One Especially Silly Aspect of the Ground Zero Mosque Fight:
–The mosque would be an “unnecessary provocation.” (Sarah Palin)
–“It’s not about religion, and is clearly an aggressive act that is offensive.” (Newt Gingrich)
–Abe Foxman said in an interview on Friday that the organization came to the conclusion that the location was offensive to families of victims of Sept. 11.
Are these not the exact same sentiments that were voiced by people who thought that Salman Rushdie should not have published The Satanic Verses, and that Danish newspapers should not have run cartoons featuring The Prophet Muhammad? The idea that people have some sort of right not to be offended is one the many silly and pernicious things about these arguments.
My first reaction to the story, or the idea of an Islamic cultural center, etc., at that that particular location was offensive. I am admittedly not a person who is very well disposed to the Islamic religion, and my attitude toward religion as a whole is biased toward personal disinterest at best. Upon further review I can see a pragmatic medium/long-term case for the center’s existence for a variety of reasons. More broadly I think there are more important things (e.g., our fiscal situation!) which we might focus on. And I think using the current laws in place to block the construction of the cultural center is not in the broadly liberal tradition of the United States when it comes to religion.
But the specific opinion about the cultural center is not the primary issue here. Rather, I do believe that there is something to be said here for the elevation of perceived offense at the center of our culture. My friends on the Left tend to be very indulgent/understanding of offense on the part of women and minorities. The far Left has been preeminent in constructing the concept of Hate Speech, which operationally seems to be a secular form of blasphemy. One issue which has been communicated to me is that people’s feelings and visceral responses, their perception of the object or action to which they take offense, has to be taken seriously, no matter if you judge the response meritorious or not. You don’t know their experience, and their perceptions of discomfort are tangible and real negative outcomes.
The response to the “Ground Zero Mosque” indicates that this really isn’t the ultimate core of the Left’s acceptance of the code of sensitivity. Rather, there are particular things that one can acceptability be offended by, and other things which one should not be offended by. The “post modern” interpretation is actually simply a superficial gloss over the reality that there are things we value, bright lines we draw, and those which we do not value, and bright lines we do not draw. The cultural Left seems to find the cultural Right’s offense without merit, open to deep criticism of motive, etc. Some of the criticism is grounded in lines of argumentation which I find plausible. Much of the logic against the cultural center seems post hoc rationalization of a conclusion which derives from an emotional response. But the genuine, if often inchoate, offense of many cultural conservatives, is the target of skepticism, contempt and dismissal. That’s because the values of cultural conservatives are in a deep way perceived to be wrong, without value, on the cultural Left. The fact that some people have different values is without value or importance. The Left lives in just as black and white a moral universe as the Right; the color coding is just different.
The “Ground Zero Mosque” affair then shines a light on the reality that America is a large nation, with diverse values and priorities. What may be offensive in one part of the nation is not offensive in another, and vice versa. For a unitary political order this is a long term structural problem.
This pretty much coincides with my opinion. The First Amendment guarantees the right to build mosques; NYC architectural guidelines regulate the look of the city’s skyline. So we have to let them open a mosque, but not to have a direct line-of-sight to the Ground Zero destruction zone.
That way, visitors to the WTC site don’t have to look up and see a mosque; and any radical Islamists that visit Cordoba House can’t look down with satisfaction on the destruction done in their name.
To my mind, the Ground Zero mosque is yet another example of Muslim aggressiveness. I do not believe that the people seeking to build the mosque approve of the 9/11 attacks, or that they support violence against non-Muslims. I do believe though that ultimately the reason they want to build the mosque in the proposed location is precisely because it will be offensive and painful to so many Americans.
This is because the real point they want to make with the mosque is that Islam is above criticism. That Islam has an absolute right to build anywhere. That the pain that many 9/11 families will feel on account of the mosque is illegitimate. That Americans in general, and the families of 9/11 victims in particular, have no right to any negative feelings about Islam, or to associate “true” Islam (as opposed to the false Islam of the attackers) with anything bad. Building the mosque is such an in-your-face sort of thing to do, and I think everybody understands this at some level, and that’s what the fight is really about.
I wonder if you were intending to refer to Political Correctness instead of Hate Speech.
Comparing the Cordoba House to Hate Speech may be a poor equivalence. The arguments against hate speech go beyond mere offense and go into concerns about encouraging violence, discrimination, and intimidation against certain groups. The comparison would be appropriate if the Cordoba House becomes a forum for such speech.
A better comparison would be to controversies related to the public display of the Confederate Battle Flag. Most of the proponents may not intend to secede from the union or bring back slavery, but the imagery still remains offensive to many.
Of course, the best comparison might be to found in the criticisms of Everybody Draw Muhammed Day.
Of course, the best comparison might be to found in the criticisms of Everybody Draw Muhammed Day.
yes, that’s what i had in mind.
re: “hate speech,” you’re right…but i’ve seen liberals use the term in a very slippery manner colloquially. i’ve heard people say that pro-life marches should be banned for “hate speech” since they make women fearful.
Upon further review I can see a pragmatic medium/long-term case for the center’s existence for a variety of reasons.
I’m just dying to hear the reasons why the US/NY should let their outspoken enemies build a monument to themselves in or near the location of one of their cowardly “victories” (victory=destruction). If anything, US/NY should be using RICO laws against these primitive, violent, coniving asshats.
I’m just dying to hear the reasons why the US/NY should let their outspoken enemies
some people don’t characterize them as “outspoken enemies.” i could be deceived and you could be an expert, or your assumption could be that muslim = enemy. if so, having a discussion is kind of retarded since the initial presuppositions are likely to vary 🙂 if there is a liberal media conspiracy which has deceived me as to islamist nature of the people behind the cultural center, i don’t think it’s important enough an issue to invest time to unveil the conspiracy. there’s stuff like science and economics of more interest and importance to me.
the primitive part is gratuitous. most humans are primitive alas.
Hmm. There are two worldviews here.
1) Western pluralism is strength – the idea that we are embracing a oppositional culture and this shows how strong we are
2) Second worldview is more primitive. It’s tribal. The tribe which attacked the West is looking on to see if we build a monument to their God in the middle of the city they attacked . Tribalists opposed to the Mosque are arguing the same way.
By all tribal standards building a mosque would be a declaration of weakness, not strength.
since humans dont evolve much I go with number two. The people who believe number 1 need about 20 years of education from age 4 to believe that weakness is strength, even then it wont work unless the last few years are in sociology class, or something similar.
To the primitive mind within us all this is a tribe declaring victory. There is very little the West can do there except plead “offence” – a fairly womanly cry. We let mosques be built elsewhere, why not there? The 19th century would have an answer and it would ban all mosques.
Forty years after the Soixant Huits started their idiotic long march we have no response to violence but appeasement.
There are two worldviews here.
no. the easiest way to predefine your conclusion is to constrain the set of possibilities. the options aren’t so stark.
The dumber humans are, on average, more primitive than the smarter humans. Average IQ in Middle Eastern countries is quite a bit lower than Europe. Hence Islam is more primitive and dangerous. All the more reason to keep its believers out of the West.
I am still waiting for someone to explain to me what parameters Christians and Jews are supposed to use to define the Muslim-frei zone in Southern Manhattan. Isn’t that what we are talking about, at least as to houses of worship, community centers and the like?
Every other day I turn on the news lunatic Islamists are blowing up people in or on their way to mosques in Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan, wherever–conflating their acts with Islam generally is so obviously stupid that I have a hard time excusing it even in the dumbest, most retrograde segment of the American public. These Islamist lunatics are obviously just as happy killing Muslims are they are anybody else. Why “we” feel the need to wrap ourselves up in some special victimhood, premised on an obvious lie, is just fascinating.
I have a hard time excusing it even in the dumbest, most retrograde segment of the American public.
Then don’t excuse it. It’s not we could give two ****s what you think anyhow, SWPL.
Felix, Most Muslims live near other Muslims. So it is easier for them to kill other Muslims who they see as allied with non-believers or in opposing sects.
Special victimhood? Does victimhood have to be unique in some way for it to matter?
no. the easiest way to predefine your conclusion is to constrain the set of possibilities. the options aren’t so stark.
Well, then. Those are the opposing viewpoints along a continuum.
Religions survive on faith. No better way to confirm the faith of the followers than witnessing the miraculous works of a God who has helped you strike a blow against an immensly powerul enemy and build a monument to him in their land.
Because Muhammed admitted being possessed by Satan on at least two occasions, and attempted to commit suicide at least twice–stopped by his first wife–along with killing every Jew on the planet before Judgment day can come, Islam is not a religion. It is a Cult, founded by Satan, through a demon possessed man.
The Founding Fathers were too busy founding the nation to investigate what Islam really is.
There isn’t a shred of doubt, the framers would outlaw Islam, declare all its 7th century Arabian customs illegal, and deport anyone practicing it.
Islam isn’t from Heaven as Muhammed claimed, every aspect can be explained from pre-islamic culture from: worshipping at the kabah, the temple of the moon-good al ilah(allah), running around it and throwing stones at the devil, praying towards the kabah to honor Arabia, pilgrammage to the kabah to make money for the arabians, fasting at the appearing of the crescent moon, wearing clothes as 7th century arabians did, and forbidding usury as the pagans did.
Islam is a Satanic death cult, where the religion, customs, and culture, of the pagan moon-god cult of al alah(the chief god at the kabah) is elevated to the status of Divine Law.
This is why crescent moons are on islamic nations’ flags, and on top of their mosques.
Muslims are worshipping the moon-god of the kabah. Their temples have been excavated before Muslims came to power. Not one islamic country has a democracy, since the pagan arabs were controlled by despots, or strongmen, who controlled who lived and died.
I’m sure glad this thread has given conservatives the opportunity to express their feelings. Maybe there’s something to the theory of “keep it bottled up”?