@ forecastle casady:
Mitch Berg? Conservative dude. I believe he's from Minnesota, somewhat focused on state politics, and close to Ed Morrissey. I've criticized him in the past before, for similar blanket judgments of the sort he was just making in the HA GR.
I think the truth matters equally to the authors and commenters, but that many speak in ideological shorthand and don't always seem to be aware that that's what they're doing. They are imprecise in their language, and seemingly unaware of how far off the shell can land given a seemingly small initial aiming error. They don't seem to mind, or know to mind, if it explodes in civilian areas or even within their own lines.
There's also a very "conservative" attitude toward discussion in general. Many seem actually to believe that the site would be better if everyone was singing out of the identical hymn book, with time out for personal flame wars, and a few "trolls" for comic relief. I hardly ever get a piece promoted to the front page without some worthy getting all huffy about "what's this piece doing on the front page!"
Oh well, I could go on, as regards the attack on Rauf, for instance, since that was the starting off point. But you might accuse me of being long-winded. I'll assume you read only the first and last paragraph of this comment anyway.
So now you admit that your intention is to offend. Congratulations, I guess we're making progress of a sort.
I'm against expressions of religious bigotry regardless of the supposed justification. I almost hope that some volunteers do something just like you suggest, just to expose the opposition for what I guess it's turning out to have been all along.
@ Brian:
Why don't just admit what you were doing? Specifically proposing a bacon dog stand because you imagine that it would be amusingly offensive to Muslims. Your way of getting back at "them." You had no other reason to propose it. Since Rauf has had a storefront center 10 blocks from the proposed location, I think he and his people are probably pretty used to the sights and smells of New York.
@ Brian:
All of the stuff on Rauf that I've seen has been lame character assassination and guilt by association. Something new since Chesler's and Shoebat's hit jobs?
But we can, exercising our own rights, protest outside the Mosque on a weekly basis, hand out Bibles in front of it, or (my personal favorite choice) open up a bacon dog stand outside of it.
I'm going to be a little short with you here, because my stomach is already three times turned by some of the things that perfectly non-bigoted freedom-loving upstanding conservatives have been saying as soon as they get a chance. Don't post things like that if you're going try to tell someone later that your motivations are pure, and have nothing to do with a bigoted aversion to Islam.
That kind of thing would look just great for us in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Jordan!
And I noticed that you didn’t comment on the mormon assimilation.
Don't have any problem with it and don't see why it's relevant. Polygamy is easier to spot than secret beliefs about polygamy. Eventually, the prevention and denunciation of the act leads to the wasting away of the belief. Usually. Same for Islamist terror.
I believe that in many respects we assimilate immigrants much better today, more quickly and efficiently, than we used to. Today, we have them in our schools and fail to teach them English very well. 100 or so years ago, we just didn't have them in schools at all. 100 years ago, the vast majority were true aliens to American culture. Nowadays, a much larger percentage have been pre-assimilated culturally in various ways - most have been absorbing American popular culture since they were children. Most already speak some English. You might not have gotten very far in large parts of the new cities of the late 19th Century speaking English - assuming you could stand the stench.
Many of the harsh anti-immigrant measures were a delayed reaction to non-assimilation. Non-assimilation also frequently meant that big city political machines (and also rural political machines dealing with recently freed slaves) could broker votes and secure patronage. I don't think anyone's shown that "No Irish Allowed" signs were a big help integrating the Irish into society, or that anti-Catholic prejudice was a big help integrating other Catholic immigrants. It was sheer numbers, sheer advantage, sheer acclimation, sheer time.
@ Sully:
Tolerance and rights certainly "existed in America in former days." As I pointed out on my own, we also contradicted our values. We may have gone too far or may have become too lazy regarding the encouragement of assimilation.
I have no idea what would have happened to the Mafia under different circumstances, as nothing happens in isolation, but to my understanding most of the success against the Mafia occurred during a highly and increasingly progressive, post-Miranda approach to law enforcement.
I don't know that anyone's capable of determining whether assimilation occurred mainly as a result of positive incentives - the economic and social benefits of integrating with mainstream society - or negative ones of the sort you mention. I tend to think that the former were overwhelmingly more significant over time, and that the latter may have slowed the process rather than helped it along.
In order to become a citizen, someone must swear an Oath of Allegiance with the following provisions:
1 allegiance to the United States Constitution,
2 renunciation of allegiance to any foreign country to which the immigrant has had previous allegiances to
3 defense of the Constitution against enemies "foreign and domestic"
4 promise to serve in the United States Armed Forces when required by law (either combat or non-combat)
5 promise to perform civilian duties of "national importance" when required by law
#1 and #3 especially make the renunciation of "Sharia, Jihad and all other supremacist tenets of the religion" redundant in all practical respects. However, #1 and #3 additionally obligate the citizen to protect everyone's freedom to believe whatever he or she happens to believe about Sharia, Jihad, the genetic inheritance of intelligence, kissing on the first date, life on Mars, or the Boston Celtics. What you're asking for would amount to swearing to uphold the Constitution by swearing to defy it.
That doesn't preclude us from denying citizenship or entry to anyone whom we reasonably believe presents a threat. On principle, I don't have anything against more detailed or stringent oaths from new citizens (or even from mere guests/visa recipients). Of course, there is also nothing to prevent a committed Jihadist from swearing exactly the oath you ask for. It would just be taqqiya. So it might be a good way of deterring and singling out large numbers of un-problematic people, making ourselves look xenophobic and paranoid, while doing nothing about the real problem.
@ Sully:
The "fire" test - in re clear and present danger, also suicide pact - was already mentioned. No one is advocating the suicide pact - some inhumanly absolute interpretation of freedom. But the test for violating the presumption must be very stringent.
The argument you're making, on the other hand, tracks the once very popular condemnation of Catholics and more generally of immigration from un-democratic lands. We got over that one. One result is that, in addition to undermining the fear of "Popery" among non-Catholics, freedom of conscience has also undermined the authority of the Pope among Catholics themselves. We have helped to transform what it means to be a Catholic - turning the Catholic church into a much better world citizen in the same way that we have encouraged Catholics (and Mormons, and Baptists, and Jews, and Muslims) to be better American citizens. We can and must, and I believe will, do the same thing to Islam - whether Bin Laden and the rest like it or not.
We have allowed ourselves to be shocked out of our moral presumptions and self-confidence by Mohammed Atta and those like him - the extremists who were able to lead a double life, pretend to be in and of the West while secretly remaining more fundamentally beholden to their hatred of the West. It betrays a lack of self-confidence much more dangerous than anything anyone else can do - much more dangerous than 9/11 or 100 9/11s - that we fear the suicide bomber, who dies with his irreconcilable contradictions, more than we trust the thousands of his co-religionists who reconcile them in their real and continuing lives.
Tolerance is indeed definitional for America. Of course, we've contradicted the moral value, mightily and to our shame, over the course of 200+ years as a nation, 400 as an outpost of Western civilization. Extinguish the commitment to tolerance - integral to the larger concept of equal protection and freedom - and you extinguish the American idea. John Adams once stated that the belief the British were going to establish religious conformity was as important a spur to revolution as any other factor.
You're of course, quite "naturally," free to disbelieve in the American idea, but to paraphrase Ayad Alawi from a few years back, if anyone tries to impose intolerance here, we'll fight him house to house - or, as the case may be, building by building.
@ CK MacLeod:
Are you sure that America hasn’t already died for you?
A very good question, deserving of an answer. I’m not sure America has already died; but I’m close to sure it has a terminal disease.
You seem to have identified Americanism itself as the terminal disease. On Memorial Day, it's quite fitting so say: much better to die of it than to live with the known cures.
@ Sully:
Yes, let's shock the conscience of the world by seeing whether the Cordoba people tolerate voluntarist nutjobs passing out Bibles at their front door.
You've make it clear in your comments that you consider freedom of speech and worship a "suicide pact." Are you sure that America hasn't already died for you?
@ tachyon:
Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Interfaith Dialogue party?
If "the Helen Caldicott types" opened a bookstore and held meetings across the street from Ground Zero, what would you recommend? That we burn the place down? Is there any town in America that can withstand the scourge of Joan Campbellism, not to mention the scourge of organizations whose boards include people like Joan Campbell?
The photo was cropped from a Google satellite image map. I've learned not trust Google directions. Twoont surprise me if the labels were off, too. For instance WTC and GZ labels appear over places that don't look like GZ to me.
@ forecastle casady:
Mitch Berg? Conservative dude. I believe he's from Minnesota, somewhat focused on state politics, and close to Ed Morrissey. I've criticized him in the past before, for similar blanket judgments of the sort he was just making in the HA GR.
I think the truth matters equally to the authors and commenters, but that many speak in ideological shorthand and don't always seem to be aware that that's what they're doing. They are imprecise in their language, and seemingly unaware of how far off the shell can land given a seemingly small initial aiming error. They don't seem to mind, or know to mind, if it explodes in civilian areas or even within their own lines.
There's also a very "conservative" attitude toward discussion in general. Many seem actually to believe that the site would be better if everyone was singing out of the identical hymn book, with time out for personal flame wars, and a few "trolls" for comic relief. I hardly ever get a piece promoted to the front page without some worthy getting all huffy about "what's this piece doing on the front page!"
Oh well, I could go on, as regards the attack on Rauf, for instance, since that was the starting off point. But you might accuse me of being long-winded. I'll assume you read only the first and last paragraph of this comment anyway.
@ forecastle casady:
You think the truth and a fair and judicious accounting of it matter to the people who are agitating against this project?
By the way, I'm still hurt that you called me long-winded.
So now you admit that your intention is to offend. Congratulations, I guess we're making progress of a sort.
I'm against expressions of religious bigotry regardless of the supposed justification. I almost hope that some volunteers do something just like you suggest, just to expose the opposition for what I guess it's turning out to have been all along.
@ Brian:
Why don't just admit what you were doing? Specifically proposing a bacon dog stand because you imagine that it would be amusingly offensive to Muslims. Your way of getting back at "them." You had no other reason to propose it. Since Rauf has had a storefront center 10 blocks from the proposed location, I think he and his people are probably pretty used to the sights and smells of New York.
@ Brian:
All of the stuff on Rauf that I've seen has been lame character assassination and guilt by association. Something new since Chesler's and Shoebat's hit jobs?
I'm going to be a little short with you here, because my stomach is already three times turned by some of the things that perfectly non-bigoted freedom-loving upstanding conservatives have been saying as soon as they get a chance. Don't post things like that if you're going try to tell someone later that your motivations are pure, and have nothing to do with a bigoted aversion to Islam.
That kind of thing would look just great for us in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Jordan!
Sully wrote:
Don't have any problem with it and don't see why it's relevant. Polygamy is easier to spot than secret beliefs about polygamy. Eventually, the prevention and denunciation of the act leads to the wasting away of the belief. Usually. Same for Islamist terror.
I believe that in many respects we assimilate immigrants much better today, more quickly and efficiently, than we used to. Today, we have them in our schools and fail to teach them English very well. 100 or so years ago, we just didn't have them in schools at all. 100 years ago, the vast majority were true aliens to American culture. Nowadays, a much larger percentage have been pre-assimilated culturally in various ways - most have been absorbing American popular culture since they were children. Most already speak some English. You might not have gotten very far in large parts of the new cities of the late 19th Century speaking English - assuming you could stand the stench.
Many of the harsh anti-immigrant measures were a delayed reaction to non-assimilation. Non-assimilation also frequently meant that big city political machines (and also rural political machines dealing with recently freed slaves) could broker votes and secure patronage. I don't think anyone's shown that "No Irish Allowed" signs were a big help integrating the Irish into society, or that anti-Catholic prejudice was a big help integrating other Catholic immigrants. It was sheer numbers, sheer advantage, sheer acclimation, sheer time.
@ Sully:
Tolerance and rights certainly "existed in America in former days." As I pointed out on my own, we also contradicted our values. We may have gone too far or may have become too lazy regarding the encouragement of assimilation.
I have no idea what would have happened to the Mafia under different circumstances, as nothing happens in isolation, but to my understanding most of the success against the Mafia occurred during a highly and increasingly progressive, post-Miranda approach to law enforcement.
I don't know that anyone's capable of determining whether assimilation occurred mainly as a result of positive incentives - the economic and social benefits of integrating with mainstream society - or negative ones of the sort you mention. I tend to think that the former were overwhelmingly more significant over time, and that the latter may have slowed the process rather than helped it along.
In order to become a citizen, someone must swear an Oath of Allegiance with the following provisions:
1 allegiance to the United States Constitution,
2 renunciation of allegiance to any foreign country to which the immigrant has had previous allegiances to
3 defense of the Constitution against enemies "foreign and domestic"
4 promise to serve in the United States Armed Forces when required by law (either combat or non-combat)
5 promise to perform civilian duties of "national importance" when required by law
#1 and #3 especially make the renunciation of "Sharia, Jihad and all other supremacist tenets of the religion" redundant in all practical respects. However, #1 and #3 additionally obligate the citizen to protect everyone's freedom to believe whatever he or she happens to believe about Sharia, Jihad, the genetic inheritance of intelligence, kissing on the first date, life on Mars, or the Boston Celtics. What you're asking for would amount to swearing to uphold the Constitution by swearing to defy it.
That doesn't preclude us from denying citizenship or entry to anyone whom we reasonably believe presents a threat. On principle, I don't have anything against more detailed or stringent oaths from new citizens (or even from mere guests/visa recipients). Of course, there is also nothing to prevent a committed Jihadist from swearing exactly the oath you ask for. It would just be taqqiya. So it might be a good way of deterring and singling out large numbers of un-problematic people, making ourselves look xenophobic and paranoid, while doing nothing about the real problem.
@ Sully:
The "fire" test - in re clear and present danger, also suicide pact - was already mentioned. No one is advocating the suicide pact - some inhumanly absolute interpretation of freedom. But the test for violating the presumption must be very stringent.
The argument you're making, on the other hand, tracks the once very popular condemnation of Catholics and more generally of immigration from un-democratic lands. We got over that one. One result is that, in addition to undermining the fear of "Popery" among non-Catholics, freedom of conscience has also undermined the authority of the Pope among Catholics themselves. We have helped to transform what it means to be a Catholic - turning the Catholic church into a much better world citizen in the same way that we have encouraged Catholics (and Mormons, and Baptists, and Jews, and Muslims) to be better American citizens. We can and must, and I believe will, do the same thing to Islam - whether Bin Laden and the rest like it or not.
We have allowed ourselves to be shocked out of our moral presumptions and self-confidence by Mohammed Atta and those like him - the extremists who were able to lead a double life, pretend to be in and of the West while secretly remaining more fundamentally beholden to their hatred of the West. It betrays a lack of self-confidence much more dangerous than anything anyone else can do - much more dangerous than 9/11 or 100 9/11s - that we fear the suicide bomber, who dies with his irreconcilable contradictions, more than we trust the thousands of his co-religionists who reconcile them in their real and continuing lives.
Sully wrote:
Tolerance is indeed definitional for America. Of course, we've contradicted the moral value, mightily and to our shame, over the course of 200+ years as a nation, 400 as an outpost of Western civilization. Extinguish the commitment to tolerance - integral to the larger concept of equal protection and freedom - and you extinguish the American idea. John Adams once stated that the belief the British were going to establish religious conformity was as important a spur to revolution as any other factor.
You're of course, quite "naturally," free to disbelieve in the American idea, but to paraphrase Ayad Alawi from a few years back, if anyone tries to impose intolerance here, we'll fight him house to house - or, as the case may be, building by building.
Here's a clearer satellite image with map, btw (from the BBC article that I added as a link for "explicitly condemning"):
Sully wrote:
You seem to have identified Americanism itself as the terminal disease. On Memorial Day, it's quite fitting so say: much better to die of it than to live with the known cures.
tachyon wrote:
A clear and present danger - not guilt by association - or whatever it was that made you decide to junk the Bill of Rights.
Sully wrote:
Sign me up.
@ Sully:
Yes, let's shock the conscience of the world by seeing whether the Cordoba people tolerate voluntarist nutjobs passing out Bibles at their front door.
You've make it clear in your comments that you consider freedom of speech and worship a "suicide pact." Are you sure that America hasn't already died for you?
@ tachyon:
Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Interfaith Dialogue party?
If "the Helen Caldicott types" opened a bookstore and held meetings across the street from Ground Zero, what would you recommend? That we burn the place down? Is there any town in America that can withstand the scourge of Joan Campbellism, not to mention the scourge of organizations whose boards include people like Joan Campbell?
The photo was cropped from a Google satellite image map. I've learned not trust Google directions. Twoont surprise me if the labels were off, too. For instance WTC and GZ labels appear over places that don't look like GZ to me.