In Reply: "Speaking out is seldom if ever un-American, whether in support of Geller and her bigotry or in opposition to it." (Bigotry, Pamela Geller, Dishonesty, Free Speech, Protest)

Revised and extended, in reply to the following comment at the post Great Neck Synagogue Cancels Speech by Pamela Geller - Great Neck, NY Patch:

"repsec3 here is the official reason given by the synagogue (not PG) for their withdrawal. They were worried about the safety of their children, etc obviously from radical Islam! What's not to understand? Nearly every time there is a conference on shariah or radcial islam, the hotels etc are pressured to cancel as happened here by a government official no less among others. It's deniers like you that enable their UnAmerican tactics...

'As the notoriety and media exposure of the planned program this Sunday have increased, so has the legal liability and potential security exposure of our institution and it's [sic] member families. In an era of heightened security concerns it is irresponsible to jeopardize the safety of those who call Great Neck Synagogue home, especially our children, even at the risk of diverting attention from a potentially important voice in the ongoing debate.'"

---

My Reply:

Funny that you choose to include "obviously from radical islam" in your response, when that obviously wasn't in the synagogue's statement. The only announced protest in opposition to Geller's appearance that I can find was organized by members of the Great Neck Synagogue, who intended to hold up signs across the street. The interfaith organization and the rabbis who were opposed pretty specifically said they did not intend to attend or to stage any protest. In fact, the only real push for a large on-site protest was being made by Ms. Geller's supporters. (And that's to say nothing of the armed bodyguards she announced she'd be bringing with her. Necessary or not, I'd imagine that they upped the synagogue's potential legal liability and security exposure.)

Now, I do think it was somewhat short-sighted of the synagogue to choose to have this event while the children were attending Sunday school at the same time--and I question why they didn't change the time of the event once they realized it would likely be an issue--but the fact that any protests might frighten the children or make it more difficult for their parents to drop them off and pick them up--both fully reasonable concerns--is not the same as suggesting that any individual or group threatened the safety or security of a single parent or child.

Speaking out is seldom if ever un-American, whether in support of Geller and her bigotry or in opposition to it.
---

Posted: 12:13 am on Saturday, April 13, 2013
---

Added Links:
Sunday, April 14 Event Cancellation : Great Neck Synagogue
Shul Cancels Pamela Geller — But Fails To Take Stand – Forward Thinking – Forward.com
Chabad to host Geller after Great Neck Synagogue drops controversial speaker - The Island Now: News
Geller Forum Shifts To New Venues | The Jewish Week
Controversial anti-jihad blogger will bring armed guards to synagogue speech | PIX 11

In Reply: Threats against the neighborhood, the children, or the Great Neck Synagogue? Where? (Pamela Geller, Bigotry, Dishonesty, Free Speech)

In reply to the following comment at the post Great Neck Synagogue Cancels Speech by Pamela Geller - Great Neck, NY Patch:

"The threats to the residents of the neighborhood, against their children, and against the synagogue are more real than Geller's unproven bigotry. Read her work and enlighten your ignorance. Then stand for her freedom of speech or most surely you will lose your own.
This synagogue stood alone against weeks of threats and intimidation. There must be a complete investigation of the threats and those responsible must be prosecuted. Freedom denied to one American is denied to all.
Ironically, these tactics have spread Geller's work to an enormously wider audience than that of one temple."
---

I asked several media outlets--including this one [see e-mail appended below]--to document these supposed threats against the neighborhood, the children, or the synagogue, or to at least obtain statements from people associated with the synagogue saying that anyone was actually threatened. No media outlet or synagogue official has gone on the record with any threat. Make of that what you will.

Posted: 8:53 pm on Thursday, April 11, 2013
---

E-mail:

To: rich.jacques@patch.com (and sent to several other media outlets who'd reported on the Geller controversy)

Great Neck Synagogue Cancels Speech by Pamela Geller

Pamela Geller, Jewishpress.com and other supportive social media outlets are implying that protesters threatened Sunday school children who attend classes at the synagogue, and that is why the synagogue board cancelled Pamela Geller's speech. Please interview the rabbi and others at the synagogue, and confirm or debunk that allegation. If you do find threats, please post specific examples if possible.

In Reply: Lowes, Kayak: You shoulda just ignored the bigots, guys... (All-American Muslim)

In reply to: Another Advertiser Pulls Out Of “All-American Muslim” - Alan Colmes' Liberaland

It looks to me like Kayak (along with the rest of the businesses who pulled their advertising) got played for fools by this bigoted group in FL. They would've been wise to just ignore them and make their decisions based on, well, business--and perhaps, assuming Mr Birge is telling the truth (I have my doubts), even gone so far as to delay a planned ad pullout, so as not to even appear to be caving to bigotry.

Now they're damned by one side or the other, no matter what they do or don't do next. Whether they resume advertising or not (or write simpering excuse-laden explanations or not) either the bigots or a big swath of the rest of America is going to watch and remember what they did and do, and be unhappy with whatever decisions they make.

It was a classic rightwing media/FoxNews ploy... Speculate about and otherwise talk up any/all possible controversy about a given issue, and then dutifully report that the issue has become "controversial," with the not-so-subtle suggestion that mainstream Americans (and politicians, and companies) might want to avoid getting too involved with this "hot-button, third rail, controversial" issue.

Sadly for these companies who pulled their ads, the ratings for the show will likely go up, temporarily at least, because of the "controversy," meaning more eyeballs on the ads of companies that stuck it out, while the ones who pulled their ads get labelled as bigots and as lacking backbone, whether fairly or unfairly. This little nothing show that not a whole lot of people were watching in the first place is now a "controversial" wedge issue for a whole lotta folks.

Shoulda just ignored the bigots, guys... Perhaps next time...
---
Posted December 14th, 2011 at 15:50

In Reply: "Bad behavior by the two Muslim students doesn't excuse Paul Derengowski's own bad behavior."

In reply to the following comment at the post Professor resigns after Muslim students disrupt class - Inside Higher Ed:

Gsmith says
"His Website is horrendous--slanted mischaracterizations of atheists and others that makes no attempt to be neutral or respectful to different viewpoints. However, it appears that the instructor is in the right as to the classroom incident. If he was only reading from the Koran, then the students had no right to disrupt his class. They should have handled it differently."

---

But shouldn't the former professor have handled it differently, too? Reports suggest that these two students were disruptive for an HOUR... What kind of professor loses control of his class for an HOUR, without doing something about it? (Ask the disruptive students to leave the class, cancel the class and dismiss everyone, call campus security and have the disruptive students removed, ..., ...) It seems to me his classroom management skills were lacking, to say the least.

And after having been to his website and reading his L-O-N-G "Why I quit" resignation post in particular, I have serious questions about his professional and personal ethics, as well. It's a vindictive, bigoted, self-serving "name and shame" attack on the two Muslim students and on his former college administrators that suggests the man lacks the temperament needed to work and play well with others in an educational setting. Even now, he's recruiting "anti-Jihad" bloggers and others who agree with him religiously or politically to write or call TCC administrators up and down the chain in support of him and his cause, posting a list of administration names, addresses and phone numbers...

Based on the accounts I've read, the two Muslim students did behave poorly, both in class and subsequently. But I don't believe that their behavior mitigates or absolves Mr. Derengowski of his own behaviors and attitudes after the fact.

Posted 12/14/2011 01:02 PM

In Reply: "I believe in religious freedom, even for faiths that I don't personally subscribe to..." (Paul Derengowski)

In reply to the following comment at the post TCC professor's lecture on Islam stirs controversy - Star-Telegram:

Gromet sez:

Would you please tell us which muslim countries allow Christian churches, Jewish temples, Hindu temples, Buddhist temples, Sheik places of worship, or any places of worship other than Islam to be built? Sure there are churches in Lebanon, but they have to have their own militias to protect them, and the new Muslim Brotherhood rulers in Egypt are starting to burn the Coptic churches there (which have existed for hundreds of years before there was an Islam.)
Tell me specifically where I am wrong in the statements above - one-by-one.......

---

Pretty sure I answered your question before you ever asked it there, Gromet... Those countries generally do not allow other faiths to be practiced, and the leaders responsible for that are discriminatory bigots...

...But it seems to me that folks fighting against mosques here in this country--or boycotting businesses that advertise during a reality show depicting actual American Muslims behaving pretty normally, and decidedly NOT like terrorists or terrorist sympathizers--are kinda following in their footsteps, ideologically speaking. (No, there are no death sentences, and buildings aren't burning down, but that's a matter of degree, not intent.)

I live here in America, and I believe in religious freedom, even for faiths that I don't personally subscribe to... ...and as an American, I expect everyone else here to stand for the same American freedoms that I do... I fail to see what's unclear about that.
---

Posted 12/14/2011, 02:34 AM

In Reply: "Our diversity--religious and otherwise--is one of our great strengths..." (Paul Derengowski)

Revised and extended, in reply to the following comments at the post TCC professor's lecture on Islam stirs controversy

Gromet sez:

Can one build a church in a muslim country? NO!!! Upon penalty of death.
But, how many mosques are in D/FW - quite a few.
Now who's the BIGOT???

---
PamT sez:

You might want to rethink that comment. Next to Christianity - Islam is the next largest religion. So yes - we are in a Muslim country - they live here just like you and I.

---

All this great American religious freedom... ...and some seem to want us to leave those freedoms behind, in the name of "treating them like they treat us," or some fool thing, as though fairness means sinking to their level, rather than demanding that they raise to ours...

We are not a Muslim country, or a Christian country, or any other religious kinda country. Our diversity--religious and otherwise--is one of our great strengths...

(This was supposed to be in reply to PamT's 12/13/11, 10:36pm comment in the "...but there are no churches in Arab lands" thread... Dang Disquis / iPad interface keeps divorcing my reply comments from the threads they belong in...)

But as long as I'm editing in, "the BIGOT," Gromet, is anyone who judges every member of a given group as one (generally based on the behavior of the worst members of the group), rather than judging the individual on his/her own merits. Those who do not allow the building of churches in predominantly Muslim countries do qualify. But the people doing that are the leaders, not every single Muslim, in or out of the country in question. The bigotry of former professor Derengowski doesn't stain every Christian, either... ...and, it wasn't Muslim students misbehaving in his class -- or it was, but they weren't misbehaving because they were Muslims, but because they were rude kids who were offended by some of what Mr. Derengowski was saying about their faith, and reacted poorly.
---

Posted 12/14/2011, 12:36 AM

X-Post: Another Day, Another Bullshit Gratuitous Mention By Dishonest Donald Douglas

In a post primarily discussing a college professor's run-in with two Muslim students that resulted in the professor's resignation, Dishonest Don appended the following:

"No doubt Walter James "Occupy" Casper III would be down with that "female Muslim student." The dude called for an investigation of Pamela Geller and berates conservative counter-jihad bloggers as racist. For pro-terror progressives like Racist Repsac3, the professor had it coming and he obviously deserved to be out on his ass, pounding the pavement for a job."

Why?

Who the fuck knows...

As I've said before, if you want to know what professor Douglas is up to, the best way is often to watch what he accuses others of doing. The man claims I'm obsessed with him... ...and yet he won't stop lashing out with these nonsensical, counterfactual, gratuitous mentions in posts about other subjects, regardless of whether I write about him--or the subject in question--or not. His fact free suppositions about what he thinks I might believe or maybe would do as regards the main subject of these posts (the strand of thread he uses to drag me into his posts and then lash out at me for whatever dastardly belief or action he's invented for me in a given situation) are not supported by anything but his own fevered, hateful imagination. In most cases I've never even discussed the topic at hand, and even when I have, Donald doesn't quote me, making it far easier to put his words and ideas in my mouth and then attack his made-up bullshit version of what "I" actually said...

I get it... Dishonest Don doesn't like me... Of all the people he's fought with over the last several years, I'm obviously the one he most hates, for reasons known only to Donald himself... ...but dragging me into all these posts based solely on what he guesses I might say or believe about the subject at hand does little more than make ol' Don look pretty desperate to lash out at me. And if he really is so desperate that he's willing to throw these wild drunken punches at me as these bullshit "W James would no doubt..." posts make him seem, I actually feel kinda sorry for the guy...
---

Added, after doing a bit more reading:

As for the subject of the post itself--the resignation of the professor--there seems to be more to the story than Dishonest Donald Douglas was willing to offer.

The professor's blog, Christian Apologetics Project--listed on the syllabus for the class in question--lists Islam, Mormonism, and Jehovah's Witnesses as cults rather than as religions, and reads a whole lot like the average Pamela Geller screed where Islam is concerned. (And for the record, yes, I do believe that Pam Geller is a bigot. The only Muslims she seems to approve of or in any way support are former Muslims or dead ones. She opposes Muslim religious services for US soldiers on military bases, and even at the Pentagon.

I'm fine with folks opposed to the strain of Islam that creates and feeds terrorism... ...but I don't believe that every Muslim is a potential terrorist any more than I believe every person practicing any other religion is... There are millions of Muslims throughout the world, and the vast majority never had and never will have a single "terrorist" thought. Those who fight against mosques, footbaths, religious services, etc, strictly because Muslims will use them are bigots. Pamela Geller--and yes, some of her "anti-Jihad" blogging followers and fellow travelers too--are indeed bigoted against all Muslims (except the ones who converted and the ones who are dead, of course.)

This news story (non-Fox, not Con blogger) paint a more nuanced picture of the situation: TCC Disputes That Professor Was Forced Out For His Beliefs - CBS Dallas / Fort Worth

I don't know what actually happened... (That's what I was trying to determine by googling the story.) But even reading Professor Derengowski's account, it sounds like he's got piss-poor classroom management skills, although--if his account is to be believed--the Muslim students behaved badly, no matter their complaint.

On the other hand, if the professor was teaching the kind of things posted on his website--and again, note that he listed his blog as a resource on the class syllabus, making it more than just his personal opinions on his personal blog--I could see where Muslim students (and Mormon students, and Jehovah's Witness students, and atheist students, too) would have a legitimate complaint against him. And according to the news story above anyway, at least one Muslim student (seemingly not one of the ones who caused the disturbance in class, though the article could be more clear on that point) says he was.

Contrary to Dishonest Don's wild guess, I don't know enough about the story to venture much of an opinion on the whole of the story. Here's what I can say:

I think the professor was right to report the student's threat. One cannot be too careful.

I think the students were right to report what they believed to be classroom bias to college administrators. The e-mail the student sent around was more than likely over the top and inappropriate, though I'd have to know what it actually said to really judge--and no, I'm not willing to take the professor's characterization of it as Gospel truth. I have no problem with anyone on either side speaking out and pleading their case, and to whatever extent the e-mail was an attempt to persuade the other students in the class that Professor Derengowski was teaching in a biased manner, I don't have much of a problem with it... ...just as I don't have a problem with Professor Derengowski telling his side of the story on his blog, essentially trying to persuade others that he was in the right...

And perhaps it is naive of me, but I find it hard to believe that the administrators of the college were biased against him, too. I'm not saying they were right to reprimand him or require that he change how he teaches the course... but I am saying that unlike me (or Dishonest Don, for that matter), they had all the facts before them, and more than likely made a fair and judicious decision based on what they saw and heard.

I generally trust the officials we put in place to judge such things, and believe that even when they do get it wrong, that wrong will be set right further up the chain. I hope the campus police investigated the student's threat, evaluated the seriousness of it, and acted accordingly. The same goes for the college administrators who looked into the student's complaints of bias by Professor Derengowski. I don't know that they were right, but barring evidence to the contrary, I trust that they were, because that is their job. If they were wrong, I hope it gets fixed, somehow. (The fact that the professor voluntarily resigned might make that more difficult, however...)

In the end, Professor Derengowski felt he was being treated poorly and chose to leave... ...but from what I can tell based on what little evidence is available, that wasn't the fault of these Muslim students or some so-called "Terroristic Act of Jihad" (a designation which itself ought to tell the reader something about the professor making the claim--no matter how vehement, arguing with a professor in class, lodging a complaint with his superiors, or even circulating any kind of fact sheet, diatribe, or petition against him via e-mail, are hardly "terrorist" acts); Professor Derengowski made that choice all on his own.
---

Another Update: The more I read, the more I see why our Dr Douglas feels an affinity for Professor Derengowski. Those interested need only follow this link to read the professor's epic 13 page ranting diatribe against the two students who complained about him, in his own words. It is unprofessional, unethical, personally motivated holier-than-thou pompous clap-trap of exactly the sort our Dishonest Don regularly engages in when attacking others on his own blog. (Luckily, Donald has so far managed to keep himself from attacking his own students... ...though if he felt himself backed into a corner as a result of a complaint against him, is there anyone who doubts he would, the same way he's attacked those bloggers who've had the temerity to disagree with him?) A professor who would write a post like this, no matter the reason, almost certainly lacks the temperament and professional ethics required to teach. (And if Dr. Douglas keeps spewing the hate for all who disagree with him the way he has been, it'll likely be just a matter of time for him, as well...) YMMV...

According to Professor Derengowski:
1) the student quoted in the CBS article above was one of the two who lodged the complaint against him, and
2) he quotes portions of the text of the e-mail the female student sent to her classmates in his 13 page diatribe--though, again a lot like Dr. Douglas, he edits it, and intentionally hides her supporting links. (In his post, the quotes are interlaced with his own responses to them, some of which are pretty far "out there..." If you want to get a picture of who Dr. Douglas is defending, I urge you to follow the link (the same one I added above) and read it all, in context.) Judge for yourselves:

“Good morning classmates…
"I am Emailing you all some information that you might find interesting, relating to our World of Religions teacher."
"After the other day in class, I couldn’t help but feel that he was teaching my religion of Islam in such a hatred and bias way…"
"And to my findings, he was…”
This man has been teaching our class in his point of view, in the way that he thinks it should be…”
“He is not being informative about religions, but rather creating a religious intolerance.”
“This is a philosophy class, he is supposed to be opening our minds and getting us to understand why other people believe certain things…”
“I’m sure some of you have felt that he does slander other religions’ beliefs and speaks ill of some as well.”
“I knew me and Muhammad were not crazy speaking up against how he was teaching.”
“It wasn’t the information and facts we were debating against so much, he was teaching it all wrong, and taking so many things out of context, focusing on the ugly things instead of teaching the actual religion itself…”
“I will let you all read what our teacher has written about Islam and Mormonism, the two religions he continues to speak out against in our class.”
"I will not be attending this man’s class again, and I will be showing the dean of our school."
"By the way… He gave us both zero’s on our quizzes we fairly earned 6/6 on that day in class, and an absence because we left a few minutes early…"
"We weren’t going to sit there any longer and allow him to slander our beliefs the way he was that day…"
"Enjoy:”

---

Links:
* American Power: Professor Paul Derengowski Resigns from Tarrant County College After Muslim Students Launch 'Terroristic Act of Jihad'
* Christian Apologetics Project
* TCC Disputes That Professor Was Forced Out For His Beliefs - CBS Dallas / Fort Worth
* Tell Them the Truth
* Donald Douglas: "Conservatives have proudly exhibited bigotry against Muslim prayer before"
* What'd I Say?: In Reply: There were Muslims involved; Of COURSE Geller and Spencer Objected...

* Wingnuts and Moonbats: Investigate Pamela Geller...

* Jihad Against Tarrant County College Professor Paul Derengowski - Atlas Shrugs
* Jihad Against Tarrant County College Professor Paul Derengowski�|�Conservatives for America
---

An American Nihilist x-post

X-Post: Donald Douglas, Along W/ Other Anti-Muslim Bloggers, Go Into Full Denial Mode

In a long post denying that Anders Behring Breivik, the killer from Norway, was in any way associated with anything Dr. Douglas and his fellow anti-Muslim bloggers and spokesmen have been preaching and teaching--in spite of a whole lot of evidence to the contrary, including links to and quotes in his 1,500-page manifesto and elsewhere from Donald Douglas "friends" Pamela Geller, Geert Wilders, Robert Spencer, JihadWatch, ...--Donald makes reference to the following:

"And now here's progressive Leah McElrath on Twitter, cheering a New York Times report that links to a video manifesto credited to Anders Behring Breivik, which as later uploaded to ‪YouTube. And notice McElrath's good night tweet:

Well, that actually wasn't McElrath's last tweet. She took time to block JoannaOC in Minneapolis, who called her out for distributing progressive propaganda. McElrath gets angry for being called out, and claims she's saving lives. JoannaOC is trying to focus on the miracle of life and God's grace of survival. Leah McElrath is spreading left-wing propaganda and hate."

Sorry, but no, Donald...

JoannaOC's argument is that by posting the killer's video, Leah McElrath is distributing the killer's bigoted anti-muslim views. (It's the same argument folks made about posting or showing one of bin Laden's videos, back when he was still a going concern.) Like McElrath, I happen to believe in sunshine, but I can certainly see the argument JoannaOC is making... Anders Behring Breivik WANTED folks to see his creepy video; JoannaOC (who is almost certainly also a progressive, btw) is saying Leah McElrath and the rest of the media shouldn't grant the guy his last wish.

@JoannaOC:@acarvin @alphaleah @thelede I've watched the video. Do you really want to keep sending this link around? Was this not his intention?

Elsewhere in the twitter conversation a journalist she's talking to (local MN Public Radio, if that's any clue as to where she stands) mentions that "this is somewhat the same dilemma journos faced with the manifesto of the guy who flew a plane into a Texas IRS office," and she responds by talking about "the Zodiac Killer blackmailing the press into printing his stuff."

Like I said, I lean toward Leah's argument about exposing bad ideas and ideology to the light of day, but I also agree that when you do that, there will be people who read/watch these manifestos and whatnot, receive the exact opposite message from them than the one journalists/advocates of sunshine intend, take up the killer's crazy ideology, and perhaps become the next mass murderer. (Rachel Maddow often shows the lines and links between murderous anti-abortion extremists, for example... The risk is real...)

JoannaOC is certainly right about one thing; the teenagers--those who survived, as well as those who did not--deserve at least as much coverage as this extreme right wing terrorist. This is one survivor's story: Utøya survivor's story (translated to English)
---

An American Henchmen (Nihilist) X-post

Message to Representative Tim Bishop on the Park 51 Cultural Center

Representative Bishop,

I am most disappointed in your statement opposing the muslim cultural center two blocks from any part of the Ground Zero site (and several more from where the towers actually stood).

Do you not realize that the only reason the issue is divisive is because bigots in the rightwing blogesphere and media made it so?

Do you not realize that a right is only a right if you are free to actually exercise it, without protest from government officials such as yourself?

There is nothing insensitive or unwise about building a muslim cultural center near Ground Zero, unless you believe that muslims as a whole are responsible for 9/11, or you're willing to allow a ginned up mob of bigots to determine your standards of morality.

I have seen no polls of 9/11 families on this issue, so I question the "sensitivity" issue to start with, but even if they are by and large opposed, there is no American or Constitutional right not to be offended in this country. (In fact, the first amendment all but guarantees that at some point, every American likely will be offended by something another American says or does.)

I can appreciate that some 9/11 families may irrationally blame all muslims for the murder of their family member, but that doesn't make them right. And just as we wouldn't permit anyone to bar any jewish family from buying a house in a neighborhood where someone was murdered by a jewish man, even if the family of the murdered man was "sensitive" to jews after losing their family member, we cannot allow an irrational distrust of all muslims based on the acts of 19 extremists, to take hold in this case.

Please reconsider your statement, and stand up for the Constitution, not only in theory, but in practice.

In reply: Standing up for American Principles, even if you Stand Alone.

In reply: Legal Insurrection: Will They Now Call Harry Reid "Extremist"?. The post lists several liberal pundits expressing displeasure with Harry Reed's statement about the muslim cultural center being built in lower Manhattan, and for some reason wonders whether they will (or is it should?) call Harry Reed an extremist, based on what he said.

The post also elicited the following comments (among others, as of this posting):

The Ghost said...It always amazes me that the left sees critisim of their speech as someone telling them to shut up ... when in reality they are being disagreed with ...
I think what is really going on is that the left would love to tell us to shut up but they know that's a 1st Amendment thingy and they pull back so they assume that their critics really want to tell them to shut up ...
They all too often accuse others of doing exactly what they would like to do or are actually doing ...
August 17, 2010 10:00 AM

2421Rich said...
This is a great example of how the DUMBOCRAT Party does not allow any independent thought.
Dear Leader calls the tune and the spineless troops must follow the party line. Deviation is punished or if you stray you are ordered to shut up.
I know that once you get away from far left there are more Democrat voters that agree with Reid on this one. It's these people Reid is forced to pander to in order to save his job.
August 17, 2010 11:06 AM
---

I don't know why folks'd call Harry an extremist based on his wishy-washy support for the first amendment.

But wrong?

Sure... And if his objection is based on the religion of the folks who are building the cultural center--which it seem to be, given the absence of any other reason--I have no qualms about saying he's speaking like a bigot, either.

All those folks listed (and me, too) think he's wrong, and contrary to 2412Rich's assertions, there's pretty obviously no dictum saying it's against party rules to say so, otherwise those writers'd all be towing the party line, wouldn't they? (I'm not subscribed to either major party, m'self... They've gotten too big to stand for much of anything, anymore...)

I have little use for labels or for poll-tested or "majority rules" answers, either.

I see no asterisks attached to the free exercise clause that negate the thing, subject to anyone's feelings or sensitivities. (In fact, the first amendment pretty much guarantees that at some point, every American will be offended or at least have their feelings hurt by something someone says or does. That's kinda the point of the thing.) That these muslims have the right to build the center on ground they own, subject to local zoning laws and whatnot, should be the end of the story. There is no "but..." attached to the first amendment.

Folks who believe the cultural center shouldn't be built (or shouldn't be built there) have every right to speak up and to protest. And those who think that first group of folks are wrong--including those who think they're expressing bigotry while being wrong--have every right to say so, as well.
Even if folks don't like what the other side is saying.
Even if feelings get hurt.
And even if the pollsters say one side is faring better than the other, according to popular opinion.

(Being here on what is currently the "faring worse" side, I just keep reminding myself how often the mob has been wrong before, how we don't vote on constitutional rights, here in America, regardless, and how win or lose, I'm proudly standing on American principles I think are rock solid, and worth defending.)

Folks who hold all muslims responsible for what 19 extremist islamists did, and who therefore object to a muslim cultural center 2 blocks from Ground Zero on those grounds, are espousing the very definition of bigotry. (Those questioning financing or offended by something the imam once said, on the other hand, are not bigots... ...not that I can tell, anyway... only they know what's in their hearts. That's not to say that I agree with them either, but at least they're offering a legitimate reason for their opposition.)

If anyone is telling anyone else to shut up, I haven't seen it. It's all speech and rights and sensitivities, from where I'm standing... Messy, but just as the founders intended. In short, I'm not quite sure what the majority of the five visible comments before mine are trying to say, because I'm surely not seeing what they're seeing...

In Reply: "Moving the Cultural Center Will Only Embolden the Bigots..."

In reply to: The Mahablog - More on the 9/11 Families, and in particular the update indicating that Haaretz is reporting that the folks who intend to build the cultural center in lower Manhattan intend to back down. (It sounds like planted propaganda to me--why would an Israeli paper have inside info on this?--but one never knows...)
---

I too, hope Haaretz is wrong.

Moving the cultural center at this stage would only embolden the bigots--both the terrorists who hate us for our freedoms, when they see how easily we're willing to give them up, and the ones here in America who are opposing muslim mosques and community centers--not to mention muslims themselves--all throughout America.

I don't care what the polls supposedly say. We don't vote on civil rights or Constitutional protections here in America, no matter how unpopular the exercise of those rights and protections may be.
---

Submitted for moderator approval Aug 16, 2010 @6:58 pm

In reply: "Fear, Distrust, and Bigotry is just what the Terrorists want."

In reply to: WyBlog -- Who Was That Mosqued Man?, and in particular, the following comment:

@repsac3 - This is not about stopping Muslims from building mosques. No one is opposing mosques "all over the US". There are periodic local zoning fights about mosques. And similar fights about churches and synagogues too. Come to my town where the animosity generated by a humungous synagogue which was approved in the dead of night is still strong Or several towns over where a Greek Orthodox Mega-Church spent 15 years in litigation before getting its permits.

You say these Muslims are not associated with 9/11. That's probably true. But they are associated with Hamas. And Hamas is a terrorist organization. Hamas sacked and desecrated the Church of the Nativity is Bethlehem. It's absurd for them to now turn around and demand this mosque be built to promote "tolerance". When they lift the siege of Bethlehem, then we can talk.

Oh, and let me set you straight on one point. The terrorists who brought down the towers didn't "claim" to be Muslims. They *were* Muslims. You're veering into Rosie O'Donnell territory if you are unwilling to admit that.
--

I'm sorry... I did not mean to imply that those terrorists were not muslim. But they represent the muslim  faith in the same way that Fred Phelps represents the Baptist denomination, which is to say, not so much. The proof of that are the millions of muslims all over the world who have never lifted a hand to anyone. To pretend that it is the extremists that represent the muslim faith (or the Baptists, for that matter) and not all those who worship in peace is no less looney than any nutjobbery to which Rosie has added her voice.

I have seen no ties to Hamas. What I have seen is a guy who chooses to be more diplomatic than to call a spade a spade. (or a terrorist a terrorist.) Something to disagree with, perhaps... but not an offense that bars him from opening a cultural center on private property in America. It's fine to be offended by his reticence to speak as forcefully as you would, in his position. But his goals are to bring extremists down from the ledge, and you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. While it's admirable to speak your mind, there are times when not saying the right thing at the wrong time will diffuse a situation better than blatant, brutal honesty. There are times when it's wiser to avoid needless confrontation.

Zoning fights? No, I'm sorry, Chris, but these are objections to mosques and cultural centers, on the basis of the same bigotry against muslims at play in lower manhattan, by what are likely many of the same people. Staten Island. Tennessee. Wisconsin. Even folks on the right see what you deny: American Power: To Build or Not to Build? Mosque Protests Go Nationwide (And to his credit, Dr Douglas gets this one more or less correct.) Indeed, there are Mosque Disputes Around the Country. Even Jon Stewart is getting in on the act. This isn't the same as fights over the height of the spire on a church. In each of these cases, the issue is an objection to the muslim faith. Pretending otherwise won't make it go away.

We are America, Chris. We don't base our freedoms on what folks do in other, more regressive, repressive countries. We extend the freedom to build mosques (or other houses of worship) regardless of what other governments or groups do. We are not Hamas, and the suggestion that we should take our cues on freedom from any more repressive regeme betrays a serious misunderstanding of what it means to be an American, whether said by you or by Newt Gingrich.

You know what... Skip it... I see from the comments to the previous post that you're one of those who believes that all the muslims who aren't currently committing acts of terrorism are just pretending, lying about themselves and their faith to lull us all into a false sense of security before they rise up, take us over, and impose Sharia law. And that's to say nothing of Louie Gomert's terrorist tots... 

There's just no arguing against that kind of baseless conspiracy theorizing... I didn't realize what I was dealing with, here... You seemed far more reasonable in past encounters. Carry on being afraid. But if you were to ask me, I'd say that that fear and distrust and bigotry is just what the terrorists want.

In Reply: " That hole is their symbolic 'victory mosque,' not some cultural center."

In reply to: WyBlog -- Who Was That Mosqued Man?
---

No one has the right not to be offended here in America. We are a nation of laws, not of men, or of feelings. That they have the right to build should be the end of the issue, at least legally. Fake zoning hearings and landmark status pleas are beneath us as Americans.

And really, why shouldn't they build? What is it about this cultural center or the people who're involved in it or who will be served by it that so offends Mrs Palin and the rest? And since when do we Americans put rights or sensibilities up for a vote, anyway?

When Fred Phelps shows up to disrupt and desecrate a solemn memorial service for a fallen soldier we don't get all huffy about "religious freedom".

On the other hand, we don't oppose all Baptists (or everyone from Westboro), either. Opposing a cultural center two blocks from Ground Zero because it's being built by muslims, on the basis that the terrorists who took down the towers also claimed to be muslims, is little more than bigotry based on a sweeping generalization that suggests all muslims are potential terrorists.

That there are questions about the financing of the center make slightly more sense, but I don't hear too many opponents suggesting that they believe the center can proceed if the answers don't bear out any of the suppositions about "terrorist funding" being made. (And neither the money questions or the "sensitivity" issue explains why conservatives are opposing muslim mosques and cultural centers all over the US.)

Rather than making me rethink the muslim cultural center, the story about the Saint Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church makes me question why so much hasn't been rebuilt so long after 9/11. To me that is a far greater insensitivity to the families of 9/11 and to New York City as a whole than any muslim cultural center, or mosque, or Greek Orthodox church, for that matter.

(Personally, I'd love for the whole area to be strewn with churches and mosques and chapels and synagogues and temples representing the faith of every person who died in the towers, along with places to reflect and to mourn and to remember.)

But whatever they're going to build, they ought to get started. That Ground Zero is still a hole in the ground all these years later offends me far more than this proposed cultural center. At this point, I'd prefer the pre-Disneyfied Times Square. Porn shops, topless bars & hookers better represent NYC and showing the terrorists we cannot be beaten than that damned hole. That hole is their symbolic "victory mosque," not some cultural center.
---

Posted 8/16/10, 1:00 PM
---

Related: St. Nicholas Church (including links to local stories about the difficulties of getting the church rebuilt and a place to donate, if you wish to help.)

Mayor Bloomberg: Deal To Rebuild Greek Orthodox Church Near Ground Zero May Be Near

In Reply: US Bigots Help Islamist Extremists Demonize America

In reply to It"s an emotional issue, but blocking the "Ground Zero mosque" is just what the terrorists want
---

Treating all muslims as though they are presumptively potentially guilty of extremist terrorism is nothing more than religious and cultural bigotry. And while decent people can do no more than try to convince those who engage in it that there is a better way, even that personal bigotry pales in comparison with trying to make our government complicit in enforcing personal bigotry and animus on behalf of the city, state or country. Those who oppose a muslim cultural center (pretty much the equivalent of a YMCA) don't have any more right not to feel offended than the rest of us have not to be offended by their bigoted words and deeds. That "they have the right to build it" should be the end of the story, here in America... We are a nation of laws, not of men, or of feelings.

Whatever the "sensitivities" of the issue, the only people who would benefit from blocking the cultural center at this point are the bigots in this country who would be emboldened to oppose more muslim mosques and cultural centers throughout the United States--which is already happening--and the Islamist extremists who will use any victory by the bigots here to "prove" that the west is hostile to the Muslim faith, and to recruit more disaffected muslims to their murderous cause.

We combat muslim extremism by upholding our American values of inclusiveness and religious freedom, encouraging moderate muslims to become a part of the fabric of this country and taking away the rhetorical symbol that distrust and animus toward muslim people and the muslim faith provides those extremists who seek to do us harm.

X-Post: In reply: 'Friends of Terror' Attend White House Ramadan Dinner

In reply to: American Power: Obama Defends Plan for Mosque Near Ground Zero — 'Friends of Terror' Attend White House Ramadan Dinner
---

It'd probably just be easier if Dr. Douglas and his "friends of bigotry" at Horowitz's FrontPage Magazine, Spencer's Jihad Watch, and Geller's Atlas Shrugs list the Muslims they don't believe are "Friends of Terror," because reading them, it seems as though they feel the only good Muslims are ex-Muslims (or dead Muslims... ...and it's sometimes hard to tell which they prefer).

In any case, their list of approved Muslims that "real Americans" like them could associate with--without getting that familiar guilt by association stain of "connections with" islamist jihad on 'em, I mean--couldn't be very long.
---

x-post at American Nihilist

In Reply: There were Muslims involved; Of COURSE Geller and Spencer Objected...

In reply to Why did no one object to the "Pentagon mosque"? - War Room - Salon.com
---

Actually, both Geller and Spencer DID object...

I don't want to be the party pooper, but the author should've used the google...
Robert Spencer - West: Ramadan at the Pentagon - Jihad Watch
Pamela Geller - Pentagon Submits to Islam - Atlas Shrugs

Both were posted on October 4th, 2007, based on the October 3rd Washington Times article cited in the "Pentagon Mosque" post.

Somehow, I didn't think that either of these bigots could've passed it up... and sure enough, neither of them did.

(Have these two ever met a Muslim they didn't hate?)
---
Permalink to comment at Salon

In Reply: Some Muslims are Terrorists; Some Aren't. Some Muslims are Murderers; Some Aren't. Some Murder is Terrorism; Some isn't.

In reply to this post, and the following comment in particular:

Donald Douglas said...
Sorry, Dana, but gotta disagree:

"On Thursday afternoon, a radicalized Muslim US Army officer shouting "Allahu Akbar!" committed the worst act of terror on American soil since 9/11. And no one wants to call it an act of terror or associate it with Islam.

What cowards we are. Political correctness killed those patriotic Americans at Ft. Hood as surely as the Islamist gunman did. And the media treat it like a case of non-denominational shoplifting.

This was a terrorist act. When an extremist plans and executes a murderous plot against our unarmed soldiers to protest our efforts to counter Islamist fanatics, it’s an act of terror. Period."

From Ralph Peters.
---

With all respect due Ralph Peters, investigators are still determining whether the guy was an extremist, how much planning there was, and whether or not his actions had anything to do with protesting our efforts to counter Islamist fanatics. Once those facts actually are determined--and as I said, I expect they will be--it won't be jumping to conclusions to say so.

Those who said so late Thursday or early Friday, however, based primarily on his name & religious affiliation, jumped to conclusions without benefit of this later information, making folks wonder whether they were & are just bigots. (Same goes for those bigoted asses on FoxNews who floated the idea of screening American Muslims before allowing them to serve in the military. I'm all for screening out violent or objectively anti-American statements and behaviors --and perhaps if the military had, this wouldn't've happened, given all the flags Hasan seemed to've raised--but I can't support screening soldiers or anyone else based on religious affiliation, alone. In addition to islamist radicals like Hasan more'n'likely is, there are reports of far right radicals, unrepentant gang members, wife/child abusers, folks with bad psychological profiles... I doubt there's many of any of these types in the service, but as Hasan shows, sometimes it only takes one... I'm all for trying harder to weed any/as many of 'em out as possible...)
---

Posted November 7, 2009 5:40 PM AmPow blog time
---

Blog Link:
American Power: Terrorism or Tragic Shooting? More Deadly Political Correctness on Fort Hood Massacre