Obama endorses the Ground Zero mosque

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Obama endorses the Ground Zero mosque

Obama keeps on screwing up and committing political suicide to boot. Here's the sad news:

Obama's comments take mosque story national

By JAMES HOHMANN & MAGGIE HABERMAN & MIKE ALLEN

August 14, 2010

Politico

From the article:

President Barack Obama on Saturday sought to defuse the controversy over his remarks on plans to build a mosque near Ground Zero, insisting that he wasn't endorsing the specific project but making a general plea for religious tolerance toward all.

. . .

Obama himself had steered clear of the issue for weeks, with his spokesman Robert Gibbs telling reporters that it was primarily a local issue. But at a Friday White House Iftar dinner, Obama said that while he understands Ground Zero is "hallowed ground," he told a group of Muslims that he believes they have "the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in the country."

"And that includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in Lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances," he said.

Here is another view on this issue:

The most important thing said about the proposed mosque is that its creation would not be a religious act, it would be a political act.

What Barbara said.

There is a good side to this political act, though. Call it an unintended consequence. From the Politico article again:

Obama has put Democrats from coast to coast in the tough position of having to weigh in on an issue they'd rather duck. Prior to his speech, a few candidates tried with limited success to make the proposed mosque an issue outside of the tri-state area around New York City. Now any Democrat facing an election – less than three months away – can be put in the uncomfortable position of being asked to reject the president's unpopular stand or side with him.

In other words, the political statement in itself is a spit into the face of America, given the history and nature of the people behind the project. Even other Sufi Muslims think this is a bad idea and they have been in the mainstream news about it.

But the political statement in terms of the election is like a person being thrown overboard into a lake with his feet in a bucket of hardened cement. This will prompt many voters who were otherwise on the fence to vote to throw the bums out--or better yet, overboard--just because of that political statement.

I grieve for the families who are outraged. I am glad for the impact on the upcoming election, but glad with a heavy heart.

Michael

[Philip Coates]

Michael, the only good thing about the mosque is it has made Obama cause himself and his party damage in the very important upcoming election.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Phil,

Didn't I just say that?

(rereading)

Yup.

I did just say that.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Overall, from all causes, the damage will be unbelievable. As a bonus, this is now a one-term President--guaranteed.

--Brant

[blackhorse]

Obama has just sealed the fate of the Dem's in November and any chance for a re-election in '12 (which I doubt he'll even seek a 2nd term) What a pathetic disgrace to the USA. And I thought Carter was a p.o.s.

Edited August 15, 2010 by blackhorse

[9thdoctor]

Please explain why you deride posters on OO by telling them that they would “fit in” on OL, while you continue to post here.

http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php?showtopic=19448&view=findpost&p=259290

[Rich Engle]

Please explain why you deride posters on OO by telling them that they would "fit in" on OL, while you continue to post here.

http://forum.objecti...ndpost&p=259290

Uh-oh. Cookies. Cookie Jar. Fingers. OOPS!

Wow. I read it. Rather unsportsmanlike. I feel so...*sob*, violated .

You know, I will never understand that stuff. I don't remember if I ever did it, but if I did it was a very long time ago. By "that" I mean habitating on several forums and, you know, doing THAT THING. But nonetheless, better keep on thread topic here, which is far more disturbing.

rde

Stick it in and twist it.

[blackhorse]

ND, if you've read the posts, including your own on this topic, more posters support the mosque at OL than don't. I was stating a fact at OO. There was no derision in my comment - though I can see why you would think that.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

ND, if you've read the posts, including your own on this topic, more posters support the mosque at OL than don't. I was stating a fact at OO. There was no derision in my comment - though I can see why you would think that.

blackhorse,

Heh.

I appreciate your enthusiasm for OL and wish to become the poster-boy for the discussions regarding the mosque here.

btw - Where did you get the information that "more posters support the mosque at OL than don't." I have the exact opposite impression, starting with this very thread you now posted on.

Michael

[9thdoctor]

But nonetheless, better keep on thread topic here, which is far more disturbing.

I don’t see what the big deal is about Obama making a statement in favour of letting Cordoba go forward. It’s a better idea for the president to stay out of local issues where he (properly) has no say, but its still nothing unusual. I can’t say if it will lose him votes, or win them.

It’s good to see Mr. Christensen getting shredded on OO as well as here for his statements on Islam, but now there’s some other twit over there knocking the OL gay marriage thread, where I find Ted’s arguments interesting and challenging (hardly “uninformed”, as the OO commenter says).

There was no derision in my comment - though I can see why you would think that.

So I’m misreading your subtexts? On another OL thread you wrote that this forum should be called “Libertarian Living”, or some such. I feel it’s easy to read the subtext there, you mean libertarian in the Peter Schwartz floating abstraction sense, the one that hardly applies to a single intellectual, and you mean it derisively. No? In any event, fine, substitute libertarian for Spartacus:

FWIW, I do like what I’ve seen from CapitalistSwine on that thread.

"more posters support the mosque at OL than don't." I have the exact opposite impression, starting with this very thread you now posted on.

I don’t like the word “support” in this context. I’d rather say “don’t oppose”. I don’t support any church anywhere. I’ve been meaning one of these days to put together a piece arguing that the US is where religions come to get civilized, building on Voltaire’s line about how one religion is tyranny, two is civil war, three or more and you can develop a secular society. It’s not a slam dunk case (e.g. the Balkans), but it has been our experience in the US (the Mormon war notwithstanding, though that one arguably supports the case).

Edited August 15, 2010 by Ninth Doctor

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dennis,

I cannot speak for everyone here, but I believe that Barbara's notion of distinguishing between a religious statement and a political one is reasonable enough for many to agree with.

Thus, based on this, I imagine most (or at least many) OL readers are not against the mosque as a religious statement, but are against it as a political one.

And I base my judgment on the people backing it. In fact, I'm with Glenn Beck, when he said something about a Canadian Muslim congresswoman that Bill O'Reilly interviewed (I don't recall her name right now). She talked against building the mosque, expressed her heartfelt feelings for the people who lost loved ones in the murderous 9/11 attack, and stated that causing harsh feelings for neighbors is against the spirit of her understanding of Islam. Beck said if she wanted to build a mosque there, he was all for it and would even contribute.

Of course, given the present climate, she never would--and I don't really need to say I would not contribute. But I think the religion versus politics message Beck was making is clear--and it is essentially Barbara's message. That is exactly where I find myself.

And I believe many others think the same way.

"Us against them" people like Christensen (blackhorse) often make statements and efforts to derail rational thought and start the rivalry "us against them" crap they are committed to. I used to share that mentality when I was younger. These were not my finer moments and I'm glad I got out of thinking and acting like that. It's a sorry-ass method for looking at reality.

Michael

[9thdoctor]

I believe that Barbara's notion of distinguishing between a religious statement and a political one is reasonable enough for many to agree with.

What is the political statement being made? You can’t mean “Victory Mosque” or such, intentionally rubbing victims noses in excrement, as the Ed Cline’s are characterizing it.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dennis,

No. I don't go in for caricatures. Some people actually do feel the way Cline says, but I don't think that their feelings reflect the nature of what drives the people behind this project.

The political statement is more akin to misinformation. Under the umbrella of "religious freedom," people who are actively trying to undermine the USA (and please look them up) are trying to establish an educational center and are trying to erect a public image as peace-bringers. The misinformation is the public bait-and-switch with the victims of the 9/11 attack.

The story they are trying to sell to the public is that people who oppose the mosque are actually not interested in peace or rights. That the real victim is them.

It's a way to help neutralize the outrage Americans feel about the 9/11 attack. Look at the subtext of this message. They don't explicitly say it, but you keep seeing an attempt to paint the critics, and by extension the families of murdered victims, as morally flawed human beings who want to deny rights based on bigotry--with the true moral people being them.

It's an "us against them" political statement and has nothing to do with exercising rights. The "exercising rights" part is simply an opportunity that appeared and the nasty folks grabbed it.

Let's put it this way, by analogy. Supposing a "peace-bringing" nonprofit group with somewhat-known covert ties to the FSB (the successor of the KGB in Russia) wanted to build an educational center themed on communist theory and history right next to the West Point academy. Wouldn't you think it reasonable to take a closer look at them before allowing them to exercise their "rights"? Even though their documents are in order, they are led by a kindly-looking leader, and they say they "come in peace"?

The political statement of building the mosque at Ground Zero is to present a monumental Trojan Horse to the American people.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

As a further thought to my post above, notice how Cline and other bigots, who claim that the real problem is evil Islam, are actually useful idiots aiding the agenda of the nasty folks (the ones who are organized and trying to undermine the USA). They give the nasty folks the moral high ground through their bigotry.

By using blatantly bigoted arguments, they actually pave the way for the Trojan Horse to come on in.

Michael

[sjw]

It's an "us against them" political statement and has nothing to do with exercising rights.

People have a right to make political statements using property they own. And even if it is political statement some regard as offensive. Maybe I don't understand your point.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Shayne,

People have rights, of course. That does not mean they have a right to set up camp to indoctrinate folks into overthrowing the USA government. That is what needs to be looked at.

Rights are protected by a government within a context. The bulk of that context is peace. It is downright stupid to protect your destroyer's mission to destroy you on principle. That's called turning the other cheek to evil.

I'm not even calling for the mosque to be stopped sight unseen. I am calling for the people behind it to be brought out of the shadows so an open assessment can be made as to whether they are intending malice or not. The things that have been reported about them are not cool at all.

In other words, I think we should have a peek inside that Trojan Horse before anyone gives it leave to enter the city and take roots in one of New York's most important regions.

It's already a stretch to allow malicious folks to set up shop at all in the USA and call that "rights." But allowing them to do it at a national shrine steps outside common sense so far that we might as well make "sacrificial animal" our national symbol.

The USA government already does some dumb-ass things like arming enemies to the teeth (free trade and capitalism after all). Then they later wonder why their own bullets are flying at USA soldiers and citizens. There is no need to be that dumb at a national shrine.

Michael

[sjw]

People have rights, of course. That does not mean they have a right to set up camp to indoctrinate folks into overthrowing the USA government. That is what needs to be looked at.

If that is what is happening then I agree. But those who say it is happening bear the burden of proof. Further, if Islam is tantamount to overthrowing the US government in order to establish Sharia, then it should be made illegal as such, and all Mosques should be gotten rid of, not just this one.

Edit: I regard myself as mostly ignorant on the substance of Islam and its differences with Christianity. But I am alarmed at the apparent lack of concern about rule of law implied by singling out one mosque and not allowing it to be built.

Edited August 16, 2010 by sjw

[Libertarian Muslim]

Okay, I have met the Sheikh who is building this mosque, he's certainly not trying to indoctrinate people to overthrow the US government.. In fact he's trying to build bridges with the initiatives he's set up like the Cordoba Initiative.. He's a gentle and kind man, who cares about justice and doing the right thing.. He is most certainly against any form of attacks on unarmed and innocent civilians and to associate him and his goals with that of Al Qaeda, alleging it's some kind of Victory mosque is downright offensive.. The extremists have made life more difficult for muslims than for anyone else..

[sjw]

The extremists have made life more difficult for muslims than for anyone else..

This is a tangential point, but if your beliefs do not permit taking them to the extreme, then those beliefs are wrong. As Ayn Rand said, "extremism" is a smear word and a cover for mealy-mouthed pragmatism.

Back on the main topic, from what I have seen in the last decade, 9/11 and the War on Terror has primarily been used as a pretext to usurp the rights of Americans and further eviscerate the Bill of Rights, just as the War on Drugs before it. The facts are clear: the biggest financial and existential threat to Americans are not terrorists or Muslims, it is their own government. I am very skeptical of that this "wedge issue" has any merit whatsoever, rather, it looks to me like the US slipping over the precipice and into Nazi territory.

I am open to being convinced otherwise, but again, the burden of proof lies squarely upon those who are arguing for stripping Muslims of their rights.

[Rich Engle]

My tendency is to agree with what Adonis said about it. But good faith might not make it work.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

More coming on this. I will be trying to piece together Rauf's ties to radical Islamism--or abandon the effort and report that if I cannot find anything really convincing..

Rauf's father was a radical Islamist (Muslim Brotherhood), but that doesn't mean he is. However it does mean he knows many of them as friends of his father.

There are some odd things between CAIR and him I have come across, but I need to check to make sure they are being presented correctly.

Also, there are discrepancies between what he says to the American world and what he says to the Arab world. (For example, that "no religious dialog" position he said over there as opposed to need for religious dialog over here honked loudly, and there are other discrepancies.)

But still, this is a man with an appealing facade.

I think it is wise to make sure the substance underneath aligns with the surface.

btw - I came across an interesting piece of information, but I need to verify it. Apparently, once a mosque is in place, it is prohibited in Islam for nonbelievers to close it. The way this was presented, once the mosque goes up, it has to stay up and stay up as a mosque. If for some reason the city government intervenes, this will prompt widespread tumult in the Muslim community.

Like I said, I need to check this..

Michael

[blackhorse]

I could tolerate living with hash smoking sufi's.

[Libertarian Muslim]

I think the building of that mosque would benefit the US in ways you could never imagine..

Right now, extremists who are trying to fear monger Muslims into believing that the US is at war with Islam and trying to destroy it are having their job be made to look much easier.. But if such a mosque was allowed to be built after such intense and heated debate, it would serve as an example of the beauty of what the US is about.. About religious freedom, the freedom of expression and the belief that all people are equal regardless of their religion, color or race.. There could be no greater undermining of extremist preaching than this mosque being built..

Whilst I don't like everything Obama does, I do believe he said the right thing.. That this is not about judgment as to whether it's the wisest of ideas.. Rather it's about whether they have the right to build this mosque..

[Libertarian Muslim]

Rauf's father was a radical Islamist (Muslim Brotherhood), but that doesn't mean he is. However it does mean he knows many of them as friends of his father.

There are some odd things between CAIR and him I have come across, but I need to check to make sure they are being presented correctly.

Oh man, seriously Michael?

In Egypt during that time.. You were considered Muslim Brotherhood if you simply had a beard or went to the Mosque to pray.. You were arrested for nothing, and speaking out against the government that is a dictatorship was severely punishable..

Even today there are soldiers outside of Mosques to make sure that if you pray in the mosque at prayer time, you leave straight away afterwards and if you don't, they arrest you and torture you..

Abdul Rauf is a Sufi.. Not a Salafi..

Also, there are discrepancies between what he says to the American world and what he says to the Arab world. (For example, that "no religious dialog" position he said over there as opposed to need for religious dialog over here honked loudly, and there are other discrepancies.)

But still, this is a man with an appealing facade.

I think it is wise to make sure the substance underneath aligns with the surface.

I saw him in Qatar, all he talked about was religious dialogue and the need for it..

However, having said that.. I don't really believe that there is a need for religious dialogue between Christians and Muslims in most of the Middle East (barring the Gulf) as much as there is in the West.. I lived in Syria, visited Turkey and Lebanon and saw Muslims and Christians get along beautifully.. I do think there's a need for relationships between other religious groups such as between Jews and Christians, Jews and Muslims and other religions too..

Outside the St Georges Church in Syria, an old priest, believing I was a Christian from the West stopped me and begged for me to listen to him.. He told me that Christians and Muslims are not at war like the we're led to believe in the West, that they get along well and have great love for each other.. They attend the same functions and help each other in times of need..

btw - I came across an interesting piece of information, but I need to verify it. Apparently, once a mosque is in place, it is prohibited in Islam for nonbelievers to close it. The way this was presented, once the mosque goes up, it has to stay up and stay up as a mosque. If for some reason the city government intervenes, this will prompt widespread tumult in the Muslim community.

Like I said, I need to check this..

Michael

Hmmm what group would look kindly to non adherents closing down their places of worship? What if Christians closed down a center devoted to spreading the ideas of Ayn Rand because they disagreed with it?

Having said that, there have been both mosques and churches that have been closed down because there were no rights to build them in the first place, ie no council approval and no zoning for it.. We don't have objections for that providing the law is equal and fair..

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Adonis,

I know Rauf is Sufi. I have talked about this in another place.

And I also notice that several high-profile Sufis are speaking out against his project, saying that it violates the principles of Sufism, since it causes such hard feelings in neighbors. And this was before the present media blow-up about it.

I can post links if you like but all this is mainstream.

I am still going to look into Rauf's father. I don't find brushing aside the Muslim Brotherhood very compelling.

Michael