in this country. The irony in this situation is that this same country prohibits the building of any non-Muslim houses of worship anywhere within its jurisdiction. Millions of Muslims go on pilgrimage there every year. I never heard a single Muslim anywhere threaten to boycott the pilgrimage until it allows other faiths to build a house of worship there. All this talk of tolerance and pluralism in Islam is simply Taqqiya; Sharia sanctioned deception.

Posted by: abrahamhab1 | August 6, 2010 4:30 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Will there be honor killings at the mosque?

Posted by: shewholives | August 6, 2010 4:18 PM
Report Offensive Comment

The anti-Semitic tone of some of these comments is, as always, disturbing. Just for the record: The title of my 2000 memoir is "Half-Jew: A Daughter's Search for her Family's Buried Past." I've referred to it many times in The Spirited Atheist, when it's relevant to whatever I'm writing about. As I have to the Roman Catholic side of my upbringing.

Apparently, some of the anti-Semites on the thread this week think that having a Jewish parent is something to be ashamed of. I should point out that if one wishes to conceal one's background, one does not write a book about it.

Posted by: Susan_Jacoby | August 6, 2010 4:14 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Some like to complain about a presumed silence of Muslims on the problems of terrorism. These are usually people who aren't really interested in hearing Muslim voices.

But let's bring some into this conversation - from the website of the Islamic Center Of Cedar Rapids, http://crmosque.com:

Throughout the centuries Muslims have dwelled in every conceivable area of the globe. They have lived under countless forms of governments and laws, but when they live in a state where freedom of movement, freedom of expressions and freedom of religion exist, then therein lays their homeland. As a resident of a state that grants and guarantees these precious freedoms, it then becomes a strict requirement of Islam and incumbent on every Muslim to be a loyal and faithful citizen.

The apothegm of Islamic ethics is this: devout Muslims are patriots when their faith and homeland are threatened or come under attack. They are enjoined to sacrifice everything, including their earthly existence, in the defense of these joyful freedoms.

Posted by: j3hess | August 6, 2010 4:10 PM
Report Offensive Comment

I find the whole discussion completely astonishing. This opposition to a mosque in the area is sufficient to make Christ antisemitic.

Posted by: mmurray2 | August 6, 2010 4:08 PM
Report Offensive Comment

"The Catholic Church was an institution that practiced anti-Semitism for centuries. The Islamic world has never displayed that level of animus to the US."
---------------------
Hello, anyone home?

Posted by: shewholives
*****

Yep. Right here.

First, the Islamic world extends far beyond the Middle East. The largest Muslim population is in Indonesia.

There is no single institution that can speak for it, as with the Catholic Church, which instituted the Inquisition and for centuries called for the conversion of Jews and included denigrating words in it's official prayers. Islam has been generally tolerant of Christianity and Judaism, even during the wars of conquest.

Saudi Arabia, official keeper of the shrines of Islam, is an ally of the US.

Your comment suggests that 1) you are ignorant; 2) you are not a nice person. Sad but true.

Posted by: j3hess | August 6, 2010 4:04 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Well, with daily Islamic terror plots and attacks, why does the writer think Islam is a religion and one of peace? She herself has lost her common sense to appease Muslims.

There is rampant intolerance, hatred and violence within Islam. If there were no security, 9/11s would occur every year or every month.

I do agree that Muslims could have shown some compassion and understanding by shifting this mosque away from ground zero.

Posted by: HarshK | August 6, 2010 4:02 PM
Report Offensive Comment

So, we continue to let them use our laws against us. They want us to be open and accepting - yet are they going to be as well.
....
When this building is completed and NYC residents start hearing the daily Islamic call to prayer 5 times a day over the 9/11 site they will very quickly realize that this was a serious mistake.
Posted by: dbmn1 | August 6, 2010 2:07 PM

****

What do you mean, "they"? Are these people not our fellow citizens - US?

"They" are not the government of Saudi Arabia. Don't blame them for the Saudi's intolerance. These are people who chose to leave, to come to America where they would be one minority religion among many in a country that espouses freedom of religion.

And on the call to prayer - not all mosque have a minaret and make a public call to prayer. I come from the city which has the first mosque built in the US, opened in 1934. The new mosque is a half-mile from my mother's house. They are good neighbors!

(search on "mother mosque cedar rapids" for a real story of Islam in America that breaks the sterotypes)

Posted by: j3hess | August 6, 2010 3:33 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Just for the record

Jacoby wrote a book called:

HALF JEW: A search for her family's hidden past.

Maybe she's part Muslum? Or at best didn't know exactly who she was?

Those who wish to scream about American Muslims SHOUD BE REQUIRED, to have any credibility,

to declare what their own roots are. Jacoby talks about being an athiest, but never about eing Jewish, does she.

As for me, 15th generation here, mostly English and German...no axe to grind,
and delighted with
the affirmation of a generation of new Americans.

Posted by: whistling | August 6, 2010 3:16 PM
Report Offensive Comment

So the atheist thinks she's a constitutional expert, huh? Being an atheist qualifies you to be the authority on just about everything these days. Parse what the woman says - she's a loon.

Posted by: chatard | August 6, 2010 3:14 PM
Report Offensive Comment


Posted by: j3hess | August 6, 2010 2:40 PM
"The Catholic Church was an institution that practiced anti-Semitism for centuries. The Islamic world has never displayed that level of animus to the US."
---------------------
Hello, anyone home?

Posted by: shewholives | August 6, 2010 2:58 PM
Report Offensive Comment

As a parent of a treaty aboriginal and having seen first hand the destruction caused by the Judaic/Christians against all American tribes.i can understand your hate when it is used against you.Remember who you had to kill to become what you are,remember all the tribes who were beaten or killed if they refused to recognize the bible.Remember we were evil you were good.Strange aint it.

Posted by: gilliam | August 6, 2010 2:57 PM
Report Offensive Comment

It's rare that I have to award the price for clear thinking to George Bush over Susan Jacoby, but this time he had it right: "We are not at war with Islam".

That's the conceptual error that you have to make in order to get upset by the location of this Islamic center someplace in the vicinity of Ground Zero - that we were attacked, not by a group of Arab nationalists, but by Islam itself.

You only have to read the comments to see that this is precisely what many of the opposition believe.

It's dangerous to give in to that error. It accommodates fear and intolerance and allows them to spread. It insults not only Muslims world-wide, but in particular hundreds of thousands of patriotic US citizens of the Muslim faith.

How ironic is it that at the same moment a judge is pushing back against the intolerance inflicted on homosexuals and the errors behind it, Jacoby is telling us to give in to intolerance of one of the world's great religions?

Yes, the Anti-Defamation League has often defended Muslims. But here they are supporting the defamation of Islam but saying that it is ok for people to conflate the attackers of 9/11 with the Muslims of the US. The Auschwitz analogy is weak: The Catholic Church was an institution that practiced anti-Semitism for centuries. The Islamic world has never displayed that level of animus to the US.

Is Al Qaeda inspired by a fundamentalist and backward-looking version of Islam? Yes. But when we conflate that with Islam in general, we are handing them a win - letting them force their idea of Islam on us and the way we see the world.

Proposing an Islamic center in the neighborhood of Ground Zero was not the most politic or sensitive of moves. Now that it has been done, however, this issue becomes a battle in our internal cultural struggle over how we define ourselves and how we see the world. Jacoby can decry the Republican demagogues all she wants, but it is meaningless if she gives them the victory they demand. She may call it prudence; I call it imprudence and fear it carries the scent of fear and weakness.

Posted by: j3hess | August 6, 2010 2:40 PM
Report Offensive Comment

When I want "BALANCED" TV news, I tune Jon Stewart's "The Daily Show"!

When I want a "Balanced", sensible editorial comment, I read Susan Jacoby's
"The Spirited Atheist"!

Posted by: lufrank1 | August 6, 2010 2:30 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Couldn't agree more.

I'm really confused about why this mosque has to be built on this specific site - rather than a few blocks down. Clearly the group behind this mosque/community center do not care about the negative reaction of the community. Most likely, they picked this very location to get that reaction.

So, we continue to let them use our laws against us. They want us to be open and accepting - yet are they going to be as well. Is there anyone who seriously thinks this group would accept a church being built in Saudi Arabia - not hardly. Is there anyone who seriously thinks that this will change anything about how this group views us. This is just another effort against us with no concern about how it will impact on our view of Islam.

When this building is completed and NYC residents start hearing the daily Islamic call to prayer 5 times a day over the 9/11 site they will very quickly realize that this was a serious mistake. Unfortunately, it will be too late at that point. The opportunity will have been missed today. This really isn't about tolerance. Its about doing what is right and having some common sense.

Posted by: dbmn1 | August 6, 2010 2:07 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Ms. Jacoby, I respect the sincerity of your attempt to thread the needle here, but I'm afraid you have failed spectacularly. The ONLY justification for not building a mosque at Ground Zero would be to avoid inflaming anti-Muslim passions. And even if that goal were attainable--and the furor over the proposal strongly suggests it is not--it would require jettisoning the First Amendment.

I'm not willing to pay that price and I don't believe you are, either. Which means the mosque should go ahead on the site. Even if it doesn't reap the PR benefits proponents claim it will, it is simply the right thing--the AMERICAN thing--to do.

Posted by: DCSteve1 | August 6, 2010 2:01 PM
Report Offensive Comment

I applaud Jacoby for daring to point out the glaring fact that Republicans should shut up about 911 victims because Republicans HATE NEW YORKERS.

Posted by: bourassa1 | August 6, 2010 1:56 PM
Report Offensive Comment

She obviously feels the burden of sensitivity falls upon believers in Islam. It does not.

If Jacoby had been in Arkansas in 1957, she clearly would have persuaded the nine black school children to respect the sensitivities of the community and to attend school at a different location. Arkansas just isn't ready for so much change just yet, she would have reasoned.

Posted by: blasmaic | August 6, 2010 1:53 PM
Report Offensive Comment


Who is more American?

A second generation American Muslim...or a second generation American Jew?

Then add the aspect of DUAL LOYALTY...

as for example, congressman Jane Harmon
(whose father was as German immigrant, incidentally)

who was caught by an FBI tape working to get two American Jewish spies for Israel

off their indictments! She did. Andthe story disappeared.

Given the Madoff's of the world, whose clients send American money by the billiohs to the Israeli settlers...and the Wall Street thieves who are, this moment,

now, sending billions of American middle class money from the morggage scam, etc.,
abroad to safety...

including, presumably, expensive art and diamonds. HIstory does repeat.

And so we should blast American Muslims?

Cnange the subject? Follow AIPAC?

Posted by: whistling | August 6, 2010 1:44 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Your column is utterly and completely unpersuasive. You, like other opponents, are doing nothing but hypocritically validating the endorsement of group-based slander against all Muslims for the acts of a few. If anyone suggested a synagogue should not be built near the home of someone victimized by a Jewish gunman, you would scream about the religious intolerance of blaming all Jews for the acts of one. There is no legitimate objection to this community center. There is nothing but raving anti-Muslim stereotyping and bigotry.

Posted by: uh_huhh | August 6, 2010 1:41 PM
Report Offensive Comment

A disappointing effort by Jacoby. The "sensitivities" she describes are misguided emotions that stem from misunderstanding. 9/11 was NOT the work of all Islam as a religion. That would be like claiming that the death of Dr. George Tiller was the work of all Christianity, and most people on both sides of the abortion issue would sensibly reject that claim. The monsters responsible for 9/11 see moderate Muslims as their enemies as well.

Jacoby's point about sensitivities might be valid if it was Al Qaeda that sought to build the mosque. Or if a small group of Japanese reactionaries wanted to build a statue of General Tojo outside Pearl Harbor. The mosque issue would be similar to a hypothetical Japanese consulate or cultural center near that naval base.

Posted by: Carstonio | August 6, 2010 1:39 PM
Report Offensive Comment

If Jacoby wants to punish all Mulims for the crimes of a few,

then perhaps she would scream a little about Jews/proIsraeli/neocons

for the cluster bombs,
the Gaza atrocities,
the constant warmongering of Netanyahu.

But of course, her righteousness probably
embrases the world hated ISraeli behavior.

She is what she is.
of Netanyahu. Though of course, she

Posted by: whistling | August 6, 2010 1:33 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Why is the first response of so-called "conservatives" to anything they disagree with nearly always, "Let's amend the Constitution"?

D

Posted by: Ralphinjersey | August 6, 2010 1:31 PM
Report Offensive Comment

I am seriously sceptical of those who claim to "know" what Muslims around the world will think of this mosque or how they will interpret it and even why the builders wish to build it. I'm very bad at reading peoples minds and have not seen in my life that others are any better.

I truly empathize with the feelings expressed by the article. But it is still wrong. According to this and all who oppose the mosque this will reopen old wounds. Why? Because a small group of psychopaths who claim they are muslims share the same religion as those who wish to build the mosque? Al qeada and the builders of this mosque have nothing in common. Al qeada and all suicide bombers have been deemd apostates of Islam by the highest islamic clerics in the world. Why should al qeada be deemed as having any relationship with Islam? The memebrs of al qeada may believe it but they are pyschotics. Why would anyone care one wit for anything they believe or say let alone gauge how they should think or feel?

Al qeada shares nothing in common with Islam. Those who believe otherwise are misinformed, deluded or themselves psychotic.

Posted by: kchses1 | August 6, 2010 1:20 PM
Report Offensive Comment

"before right-wing Republicans who hate everything about New York City got into the act and started lecturing us about what we ought and ought not to do to respect the 9/11 victims."

You don't want the rest of Americas input in New York then don't take our money! the people of New York are respected those of Manhattan are not, thought maybe over the years you would pick up on this, but you are just like DC you have your head buried in the sand and always have had, we do not expect a change nor should you expect one from the rest of the country, we just do not like you, your lack of ethics and the idiots you vote to put in office and the same goes for California!

Posted by: wkcc36 | August 6, 2010 1:12 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Please get your facts straight before you get on your high horse about the GOP "Know Nothings" - Sen. Lindsay Graham is from South Carolina -NOT Florida! Is there no editor for the WaPo anymore?

Furthermore, your disdain for all things not New York is more telling than any argument you might try to make in this piece. Stop exacerabating the divide between the North and the South in this country, otherwise we won't need to worry so much about the rest of the world trying to tear us down - you will do it for them.

Posted by: accio | August 6, 2010 1:12 PM
Report Offensive Comment

How rude.

Stop telling us how to think.

Putting a mosque within eyesight of the crash site is at the least insensitive.

calling it cordoba house is just gross.

Posted by: docwhocuts | August 6, 2010 1:08 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Yes, the Muslim developers of this center have no heart, but we stand for equality. Only 100 millions are needed to buy property next to it, call it The Freethinkers House, with the purpose of slowing the Islamization of USA and dress the front windows with wise quotes, as " All religions are man made",or " Humans created God, not the other way around", or " Evolution is a science proven fact", or " Angels are an irrational invention".

Posted by: ThishowIseeit | August 6, 2010 12:57 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Who cares what Bloomberg and those folks up there do. It's there city, let them have it and do what they want to it. I'm more upset that the Fed through money their way feeding the Wall Street beasts. I can care less what they build up there in their city. As far as we should be concerned when that modern day Sodom falls - it will all be rubble anyhow.

Posted by: MDL7 | August 6, 2010 12:41 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Cluebat to Idiotarians: Imam Rauf and Cordoba House already have a mosque in New York City!
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2462

This has NOTHING to do with our tolerance of Muslims and everything to do with Rauf's sharia-inspired intentions to torment infidels and desecrate Ground Zero.

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | August 6, 2010 12:29 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Maybe you should look closely at the source of the investor's $100m and you may be surprised to discover that they may have come from the same people that brought down the building and the sad part of the whole issue is that everyone in the muslim world will know this fact and even if America knows, they will spend years arguing over all sorts of Bill of Rights and ideologies rather than shut down the site.

Do not forget please that it was not only Americans that died on 9/11 and some of us will feel utterly betrayed if that "Trojan House" is allowed to be erected.

- zavadak

*******************************************

- Perhaps during Ramadan, there will be a spike of Muslim donations for Cordaba House Park 51, perhaps not, from all over the "Muslim world".

- Perhaps the Muslim Eid celebrations following the end of Ramadan on either 10 or 11 September will be regarded as Muslim triumphalism of 9/11 by Americans.

- Perhaps the some 50 Muslims at least who died during 9/11 and not all are Americans, matter less than causing hundred of thousands casualties in Afghanistan and Iraq as response for 9/11 -a "they killed one of us, we'll kill a thousand of us approach" never mind these casualties have nothing to do with Al Qaeda.

Posted by: Jihadist | August 6, 2010 12:24 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Does the author truly believe that if this Islamic Center/Mosque is built 10 blocks north of Ground Zero, instead of two blocks away, that would remove all controversy? Newt Gingrich, one of the politicians spearheading the protests, has indicated he thinks somewhere around Central Park would be appropriate.
And all of this geographic prevaricating is Exhibit A for why pleasing the majority and their "sensitivities" (no matter how reasonable) should not be a guideline for exercising Constitutional rights. There are a lot of forms of religious expression in this country I personally find offensive. But that's my problem, not the problem of the people exercising their rights.

Posted by: commspkmn | August 6, 2010 12:21 PM
Report Offensive Comment

And just like Germany, Islam is warring with us, even though some members of that cult do not participate or even agree.

Posted by: crisp11

*******************************************

Perhaps to get together with Muslims who think America is "warring" with them, including and especially Afghans and Iraqis who believe so?

Posted by: Jihadist | August 6, 2010 12:13 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Return Muslim-occupied Cyprus and the Hostage Ghost City of Famagusta (home of the desecrated St. Nicholas Cathedral)— then Islamo-supremacists of Cordoba House (and their Leftist-fascist allies) can howl about their alleged “right” to desecrate Ground Zero.

St. Nicholas called— he’d like his cathedral back. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Nicholas_Cathedral_Of_Cyprus

VIDEO: Famagusta, The Hostage Ghost City of Europe @
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcfBJ7DimB8

Don't be a sniveling Islamo-supremacism advocate your whole life, Mayor Bloomberg.

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | August 6, 2010 12:12 PM
Report Offensive Comment

The tragedy of modern America is that you have become so wrapped up in debating ideologies that you end up missing the substance. What has just commenced is the 2nd phase of the Muslim world's war against the west. They have shown you physical strength, now they are waging a psychological war and you guys are busy arguing irrelevances.

The Cordoba House (Islams 1st conquest of the Christian West through Spain) is not meant any reconciliatory or bridge-building purposes but will be celebrated in all the muslim world as a show of their strength over the weak and verbose west especially America.

Maybe you should look closely at the source of the investor's $100m and you may be surprised to discover that they may have come from the same people that brought down the building and the sad part of the whole issue is that everyone in the muslim world will know this fact and even if America knows, they will spend years arguing over all sorts of Bill of Rights and ideologies rather than shut down the site.

Do not forget please that it was not only Americans that died on 9/11 and some of us will feel utterly betrayed if that "Trojan House" is allowed to be erected.

Posted by: zavadak | August 6, 2010 12:12 PM
Report Offensive Comment

And a big thank you for your apt comment on the ever so sanguine Thomas Friedman. I am so over his entire "the world is flat" optimism and his columns that so often tip-toe around the crux of issues being discussed. The world IS flat, and it denizens are still stupid.

Posted by: GDWymer

*******************************************

Thomas Friedman has been around this "flat world" quite a bit. And to places most Americans have never been. He knows quite a bit more on other countries, other peoples.

Posted by: Jihadist | August 6, 2010 12:10 PM
Report Offensive Comment

I wonder how those good folks in lower Manhattan will feel when the atomic weapon constructed in the minaret detonates? Oh wait, they'll be dead just like the people in the World Trade Center.

When will this country come to understand that we are at war with Islam? In WW2, there were many German people who had no interest in fighting the United States (or any other country for that matter,) but the government certainly did. And just like Germany, Islam is warring with us, even though some members of that cult do not participate or even agree.

Posted by: crisp11 | August 6, 2010 12:10 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Susan Jacoby in WaPost: “And although Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-FLA) wants to repeal the Fourteenth Amendment to deny citizenship to American-born babies of illegal aliens”

Note the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.”

It isn’t a matter of repealing the Amendment as much as it is a matter of ADHERING TO IT. If two person illegally cross a border, and therefore are automatically ineligible for citizenship, in order to create life for the sole purpose of allowing them the benefits of non-citizen residency, how do they OR THE CHILD come under the ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the United States’ status of the Amendment? That is, two people who by birth owe allegiance to a foreign entity, having never sworn an oath of allegiance to the Constitution as required for citizenship, cannot be within the ‘jurisdiction of the United States’ and neither can the life they create as a form of slavery. The fact that they have created life for the purposes of enhancing their personal welfare through slavery is a seditious renunciation of the Fourteenth Amendment, which might be enough to disqualify ANY person from having the benefits of the Bill of Rights or the ‘privileges’ extended by the Fourteenth Amendment.

Posted by: arjay1 | August 6, 2010 12:10 PM
Report Offensive Comment

to Mr. DCBuff,
Ms. Jacoby does not say that the 14th Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights. She states that to deny those who wish to build the masque the right to do so would violate the First Amendment. She argues that to accomplish the goal of blocking the building of the mosque would require changing the First Amendment and compares this with the proposal to modify the 14th Amendment to deny the right of citizenship to those we decide are "undesirable." You need to read the entire article and make sure you understand it before you comment.

Posted by: fcodispoti | August 6, 2010 12:09 PM
Report Offensive Comment

The mysogynistic sharia law advocates of Cordoba House are not "moderate" Muslims. Ask these (alleged) "tolerance" vendors to repudiate their infidel hating prophet and see how far you get.

Recall a hadith relayed by Abu Hurreira (deemed an extremely reliable narrator), where Muhammad sucked on the tongues of his cousin (and future caliph) Ali’s two boys, Hassan and Hussein— they of revered Shia memory. Another hadith finds Muhammad sucking on the tongue of his own daughter, Fatima. The Arabic word for “suck” (muss) cannot, as some apologists insist, mean anything but “suck.” After all this is the same word used when discussing Muhammad’s ‘activities’ with his wives, especially his beloved child-bride, Aisha.

Imagine, for a moment, coming home to find your spouse sucking on your daughter’s tongue? What would you do? It’s even worse: it’s your prophet—the most “morally upright” man, a man to be emulated by the world! A man who on record used to go around sucking the tongues of his wives, his daughters, and young boys.

Are these activities what Cordoba House hopes to pimp at Ground Zero as the pinnacle of moral perfection?

Don't be a Quisling apologist for Islamo-supremacism your whole life, Bloomberg.

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | August 6, 2010 12:09 PM
Report Offensive Comment

And why do we have to prove our "tolerance" to Islamic countries anyway? Let them prove to us that an atheist, a Jew, a Christian, an unveiled woman of any faith or no faith is as safe on their streets as women wearing the hajib and the niqab were on a recent flight I took from New York to Detroit.

- SJ

*******************************************

More Americans are killed by other Americans in the United States since 9/11 than in all American tourists to Muslim states combined.

It's that tolerance for the rights to arm bears. Nay, the right to bear arms, even in houses of worship in Louisiana.

Posted by: Jihadist | August 6, 2010 12:06 PM
Report Offensive Comment

"Mayor Bloomberg--who is playing the role of a defender of tolerance in this dispute--was the one who displayed true political ineptness."

- SJ

"From the perspective of real politik,it is senseless."

- FM

*******************************************

From the perspective of city management, it is economic savvy.


Posted by: Jihadist | August 6, 2010 11:59 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Thank you Susan Jacoby for your clear thoughts on this issue. You are so correct to criticize Bloomberg and all the planners involved on all sides. The powerful and rich never have to be accountable to those whose lives are affected by the decisions of the rich and powerful. This is proven in this country everyday. And a big thank you for your apt comment on the ever so sanguine Thomas Friedman. I am so over his entire "the world is flat" optimism and his columns that so often tip-toe around the crux of issues being discussed. The world IS flat, and it denizens are still stupid.

Posted by: GDWymer | August 6, 2010 11:56 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Susan Jacoby in WaPost: “And although Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-FLA) wants to repeal the Fourteenth Amendment to deny citizenship to American-born babies of illegal aliens”

Note the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.”

It isn’t a matter of repealing the Amendment as much as it is a matter of ADHERING TO IT. If two person illegally cross a border, and therefore are automatically ineligible for citizenship, in order to create life for the sole purpose of allowing them the benefits of non-citizen residency, how do they OR THE CHILD come under the ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the United States’ status of the Amendment? That is, two people who by birth owe allegiance to a foreign entity, having never sworn an oath of allegiance to the Constitution as required for citizenship, cannot be within the ‘jurisdiction of the United States’ and neither can the life they create as a form of slavery. The fact that they have created life for the purposes of enhancing their personal welfare through slavery is a seditious renunciation of the Fourteenth Amendment, which might be enough to disqualify ANY person from having the benefits of the Bill of Rights or the ‘privileges’ extended by the Fourteenth Amendment.

Posted by: arjay1 | August 6, 2010 11:56 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Thank you Susan Jacoby for your clear thoughts on this issue. You are so correct to criticize Bloomberg and all the planners involved on all sides. The powerful and rich never have to be accountable to those whose lives are affected by the decisions of the rich and powerful. This is proven in this country everyday. And a big thank you for your apt comment on the ever so sanguine Thomas Friedman. I am so over his entire "the world is flat" optimism and his columns that so often tip-toe around the crux of issues being discussed. The world IS flat, and it denizens are still stupid.

Posted by: GDWymer | August 6, 2010 11:55 AM
Report Offensive Comment

If this muslim center was being put in ground zero I would say that something should be done. But this is note the case. It is hard to judge on how far away is another matter and I don't think what is being done is simply to insult americans and should be accepted as such.

Posted by: artg | August 6, 2010 11:49 AM
Report Offensive Comment

It is that this particular mosque will have significance as did the special mosque built in Spain after the Muslims conquered Spain. Remember too, that they want to open it on 9/11/11. Already, it does not sound like anything but a "we won" symbol. Then too, Sharia law and American law are incompatible. They are not concerned about the First Amendment.

- aandersonpianist

*******************************************
I did not get the memo that all 1.5 billion Muslims declared war with America and we have "won". I had thought it was Al Qaeda who caused 9/11.

As for linking the "significance" of Cordoba House/Park 51 as did the "special mosque" built in Spain after the Muslims conquered Spain, perhaps the Spaniards, after Reconquest, expulsions of Muslims and Jews from Spain, and conquest of the New World learned nothing after all. They destroyed Aztec and Mayan temples to build churches and/or build over them. Then again, perhaps they learned from their former Moro colonialists to do that.

As for Sharia law and American law being "incompatible", perhaps to look closer to see American Christian Taliban sorts trying to whittle away at seperation of church and state in secular America. God forbid America is not a Christian nation not build on Christian principles, values and morals.



Posted by: Jihadist | August 6, 2010 11:48 AM
Report Offensive Comment

We should only tolerate construction and functioning of mosques in the United States to the same degree than Islamic nations, such as Saudi Arabia, will tolerate the construction and functioning of Jewish Synagogues and Christian Churches in their countries.

To do otherwise is to continue the path of surrender to Islam. Such one sided toleration of Islam by the United States and the West will continue to be viewed in the Islamic world as a manifestation of weakness on the part of the West and particularly on the part of the United States. It will be considered as further evidence that Islam will eventually conquer the West.

Why are not Islamic clerics in this Country confronted by the American press and forced to explain and justify the shameful fact of there support of ‘one-sided’ toleration between Islam and Christianity?

Posted by: suenjim | August 6, 2010 11:48 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Huckabees cherry-pick their Bill of Rights like they cherry-pick scriptures to spew their bigotry. They worship the Second Amendment but want to ignore the First, Fourth and Fifth just as they quote Leviticus 18:22 to hate gays but ignore verse 19:33 when it comes to immigration.

Posted by: areyousaying | August 6, 2010 11:37 AM
Report Offensive Comment

and RepuBPlicans like Gringrinch and Soap Opera Sarah pounce to exploit another divisive, racist Atwater/Rove wedge issue

What a disgusting spectacle America has become of itself.

Posted by: areyousaying | August 6, 2010 11:34 AM
Report Offensive Comment

meanwhile Christians' and Jews' Abrahamic cousins the Muslims have no sensitivity and rally to take glee in rubbing salt into this huge wound like my Saudi co-workers high- fived each other on 9/11,

Abe was the original Satan.

Posted by: areyousaying | August 6, 2010 11:31 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Ms. Jacoby did an incredibly good job of covering all bases on this subject save one. Would she please clarify how far away the proposed community center needs be from ground zero so that it is "not offense" or not "salt in the wound"? I for one would prefer exact street locations around ground zero so that the public knows exactly where we no longer have to take offense to this awful Islamic Community Center. Maybe then all the "offended" parties can sit down and "reason" with the Islamic Community to take responsibility for 9/11 and correct this awful mistake by putting the center further away from ground zero.

Posted by: codybear1 | August 6, 2010 11:29 AM
Report Offensive Comment

The Fourth Reich is repeating itself and this time the scapegoat is all Muslims.

Christian theocracy is coming to America with a bible opened to leviticus in one hand and with a glock in the other.

Posted by: areyousaying | August 6, 2010 11:28 AM
Report Offensive Comment

"Those Americans who see the mosque as an "in-your-face" insult have a perception of it based on a misunderstanding of the Muslim world, and an inaccurate perception of what Cordoba's architects have in mind."
----------------------
Why do so many people accuse Americans of having a "misunderstanding" of Islam? There are Muslims all over the world killing innocents in the name of Islam. According to the heads of this religion, Islam is a religion of peace so why are so many Muslims "misunderstanding" Islam?

Posted by: shewholives | August 6, 2010 11:28 AM
Report Offensive Comment

But I think it is safe to assume that an imam and developer with $100M to invest are at least as sophisticated as Ms. Jacoby and the liberal elites whose views she represents. They know precisely what they are doing. They surely knew (and certainly now know) that building the center within site of Ground Zero will promote neither outreach nor understanding. So then why build the center there? One can only conclude that the imam's and/or developer's stated motives and intentions are false.

If the purpose of the center is to promote divisiveness and bitterness, then Republican "know-nothings" know enough not to support a center whose constuction is tantamount to hate speech. And, as someone who is as erudite as Ms. Jacoby surely knows she is, hate speech is not protected by the First Amendment.

- ATLMichael

*******************************************

And certainly so "Know nothings" of the "Know nothings" to say they "Know nothing" when they, in fact, claim to know something and everything.

If it makes you feel any better, Ms. Jocoby has certainly been criticising Islam and Muslims in general, or towards specific groups and individuals. Reps, Tea Partyists, "Know nothings", "Know everythings" have been most happy to add in the two cents worth in the threads.

And to go to another tangent beyond hate speech, divisiveness, bitterness and the First Amendment, let's see....

The Big Apple is America's most cosmopolitan and sophisticated city. It is also a significant global centre for finance, banking and investment, both outgoing and incoming.

It is not just an American city. It is also a global city intellectually, culturally, financially and in fashion.

New York wants to continue to have sway and importance in those areas globally, be a global leader and capital in those areas.

So, perhaps, New York will have to ignore the, er, "parochialism" and narrow interests of certain segments of the American population. It can't really think local in acting, being global.

Posted by: Jihadist | August 6, 2010 11:19 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Interesting article, and I think Jacoby hit the nail on the head.
The building of the mosque was never about tolerance. Muslims consistently demand that we show tolerance towards them, and submit to their demands, while at the same time they refuse to show sensitivity or tolerance towards others. They are polarizing and dividing this country and they are their own worst enemy. Give Muslims enough rope and they are guaranteed to hang themselves.

Posted by: shewholives | August 6, 2010 11:17 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Thank you for bringing some common sense to this issue. I applaud you!

Posted by: Rockville3 | August 6, 2010 11:15 AM
Report Offensive Comment

In her article, Jacoby states that, "A great many non-Muslim Americans are never going to see this mosque--precisely because of its location--as anything but an in-your-face insult."

Well, a great many non-Muslim Americans are also intelligent enough to understand that the builders of this mosque, and a vast majority of their worshippers in New York, were equally pained by the 9/11 attacks. The construction of the mosque is not an "aggressive move" by Muslims, but an attempt at bridging a cultural divide that has led to the radicalization of certain segments of their population, that they want to address to prevent future 9/11s from taking place.

Those Americans who see the mosque as an "in-your-face" insult have a perception of it based on a misunderstanding of the Muslim world, and an inaccurate perception of what Cordoba's architects have in mind. But apparently this is okay, because their "feelings" are what really matter? The only difference between these feelings, and those of non-Muslims who understand that this mosque is not an affront to America and the victims of 9/11, is that the latter group has taken the time to move beyond their emotions and think things through. And for this, Ms. Jacoby wishes for them to be punished, by having policymakers like Bloomberg more easily swayed by those who let their emotions on this overtake sound logic and reasoning?

To me, this sounds like an invitation to emotional pandering from demagogues of all stripes, and a recipe for disaster. It is also an example of someone who could probably stand to learn a little bit more herself on understanding towards groups of people that she isn't familiar with, before criticizing the right's supposed irrational disdain for New York's values and diversity.

Posted by: fordman_81 | August 6, 2010 11:14 AM
Report Offensive Comment

I think the purpose of the imam and the developers is to provoke an attack on the mosque. For that reason, the risk of a counter attack, security issues should be brought forward to stop the building. Among 9/11 survivors and family members, there's bound to be those who in their grief will feel tempted. This will not present a risk only to those inside the mosque, but to anyone around it. So, for safety - move the development.

Posted by: asoders22 | August 6, 2010 11:14 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Ms. Jacoby you speak my mind. Thank you.

Posted by: triseven10 | August 6, 2010 11:08 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Ms Jacoby is right. There is no such thing as Islamists-for-tolerance-and-understanding, save a few individuals. The Islam world hail strength and power, nothing else, and to them the building of a mosque close to ground zero will be nothing but a sure sign of the weakness of America. To create anything like it in Islamic countries would ever cross their minds.

To victims, the mosque will be a painful reminder of the attack. The mocking of those who want distance between mosque and ground zero is nothing but dangerous cultural relativism and a failure to read islamism.

Posted by: asoders22 | August 6, 2010 11:05 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Leftist-fascists in NYC agencies don't hesitate to obstruct construction of houses of worship -- at least non-Islamic ones. http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/08/nine-years-later-church-at-ground-zero-still-not-rebuilt-but-mad-rush-to-build-islamic-supremacist-m.html

These Leftist reprobates would sell your Catholic mother's grave to support a scatologists right to squat and plop a steaming pile of free expression.

But when patriotic Americans object to jihadists opening a 9/11 snuff porn vendor emporium (and recruitment center) on the hallowed graves of Ground Zero-- and Leftists shriek with indignation!

"Ye blind guides, that strain out the gnat, and swallow the camel!" [Matthew 23:24]

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | August 6, 2010 11:02 AM
Report Offensive Comment

I think allowing this Mosque will be an great American Victory over intolerance. They are building the Mosque in exactly the right spot for their intended goals. If you want to address a crime by those associated with you by others, and to proclaim your contempt for the terrorists and your willingness to interact with other faiths where would you put your center? What would be the best possible place.
1. You wouldn't want it to be in direct sight of Ground Zero.
2. You would want it as close to Ground Zero as possible without being in the sight line since you want people to have the possibility of visiting you response to the crime as part of their Ground Zero experience.

It would make no sense at all to put the center further away.

Yes I know the Islamic center has purposes other than just addressing 9/11, but that is one of them. Yes it is to promote Islam's spread just like every single Church in the world is supposed to support Christianity's spread.

Posted by: Muddy_Buddy_2000 | August 6, 2010 10:59 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Two things still are not quite clear for me:

- The reason for the centre proposed to be build at Park 51 is that it is the cheapest, most suitable property in terms of space the developers can find in New York City?

- Is there anyone or any opposers of the Cordaba House starting a fund for a memorial at Ground Zero for the 9/11 victims?

Posted by: Jihadist | August 6, 2010 10:58 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Ms. Jacoby shows why there is so much current disdain for liberal elites.

She faults the imam and developer only for being "politically inept" in locating their center near Ground Zero. She rebukes them for their "profound lack of emotional intelligence and understanding." Had the imam and developer simply been as sophisticated and astute as she and other liberal elites, they would have known well enough to put their center some place a little farther uptown.

But I think it is safe to assume that an imam and developer with $100M to invest are at least as sophisticated as Ms. Jacoby and the liberal elites whose views she represents. They know precisely what they are doing. They surely knew (and certainly now know) that building the center within site of Ground Zero will promote neither outreach nor understanding. So then why build the center there? One can only conclude that the imam's and/or developer's stated motives and intentions are false.

If the purpose of the center is to promote divisiveness and bitterness, then Republican "know-nothings" know enough not to support a center whose constuction is tantamount to hate speech. And, as someone who is as erudite as Ms. Jacoby surely knows she is, hate speech is not protected by the First Amendment.

Posted by: ATLMichael | August 6, 2010 10:56 AM
Report Offensive Comment

@bperk420: Where do Leftists conjure this specious notion that McVeigh was Christian? In contemporaneous accounts, McVeigh was never described as killing out of any religious motives. Nor was there any evidence McVeigh considered himself a Christian.

At his execution, Jesus Christ made no appearance in McVeigh’s rhetoric. McVeigh’s last public act before he was executed was to distribute copies of the 1875 poem “Invictus.” It begins: “I thank whatever gods may be/ for my unconquerable soul,” and ends “I am the master of my fate: I am the captain of my soul” Those sentiments are blasphemous of Christianity.

Reporting on his execution, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution described McVeigh as “an avowed agnostic” whose sudden last-minute decision to see a Catholic priest just before his execution surprised everyone who knew him. Even Barbara Ehrenreich (writing in the Progressive) didn’t portray McVeigh as having religious motives. She identified McVeigh as a “neo-Nazi mass murderer.” Recall, Nazis (national socialists) are atheistic Marxists who venomously reject Judeo-Christianity.

In contrast, the 9-11 murderers called themselves Muslims, often attended various mosques, functioned within the mainstream Muslim community and quoted from the Quran extensively so that it is only logical for the objective observer to call them Muslims. Moreover, their Leftist-fascist fellow travelors (like Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn) remain unapologetic about their terrorist records.

Leftists need to direct their nihilistic angst toward the jihadist doctrines of their Muslim co-conspirators, rather than slinging specious grievance theories and moral equivalence arguments at Americans.

Own it, Leftists.

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | August 6, 2010 10:53 AM
Report Offensive Comment

"...I think its the mentality of islamists, both extreme and moderate that is being put up to test here."

"If they want to show the world its all about some perceived military success on 9-11, and want everyone to realise how cruel and insensitive they really are, they will build their mosque right beside ground zero. either way, the world would come to realise that they were (a) a misjudged and misunderstood religion, or (b) a religion that edifies the archievements of cold blooded cowardly murderers!

- DAFEGRAY

*******************************************

Ms. Jacoby wrote about emotional intelligence and sensitivity on this whole thing.

Firstly, the emotional intelligence of those who lost loved ones during the 9/11 attacks.

Secondly, the emotional intelligence of those in the neighbourhood where the Cordoba House/Park 51 is planned.

There is a disconnect between those two groups in terms of their respective needs and wants.

Should those in the neighbourhood of the proposed Centre "sacrifice" their needs and wants to, perhaps, "gentrify" their neighbourhood in some way for the needs and wants of those who lost loved ones during 9/11 attack?

As for the attackers of 9/11, the 19 who are affiliated with Al Qaeda are not the same ones as those building the Centre.

Perhaps you are not distinguishing between the average Muslims and the terrorists, and is asking for the average Muslim to pay for what Al Qaeda have done.

What you have said in your post is the same tone, same reasoning those folks into such headlines as "Islam on trial" following 9/11 instead of "Al Qaeda on trial" and such. That is misjudging and misunderstanding.

Posted by: Jihadist | August 6, 2010 10:48 AM
Report Offensive Comment

As a 9/11 family member I am so grateful that you were willing to consider so many of the challenging aspects of this situation...AND that you stimulated such lively discussion! Democracy in action. As a die-hard Pollyanna who would LOVE to think that there could be a simple path to healing, forgiveness and reconciliation in the aftermath of 9/11, I just don't "get it" in the case of the mosque. If healing and reconciliation, etc are the intention of the developers, then for all of our sakes, take another course...This is, as you said, salt in a very open wound at best. As much as I would like to get on board with the folks who are defending this project in the name of religious freedom, etc. I haven't seen signs of them doing their homework about the bottomline concerns of those opposed. NOW is the time to do the research and communicating that COULD lead to cross-cultural understanding and MUTUALITY, NOT after the place is built. And philosophical debate, while interesting, is not going to get to the bottom of this issue. 9/11 broke us open to the core and only something that speaks into the core concerns surrounding this matter is going to even begin to make the intended peace and reconciliation possible. This is a very sad situation and I hold it deeply in my heart because at best, it is already not going in the direction of the stated intentions of the developers and at worst, if those opposed are correct in their concerns, things will only get worse if the project moves forward. My requests: 1.Put more time, energy and money into developing the memorial at the site which is the much more obvious way to continue a healing process. People from over one hundred nations died that day. Create a "sacred space" right there before trying to introduce a gradient that most folks are not really ready for, including, dare I say, the developers! 2. Find another location for the mosque, but invite the developers into creating the "sacred space" of a memorial at the WTC site first. Ask them to be part of contributing to making the memorial happen FIRST as a statement of the good will they say they want to express/promote. 3. Stop this right now until a more heartfelt solution is found. If I had the money I'd outright buy the building myself, so would a number of folks...Don't let money lead us into more discord when we so dearly need healing and peace. Stop...Look...Listen to all concerned and find wise ways to communicate with respect and true wisdom. This could still turn into a process for peace-making whether the building goes through or not. The important thing is that THAT is what happens. Thanks again for your broadmindedness...This opportunity to hear all the varying input here in cyber-space is a model of what could and should be happening out there in the "real world" of "we the people".

Posted by: Tara11 | August 6, 2010 10:43 AM
Report Offensive Comment

As a 9/11 family member I am so grateful that you were willing to consider so many of the challenging aspects of this situation...AND that you stimulated such lively discussion! Democracy in action. As a die-hard Pollyanna who would LOVE to think that there could be a simple path to healing, forgiveness and reconciliation in the aftermath of 9/11, I just don't "get it" in the case of the mosque. If healing and reconciliation, etc are the intention of the developers, then for all of our sakes, take another course...This is, as you said, salt in a very open wound at best. As much as I would like to get on board with the folks who are defending this project in the name of religious freedom, etc. I haven't seen signs of them doing their homework about the bottomline concerns of those opposed. NOW is the time to do the research and communicating that COULD lead to cross-cultural understanding and MUTUALITY, NOT after the place is built. And philosophical debate, while interesting, is not going to get to the bottom of this issue. 9/11 broke us open to the core and only something that speaks into the core concerns surrounding this matter is going to even begin to make the intended peace and reconciliation possible. This is a very sad situation and I hold it deeply in my heart because at best, it is already not going in the direction of the stated intentions of the developers and at worst, if those opposed are correct in their concerns, things will only get worse if the project moves forward. My requests: 1.Put more time, energy and money into developing the memorial at the site which is the much more obvious way to continue a healing process. People from over one hundred nations died that day. Create a "sacred space" right there before trying to introduce a gradient that most folks are not really ready for, including, dare I say, the developers! 2. Find another location for the mosque, but invite the developers into creating the "sacred space" of a memorial at the WTC site first. Ask them to be part of contributing to making the memorial happen FIRST as a statement of the good will they say they want to express/promote. 3. Stop this right now until a more heartfelt solution is found. If I had the money I'd outright buy the building myself, so would a number of folks...Don't let money lead us into more discord when we so dearly need healing and peace. Stop...Look...Listen to all concerned and find wise ways to communicate with respect and true wisdom. This could still turn into a process for peace-making whether the building goes through or not. The important thing is that THAT is what happens. Thanks again for your broadmindedness...This opportunity to hear all the varying input here in cyber-space is a model of what could and should be happening out there in the "real world" of "we the people".

Posted by: Tara11 | August 6, 2010 10:43 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Yeah, you are right. Let's also move on on the holocaust, slavery, the Jim Crow period, Hiroshima and all of these events.

Because as you say, it has been more than a decade and we are being stubborn and childish to still talk about 9/11, the holocaust, slavery and any of these human tragedies.

I really disagree with you. Contrary to your opinion, I believe that it will take more than a decade to really heal from this tragedy if ever.

Posted by: trumeau

**********************

Yes, we need to move on and heal. We never forgot these events, but we eventually should heal. We have taken the actions to rectify all of those situtations and they are now not so. So yes, we need to heal. But healing is =/= forgetting. You seem to have the two confused.

You may disagree with me all you want, but I still fail to see how a mosque, 2 blocks away nonetheless, is rubbing salt in the proverbial wounds. Again, Islam is not our enemy, and that our laws do not allow for oppression of minorities and religions is what makes America great. My America can make the distinction between Islam and the Taliban. I can see you can't. What a shame.

Posted by: jromaniello | August 6, 2010 10:42 AM
Report Offensive Comment

There is nothing reasonable about this article. Do you have any idea how many Muslims were killed in the 9/11 terrorist attacks? Was Timothy McVeigh a Christian terrorist; therefore, no one should be allowed to have a Christian church near the Oklahoma City bombing? It is nothing but bigotry to blame one of the world's largest religions for the work of a few extremists.

Posted by: bperk420 | August 6, 2010 10:39 AM
Report Offensive Comment

For me anything can be built at and near Ground Zero except an office of GOP!

Posted by: johncivillo | August 6, 2010 10:38 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Quislings don’t confront real evil; and hate those who do. You can see this on almost any school playground. The kid who confronts the school bully is often resented more than the bully. Whether out of guilt over their own cowardice or out of fear that the one who confronted the bully will provoke the bully to lash out more, those who refuse to confront the bully often resent the one who does.

Today, Leftist-Quislings express that cowardly contempt for those of us who take a hard line with Cordoba House. It’s ever our fault (you see) for provoking the bully. Better to remain supine while the terrorism advocates satisfy themselves raising money for terrorists; tormenting American widows and orphans at Ground Zero; erecting their monument to Islamo-triumphalism.

The Quisling answer: Just display false "compassion", stay quiet, and hope the crocs eat them last.

There’s a word for that: Cowardice.

Own it, Quislings.

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | August 6, 2010 10:37 AM
Report Offensive Comment

I just looked up the proposed site on Google Maps...there's like a block of 10-12 story buildings between it and Ground Zero. Are they going to be building it taller than that?

Posted by: dkp01 | August 6, 2010 10:33 AM
Report Offensive Comment

There might be a case that the "mosque" is too close to ground zero if we didn't have a history and were looking through a tube. However, there are actual mosques proposed for Staten Island and Brooklyn, and the opposition is fierce. Sure, it could be built farther away from the World Trade Center site, except that it can't be built there either.

Just get over it and show everybody the true meaning of America.

Posted by: scottilla | August 6, 2010 10:30 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Mz. Jacoby sneered: "The Right's representatives hate New York's ethnic, racial and religious mix..."

Examine Ms. Jacoby's slander in light of Cordoba House sharia advocates.

“Muslims are the vilest of animals…”

“Show mercy to one another, but be ruthless to Muslims”

“How perverse are Muslims!”

“Strike off the heads of Muslims, as well as their fingertips”

“Fight those Muslims who are near to you”

“Muslim mischief makers should be murdered or crucified”

Hate speech? Incitement to violence? Sounds like it to me; but a knowledgeable Cordoba House Muslim would have to disagree.

Why would Cordoba House Muslims not consider this to be hate speech? How is it that I can post these quotes with full certainty that Cordoba House won't be contacting WaPo Editors (or Congress) with wild-eyed accusations of Islamophobia?
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Articles/Quran_Hate.htm

Don't be an apologist for Islam-supremacist hate mongers your whole life, Mz. Jacoby.

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | August 6, 2010 10:28 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Just a quick comment on the writer's understanding, or lack thereof, of our Constitution.

"And although Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-FLA) wants to repeal the Fourteenth Amendment to deny citizenship to American-born babies of illegal aliens, I doubt that there will be much support for jettisoning the entire Bill of Rights."

Historic News Flash: The Bill of Rights are the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution, and thus the 14th Amendment is not contained within the BOR, although it is an Amendment to the Constitution.

Posted by: DCBuff | August 6, 2010 10:21 AM
Report Offensive Comment

3 1/2 - 3 3/4 BLOCKS AWAY

I believe the cultural center should be moved further away... maybe 3 1/2 blocks or 3 3/4 blocks. I have an associate who said 2 7/8 blocks is the standard for such things. Another friend disagrees and thinks 6 blocks is the minimum, but only if the site is not visible. If it is, then you have to move another 1 2/8 blocks away. The author states "just a few blocks farther away probably would have been far enough to avoid this controversy". A "few" usually means "more than one, but not many", so I guess 4-5 blocks away is fine with her.

Posted by: Livy111 | August 6, 2010 10:21 AM
Report Offensive Comment

What strikes me about Ms. Jacoby’s piece is that she claims to write in the name of reason, presumably as opposed to faith, which according to her is unreasonable. However, I would have thought that if reason were to provide better human guidance than faith, it would start by realizing that insulting categorizations and put downs do not contribute to cool or reasonable heads. We might call such behavior unreasonable emotionalism. The whole idea for validating reason is that it should provide more “sensible” and “rational” alternatives to behavior prompted by supernatural guidelines. Nonetheless, Ms. Jacoby’s piece reads more like an emotional tirade riddled with harsh rhetoric about “right-wing Know-Nothings,” or seeking to negate Thomas Friedman’s view by labeling it “utterly ridiculous,” and the whole idea of the mosque as “utter political stupidity.” I also find interesting her term “emotional intelligence.” I think it is well accepted nowadays that emotions lack intelligence; that it is reason that is supposed to guide one’s emotions so that we would not end up believing in false gods.
The tone of Ms. Jacoby’s discourse does not sound too rational. Further, the idea of not wanting to show tolerance to Islamists, coming from a supposedly rational—tolerant?—person does not argue highly in favor of reason. Lastly, Sen. Lindsay Graham is the senator of South Carolina, not Florida.

Posted by: jricardoplanas | August 6, 2010 10:07 AM
Report Offensive Comment

What is it about you people, talking about diversity and tolerance, don't understand that the PLACEMENT of this mosque is insensitive and very aggressive of the Muslim community to even think of building it there at ground zero? Do you think building a huge cathedral in the heart of Baghdad would be tolerated as diversity with good will? My niece, a physician now in the US and her distinguished family were driven out of Iraq because the were Christians.I also remember dancing and cheering in the streets in the Middle East after 911. Did this get past you? This progressive blather is insensitive to how New Yorkers and a majority of the country feels. We are talking about respect and common sense here.

Posted by: katie6 | August 6, 2010 10:06 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Withersby has apparently been in coma (both before and after 9/11) since he appears to think 9/11 was the only incident of Muslims attacking non-Muslims. If he wasn't in coma, there's no excuse for such gross stupidity.

Muslims should take some responsibility for their global jihad when thousands of their co-religionists over the past two decades kill thousands of innocents of every religion around the world; and when they deprive non-Muslims of their human rights in 57 of 57 Muslim governed countries.

Look. American Muslims may be the very soul of moderation. But I don’t think it’s unreasonable for folks to ask for more from (allegedly) “peaceful” Muslims than disingenuous whitewashing of uncomfortable elements of Islamic sharia tradition, as practiced in Iran, Gaza, Kashmir, Malaysia, the Paris banlieue and Cordoba House in NYC.

A genuine tiny minority of anti-jihadist Muslims may be found @
http://secularislam.org/blog/post/SI_Blog/21/The-St-Petersburg-Declaration

Americans remain breathless in anticipation of the vast majority of (allegedly) “peaceful” American Muslims supporting this genuinely tiny minority of their co-religionists… but don’t hold your breath.

+15K deadly Islamo-supremacist attacks since 9/11 don't lie.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | August 6, 2010 10:00 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Let's get emotional then..........

There is emotional intelligence. There is economic intelligence. The folks of the neighbourhood where the Cordoba House/Park 51 is proposed to be build are practicing economic intelligence. Or pragmaticism if one like. It is in a not quite swanky neighbourhood.

What has folks in, say, Paris, Texas, got to do with what folks in a certain neighbourhood in Lower Manhattan want for their neighbourhood?

The folks opposing it are nursing emotions, as in "My wounds, my scars, my hurt, my pain is greater, deeper, more profound, more relevant than yours."?

There is no moral, ethical equivalency on that. No comparison, no empathy for the hurt, the wounds, the scars others faced following the acts of 19 Al Qaeda related fellows on 9/11 in the United States and Afghanistan and Iraq. After all, they deserve it, and it is all right not to see their hurt, their wounds, their scars.

Folks elsewhere where the US were in armed conflicts with are told to move on, and fast after the conflict is over. After all, letting emotional wounds and scars fester is no good for anyone, especially hatred.

But perhaps, this foreigner is not showing emotional intelligence towards a nation and people which, in the last century and this, have wars not on it's homeground, but elsewhere, and thus, never quite have to deal with the level of deaths among civilians as other countries did on its soil.

Not so much as emotional intelligence but, perhaps, emotional exceptionalism.

The whole poing of post 9/11 was also not to let terrorists know and see what they have done that they have scarred and terrified anyone. The point is to show what they seek to destroy is undented, can be rebuild mentally and physically in every way. Especially in the land of the free and home of the brave.


Posted by: Jihadist | August 6, 2010 9:50 AM
Report Offensive Comment

3000 people is a pretty good population sample and I'm sure its members are a good representation of the NYC population. Thus, it's safe to say that some of those victims were Muslim.

In any case, if you don't want a mosque there, then I don't want your church, synagogue, or shrine there, either.

Posted by: thornwalker1 | August 6, 2010 9:50 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Susan Jacoby is usually one of the best writers on the Post's website, but I think she's underplaying two pertinent facts:

First, while public opinion in general is against the mosque's location, a healthy majority of MANHATTAN residents have voiced support for it. It seems that the more one knows about the location first hand, the more one's opposition fades.

Second, while the location is but "two blocks away," within the context of the specific site "two blocks" is not that close. It's on a side street, not an artery, and no tourist or city resident whose purpose is visiting Ground Zero would even notice it. It's an unobtrusive multi-use building, with the mosque but one relatively small part. Hardly the spit-in-your-face horror that it's been portrayed at by the professional scaremongers whom Jacoby rightly denounces.

While anything Susan Jacoby writes merits our consideration, I'd feel a lot better about her position if she'd addressed the above two points directly.

Posted by: andym108 | August 6, 2010 9:50 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Do atheists really imagine any zoning board would permit erecting a Hedonism Center (aka, strip club) across the street from Ground Zero to demonstrate our tolerance for those who worship at the altar of the pleasure principle?

Free expression is not sacrosanct, atheists. The whole purpose of zoning boards is to regulate architectural expression. Your specious appeals to 1st amendment are very silly strawmen.

I'm in favor of censorship, and so are the courts. The only difference is (if you're a typical Leftist), you either won't admit it or you don't know it. But look: If you think it's a good idea for the government (federal, state, or local) to keep Triple-X porn off of Saturday-morning cartoon-hour TV, you're in favor of censorship. If you don't think neo-Nazis should be allowed to make presentations at your kid's public school's career day, you're in favor of censorship. Heck, if you think the federal government is right to block cigarette companies from advertising to kids, you, my friend, are in favor of censorship.

So the relevant question — which is invariably overlooked — isn't whether or not you are "for" or "against" censorship. The relevant question is, What and where do we want to censor? And how much censorship do we want on the public square?

The U.S. outlawed Mormon polygamy in the nineteenth century; considerations of religious expression are not considered absolute.

Today, government agencies do not hesitate to put roadblocks in the way of the construction of houses of worship— at least non-Islamic ones. St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church stood in the shadow of the World Trade Center and was crushed under the rubble when the towers collapsed on September 11, 2001. Almost nine years later it has still not been rebuilt; the rebuilding project is mired in bureaucracy, with New York City officials being uncooperative and throwing up roadblock after roadblock.

Nobody assumes that any religious group has an absolute "right" to build a house of worship wherever it wants, except (apparently) in this case.

Don't be a free expression contortionist for sharia law your whole life, atheist.

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | August 6, 2010 9:50 AM
Report Offensive Comment

This is not really a question of tolerance unless the highjackers are tied to the Muslim religion which to my understanding has not been done. There are many people who were nationalists and not necessarily religious. Nothing I read even tied them to religious motives. Second, it is sinful to condemn all Muslims over the actions of the small percentage ho are extremists. We did not condemn the entire Catholic church for the Nazi sympathizers. We don't condemn all fundamentalists Christians for those nut cases practicing with thier guns in the woods. How about a little intellectual honesty?

Posted by: withersb | August 6, 2010 9:47 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Sheesh. Here we go again. The only way to prove Americans aren't scared of neo-pagan racists is to support their demands to emolate Crann Tara monuments next to MLK memorials.

The only way to prove we're not terrified of communists is to support Marxist demands to erect statues of Stalin next to the Lincoln Memorial.

All this talk of submitting to Imam Rauf's demands sends the message that Leftists are all Quislings. Are Leftist idiotarians prepared to let Cordoba House intellectually bully them into accepting the false assertion that Rauf's sharia law advocacy is (somehow) representative of a billion people?

Cluebat: Imam Rauf already has a mosque in downtown New York.

/absurdity on stilts

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | August 6, 2010 9:42 AM
Report Offensive Comment

jromaniello wrote:

I would probably align with you, had this project been scheduled to commence within the following couple of years since 9/11. But has been nearly a decade. We need to start moving on. This kind of prolonged mourning is never healthy.

-------------------------------------------

Yeah, you are right. Let's also move on on the holocaust, slavery, the Jim Crow period, Hiroshima and all of these events.

Because as you say, it has been more than a decade and we are being stubborn and childish to still talk about 9/11, the holocaust, slavery and any of these human tragedies.

I really disagree with you. Contrary to your opinion, I believe that it will take more than a decade to really heal from this tragedy if ever.

Posted by: trumeau | August 6, 2010 9:40 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Interesting use by an atheist of a fig leaf there to cover up her rather spirited racism.

Atheist or not, though, it does not seem that Ms. Jacoby would have raised any objection to a YMHA in that location. So I guess that makes her a hypocrite, too.

Posted by: Itzajob | August 6, 2010 9:39 AM
Report Offensive Comment

It is a knife in my heart to have a mosque in sight of ground zero.
Posted by: indvoter37
________________________
Why? Can you not distinguish between the 20 terrorists who were radicals and the 2 million American Mulisms who are patriotic, law abiding and want to lead a normal life with and choose their religion? Do you also not realize there is mosque right within 4 blocks of the World Trade center for the last 25 years?

Posted by: cadam72 | August 6, 2010 9:37 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Absolutely insane writing by another out of touch and drug crazed liberal. This mosque has nothing to do with religious tolerance or first amendment rights. It's about gotcha, you lose, we win. If we are discussing tolerance, then the muslim religion is the wrong topic. No religion is more intolerant and cruel than the muslim religion.

Posted by: candyzky | August 6, 2010 9:33 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Ms. Jacoby,

I normally enjoy your columns immensely. However, this is the first time I must say that I differ with your sentiments.

As many a Conservative would say, that is their property and it's their right to use it as they see fit. To act otherwise, would violate their rights-- except most Cons hate anything that isn't like them, so their sentiments would be null and void for the sake of some Muslim hatin'.

I was devastated by the 9/11 tragedy. I saw the events first hand. It was the most horrific, surreal, and terrible thing I had ever seen in my life, but to disallow a mosque/Muslim community center to be constructed is not the answer. It will only breed resentment and more fear/ignorance, as well as reinforce the notion in our collective mind that Islam is unclean and unfit among us. Perhaps this community center will provide education on what Islam is truly about to lay people. In that enlightenment, the healing can come forth. Islam is not the enemy, the Taliban/Al Quaeda are. They are extremists that happen to be of the Muslim faith; would it be fair to judge all Christians from observing the actions of cults?

I would probably align with you, had this project been scheduled to commence within the following couple of years since 9/11. But has been nearly a decade. We need to start moving on. This kind of prolonged mourning is never healthy.

Posted by: jromaniello | August 6, 2010 9:28 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Are we a country of laws or emotions?
Posted by: EnemyOfTheState | August 6, 2010 7:46 AM
****************
We are a country of laws occupied by people with emotions.

Trying to separate the two, or siding fully with one side while ignoring the other, is ignorant.

Posted by: legendarypunk | August 6, 2010 9:25 AM
Report Offensive Comment

It is a knife in my heart to have a mosque in sight of ground zero.

Posted by: indvoter37 | August 6, 2010 9:15 AM
Report Offensive Comment

If you want a slightly more balanced approach to the issue, check out www.powerlineblog.com. They essentially agree with nuttty Nancy here without bad mouthing people who disagree with her.

Posted by: zoomie95 | August 6, 2010 9:00 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Trebble212 wrote:
Oh by the way,I know you enjoy calling the Republicans the "no nothing right wing", but I bet they do know that the 14th Amendment is not part of the Bill Of Rights. Something you sadly do not...Maybe you should do research before you call others ignorant and then display how ignorant you are yourself.
_________________________________
Read that paragraph again. She didn't say the 14th amendment was part of the bill of rights. She didn't say the 14th amendment and the rest of the bill of rights. She was suggesting that the anti-American republicans who want to destroy the 14th amendment have not, thankfully, suggested getting rid of the bill of rights. "Entire" modified "bill of rights." Destroying the 14th amendment and destroying the bill of rights would be two separate acts. However, the 14th amendment does apply most of the bill of rights to the states, so they are, in fact, very closely linked in legal semantics.

Posted by: douard1 | August 6, 2010 8:52 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Susan Jacoby in WaPost: "And let me say this again: if I were a judge, and one of the lawsuits devised to block the construction of this facility reached my court--I would rule that the First Amendment clearly protects the construction of any religious facility, anywhere."

EXCEPT when the religious activity is carried out by a national state, as the 'religious' people involved are since their funding comes in part from Islamac governments. The First Amendment spefically prohibits, in the Founder's intent and language, the establishment of religion by ANY government.

Posted by: arjay1 | August 6, 2010 8:47 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Susan:
Expecting Muslims to be sensitive to the infidels’ feeling is far beyond the impossible. To get an idea of how far read the provisions of the so-called Omar Pact that codified the treatments of Christians and Jews under Islamic rule. Below are some of the gems

• We shall not build, in our cities or in their neighborhood, new monasteries, Churches, convents, or monks' cells, nor shall we repair, by day or by night, such of them as fall in ruins or are situated in the quarters of the Muslims.
• We shall keep our gates wide open for passersby and travelers. We shall give board and lodging to all Muslims who pass our way for three days.
• We shall not manifest our religion publicly nor convert anyone to it. We shall not prevent any of our kin from entering Islam if they wish it.
• We shall show respect toward the Muslims, and we shall rise from our seats when they wish to sit.

http://www.bible.ca/islam/islam-kills-pact-of-umar.htm

Posted by: abrahamhab1 | August 6, 2010 8:47 AM
Report Offensive Comment

So your point is that they have a right to build a house of worship but they are insensitive for doing so. Well, what do you think the first amendment is for?

Posted by: AMQ1 | August 6, 2010 8:46 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Interestingly, a similar situation about building a mosque occurred in Montreal. The plans were to build a mosque, Coranic school, community centre on the site of a former motherhouse of an order on nuns. The mosque was to house 750 brothers (men) and 250 sisters (women). The controversy was stopped when the government stepped in and exercised its legal right to acquire the building as a heritage site (which it is). The argument is repeatedly made that building the mosque near ground zero, or anywhere in the U.S. for that matter, is a right that is guaranteed by the first amendment. That project in Montreal and the one in NYC bring to light an interesting twist that has not been addressed in all the debates so far: The separation of men and women. The central issue that needs to be examined is this: should mosques be included under the protection of expression of religious freedom? Should Americans support the propagation of a movement that denies its members basic constitutional rights? By and large, the Muslim faith does not practice the tolerance toward its own that it demands of others. Women are second class citizens at best and no one is free to choose or reject the religion. Apostasy is, in the most extreme cases, punishable by death. If you do not believe this because Muslims have told you it is not true, then you may want to learn about taqiyya (but that is another issue). Over and over again, we hear the plea for opening our hearts and showing tolerance to a community that simply wants to practice its faith. If that were the case, the question would be moot. Live and let live should be the norm. In light of the reality of Islam, its true nature, supporting the mosque or any mosque lends legitimacy to an antidemocratic movement that eschews the very principle of democracy: i.e., the right to question and even challenge authority. Muslim communities are just as active in Canada as in the US. Incredulously, as a result of Islamic pressuring, Sharia was nearly legalized in the province of Ontario a year or two ago. It was only due to the strong protests of Western women that it was stopped. Islam: reaping all the benefits that come with religious status while wreaking all the devastation of a totalitarian ideology. One has to ask: what is the value of a religion that is imposed? It’s time to stop applying western values to Islam and to begin questioning whether it is really a free choice made by true believers.

Posted by: vincent27 | August 6, 2010 8:45 AM
Report Offensive Comment

I know nothing about the faith of anyone. That said... it's just another building. There are islamists on nearly every corner of New York City with Halal food carts. They are in every deli selling lottery and gum and soda. They are down the street living and wearing their garb and parking taxicabs during the day then going to the local islam building on 1st ave to pray. The mayor says there are over 100 mosques in NYC already... uh, it's a little late for getting upset about their presence.

Posted by: mytbone | August 6, 2010 8:45 AM
Report Offensive Comment

I disagree with Ms. Jacoby on this issue. I think her position is hypocritical and based on prejudices toward Islamic people.

What she is arguing is that the laws and traditions of our country would allow for the mosque to be built, but our prejudiced view that all Islamic people agree with the 9/11 terrorists or want to somehow "conquer" the U.S. makes us too offended by the proposed mosque to uphold that law and those traditions in this case.

Condoning and promoting prejudice is wrong, according to our laws and according to our traditions in this country.

Posted by: mightysparrow | August 6, 2010 8:36 AM
Report Offensive Comment

NYMOUS wrote"Building a mosque near the site is a huge, & very serious slap in the face to the litany of lies the radicals preach to people who don't know any better."

Not really, NYMOUS.

The slap to the Islamic terrorists's face was delivered by the mayor of New York when he refused to flout the law and gave the permission to build the mosque.

If the Muslims build the mosque in the near future while the pain from 9/11 is still very strong in the minds of Americans and of all non-Muslims, they will be slapping the face of America and of non-Muslims, not that of the Islamic terrorists.

If Muslims wish to deliver a kick and a slap to the face and butts of the Islamic terrorists here is what they should do.

1. Postpone the building indefinitely and publicly announce that their decision was out of concern for the feelings of Americans and non-Muslims and that they will not build the mosque until they can win over the heart and minds of Americans and of non-Muslims.

2. Publicly demand that Islamic apartheid in Mecca. Medina and the rest of Saudi Arabia be stopped immediately, that non-Muslims be allowed into Mecca and Medina and that non-Muslims be allowed to build their places of worship anywhere in Saudi Arabia ( exception: inside the kaaba) and that all Muslims boycott the hajj, the annual holy pilgrimage until Saudi Arabia eliminates all vestiges of Islamic apartheid.

Posted by: jailkkhosla | August 6, 2010 8:35 AM
Report Offensive Comment

The mistake begins when people fail to differentiate between the 9/11 terrorists and Muslims generally. Besides, two blocks is a long distance in New York.

Posted by: blasmaic | August 6, 2010 8:33 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Susan Jacoby in WaPost: "And let me say this again: if I were a judge, and one of the lawsuits devised to block the construction of this facility reached my court--I would rule that the First Amendment clearly protects the construction of any religious facility, anywhere."

EXCEPT when the religious activity is carried out by a national state, as the 'religious' people involved are since their funding comes in part from Islamac governments. The First Amendment specifically prohibits, in the Founder's intent and language, the establishment of religion or activity by ANY government.

Posted by: arjay1 | August 6, 2010 8:23 AM
Report Offensive Comment

I must admit, Ms. Jacoby, that your take on this issue surprised me but because I respect your mind, I'll think more about what you've written.
My 'knee jerk' about this is that, once more, the national dialogue has drifted toward awarding the 911 terrorists the honor of being representatives of Islam rather than being sociopathic murderers. We've allowed them to frame 911 as one religion against another when we should ceaselessly refute and resist the pairing of murder with claims of faith.
The man who killed Dr. Tiller might have claimed to have committed murder because of his Christian faith, but sane society recognizes what an obscene lie that is. The man is in prison. Christianity was not on trial.
Whether gay marriage or the Mosque in NY-- we are a nation of laws, in part, to prevent minorities from the tyranny of a sometimes insane majority.

Posted by: jmk833 | August 6, 2010 8:22 AM
Report Offensive Comment

What you can do, and what you should do can be different.
What is legal and what is right can be different
I spent 30 years in our military and hold the Constitution very dear. Totally agree the Imam can build his center there. But, I'm not the first to ask him - please build it somewhere else. You say you are working for tolerance and understanding, then start by understanding that 3000 people died nearby totally due to Muslim men who are not tolerant, and rubbing salt in deep wounds is not the way to build bridges between people.

Posted by: humbleandfree | August 6, 2010 8:11 AM
Report Offensive Comment

I'm against building any church anywhere; they are nothing more than monuments to scientific ignorance. But I digress.

Since New York is the country's preeminent multicultural melting pot, it would send a powerful message to the rest of the world about tolerance and peace. We're at war with extremists, not Islam.

Posted by: EnemyOfTheState | August 6, 2010 7:53 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Are we a country of laws or emotions?

Posted by: EnemyOfTheState | August 6, 2010 7:46 AM
Report Offensive Comment


This is much ado about nothing. This "mosque" will be a fish bowl. No potential terrorists will ever come anywhere near that joint. If this country does not want muslims in this country, ban them from practicing or stop p!ssing and moaning about where they build their houses of worship.

Posted by: demtse | August 6, 2010 7:26 AM
Report Offensive Comment

This is much ado about nothing. This "mosque" will be a fish bowl. No potential terrorists will ever come anywhere near that joint. If this country does not want muslims in this country, ban them from practicing or stop p!ssing and moaning about where they build their houses of worship.

Posted by: demtse | August 6, 2010 7:25 AM
Report Offensive Comment

On the one hand, right-wing Know-Nothings are displaying their ignorance of the First Amendment for all the world to see;..........

###########################################Susan,

You are going to be so surprised!!!!

When you see some of the "right wing no-nothings" as you look up from hell.

And imagine the look on your face when you will (AND YOU WILL) bow to the one true GOD!!

LOL!!!

Posted by: tjmlrc | August 6, 2010 7:06 AM
Report Offensive Comment

I, as I indicated in my prior comments, have some mixed feelings about this subject. However, I just read something that changed my mind entirely.

Part of the conversation radical, violent revolutionaries use to justify their violence & repressive tactics is to claim that America wants to destroy Islam. This is so far from the truth that it is absurd. If anything, the US is a champion of religious freedom. As individuals, and groups, not all churches are as tolerant as they should be. Those offensive fools in Florida, and the same type of folks who follow Fred Phelps come to mind when I think of intolerance. However, when it comes to the law, we separate church & state, and are a very tolerant nation. I wouldn't have it any other way either, especially given that I am not a Christian myself.

Building a mosque near the site is a huge, & very serious slap in the face to the litany of lies the radicals preach to people who don't know any better. I like that idea a whole lot. In fact, I can't think of a better way of saying `screw you' to the Taliban than that.

So please, build the thing, & the rest of us, well we need to show the hate filled idiots that they are the fools in this world. We win when we are tolerant, and respect the freedom others have that we demand for ourselves. We don't do it with burning, bombs, & hate.

Posted by: Nymous | August 6, 2010 6:59 AM
Report Offensive Comment

"In my first column, I described it as politically inept to locate a Muslim center within sight of Ground Zero, but I now realize that was a tremendous understatement. Pushing to build a conspicuous Muslim institution near this site demonstrates a profound lack of emotional intelligence and understanding of the raw emotions that are the legacy of the terrorist attacks."

For 1400 years Mohammedans have been building mosques on the holy sites of conquered territory. For example, the mosque on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, the great mosque in Istanbul, or the original Cordoba mosque.

It's their end zone dance.

Posted by: JohnMD1022 | August 6, 2010 6:46 AM
Report Offensive Comment

I support the decision of the City of New York to allow the mosque to be built.

The government has no right to ban a religious building unless there are already existing ordinances that prevent such buildings in specific areas.

There are ordinances that prohibit the building of religious buildings in proximity to schools in many towns but the ordinances are applicable to religious buildings of all faiths and therefore are not discriminatory. A ban on the Cordoba mosque would have been discriminatory because there are churches and synagogues in the area.

If I were a Muslim I would campaign for putting the building of the mosque on the back burner until the non-Muslims in the city are ready for it. I would even campaign for the mosque to be not built at all at the site of 9/11.Right now the pain of 9/11 is still very much present. By building the mosque Muslims will exhibit an insensibility that will only hurt their image, which has already been damaged since 9/11.

The decision to not build a mosque should come from the Muslims, not from the City of New York, not from non-Muslims. It will be the litmus test of how far Muslims worldwide have come in joining the mainstream.

Posted by: jailkkhosla | August 6, 2010 5:48 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Enough of the left, the right, the red, the blue. As painful and difficult as it is at times, we are a nation of law even when that law holds us to standards that are distressing.

Yes, the choice of this site is insensitive and in the vernacular, bone headed. Still, it is perfectly legal.

Posted by: n01cat1 | August 6, 2010 5:19 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Mayor Bloomberg is correct as is Thomas Friedman. It is also important for readers to remember that the Community Board approved it.

That said, Susan is also correct, and, therein, lies the problem. There is nothing at all simple in this.

From an American point of view, it is simply the right thing to do. We separate church and state. Muslims died on 9/11.

From the perspective of real politik,it is senseless. Susan is absolutely correct in her argument that the proposed mosq would not be viewed by intolerant regimes, such as the Saudis, who are funding the project, in ways that we view it. Not at all.

Though Rauf has said some controversial things, he has a history of working for interfaith understanding. It is, as Susan claims, quite possible that either in spite of this or because of this, that the mosq could become a target.

What a sad day it is for this Jewish atheist.

Posted by: farnaz_mansouri2 | August 6, 2010 5:04 AM
Report Offensive Comment

It would have made a lot more sense to build it exactly one block away from the site. So that it stands apart from the violence in a distinct manner. I think a whole lot of people could have respected that easily enough. This location smacks of triumphalism, not tolerance.

Posted by: Nymous | August 6, 2010 4:53 AM
Report Offensive Comment

I'm going to be offended if they start broadcasting some loud wailing "call to prayer" from that place. I don't think they have much decency in insisting on building it there. If I have to listen to some wailing call of hate when I go there, I won't be happy at all.

Also, they're building a target, and asking for violence. They have a right to be stupid, but they shouldn't be surprised when they get hurt by their own stupidity. They're inciting & inviting violence, as wrong as acts like that would be, it still isn't going to prevent them.

There's also an amazing lack of respect for what happened that goes with what they're doing, and they're rather intentional about it.

Posted by: Nymous | August 6, 2010 4:48 AM
Report Offensive Comment

The mosque is born of hate, Mayor Bloomberg's hate of White Protestants. Bloomberg celebrates 9/11 with Islam against their common foe, the European People.

Posted by: OldAtlantic | August 6, 2010 4:39 AM
Report Offensive Comment

What a slap in the face to America! The only solace is “What goes around comes around” get them all!

Posted by: medforu | August 6, 2010 1:36 AM
Report Offensive Comment

It is not that we are against mosques. I understand that there are lots of mosques in New York city. It is that this particular mosque will have significance as did the special mosque built in Spain after the Muslims conquered Spain. Remember too, that they want to open it on 9/11/11. Already, it does not sound like anything but a "we won" symbol. Then too, Sharia law and American law are incompatible. They are not concerned about the First Amendment.

I love New York and I am a Republican. Some of my best years were spent in school in New York.

Posted by: aandersonpianist | August 6, 2010 1:01 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Oh by the way,I know you enjoy calling the Republicans the "no nothing right wing", but I bet they do know that the 14th Amendment is not part of the Bill Of Rights. Something you sadly do not...Maybe you should do research before you call others ignorant and then display how ignorant you are yourself.

Posted by: treble212 | August 6, 2010 12:44 AM
Report Offensive Comment

I had never read you before, but I was interested in this particular article. That is until I read your ridiculous lies. So you are talking about the First Amendment and people's rights, yet you consistently villanize the GOP has haters of everything just because they don't fall in lockstep with your propaganda. You marginalize 40 something percent of the country because you do not like their opinions. In essence you attempt to shut them up, by writing them off. First of all, the Democrats are the reason the 9-11 first responders vote didn't pass. Answer this: Could they have passed it? Did they have the votes? The answer to both is a resounding YES. Then why didn't they? Was it to villanize the GOP? Of course it was. Any dead cops and/or firemen have liberal Dems to blame, not the GOP. Why lie about it? Because the facts don't suit your propaganda. Also, the GOP is fighting ILLEGAL immigration. What is so wrong about protecting America from those who break our laws and are not citizens? Why should we reward criminals? IF you sneak into MExico, and give birth do you think they are going to bend over backwards and hand you a welfare check and equal rights? Then why should we? IT is also funny that you so adamantly attack the GOP for 14th Amendment issues and then go on to make fun of the 2nd Amendmant. I see, so only the Amendments that you like are important enough to protect...hypocrisy at it's liberal best.
So all of the GOP are haters, hate New York, hate the Bill of Rights (except the 2nd amendment which you hate), and hate police and firemen from 9-11. Do you even realize how yellow your journalism is? Can you pinpoint the moment when you lost any objectivity? Any amount of openness of mind? Your article about the issues and the stupidity of allowing a Mosque near the site of the 9-11 attacks could have been good. You could have simply made the "It's legal but stupid" argument, but instead you decided to go the way of any liberal extremist and blame all the world's problems on the evil American Republican. It is so sad. What is more sad is that you actually believe your own garbage.

Posted by: treble212 | August 6, 2010 12:36 AM
Report Offensive Comment

kmurray1

I guess you don't have a very good imagination.

Posted by: DanielintheLionsDen | August 6, 2010 12:00 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Amen Susan!

You are exactly right. Only a moron would complain about being stung, after poking a hornets nest with a stick.

Posted by: DanielintheLionsDen | August 5, 2010 11:57 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Just as long as we get all the Christian churches out of Hiroshima.

It is hard for me to imagine that there could be a stronger message to anyone, that the Muslims of America join hands with the other religious of America, in looking at Ground Zero as a sacred place, where those American Muslims were attacked just as much as Americans of any other (or no) faith.

Posted by: kmurray1 | August 5, 2010 11:19 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Ms. Jacoby, I never ever comment online because I know it's talking to a wall... but given your bonehead column I can't resist. Like most people with a temporary lease on newspaper column inches, you set yourself up as arbiter of "what is legal and what is wise," having only a flimsy grasp of both.

At least you understand (as Palin, Gingrich and Lazio seem not to) that the First Amendment matters. But like the craven leadership of the ADL, you want "responsible Muslims" to segregate themselves from a particular spot, not because it's legally or morally right, but because it somehow, to you, it just feels wrong for them to be there. You're fatuous enough to set out the precise location that would shut you up--2 blocks away from Ground Zero is a grievous affront to decent Americans, twelve blocks away is perfectly fine.

Here's the thing about the United States of America, the thing that makes it (as Tom Friedman understands) a beacon for the rest of the world: our Constitution established bedrock principles that are more important than our individual fears or feelings. It can be difficult to abide by those principles, but that's the point.

We have nothing to prove to the world, and no need to demand that Saudi Arabia (for example) establish religious freedom for Methodists before we grant it to Muslims. Our Muslims already have what their Christians will never have, and that too is the point.


Posted by: DoctorMike | August 5, 2010 10:59 PM
Report Offensive Comment

The site of the 911 tragedy does not need a mosque, a church, a temple, a synagogue, or any other kind of religious symbol. There are alternatives to fundamentalist religions of all types. I want peace, enlightenment, LOVE, and HEALING at ground zero. At the site of 911 I want a monument with the words and music to this song.

"Heal the World":
In this place you'll feel
There's no hurt or sorrow.
There are ways to get there
If you care enough for the living
Make a little space, make a better place.

Chorus:
Heal the world
Make it a better place
For you and for me and the entire human race
There are people dying
If you care enough for the living
Make a better place for
You and for me.

Michael Jackson sings it better than I can write it.
Please click on the video link below (or copy and paste in into your address bar)
and read, listen, and pray to our creator for Healing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WJrtms8EoQ&f eature=related

Thank you, Michael Jackson.


Posted by: Cherubim | August 5, 2010 9:54 PM
Report Offensive Comment

1. If the Islam faith people want that mosque...then they can pay for the security.
2. I can't believe that someone actually SOLD that property to anybody with that purpose in mind--so was it done secretively?
3. If, for whatever reason the US decides that Mosque is a bad idea, it is considered an act of war upon the entire Islam World to take it down. So we need to make sure this is something we can live with for as long as the Muslims want it there.
4. And why does the US always extend the extra courtesy towards religious tolerance towards countries that do not return the favor. You can be arrested for simply having a bible in your posession in many islam countries.

Posted by: Catbert1988 | August 5, 2010 8:33 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Actions speak louder than words. Rather than the US constitution, I think its the mentality of islamists, both extreme and moderate that is being put up to test here. If islam is truely a peaceful religion, and they want to educate people of how nice muslims really are, they would build thier mosque elsewhere. If they want to show the world its all about some perceived military success on 9-11, and want everyone to realise how cruel and insensitive they really are, they will build their mosque right beside ground zero. either way, the world would come to realise that they were (a) a misjudged and misunderstood religion, or (b) a religion that edifies the archievements of cold blooded cowardly murderers!

Posted by: dafegray | August 5, 2010 8:27 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Do have a look at "Presenting Islam to Non-Muslims - The Role of the Masjid"

http://www.islamicsolutions.com/presenting-islam-to-non-muslims-the-role-of-the-masjid/

Posted by: ffa7 | August 5, 2010 8:26 PM
Report Offensive Comment

exactly how I feel. Thank you.

Posted by: nyadrian | August 5, 2010 7:54 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Post a Comment


 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company