Mosque protesters assault... mosque protesters

[Einzige]

http://www.northjersey.com/news/opinion ... c=y&page=2

At one point, a portion of the crowd menacingly surrounded two Egyptian men who were speaking Arabic and were thought to be Muslims.

"Go home," several shouted from the crowd.

"Get out," others shouted.

In fact, the two men - Joseph Nassralla and Karam El Masry - were not Muslims at all. They turned out to be Egyptian Coptic Christians who work for a California-based Christian satellite TV station called "The Way." Both said they had come to protest the mosque.

"I'm a Christian," Nassralla shouted to the crowd, his eyes bulging and beads of sweat rolling down his face.

But it was no use. The protesters had become so angry at what they thought were Muslims that New York City police officers had to rush in and pull Nassralla and El Masry to safety.

"I flew nine hours in an airplane to come here," a frustrated Nassralla said afterward.

I am highly inclined to do nothing more than sit back and watch the brainless mass devour itself.

[Aaron]

Personally I find it pretty shitty that they turned on these guys just because they weren't speaking English and likely aren't white.

[Tanasinn]

I don't, this is what I've come to expect of the American religious right. Certainly it's not the first time religion has been assumed based on appearance, either, especially since 9/11.

Frankly, the more infighting they do, the less normal people have to deal with them.

[StarshipTitanic]

I don't, this is what I've come to expect of the American religious right. Certainly it's not the first time religion has been assumed based on appearance, either, especially since 9/11.

Frankly, the more infighting they do, the less normal people have to deal with them.

It's not infighting if they're attacking Egyptian Copts. What the American religious right does is actually far worse for their movement. By attacking people who don't look "Christian" enough, they alienate dark-skinned, foreign-looking people even though that type is winning the demographic race. People like Bobby Jindal and Nicki Hayley represented a victory for the American right because it proved that right wing politics was genuinely for everyone. The right wing base will reverse that progress if they embrace indiscriminate xenophobia.

[Phantasee]

That's disgusting. It also shows this isn't a freedom of religion issue, and is about racism.

[Cecelia5578]

I don't, this is what I've come to expect of the American religious right. Certainly it's not the first time religion has been assumed based on appearance, either, especially since 9/11.

Frankly, the more infighting they do, the less normal people have to deal with them.

It's not infighting if they're attacking Egyptian Copts. What the American religious right does is actually far worse for their movement. By attacking people who don't look "Christian" enough, they alienate dark-skinned, foreign-looking people even though that type is winning the demographic race. People like Bobby Jindal and Nicki Hayley represented a victory for the American right because it proved that right wing politics was genuinely for everyone. The right wing base will reverse that progress if they embrace indiscriminate xenophobia.

Jindal and Hayley are both converts to Christianity; you mean the GOP welcomes everyone who is Christian (but only the right kind) or Jews (again, only the Orthodox or secular neo-cons). I think the odds of them advancing in the GOP if they hadn't converted are...pretty small.

[Thinkmarble]

I wonder if it isnt a little more complicated then that.
Instead of actually changing policy and rhetoric promote any non-whitebread as high as possible to demonstrate that despite what falls out of our mouth you are not a racist.
The "I got afro-american/hispanic/jewish friends" for a new century.
Much in the same way they point to the Lincoln, or to the time before the southern strategy.

[StarshipTitanic]

I don't, this is what I've come to expect of the American religious right. Certainly it's not the first time religion has been assumed based on appearance, either, especially since 9/11.

Frankly, the more infighting they do, the less normal people have to deal with them.

It's not infighting if they're attacking Egyptian Copts. What the American religious right does is actually far worse for their movement. By attacking people who don't look "Christian" enough, they alienate dark-skinned, foreign-looking people even though that type is winning the demographic race. People like Bobby Jindal and Nicki Hayley represented a victory for the American right because it proved that right wing politics was genuinely for everyone. The right wing base will reverse that progress if they embrace indiscriminate xenophobia.

Jindal and Hayley are both converts to Christianity; you mean the GOP welcomes everyone who is Christian (but only the right kind) or Jews (again, only the Orthodox or secular neo-cons). I think the odds of them advancing in the GOP if they hadn't converted are...pretty small.

I in fact meant exactly what I said: It doesn't matter to these racist protesters if they are Christians if they don't look like a WASP. Hayley was accused of being a crypto-Muslim in the nasty primary fight and she's actually descended from Sikhs. Jindal and Hayley are the product of GOP efforts to welcome who they think are properly assimilated minorities. These ignorant protesters are going to reverse that effort and marginalize the GOP.

[Crossroads Inc.]

If there is a single person who doesn't believe that the core of conservative 'values' is blind bigoted racism really needs to read this. While yes, there are still small pockets of "true" conservatives who do believe in sanity, intelligence, and logical discourse, the Conservative "Institution" as a whole fosters and in fact encourage this form of blind bigoted fear mongering of anyone who isn't a white skinned American.

That there is no one in the Republican power-base who speaks sanity, no one who speaks up to say "Whoa! maybe we shouldn't wipe these people into a murderous rage" is the true damning inditement of the conservative leadership in America.

Again

"I'm a Christian," Nassralla shouted to the crowd, his eyes bulging and beads of sweat rolling down his face.

But it was no use. The protesters had become so angry at what they thought were Muslims that New York City police officers had to rush in and pull Nassralla and El Masry to safety.

That just there mere Possibility of muslims sent these people into lynch mob like action is telling. No one thought "Brown people! I wonder if they ARE muslim" or even "Muslims! lets talk ot them to see what they have to say" No it went straight to "Muslims! Let's GET'EM"

[Zixinus]

Human stupidity can be so amusingly self-destructive at times.

[Kanastrous]

Vaguely reminiscent of the trail of slaughtered Christians left in the wake of the First Crusaders on their way to the Near East.

Well, they didn't *look* very Christian.

[Solauren]

This is not surprising.

Some people need a target for their day-to-day frustrations, so they end up hating another 'group' to vent their fustrations on.

[Phantasee]

Isn't Bobby Jindal a Catholic? I thought that was the wrong kind of Christian for the GOP.

[Master of Cards]

Isn't Bobby Jindal a Catholic? I thought that was the wrong kind of Christian for the GOP.

I may have an odd experience but in my local area most Catholics are Republicans due to pro life issues. (Catholics are nearly a super majority)

[StarshipTitanic]

Isn't Bobby Jindal a Catholic? I thought that was the wrong kind of Christian for the GOP.

I may have an odd experience but in my local area most Catholics are Republicans due to pro life issues. (Catholics are nearly a super majority)

Where are you? I'd say it depends on what region of the country you're in and that Catholics tend to be liberal and Democrats. Since Reagan, the Catholic vote has only gone Republican in one election: 2004. Obama won the Catholic vote by a large margin against McCain. Remember that Latinos tend to be Catholic and they are a large voting bloc that overwhelmingly favors the Democratic Party.

The Moral Majority-type movements of the past few decades has largely been a Protestant, Evangelical affair. Catholics, by virtue of belonging to a church with a very clear hierarchy, can't easily become followers of Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell without a conflict.

[FSTargetDrone]

"Coptic" Christians may as well be non-Christians as far as most of these mouth-breathers are concerned. I am quite sure most of them have no idea what Coptic Christians are.

I am very interested in what these two men have to say to the media now, after their apparent near-assault.

[Master of Cards]

Isn't Bobby Jindal a Catholic? I thought that was the wrong kind of Christian for the GOP.

I may have an odd experience but in my local area most Catholics are Republicans due to pro life issues. (Catholics are nearly a super majority)

Where are you? I'd say it depends on what region of the country you're in and that Catholics tend to be liberal and Democrats. Since Reagan, the Catholic vote has only gone Republican in one election: 2004. Obama won the Catholic vote by a large margin against McCain. Remember that Latinos tend to be Catholic and they are a large voting bloc that overwhelmingly favors the Democratic Party.

The Moral Majority-type movements of the past few decades has largely been a Protestant, Evangelical affair. Catholics, by virtue of belonging to a church with a very clear hierarchy, can't easily become followers of Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell without a conflict.

Rural and Suburban Missouri.

[Lord Relvenous]

Just got into a semi-argument about the Ground Zero mosque with my mother last night. In her words, the mosque is nothing more than "rubbing salt in the wound" and is for nothing more than "creating controversy". She has spent her whole life insulated in Republican super majorities and LDS culture that while she can see a lot of the problems with the really extreme religious right, she's completely incorporated into the fundamentalist movement.

After almost 3 hours of terrible, terrible debate on her side, I was finally able to leave her with a small grain of knowledge: Islamic terrorists are as different from mainstream Islam as fundamentalist Mormons are from the mainstream Mormon church (not a perfect comparison and I hate to discuss Mormon stuff with my parents due to my severing of ties with that all-mighty organization of bigotry, but at least it worked).

So goddamn frustrating to confront that kind of unthinking, unknowing bigotry and double-think. She doesn't think of herself as bigoted, but I could tell that she felt that all Muslims were somehow responsible for 9/11.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I wrote this for part of my own arguments. Perhaps some of you will find it useful. Particularly with the bigotry angle

There are three primary branches or sects of Islam. There are... ...lots of little ones, but it is kind of like dividing them into Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant. The first split happened after the death of Muhammad.

When the Prophet died, the Sunni (which is what Osama bin Laden is), believed that the first four Caliphs were his rightful successors and that them and their heirs were their rightful and legitimate religious leaders. There was an unbroken line of succession from them until 1920 with the fall of the Ottoman Empire.

Shiites believe that it was only Ali, Muhammad's cousin and son-in-law who was the rightful religious leader, along with his heirs. This caused the split, and a brutal civil war. When the 11th Shiite Caliph died, his son disappeared. It is their belief that God "hid" him from public life and that he will come again. Sort of like Jesus.

Here is where things get interesting. Sunnis make up some 85% of Muslims world wide. They have a crazy fundamentalist sect started by a guy named Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab. His branch of Islam became very expansionist and eventually had to be stopped from seizing control of the Arabian peninsula by the ottoman turks. It is dominant religion of Saudi Arabia. They are the source if the 9/11 high-jackers. They were all from Saudi Arabia, they were all Wahhabist Sunnis, and they got their marching orders from a Wahhabist group called Al Qaeda, operating out of Afghanistan which at that time was ruled by the Taliban, which was a Wahhabist theocracy.

Ok. We have have the history lesson. How does this apply? The community center in question is operated and populated by Sufi Muslims. Sufi Muslims are a mystic sect of Muslims founded sometime before the end of the tenth century. It focuses on having a personal relationship with Allah, and rejects the legalism (such as the Wahhabi school of Sunni jurisprudence) which leads to extremism. Historically they have been champions for the poor and downtrodden, and actively embrace the concept of universal love and respect for all faiths. In mannerism and theology, they are basically the Quakers of Islam.

So, being angry at Sufis for building a cultural center is like being angry at Quakers, for what Catholics did at the Massacre of Acre in 1191. The only difference is that the religious split between Sufi and the rest of Islam was a thousand years ago, and the Quakers of today are separated by almost a thousand years from the Catholics who committed the Massacre. The number of innocent men, women, and children is even almost exact--2700 for Acre, approximately 3000 for 9/11.

The logic behind that anger makes no sense. Why should a group of people who are not only personally innocent, but also institutionally innocent feel the need to "respect" the uninformed opinions of those who are offended by this? That ignorance is not excusable. Ignorance does not excuse prejudice. Lets substitute race for religion here for a second.

Lets say someone by the name of Tyron Ramashadaran Nguyen Goldberg (so as to make his race a complete non-issue) was attacked by a cuban guy and spends the rest of his life hating or being uncomfortable around all hispanics. Is that acceptable? Lets assume for the sake of argument that somehow he is statistically prone to be attacked by cubans for some reason. Lets assume that he has an implant in him that makes cubans angry, and that he does not know about this implant (When arguing by analogy this way, I can stipulate all sorts of silly things for the sake of argument). Is it acceptable or reasonable for him to feel this way toward a guy from Argentina? We will call him Mr. Flores. Should Mr. Flores "respect" Mr. Goldberg's prejudice and decide not to move into a house he has owned for longer than the time which has elapsed since Mr. Goldberg's attack?

Clearly the answer to this question is that prejudice is wrong. Therefore it is not Mr. Flores who is at fault here. He is not at fault for the attack on Mr. Goldberg. He is not one of the group that seems overly likely to attack Mr. Goldberg. And Mr. Goldberg is in the wrong for hating him. He owes Mr. Goldberg's prejudice absolutely no respect in this regard whatsoever. If you disagree with that conclusion there are very few ways you can justify it. The only real way is to say that innocent people are morally beholden to the prejudices of others. If you believe that then you disagree with School Integration, the Civil Rights Act etc which were all predicated on the notion that bigotry is wrong and that those who are the victims of bigotry do not owe the bigot their "respect". It does not matter why that person is a bigot either.

[hongi]

Monday, June 7, 2010

Quite late.

[Lord Relvenous]

Thanks Alyrium. While I do know of the three major sects of Islam, the way you put it helps communicate it probably much better than I could. I will keep that in mind the next time she brings up the mosque as a proof of Obama's whatever it is they are calling it to not act out against a people exercising their rights. Really, that's what I find funniest; the crazy fundies expect the government to act up and suppress the freedom of religion of another people because it offends their bigoted Godly virtues.

[Simon_Jester]

To be fair, Alyrium, if in your example Mr. Goldberg can't isolate the determining factor (that all the Hispanics attacking him are Cubans), he is justified in avoiding all Hispanics, or at least being quite nervous around him. He can hardly be expected to tell Cubans from non-Cubans on sight, nor would it be easy for him to do a controlled experiment in which he learns that only Cubans attack him while all other Hispanic groups leave him alone. So in his case, I think that his ignorance does excuse a certain (limited) degree of prejudice; if the only measure he can devise to avoid being attacked is to avoid all Hispanics, he has a good reason to do that.

The key here is that Mr. Goldberg is the victim of a force he cannot be expected to understand, something he cannot just look up for himself. Whereas any random idiot can look up who was responsible for the 9/11 attacks and learn that the Sufis aren't among the groups responsible, if they care. They don't, and that kind of ignorance that doesn't excuse prejudice.

[Skylon]

Just got into a semi-argument about the Ground Zero mosque with my mother last night. In her words, the mosque is nothing more than "rubbing salt in the wound" and is for nothing more than "creating controversy".

Not picking out your Mom, but these have been the fairly conventional talking points.

I'm curious as to how this is "rubbing salt in the wound". Were this not national news (sadly) a tourist probably wouldn't even notice the damn thing as I doubt it'd be on your way to see the "hallowed ground", or by sometime in the year 2150, see the new WTC. Shit, if you were a New Yorker you probably wouldn't notice it. If you're going to get offended by the Mosque, you're probably as likely to get offended by the Halal food carts in the area. How is sheer presence offensive?

"Creating Controversy"...okay, yeah, its an Islamic center. If you are so single minded as to see 9/11 as "MUSLIMS=9/11!" then yeah, this is controversial. However 9/11 wasn't. Fuck, Muslims themselves died in the Towers. Even Bush II, loathe as I am to credit him for anything, emphasized that the hijackers didn't represent the views of most Muslims in the days and weeks after 9/11 (just Al Qaeda, and magically the Iraqi Government).

The more I hear of this debate, the more I wish it was actually CLOSER to the WTC, so the world can see America doesn't/shouldn't give a shit about your faith so long as one comes here to work hard and obey the law. Move it right across the street from the WTC for the world to see, so it can sit in the shadow of whatever tower stands there in the future (sometime by 2150 is my estimate) and add it to the guided tours so people could learn a thing about Islam.

[Crossroads Inc.]

LAst night on Keith Olbermann, he did his "special comment" about this whole fiasco and I learned soemthing rather telling... Right down the road from 'ground zero' in a small rundown redbrick that looks almost abandoned from the outside, is a "real" mosque.

It was founded in the early 70's by a local man, nad peopel worship in the basement. It has been there since Before the twin towers was built and still functions today.

It is the thing these people are actually afraid of, a place of muslim worship! It has been operating since before the twin towers were built and guess what... No Terrosist training camps, no incitments to bomb America, not even a peep from the locals who barely know it exists.

Again, put into fact that it is physically closer then the community center being proposed and you realize just how idiotic this all is.

[Ritterin Sophia]

Yeah, I had heard about that in this series The Daily Show did:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-a ... ero-mosque
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-a ... ing-update