Fight Them All Together: The Conservative Reaction to the "Ground Zero Mosque"

Why this building, there?

Leaving aside some melodrama – “insane,” “looming horror,” “surrender” – that question sums up much conservative reaction to Cordoba House, a.k.a. “The Ground Zero Mosque,” a project of the the Cordoba Initiative (CI) that last week added the approval of Manhattan Community Board 1 to okays from New York City’s Mayor and Chief of Police. Left unstated is why it’s anybody else’s business, in the land of the free. Why not put up an Islamic cultural center with worship area among the many buildings, great ones existing and much greater ones already under construction, within a two- or three-block radius of hallowed ground?  More important, what would denying permission for the project, and what does seeking that denial, say about us?

It would say that we granted a victory, in America, to the un-American doctrine of collective guilt – a doctrine incompatible with the precepts of the American nation, according to which no one can be pre-judged on the basis of religion or other beliefs.  Rejection of the project would constitute such a victory because consistently, perhaps inescapably, calls to reject Cordoba House have sooner or later rested on the assignment of responsibility to Muslims, in general, for the 9/11 attacks. This pattern should be a cause of concern for conservatives whether the project goes forward or not.

This transference of guilt, from those directly involved onto a diverse and immense global population, and then to the actual sponsors of the project, is often accomplished by rhetorical misdirection, as facilitated by emotional distraction.

Alabama congressional candidate, Marine Corps veteran, and self-styled Tea Party activist Rick Barber begins the above statement (rough transcript here) with an indictment of “Islamic jihadists,” but immediately moves to the general level via the phrase “in the name of Islam.” This “in the name of” construction appears frequently in anti-Cordoba statements: It’s a conventional usage that anyone might employ non-controversially, but acknowledging the obvious – a connection or association between Islam and 9/11, even the implication of some traditional Islamic teachings – is different from establishing the responsibility and accountability of (all) Muslims.

Rather than maintain the distinction, however, Barber erases it.  Following the initial statement on Islamic Jihadists and a second invocation of the in-the-name-of construction, Barber says: “Now Muslims want to build a Mosque just two blocks from where the World Trade Center once stood.” Instantly, the enemy has become not radical Islamists, but “Muslims.” Barber then asks, “When is the grand opening of this Ground Zero Mosque?” His own answer:

September Eleventh, 2011. This is unacceptable.

Many listeners may inwardly respond, “Yes sir!” – and remain ignorant of the CI’s rationale. For the CI, opening on September 11th emphasizes their central message that Muslims, rather than being co-responsible for 9/11, can stand diametrically opposed to Bin Ladenism and its call, announced using scriptural language in the 1998 Al Qaeda declaration of total war, to “fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together.”  The 9/11 terrorists destroyed buildings, killed strangers, and preached and sought the clash of civilizations. The CI is constructing a building, welcoming strangers, and preaching interfaith cooperation and exchange.

Perhaps because Cordoba House itself, or the timing of its opening, is not and will not be citizen or even Congressman Rick Barber’s call, he closes with a demand for broader confrontation:

There is a difference between tolerance and surrender. The word Islam literally means surrender and if we don’t start electing leaders that are able to recognize the enemy, call them by name and stand up against them, then surrendering is exactly what we are doing.

Ironically, even while Barber promises to name “the enemy,” he encourages, or perhaps relies on, ambiguity about his specific meaning. He started with Islamic Jihad, but ends with a strong yet possibly deniable suggestion that “Islam,” and surrender even worse because it’s somehow Islamic, are the problems.

Barber’s blogger allies can be much more direct. Responding to the “super-mosque” “outrage,” Ace of Ace o’ Spades dances around the edge of declaring holy war, but finally loses his balance completey (emphasis added):

Someone truly interested in peace and moderation would not build a temple to the religion that killed 2,996, allowing jihdis [sic] to literally — literally — dance on the unmarked, uncollected remains of their victims.

HotAir Greenroom blogger MadisonConservative gets to collective responsibility more quickly – that is, immediately: His anti-Cordoba piece refers in its title to “Islam” giving a “tremendous middle finger to America.” While the “religion” that Ace refers to only kills, MadCon’s “Islam” is a collective entity capable of both destroying buildings and of constructing them – and of making vulgar hand gestures, too.

Though more polite than Ace, MadCon, and Barber, Rod Dreher works in much the same way.  Having given himself away completely in his title – “A Mosque at Ground Zero? Insane” – he marches through obvious but profoundly incommensurate analogies to Pearl Harbor and the Holocaust, but the core of his argument is a version of that same question we began with:

Of course it is wrong to blame all Muslims for 9/11. But why on earth rub salt in the wounds of the 9/11 dead by allowing a mosque to go in just two blocks from where jihadists incinerated or crushed over 2,700 innocent victims, in service of their faith?

The rambling syntax and nonsensical metaphor (salt in the wounds of the dead) may be symptomatic: In plain English, Dreher, said to have been a direct witness to the WTC collapse, is still angry – with Muslims. He starts out hedging with his concession on “all” Muslims, but in a way that leaves “most,” “practicing,” “authentic,” etc., in play. After that odd bit about the dead and their wounds (time to let them rest?), Dreher the “Beliefnet” blogger ends up close to Ace the South Park conservative by way of the phrase “in service of their faith.” “Faith” stands as an odd word for a fanatic’s belief system – unless you’re asserting an essential commonality between the “jihadists” and the average believer; unless, contrary to your promise, you are indicting the whole religion.

Dreher’s writing suggests a guilty conscience – justifiably, because the assignment of collective guilt is itself an injustice to fellow citizens, fellow human beings, who never harmed or would harm Rod Dreher, or Ace, or Rick Barber.  The tiresome emotional and other excesses of all the amateur anti-imams who gather in the virtual house of anti-Islam, flaunting their adherence to the fundamentalists’ interpretations of the same passages from the same sacred texts, expand the offense.  The symmetry with Bin Ladenism is perfect: fight the Muslims all together as they fight us all together.

Along just these lines, we this week have Andy McCarthy’s latest anti-Islamist fatwa at The Corner, which begins with a reference to the Obama Administration’s plans to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in Manhattan, then, in the familiar pattern, seamlessly connects the terrorist to “very mainstream” Muslims:

That dissent was enough to forestall the trial, but it will have to be even more energetic to stop the mosque — whose construction would be a classic instance of supremacist Islamists building their icons over those of the non-Muslims they mean to vanquish. As I explain in the book, this is not a case of me drawing an inference from the facts we can observe, although those facts are obvious enough. Leading Islamists — not just terrorists but Muslims who adhere to very mainstream Brotherhood ideology — insist that they will “conquer America” and turn it slowly into a shariah society.

That latest book McCarthy mentions has the alarming title The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America, but the title of his previous book, Willful Blindness, may apply better:  In terms of conqueror’s icons, just try, for a moment, to imagine how an Islamist or anti-American leftist views the embassy we’ve constructed in Baghdad (“the size of Vatican City”) or Bagram Air Base (“size of a small town”) – as compared to a projected 15-story building in Lower Manhattan

In the meantime, if some group wants, deep down or right out front, to turn America “slowly into a Shariah society” – by organizing, by advocating, by building impressive or maybe-not-really-so-impressive cultural centers in some proximity to symbolically important places – or for that matter if they hope to re-create and extend the medieval Caliphate by peaceful, free, and democratic means, what in the American tradition, in the values to be represented in the 1,776-foot Freedom Tower, could deny them the right to give such an unlikely project the ol’ madrassa try?

“Looming horror,” “insane,” “surrender,” “the religion that killed,” “conquer America”:  Nearing ten years on, and we still act as though terrorized out of our moral presumptions and emotional bearings by Mohammed Atta – by the militant who pretends to have joined the West while remaining secretly beholden to his hatred of the West. Or maybe impatience makes it too difficult to imagine the awesome skyscrapers and massive and luxuriant memorial/museum in and around the WTC site that together should someday dwarf Cordoba House and most other structures in the vicinity.  Either way, it betrays a lack of self-confidence unbecoming to defenders of the American idea to fear the suicide killer, who dies with his irreconcilable contradictions, more than we trust our influence on the millions of his co-religionists who choose to reconcile their contradictions in their real, everyday lives – in private, in public, in American uniform and as allies, and maybe with a building currently set to open its doors on 9/11/11.

Finally, re-assigning collective guilt in the other direction by calling conservatives bigots or Islamophobes cannot be justified either.  If opposition to the Cordoba Initiative has been disproportionate and overly emotional, that would not make it wholly irrational.  There may be good reasons – suspicion regarding project supporters, disagreement with their objectives, concern for some 9/11 families – to oppose “this building, there.”  My position is that these concerns have been exaggerated and manipulated, and are vastly outweighed by other factors, potential harm to the conservative movement not the least of them.  In a real sense, there would be no American conservative movement under the doctrine of collective guilt:   There would only be a culturally defensive right wing, under whatever name, and that would represent a great collective loss to us all.

cross-adapted from Zombie Contentions – “In My Own Name  Only” and “Imam McCarthy’s Latest Fatwa

150 comments on “Fight Them All Together: The Conservative Reaction to the "Ground Zero Mosque"

Commenting at CK MacLeod's

We are determined to encourage thoughtful discussion, so please be respectful to others. We also provide a set of Commenting Options - comment/commenter highlighting and ignoring, and commenter archives that you can access by clicking the commenter options button (). Go to our Commenting Guidelines page for more details, including how to report offensive and spam commenting.

  1. You’re so full of shite your eyes must be brown. But what’s the point anymore — it never changes, these self-ennobling ratiocinations on nuance (yes, you’re so far beyond all us patriotic aborigines!) and the total aversion to the idea of the “enemy” (I know — how vulgar and hideous!) It’s boring by now. Madison Conservative cut through the sham and dhimmi collusion of this abomination with perfect clarity.

  2. Why the strong gut reaction to a mosque at Ground Zero, to be commissioned on 9/11? Maybe due to the historic practice of co-opting conquered enemies’ religious places and re-establishing them in the religion of the conquerors. It sends the not-so-subtle message that the conquerors’ deities are more powerful than those of the conquered, taking psychological warfare to the realm of the afterlife. We can argue ’til the cows come home about whether an international financial center constitutes a religious place per se, but that is exactly how hardcore Islamists would characterize Western religion/culture.

    To be sure, this was (to my knowledge) primarily a Catholic practice, both in the Middle East and in South/Central America. That is, I don’t personally know of any churches which were later transformed into a mosque by a conquering Moorish force – but that could just be there weren’t many churches overtaken in the wake of the Crusades.

    In any case, middle age Cordoba in Spain *was* a place where all three religions peacefully coexisted for a time –under a Muslim ruler.

  3. This “in the name of” construction appears frequently in anti-Cordoba statements: It’s a conventional usage that anyone might employ non-controversially, but acknowledging the obvious – a connection or association between Islam and 9/11, even the implication of some traditional Islamic teachings – is different from establishing the responsibility and accountability of (all) Muslims.

    Religion is not a skin color, and I think it’s high time that Americans started to realize it. If a person over eighteen is voluntarily pledging faith to a religious text that calls for the extermination of Jews, the subjugation of women, and the conquest and destruction of the rest of the world — it is not unfair to “discriminate” between him and another citizen.

    Religion, at least for adults in a free country, is a choice. Anyone who calls the Koran a holy book after 9/11 is willfully associating themselves with that atrocity, and we have no obligation to blind ourselves to it.

  4. You are a fool. It matters not what WE think of this mosque; it matters what THEY think. And the construction of this mosque will be one of the greatest propaganda victories in the history of Islam. The average Mo on the street in Islamabad won’t know that the thing is actually two long blocks away from the WTC site; what he will be told by his local Imam is that “we have been victorious in conquering the American infidels and replacing their towers of evil capitalism and greed with a mosque.”

    Why the hell should we grant them such a propaganda victory?

  5. CK MacLeod on May 28, 2010 at 1:53 PM

    You say no, and yet, that’s exactly what you’ve written, that the only reason to be against this is out of fear and hatred of Islam. Those were direct quotes.

    I’m not saying there aren’t people who hate and fear Islam. There are. A ton of them. I engaged them on other threads but didn’t bother with them here as is my want.

    What I’m saying is that there are other reasons to be against this, and that it’s complete lunacy of you to pretend otherwise simply to tar your entire opposition as a bunch of racists.

    You miss the point and do so deliberately. Obviously it’s been my waste of time to pretend you could be fair or even own up to your own race card tactics.

    Esthier on June 1, 2010 at 12:06 PM

  6. CK MacLeod,

    Rejection of the project would constitute such a victory because consistently, perhaps inescapably, calls to reject Cordoba House have sooner or later rested on the assignment of responsibility to Muslims, in general, for the 9/11 attacks. This pattern should be a cause of concern for conservatives whether the project goes forward or not.

    I’m not blaming all muslims or their faith for 9/11, and neither is this muslim who agrees with me.

    If I was blaming all muslims, CK, I would be calling for no more mosques anywhere. Here, as is my right as an American, I am disagreeing with individuals who want to build something at a location that I and many others find objectionable. And contrary to what you seem to think, I do have a right to object without angrily tearing up the Bill of Rights.

    If a business wanted to build a large neon yellow building in a community and that community did not want it to be built there, it doesn’t have to be because they hate neon yellow. Those outside of the community can also have a valid and respected opinion on the neon yellow building as well, even if it wouldn’t necessarily be taken into account when seeking permission to build it.

    Finally, re-assigning collective guilt in the other direction by calling conservatives bigots or Islamophobes cannot be justified either.

    I appreciate your allowing me to disagree without calling me a bigot, which is a step up from our previous discussion on the subject.

    I’d say more to start, but we covered quite a bit of ground in Madison Conservative’s thread but never really got anywhere.

  7. Finally, re-assigning collective guilt in the other direction by calling conservatives bigots or Islamophobes cannot be justified either.

    Translation into standard English: “Some of my best friends are conservative!”

  8. Heralder,
    it’s not your right to object that’s being impugned, it’s the reasonableness of the objection.
    you’ve the same right to object to followers of Islam building a mosque near the WTC that other people might have to building a church near Mecca or a synagogue in Salt Lake City.
    object all you care to and can, but kindly excuse those who say that you’re wrong and shortsighted and would sell us all short if you had your way and the mosque was blocked for no other reason than you dislike the religion or want to blame people who’ve done nothing wrong.

  9. Finally, re-assigning collective guilt in the other direction by calling conservatives bigots or Islamophobes cannot be justified either.

    Then don’t do it yourself and don’t pretend you didn’t start out doing precisely that.

    I don’t see a good reason to be against the building of a mosque/cultural center two blocks from Ground Zero. In fact, the arguments in favor sound quite reasonable to me. But, then again, I don’t hate and fear Islam.

  10. I don’t see a good reason to be against the building of a mosque/cultural center two blocks from Ground Zero. In fact, the arguments in favor sound quite reasonable to me. But, then again, I don’t hate and fear Islam.

    And yet another American political philosopher falls for Taqiyah. Congrats, CK.

  11. but kindly excuse those who say that you’re wrong and shortsighted and would sell us all short if you had your way and the mosque was blocked for no other reason than you dislike the religion or want to blame people who’ve done nothing wrong.

    audiculous on June 2, 2010 at 1:24 PM

    Yes, kindly excuse those who accuse you of bigotry.

  12. Esthier,

    kindly show me the error of questioning the basis of the objection and/or explain why you think the accusation is of bigotry rather than unsound reasoning.

  13. Esthier,

    kindly show me the error of questioning the basis of the objection and/or explain why you think the accusation is of bigotry rather than unsound reasoning.

    audiculous on June 2, 2010 at 1:37 PM

    But, then again, I don’t hate and fear Islam.

    As if, by implication, those of us that object to the mosques being build *do* somehow hate and fear Islam.

  14. Esthier,

    kindly show me the error of questioning the basis of the objection and/or explain why you think the accusation is of bigotry rather than unsound reasoning.

    audiculous on June 2, 2010 at 1:37 PM

    I don’t understand how this, “for no other reason than you dislike the religion or want to blame people who’ve done nothing wrong,” is anything but blaming bigotry from opposition to the mosque.

    Maybe you could explain to me how it’s not.

  15. As if, by implication, those of us that object to the mosques being build *do* somehow hate and fear Islam.

    gryphon202 on June 2, 2010 at 1:40 PM

    That’s CK, not audiculous.

  16. you’ve the same right to object to followers of Islam building a mosque near the WTC that other people might have to building a church near Mecca or a synagogue in Salt Lake City.

    audiculous on June 2, 2010 at 1:24 PM

    We have the same right, yes, but what are we talking about here?

    object all you care to and can, but kindly excuse those who say that you’re wrong and shortsighted and would sell us all short if you had your way and the mosque was blocked for no other reason than you dislike the religion or want to blame people who’ve done nothing wrong.

    I don’t mind at all debating with people who have different points of view, but seriously, don’t bother replying if you’re just ignoring what I’ve said.

  17. In fact, the arguments in favor sound quite reasonable to me. But, then again, I don’t hate and fear Islam.

    How insufferably smug and insulting. Piled on top of obtuse dhimmitude. This little gem of an essay is a case study in how education and elitism have gone self-loathingly awry in the West.

  18. Left unstated is why it’s anybody else’s business, in the land of the free.

    Precisely because it IS the land of the free, and everyone is entitled to their opinion.

    Your attempts to tell people to shut up, on the other hand, are as reprehensible as they are hypocritical:

    The 1st is like my favoritest amendment, and the general and very basic moral commitment to freedom of conscience and expression and equal creation and protection is very cool.

    You seem only content with the expression of the Muslims building this mosque, but have no patience for the expression of those who see it for the abomination that it is.

    I notice you couldn’t summon up the balls in your sneering admonition to once again defend Cordoba as a “leading center of trade and culture”, entirely disregarding the fact that it was a caliphate, where non-Muslims were treated as second-class citizens forced to pay for their beliefs.

    Finally, I’m disappointed. You were so content to call me a terrorist, and everyone else bigots, in the comments of my article, but seem to suddenly think that unnecessary discourse while penning your own diatribe. Come on, CK. You claim to say exactly what you think. I don’t see anywhere near the amount of snide, arrogant contempt that you showed in the last discussion.

  19. Oh, and I truly do marvel at your skill in cloaking your appalling statements in doublespeak:

    In the meantime, if some group wants, deep down or right out front, to turn America “slowly into a Shariah society” – by organizing, by advocating, by building impressive or maybe-not-really-so-impressive cultural centers in some proximity to symbolically important places – or for that matter if they hope to re-create and extend the medieval Caliphate by peaceful, free, and democratic means, what in the American tradition, in the values to be represented in the 1,776-foot Freedom Tower, could deny them the right to give such an unlikely project the ol’ madrassa try?

    Besides being one of the most broken and clunky sentences I’ve ever read, it’s remarkable in its ability to make the reader forget what you said at the beginning. If you don’t mind, and I’m sure you do, let me cut the fat out:

    In the meantime, if some group wants, deep down or right out front, to turn America “slowly into a Shariah society”…

    …what in the American tradition could deny them the right to give such an unlikely project the ol’ madrassa try?

    You know, between the admiration of an old caliphate, and the defense of attempts to establish a new one, I can only say that it’s perverse for you to compare anyone, especially myself, a terrorist.

  20. object all you care to and can, but kindly excuse those who say that you’re wrong and shortsighted and would sell us all short if you had your way

    So you’re pissed about us having an opinion, while we’re pissed about them having a monument. Guess which will have a greater impact, and hence which is far less justifiable to scream at others about.

    and the mosque was blocked for no other reason than you dislike the religion or want to blame people who’ve done nothing wrong.

    audiculous on June 2, 2010 at 1:24 PM

    Does this need to be branded on your forehead.

    Build a mosque wherever and open it whenever you like. Just don’t open one there and open it then. How hard is this to get through your thick skulls?

  21. MadCon

    So you’re pissed about us having an opinion,

    you again misunderstand, but that’s understandable, as you seem to do little else.

    No one is pissed about you having an opinion
    people are merely grossed out that your opinion is so flaming lame and worthless.

    Reeeeaaaall sllllowwww,
    for you britforshains,
    bad opinions are bad because they are bad, not because they are opinions.

  22. Vancomycin, find a germ of a thought somewhere.

    No one is defending or apologizing for Islamists,

    the defense is of freedom of speech, religion, association and the presumption of innocence.

    these are not things near and dear to Islamists, are they?

    so your pretty much confusing defending American values with “Islamistic” ones.

    think some more.

  23. audiculous on June 2, 2010 at 2:37 PM

    Your tone, writing style, care, and punctuation seems to fluctuate pretty wildly from post to post. Are you writing from a phone sometimes or are you more than one person?

  24. one whimsical soul housed in one little carcass.

    I respond differently to different levels of courtesy and of thoughtfulness.

    them what’s rude and without nuance sometimes get back same.

  25. Be honest now. How many times have you read and re-read this blog entry? 10 times? 20? Did you codify it? Did you send it to all your friends? Did you print it out and laminate it? Come on be honest.

  26. audiculous on June 2, 2010 at 3:07 PM

    Were you planning on responding to me? If you have an explanation for why I’m wrong about your comment, I’m open to hearing it.

  27. skimmed it twice. some nice language in the closing paragraphs, but MacLeod is too long-winded for my tastes.

    the argument is really simple, we should all be forever pissed about 9/11, but that was some other guys. we can be suspicious of the guys building this mosque and annoyed that they want to put up in lower Manhattan, but if they follow our laws, rules and regulations, they have every right to do so.
    having them follow our laws, rules and regulations and getting treated correctly in return, is best for everybody.
    busting balls without these particular people doing anything wrong is good for nobody.

  28. Were you planning on responding to me? If you have an explanation for why I’m wrong about your comment, I’m open to hearing it.

    Esthier on June 2, 2010 at 3:35 PM

    Well, he dropped the ball again, so let me respond to you instead.

    The explanation for why his comment was not an outright accusation of bigotry is: Purple

  29. I’m sorry, Esthier. I hadn’t seen that you had responded to my comment.

    I don’t understand how this, “for no other reason than you dislike the religion or want to blame people who’ve done nothing wrong,” is anything but blaming bigotry from opposition to the mosque.

    I’m leaving open the possibility of ignorance, illogic, and stupidity, but I’ll gladly admit that I think bigotry is in the mix as well.

    I’ve yet to see anything advanced in opposition to the project that struck me as a good argument, but I’ll also say that I’ve not read every comment offered in the various threads.

    If you care to post some reasons for my consideration, I’ll consider and respond.

    Fairly promptly. (again, sorry for the omission).

  30. they have every right to do so.

    audiculous on June 2, 2010 at 3:41 PM

    Most people, even those opposed to this building, agree on this point. That was never what most of the opposition was about.

  31. audiculous on June 2, 2010 at 3:49 PM

    Bah, I jumped the gun. Oh well, my substitute explanation is no longer required.

  32. Repost to CK not audiculous:

    Be honest now. How many times have you read and re-read this blog entry? 10 times? 20? Did you codify it? Did you send it to all your friends? Did you print it out and laminate it? Come on be honest.

    midlander on June 2, 2010 at 3:16 PM

  33. I’m leaving open the possibility of ignorance, illogic, and stupidity, but I’ll gladly admit that I think bigotry is in the mix as well.

    audiculous on June 2, 2010 at 3:49 PM

    Subject: Mosque being built in a place and opened on a date that is incredibly insensitive to the significance of each.

    Argument: It’s an insult to what happened, those who died, and actually symbolizes what Islam has been about for centuries, that being the subjugation of all other religions and cultures, and Islamic religion and culture replacing them.

    Counter-argument: You’re either a bigot, or ignorant, or illogical, or stupid. Shut up, it’s none of your business.

    Just awesome.

  34. The explanation for why his comment was not an outright accusation of bigotry is: Purple

    Heralder on June 2, 2010 at 3:48 PM

    OK, that’s funny. It reminds me of a T-shirt.

    Haikus are easy
    But sometimes they don’t make sense.
    Refrigerator.

    I’m leaving open the possibility of ignorance, illogic, and stupidity, but I’ll gladly admit that I think bigotry is in the mix as well.

    I’m not asking for your current position. I’m asking about that particular comment. It leaves no other explanation but bigotry against Muslims as a reason for being against the building.

    People can also be stupid and illogical in this comment, but they’re all ultimately and necessarily bigoted.

    If you care to post some reasons for my consideration, I’ll consider and respond.

    With all due respect, why would I want to when you’ve already dismissed my position in such harsh terms? You claim to respond in kind, but I haven’t attacked you, and yet you leave no possibility for my potential argument being anything but bigoted, and maybe also stupid, ignorant and illogical.

    You seem to be claiming here that you’re open to hearing one, but your comments completely contradict that in no uncertain terms.

    Fairly promptly. (again, sorry for the omission).

    audiculous on June 2, 2010 at 3:49 PM

    I don’t take offense at it, though I do appreciate the apology.

    I don’t even take offense at your overall argument (because I know myself, not because I think your opinion of me is an acceptable position in any debate – on that I actually agree with CK, even though it’s an obvious change of heart), but I simply don’t understand why you would throw out such bombs while expecting people to respond to you with unearned civility.

    This goes back to my first response to you. You’re asking to be kindly excused, while calling those who disagree with you bigots. I’m not seeing the logic there.

  35. MadCon,

    “insensitive” and “an insult” simply aren’t arguments, they’re indications of emotion.

  36. Heralder,

    The explanation for why his comment was not an outright accusation of bigotry is: Purple

    don’t apologize. that one wasn’t bad.

  37. Haikus are easy
    But sometimes they don’t make sense.
    Refrigerator.

    Esthier on June 2, 2010 at 4:01 PM

    HAHA! That just made my day.

  38. Akin to the Golden Rule is the adage from physicians to “first do no harm”. The problem with a mosque close to Ground Zero (and opening on 9/11) is that, irregardless of anyone’s beliefs, it does psychological harm to many. I wouldn’t show a birth video to a woman who’d just had a miscarriage either.

  39. I’m asking about that particular comment. It leaves no other explanation but bigotry against Muslims as a reason for being against the building.

    People can also be stupid and illogical in this comment, but they’re all ultimately and necessarily bigoted.

    and the comment quoted is

    “for no other reason than you dislike the religion or want to blame people who’ve done nothing wrong,

    see that word “or” there?

    the sentence was meant to mean BIGOTRY OR misdirected blame.

    some people may think that there’s a rational basis for calling for the frustration of the effort to build the mosque. they may actually think that they know something of the thoughts of the people guiding the effort.
    they may be casting aspirations on the effort because they consider some of the people ill-minded or criminal. I’ve had some discussion with a person saying that the mosque shouldn’t be built because he distrusts Imam Faisal Al Rauf.

    And you’re right to doubt whether I’m open to hearing other arguments.
    Nothing in my comments suggests that I am, but I think that I am.
    It would have to be something different than anything I’ve yet read here, but in other places I’ve suggested that factual grounds for opposition might exist and asked the person mistrusting the Iman for facts as to why he’s not trustworthy.

    I’ve no opinion of you as yet, Esthier, and I’ll take some care before forming one.

  40. Ah. Another moral relativist. No such thing as an objective insult or objective insensitivity. Marvelous.

    MadisonConservative on June 2, 2010 at 4:09 PM

    again wrong, MadCon. there may well be objective insults or objective insensitivity, but a bald assertion of same is merely emotive language, not an ethical argument.

    and an argument about insult needs to address the actual meaning of the word, particularly distinguishing between insults intended and insults perceived.

    Heralder would point out that someone might consider it insulting to paint the mosque purple and I would agree that someone might be insulted.

    I also would think that’s their funkin problem and not any thing besmirching the painters.

  41. Heralder would point out that someone might consider it insulting to paint the mosque purple and I would agree that someone might be insulted.

    I also would think that’s their funkin problem and not any thing besmirching the painters.

    audiculous on June 2, 2010 at 4:34 PM

    I know you’re joking about the joke, but all the same, my previous analogy on color is more suitable:

    If a business wanted to build a large neon yellow building in a community and that community did not want it to be built there, it doesn’t have to be because they hate neon yellow.

  42. and an argument about insult needs to address the actual meaning of the word, particularly distinguishing between insults intended and insults perceived.

    audiculous on June 2, 2010 at 4:34 PM

    Someone’s either being intentionally obtuse, lacks common sense, is unaware of that old reliable reasonableness standard … or some combination of same.

    ———-

    In other news, we still have crickets chirping in CK’s corner.

  43. Heralder, actually one of the things that I admire about your joke is that it points up that some things are simply not open to a rational debate.

    there’s no way to reason someone out of liking or disliking purple.

    MadCon perceives an insult from the site of the mosque and no attempt to get MadCon to consider that a personal reaction of MadCon’s is not necessarily anything that’s correlative to the builders intent.

    MadCon”s pointing and shouting “purple” and even if he/she is colorblind, it’s still gonna be purple to MadCon.

  44. Ohio,

    I’m still pretty much aware of the reasonable standards in both logic and law.

    but I’ll not argue about a lack of common sense.

  45. see that word “or” there?

    the sentence was meant to mean BIGOTRY OR misdirected blame.

    OK, maybe it’s meant to, but I did see that and disagree that it conveyed what you wanted. I mean the implication is that the only reason for the misdirected blame is their religion, which goes straight back to bigotry.

    Or rather, that’s the implication I took from what you wrote.

    I’m still not sure what other reasons you’re leaving open for the misdirected blame.

    they may actually think that they know something of the thoughts of the people guiding the effort.

    Isn’t that CK’s position? That he does know their thoughts and therefore dismisses any opposition as they people connected with the building have honorable intentions?

    And you’re right to doubt whether I’m open to hearing other arguments.
    Nothing in my comments suggests that I am, but I think that I am.

    That’s oddly refreshing.

    I’ve no opinion of you as yet, Esthier, and I’ll take some care before forming one.

    audiculous on June 2, 2010 at 4:24 PM

    Alright. I’ll accept this – at least for now.

    But I will restate that if you want respectful dialogue, and it appears you do, it helps to assume that the people you are conversing with have honorable intentions and potentially sound arguments themselves until proven otherwise – or at least to pretend as though you assume this until you have proof of the opposite.

    For me, I’m not saying the building shouldn’t be allowed to be built. I don’t even believe many are making that argument.

    Freedom of religion and freedom of assembly are beautiful things that men and women have died to protect. If necessary, I’d do the same.

    However, I, for one, find their stated intentions (about peace and harmony and all that) dubious considering the harm this proposed building has already caused to people very close to 9/11. If they didn’t understand how it might hurt people, they certainly do now. I don’t care whether or not the hurt these people feel is warranted. It’s completely beside the point.

    Another stated intention, proof that Muslims condemn the actions of those on 9/11, is equally dubious considering at least one of the main men associated with this building doesn’t believe Muslims were involved and even then considers America at least marginally responsible.

    These aren’t reasons against the building. They’re simply reasons to doubt that it’s being built for the reasons they claim. Legally, I don’t see that it would matter even if it was being built specifically as a middle finger to 9/11 victims and family members of victims.

    Now I personally would also object to a giant middle finger at Ground Zero, but you’ve already listed insults and insensitivity as illegitimate reasons to be against it, so the intentions of the builders themselves are clearly not considered legitimate arguments by you anyway and are more of a prologue of my feelings on the subject.

    My full reasons for considering this a horrible idea (one that should be prevented if possible though not by force) are somewhat all over the place.

    I reject the idea that Americans have anything to prove about our tolerance towards Muslims or that allowing a mosque so close to Ground Zero proves Muslims tolerance. And in general, don’t see any good reasons for putting it right there. You’re welcome to point out any gems if you find them, though I will admit my own biases on the subject might preclude me from being persuaded by anything you find.

    I believe that it already is a huge propaganda victory for the same people who saw 9/11 as a propaganda victory. I believe it will be used, not necessarily by those in New York, as a recruiting tool, one more effective than Abu photos or Gitmo.

    This isn’t necessarily the building’s fault, but considering a website associated with the people behind this building issued a fatwa after a Muslim sold land to a Christian for a church to be built on, it’s not as though the concept would have escaped their attention.

    The most compelling argument I’ve found is the precedent for showing preference to those with an emotional connection to the land as the best show of unity, harmony, and all the things the people behind the buildings claim to care about.

    In 1993, the Pope ordered nuns to leave the convent they’d made at Auschwitz. The nuns hadn’t created the place out of disrespect, but again, that doesn’t matter. It not only hurt Jewish people that they would do something seen as profane, but it had also strained relations between Jews (in Poland specifically but everywhere generally) and Roman Catholics.

    From a practical standpoint, though the nuns meant no harm, their actions went against the very core of what their organization was trying to do and made an unnecessary political problem that was harmful to both groups.

    This center, will have the same effect, and it will do so at a much less opportune time (not that I believe there is any appropriate time). We do need to be able to come together, Christian, Jew, Muslim, etc., and agree that violence is never the answer and that freedom is paramount to a just society in order to rebuke those who would use religion to commit murder and worse. I strongly believe that this is necessary for success against terrorism.

    Using this area for a political purpose will only make that significantly harder. As one Muslims against the building put it, that place is about being an American first, period. It was a place for unification, every American alive then must remember what that was like, but this building has already caused so much division when deference to those who were injured or who lost loved ones could have gone a long way. Had they sought their permission first and received it, I’d have no objections to the building.

    As it is, they are instead driving a wedge between Muslims and other Americans, and that alone will help those who want to dramatically change America. There free to do this of course, but why?

  46. MadCon perceives an insult from the site of the mosque and no attempt to get MadCon to consider that a personal reaction of MadCon’s is not necessarily anything that’s correlative to the builders intent.

    audiculous on June 2, 2010 at 5:14 PM

    Why would it matter? In a global society we often put the onus on all sides for ensuring insults aren’t felt, no matter intent. What’s appropriate in one culture is a war-starting offense in another, so it’s important that perceptions be considered, whether or not they’re logical or baseless.

    That’s presumably why they sought approval from a board they never needed to consider. Even they seem to think perception matters and in doing so, while ignoring complaints from those with an invested interest in the area, they contradict themselves with what appears to be an even greater insult, that they would continue with plans to build the center after making it a point to listen to those who are hurt by it.

    Though I obviously misunderstood your comment on insults and insensitivity.

  47. Esthier, as you noted, they’ve opted to face the public and listen to all objections and then let the matter be put to a vote by the community board.
    The vote was 29-1 in favor of building.

    http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/05/26/2010-05-26_clash_over_mosque_heated_debate_on_a_house_of_worship_near_ground_zero.html

    http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/nyers_wage_jihad_vs_wtc_mosque_UgJiOBYEhrSOw4Q6hpvbQL

    The Mayor, the Police Commissioner, and the Manhattan Borough President are all in favor.
    The citizens of NYC aren’t expressing outrage.

    I’m gonna go with saying that most of us( here in NYC ) aren’t insulted by the mosque.
    We’re not shy here. If we were insulted, it would be loudly expressed and widely known.

  48. hey, if you think that there’s value in it, enjoy.

    dried food, a little water, and always an empty (apple juice) half-gallon container.

  49. Finally, re-assigning collective guilt in the other direction by calling conservatives bigots or Islamophobes cannot be justified either.

    Wow. You’ve actually refuted your own position within the same post. Although I suppose it’s possible you might have forgotten that by the end, given the manifesto’s length…but still, those are some mad skillz you’ve got there.

  50. audiculous on June 2, 2010 at 9:03 PM

    I’m aware of the vote, but you’re completely wrong that New Yorkers aren’t expressing any outrage.

    Maybe you haven’t heard them. If that’s the case, this might be help.

    But I think you missed my point. I actually wasn’t talking about New Yorkers. They certainly were victims in the attack, but I was writing more about those who specifically lost loved ones or who were injured. Many were and are still New Yorkers, but their views aren’t necessarily reflected by New Yorkers as a whole.

    Many of them, at that very meeting where they were overruled 29-1, made their concerns heard. It’s in your second link, so presumably this isn’t news to you.

    The Mayor, the Police Commissioner, and the Manhattan Borough President are all in favor.

    I find this to be an odd argument for presenting proof that New Yorkers are fine with the building, as though elected representatives are always barometers for public opinion. That’s an illogical leap, especially in the current political climate where we went from one president under 30% approval and now to one hovering near the mid 40s, while Congress can’t get much lower and neither can either party.

    It’s anti-incumbent fever around the nation, and you’re pointing to these people as though their opinions are somehow meaningful representations of their society.

    Maybe their views happen to align with the rest of the city, but that they think the building is acceptable in its location is not at all proof that anyone else does. I’m not even convinced you believe this.

    There are no actual polls of just New Yorkers or just 9/11 victims or families of victims that I could find, but I did go through local New York news websites and didn’t find a single one with a majority in support. At best, support seems to be around 30%. At worst, on a CBS poll no less, it gets less than 10%.

    http://dnainfo.com/20100526/financial-district-battery-park-city/should-mosque-be-built-near-ground-zero

    http://kdka.com/national/ground.zero.mosque.2.1680415.html

  51. Waiting’s part of the point. Talk about a drive-by essay …

    OhioCoastie on June 3, 2010 at 12:09 AM

    You have some very strange notions: that you and your sophomoric “objective moral standard” argument are interesting; that it wasn’t already discussed as much as it deserved; that bloggers here and elsewhere even commonly respond to insistent and impolite commenters (note: they get criticized when they do, as well as when they don’t); that anyone cares about whatever point it is you’re trying to make. Why don’t you just assume I gave whatever “wrong” answer you’re hoping will cap off your lame internet gotcha exercise, and then tell all the world about the dire and highly relevant implications?

    However you choose to respond, I’m guessing it will be just about as relevant to the argument and content of my post as the rest of the comments have been.

  52. Esthier, I didn’t mean to say that there were absolutely zero people in NYC outraged about the mosques. I meant that there just isn’t very much opposition.

    If you can find out how many people from the NYC area signed that petition, please let me know.

    Right now, the total number of people signing is less than 50,000…..that’s about less than half of one per cent of the number of residents around here.

  53. Right now, the total number of people signing is less than 50,000…..that’s about less than half of one per cent of the number of residents around here.

    audiculous on June 3, 2010 at 1:44 PM

    I didn’t take that as indicative of NYC feelings either, but I’ve simply seen no reason to believe that even a plurality of New Yorkers support this. I’d love to see a more trusted poll on this but have yet to find one. If I do, I will certainly let you know.

  54. I’m not interested in your juvenile taunts, OhioCoastie. Further off-topic comments will be subject to deletion.

    CK MacLeod on June 3, 2010 at 1:40 PM

    That’s right. Flex. Show the only muscle you have.

  55. However you choose to respond, I’m guessing it will be just about as relevant to the argument and content of my post as the rest of the comments have been.

    CK MacLeod on June 3, 2010 at 12:43 PM

    Considering that your post was frosted with your usual condescension and contempt, they were quite relevant. Once again, if you can’t take it, don’t dish it out.

  56. My objection was to CK’s judgmental attitude toward others, which seems incompatible with his apparent belief that judging is Not To Be Tolerated™ … since there’s no such thing as objective moral standards. If CK can make sense of his judgmental disdain for and disapproval of people judgmentally showing disapproval and disdain, I’m all ears. Otherwise, this “Tolerance Über Alles” approach to the Ground Zero mosque is just an exercise in self-righteous wanking.

    It’s not my fault if CK’s unwilling or unable to understand that he’s building his argument on a foundation of sand. His threats to delete my comments suggests that I’ve hit a nerve.

  57. His threats to delete my comments suggests that I’ve hit a nerve.

    OhioCoastie on June 3, 2010 at 2:58 PM

    or it might suggest that you’re being an asshole.

    Butch up, princess.

    OhioCoastie on June 3, 2010 at 1:13 PM

    couldn’t it?

  58. His threats to delete my comments suggests that I’ve hit a nerve.

    OhioCoastie on June 3, 2010 at 2:58 PM

    or it might suggest that you don’t seem to realize that you’re being an ass.

    Butch up, princess.

    OhioCoastie on June 3, 2010 at 1:13 PM

  59. MadCon, any chance you’ll post a Green Room fisking of CK’s moral confusion on display above, in these posts …

    The Marriage of Heaven and Hell in Manhattan
    I don’t hate Muslims, but why do we need a mosque at Ground Zero?” (especially this comment)
    29 to 1: NYC community board approves Ground Zero mosque
    On the tremendous middle finger given to America by Islam in the form of a Manhattan mosque
    In My Own Name Only

    … and elsewhere?

    CK MacLeod spends an awful lot of time striking the “who are you to say?” pose, lecturing intolerantly about tolerance, and larding his writing with condescension and disdain as substitutes for rational argument.

  60. OhioCoastie on June 3, 2010 at 2:58 PM

    Your argument is confused and based on your own presumptions, not on anything I’ve actually argued. To review: I presented an argument – that conservative reaction to Cordoba House has been largely characterized by an invocation of collective guilt that is directly at odds with the core American values that conservatives champion – except apparently in cases like this one when those values prove inconvenient. I analyzed a selection of representative opinion to support my contention, while addressing the Cordoba House issue on its own terms only secondarily, mainly as it relates the proportionality of the conservative reaction (“looming horror,” “conquer America,” etc.).

    There are numerous ways that someone who disagrees with this argument could address it. They might fault the analysis itself, on its own terms, for instance – something no one here has attempted to do (show, e.g., that Ace’s comment wasn’t excessive – good luck, or that the sampling of opinion wasn’t truly representative of conservative reactions). They might say that it doesn’t matter whether conservatives support core American values consistently, or that the “Muslim threat” is so dire that it requires we suspend American values for the duration of an open-ended and presumably escalating clash of civilizations.

    In addition to being vastly oversimplified according to the same fallacious collective guilt rationale, that last position, which appears to be the one most critics are subscribing to, has its own implications and defects. I think it would amount to a declaration that the American experiment is defunct, and that American conservatism now consists strictly of cultural self-defense, traditional “rightwing” ideology rather than support for America’s founding principles.

    If you don’t care about those principles, or perhaps don’t understand their role in this context, then, even on a purely pragmatic basis, it is almost always extremely poor strategy to unite the enemy in a fight to the collective death rather than to attempt to divide the enemy coalition. Even from the most cynical perspective, the one more typical of enemies of America but which many self-styled conservatives seem eager to adopt, from which all of America’s wars of “liberation” were really just wars of material self-interest alone, all along, that strategy promises to be an immensely bloody and wasteful one.

    The proponents of a clash of civilizations are dishonest about what they are offering to the world, but they shouldn’t be surprised when people see through their false or undeveloped pretenses, and show reluctance to join them or to accept their assumptions without question. So it is also poor strategy on the level of building the largest possible coalition against the main threat.

    Getting caught up with merely personal issues, or seeking personal offense, or trying to score points in made-up little message board games, is in this context pathetic, in addition to being, as I said, uninteresting to me.

  61. Your talk of “principles” makes no sense on its own terms, because you’re actually talking about preferences and consensus. It’s like you’re lecturing for hours about the essence of squares and parallelograms while pointing to a picture of a circle. No matter how many thousands of words and emotional appeals you pile atop each other, you’re still just spouting nonsense.

    Why should I take your assertions seriously when you’re either unwilling or unable to root them in anything beyond your personal preferences/prejudices (or in fleeting version of public opinion)? If there’s such thing as an objective moral standard, then your essays on “Tolerance Über Alles” carry as much weight as an essay on which flavor of ice cream is the best. It’s just your opinion and nothing more, and as we all know, everybody has one.

    MadCon, Esthier, and I are challenging the foundation of your worldview, and your responses have so far been equal parts condescension and character attack covered with a paper-thin veneer of barely civil intellectual superiority. Offer something substantive or do everybody a favor and stick a sock in it.

  62. Your talk of “principles” makes no sense on its own terms, because you’re actually talking about preferences and consensus. It’s like you’re lecturing for hours about the essence of squares and parallelograms while pointing to a picture of a circle. No matter how many thousands of words and emotional appeals you pile atop each other, you’re still just spouting nonsense.

    Why should I take your assertions seriously when you’re either unwilling or unable to root them in anything beyond your personal preferences/prejudices (or in fleeting version of public opinion)? If there’s such thing as an objective moral standard, then your essays on “Tolerance Über Alles” carry as much weight as an essay on which flavor of ice cream is the best. It’s just your opinion, and as we all know, everybody has one.

    MadCon, Esthier, and I are challenging the foundation of your worldview, and your responses have so far been equal parts condescension and character attack covered with a paper-thin veneer of barely civil intellectual superiority. Offer something substantive or do everybody a favor and stick a sock in it.

  63. or in fleeting version of public opinion

    Oops. I meant “or in some fleeting version of public opinion” up there.

    If there’s such thing as an objective moral standard

    Double oops. I meant “If there’s no such thing as an objective moral standard” when I wrote that.

  64. OhioCoastie on June 3, 2010 at 3:38 PM

    I don’t want to use my privilege to blog in the Green Room to pursue a personal vendetta with another GR blogger. I think doing such a thing is childish. I did try engaging him in debate over Palin boosting McCain a while ago, and saw the signs of his exceptional narcissism from the beginning. I try to save GR articles for something worthwhile, and let me tell you, this leering, sneering jackanapes isn’t. If you try to pursue debate, he’ll first personally attack you(simultaneously claiming his insult is merely an argument), cry if you attack him back, then attack you again. I seriously wonder if he’s unable to see his own actions…if, perhaps, he’s really that self-absorbed. It goes nowhere.

  65. Getting caught up with merely personal issues, or seeking personal offense, or trying to score points in made-up little message board games, is in this context pathetic, in addition to being, as I said, uninteresting to me.

    CK MacLeod on June 3, 2010 at 3:44 PM

    Strange, then, that you would specialize in something you find so uninteresting.

  66. I don’t want to use my privilege to blog in the Green Room to pursue a personal vendetta with another GR blogger. I think doing such a thing is childish.

    MadisonConservative on June 3, 2010 at 4:52 PM

    I agree. That was an unwise choice of words on my part, since fisking requires snark. I was actually hoping you’d use MacLeod’s confusion as an object lesson on how not to achieve worthwhile ends (defeating shariah, advancing conservatism, de-fanging the Left, protecting American principles).

  67. It would say that we granted a victory, in America, to the un-American doctrine of collective guilt – a doctrine incompatible with the precepts of the American nation, according to which no one can be pre-judged on the basis of religion or other beliefs.

    How about the belief in Nazism? Should we be tolerant of that? Should we not “pre-judge” at all on the basis of that belief? How about the belief in men having sex with 9 year old girls? Should we be tolerant of that too? Should we not “pre-judge” at all on the basis of that belief? How about the belief that homosexuality is a crime against Allah that should be punished by death? Should we be tolerant of that too? Should we not “pre-judge” at all on the basis of that belief? How about a “religion” that beleives that all who leave it should be put to death? Should we be tolerant of that too? Should we not “pre-judge” at all on the basis of that belief?

    I believe it was Aristotle who said something like, “Tolerance is the last virtue of a dying society”.

    It is one thing to tolerate, say, anther’s skin color or sexual preference with other consenting adults, and quite something else to tolerate spreading evil, which is exactly what Islam, which has no tolerance for you except as a useful dhimmi, is. To not know that is either blind ignorance or willful ignorance to the point of moral depravity.

    CK MacLeod’s misunderstanding and misapplication of basic American principles has reached truly epic proportions.

    What would Charles Martel do?

    During the depth of the Dark Age, Arab armies crossed over from Spain into France looting, pillaging, raping, murdering and imposing their “religion” on the Christian population.

    Then rose up Charles Martel, not even known by most Americans today, but who is the most influential man in the history of what was to become Western Civilization.

    If CK MacLeod had been in Charles Martel’s place, Western Civilization and enlightenment and liberty and human rights and and technology would never have come about and any of us alive today would be living in a Lord of the Flies world.

  68. Here’s irony for you: a jihadist would have more respect (albeit grudgingly) for those of us who are willing to stand and fight his evil ideology, than he’d have for CK MacLeod and his fellow travelers.

  69. MadisonConservative on June 3, 2010 at 4:52 PM
    MadisonConservative on June 3, 2010 at 4:54 PM
    OhioCoastie on June 3, 2010 at 4:54 PM
    OhioCoastie on June 3, 2010 at 5:00 PM

    Trolling. After explicit warning. Removed. Please find your own site, post, or thread where that kind of commentary is welcome. There’s a big wide internet out there waiting for you.

  70. Allen West’s brother, Geert Wilders:

    Winston Churchill called Islam ‘the most retrograde force in the world’, and compared Mein Kampf to the Quran.

    Mohammed’s behavior is an example to all Muslims and cannot be criticized. Now, if Mohammed had been a man of peace, let us say like Ghandi and Mother Theresa wrapped in one, there would be no problem. But Mohammed was a warlord, a mass murderer, a pedophile, and had several marriages – at the same time. Islamic tradition tells us how he fought in battles, how he had his enemies murdered and even had prisoners of war executed. Mohammed himself slaughtered the Jewish tribe of Banu Qurayza. If it is good for Islam, it is good. If it is bad for Islam, it is bad.

    Many European cities are already one-quarter Muslim: just take Amsterdam , Marseille, and Malmo in Sweden . In many cities the majority of the under-18 population is Muslim. Paris is now surrounded by a ring of Muslim neighborhoods. Mohammed is the most popular name among boys in many cities.

    In some elementary schools in Amsterdam the farm can no longer be mentioned, because that would also mean mentioning the pig, and that would be an insult to Muslims.

    Many state schools in Belgium and Denmark only serve halal food to all pupils. In once-tolerant Amsterdam gays are beaten up almost exclusively by Muslims. Non-Muslim women routinely hear, ‘whore, whore.’ Satellite dishes are not pointed to local TV stations, but to stations in the country of origin.

    In France school teachers are advised to avoid authors deemed offensive to Muslims, including Voltaire and Diderot; the same is increasingly true of Darwin . The history of the Holocaust can no longer be taught because of Muslim sensitivity.

    In England sharia courts are now officially part of the British legal system. Many neighborhoods in France are no-go areas for women without head scarves. Last week a man almost died after being beaten up by Muslims in Brussels , because he was drinking during the Ramadan.

    Many in Europe argue in favor of abandoning Israel in order to address the grievances of our Muslim minorities. But if Israel were, God forbid, to go down, it would not bring any solace to the West It would not mean our Muslim minorities would all of a sudden change their behavior, and accept our values. On the contrary, the end of Israel would give enormous encouragement to the forces of Islam. They would, and rightly so, see the demise of Israel as proof that the West is weak, and doomed. The end of Israel would not mean the end of our problems with Islam, but only the beginning. It would mean the start of the final battle for world domination. If they can get Israel , they can get everything.

  71. Trolling. After explicit warning. Removed. Please find your own site, post, or thread where that kind of commentary is welcome. There’s a big wide internet out there waiting for you.

    CK MacLeod on June 3, 2010 at 5:12 PM

    Your intolerance of other views, particularly those you can not successfully respond to, is gaining on Islam’s intolerance of other views. You have become a self-parody.

  72. Trolling. After explicit warning. Removed. Please find your own site, post, or thread where that kind of commentary is welcome. There’s a big wide internet out there waiting for you.

    CK MacLeod on June 3, 2010 at 5:12 PM

    Here’s the official Hot Air policy on comment removal:

    We reserve the right to delete your comments or revoke your registration for any reason. Rarely, if ever, will we do so simply because we disagree with you. We will, however, usually do so if you post something that is, in our good-faith opinion, (a) off-topic; (b) libelous, defamatory, abusive, harassing, threatening, profane, pornographic, offensive, false, misleading, or which otherwise violates or encourages others to violate these terms of use or any law, including intellectual property laws; or (c) “spam,” i.e., an attempt to advertise, solicit, or otherwise promote goods and services.

    What did MadCon and I supposedly violate?

  73. CK MacLeod on June 3, 2010 at 5:12 PM

    Way to represent, pal. Show those people who’s boss, right?

    I notice you cleaned out a lot more than you quoted. If it helps alleviate your problems, go to it.

  74. CK MacLeod on June 3, 2010 at 5:26 PM

    Yeah, you know, strangely enough, Allah and Ed never delete based on whatever arbitrary standard you’ve just adopted, and believe me, they’ve taken far more abuse for their writings.

  75. Your intolerance of other views, particularly those you can not successfully respond to, is gaining on Islam’s intolerance of other views. You have become a self-parody.

    Tav on June 3, 2010 at 5:17 PM

    He did that in the article…in the first paragraph, no less.

    Left unstated is why it’s anybody else’s business, in the land of the free.

    Apparently, the only people that applies to are people who build mosques near sites where Jihad was carried out, not to the people who voice their opposition to such a thing.

  76. Trolling. After explicit warning. Removed. Please find your own site, post, or thread where that kind of commentary is welcome. There’s a big wide internet out there waiting for you.

    CK MacLeod on June 3, 2010 at 5:12 PM

    My dear chap, I never would dream of depriving you of your one moment of triumph. Alas, a moment is all I can spare.

  77. I agree. That was an unwise choice of words on my part, since fisking requires snark. I was actually hoping you’d use MacLeod’s confusion as an object lesson on how not to achieve worthwhile ends (defeating shariah, advancing conservatism, de-fanging the Left, protecting American principles).

    OhioCoastie on June 3, 2010 at 5:00 PM

    That would simply be a veiled insult, though…which is precisely the tactic that CK employs that I despise. If you’re going to insult someone, be upfront and uncompromising about it. Don’t try to trick people that you believe to be dumber than you by cloaking it in an article.

  78. Yeah, you know, strangely enough, Allah and Ed never delete based on whatever arbitrary standard you’ve just adopted, and believe me, they’ve taken far more abuse for their writings.

    MadisonConservative on June 3, 2010 at 5:30 PM

    Ah well, now that is a separate matter for another time. Let us just say that if not for my nine lives, and planning ahead, I would still be in the corn field.

  79. Which term(s) are you claiming we violated …

    (a) off-topic; (b) libelous, defamatory, abusive, harassing, threatening, profane, pornographic, offensive, false, misleading, or which otherwise violates or encourages others to violate these terms of use or any law, including intellectual property laws; or (c) “spam,” i.e., an attempt to advertise, solicit, or otherwise promote goods and services

    … that justify your action? This isn’t LGF. This is Hot Air.

  80. This isn’t LGF. This is Hot Air.

    OhioCoastie on June 3, 2010 at 5:37 PM

    Soon it will be ACORN LGF.

  81. That would simply be a veiled insult, though…which is precisely the tactic that CK employs that I despise. If you’re going to insult someone, be upfront and uncompromising about it. Don’t try to trick people that you believe to be dumber than you by cloaking it in an article.

    MadisonConservative on June 3, 2010 at 5:35 PM

    I see your point, but I don’t think it would necessarily be so. Moral confusion is what underpins CK’s entire “argument” about the mosque at Ground Zero. Clearing it away would be like doing a controlled burn of the choking underbrush in a forest; we’d be able to see things more clearly and choose our path more intelligently.

  82. (a) off-topic; (b) libelous, defamatory, abusive, harassing, threatening, profane, pornographic, offensive, false, misleading, or which otherwise violates or encourages others to violate these terms of use or any law, including intellectual property laws;

    If you have a problem with my interpretation, please take it up with Ed or AP and see how interested they are in hearing all about it from you, in examining the deleted comments, and in deciding whether or not my judgments were appropriate.

    Thrashing the TOS could also be construed as off-topic. Start your own thread on the topic, if you find it interesting, MadCon. I don’t.

  83. The great dream of Islam will soon come true. Muslims dream to see flags that read: “There is no God but Allah” fluttering in the wind not only over the White House, South Park, Facebook, LGF and Brother MacLeod’s Hotair Mosque but over the Temple Mount, Haram al-Sharif, Big Ben, Buckingham Palace, Parliament Hill in Ottawa, the EIB network and over the rest of Hotair, Allah willing.

  84. CK, your moral confusion is completely on topic. I’ve been making that point repeatedly, and you keep dodging it (while deleting comments that expose your illogical approach on the pretense that they’re irrelevant).

    Bad form, sir. Very bad form.

  85. This horseshit about deleting comments, and the deleting of them, should simply cease.

    Bad form is spending all the time talking about form …..

    back to content.

  86. Nothing will change until the west grasps that Muslims themselves only respect strength and despise weakness. Of course that goes against our Christian upbringing and that’s why we continue to think that we can win hearts and minds among Muslims with compassion.

    The opposite is the case. Their hearts and minds are with the victorious – that’s what Allah tells them. Their ethics in terms of which they order their hearts and minds – are nothing like what westerners, raised in the Christian faith, understand by the term “hearts and minds”.

    Islam does not teach the same sort of compassion for the other that virtually every other religion including today’s “secular humanism” teaches. Muslims murder and torture each other without compunction and their own ummah, “brotherhood” has no condemnation to offer. That’s because they don’t value INDIVIDUAL human life the way we Christian westerners do. It’s not a concept in Islam – which means it’s not a concept in Muslims “hearts and minds”. Their hearts and minds instead understand what Allah teaches them in the Koran – namely, the Collective Will to Power.

    When will our leaders understand this? And moreover understand that it is necessary in the end to be “cruel to be kind”, to treat Muslims in the way they themselves understand moral principles? Which ultimately means that they must be beaten back and vanquished and humiliated by a greater strength?

    That is clearly what they understand. Every move to win their hearts and minds that strengthens them, merely emboldens them to advance their own peculiar ethics of the world, which couldn’t give a damn about “hearts and minds”, as we understand the term. They will accept the shehada from anyone they can swindle and connive to recite it while at the same time are willing to kill anyone who leaves Islam. Whatever it takes to build the army of Islamic soldiers is what their ethics is about.

    But how is it being kind to people to pander to their immaturity and self-deception and base impulses towards power?

    Certainly no mature human being would suggest that one should pander to the primitive intellectual, emotional and moral sensibilities of a two-year old? A 2-year old understands the will to power through aggression only. But by the same token a 2-year old also thoroughly understands limitations that he simply has no power to transgress. That’s ultimately what a 2-year old understands.

    And that’s basically what we’re dealing with here – 2-year olds – from an intellectual perspective, from a moral perspective, and mostly from a behavioral perspective.

    There is no way of avoiding the reality that the adults in this world are going to have to act like adults and step up and slap – in a big big way – Muslims who have made of their own societies the equivalent of “Lord of the Flies” and who now threaten to overrun every more advanced society with their mayhem.

    “It’s cruel to be kind” is going to have to be the anthem of the future relations between the West and Islam. We’re going to have to come to terms with that fact. Either that – or it’s simply going to be cruel for all of us, with no kindness in sight, and possibly no one left to come and rescue us off an Island from hell that in our passivity and cowardice we allowed to be taken over by moral and intellectual pygmies.

  87. Don’t worry. We’ll be keeping abreast of your progress. Might as well let you dig your own hole.

    MadisonConservative on June 3, 2010 at 6:16 PM

    One last time: Stop trolling my threads. Stop harassing me. Stop threatening me. Stop addressing, characterizing, and personally attacking me. I’ve asked you repeatedly. I’ve warned you. I was even inclined and still am to some extent inclined to grant you some latitude because I mentioned you – or, rather, mentioned actual words of yours in the form of a title of one of your posts – in my own post, but this behavior is sick, and turning into a clear, egregious, and repeated violation of the site Terms of Use. It’s not OK to do this. Think about what you’re doing, and stop.

  88. While I would be interested in continuing the debate, it really doesn’t seem to be getting anywhere. I’ve made my points the best I can make them. Retyping them in slightly different diction again and again isn’t going to magically make anyone change their mind.

    I’m sure I’m not the only one who feels this way on this subject.

  89. CK MacLeod on June 3, 2010 at 6:29 PM

    I’ve never threatened you. I’ve also never addressed or treated you in any manner that you have not reciprocated, or initially used. I’ve also never called you a terrorist, but that’s something you cannot claim in kind.

    Some time ago, when we were debating, you scoffed at my suggestion that you be less condescending towards the community where you post your articles, claiming that mixing it up is part of the invective here. Now you seem uncomfortable with it, and you hide behind terms and conditions that have long been ignored or stretched on this site. You post articles where you are(bolded items apply):

    (b) libelous, defamatory, abusive, harassing, threatening, profane, pornographic, offensive, false, misleading, or which otherwise violates or encourages others to violate these terms of use or any law, including intellectual property laws;

    …towards the very people who visit the site on which you post your articles. At best, your citation of the TOS is hypocritical. At worst, it’s cowardly, and an excuse to delete comments you don’t like, which, as you’ve indicated, seem to fall in the majority.

    I have a question for you: if you have so little respect for the community here, why post articles such that said community can argue them? As you say in your article, you believe it’s nobody else’s business. In keeping with your outlook, I would expect you to try to close comments unless people can prove they’re from New York.

  90. While I would be interested in continuing the debate, it really doesn’t seem to be getting anywhere. I’ve made my points the best I can make them. Retyping them in slightly different diction again and again isn’t going to magically make anyone change their mind.

    I’m sure I’m not the only one who feels this way on this subject.

    Heralder on June 3, 2010 at 6:35 PM

    You aren’t.

  91. I’ve read through CK’s post and some of the comments. Just wanted to say that I trend towards the moderate side, but most of the moderates on this site (CK, Narutoboy, etc) come off as condescending, hiding behind a wall of bombastic text, or both. Makes me kind of sad.

    Especially because this conflict with Islam has a lot to do with how we view freedom of religion in the Constitution. A lot of people make the case that Islam is a blob-like encroaching entity, and frankly, I can see support for their point at times. But their way of dealing with the pervasive spread of radical Islam often seems blatantly unconstitutional (suggesting the banning hijabs, Muslim immigration, minarets…).

  92. MadisonConservative on June 3, 2010 at 6:37 PM

    I do not agree with your characterization of our previous exchanges, nor do I agree with your characterization of my posts or my attitude, nor do I think it matters “who went first,” nor did I call you a terrorist.

    What I did say, and what I am happy to repeat, because it is what I believe, and because it is what I have extensively argued, and because I think it is significant on its own terms, is that the mode of thinking, writing, and acting politically typified by your “Islam’s middle finger” post, by the assignment of collective responsibility to all Muslims for the 9/11 attacks, by the assignment of collective suspicion to all Muslims, is the mirror image and complement of the terrorist’s ideology and self-justifications.

    You, personally, are rather immaterial to this argument. As am I.

    The terrorists sought to justify their attack, and the extremists generally seek to justify their strategies, and seek further to advance their cause, by engineering a totalizing clash of civilizations: all of them against all of us. That is why they believe that civilians are fair game. That is how they seek to justify their attacks on fellow Muslims. That is how collectivists always work. That as much as anything else is what they have in common with Nazis, Stalinists, the Imperial Way Japanese, and even the kind of people the founders of the US of A and waves of immigrants since have fled.

    The point of view you, Tav, Luka, Rick Barber, Ace, Rod Dreher, John Podhoretz, Andy McCarthy, and others are advancing fully cooperates with them in this strategy, and is, on this level, also collectivist. It is as though you yearn for a world war – not the difficult series of low level conflicts we have seen up until now, but for an all-out struggle in which 1 billion people at a minimum, as well as everyone who opposes the escalation of the conflict, is forced on to the other side.

    It also is completely contradictory to the strategy of splitting the enemy and creating Muslim coalition partners that has been adopted with some success by our military, and represents the basis of all of our outreach to the Islamic world. Do you think that if one of David Petraeus’ Afghan Muslim allies offers to say an Islamic prayer for the victims of 9/11, he’s told that his offering is unwelcome? Do you suppose that Petraeus in fact has any difficulty whatsoever accepting the gesture with an alaykam as-salam right back at him?

    Embracing the wrong strategy in the “war on terror” and the “clash of civilizations” is bad enough. The fact that it is the complete overturning of the moral values adopted by this nation in all of its wars – wars of liberation, not of conquest or punishment, warfare that seeks to protect innocent civilians not punish them for belonging to the wrong side – is also bad. Worst of all, hard as that may be to conceive since we’re talking about a world war, is that the doctrine is also totally contradictory to the core and founding values of the United States of America, the core values that most of those conservatives and perhaps you as well claim to revere and pretend to champion. Because without those values, then there is no real United States of America. There’s just a collectivist government like most others in the world and in world history, this one happening to occupy the territory of North America.

    And that’s why I have continued to write at HotAir and other places, regardless of the resistance of commenters and fellow authors.

  93. The point of view you, Tav, Luka, Rick Barber, Ace, Rod Dreher, John Podhoretz, Andy McCarthy, and others are advancing fully cooperates with them in this strategy, and is, on this level, also collectivist. It is as though you yearn for a world war – not the difficult series of low level conflicts we have seen up until now, but for an all-out struggle in which 1 billion people at a minimum, as well as everyone who opposes the escalation of the conflict, is forced on to the other side.

    This is the problem I have with the righty blog argument. Lots of wringing of hands about the invasion of Islam, not as much consideration about what we should do about it besides generalized rhetoric. At least, from my viewpoint. There’s gotta be something out there.

  94. Black Yosh
    what does “the invasion of Islam” mean?

    audiculous on June 3, 2010 at 8:20 PM

    http://minx.cc/?post=302197

    Europe, like Israel, is pursing a strategy of simple survival, hoping that some accommodation shown now to its future masters will buy some reciprocal kindness, or at least civility, for its future slaves.

    And, as in Israel’s case, “rightness” is hardly a factor at all when you’re talking about survival.

    Whether Europe’s gamble will work, I don’t know; it’s possible that the egregious barbarity of expansionist Islam will ameliorate in the next several decades; the beastly behavior of much of that population may be caused, in part, by a sense of being victims and thus (as the West reinforces their beliefs on this score) that all sorts of hellish behavior are justified when one speaks of “victims;” but, perhaps, in the future, with the confidence that they now will, as Mohammad promised, inherit the whole earth (or at least the majority of the earth, bracketed on one end by India and on the other by California), those tendencies will be eclipsed by a more charitable and ethical code.

  95. The point of view you, Tav, Luka, Rick Barber, Ace, Rod Dreher, John Podhoretz, Andy McCarthy, and others are advancing fully cooperates with them in this strategy, and is, on this level, also collectivist. It is as though you yearn for a world war – not the difficult series of low level conflicts we have seen up until now, but for an all-out struggle in which 1 billion people at a minimum, as well as everyone who opposes the escalation of the conflict, is forced on to the other side.

    CK MacLeod on June 3, 2010 at 7:48 PM

    You sound very much like a Nazi apologist and enable from back in the 1930’s. How did that work out?

  96. The point of view you, Tav, Luka, Rick Barber, Ace, Rod Dreher, John Podhoretz, Andy McCarthy

    CK MacLeod on June 3, 2010 at 7:48 PM

    You left out Colonel Allen West, dhimmi.

  97. You left out Colonel Allen West, dhimmi.

    Luka on June 3, 2010 at 9:09 PM

    Beware, lest thy impertinence arouse the mighty Delete Button of Caliph SeeKay.

    /sarc

  98. Dhimmitude is a neologism first found in French denoting an attitude of concession, surrender and appeasement towards Islamic demands. It is derived by adding the productive suffix -tude to the Arabic language adjective dhimmi, which literally means protected and refers to a non-Muslim subject of a sharia law state.

    “As for the concept of dhimmitude, it represents a behavior dictated by fear (terrorism), pacifism when aggressed, rather than resistance, servility because of cowardice and vulnerability. The origin of this concept is to be found in the condition of the Infidel people who submit to the Islamic rule without fighting in order to avoid the onslaught of jihad. By their peaceful surrender to the Islamic army, they obtained the security for their life, belongings and religion, but they had to accept a condition of inferiority, spoliation and humiliation. As they were forbidden to possess weapons and give testimony against a Muslim, they were put in a position of vulnerability and humility.

  99. The terrorists sought to justify their attack, and the extremists generally seek to justify their strategies, and seek further to advance their cause, by engineering a totalizing clash of civilizations: all of them against all of us. That is why they believe that civilians are fair game. That is how they seek to justify their attacks on fellow Muslims. That is how collectivists always work. That as much as anything else is what they have in common with Nazis, Stalinists, the Imperial Way Japanese, and even the kind of people the founders of the US of A and waves of immigrants since have fled.

    CK MacLeod on June 3, 2010 at 7:48 PM

    Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success. We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. (Applause.) From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.

    Wow. Bush really was a collectivist terroristguy who thought just like the terrorists, and Nazis, and Stalin, and all the other bad guys in history, wasn’t he?

    I guess we lost the war 9 years ago, huh? I guess our best bet was simply to build a mosque the day after, two blocks from the site. That would have brought Al Qaeda to its knees.

  100. Black Yoshi on June 3, 2010 at 8:47 PM

    Europe, like Israel, is pursing a strategy of simple survival, hoping that some accommodation shown now to its future masters will buy some reciprocal kindness, or at least civility, for its future slaves.

    thank you for the explanation.
    are there these sort of things happening on your home planet?

  101. Today, I come before you to warn of another great threat. It is called Islam. It poses as a religion, but its goals are very worldly: world domination, holy war, sharia law, the end of the separation of church and state, the end of democracy. It is not a religion, it is a political ideology. It demands your respect, but has no respect for you.

    There might be moderate Muslims, but there is no moderate Islam. Islam will never change, because it is build on two rocks that are forever, two fundamental beliefs that will never change, and will never go away. First, there is Quran, Allah’s personal word, uncreated, forever, with orders that need to be fulfilled regardless of place or time. And second, there is al-insal al-kamil, the perfect man, Muhammad the role model, whose deeds are to be imitated by all Muslims. And since Muhammad was a warlord and a conqueror we know what to expect.

    Islam means submission, so there cannot be any mistake about it’s goal. That’s a given. The question is whether the British people, with its glorious past, is longing for that submission.

    We see Islam taking off in the West at an incredible speed. The United Kingdom has seen a rapid growth of the number of Muslims. Over the last ten years, the Muslim population has grown ten times as fast as the rest of society. This has put an enormous pressure on society. Thanks to British politicians who have forgotten about Winston Churchill, the English now have taken the path of least resistance. They give up. They give in.

    Mr. Churchill himself compared the Quran to Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf. Well, I did exactly the same, and that is what they are prosecuting me for.

    I wonder if the UK ever put Mr. Churchill on trial.

    Britain seems to have become a country ruled by fear. A country where civil servants cancel Christmas celebrations to please Muslims. A country where Sharia Courts are part of the legal system. A country where Islamic organizations asked to stop the commemoration of the Holocaust. A country where a primary school cancels a Christmas nativity play because it interfered with an Islamic festival. A country where a school removes the words Christmas and Easter from their calendar so as not to offend Muslims. A country where a teacher punishes two students for refusing to pray to Allah as part of their religious education class. A country where elected members of a town council are told not to eat during daylight hours in town hall meetings during the Ramadan. A country that excels in its hatred of Israel, still the only democracy in the Middle-East. A country whose capitol is becoming ‘Londonistan’.

    For the generation of my parents the word ‘London’ is synonymous with hope and freedom. When my country was occupied by the national-socialists the BBC offered a daily glimpse of hope, in the darkness of Nazi tyranny. Millions of my country men listened to it, illegally. The words ‘This Is London’ were a symbol for a better world coming soon. If only the British and Canadian and American soldiers were here.

    What will be transmitted forty years from now? Will it still be ‘This Is London’? Or will it be ‘this is Londonistan’? Will it bring us hope, or will it signal the values of Mecca and Medina? Will Britain offer submission or perseverance? Freedom or slavery?

    The choice is ours.

    Ladies and gentlemen,

    We will never apologize for being free. We will never give in. We will never surrender.

    Freedom must prevail, and freedom will prevail.

    Thank you very much.”

    Geert Wilders MP

    Chairman, Party for Freedom (PVV)

    The Netherlands

  102. MadisonConservative on June 3, 2010 at 4:52 PM
    MadisonConservative on June 3, 2010 at 4:54 PM
    OhioCoastie on June 3, 2010 at 4:54 PM
    OhioCoastie on June 3, 2010 at 5:00 PM

    Trolling. After explicit warning. Removed. Please find your own site, post, or thread where that kind of commentary is welcome. There’s a big wide internet out there waiting for you.

    CK MacLeod on June 3, 2010 at 5:12 PM

    Well, lookee here … those alleged “trolling” comments are now back from the memory hole. Interesting development.

  103. thank you for the explanation.
    are there these sort of things happening on your home planet?

    audiculous on June 3, 2010 at 9:24 PM

    Ridicule – a sickly replacement for substance.

  104. Good dhimmi. Attack the blasphemers.

    MadisonConservative on June 3, 2010 at 11:45 PM

    if you had more to bring to the table, it might be nice.

    calling me a dhimmi doesn’t do much, cause the charge is so lame.

    I’m not MacLeod, MadCow and having fools call names isn’t upsetting, and I enjoy it if there’s some wit behind it.

    try harder, do better, or bugger off,

  105. Black Yoshi, sorry but the idea that Europe is being overmastered by barbarousIslam is ridiculous and nothing more.
    I would have done better …. if you had.

    Go find some data to support that slurry and I’ll see what I can do by way of meeting your expectations in argumentation.

  106. audiculous on June 4, 2010 at 12:01 AM

    Mr. “back to content” posting pictures and jokes. What a worthless little hypocrite.

    And your complete dismissal of the takeover of Europe by Islam, in the face of such things as England recognizing Sharia Law in parts of the country, allowing Green Lane Mosque and other mosques to continue their activities despite having been outed on national television for fomenting Jihad, the bevy of threats against people like Geert Wilders and the artists who depicted Mohammed in the Jyllands-Posten, the murder of Theo Van Gogh, the attacks on schoolchildren traveling to and from Jewish schools, the rising anti-semitism throughout, and on and on…

    You’re either incredibly ignorant, or you really want to see this happen.

  107. audiculous on June 4, 2010 at 12:05 AM

    Item: Italy now pursuing social con reproductive policy through libertarian-friendly means, offering women 4500 Euros to not abort their babies but proceed, as is becoming increasingly rare in Europe, to a live birth. Russia has been attempting the much the same thing for some time now.

    Might want to read the blog post.

    Europe is pursuing a weird quasi-assimilationist policy, often with disastrous consequences:

    Two out of three charged with rape in Norway’s capital are immigrants with a non-western background according to a police study. The number of rape cases is also rising steadily. Unni Wikan, a professor of social anthropology at the University of Oslo, in 2001 said that “Norwegian women must take their share of responsibility for these rapes” because Muslim men found their manner of dress provocative. The professor’s conclusion was not that Muslim men living in the West needed to adjust to Western norms, but the exact opposite: “Norwegian women must realize that we live in a Multicultural society and adapt themselves to it.”

    http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1754

    Immigrants are coming in faster and faster and it’s not clear that they want to change their former social views. Europe’s attitude to this is at best cavalier. See the above quote.

  108. A rash of rapes in Oslo is what you think is evidence that Europe is being enslaved by Islam?

    Immigrants are coming in faster and faster

    show me something as evidence of that claim, preferably with some kind of lead as to where the immigrants are from.

    A couple of years ago, people were claiming that the Europeans were being overawed by the birthrate of those immigrants in Europe, but it turned out that the statistical evidence really wasn’t supportive of the claim and that immigrant birth patterns tended to approximate those of the established population after a short period.

    So excuse my skepticism about other claims of migratory excess. Western nations tend to limit such things when they find the rates uncomfortable.

  109. Western nations tend to limit such things when they find the rates uncomfortable.

    audiculous on June 4, 2010 at 1:38 AM

    Since when? Or at least, since when has this been the case in the age where being seen as racist is a bad thing?

  110. nor do I agree with your characterization of my posts or my attitude

    My goodness, CK. Why don’t you just admit it? It really is far more insulting for you to pretend you can get away with this lie than it is for you to just admit you enjoy being condescending and won’t stop because it does something for you that respectful dialogue simply can’t.

  111. CK MacLeod on June 3, 2010 at 6:29 PM

    What threats?

    I’ve told you before that I was never making it personal with you. I mentioned your condescension because it’s annoying, and I was naively hoping you’d stop, not because I’m trying to take you down as a person. If anything, the very first time I pointed it out, I did so in an effort to help you in your discussions with Hot Air peons. My point then was that you’d do better if you quit assuming they’re all stupid.

    That’s still the main point, and you’re still free to completely ignore it. But in doing so, you’re only hurting yourself, not me.

    And that’s why I have continued to write at HotAir and other places, regardless of the resistance of commenters and fellow authors.

    CK MacLeod on June 3, 2010 at 7:48 PM

    And why exactly is that? To fight against collectivism? If so, how do you imagine you do that by beating people over the head with your arguments while calling them stupid?

    If you really want to change something or even have your arguments be heard, treat people with respect. Speaking softly and carrying big sticks works well here too, so long as your big stick is a logical argument that doesn’t rely on calling people bigots.

  112. My point then was that you’d do better if you quit assuming they’re all stupid.

    Esthier on June 4, 2010 at 11:22 AM

    Yeahhhh …

    However you choose to respond, I’m guessing it will be just about as relevant to the argument and content of my post as the rest of the comments have been.

    CK MacLeod on June 3, 2010 at 12:43 PM

    … that’s not going to happen.

    In that light, it is unsurprising that I (and others) have no desire to continue this debate, at least not with him.

  113. Western nations tend to limit such things when they find the rates uncomfortable.

    audiculous on June 4, 2010 at 1:38 AM

    Since when? Or at least, since when has this been the case in the age where being seen as racist is a bad thing?

    Esthier

    The Europeans are always quick to talk about American racism and intolerance, but they act far more ruthlessly than we do.

    http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1017/p06s02-woeu.html

  114. audiculous on June 4, 2010 at 12:17 PM

    I acknowledge that Europeans are pure hypocrites when it comes to immigration, but I don’t see this article as stating what I thought you were saying earlier. It obviously points to an immigration problem that they are trying to address, but it only talks about deporting non citizen criminals and making new immigrants take a DNA test.

    Whether there is a genuine problem or not, I simply don’t see European nations outright banning certain immigrants or even substantially tightening restrictions on them in order to ban them without expressly doing so.

    In that light, it is unsurprising that I (and others) have no desire to continue this debate, at least not with him.

    Heralder on June 4, 2010 at 11:46 AM

    I think it’s obvious that none of us have actually been debating him. To do so, a little more back and forth would be required.

    But the comments speak for themselves. They’re still here, and anyone can look at them and make an independent judgment.

  115. Esthier,

    and I didn’t say, or mean to say, that

    Western nations tend to limit such things when they find the rates uncomfortable.

    “tends to limit’ mean banning. It means slowing the rate, choosing entrants with greater scrutiny, and putting more effort in monitoring the activities of immigrants.

  116. Heralder

    Don’t give up on MacLeod. He’s slow to respond, hates the personal little insults that a good argument often bring out, but I’ve had some great fights with him.

  117. “tends to limit’ mean banning. It means slowing the rate, choosing entrants with greater scrutiny, and putting more effort in monitoring the activities of immigrants.

    audiculous on June 4, 2010 at 1:53 PM

    Sorry, I didn’t mean to go that far either. I worded part of it oddly. I just don’t see much significant coming out of the restrictions your article discussed in that I don’t see that they will necessarily change the immigrant demographics.

  118. I’ve had some great fights with him.

    audiculous on June 4, 2010 at 1:58 PM

    I find this a little doubtful unless you were both arguing on the same side of a specific debate but had minor quibbles with each other.

  119. Esthier, no, no, no. I’ve been arguing with MacLeod since I ran across him in the Commentary contentions blog, way back when they weren’t afraid of comments from peanut gallery.
    If we end up on the same side of anything, as we did here, it’s the exception rather than the rule.

  120. audiculous on June 4, 2010 at 1:38 AM

    Maybe I shouldn’t have said they were coming in faster, since I don’t know if the rate is increasing or not.

    There is a steady influx of immigrants who do not share much of the classically liberal ideas of human rights. And it is happening as the population of Europe is dropping. Radical Islam is gaining ground, just as it did in Pakistan with Sharia law.

    Doesn’t take much to read the tea leaves, I’m afraid. If a steady growing immigrant population refuses to adopt the rule of law in their adopted country, well, you’re in for it.

  121. Black Yoshi on June 4, 2010 at 8:52 PM

    It doesn’t matter whether the mohamet followers are immigrating in great numbers. It is their birth rate that dictate their future dominance of Europe.

  122. If we end up on the same side of anything, as we did here, it’s the exception rather than the rule.

    audiculous on June 4, 2010 at 6:31 PM

    Interesting, but that seems to be the case for most at Hot Air. I’ve yet to find a single source of agreement.

    audiculous on June 4, 2010 at 6:41 PM

    Sure, and that happened here as well, but that’s immigrants (and specifically illegal immigrants) making their own choices rather than being given a push by the government.

  123. This transference of guilt, from those directly involved onto a diverse and immense global population, and then to the actual sponsors of the project, is often accomplished by rhetorical misdirection, as facilitated by emotional distraction.

    *bzzzzt*

    Thanks for playing, but sorry, there is no attempt at ‘transference of guilt’ in the mix here.

    My objections to it are that while the people erecting the mosque didn’t cause 9/11, they certainly and overwhelmingly approved of it, even if they aren’t interested in personally blowing things up. We’ve all seen the polls of Muslims even here in the US that disproportionately think terrorism is acceptable, that thought the US had it coming, etc.

    And now it’s looking like the folks involved in Cordoba House are also involved in violent blockade running anti-Semite terrorist-sponsoring ‘relief flotillas’.

    Sorry – the fact is that there are enough ‘normal Muslims’ that support terrorism, even here, that ‘normal Muslim’ doesn’t mean ‘peace-loving, tolerant, would just love to get along with everyone Muslim’. ‘Normal’ means ‘terrorism-approving Muslim’.

  124. More important, what would denying permission for the project, and what does seeking that denial, say about us?

    That our genital integrity is intact?

    That we say no to dhimmitude?

    That we’re intolerant of hate?

    For starters.

11 Pings/Trackbacks for "Fight Them All Together: The Conservative Reaction to the "Ground Zero Mosque""
  1. […] set the cat amongst the pigeons.  He’s getting a lot of pushback today for his HotAir piece, “Fight Them All Together,” about conservatives and the proposed mosque at Ground Zero.  I do think he implies a question […]

  2. […] piece of mine that AP linked to while posing a series of questions.  My post was entitled “Fight Them All Together:  The Conservative Reaction to the ‘Ground Zero Mosque,’” and I provide the title in full to emphasize a point:  The piece was only […]

  3. […] at Ground Zero, provocatively named “Cordoba House”, has engendered enough apologetic rationalizations among the kuffar to make Islamists feel as if 9/11 was really worth […]

  4. […] over the mosque. A few days ago, Greenroomer CK MacLeod accused the mosque’s critics of playing into jihadists’ hands by conflating radical Muslims with all Muslims. Why punish all members of the faith collectively by […]

  5. […] is commonplace on the conservative right.  As I’ve argued repeatedly – especially here, but in a number of other recent posts, comments, and e-mails – the combative refusal to […]

  6. […] explained a while back: A few days ago, Greenroomer CK MacLeod accused the mosque’s critics of playing into jihadists’ hands by conflating radical Muslims with all Muslims. Why punish all members of the faith collectively by […]

  7. […] to have been prompted by an “incident.” I had insisted that the conversation under one of my posts remain on topic and non-personalized, but the commenters in question, two of my biggest HotAir […]

  8. […] siting “there,” but a significant and loud group of hardcore opponents make it clear in post after post, comment after comment, protest after op-ed after TV interview, that “suspicious of a mosque […]

  9. […] again:  Islamophobia and Extreme Islamism amount to the same thing:  “Fight them all together.”  In every way that matters, Islamophobes like Rubin and Islamist Extremists both […]

  10. […] threat” = the Imam explains the natural, easily and obviously predictable result of the emergence in America of politicized Islamophobia – as aided, abetted, and […]

Commenter Ignore Button by CK's Plug-Ins

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

Related

Noted & Quoted

TV pundits and op-ed writers of every major newspaper epitomize how the Democratic establishment has already reached a consensus: the 2020 nominee must be a centrist, a Joe Biden, Cory Booker or Kamala Harris–type, preferably. They say that Joe Biden should "run because [his] populist image fits the Democrats’ most successful political strategy of the past generation" (David Leonhardt, New York Times), and though Biden "would be far from an ideal president," he "looks most like the person who could beat Trump" (David Ignatius, Washington Post). Likewise, the same elite pundit class is working overtime to torpedo left-Democratic candidates like Sanders.

For someone who was not acquainted with Piketty's paper, the argument for a centrist Democrat might sound compelling. If the country has tilted to the right, should we elect a candidate closer to the middle than the fringe? If the electorate resembles a left-to-right line, and each voter has a bracketed range of acceptability in which they vote, this would make perfect sense. The only problem is that it doesn't work like that, as Piketty shows.

The reason is that nominating centrist Democrats who don't speak to class issues will result in a great swathe of voters simply not voting. Conversely, right-wing candidates who speak to class issues, but who do so by harnessing a false consciousness — i.e. blaming immigrants and minorities for capitalism's ills, rather than capitalists — will win those same voters who would have voted for a more class-conscious left candidate. Piketty calls this a "bifurcated" voting situation, meaning many voters will connect either with far-right xenophobic nationalists or left-egalitarian internationalists, but perhaps nothing in-between.

Comment →

Understanding Trump’s charisma offers important clues to understanding the problems that the Democrats need to address. Most important, the Democratic candidate must convey a sense that he or she will fulfil the promise of 2008: not piecemeal reform but a genuine, full-scale change in America’s way of thinking. It’s also crucial to recognise that, like Britain, America is at a turning point and must go in one direction or another. Finally, the candidate must speak to Americans’ sense of self-respect linked to social justice and inclusion. While Weber’s analysis of charisma arose from the German situation, it has special relevance to the United States of America, the first mass democracy, whose Constitution invented the institution of the presidency as a recognition of the indispensable role that unique individuals play in history.

Comment →

[E]ven Fox didn’t tout Bartiromo’s big scoops on Trump’s legislative agenda, because 10 months into the Trump presidency, nobody is so foolish as to believe that him saying, “We’re doing a big infrastructure bill,” means that the Trump administration is, in fact, doing a big infrastructure bill. The president just mouths off at turns ignorantly and dishonestly, and nobody pays much attention to it unless he says something unusually inflammatory.On some level, it’s a little bit funny. On another level, Puerto Rico is still languishing in the dark without power (and in many cases without safe drinking water) with no end in sight. Trump is less popular at this point in his administration than any previous president despite a generally benign economic climate, and shows no sign of changing course. Perhaps it will all work out for the best, and someday we’ll look back and chuckle about the time when we had a president who didn’t know anything about anything that was happening and could never be counted on to make coherent, factual statements on any subject. But traditionally, we haven’t elected presidents like that — for what have always seemed like pretty good reasons — and the risks of compounding disaster are still very much out there.

Comment →
CK's WP Plugins

Categories

Extraordinary Comments

CK's WP Plugins