Jaundiced Eye of Newt

by Eric Martin

Isn't Newt Gingrich supposed to be the intellectual, the "ideas man," the not-as-loony-as-Sarah Palin option in the GOP?  Apparently not:

There should be no mosque near Ground Zero in New York so long as there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia. The time for double standards that allow Islamists to behave aggressively toward us while they demand our weakness and submission is over.

Matt Yglesias is spot on:

Why on earth would we adopt this standard? There are no synagogues in the Vatican City, and yet we have Catholic churches all over the place. That’s because the United States of America isn’t a small city-state run by a religious leader. In Denmark, they have a state-sponsored church, but we don’t have a state-sponsored church because in the United States we have a strong belief in a brand of religious pluralism that’s served both the country and religion well. Saudi Arabia is notorious for its lack of freedom of religion, but we don’t improve anything by mimicking Saudi Arabia’s flaws.

Seriously.  What political philosophy does Gingrich's recommendations represent?  That our freedoms should be gauged by the lowest common denominator anywhere on the globe, and calibrated accordingly on a case-by-case basis?  What the worst of the worst regimes do, so too shall we to groups that share some cultural similarities to the regimes in question?

Brilliant.  

I mean, if Israel won't let Arabs buy land in 80% of Jerusalem, does that mean we shouldn't let Jews buy real estate in 80% of New York City?  Obviously not, but by Gingrich's standard, presumably, yes?

The rest of Gingrich's piece is a mish-mash of demagoguery, misinformation, ingornace and dog whistle bigotry.  He even claims to know what "every Islamist in the world" thinks (that "Cordoba" is a "a symbol of Islamic conquest") and conflates the Cordoba House sponsors with Islamists (they are most definitely not, as they do not espouse that particular doctrine - not that, even if they were, we should persecute them). 

UPDATE: Adam Serwer adds:

My first observation here is that Gingrich so admires the intolerance of his declared enemies that he wants to imitate it. The second is that Gingrich's attempt to hold Muslims collectively accountable for the actions of a relative handful of extremists doesn't simply reinforce al-Qaeda's narrative that America is at war with Islam as a whole; it skirts dangerously close to accepting the terrorist-friendly premise that "innocents" as we generally understand the term don't actually exist.

Yup.

Comments

[Phil]

Love how he makes Saudi Arabia his test case or standard bearer or whatever, when in fact the three countries with the largest percentage of the world's Muslims living in them are India, Indonesia and Bangladesh. But that wouldn't be enough of a dog whistle, would it?

[John Thullen]

On the upside, Gingrich doesn't mispronounce his words and forms his sentences fairly well for your run of the mill fascist demagogue.

I believe he once expressed dismay that Timothy McVeigh murdered hundreds of federal employees in Oklahoma City but wasn't permitted to do so on a larger scale in Washington D.C.

[Uncle Kvetch]

What political philosophy does Gingrich's recommendations represent?

Equal parts willful ignorance and seething resentment. Apart from making-the-rich-richer, that's pretty much all that's left of the Republican Party at this point.

[Jay C]

Right, Newt: so Saudi Arabia is held up as a (negative) example of a repressive and intolerant quasi-theocracy - and we should demonstrate our superior American values of inclusiveness and religious tolerance - by imitating the Saudis???

Unfortunately, simple-minded anti-Muslim bigotry is still a hot sell on the hustings, and as long as there's a vote (or, more importantly, a dollar) to be garnered, someone will be there to pander to it.

Even (especially?) the "intellectual" hacks like Newt.

[Tony P.]

Ah, Newt! Yet another "conservative" who has no king but Jesus. If I shared his economic views, I'd seriously wonder why a smarmy toad like him is on my side.

To be fair, I seriously doubt that Gingrich is actually, inside his own head, even a theist -- let alone a Christian. But of course, the inside of Newt's head doesn't matter. It's not even what comes out of his mouth that matters. What matters is that lots of Americans listen to him because they already believe what he professes.

--TP

[Thoreau]

I'm willing to bet that fanatics in Saudi Arabia would not approve of the tolerant mosque going up near ground zero.

In fact, I say we put a tolerant mosque with a liberal imam on every street corner as the ultimate "fuck you" to the radicals.

There must be a Muslim equivalent of the lesbian clergy that some Protestant denominations are ordaining. Let's find them and let them build a mosque on the White House lawn.

Wait, that might unite the Islamists and the Christian Right. That's the last thing we need. OK, never mind.

[Bernard Yomtov]

There's a touch of irony in the fact that the Cordoba Caliphs were more tolerant (and intelligent) than Newt, or the Christian Visigoths who ruled Spain prior to the Muslim conquest, or Ferdinand and Isabella and the other Christian rulers after the "reconquista."

[Eric Martin]

Right BY.

[Dave S.]

Gingrich's piece career is a mish-mash of demagoguery, misinformation, ignorance and dog whistle bigotry.

Fixed.

[russell]

they demand our weakness and submission

Maybe it's just me, but I think the dude's got issues.

[Eric Martin]

Wetsuit type issues? Or simple diapers?

[Geoff Blankenmeyer]

These new age Conservatives are so big on the Constitution but can't help eliding those sections that don't comport with their deranged rationalizations of what this nation stands for. There is no sanity in the Republican Party and those who dare to try will be Palinized. Dems should welcome them with open arms. Charley Crist is just the beginning. The partisans have no choice but to hunker down into bunker mentality and declare open warfare on sanity.

[Tony P.]

I have compassion for conservatives -- sane conservatives like some of our fellow commenters. They will face a painful choice in November: vote for the party of Gingrich, Palin, Limbaugh, Beck and Breitbart? or vote for Democrats?

Our sane conservative friends mostly disagree with Democrats about MONEY. They try to persuade us libruls that WE, as well as they, would be better off if national economic policy were more to their liking. They probably feel frustrated that we don't buy most of their arguments. I know I feel frustrated that they don't buy ours. But it's always possible to negotiate and compromise about money.

In a sane world, our sane conservative friends would be able to assuage their frustration by voting for Republicans. Unfortunately, voting is itself frustratingly binary in this country. In a sane world, sane conservatives would be able to vote for what they consider sane economic policies without ALSO voting for the complete bundle of hatred and bigotry that comes in the big bag labelled GOP.

All I can suggest to them is this: you have a better chance to convince Democrats to back your preferred economic policies than you have of getting modern-day Republicans to renounce the vileness that Gingrich, Palin, Limbaugh, Beck and Breitbart embody. Think about it.

--TP

[blogonym pending]

what you're all forgetting is that this is a christian country!!!

/sarcasm

[BooThisMan]

Love how he makes Saudi Arabia his test case or standard bearer or whatever, when in fact the three countries with the largest percentage of the world's Muslims living in them are India, Indonesia and Bangladesh. But that wouldn't be enough of a dog whistle, would it?

I'm pretty sure that Pakistan's Muslim population is second only to Indonesia's in size.

That aside, I think the reason that Newton chose Saudi Arabia rather than a larger Muslim country is that the argument doesn't work with those others. He would have had to say something like: "Indonesia enshrines religious freedom in its constitution, and allows churches and synagogues. Let's be like Indonesia and allow the construction of the mosque* near Ground Zero."

He specifically wants us to be like the Muslim country that restricts freedom of religion the most.

*Or Islamic cultural center, that happens to include a prayer space, but whatever.

[James Reuther]

Quote:

"The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. That's not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace. These terrorists don't represent peace. They represent evil and war.

"When we think of Islam we think of a faith that brings comfort to a billion people around the world. Billions of people find comfort and solace and peace. And that's made brothers and sisters out of every race -- out of every race.

"America counts millions of Muslims amongst our citizens, and Muslims make an incredibly valuable contribution to our country. Muslims are doctors, lawyers, law professors, members of the military, entrepreneurs, shopkeepers, moms and dads. And they need to be treated with respect. In our anger and emotion, our fellow Americans must treat each other with respect."

President George W. Bush, Sept 17, 2001.

Congratulations, Newt. You just made W. look like a genius. How quickly the Republican party has lost sight of the absolute wisdom of their last leader. Say what you will about W, but the man GOT IT. This is not a war with Islam, it is a war with violent extremist philosophies within the religion. The GOP continues to roll into the abyss.

[Eric Martin]

James, I agree.

I remember at the time, and at many points since, feeling appreciation for his rhetoric regarding such matters.

[Ugh]

I can't decide if it would be worse to have Palin who says this kind of sh1t and is oblivious to the wider ramification as President, or Newt who, if we take his reputation as being a thinker or smart or an ideas guy or whatever, should know better but says it anyway.

Fnck 'em both.

[Tony P.]

James Reuther and Eric,

I think you give Bush too much credit. The conventional American credo is that "faith", never mind which brand, is a good thing. In that context it is "politically incorrect" in the strictest sense of the term to trash-talk Islam, for if Americans start to lose their faith in "faith" then Dubya's party loses ground relative to godless libruls.

I'm not denying that Dubya's words were more charitable (dare I say, more "Christian") than Newt's. I merely point out that Dubya's call for tolerance had a partisan upside, too.

--TP

[wj]

I think it is a mistake to worry about what guiding philosophic principle is behind Gingrich's comments. I don't think there really is one. It's just that this is a current hot-button issue among his target audience, so he felt he had to say something about it.

Unfortunately, it is such a stupid issue that it isn't really possible to say anything intelligent about it (at least, from the side he wants to attract) . . . no matter how intelligent, or much of an ideas person, one may be.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think the religious liberty guarantee of the 1st amendment is important enough that, yes, even a mosque near ground zero should be permitted, if the title to the land was obtained legally. That's not to say that it shouldn't be viewed as a provocation, it may well have been intended as just that. Time will tell. But even provocations are constitutionally protected, IMO.

OTOH,

"My first observation here is that Gingrich so admires the intolerance of his declared enemies that he wants to imitate it. The second is that Gingrich's attempt to hold Muslims collectively accountable for the actions of a relative handful of extremists doesn't simply reinforce al-Qaeda's narrative that America is at war with Islam as a whole; it skirts dangerously close to accepting the terrorist-friendly premise that "innocents" as we generally understand the term don't actually exist."

Oh, come on. A "relative handful"? If only... Innocents certainly exist, but there's a reason this hysteria is about Islam, not Buddhism... Most Muslims might not be terrorists, but most terrorists? They do seem to be Muslims. And you can count the non-repressive majority Muslim states on the fingers of one hand. After a shop class accident... Not particularly surprising, as Islam is not traditionally supportive of the church/state distinction.

Still, even there one must distinguish between factions of Islam. Is this a Shia or a Sunni mosque? Does anyone know?

But on one thing I'm sure we agree: Gingrich is an ass.

[russell]

Oh, come on. A "relative handful"?

If we're talking militant jihadis....

Al Qaeda is hundreds now? Maybe a couple thousand?

Hezbollah is something like 1000 active combat members.

Taliban are 30-40K in Pakistan, 25K in Afghanistan.

Worldwide make it 150K. That's one in ten thousand Muslims.

Double it to 300K if you like. That's one in five thousand.

There are a billion and a half Muslims in the world.

[Bernard Yomtov]

Islam is not traditionally supportive of the church/state distinction.

Wow. There's a hanging curve right over the fat part of the plate.

[Jesurgislac]

most terrorists? They do seem to be Muslims.

I'm sure that you've considered terrorist organizations such as the American Coalition of Life Activists, Army of God, Aum Supreme Truth, Continuity Irish Republican Army, Euzkadi Ta Askatasuna, Interahamwe, Kach and Kahane Chai, Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, Morzanist Patriotic Front, National Liberation Army of Colombia, New People's Army, Revolutionary People's Struggle of Greece, Revolutionary United Front, Sendero Luminoso... oh, who am I kidding? You're Brett Bellmore, you're racist, you don't need facts when you've got bigotry.

[Uncle Kvetch]

Still, even there one must distinguish between factions of Islam. Is this a Shia or a Sunni mosque? Does anyone know?

You could, of course, find this out quite easily for yourself, but I can understand that you don't want to take time away from the task at hand -- tarring a billion people with the world's biggest and sloppiest brush -- to get lost in the details.

[Josh]

Geez, it looks as though the Lessons of 9/11 as understood by Falwell, Robertson, and D'Souza (that the attackers were right to hate our freedoms and our way of life) keeps getting more and more mainstream among the conservatives. When a fellow senator who thought we were too attached to preserving lives and freedoms, said "Al Qaeda doesn't worry about such niceties," I think it was Robert Byrd who replied, "Al Qaeda is our enemy, not the author of our playbook."

Eric's and Serwer's point seems consonant with that of René Girard (who can't be accused of liberalism or tolerance) pointing out that the whole War on Terror is an instance of imitation:

"The error is always to reason within categories of 'difference' when the root of all conflicts is rather 'competition,' mimetic rivalry between persons, countries, cultures. Competition is the desire to imitate the other in order to obtain the same thing he or she has, by violence if need be"

[Dan S.]

"My first observation here is that Gingrich so admires the intolerance of his declared enemies that he wants to imitate it."

As Richard Hofstadter noted in "The Paranoid Style in American Politics",

"It is hard to resist the conclusion that this enemy is on many counts the projection of the self; both the ideal and the unacceptable aspects of the self are attributed to him. The enemy may be the cosmopolitan intellectual, but the paranoid will outdo him in the apparatus of scholarship, even of pedantry. Secret organizations set up to combat secret organizations give the same flattery. The Ku Klux Klan imitated Catholicism to the point of donning priestly vestments, developing an elaborate ritual and an equally elaborate hierarchy. The John Birch Society emulates Communist cells and quasi-secret operation through “front” groups, and preaches a ruthless prosecution of the ideological war along lines very similar to those it finds in the Communist enemy.* Spokesmen of the various fundamentalist anti-Communist “crusades” openly express their admiration for the dedication and discipline the Communist cause calls forth."

---
"Most Muslims might not be terrorists, but most terrorists? They do seem to be Muslims."

Well, "seem" may be an operative word here - it helps if one is hesitant to label non-Muslims carrying out non-state campaigns or acts of terror as, well, terrorists. And then, of course, you're writing this 5 years after the IRA announced an end to its armed campaign, as wikipedia has it, 3 years after some of its opposite numbers did the same, and 1 year after the Tamil Tigers were defeated ...

[John Thullen]

"But even provocations are constitutionally protected, IMO."

IMO?

Do you mean to say you have an interpretation of the Constitution that is relative and not literal? That the true meaning is not obvious, absolute, and immutable but is only available to those who can suss it's true meaning. That maybe all of us have our very own interpretations and we ought to flip a coin or maybe fight wars over our relative positions?

That the Supreme Court's decisions are supreme but not necessarily true interpretations of a living document? That the rule of law is a matter of opinion, for now, until we change our minds?

How is this different from Sarah Death Palin coining the word "refudiate" and then declaring English a "a living language", not that I would refudiate that position.

I might quagdononate it, fibisticalate it, and maybe even try to schmock it, because IMO "refudiating" it just doesn't get the job done for me.

Funny thing is, I agree with YO on this narrow point about provocation Brett, IMO.

But we could change our minds at any moment.

[russell]

most terrorists? They do seem to be Muslims

A list of acts of terrorism in 2009.

The large majority of items listed here were, in fact, perpetrated by Muslims.

The large majority of *those* were acts of political violence in Iraq and Afghanistan, and were typically Shia vs Sunni attacks, attacks by indigenous Islamic political movements against the native government (see Pakistan and Afghanistan), or attacks on occupying forces (i.e., us).

There were a couple of attacks in Israel. There were a few attacks in the Phillipines and Sri Lanka. The folks in Assam seem intent on independence from India.

There were a very small handful of attacks by Muslims against civilian targets in western countries, the most notable being the attempt by Abdulmutallab to blow up a plane on Christmas day.

Which failed, partly because it was half-@ssed, and partly because airline passengers have become quite a heads-up group over the last ten years.

And to be perfectly honest, as serious as the danger he presented was, it's hard to see Abdulmuttalab as anything other than a messed up young loser.

I don't mean to minimize the threat of violence or the very real fear it creates, but to be honest acts of violence by Muslims against Westerners other than occupying forces in their own countries is, happily, noise.

Bin Laden and Al Qaeda are kind of an anomaly. Most other militant Muslim groups are interested in political action in their own country, not in overthrowing the west or killing westerners.

And, by far, most Muslims in the world are not interested in killing anybody. They're interested in getting on with living their lives.

And when I say "by far", I mean orders of magnitude.

[John Thullen]

"They do seem to be Muslims."

Well they do seem to be bi-pedal too. One of those just walked past my desk.

Here comes another one.

I'm surrounded.

[Snarki, child of Loki]

@Geoff Blankenmeyer:
"These new age Conservatives are so big on the Constitution but can't help eliding those sections that don't comport with their deranged rationalizations..."

They're also really big on the Bible, but somehow seem to glide over all of the multiple, dire, prohibitions against divorce.

Newt especially.

Why it's as if they're all total douchebag hypocrites or something. I call "Occam".

[AndrewBW]

I know it's an old saw, but Newt should keep it in mind: Choose your enemies wisely; they are what you become.

[Jesurgislac]

A list of acts of terrorism in 2009.

The large majority of items listed here were, in fact, perpetrated by Muslims.

The list does not include the murder of Doctor George Tiller on May 31st 2010.

Define terrorism...

[jonnybutter]

Maybe it's just me, but I think the dude's got issues.

(Eric)

Wetsuit type issues?

Newty in a wetsuit? Getting Newty *into* a wetsuit? Thanks for simultaneously amusing and nausein' me Eric!

Tony P.:

In a sane world, our sane conservative friends would be able to assuage their frustration by voting for Republicans. Unfortunately, voting is itself frustratingly binary in this country. In a sane world, sane conservatives would be able to vote for what they consider sane economic policies without ALSO voting for the complete bundle of hatred and bigotry that comes in the big bag labelled GOP.

I feel at least as much compassion for sane liberals as I do for sane conservatives. The former have to vote for the whole of the big lumpy bag known as the Democratic Party, because not only do we have 'nowhere else to go', but our leaders (Obama/Axlerod/Emmanuel) are cynical enough to always keep that fact in mind.

Frankly, I don't think sane conservatives (of the Tory variety) really have anywhere else to go than the Dems either. The Democratic party is pretty conservative these days.

[Eric Martin]

Newty in a wetsuit? Getting Newty *into* a wetsuit? Thanks for simultaneously amusing and nausein' me Eric!

Well, if it makes you feel any better, now I've got "Newty in a wetsuit" in my head played to the tune of "Vicar in a Tutu" by The Smiths.

[Tony P.]

Frankly, I don't think sane conservatives (of the Tory variety) really have anywhere else to go than the Dems either. The Democratic party is pretty conservative these days.

Tell me about it. But that's partly what I'm pitching to sane conservatives: you don't have to vote for vile lunacy, if all you want is economic conservatism.

--TP

[Carleton Wu]

Oh, come on. A "relative handful"? If only... Innocents certainly exist, but there's a reason this hysteria is about Islam, not Buddhism... Most Muslims might not be terrorists, but most terrorists? They do seem to be Muslims.

Since the facts here have already been effectively critiqued, Ill gnaw on the logic a bit.

Most white people may not be Klansmen, but most Klansmen do seem to be white people.
Most men are not pedophiles, but most pedophiles do seem to be men.

Im wondering if you've
1)changed your views about the threat level of white men
2)reassessed your logic
3)dismissed the entire line of reasoning on some pretext

[russell]

Newty in a wetsuit?

I'm getting a kinda Shamu vibe out of this.

[Jim]

"The list does not include the murder of Doctor George Tiller on May 31st 2010.
Define terrorism..."

Since the essence of terrorism is a crime against an individual(s)intended to strike fear into a group, the Tiller killing is clearly terorism. It definitely belongs on the list. And it doesn't have to be part of some numerically big campaign to rate that designation and achieve that goal, epecially since there are so few doctors who provides the kind of service Tiller did. But it would still not change the numbers much.

[Der BlindSchtiller]

Let's not forget the oldest and the biggest terrorist organization in the US: the Klu Klux Klan. They don't come any more non-Muslim than that...

[Eric Martin]

They don't come any more non-Muslim than that...

You could tell from the burning crescents.

[Julian]

It's basic syllogism, Carleton:

All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore, all men are Socrates.

Also, Socrates was a terrorist. His trial was a farce! That's why we can't try terrorists any more; they might be terrific orators.

[Nate]

Then doesn't that mean all we have to do is offer terrorists hemlock tea?

[apple]

2009 vs 2010

[BooThisMan]

That was a typo. Tiller was murdered in 2009.

[Hartmut]

There seems also be a wee bit of confusion about perpetrator and motivation. If I'd go on a rampage would that be Lutheran agnostic terrorism because I am? Or would it require that I spread terror in the name of Agnostic Luther? A lot of 'Muslim' terrorism would imo happen even if those that commit the acts were not followers of Islam. On the other hand a not negligible part of atrocities committed by members of the armed forces of non-Muslim countries (let's randomly take the US) can be attributed to 'religious differences'. Admittedly a lot of that also displays signs of good oldfashioned racism, Islam still being mainly a religion of 'non-whites'.
---
The conflict on Sri Lanka should be the perfect antidote to lots of specious arguments. Lots of suicide bombings committed by atheists! Iirc for quite some time they led the world in that by a large margin.

[Marty]

What Newt didn't say:

"There should be no mosques in NYC", in fact he noted that there were a hundred, he said this one mosque is not a good idea.

"We should force Saudi Arabia to open Mecca", no he just notes that those who support that tolerance here make no public efforts to build it elsewhere.

As that incorrect generalization seems to be the heart of the objection here then I suspect that there is demagoguery afoot.

Finally, as for the name, and existence, of the mosque, I would say that despite all reported good intentions of the principals, which I accept out of hand, the propaganda value for extremists makes it a bad idea.

Or do we believe that the extremist elements won't present it as a victory?

[liberal japonicus]

Or do we believe that the extremist elements won't present it as a victory?

Like 'We flattened the WTC and they put a mosque there, let's flatten everywhere else?' Maybe you have a better insight into the mind of the typical extremist, but I don't think that will go very far in getting new recruits...

[Eric Martin]

Or do we believe that the extremist elements won't present it as a victory?

Not sure I follow.

The extremists follow an, er, extreme fringe interpretation of Islam, Salafist in spirit, with a sprinkling of the Takfirist mindset, which justifies all manner of violence that even many Salafists reject.

The mosque being built specificually "refudiates" this extremist perversion of Islam. In fact, the Salafists view these moderate Muslims as non-Muslims, and legitimate targets. So it is highly unlikely that a bunch of Salafists will celebrate the erection of a moderate mosque in NYC.

What Newt didn't say:

"There should be no mosques in NYC", in fact he noted that there were a hundred, he said this one mosque is not a good idea.

So what? I never said that Newt was for a blanket ban.

"We should force Saudi Arabia to open Mecca", no he just notes that those who support that tolerance here make no public efforts to build it elsewhere.

Again, were you quoting me? If so, where?

And what does this mean "public efforts to build it elsewhere"? The Cordoba group supports openness and tolerance everywhere. And the American supporters are addressing a situation in America. Saudi Arabia is a non-sequitur, and the supporters of the mosque do not support Saudi Arabia's human rights record.

As that incorrect generalization seems to be the heart of the objection here then I suspect that there is demagoguery afoot.

Which incorrect generalization?

[Nate]

One thing I really don't get is the constant conservative worries about "extremists presenting as a victory."

First, as Eric said, they're unlikely to treat a moderate cultural center devoted to tolerance as a victory, especially when the group already uses that building, and wants to make a newer, bigger one.

Second, who the @$!# cares what they will present it as? Just a thought, but the PR guys for extremist radicals might LIE, and present anything as "a victory". The real victory is when we change what we do and who we are because we're afraid of them, because that's the POINT of terrorism.

Which isn't to say we shouldn't care what other people are going to think, and we definitely shouldn't do things that make the PR jobs for extremist radicals and their recruitment easier (like, say, invading a country, setting up secret prisons and torturing people, holding people with no evidence for years, etc...) But we also shouldn't do those things because they're Bad Things, and not consistent with our values. We should decide to do things or not based on if they're the right things to do and consistent with our values. The best way to defuse the PR of radical extremists is to walk the walk, not just talk the talk. We need to actually BE the good guys.

Which means, yes, we need to uphold our very long tradition of religious freedom and tolerance, which is ALSO one of our best weapons against the kind of extremism that breeds terrorism. And it's also better for us.

Seriously, which do you think will have more propaganda value for terrorist recruiting? "America hates Islam, they banned a mosque in New York! They do this because they are weak and fearful of us!" vs "Look at the weak Americans! We destroyed their towers, and almost a decade later they allowed some American Muslims to build a mosque a few blocks away! Soon we will rule them all!"

Personally, propaganda-wise, I think banning it would be a much worse move, and this whole flurry of stuff that Palin and Gingrich and Fox News have stirred up is, itself, good propaganda for the extremists, because it fits better into the "America is at war with Islam" narrative.

[Eric Martin]

Personally, propaganda-wise, I think banning it would be a much worse move, and this whole flurry of stuff that Palin and Gingrich and Fox News have stirred up is, itself, good propaganda for the extremists, because it fits better into the "America is at war with Islam" narrative.

Yes, a thousand times.

[Amos Newcombe]

I guess New York City is just so godlessly liberal that they don't deserve the same rights as the rest of "us" have, about state's rights, local zoning, and freedom to conduct business without all those government bureaucrats telling us what we can't do.

[Carleton Wu]

"There should be no mosques in NYC", in fact he noted that there were a hundred, he said this one mosque is not a good idea.

Ok, let's embrace that interpretation: but then, how would Saudi Arabia embracing a more pluralistic view of religion make building this 'mosque' a good idea? I think the reason that people reach the first conclusion is that the statement is irrational on it's face; it is more of an emotional statement than a rational one. And the emotion here is xenophobia and Islamophobia.

"We should force Saudi Arabia to open Mecca", no he just notes that those who support that tolerance here make no public efforts to build it elsewhere.

Now I think you're the one reaching in interpretation- if he had said this, it would be pretty wrong though. First, tolerance is itself an attempt to build it elsewhere insofar as it provides a positive example. And clearly, the intolerance he's preaching is counterproductive to an effort to build tolerance elsewhere. Furthermore, there's a GOP myth here about how liberals don't support eg women's issues in the Arab world.
Whereas in my view it's the conservatives who have been merely allies of convenience with eg the suppressed Iraqi people (ie it was fine for Reagan to support Saddam and Rumsfeld to shake his hand in the 80s while he was gassing his own people, but by the 00s it was the liberals who were being decried as not being supportive enough of those same people- because Saddam gassed them in the 80s). I could even stand a mea culpa on the issue and a pivot to "we were wrong then, don't be wrong now", but the typical line is that Reagan was right then and Bush right in '03, like the Iraqi peope are just props on a set of a show about America.

Finally, as for the name, and existence, of the mosque, I would say that despite all reported good intentions of the principals, which I accept out of hand, the propaganda value for extremists makes it a bad idea.
Or do we believe that the extremist elements won't present it as a victory?

I have no idea how they could do this. "We have struck the godless pluralistic American society such a blow that they've continued their pluralistic ways and continued to extend respect to worshippers of all religions! Soon our attacks will force them to continue to be capitalists and dress their women in offensive bikinis! There is no aspect of their society that we cannot force them to maintain!"
I mean, there are extremists who would paint any action as a victory (and do you seriously propose that blocking a mosque wouldn't be a huge propaganda point for radical Muslims?) But which plays better to the Muslim street: allowing a moderate Muslim center to be built and making a strong distinction between terrorists and mainstream Islam, or tarring both with the same brush and opposing the center (as by extension, Islam) as somehow tainted by terror?

[BTHS Alum]

eric martin: "I have a lot of friends that went to Stuy. Not to get all Palin on you, but I can see Stuy from my balcony. And my wife occasionally uses the pool. If I stay in NYC, my hope is that my son attends."

You want your son to attend a high school with a racially skewed enrollment?

The racial divide is severe at Stuyvesant: the 2013 graduating class is about 3 percent Hispanic and 2 percent Black. Of the others, 25% are White, 70% Asian. Of the 1.1 million students now attending NYC public schools 40% are Hispanic, 31% Black.

Won't that be like sending him to an Apartheid School for his education? Shouldn't you send him to a more racially balanced public school, and not to a Sci-High target school?

[Tony P.]

The racial divide is severe at Stuyvesant

And Eric's son is less than a year old. You don't know what Stuyvesant's racial mix will be twelve years from now.

What I wonder is whether you'd count Eric's son in the 25% or in the 70%, given that he's already, within his own little self, 50-50.

--TP

[Hartmut]

A more insidious scenario:
1.Islamists hate the liberal (in comparision) ideas of those that want to build that mosque/cultural center.
2.They want to kill it
3.Therefore they declare this project a victory for their side
4.The Newts and Palins fall in that trap and torpedo the project
5.The Islamists have a double victory:
a)their rivals took a hit
b)it can be spun as another case of US hatred of islam

[Eric Martin]

Janette,

I think you misinterpreted my statement. I did not say that every single supporter of the mosque was perfect on every single issue. But Karen Armstrong is associated with Cordoba, and very much involved with the mosque project. Google her, and read away.

Regardless, you are selling Rauf far, far short.

He has said, repeatedly, "Fanaticism and terrorism have no place in Islam." He has incessantly criticized al-Qaeda.

He preaches tolerance, diversity and mutual respect.

He has spoken out against human rights violations by Muslim leaders repeatedly, and requested that the US stop backing those same Muslim leaders committing the gross human rights violations.

Ironic that you would be critquing an Imam for supposedly not condemning the leaders that we funnel several billions a year to. But, in actuality, he has done that.

Think about that: his crime, to you, is taking the same stance toward those leaders as the US government. But, in actuality, he takes a more moral and ethical stand.

You should check out his paper against torture, which criticizes every country that practices it, including Iran, Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia and, sadly, the US.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/10/pdf/BarbarismGCG.pdf

He has also spoken out about women's issues, making a call to Muslims:

"We need to build our institutions, empower women and youth, strengthen our
identity as American Muslims and create leaders for the generations to come."

You could find more if you really looked. Look to his writings.

[Eric Martin]

Here's another piece.

http://www.dhall813.com/Sociology/Socialperspective/Ethnicity/muslimidealsweshare.pdf

His wiki page has a number of links you can peruse as well.

Note, also, that he is a Sufi, and thus considered by al-Qaeda to be a heretic and worthy of death under takfirist doctrine.

Some victory for them: a mosque headed by a Sufi that hosts interfaith conferences, with prominent Jewish and Christian leaders.

Ha.

[Phil]

JJ should make better attempts to hide his socks IMHO.

[russell]

As that incorrect generalization seems to be the heart of the objection here then I suspect that there is demagoguery afoot.

That generalization isn't in Eric's post. So I somehow doubt it's the heart of the objection.

And there is nothing we can say or do that will not be claimed as a victory by Islamist extremist elements. Worrying about that is a waste of time.

Here is an example of what the American Society for Muslim Advancement is about.

Here is the rationale for the "Cordoba" in "Cordoba Institute". Although I take claims about religious tolerance in Muslim Spain with a grain of salt, it's clear that under the Cordoban Caliphate, Christians, Jews, and Muslims did live together with a degree of mutual tolerance and respect that has probably not been equalled to this day.

Maimonides was Cordoban. The European Renaissance has its roots in Cordoban scholarship, and in that community's accessibility to European Christians.

If your going to pick a symbol for fruitful coexistence and cooperation between Muslims and the West, Cordoba is a damned good choice.

Gingrich's essay is stupid, macho, posturing crap. The ASMA and/or Cordoba Institute are not Islamists. Nobody is demanding our "weakness and submission", and that's a freaking bizarrely, tellingly weird formulation in any case. The "Cordoba House" is not a "deliberatly insulting" term.

Newt's picking a fight. A stupid, unnecessary, divisive, pointless fight.

And why not? It's not going to cost him anything. He'll get his peeps all riled up with good old Muslim-hating bile, and he'll advance whatever his agenda du jour happens to be. It's all upside for him.

Last but not least, as a simple point of fact, the proposed site for the mosque is not at Ground Zero. It's two blocks away.

[russell]

JJ should make better attempts to hide his socks IMHO.

JJ should wash his socks. They smell.

[John Thullen]

The National Press Club hosted murderous psychopath Don Blankenship of Massey Ferguson the other day.

Apparently, the methane detectors were disabled in the room as drowsiness overcame the audience and Blankenship was able to whine on, just like a psychopath, and build a little shrine, at ground-zero amid the ruin of journalism, to HIS own and other corporate psychopaths' victimization at the hands of taxes and methane-regulating bureaucrats.

The wraiths of his 29 victims did not rise and hack the murderer to pieces with machetes. Neither were the survivors invited to rebut the criminal.

Rather, the Republican Party, the most dangerous terrorist organization on the face of the earth, rises like a terrorist zombie from amidst the economic ruin they fashioned over the past 10 years and the last 18 months of fevered hate of a black President to threaten the United States again by re-establishing and advancing Blankenship's murderous agenda: Ayn Rand Sharia.

Gingrich points to a community center in Manhatten as diversion, like an al Qaeda operative typing code into his Twitter account.

The Republican Party will present the coming ruin as victory.

[Mike Schilling]

I think of Cordoba as a symbol of luxury, complete with fine Corinthian leather.

[Moxie Socks]

russell: Although I take claims about religious tolerance in Muslim Spain with a grain of salt, it's clear that under the Cordoban Caliphate, Christians, Jews, and Muslims did live together with a degree of mutual tolerance and respect that has probably not been equalled to this day.

You got to be joking. Christians, Jews and Muslims live together today in all the Western democracies of Europe, including present-day Spain, and in America, in more harmony then they did under Islamic rule in the Caliphate.

Jews and Christians living in the Cordoba Caliphate were third-class citizens. Here are some of the tolerant aspects of their lives back then:

They had to pay regular taxes, plus a special tax, the Jiza, which Muslims did not have to pay, a religious penalty for their faith.

They were required to wear special clothing in public, different from what Muslims wore, and a badge identifying their religion (like the requirement for Jews to exhibit the Star Of David in Nazi Germany).

Unlike Muslims, they weren't allowed to carry weapons, or receive an inheritance from a Muslim, or bequeath anything to one.

They couldn't marry Muslim women, though a Muslim man could marry their daughters if he wanted, or make them concubines in his harem.

I don't know if this applied to Christians too, but if you were a Jew, you were required to remove your shoes when passing by a mosque, but Muslims didn't have to remove their shoes when walking past a synagogue.

And relevant to this thread: your people could only build a limited number of synagogues and churches, and only in restricted areas OKed by the authorities, conditions which still exist in most Islamic nations.

That same pervasive degree of mutual intolerance and disrespect for other religions, has been consistent through the centuries, and is still prevalent today, even in supposed 'modern' Islamic nations like Egypt. There, recently, a Fatwa was issued by the council for Islamic Interpretations of law, stating that a Muslim couldn't leave money in his will for the purpose of building a Church, because it "is a sin against God, just as if he left his inheritance towards building a nightclub, a gambling casino, or building a barn for rearing pigs, cats or dogs."

And your assertion of harmony in Spain under Islamic rule is under dispute. There is no consensus among scholars about how well Jews or Christians were treated; many historians of the era believe that at best they were tolerated as cash-cows. And cash-cows or not, if they professed their religious beliefs too strongly, they were punished, often severely.

SEE HERE The Martyrs of Cordoba

[Moxie Socks]

"Rather, the Republican Party, the most dangerous terrorist organization on the face of the earth, rises like a terrorist zombie from amidst the economic ruin they fashioned over the past 10 years and the last 18 months of fevered hate of a black President to threaten the United States again by re-establishing and advancing Blankenship's murderous agenda: Ayn Rand Sharia."

On 60 minutes during a segment about a former Islamic terrorist trying to redeem himself for past deeds of incitement of hatred for the West and the US, he was dialoging with an audience of college-age Muslims in Pakistan, one of whom said he hated the US because the US hated Muslims, and that in fact the US hated Muslims so much, we orchestrated the destruction of the Twin Towers just so we'd have an excuse to invade Afghanistan. When asked by an incredulous Diane Sawyer if he actually believed that, the student nodded affirmatively and with certitude said he did.

And hearing that kind of delusional dysfunction of intellect set off this little bell of recognition in my mind; and I realized he was the Pakistani equivalent of --- you. The Son-Of-Thulen, uttering the same kind of loony certitudes of beliefs that spill from your cranial matter via a mental process of dissociation so counter-intuitive they defy rebuttal. And so now I don't know if I'm awe-struck, or dumb-founded, to learn two human entities, so far apart in age, national origin, continents, belief systems, world experience, are in fact Siameses of intellect. And I'm wondering if I stumbled onto some kind of thought paradox, a variation of the Schrodinger's Cat experiment, an illusion of quantum superpositions in which you both share a single set of thought-beliefs, which are revealed moment to moment only at the exact instant one or the other of you is visible to others in a disentangled wave-function. If so, from here forward, to clearly differentiate yourself from 'the other' you, henceforth please sign your posts as P(x,Y) = Px(x)Py(y).

One other aside -- Obama's not a black President: he's a half-black President; his mother was Caucasian, remember? Those kinds of small misrepresentations of data can distort calculations and correlations, and lead to false conclusions in the quantum world of ideas, which moment to moment can derail reality and cast us into chaos.

[Eric Martin]

Jay changed his socks! But is none the wiser.

[russell]

Christians, Jews and Muslims live together today in all the Western democracies of Europe, including present-day Spain, and in America

Actually, in general I think this is a good point. I withdraw the "to this day" part of my comment upthread.

Oddly enough, the culture with the highest degree of religious tolerance in the period we're talking about (early second millenium) was probably Ghenghis Khan's Mongol Khanate.

If you lived, you could worship as you chose.

Obama's not a black President: he's a half-black President

Ain't no such thing as "half black" in the United States of America.

Jay changed his socks! But is none the wiser.

He's ObWi's rodeo clown.

[liberal japonicus]

Rodeo clowns have a purpose.

[John Thullen]

Jay, that was pretty good.

I sometimes read Redcrap posts and comments before I come over here, which, like Schrodinger's Cat, purr with certifiable loonitude (sorry, there goes the Death Palin in me) and enter my cranial matter to re-appear sounding Pakistani, if not Republican.

In the markets, I think they call that a dead cat bounce.

[Hartmut]

Well, if we compare Cordoba to the consitions in Christian Europe, the 'intolerance' in Spain under the Moors looks pretty tame to me.
And in most Christian countries commoners (not just Jews) were not allowed to carry weapons either.
I am also unaware of regular raids with the goal to steal children for the purpose of conversion taking place in Spain unlike in Christian Europe (in the papal state until its forced dissolution in the 19th century). Then there is forced attendance at church services for non-members (btw also a demand by the Kristian(TM) Right in the US). Ever heard of Jews having to pay protection money to be just left alive. Rather common Christian practice (with no guarantee that the promise would be kept). Shall I go on?
Btw, if Jews and Christians were third-class citizens, who was second-class?

[Eric Martin]

Btw, if Jews and Christians were third-class citizens, who was second-class?

The visigoths?

[Moxie Socks]

"Ain't no such thing as "half black" in the United States of America."

Tell it to my friend's niece who has a Caucasian father and a Jamaican mother; she's the one who first pointed out to me that it's racist to call someone's who's 1/2 black, all black; a throw back to the days when you were labeled 'Negro' if you had 1/8th or 1/16 African blood. In black circles if she went around saying she was a White American because her father's White, they'd label her racist.

"He's ObWi's rodeo clown."

Well thanks, that's a generous compliment. As rodeo fans know, they are among the bravest, most athletic performers in the show, their job to distract the bull and protect the rider when he's jumped off or been bucked off, and provide an alternate target for its charge. In addition to speed, agility, and courage, rodeo clowns need to be able to predetermine the bull's next move -- and for that they don't have to be wise, they have to be prescient. And so my 'job' here is to district the dunderhead bullish consensus of mistaken 50-year old outdated and outmoded opinion, and entice it full speed, head first, into the brick wall of reality, and hope thereby to knock some sense into a couple of those dazed brains.

"Jay changed his socks! But is none the wiser."

You don't need to be wise to be right...See Rodedo Clown above --
And the smartest guys in the room, often end up making the dumbest assessments.

[John Thullen]

And so "my" job here is to district the ...."

I refudiate that sort of jerrymandering.

[Eric Martin]

In black circles if she went around saying she was a White American because her father's White, they'd label her racist.

No "they" wouldn't. "They" have been discussing these types of issues for longer than your niece has been alive. Or her parents. Or their parents. Or their parents.

In actuality, it's white people that don't differentiate, and consider anyone with a swarthy complexion and negroid features to be "black."

You don't need to be wise to be right

True, and you are neither.