Thursday, August 26, 2010

For It, Or Against It?

From Front Page magazine:
I would like to ask all of the so-called liberals at The New York Times who are in support of the infamous Ground Zero mosque–”Are you for it or against it?”, with regard to the US becoming “a Sharia compliant state”, as well as Imam Rauf’s refusal to condemn Hamas. These are not issues that you can sit back and shamelessly sip your latte while you try to morally equivocate by uttering idiocies such as, “Radical Christianity is as big a threat as radical Islam!” or, “But, George Bush!!”. You are either for honor killings, or you are against them. You are either for hanging homosexuals, or you are against it. You are either for stoning women, or you are against it. You are either for mutilating women, or against it. You are either for rounding up all of the Jews and killing them, or you are against it. There is no middle ground on these issues or wiggle room for a nuanced position. And, if you take money from countries who support these kinds of activities in order to build a mosque at Ground Zero, refuse to call out Hamas as a terrorist organization, or support the building of a mosque by someone who thinks that “America is a Sharia compliant country”, then that is the same thing as being “for it” in most sane people’s book, who don’t want any part of America to be “Sharia compliant”, much less Ground Zero.

Share

Wednesday, August 25, 2010

Why America is NOT Anti-Muslim, or "Islamophobic"

I found this post on Ace of Spaces, that handily sums up the distinction between opposing the Ground Zero mosque, and true hatred or bigotry.
As for the gorgeous mosaic of religious pluralism, it's easy enough to find mosque Web sites and DVDs that peddle the most disgusting attacks on Jews, Hindus, Christians, unbelievers, and other Muslims—to say nothing of insane diatribes about women and homosexuals. This is why the fake term Islamophobia is so dangerous: It insinuates that any reservations about Islam must ipso facto be "phobic." A phobia is an irrational fear or dislike. Islamic preaching very often manifests precisely this feature, which is why suspicion of it is by no means irrational.

Exactly.  Too much of the preaching from many mosque's pulpits is BIGOTED (against Christians and Jews), INFLAMMATORY (meant to arouse violent actions), and just plain IGNORANT (i.e., stupid - for example, that God turned Jews into apes and monkeys - literally).

America is culpable in one manner: By our habit of apologism for third-world evil and tolerating the intolerable, making excuses for murder, we are in effect preventing the necessary argument that must be had within Islam. Terror and tribalistic hatred must be reformed out of it, and, just as with the housing market, we are propping up a bad system, delaying a necessary reckoning, by continuing to indulge in this happy-happy joy-joy apologism for Islamist evil.
Rauf continues his "outreach" to terrorists (by which we mean: tacit support for and moral encouragement of) because we haven't yet insisted that he choose, once and finally, between peace and war, forgiveness and hatred, decency and murder. We allow him to play this vile game, and by doing so, we are showing tolerance -- tolerance for murderers. And it should be little surprise then that the murders we are tolerating are continuing apace.
We have taken the ultimate step in defining deviancy down: We now pretend that mass murder is an understandable expression of Islamist rage, something we are just as responsible for as they (or more so), and little wonder then that the Islamist murderers take us at our word.
If you give someone moral license to kill you, you shouldn't be surprised if he gets the crazy idea you've given him actual license to kill you.
Share

Sunday, August 22, 2010

Anti-Mosque, Pro-Intolerance?

A recent editorial, by Haris Tarin, from the Los Angeles Times, explained the many reasons “Why one Muslim chose U.S. As home”. Mr. Tarin mentioned the multicultural, interracial, and inter-religious friendships that his father experienced. Also important to his father was that the U.S., and its people, were open and welcoming to foreigners.

Mr. Tarin then wrote about his fears for his children. For, you see, he believes that the opposition to the Ground Zero mosque is based on anti-Muslim bigotry and intolerance.

Mr. Tarin, there are MANY reasons to oppose the proposed “cultural center/mosque”. One of the most urgent is that – you will excuse my frankness – body parts are still being recovered. It is still a graveyard. For that reason, Americans are naturally sensitive about the uses of that land.

To put a building that was just a mosque on the property would have caused little fuss for most Americans. What constitutes the remainder of the facility?

Plans are for the facility to include a 500-seat auditorium, theater, performing arts center, fitness center, swimming pool, basketball court, childcare area, bookstore, culinary school, food court serving halal dishes, and Islamic prayer space for 1,000–2,000 Muslims (according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Park51)

Because nothing says “I'm sensitive to the nature of the location” like a basketball court, fitness center, theater, culinary school, and swimming pool, and, oh yes, a food court.
It's been compared to the 92nd Street Jewish “Y”. That facility is only 10 stories, and still manages to serve more members than the mosque would, with 13 stories. Why does the mosque have to be so high?

Could it be so that the mosque will look out to (and above) the memorial site? Check out the picture at http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/27/ground-zero-memorial-assumes-a-concrete-form/

The Greek Orthodox church that was destroyed in the 9/11 attack has tried to rebuild for the past 9 years. They have NOT been fast-tracked to do so, unlike the mosque (which, after all, is a new use of the property, not a re-build). Furthermore, according to http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=38462

Port Authority officials told the church to cut back the size of the building and the height of the proposed dome, limiting it to rising no higher than the World Trade Center memorial.

The mosque has not been limited in its height.

Mr. Tarin, it's not bigotry - it's sheer dumbfoundedness at the appalling lack of taste and sensitivity.

Y'all want a mosque?  Move it away a few blocks.  We won't stop you.  We'll even hoist you up in our estimation;  showing sensitivity for a culture's deeply held beliefs about the proper way to observe respect for the dead does that.

Share

Friday, August 20, 2010

The End of America?

Thomas Sowell weighs in.
It is not just evil people who would dismantle America. Many people who have no desire to destroy our freedoms simply have agendas of their own that are singly or collectively incompatible with the survival of freedom.
Someone once said that a democratic society cannot survive for long after 51 percent of the people decide that they want to live off the other 49 percent. Yet that is the direction in which we are being pushed by those who are promoting envy under its more high-toned alias, “social justice.”
Those who construct moral melodramas — starring themselves on the side of the angels against the forces of evil — are ready to disregard the constitutional rights of those they demonize, and to overstep the limits that the Constitution puts on the powers of the federal government.
I do NOT think that America is over.  But, if we don't stop the erosion of our Constitutional freedoms, we'll teeter closer to the edge than I ever thought possible.

Share

Wednesday, August 18, 2010

Saturday, August 14, 2010

What Do the Families of the 9/11 Dead Think About the Mosque?

The Corner has the statement from their spokesperson, Debra Burlingame.  The 9/11 Families site is here.
Muslims have worshipped in New York without incident both before and after the attacks of 9/11. This controversy is not about religious freedom. 9/11 was more than a “deeply traumatic event,” it was an act of war. Building a 15-story mosque at Ground Zero is a deliberately provocative act that will precipitate more bloodshed in the name of Allah. Those who continue to target and kill American civilians and U.S. troops will see it as a symbol of their historic progress at the site of their most bloody victory. Demolishing a building that was damaged by wreckage from one of the hijacked planes in order to build a mosque and Islamic Center will further energize those who regard it as a ratification of their violent and divinely ordered mission: the spread of shariah law and its subjugation of all free people, including secular Muslims who come to this country fleeing that medieval ideology, which destroys lives and crushes the human spirit.
In other words, President Obama, you don't know what you're talking about.

Share

Shutuppery

I found this well-reasoned video on the NewsReal Blog.


Share

Wednesday, August 11, 2010

9/11 Dead Still Being Uncovered

 Folks, it's not over at Ground Zero.  Remains are still being found.

As this is still an active cemetery, and we are still uncovering the dead, it is doubly important that we stop blathering about "time for healing" and "moving beyond" the tragedy.  It's still happening, in the present tense.

Share

Because, Of Course, Churches Already Get State Money, Right?

Not!
Where are the people who blather about the SACRED separation of church & state now?

Anyone?  Anyone?

Share

Let's Have Equal Treatment for Mosques and Churches!

To those who wonder why I'm "anti-mosque", and wonder how I would feel if the government acted against churches in the Ground Zero area, see this.

Share

We're Repairing Mosques - At US Government Expense?

I almost choked on my breakfast this morning - when I read THIS:
Americans also may be surprised to learn that the United States has been an active participant in mosque construction projects overseas. In April, U.S. Ambassador to Tanzania Alfonso E. Lenhardt helped cut the ribbon at the 12th-century Kizimkazi Mosque, which was refurbished with assistance from the United States under a program to preserve culturally significant buildings. The U.S. government also helped save the Amr Ebn El Aas Mosque in Cairo, which dates back to 642. The mosque’s namesake was the Muslim conqueror of Christian Egypt, who built the structure on the site where he had pitched his tent before doing battle with the country’s Byzantine rulers. For those who think the Ground Zero Mosque is an example of “Muslim triumphalism” glorifying conquest, the Amr Ebn El Aas Mosque is an example of such a monument – and one paid for with U.S. taxpayer funds.

I completely agree with this next part:
someone in Congress needs to get to the bottom of whether this government is also underwriting Islamic religious institutions, and doing so in violation of U.S. law. And wholly apart from questions of legality and utility, Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf states Rauf is visiting are swimming in petro-dollars — why can’t they fund icons of Islamic supremacism on their own … maybe using the money they’d otherwise spend on the hate literature they produce for American Islamic centers?

I'm contacting my Congressional representative at the House, and I'll be doing the same with my Senators.  Click the links to do the same (you can search for them by state).
Share

"Livable Communities" - Whose Definition?

In my younger days, BC (Before Children), I lived in a city.  I could talk for hours (probably did) about the benefits of living in walking distance of EVERYTHING - work, school, church, shopping.  Such a scenario is the dream that drives the "Livable Communities Act".  This act is designed to change how Americans live (I know, I know - so do all the other legislative initiatives that have been introduced lately).

What's different about it?  It works to combat urban sprawl with a hammer approach - no more coaxing Americans to reduce their use of automobiles, it will FORCE them to comply.
But social engineering is at the heart of the Livable Communities Act where federal planners hope to reduce personal mobility as measured in vehicle miles traveled and shift housing patterns from single family homes in the suburbs to small apartments in cramped central cities.
In a country as large and diverse as ours, some people will prefer the live-work-travel arrangements prescribed for in the Livable Communities Act, which is based on the Smart Growth planning doctrine. However, the vast majority of Americans in red and blue states alike have long aspired to live in suburban homes with a car in the garage.
This quintessentially middle class version of the American Dream has long been derided by elites and environmentalists who recast suburbs as wasteful sprawl and liken automobile use to a destructive addiction. They want to de-legitimize this land use pattern, restrict automobile use and make suburban housing less affordable. The Livable Communities Act is thus a hammer in the progressive toolbox.
So, what's so bad about making extended car trips unaffordable?   Plenty.  Today, I carpooled with my husband; we made 5 stops, and managed to accomplish multiple errands on a single trip.  Why couldn't we have walked?  PLEASE - we live in the South, and the combination of heat and humidity would have wilted us.  Also, it would have wasted our time, extending the length of the trip at least 4 hours.  And, since my husband's back was acting up, it would have caused personal pain and distress.

All those benefits for about $4 for the whole trip (cost of gas and car expense).  Not bad - very affordable personally.

Other Americans do the same every day - they pick up kids, buy groceries (in bulk, not possible if you have to walk/ride a bike), go to church (and, since many of us don't live in walking distance of our denomination, it makes it possible for our communities to be religiously diverse), attend college after work, etc.  None of this would be possible if we didn't use the car.

I rode public transportation for years.  I couldn't understand why anyone would own a car.

Then, my job moved to another city, and I had to take 2 buses and a train trip every day.  It took over an hour each way, and missing a connection made me late.  That romance with public transportation broke up real soon.

Other factors that drive use of cars include the desire to spend more time with family; need to work at a distant job (I'm doing that this year - my school is about an hour away.  Beats being unemployed, and I wouldn't be able to sell my house that quickly); and need for more education while still staying employed.

Not wanting to live in cities is a choice, and not an evil one.  Not everyone can own a cabin in the woods, but most can get some access to nature in their own suburban 1/2 acre.  I remember hearing neighbors' arguments, keeping kids inside to avoid neighborhood gangs, and other problems of living in congested settings.  I live close enough to people to enjoy their company, without living in a box, surrounded by others trying to avoid walking too heavily, listening to music too loudly, not cooking foods that might generate odors offensive to the neighbors, and shushing children who are being - well - children.

I choose to live with some space around me.

Share

Wednesday, August 04, 2010

How Did She Get Inside My Head?

From Robin of Berkeley:
The saddest thing for me about the political differences is a sense of loss. Jon and I used to see eye-to-eye on almost everything, both political and religious.

We'd spend hours bonding over like-minded issues. Now we can't go anywhere near politics without hard feelings. Occasionally a political topic will come up (always my doing, even though I promise myself to keep a wrap on it). The conversation never ends well.
Don't underestimate the stress that political change can bring to a Boomer relationship.  Perhaps most poignantly:
I know some liberal/conservative couples who are making it just fine. But there's one big difference: they were already political adversaries when they got together.   

It's one thing to enter a relationship with all your cards on the table. It's another thing to change.

I have unintentionally broken an unwritten rule integral to most relationships: Thou Shalt Not Change. That rule about consistency is no small matter. Partners feel safe and secure by counting on the other person's predictability.

Such a sea change like a political conversion can feel like a betrayal. It's not quite on the same level as an affair, but it still can erode trust. One person has transformed into someone new and unfamiliar.
Sadly, I have introduced a major stress into a working, caring relationship.  I'm not sure that it will survive.  But, the alternative, to pretend that it hasn't changed, is not possible.

Share

Tuesday, August 03, 2010

I Don't Think That Law Will Do What You Think It Will Do

Democrats/Leftists are playing around with their state legislation to keep Democrats in power, forever - even longer than a Twilight book.  But, their efforts may seriously backfire.  Read why in the link.

Share

Monday, August 02, 2010

Why Burka Bans are the Right Thing to Do

Honestly, I don't have anything against veiling.  Until fairly recent times, it was the norm for women.  In my youth, Central European immigrants would wear babushkas on the street.  Nuns wore full habit (just like Sister Act).  In church, for years, I wore a hat or the Jackie-Kennedy veil or mantilla.

I've had friends who wore various head-coverings, from religious sisters to Islamic women.  Never bothered me.  In fact, I envied their freedom to not fuss with their hair.

But, all that was voluntary.  Today, in many Middle Eastern and European cities, a woman who is NOT veiled is a target - for rape, for the "smiley" (a scar that is used for unveiled women - a knife slice from the corner of the mouth to the ear), for whatever abuse roving groups of men chose to inflict on her.

Read the link - get the facts about why the burka ban makes sense.

Share

Popping in for a Quick Update

I'm doing most of my blogging at this time on either Liberty's Torch , or The Declination . I was doing a lot of subbing, but am try...