Today there was a very disturbing piece on Huffington Post by
Director, Faith Voices for the Common Good
about how heinous the opposition to the Ground Zero Mosque is; here are my comments, I am not sure if the HP will allow them through the censors, second try now…
“In attacking Park51, the Cordoba Initiative’s Islamic cultural center, the Geller-Palin-Gingrich-Beck-FOX syndicate has suddenly hallowed an old Burlington Coat Factory that lies two blocks from Ground Zero."
Here we have a wholesale acceptance of the Mosque promoters terminology, un-biased is not even in this woman’s vocabulary; then we get demonization of ALL opposition to the Mosque with a grab-bag of Left-Loves-to-Hate names, making sure the sheeple give the proper responses to her "facts"; then a wind up with the completely fallacious statement that "suddenly" the site became associated with Ground Zero, which is actually blocks away.
To start with, according to public statements on a number of occasions by both Khan and Rauf the fact that the building was rendered uninhabitable BY 9/11, by the actual landing gear of one of the planes, that made it "perfect" for their project, and that 9/11 was a "sign from God" that the time (and place) had come to move on their plans. Park51 is not NEAR Ground Zero, it IS Ground Zero!
So, other than identifying certain parties as all opposing the Mosque (a list with its own purpose; polarizing the readership against all opponents) the entire sentence above is FALSE and misleading!
“Yet it appears that Ground Zero itself is suffering their neglect. They’ve failed to condemn the tacky souvenir stand and Burger King across the street from it, or the porn shops closer than Park51.”
Souvenir dealers and Strippers are preaching the destruction of Western Values? Sellers of cheap stuff stamped I heart NY and wearers of sequined pasties are now committed to the area because they wish to stick it is the face of those who died on 9/11? Man, I need to watch more TV News; I am missing all the facts it seems… or am I just looking at the RELEVANT facts?
Did the souvenir stand or Burger King CHOOSE their spots after 9/11 BECAUSE, according to PUBLIC statements, of 9/11? Did those sites only become condemned because of pieces of 9/11 airplane striking them? No? Then stop pretending it has meaning in the debate!
“Of course, this sudden reverence for one spot near Ground Zero is crass political opportunism.”
Sudden? It was KHAN and RAUF who first talked about the site being chosen for religious reasons associated with 9/11!! What part of 1+1 = 2 don’t you GET?
“But there are things worth hallowing that the syndicate won’t mention because these things don’t serve their nefarious purposes.”
When did YOU protest the fact that the City of NY has denied the Greek Orthodox Church, the only religious structure destroyed in 9/11, permission to rebuild ANYWHERE in NY City; let alone on their old site?
Spencer and Geller and Fox have mentioned it; are they more “fair and balanced” than you are?
“In the face of the unspeakable tragedy of 9/11, most of us wanted to do something, anything, to help.”
This is true, but why do you insist on calling it a tragedy, instead of an atrocity? Tragedies happen; atrocities are committed; which is 9/11 in your mind?
“With so much anti-Muslim hate being spewed in the name of 9/11 right now, we must remember the sacred things that happened on September 12, 2001. On that day in Tehran, Iran, thousands of people gathered in the city’s streets with candles, standing in silence and sorrow for the people of the U.S. They were not alone.”
No, but they were alone when they went out into the streets and protested their government’s dirty politics and repressions! The Lefties sat that one out, can’t interfere you know, even with words of encouragement!
You also miss noting the fact that the Iranian PEOPLE are among the most secular and progressive in the Middle East, despite a government that is structured so as to give all the final control to the fundamentalist Mullahs. The People of Iran are enslaved by a regime that would gladly see them all burn in nuclear fire if they could significantly advance the cause of Islam in the world, at least as they see it.
Why can’t you see that Islamists really do believe in a kind of “faith” that is just like the worst of the Christian supremacist theology that you are so terrified of, but that is almost totally UN-moderated by Enlightenment reformations that have mellowed Christians down considerably in the last 300 years.
“Two of my favorite atheists who started out Christians, Friedrich Nietzsche and Ludwig Feuerbach, challenged belief in authoritarian monotheism.”
Charming, I too have issues with authoritarian monotheism, but fall far short of admiring the creator of the “overman”; dead and unwilling he might have been but the Nazis and fascists DID use his work at a foundation and springboard for their own “philosophies”! And Feuerbach; by all means let us honor the inspiration of Marx and Engles; though they f0ound him inconsistent in his materialistic atheism!
And what is THIS lie all about?
“Nietzsche, who opposed all forms of fascism, religious and political, including Nazism…”
Say WHAT? Neither Fascism, nor Nazism EXISTED as movements when Nietzsche died in 1800; the names had yet to even be coined, let alone having amassed any influence to oppose! It would be more fair to say he opposed totalitarian thought instead; your statement as written makes you look either ignorant, or like a bald-faced liar.
“..At the same time, we strive to hold each other accountable for being our best selves, knowing that others care about us.
Some religious communities fail — miserably.”
So then, WHY do you mainly highlight the failings of Mainstream Judeo-Christian faiths; and virtually NEVER highlight the Islamic actions that fall short?
“They or their clergy can be as dysfunctional or criminal as abusive families; theirs are the stories we hear about in the media. We don’t usually hear about the successes, the many thousands of ordinary, everyday mosques, temples, synagogues, covens, meeting houses, circles, and churches that manage to be decent, creative, life-sustaining communities that reweave the sacred tapestry of compassion and love.”
This is only half true: what about the LACK of voices protesting such things in certain religious communities? Are you silent when you hear of the abuse of minor girls in supposedly “Mormon” households? If a fundamentalist “exorcises” his kid to death are you “understanding of his cultural imperatives”? If a Baptist Church board announces that women should submit to the authority of the husband do you shrug and chalk it up to a different way to cherish the family? If a “Christian” psycho bombs an abortion clinic do you blame the pent up “humiliations and provocations committed by the clinic”? (By the way I in no way endorse that interpretation, I have my own take on the abortion debate)
In the summer of 2008, a group of us in the Bay Area, tired of two long wars and wanting to do more than protest, had a conversation about how to prevent a third war.
“This year, the attack on Park51 has stirred up anti-Muslim hatred and violence across the country.”
No my dear, 9/11 stirred up recognition that Islamists are not thinking in the same box as we are when they talk about what is “holy” or not; they are speaking about something closer to what Fred Phelps means when he says those words!
“Strengthening relationships among Muslims and others living in our communities is a sacred act of friendship. Care for our neighbors, empathy for those who suffer, courage to resist hate — these ordinary acts hallow our expanding circle of humanity and bless the world. That’s what I know is sacred.”
Too bad you feel that you must extend this to everyone EXCEPT the members of your own culture! Try actual objectivity some time, it tastes a lot better than that synthetic, diet version YOU endorse!