Islamophobia, or multi-cultural tolerance?

[kandrathe]

I read an interesting article on Slate today by Christopher Hitchens on the Cordoba House Initiative that I wanted to share. So, I thought I'd start it's own thread for the on-going insanity in the US over the project. I learned what "Vilayet-i-faquih" is all about. Of course, Hitchens, as an avowed anti-theist / atheist has a particular point of view. So, consider this article in the American Thinker, by Jack Cashill as a counter-balance.

Cashill writes in that article;

"Addressing what I called the "illiberal orthodoxy of the American media," I explained how the media make one notable exception to their illiberal stereotyping of the religious right.

"Islamic extremists in America have proven to be exactly the bogeyman that the media have long imagined the Christian right to be -- patriarchal, theocratic, sexist, homophobic, anti-choice, and openly anti-Semitic," I said. "And according to at least one brave Muslim moderate, Sheik Muhammad Kabani, 80% of the mosques in America are in the hands of genuine extremists, some of whom are not above encouraging murder to get their way."

The most important part of Hitchen's article to me was;

Emboldened by the crass nature of the opposition to the center, its defenders have started to talk as if it represented no problem at all and as if the question were solely one of religious tolerance. It would be nice if this were true. But tolerance is one of the first and most awkward questions raised by any examination of Islamism. We are wrong to talk as if the only subject was that of terrorism. As Western Europe has already found to its cost, local Muslim leaders have a habit, once they feel strong enough, of making demands of the most intolerant kind. Sometimes it will be calls for censorship of anything "offensive" to Islam. Sometimes it will be demands for sexual segregation in schools and swimming pools. The script is becoming a very familiar one. And those who make such demands are of course usually quite careful to avoid any association with violence. They merely hint that, if their demands are not taken seriously, there just might be a teeny smidgeon of violence from some other unnamed quarter …

As for the gorgeous mosaic of religious pluralism, it's easy enough to find mosque Web sites and DVDs that peddle the most disgusting attacks on Jews, Hindus, Christians, unbelievers, and other Muslims—to say nothing of insane diatribes about women and homosexuals. This is why the fake term Islamophobia is so dangerous: It insinuates that any reservations about Islam must ipso facto be "phobic." A phobia is an irrational fear or dislike. Islamic preaching very often manifests precisely this feature, which is why suspicion of it is by no means irrational.

He more eloquently said what I was trying to say in the other thread. I don't think most of my fellow Americans (although some clearly do) have issues with living in a pluralistic society that respects the tapestry of varied ethnic, cultural, and religious differences. My objection is to the argument that we must be tolerant of their intolerance, and we must to sensitive(and mute) to their insensitivity. For my part, I think Rauf, even as a trusted and paid clerical representative of the US, has much to answer for what he's said, and therefore, for now, I don't trust his motives. For now, I believe the center is meant to be an affront, and this is the only reason I oppose it. If however, there were a guarantee that, for example, a slightly pickled, bare headed infidel, wearing moderately provocative attire with a Pomeranian purse pooch in stow wouldn't be considered Haram and bruskly dumped on the sidewalk, then perhaps they really do mean "community" center.

And, finally, for those who are in support of this project, I give you "Ten things I know about the mosque" By Roger Ebert. Now why isn't this guy our President?

[--Pete]

Hi,

Now why isn't this guy our President?

Because he doesn't want the job? Or maybe because he's totally untrained for it.

As to the rest, let it rest in peace.

--Pete

[NuurAbSaal]

Hi,

Now why isn't this guy our President?

Because he doesn't want the job? Or maybe because he's totally untrained for it.

--Pete

A president who is unable to talk. It would be an improvement of political culture in most countries I guess.

take care
Tarabulus

[kandrathe]

A president who is unable to talk. It would be an improvement of political culture in most countries I guess.

We've had President's who've lost their minds. In the big picture (and text to speech technology), a jaw is not that big a deal.

Maybe we're not ready for another physically handicapped President, but I know we wouldn't survive another mentally challenged one. And, as Pete said, I'm ready for one who is well trained for the job and has demonstrated leadership skills.

[--Pete]

Hi,

. . . as Pete said . . .

There you go again, putting words in my mouth. Except this time, I thank you. I agree with what you agree to what I didn't say but should have.



--Pete

[Jester]

Now why isn't this guy our President?

In addition to his good sense, he also suffers from chronic not-able-to-pretend-he-isn't-a-liberal syndrome. I'm afraid it's terminal for political careers.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

In addition to his good sense, he also suffers from chronic not-able-to-pretend-he-isn't-a-liberal syndrome. I'm afraid it's terminal for political careers.

I don't really think the electorate is turned off by the whole false dichotomy of liberal/conservative. Most of us know that sometimes you need both, and we practice both strategies in our daily living. With the environment, and in my monetary affairs, I'm a hard line conservative, meaning conservation in it's truest sense. With controlling people/entities, and what they do, I'm liberal, in the truest sense of liberty.

Republican and Democrat are just brands, with competing Fund Raisers/Managers, and they farm funds from the same people (and often a person/company will give money to both sides to hedge garnering favor from the winners). Individuals who are elected in the USA don't really act very diversely within the political spectrum. Unfortunately, we've allowed politics to become a lucrative profession, rather than an act of selfless public service.

I think the another problem we have is... we have a list of very complicated problems that we are unwilling to solve for ourselves, and so instead we expect big daddy government to solve them for us. Once our government convinced itself that it would be better at resolving problems enmasse, than allowing individuals the freedom/responsibility for solving their own problems, we have sown the seeds of perpetual discontent. Each solution the government enforces leaves a sizable discontented portion of the population. When you layer the hundreds, if not thousands of issues we've heaped onto the government to resolve, we each end up with our burden of discontent (ignoring those parts we find acceptable). It is just human nature to focus on what we dislike and try to change it.

My particular view is that we should attempt to reduce the burden of responsibility on government, reducing its cost, and empowering the people to choose solutions that are best for themselves. I feel the government should focus on only those things that if ignored result in social disharmony, or harm, such as lack of standardization, crime, and environmental damage. I think the electorate is mostly upset that our elected politicians become a part of the problem, rather than represent the peoples desires in attempting to work out a solution (which is often an edict, when an edict is not necessary). When they stop bickering long enough to actually craft a solution, it is often twisted to further benefit the privileged class (who provided the election funding), at the expense of the majority (unless by majority you mean net worth).

You need to look no further than the example of Mort Zuckerman (even though he is a part of the privileged class) to see this in action. As a politician, you can force the masses "to eat cake", but when you disenchant the privileged class (who use their money and influence to mold public opinion) you lose elections.

[Jester]

I'm guessing that every topic makes an adequate springboard for the Great Libertarian Rant?

-Jester

[kandrathe]

I'm guessing that every topic makes an adequate springboard for the Great Libertarian Rant?

Not... every... topic. My cat threw up on the carpet this morning, and she drinks from the toilet, even though she has a freshly scrubbed luxury kitty fountain in the kitchen.

[DeeBye]

Not... every... topic. My cat threw up on the carpet this morning, and she drinks from the toilet, even though she has a freshly scrubbed luxury kitty fountain in the kitchen.

Your cat prefers the drinking from a socialist water source. How does that make you feel?

[kandrathe]

Your cat prefers the drinking from a socialist water source. How does that make you feel?

I'm conflicted. You know... To each their own... But, somehow I feel privileged in being able to use my opposable thumbs to work the faucet, and hold the cup. I have hominid guilt.

[--Pete]

Hi,

. . . my opposable thumbs . . .

You know, of course, that is the only reason cats domesticated us. The real history is that cats wanted mice, mice are attracted to grain, humans looked like they could be taught to grow grain, and so civilization was started. And 10,000 years later, we're still feeding the little beasties -- and still failing to come up to their expectations.

--Pete

[Jester]

You know, of course, that is the only reason cats domesticated us. The real history is that cats wanted mice, mice are attracted to grain, humans looked like they could be taught to grow grain, and so civilization was started. And 10,000 years later, we're still feeding the little beasties -- and still failing to come up to their expectations.

Is it coincidental that this was the plot to Futurama a couple weeks ago?

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

Is it coincidental that this was the plot to Futurama a couple weeks ago?

Yes. And (really) what is Futurama and should it be on my radar?

EDIT: Never mind. I just Wikied (my small contribution to the collapse of the English language) it. I don't like animated shows in general. Never cared for the Simpsons and South Park got boring after about a dozen episodes.

--Pete