Obama endorses the Ground Zero mosque

[Philip Coates]

Subject: Rules of Evidence

> I will be trying to piece together Rauf's ties to radical Islamism-

Michael, make sure not just to check right-leaning sources (NewsMax, National Review, WSJ) or left-leaning sources (New York Times and rest of the mainstream media). You have to be very careful when you are reading what 'authorities' claim are 'facts'. Example: "Global Warming". I find objectivity and fairness and rules of evidence are difficult to find.

If you find exact quotes from the man - and they are lengthy enough that one can see the full context - that would be one source of objective evidence. What Adonis and others favorably inclined to Islam or to clerics report they think he stands for and what bystanders unfavorably inclined to Islam or to clerics think he stands for is not much proof of anything.

[sjw]

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

It won't teach Americans to be principled, at best it will acclimate them to be more accepting of Islam in particular. Nothing of fundamental significance would have changed. I also don't trust the motives of anyone who advocates a belief system based on faith (those goes for all religions not just Islam). Once they obtain a majority, they will naturally oppress, as both history and logic attest. It would be better to build a church of Reason there.

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..

I agree, and so far I think they do have the right, but I am also open to opening the case about whether they in fact may not have the right on the grounds that their ultimate aim is to make Sharia the law of the land (just as I would be open to denying rights of Christians on the grounds that they want the Ten Commandments to be the law of the land).

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Michael, make sure not just to check right-leaning sources...

Phil,

I appreciate your concern, but if you have been attentive in following my writing, you will notice that I am very careful about citing neutral sources, or identifying when a source leans in a particular direction. I often tick off hardliners by calling organizations like Jihad Watch overly-biased.

I'm surprised you imagine that I run the risk of of citing only right-wing sources.

(And on global warming, maybe you missed the explosion when I tried to look at Gore's movie from an "identify-first-then-judge" perspective and insisted on not taking sides until I had seen--and understood--the evidence on both sides. It was a pretty ugly discussion--and a long one--at the time.)

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

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..

Egypt's political and social future is the giant unknown in Middle Eastern politics.

The Ground Zero Mosque is simply a political question. It is engaging the alligator brains of Americans and it won't get built. There's no one to physically build it because the unions are much too powerful in NYC. The political devastation for the Democrats is through the roof and Obama has guaranteed he won't even be re-nominated in 2012.

We are living in years unmatched for America since the great depression, the Civil War and the Revolution in terms of difficulty and strife. Most Americans are yet to learn that the basic damage has been done and, I'm afraid, that the Republicans really aren't up to fixing things. The country has no fallback surplus in applicable brains, courage and wealth. The chickens of short-term political expediencies are coming home to roost.

--Brant

[Philip Coates]

> if you have been attentive in following my writing, you will notice that I am very careful about citing neutral sources

Michael, I perhaps have not been as universally attentive to your every thread as in an ideal world I might have.

But had I known there was going to be a quiz....

[James Heaps-Nelson]

I think the next thing Obama should do is advocate the building of a 16 story Shinto shrine right next to Pearl Harbor in the name of peace and understanding...

Jim

[sjw]

I think the next thing Obama should do is advocate the building of a 16 story Shinto shrine right next to Pearl Harbor in the name of peace and understanding...

Jim

We finally learn Jim's secret identity: http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/d1s31/limbaugh_sarcastically_suggests_that_we_build_a

[James Heaps-Nelson]

I think the next thing Obama should do is advocate the building of a 16 story Shinto shrine right next to Pearl Harbor in the name of peace and understanding...

Jim

We finally learn Jim's secret identity: http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/d1s31/limbaugh_sarcastically_suggests_that_we_build_a

Nope, I haven't listened to Rush Limbaugh since the early '90's. The parallel is obvious. The reason why it won't happen is that most Japanese in the US are Buddhist, not Shinto.

Jim

[sjw]

Nope, I haven't listened to Rush Limbaugh since the early '90's. The parallel is obvious. The reason why it won't happen is that most Japanese in the US are Buddhist, not Shinto.

Jim

According to the link, it already did happen.

And anyway, your argument, and Limbaugh's, is an appeal to the tribe, not to moral principle.

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Nope, I haven't listened to Rush Limbaugh since the early '90's. The parallel is obvious. The reason why it won't happen is that most Japanese in the US are Buddhist, not Shinto.

Jim

According to the link, it already did happen.

And anyway, your argument, and Limbaugh's, is an appeal to the tribe, not to moral principle.

No, this is the United States, if someone wants to build a mosque in New York they can. That's different than the president advocating it. It's a matter of priorities. This president chose to stay silent when Iranian dissidents were being butchered and now he wants to weigh in on building a mosque near ground zero.

Jim

[sjw]

No, this is the United States, if someone wants to build a mosque in New York they can. That's different than the president advocating it. It's a matter of priorities. This president chose to stay silent when Iranian dissidents were being butchered and now he wants to weigh in on building a mosque near ground zero.

Jim

I don't know what "this is the United States" means or is supposed to mean when we've come to the point that Objectivists are calling for bombing mosques, ironically, in the name of fighting terrorism. Speaking of priorities, Obama's relatively sane remarks (in comparison to Peikoff's) are not the relevant story of interest here.

[James Heaps-Nelson]

No, this is the United States, if someone wants to build a mosque in New York they can. That's different than the president advocating it. It's a matter of priorities. This president chose to stay silent when Iranian dissidents were being butchered and now he wants to weigh in on building a mosque near ground zero.

Jim

I don't know what "this is the United States" means or is supposed to mean when we've come to the point that Objectivists are calling for bombing mosques, ironically, in the name of fighting terrorism. Speaking of priorities, Obama's relatively sane remarks (in comparison to Peikoff's) are not the relevant story of interest here.

Shayne, the title of this thread is Obama endorses ground zero mosque.

Jim

[sjw]

Shayne, the title of this thread is Obama endorses ground zero mosque.

Jim

Non-sequitor implication.

[James Heaps-Nelson]

No, this is the United States, if someone wants to build a mosque in New York they can. That's different than the president advocating it. It's a matter of priorities. This president chose to stay silent when Iranian dissidents were being butchered and now he wants to weigh in on building a mosque near ground zero.

Jim

I don't know what "this is the United States" means or is supposed to mean when we've come to the point that Objectivists are calling for bombing mosques, ironically, in the name of fighting terrorism. Speaking of priorities, Obama's relatively sane remarks (in comparison to Peikoff's) are not the relevant story of interest here.

I am not calling for bombing mosques. The fact that some Objectivists do is to their discredit. I do advocate resisting Iran's nuclear program, with force if necessary.

Jim

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

O'Reilly gave a good suggestion last night.

He said to go ahead and build the mosque, then set up court there and try Khalid Shaikh Mohammed in it.

Michael

[sjw]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/38731398#38731398

[Libertarian Muslim]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/38731398#38731398

Those were words that makes me want to be an American.. That exact attitude makes me want to spread the ideals of Liberty throughout the Muslim world and work hard at it..

[sjw]

Those were words that makes me want to be an American.. That exact attitude makes me want to spread the ideals of Liberty throughout the Muslim world and work hard at it..

Indeed.

If only Americans would consistently embrace the principles of liberty, their enemies would soften and lose credibility. But as it stands, and in spite of a few heroes here and there, America stands for hypocrisy, both at home and abroad. And Objectivists of the Peikoff ilk stand for elevating this hypocrisy as an Orwellian kind of virtue. Peikoff's latest rant about bombing mosques will surely discredit Objectivism as a movement, it is the last nail in the coffin of their demise into total pragmatism. It is ironic that Rand had fought tooth and nail to rip pragmatism out of Peikoff, only to have it reign supreme in his mind at the end.

[Greybird]

[...] And on global warming, maybe you missed the explosion when I tried to look at Gore's movie from an "identify-first-then-judge" perspective and insisted on not taking sides until I had seen — and understood — the evidence on both sides. It was a pretty ugly discussion — and a long one — at the time.

You're rewriting the past here. Nobody was, or is, against weighing genuine evidence. What was mostly at issue was that you gave Gore's mass-marketed, self-admitted-propaganda piece the same weight as careful dissections of the abuse and disregard of scientific standards — as if they were both equally valid potential evidence.

Epistemological rigor applies to identifying what is genuinely unbiased, objectively researched, clearly presented evidence. This comes well before one can even begin "judging" any such material. Nobody seemed to be able to persuade you of this, and that was one reason why the debate degenerated in quality.

Nonetheless, it was a debate, neither "ugly" nor any sort of "explosion" — that is, from any perspective other than your being "shocked, shocked" (Claude Rains in "Casablanca") at anyone's objecting to your lack of rigor.

This relates to the present controversy in that anyone who casts it as being about "a mosque at Ground Zero" — when it is neither a mosque nor at Ground Zero — is not being objective in approaching the issue, but propagandistic, no less than Gore was. (For that matter, it applies to talking about Obama, who endorsed religious freedom, not the "mosque.")

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

You're rewriting the past here. Nobody was, or is, against weighing genuine evidence. What was mostly at issue was that you gave Gore's mass-marketed, self-admitted-propaganda piece the same weight as careful dissections of the abuse and disregard of scientific standards — as if they were both equally valid potential evidence.

Steve,

I'm not rewriting history and you are doing it again.

How on earth was I--or anyone like me who didn't know--supposed to know IN ADVANCE OF LEARNING what was the difference between "careful dissections" and Gore's manipulations and those of respected scientists?

From the yelling?

Without looking at it first?

You gotta be kidding me.

I put it out there so I, and others like me, could learn. I said very clearly that this was my purpose and you guys ignored that then just as you are blanking it out now.

You guys did not want me to learn with my own mind. Instead of teaching, you wanted agreement sight unseen. It was a "look only at my side's stuff, don't you dare look at the other side unless you are prepared to throw stones" routine.

You want a link? Here: Inconvenient Truth versus Inconvenient Swindle

And here's a quote:

So here are some initial comments. Please do not consider any of these observations as completely formed views at this point. I am merely reporting on what I saw and my first conclusions on mulling all this over.

. . .

I simply don't know enough about the science involved at this point to fully endorse or condemn the man-made global warming theory.

And there's plenty more if that is not enough. Let readers read that thing and judge for themselves if they are interested.

In any examination I make where scientists (or other experts) are yelling at each other and people are playing the intimidation game (which was played in spades by Gore-critics on that thread), I most certainly will presume both sides to have "equally valid potential evidence." That's the ONLY way I know how to look at an issue I know little about.

Yelling does not convince me. I can only judge something after I examine it.

I think you folks are afraid of people thinking for themselves. I resented then, as I resent now, any attempt at intellectual bullying instead of rational persuasion.

Would you rather have had me take you on faith and start yelling at your scapegoats alongside you before I understood?

That's where people got really pissed. I refused to do that.

That's tribal. Anyway, I am poor material for a "yes man." I always have been and always will be.

You do not control my mind.

Nor am I a fortune teller with access to mystical knowledge I don't need to learn the old-fashioned way, even if it does bash Gore, and I do not accept things on faith, not even from you.

That's a hell of a learning process you guys promote: already know something and agree with us before you learn it. I wonder what that epistemology is called.

Gimmee a break.

Michael

[sjw]

I think this whole thing might backfire not on Obama and Democrats, but on the tribalistic/warmongering neocons/Objectivists.

For the life of me I don't know why an *atheist* would clamor for piling on Muslims, since among Americans atheists are the most untrusted minority, ranking below Muslims. Given all the xenophobia of Muslims in America, that should send a scary message to any Objectivist seeking to fan the flames of collectivism.

[Dennis Hardin]

Did anyone else see this interview with Raheel Raza, board member of the Muslim Canadian Congress, on Bill O'Reilly?

Amazing, isn't it? That there are Muslim leaders who have inestimably more common sense than many so-called "fans" of Objectivism... The mind boggles...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmKYd74nulk

[sjw]

Amazing, isn't it? That there are Muslim leaders who have inestimably more common sense than many so-called "fans" of Objectivism... The mind boggles...

Which "fans" are you referring to? The ones who want to bomb mosques? All they were addressing in that video was the *wisdom* (to use Obama's word) of building a mosque, they didn't touch on the *right* to build a mosque or to make a potentially unpopular political statement. These are two entirely different issues.

The mind boggles how someone can be so crudely unprincipled as to walk into the middle of a conversation about bombing mosques and think that the issue to discuss is about whether someone is being rude or not.

[Dennis Hardin]

Amazing, isn't it? That there are Muslim leaders who have inestimably more common sense than many so-called "fans" of Objectivism... The mind boggles...

Which "fans" are you referring to? The ones who want to bomb mosques? All they were addressing in that video was the *wisdom* (to use Obama's word) of building a mosque, they didn't touch on the *right* to build a mosque or to make a potentially unpopular political statement. These are two entirely different issues.

The mind boggles how someone can be so crudely unprincipled as to walk into the middle of a conversation about bombing mosques and think that the issue to discuss is about whether someone is being rude or not.

Which 'fans' am I referring to--who obviously have nothing resembling common sense? Your comment speaks for itself.

[anonrobt]

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm - what y'all think of this? bigotry? or reasoned thoughts...