Let's start with a little recap. The "ground zero mosque" is neither at ground zero nor a mosque. The local planning commission approved it 23 to 1 (or something like that). The local populace does not have a problem with it. So why did this little bit of self-determination in a single city become the latest national issue?
Two words: election year.
And the Republicans need a good old-fashioned wedge issue to leverage votes to their side. Abortion's a classic, but not strong enough for the times. Economy? Nah, too much evidence that it really is W's fault. Gay marriage? So last year. I know! How 'bout some religious fear and bigotry? Yeah, that's the ticket!
Nothing, and I mean nothing, gets people whipped into a fury faster than fanning the flames of fear. So the poor lackey interns at Fox News got the task of searching through all the national happenings until one of them found a gem. Kind of like finding Willy Wonka's golden tickets. And some Charlie Bucket found this one.
But this is so much more than reviving people's feelings about 9/11. Oh no, Karl Rove and friends have taken this one all the way to full-on religious hatred and casting, once again, the shadow of suspect on the President. ("You know, his middle name is Hussein! He grew up in a Muslim country! He's black..oh wait, wrong talking point.....He's a secret Muslim!").
And so the birthers have a new straw to grasp: whether or not Obama is really a Muslim. After all, he's lying about his birth certificate, so why not this? And this is way more evil. He might really pray to Allah! Personally, I believe the "poll" showing that nearly a third of the country thinks he's a Muslim is just a big lie created by Fox, with the intent of making this a national story and making people afraid.
Afraid of what, exactly? Seriously people, do you really believe that Obama is a secret Muslim who faked a birth certificate just so he could mastermind a secret terrorist takeover of the US? If you do, could you kindly tell me what you are smoking?
The President's religion should not matter. But look at our history: remember what a huge deal it was that Kennedy was Catholic? And that's still playing for the same team! And yes, it was a group of Muslims who perpetrated 9/11, but so what? Does that mean we are going to fear and hate all Muslims for now and ever? Isn't that letting the terrorists win?
My favorite is when whichever right wing douchebag it was said that he'd "take Obama at his word" that he was a Christian. Did anyone state they had to take W at his word that God talked directly to him? Or any other President, for that matter? We did, in fact, see this with Joe Leiberman in his VP bid: everyone wanted to know if he'd work on Saturday. Did anyone ask any other candidate if he'd work on Sunday?
The GOP trots out these issues every two years. Sadly, there are enough people who don't think for themselves, and they follow right along. They are too happy to hate, to have some sort of "cause" to vent their anger at. Never mind that their anger is over the fact that they are losing their jobs and homes; the real problem is that Obama might worship the same god in a different way!
I get so tired of pointing out this same phenomenon. I wonder, why don't these people wake up and see the pattern? Are they really so duped? Do they really not realize that once the election is won, the issue blows away like the sand around Ozymandias' broken statue?
And that is why I write. I know I mostly preach to the converted, but I hope that my words reach at least a few ears that maybe need to hear them. And maybe others share them with people they know. Maybe I'm just a voice screaming into the void, but at least it feels good to give voice to the truth.
Monday, August 23, 2010
Thursday, August 19, 2010
The Meaning of Life
The Manifesto once again has a guest blogger. Today's ponderings come from the Blogging Orangutan. Enjoy!
Life; it is an unparalleled state, beyond quantification or explanation. In the average lifetime, you couldn’t cover even a fraction of what creation holds for its members. The expansiveness of life is so grand, that it leaves many with questions. What is this? Why is that, this way? Over time, we’ve grown up; moved beyond basic questioning; populated the Earth. During this period, we’ve come to the biggest question of all: why? Why are we here? What is our purpose? Does life have a meaning? These questions have given way to answers. Mind you, these answers aren’t always the same.
For some, the answer was explained away with magic’s; powers lowly mortals couldn’t comprehend. The days of polytheism are well documented. However, there are those of the time who believed in nothing but the dirt they’d turn into, one day. These are the ever-present fatalists, of the world. Then, the rise of monotheism came, and Judaism was born. Years later, in the Indus valley, the Hindu’s breathed their first answers; and so continued the many comings and goings of religion. Many would follow.
After this, the Romans would rule, for a time; their polytheistic background controlling the main stage in the west, while Buddhism, Taoism and Confucianism battled it out, in the East; all main-stream religions. And of course, the rise of Christianity would follow. But, not six-hundred years later, the word of Allah would arrive, on scene. This has been a nice history lesson on some of the more widely followed religions, but perhaps unnecessary. We’ve gotten away from the topic; which is life.
What is the true purpose; the real meaning, of life? Is life a trial; our audition tape? Is it a test to see if we’ve been good enough to get into some pearly palace, in the sky? What if we break a few rules? Like or do the wrong things? Will we be damned to some fiery underworld ruled over by an evil and horned cretin? Perhaps. What about Nirvana? Mayhap we wish to go there? Or we wish to reincarnate back into Brahman; experiencing the joy of our reunion. But do we know these will happen? Are we so faithful; so sure of such things? So willing to sacrifice the most pure from of self-thought that we give our lives for it; wishing it is true?
No confirmed explanation has been given, save for the deathly gaze upon those now passed. It is not a comforting gaze, to be sure. Still, many are certain of their answers. So certain, that they give there lives for it, instantly. They jump at a chance to see their answer verified. However, not everyone has the right answer; how can they? If I answer with X, and you answer with Y, then who’s right? We cannot both be correct. So; we push. We shove. We fight. Fight to enforce our answer on the other; fight to make sure we’re right. But, here’s the question: Are we? Are we right? Perhaps we are; but, then again perhaps not. Maybe, the other person is right. Maybe they’re wrong, too.
Now, we’re left with two people, who may both be wrong. But, we’ve gone and enforced our beliefs; killed the other. So, you kill the person; and(since we’re potentially wrong in our beliefs) it was over what; an opinion. Does that mean I should start killing those who like green, best? I mean, after-all; they’ve got an opinion that is different, than my own. That MUST justify killing them. But, maybe not. Indeed, if I’d simply tolerated them, and allowed them to think what they wished, rather than forcing my own belief down their throat, they might still be alive. The meaning of life may be outlined in the bible; in the teachings of Allah, and Mohammad; in the Sanskrit language of the Indus Valley peoples; but certainly not in the killings of those whom you disagree with. That comes only from the anger of the righteous; an anger that hurts all around it.
As long as we have tolerance for the answers of others; the choices and beliefs they have, we will have the closet thing to peace, around. While many might disagree, or interpret differently, the fact remains: Humans are social beings; flawed and social beings. We will make many mistakes. We will die. These are things we must all accept. But while we’re here, we can certainly strive to be friends. Strive to understand each other. Strive to live; not to hate. Strive to love; not fight. Finally, while we may not strive to die, we should strive to understand that it will happen; we should not fear it, but embrace its inevitability. Embrace it, and spend our lives doing just that: Living. Life is wonderful, and precious; spending your time being fearful will only hinder you.
Life; it is an unparalleled state, beyond quantification or explanation. In the average lifetime, you couldn’t cover even a fraction of what creation holds for its members. The expansiveness of life is so grand, that it leaves many with questions. What is this? Why is that, this way? Over time, we’ve grown up; moved beyond basic questioning; populated the Earth. During this period, we’ve come to the biggest question of all: why? Why are we here? What is our purpose? Does life have a meaning? These questions have given way to answers. Mind you, these answers aren’t always the same.
For some, the answer was explained away with magic’s; powers lowly mortals couldn’t comprehend. The days of polytheism are well documented. However, there are those of the time who believed in nothing but the dirt they’d turn into, one day. These are the ever-present fatalists, of the world. Then, the rise of monotheism came, and Judaism was born. Years later, in the Indus valley, the Hindu’s breathed their first answers; and so continued the many comings and goings of religion. Many would follow.
After this, the Romans would rule, for a time; their polytheistic background controlling the main stage in the west, while Buddhism, Taoism and Confucianism battled it out, in the East; all main-stream religions. And of course, the rise of Christianity would follow. But, not six-hundred years later, the word of Allah would arrive, on scene. This has been a nice history lesson on some of the more widely followed religions, but perhaps unnecessary. We’ve gotten away from the topic; which is life.
What is the true purpose; the real meaning, of life? Is life a trial; our audition tape? Is it a test to see if we’ve been good enough to get into some pearly palace, in the sky? What if we break a few rules? Like or do the wrong things? Will we be damned to some fiery underworld ruled over by an evil and horned cretin? Perhaps. What about Nirvana? Mayhap we wish to go there? Or we wish to reincarnate back into Brahman; experiencing the joy of our reunion. But do we know these will happen? Are we so faithful; so sure of such things? So willing to sacrifice the most pure from of self-thought that we give our lives for it; wishing it is true?
No confirmed explanation has been given, save for the deathly gaze upon those now passed. It is not a comforting gaze, to be sure. Still, many are certain of their answers. So certain, that they give there lives for it, instantly. They jump at a chance to see their answer verified. However, not everyone has the right answer; how can they? If I answer with X, and you answer with Y, then who’s right? We cannot both be correct. So; we push. We shove. We fight. Fight to enforce our answer on the other; fight to make sure we’re right. But, here’s the question: Are we? Are we right? Perhaps we are; but, then again perhaps not. Maybe, the other person is right. Maybe they’re wrong, too.
Now, we’re left with two people, who may both be wrong. But, we’ve gone and enforced our beliefs; killed the other. So, you kill the person; and(since we’re potentially wrong in our beliefs) it was over what; an opinion. Does that mean I should start killing those who like green, best? I mean, after-all; they’ve got an opinion that is different, than my own. That MUST justify killing them. But, maybe not. Indeed, if I’d simply tolerated them, and allowed them to think what they wished, rather than forcing my own belief down their throat, they might still be alive. The meaning of life may be outlined in the bible; in the teachings of Allah, and Mohammad; in the Sanskrit language of the Indus Valley peoples; but certainly not in the killings of those whom you disagree with. That comes only from the anger of the righteous; an anger that hurts all around it.
As long as we have tolerance for the answers of others; the choices and beliefs they have, we will have the closet thing to peace, around. While many might disagree, or interpret differently, the fact remains: Humans are social beings; flawed and social beings. We will make many mistakes. We will die. These are things we must all accept. But while we’re here, we can certainly strive to be friends. Strive to understand each other. Strive to live; not to hate. Strive to love; not fight. Finally, while we may not strive to die, we should strive to understand that it will happen; we should not fear it, but embrace its inevitability. Embrace it, and spend our lives doing just that: Living. Life is wonderful, and precious; spending your time being fearful will only hinder you.
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
The Non-Ground Zero Non-Mosque, Continued
You'd think there was nothing else going on in the world but a bunch of religious intolerance! This is all I've heard about on the radio for days now. No Palestine/Israel problem, no Iran, no winless wars. Heck, you barely hear how Obama's screwed up the country anymore.
Still, the topic of religious intolerance is both global and critical, so I'll go with it.
Yes, that's right folks: Americans are being (yet again) a bunch of bigoted, self-righteous Christians that would turn Jesus' stomach. Don't agree with me? Put it this way: if someone planned to build a church at or near ground zero, would anyone care? Would it have even made the news cycle? I bet even a synagogue wouldn't have raised eyebrows.
"But we're a Christian nation," I can hear you say. Wrong. YOU might be Christian, and a large percentage of the US citizenry may consider themselves Christian, but that does not a State religion make. (and that's a topic for another blog)
What we are is a nation of immature and insecure children. "A savage, childlike race," I believe it was phrased once. If someone is too different (ie, brown), we have to keep him out. If someone espouses ideas too different from ours (ie, Muslim, socialist, rational and educated....), we have to silence him. The problem with this (aside from basic bigotry) is that it never allows us any exposure to other ideas and hence retards our growth as a society.
The issue about the non-mosque that is not at ground zero is fueled by the anti-Muslim sentiment that proliferated after 9/11. I will even go so far as to say that, after that incident, some of that feeling was understandable. But it's nine years later, people. We've had the chance to calm down and realize that it was just a bunch of crazies who did it, not the entire religion. It's time to stop being fearful and ignorant. Muslims have lived among us all along. They are our neighbors. They mourned 9/11 and were outraged just like you did.
The biggest issue is that people are labeling an entire religion for the actions of its fundamentalist and crazy sect. I heard a great analogy on the radio today: if you are going to condemn Islam as a whole for 9/11, then are you going to condemn Christianity for the Oklahoma City bombing? How about for the Crusades? Or maybe for colluding with the Nazis to exterminate those Jesus-killing Jews? Or the Fundamentalist Mormons, who marry off teenage girls to 80 year old men? All these things were/are done in the name of Christianity.
Religious tolerance has never been our strong suit. Look at the freakin' Pilgrims. They came to America because no one else could stand them and their strict, intolerant ways. But it's the 21st Century; can't we move beyond this already?
And while this is a vital issue, it is not the only one at hand. There are other First Amendment rights in play. Such as: the (non-ground zero) location of this (non) mosque is private property. Since when did we have the right to tell someone what he can do on his own property? Isn't that freedom one of the key tenets of the very people who are fighting this center? How about self-determination? We are a nation of rugged individualists, right? So why is it so wrong for a community to decide, on a local level, that this center is ok? Who the hell are we to tell Manhattan what it can/can't do with one of its buildings?
(Hey Tea Baggers: remember this point next time you want to bitch about "city slickers" telling you what you can/can't do with the Public Lands in your area).
From what I can tell, the local government overwhelmingly approved this YMCA-like center. It's a privately owned building, which used to be a Burlington Coat Factory. There is a mosque nearby (which predates the Twin Towers, by the way), and a large enough Muslim community to support and benefit from this. So, opponents really don't have a leg to stand on. It is against the Constitution to protest this center. Of course, the Baggers and friends like to trash the Constitution whenever it proves an inconvenient truth.....(again, another blog).
The bottom line is this: it's private property and they can do whatever the hell they want with it. And, if people would shut off Dancing with the Stars and read an actual book, they might realize that we do, in fact, have freedom of religion in this country AND that Islam is closely related to Christianity.
Let them build their Islamic community center, and let's move on.
Still, the topic of religious intolerance is both global and critical, so I'll go with it.
Yes, that's right folks: Americans are being (yet again) a bunch of bigoted, self-righteous Christians that would turn Jesus' stomach. Don't agree with me? Put it this way: if someone planned to build a church at or near ground zero, would anyone care? Would it have even made the news cycle? I bet even a synagogue wouldn't have raised eyebrows.
"But we're a Christian nation," I can hear you say. Wrong. YOU might be Christian, and a large percentage of the US citizenry may consider themselves Christian, but that does not a State religion make. (and that's a topic for another blog)
What we are is a nation of immature and insecure children. "A savage, childlike race," I believe it was phrased once. If someone is too different (ie, brown), we have to keep him out. If someone espouses ideas too different from ours (ie, Muslim, socialist, rational and educated....), we have to silence him. The problem with this (aside from basic bigotry) is that it never allows us any exposure to other ideas and hence retards our growth as a society.
The issue about the non-mosque that is not at ground zero is fueled by the anti-Muslim sentiment that proliferated after 9/11. I will even go so far as to say that, after that incident, some of that feeling was understandable. But it's nine years later, people. We've had the chance to calm down and realize that it was just a bunch of crazies who did it, not the entire religion. It's time to stop being fearful and ignorant. Muslims have lived among us all along. They are our neighbors. They mourned 9/11 and were outraged just like you did.
The biggest issue is that people are labeling an entire religion for the actions of its fundamentalist and crazy sect. I heard a great analogy on the radio today: if you are going to condemn Islam as a whole for 9/11, then are you going to condemn Christianity for the Oklahoma City bombing? How about for the Crusades? Or maybe for colluding with the Nazis to exterminate those Jesus-killing Jews? Or the Fundamentalist Mormons, who marry off teenage girls to 80 year old men? All these things were/are done in the name of Christianity.
Religious tolerance has never been our strong suit. Look at the freakin' Pilgrims. They came to America because no one else could stand them and their strict, intolerant ways. But it's the 21st Century; can't we move beyond this already?
And while this is a vital issue, it is not the only one at hand. There are other First Amendment rights in play. Such as: the (non-ground zero) location of this (non) mosque is private property. Since when did we have the right to tell someone what he can do on his own property? Isn't that freedom one of the key tenets of the very people who are fighting this center? How about self-determination? We are a nation of rugged individualists, right? So why is it so wrong for a community to decide, on a local level, that this center is ok? Who the hell are we to tell Manhattan what it can/can't do with one of its buildings?
(Hey Tea Baggers: remember this point next time you want to bitch about "city slickers" telling you what you can/can't do with the Public Lands in your area).
From what I can tell, the local government overwhelmingly approved this YMCA-like center. It's a privately owned building, which used to be a Burlington Coat Factory. There is a mosque nearby (which predates the Twin Towers, by the way), and a large enough Muslim community to support and benefit from this. So, opponents really don't have a leg to stand on. It is against the Constitution to protest this center. Of course, the Baggers and friends like to trash the Constitution whenever it proves an inconvenient truth.....(again, another blog).
The bottom line is this: it's private property and they can do whatever the hell they want with it. And, if people would shut off Dancing with the Stars and read an actual book, they might realize that we do, in fact, have freedom of religion in this country AND that Islam is closely related to Christianity.
Let them build their Islamic community center, and let's move on.
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Mosque at Ground Zero, Revisited
Since my last post, I have learned some new information. Like, that the mosque at Ground Zero isn't really at Ground Zero. Or a mosque. And that there's already a mosque in the neighborhood, which predates the Twin Towers.
So, I'm going to have to change my position on this one. I still think it's slightly insensitive to propose any sort of Islamic center that close -- but there's nothing in the law that requires one be sensitive. (Kinda like how there's nothing in the law to keep you from being a stupid butthead who thinks Sarah Palin is great).
At first it seemed the support for this building was just political correctness gone awry. But now I agree that the opposition is just plain bigotry. It's NOT at ground zero, so stop saying that it is. It's NOT a mosque, so you can stop saying that too. Why did the proponents choose that location? Who the hell knows. Maybe it's because, say, there's a large Muslim population in the neighborhood?
And I have to give the progressive media a big fat slap on the wrist for this one. Why are they perpetuating the lie that it's at Ground Zero? Why do they use the term "Ground Zero Mosque"? Why are they feeding right into the Right's hand? Very disappointing, folks. Very disappointing.
The real issue is not so much the fervor over this mosque as the national movement against ANY mosques. Last time I checked, this was still the U.S., and we still had something called freedom of religion. Now, yes, I know what you're about to say: we all know that on a certain level that's just a crock -- but it's still the law and on the whole I think we do better than many places. So now we are going to show the world just what kind of redneck, hillbilly bumpkins we are by protesting mosques?
Talk about deja vu. I haven't felt this way since W was in office: completely, and utterly embarrassed by my fellow countrymen. Why don't y'all git off yer fat, donut-eating asses, turn off the "reality" tv, and read a book for once. You know, those things that are a bunch of papers glued together. Yes, yes, some of the words may hurt your heads, but you'll get used to it.
Religious intolerance, people equating gays with beastiality, and rich white British guys raping the earth. Hey, when did we get back to Puritan times?
So, I'm going to have to change my position on this one. I still think it's slightly insensitive to propose any sort of Islamic center that close -- but there's nothing in the law that requires one be sensitive. (Kinda like how there's nothing in the law to keep you from being a stupid butthead who thinks Sarah Palin is great).
At first it seemed the support for this building was just political correctness gone awry. But now I agree that the opposition is just plain bigotry. It's NOT at ground zero, so stop saying that it is. It's NOT a mosque, so you can stop saying that too. Why did the proponents choose that location? Who the hell knows. Maybe it's because, say, there's a large Muslim population in the neighborhood?
And I have to give the progressive media a big fat slap on the wrist for this one. Why are they perpetuating the lie that it's at Ground Zero? Why do they use the term "Ground Zero Mosque"? Why are they feeding right into the Right's hand? Very disappointing, folks. Very disappointing.
The real issue is not so much the fervor over this mosque as the national movement against ANY mosques. Last time I checked, this was still the U.S., and we still had something called freedom of religion. Now, yes, I know what you're about to say: we all know that on a certain level that's just a crock -- but it's still the law and on the whole I think we do better than many places. So now we are going to show the world just what kind of redneck, hillbilly bumpkins we are by protesting mosques?
Talk about deja vu. I haven't felt this way since W was in office: completely, and utterly embarrassed by my fellow countrymen. Why don't y'all git off yer fat, donut-eating asses, turn off the "reality" tv, and read a book for once. You know, those things that are a bunch of papers glued together. Yes, yes, some of the words may hurt your heads, but you'll get used to it.
Religious intolerance, people equating gays with beastiality, and rich white British guys raping the earth. Hey, when did we get back to Puritan times?
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
A Mosque at Ground Zero: Appropriate or Not?
I saw Mayor Bloomberg talking today about how allowing a mosque at Ground Zero was required by freedom of religion and separation of church and State. He said things like (and I'm paraphrasing here), "if we give in to popular thought and don't allow it, then we allow the terrorists to win." He reminded us of our Muslim brothers and sisters who died that day and those who grieved with us after. He said so many things that ring of truth.
Except that they don't.
Of course I believe in freedom of religion and speech, and separation of church and State. I also believe that we need to be careful of playing into Al Quaeda's hands with our stupid, pig-headed reactions. I recognize that there is no guilt-by-association for the Muslims who live and die here. However, all that does not mean I am onboard with the idea of a mosque at Ground Zero.
It just feels like a big, fat slap in the face to allow a mosque there. Frankly, I don't see why ANY religious building needs to be there -- it was a church to the dollar bill before, so why change that now? I have heard that the idea is to have a mosque there to help educate people that bin Laden and friends do not represent the majority of Islam -- and I totally get that. I support that concept.
But does it have to be at Ground Zero? Why not someplace nearby, but not ON the premises? I say this not out of some misplaced anger, fear, or bigotry toward Muslims; I say it because it seems disrespectful and in poor taste. It seems to dishonor the memory of that day.
How would we feel about putting some sort of Japanese cultural or religious structure at Pearl Harbor? How do millions of Jews (and others!) feel about the presence of a cross at Auschwitz? How would the residents of Hiroshima feel if we built a giant cathedral in their town?
I am all for educating the (generally stupid) American masses about Islam and pointing out that 9/11 was perpetrated by fundamentalist nut-jobs. However, I just cannot find anything within myself that makes it ok to put a mosque at Ground Zero.
What I find most interesting about this issue is that all the liberal folks on, say, MSNBC, are saying that opinions like mine are bigoted. I saw Russell Simmons on Keith Olbermann just today, talking about how the push to ban a mosque from G.Z. was some awful, racist, unethical thing. Really? I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to call "overdone political correctness" on this one. Please tell me how it is at all ok, or even necessary, for a mosque to be there?
I realize that this plays into a bigger phenomenon -- that of people trying to ban mosques in their towns. Now that is bullshit. If there are Muslims in your town, then they deserve a place of worship. Fuck you and your pantywaist, uneducated fears. In fact, I am quite pleased to see some sort of Islamic center in my own town. Good for them!
I am not going to say it's Right or Wrong to have a mosque at Ground Zero. I don't think anyone would go to Hell if we allow one. What I will say is that it is poor judgment. Seriously, do the proponents not see how this could be exceedingly offensive? Are people really going to play into the stereotype of overblown political correctness?
I'm sorry, but I just feel this is wrong. I just can't see how it's ok to have a mosque there -- and it's not because I'm some Tea Bagger crazy person. It is just a slap in the face to all those who died, period. Out of respect we should not allow it on the premises of Ground Zero. Near enough by that people can go to it, absolutely. But GZ itself, I'm sorry. Let's just rebuild the financial buildings that we need and move on.
Except that they don't.
Of course I believe in freedom of religion and speech, and separation of church and State. I also believe that we need to be careful of playing into Al Quaeda's hands with our stupid, pig-headed reactions. I recognize that there is no guilt-by-association for the Muslims who live and die here. However, all that does not mean I am onboard with the idea of a mosque at Ground Zero.
It just feels like a big, fat slap in the face to allow a mosque there. Frankly, I don't see why ANY religious building needs to be there -- it was a church to the dollar bill before, so why change that now? I have heard that the idea is to have a mosque there to help educate people that bin Laden and friends do not represent the majority of Islam -- and I totally get that. I support that concept.
But does it have to be at Ground Zero? Why not someplace nearby, but not ON the premises? I say this not out of some misplaced anger, fear, or bigotry toward Muslims; I say it because it seems disrespectful and in poor taste. It seems to dishonor the memory of that day.
How would we feel about putting some sort of Japanese cultural or religious structure at Pearl Harbor? How do millions of Jews (and others!) feel about the presence of a cross at Auschwitz? How would the residents of Hiroshima feel if we built a giant cathedral in their town?
I am all for educating the (generally stupid) American masses about Islam and pointing out that 9/11 was perpetrated by fundamentalist nut-jobs. However, I just cannot find anything within myself that makes it ok to put a mosque at Ground Zero.
What I find most interesting about this issue is that all the liberal folks on, say, MSNBC, are saying that opinions like mine are bigoted. I saw Russell Simmons on Keith Olbermann just today, talking about how the push to ban a mosque from G.Z. was some awful, racist, unethical thing. Really? I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to call "overdone political correctness" on this one. Please tell me how it is at all ok, or even necessary, for a mosque to be there?
I realize that this plays into a bigger phenomenon -- that of people trying to ban mosques in their towns. Now that is bullshit. If there are Muslims in your town, then they deserve a place of worship. Fuck you and your pantywaist, uneducated fears. In fact, I am quite pleased to see some sort of Islamic center in my own town. Good for them!
I am not going to say it's Right or Wrong to have a mosque at Ground Zero. I don't think anyone would go to Hell if we allow one. What I will say is that it is poor judgment. Seriously, do the proponents not see how this could be exceedingly offensive? Are people really going to play into the stereotype of overblown political correctness?
I'm sorry, but I just feel this is wrong. I just can't see how it's ok to have a mosque there -- and it's not because I'm some Tea Bagger crazy person. It is just a slap in the face to all those who died, period. Out of respect we should not allow it on the premises of Ground Zero. Near enough by that people can go to it, absolutely. But GZ itself, I'm sorry. Let's just rebuild the financial buildings that we need and move on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)