I read an interesting article on Slate today by Christopher Hitchens on the Cordoba House Initiative that I wanted to share. So, I thought I'd start it's own thread for the on-going insanity in the US over the project. I learned what "Vilayet-i-faquih" is all about. Of course, Hitchens, as an avowed anti-theist / atheist has a particular point of view. So, consider this article in the American Thinker, by Jack Cashill as a counter-balance.
Cashill writes in that article;
The most important part of Hitchen's article to me was;
He more eloquently said what I was trying to say in the other thread. I don't think most of my fellow Americans (although some clearly do) have issues with living in a pluralistic society that respects the tapestry of varied ethnic, cultural, and religious differences. My objection is to the argument that we must be tolerant of their intolerance, and we must to sensitive(and mute) to their insensitivity. For my part, I think Rauf, even as a trusted and paid clerical representative of the US, has much to answer for what he's said, and therefore, for now, I don't trust his motives. For now, I believe the center is meant to be an affront, and this is the only reason I oppose it. If however, there were a guarantee that, for example, a slightly pickled, bare headed infidel, wearing moderately provocative attire with a Pomeranian purse pooch in stow wouldn't be considered Haram and bruskly dumped on the sidewalk, then perhaps they really do mean "community" center.
And, finally, for those who are in support of this project, I give you "Ten things I know about the mosque" By Roger Ebert. Now why isn't this guy our President?
Cashill writes in that article;
Quote:"Addressing what I called the "illiberal orthodoxy of the American media," I explained how the media make one notable exception to their illiberal stereotyping of the religious right.
"Islamic extremists in America have proven to be exactly the bogeyman that the media have long imagined the Christian right to be -- patriarchal, theocratic, sexist, homophobic, anti-choice, and openly anti-Semitic," I said. "And according to at least one brave Muslim moderate, Sheik Muhammad Kabani, 80% of the mosques in America are in the hands of genuine extremists, some of whom are not above encouraging murder to get their way."
The most important part of Hitchen's article to me was;
Quote:Emboldened by the crass nature of the opposition to the center, its defenders have started to talk as if it represented no problem at all and as if the question were solely one of religious tolerance. It would be nice if this were true. But tolerance is one of the first and most awkward questions raised by any examination of Islamism. We are wrong to talk as if the only subject was that of terrorism. As Western Europe has already found to its cost, local Muslim leaders have a habit, once they feel strong enough, of making demands of the most intolerant kind. Sometimes it will be calls for censorship of anything "offensive" to Islam. Sometimes it will be demands for sexual segregation in schools and swimming pools. The script is becoming a very familiar one. And those who make such demands are of course usually quite careful to avoid any association with violence. They merely hint that, if their demands are not taken seriously, there just might be a teeny smidgeon of violence from some other unnamed quarter …
As for the gorgeous mosaic of religious pluralism, it's easy enough to find mosque Web sites and DVDs that peddle the most disgusting attacks on Jews, Hindus, Christians, unbelievers, and other Muslims—to say nothing of insane diatribes about women and homosexuals. This is why the fake term Islamophobia is so dangerous: It insinuates that any reservations about Islam must ipso facto be "phobic." A phobia is an irrational fear or dislike. Islamic preaching very often manifests precisely this feature, which is why suspicion of it is by no means irrational.
He more eloquently said what I was trying to say in the other thread. I don't think most of my fellow Americans (although some clearly do) have issues with living in a pluralistic society that respects the tapestry of varied ethnic, cultural, and religious differences. My objection is to the argument that we must be tolerant of their intolerance, and we must to sensitive(and mute) to their insensitivity. For my part, I think Rauf, even as a trusted and paid clerical representative of the US, has much to answer for what he's said, and therefore, for now, I don't trust his motives. For now, I believe the center is meant to be an affront, and this is the only reason I oppose it. If however, there were a guarantee that, for example, a slightly pickled, bare headed infidel, wearing moderately provocative attire with a Pomeranian purse pooch in stow wouldn't be considered Haram and bruskly dumped on the sidewalk, then perhaps they really do mean "community" center.
And, finally, for those who are in support of this project, I give you "Ten things I know about the mosque" By Roger Ebert. Now why isn't this guy our President?