If you have a pulse and have the smallest interest in the upcoming midterm elections, you might know the mantra of the Republican party. Republicans have looked to score major political points in November by opposing most of the Administration's initiatives and bragging about their fiscally conservative nature. They have been courting the TEA party by campaigning and supporting their endorsements in Alaska, Delaware, Nevada, Kansas and a few other states whose mere livestock to population ratio might be considered a justifiable reason for being annexed by its more important neighbors (see the Dakotas, Kansas, Nebraska, Delaware, Iowa, Idaho, Wyoming, etc.).
I'm not criticizing the strategy. In fact, it is a perfect strategy if you want to score big in November. What I have an issue with is the constant evocation of the founding fathers, and the assertions that the regular American, characterized by the lumberjack/plumber/handyman/truckdriver/tanned Ohio Representative(See John Boehner), are making about them. Somehow the vision of the Founding Fathers prefers the principles of one CONTEMPORARY political party over another.
Making speculative statements about the Founding Fathers with the obvious contemporary bias is falling into the trap of Revisionist History. This only shows that the person making the mistake is unbelievably principled, but also unbelievably ignorant.
The use of the Constitution and the Founding Fathers as a way to justify political stubbornness is flat out wrong. I don't negate this view with the belief that I have the same clairvoyance about the founding fathers as conservatives seem to think they possess. I do it from a purely historic standpoint. If you know a single shred of information about the Constitution and Constitutional convention, you would know that the Constitution is nick-named a "Bundle of Compromises" for a reason. Here's a history lesson:
States with less population endorsed the New Jersey Plan, which would have given every state equal voting power in the bicameral legislature. The Virginia Plan, which was endorsed by larger states, would have apportioned the two houses by population or taxes paid. Eventually, the Connecticut Compromise was drafted which formed the House of Representatives, based on population, and the Senate, with equal representation for all states.
The reason the document took so long to draft was because of the already forming ideological and sectional divide between Southern (primarily agriculture) states and Northern (budding industrialists) states. Apportionment was just one topic that was compromised over. Some others included: Slave Trade (Int'l Trade outlawed in 1808), Representation (3/5ths Compromise) and powers delegated to each branch. The first 10 Amendments to the Constitution (The Bill of Rights) were mostly written as a Compromise to states-rights followers of Thomas Jefferson in order to get them to agree to signing a Constitution with a Federal Government.
Beyond the ratification of the Constitution, figures who were contemporaries of the Founding Fathers became famous for having debates over the age-old problem of Federalism versus States Rights. These differences led to the creation of the Compromise of 1820 (Missouri Plan), The Mason-Dixon Line, Popular Sovereignty and the Compromise of 1850. One of the most iconic Senators from the 19th century was the "Great Compromiser" Sen. Henry Clay (Kentucky). He helped broker the 1820 compromise and stopped the first major secession attempt by Sen. John C. Calhoun in South Carolina over a tariff (see Nullification Crises). Politics was still a partisan and heated debate during the antebellum era, but it was also characterized by the idea of preserving the Union and its principles above all, even if it meant compromising on your beliefs.
Monday, September 27, 2010
Sunday, September 12, 2010
UCLA: It’s Time to Clear House
I read Bill Plaschke’s Article Saturday night and hung my head in disbelief. Irrelevant little Bruins indeed. Just like Coach Neuheisal, I will always remember the Stanford game, 2010. It wasn’t the interceptions and the fumbles, or the lack of defense that got me down. It was the feeling of disbelief – that burning question: how did we get here?
The 2005 “Beat SC Bonfire” was my introduction to UCLA football. “Beat SC Week” was scheduled for the week before finals, giving us a nice catharsis. The tower burned, the insults flew, the Trojans hung and the troops were rallied. Karl Dorrell, our fearless leader stood in front of the inferno pumping his fists and leading numerous 8-claps. Then, like a mystic hero, Maurice Jones-Drew took the mic and the crowd went haywire. Although we suffered a humiliating loss to SC that year, our 10-2 record stood was nothing to be disappointed over.
We had momentum going into 2006. Although we barely broke even that year, we did the impossible. We upset #2 ranked USC 13-9. Like the aforementioned Stanford game, I will always remember where I was when we beat USC. We rioted, cars were torched and fans were maced, all in the supposedly quiet Westwood.
The next season, we made the Las Vegas Bowl, but went 6-7. But, no lackluster season goes unpunished – Dorrell was fired.
Those were the days.
It went downhill from there. Relatively unknown former UCLA MVP quarterback Rick Neuheisal was hired to replace Dorrell, and former Trojan Norm Chow took up Defense. Redshirt Junior Kevin Craft was chosen for starting quarterback, and the worst season in my four years at UCLA began. Craft ran more than he could throw and when he did throw, he had more interceptions that completions. He ignored Neuheisal, and made up plays on the fly. We went 4-8 that season with another humiliating loss to USC. That was my senior year. Nice way to say goodbye.
Again, no lackluster season goes unpunished. Craft lost the starting quarterback position to Kevin Prince, a perpetually injured Crespi High School alumni. Neuheisal started the season with a promise: a 6-6 record and a bowl berth. He fired up the troops and we rushed into the 2009 season 3-1 with wins against Tennessee, Kansas State and San Diego State. We were unstoppable. That is, until we started playing against Pac-10 teams. We went 0-4 in October, lost a 5th game to USC, but held on to beat Washington, Arizona State and Washington State. Neuheisal made a promise and he delivered. We were 6-6 and were invited to the Eagle Bank bowl in Washington, DC, where we beat Temple University.
Our current team is a mix of rookies, the always-injured Kevin Prince at quarterback and the sensational Kai Forbath at kicker. But, when I watched Prince go 9/26 against Kansas State, and experienced our Washington-State-like effort against Stanford, I could not help but wonder: Why do I miss Karl Dorrell so much?
Maybe it’s time for the UCLA to do some soul searching, and clear house. Neuheisal is failing and Chow isn’t helping. Our most effective offensive player is Forbath at kicker. And, with the 7th hardest schedule in the entire BCS system, we are destined to go into October 0-5. If we don’t act soon, UCLA might become Pac-10 irrelevant, and The Pac-10 doesn’t need 2 Washington States.
Thursday, September 9, 2010
9/11+9
If you were alive during Pearl Harbor, you experienced a nation, shaken to core, and ready to unite against the Imperial forces of Japan. 2,400 soldiers and civilians died, making it the worst attack on U.S. soil. The attack that pushed the U.S. into World War II also created an era of unity that saw families cut back on consumption, women working in munitions factories and assembly lines and a general feeling that a strong home-front would help our boys overseas. For historians, the 20th century became divided between the pre and post-war eras. World War II led to the Cold War, which spawned many proxy wars that make the U.S. the policing force it is today. But, it also led to paranoia and suspicion that caused the internment of over 100,000 Japanese-American citizens.
The attack on the World Trade Center in 2001 had the same effect on the era. For those who experienced the attack, and the subsequent expansion of Intelligence and Domestic/International security know the 21st century as the pre and post-9/11 world. I can vaguely remember airport security before 9/11, and I do remember a government devoid of any office called "Homeland Security." 9/11 not only exposed to the United States to the effects of interventionism against the Soviets in Afghanistan, but also re-introduced the idea of Radical Islam and Terrorism into our lexicon. Those who even considered cutting defense budgets were accused of being either soft on terrorism or not supporting our troops overseas. It was a post-Cold War era governed by poorly disguised Cold War policy.
9/11 put the U.S. into a war against the Taliban in Afghanistan, which has turned out to be the longest in U.S. history (9 years and counting). 9/11 created the "War on Terrorism" which spawned the proxy Iraq war. While we have effectively pulled out all combat troops from Iraq, we still have a lot of nation (re)building to do. The eight years of the Bush Administration were defined by his response to 9/11. His policies tarnished America's image in most of the international world. Constitutional questions in regards to everything from warrant-less arrests to wiretapping to prisoners of war were reopened and quickly co-opted by politicians. Most importantly, 9/11 created a world of suspicion, paranoia and fear that was manipulated to spread religious intolerance and indifference to violations of civil rights.
My question, as a historian (BA, UCLA, 2009) , is how we will frame the post-9/11 world to those who were or will be born after 9/11/2001. Moralists and revisionist historians might talk about the post-Pearl Harbor era as a dark time in U.S. history where bigotry disguised as "national security" led to the internment of Japanese-American citizens. That may be true. But, being someone who was born 46 years after Pearl Harbor, I see the event in its context: a country reacting to an attack on its soil and preparing to fight a war. While the unfortunate internment did occur, we must teach Pearl Harbor in its context without using our contemporary moral filter. What was the cause of the Japanese attack? What was the U.S. response? What were the events that led the Roosevelt Administration to intern so many civilians? These types of questions will help teach the historical legacy of Pearl Harbor without injecting our own biases.
Like Pearl Harbor, the post-9/11 world was a product of a county reacting to an attack on its soil and preparing to fight a war. Like Pearl Harbor, it also produced bigotry towards a U.S. minority, Muslims. But, how will we teach this era of transition in the future? The same way we teach Pearl Harbor and the WWII era. We should instruct on the causes of the attacks, the response to the attack and the political, social and cultural environment that was created by the attack. Teachers should talk about how the United States changed in the face of adversity, and how everyone from the President of the United States to a minister in Florida reacted to the attack and the environment it created.
The attack on the World Trade Center in 2001 had the same effect on the era. For those who experienced the attack, and the subsequent expansion of Intelligence and Domestic/International security know the 21st century as the pre and post-9/11 world. I can vaguely remember airport security before 9/11, and I do remember a government devoid of any office called "Homeland Security." 9/11 not only exposed to the United States to the effects of interventionism against the Soviets in Afghanistan, but also re-introduced the idea of Radical Islam and Terrorism into our lexicon. Those who even considered cutting defense budgets were accused of being either soft on terrorism or not supporting our troops overseas. It was a post-Cold War era governed by poorly disguised Cold War policy.
9/11 put the U.S. into a war against the Taliban in Afghanistan, which has turned out to be the longest in U.S. history (9 years and counting). 9/11 created the "War on Terrorism" which spawned the proxy Iraq war. While we have effectively pulled out all combat troops from Iraq, we still have a lot of nation (re)building to do. The eight years of the Bush Administration were defined by his response to 9/11. His policies tarnished America's image in most of the international world. Constitutional questions in regards to everything from warrant-less arrests to wiretapping to prisoners of war were reopened and quickly co-opted by politicians. Most importantly, 9/11 created a world of suspicion, paranoia and fear that was manipulated to spread religious intolerance and indifference to violations of civil rights.
My question, as a historian (BA, UCLA, 2009) , is how we will frame the post-9/11 world to those who were or will be born after 9/11/2001. Moralists and revisionist historians might talk about the post-Pearl Harbor era as a dark time in U.S. history where bigotry disguised as "national security" led to the internment of Japanese-American citizens. That may be true. But, being someone who was born 46 years after Pearl Harbor, I see the event in its context: a country reacting to an attack on its soil and preparing to fight a war. While the unfortunate internment did occur, we must teach Pearl Harbor in its context without using our contemporary moral filter. What was the cause of the Japanese attack? What was the U.S. response? What were the events that led the Roosevelt Administration to intern so many civilians? These types of questions will help teach the historical legacy of Pearl Harbor without injecting our own biases.
Like Pearl Harbor, the post-9/11 world was a product of a county reacting to an attack on its soil and preparing to fight a war. Like Pearl Harbor, it also produced bigotry towards a U.S. minority, Muslims. But, how will we teach this era of transition in the future? The same way we teach Pearl Harbor and the WWII era. We should instruct on the causes of the attacks, the response to the attack and the political, social and cultural environment that was created by the attack. Teachers should talk about how the United States changed in the face of adversity, and how everyone from the President of the United States to a minister in Florida reacted to the attack and the environment it created.
Pregnant Demon at Glenn Beck's Rally
All he wants is a sandwich
America, The Hungry from Dakota Fine on Vimeo.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Obama: Join the Chosen Tribe
I have a solution to all this speculation about Obama's religion. It's simple, nearly immune from political attack and would be a nice respite from the stupid, useless, waste-of-my-oxygen debate about whether or not Obama is a Christian.
First, a short recap. Obama has taken his time choosing a church. While this might seem like an entirely symbolic gesture, it seems to have injected doubt about his religion into Lexicon of Conservative Bulls%$t (publishing pending). With the addition of the TEA party and the anti-tax rallies, the idea that Obama may be a Muslim (and not born here) was formed and carried, along with Obama-as-a-Socialist and Obama-as-Fascist...and...Obama-as-Hitler (I really don't understand the connection - I think you would be hard pressed to find a Muslim-Socialist-Fascist-Nazi).
Now, the Muslim cultural center (Park51, Cordoba House, etc) has sparked an interest in Obama's religion, once again. Apparently, almost 20% of those polled in a recent survey believe that Obama is a Muslim. And, that same anti-Muslim sentiment has surfaced, like it did in the aftermath of Sept. 11th. Somehow, a good amount of people (mostly feeling that pain of "white guilt") feel that once an Islamic presence is legitimized in their neighborhood, the local law will be replaced with Sharia. Oh no! Not law motivated by religious doctrine! That would NEVER happen in the United States.....(ahem).
My favorite crying patriot Glenn Beck has even jumped on the bandwagon. Beck's "Restoring Honor" rally at the nation's capital was not only "non-political" (you know, you're sooooo NOT political if you have Sarah Palin as a speaker) but a way to get the country "back to God" (God in uppercase letters because it is specifically referring to the "Glenn Beck God Model" possibly version 2.0). Beck somehow believes that his very Christian god is a more legitimate version of Obama's Christian god. Somehow, in the midst of crying, blackboard ranting and spouting revisionist history, Beck forgot that his god is no different than the god of Islam, Judaism and every sect of Christianity (god knows how many there are...no pun intended). Furthermore, (while not trying to offend any hardcore philosophy majors), the idea of god is a never-ending debate, and ones personal god (think 12-step program, etc) might embody something much different than a religious god.
Here is my idea for Obama (drum roll):
Join a Synagogue!
Become part of the Chosen Tribe. The Jewish community is a tight-knit group that transcends religion. It is not only a religion, but a culture and tradition that provides support for all its members. And, technically, you will be praying to the original god, the real OG.
Here's a good reference list:
http://www.sixthandi.org/
http://www.ostns.org/
http://www.templemicah.org/
First, a short recap. Obama has taken his time choosing a church. While this might seem like an entirely symbolic gesture, it seems to have injected doubt about his religion into Lexicon of Conservative Bulls%$t (publishing pending). With the addition of the TEA party and the anti-tax rallies, the idea that Obama may be a Muslim (and not born here) was formed and carried, along with Obama-as-a-Socialist and Obama-as-Fascist...and...Obama-as-Hitler (I really don't understand the connection - I think you would be hard pressed to find a Muslim-Socialist-Fascist-Nazi).
Now, the Muslim cultural center (Park51, Cordoba House, etc) has sparked an interest in Obama's religion, once again. Apparently, almost 20% of those polled in a recent survey believe that Obama is a Muslim. And, that same anti-Muslim sentiment has surfaced, like it did in the aftermath of Sept. 11th. Somehow, a good amount of people (mostly feeling that pain of "white guilt") feel that once an Islamic presence is legitimized in their neighborhood, the local law will be replaced with Sharia. Oh no! Not law motivated by religious doctrine! That would NEVER happen in the United States.....(ahem).
My favorite crying patriot Glenn Beck has even jumped on the bandwagon. Beck's "Restoring Honor" rally at the nation's capital was not only "non-political" (you know, you're sooooo NOT political if you have Sarah Palin as a speaker) but a way to get the country "back to God" (God in uppercase letters because it is specifically referring to the "Glenn Beck God Model" possibly version 2.0). Beck somehow believes that his very Christian god is a more legitimate version of Obama's Christian god. Somehow, in the midst of crying, blackboard ranting and spouting revisionist history, Beck forgot that his god is no different than the god of Islam, Judaism and every sect of Christianity (god knows how many there are...no pun intended). Furthermore, (while not trying to offend any hardcore philosophy majors), the idea of god is a never-ending debate, and ones personal god (think 12-step program, etc) might embody something much different than a religious god.
Here is my idea for Obama (drum roll):
Join a Synagogue!
Become part of the Chosen Tribe. The Jewish community is a tight-knit group that transcends religion. It is not only a religion, but a culture and tradition that provides support for all its members. And, technically, you will be praying to the original god, the real OG.
Here's a good reference list:
http://www.sixthandi.org/
http://www.ostns.org/
http://www.templemicah.org/
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Dr. Laura: Race and the Lack of Pragmatic Foresight
An recent occurrence has renewed my interest in the issues of Race and Racism. In a previous post (a while back) I had made a point that Political Correctness in regards to race and the idea of "diversity" had very noticeable limits. My argument (adapted from Walter Benn Michaels "The Trouble With Diversity") was that ideas of race, racism and sensitivity to race are secondary reactions to the problem of poverty, class and social status. Racism, while clearly existent in this era, is represented by facets of social inequality in urban social space: redlining, block busting, environmental injustice, inner city slums, gentrification, oppressive immigration policies, etc. These problems must be addressed first in order to be able to tackle less prevalent issues, like blatant racism.
So, here is a quagmire caused by out-of-step individual making a point of race and making a complete a$$ out of herself:
Dr. Laura Schlessinger:
Dr. Laura, a conservative radio show host (just behind the unbelievably "large" personality of Rush Limbaugh in ratings), had a caller (black) who was angry over her husband's (white) friends remarks about her race. They were making jokes about stereotypes, and asking her questions about her race. Instead of telling the caller that she should confront her friends and have a meaningful discussion about why she thought those comments were hurtful to her and somewhat "racist," Dr. Laura went into a tirade about how white people cannot say certain epithets about black people that black people can say about other black people. She even repeated that epithet many times during the interview. She even brought Barack Obama into it, talking about how he was voted in because he was "half-black."
Her Lack of Pragmatic Foresight: First, she is completely negating the whole purpose of the caller's questions. Dr. Laura needed to help this woman with her problem, but instead she used it as a platform to denounce Barack Obama (not like that's been done before...). Second, as was stated so eloquently in an article by Mary Curtis, Dr. Laura is stepping into the ring of race by being blatantly racist. She is using stereotypes about black voters (they automatically vote for black candidates) and she is assuming that black voters use "logic and reasoning" when picking their candidate. She uses that as a platform to jump to making a point about having a "half-black" person in the White House as a reason to suddenly stop decrying racist remarks.
But, where her ridiculous lack of pragmatic foresight comes in is when she starts repeating the aforementioned epithet over, and over, and over and over again. Let's pull the Rawlsian Veil of Ignorance over ourselves for this moment and assume ceteris paribus. The word has a historic meaning that is unbelievably offensive, and she suddenly thinks she will not get an opposing reaction to her repetition of it, as if it were household rhetoric. You have a public forum and you are spouting out a very racially charged word? What did you think would happen? Either she is ridiculously stupid, or she has been living under a rock for the last 400 years (I suspect the former).
Her outrage over her inability to use this racist epithet did not advance our ability overcome social or racial inequality. It did not advance the idea that we should decry any divisive language and work together to solve social issues. All it did was show that a sad, old, crazy white woman is mad because there's a Democrat in the White House, and he happens to be, yes...you got it..."half-black."
So, here is a quagmire caused by out-of-step individual making a point of race and making a complete a$$ out of herself:
Dr. Laura Schlessinger:
Dr. Laura, a conservative radio show host (just behind the unbelievably "large" personality of Rush Limbaugh in ratings), had a caller (black) who was angry over her husband's (white) friends remarks about her race. They were making jokes about stereotypes, and asking her questions about her race. Instead of telling the caller that she should confront her friends and have a meaningful discussion about why she thought those comments were hurtful to her and somewhat "racist," Dr. Laura went into a tirade about how white people cannot say certain epithets about black people that black people can say about other black people. She even repeated that epithet many times during the interview. She even brought Barack Obama into it, talking about how he was voted in because he was "half-black."
Her Lack of Pragmatic Foresight: First, she is completely negating the whole purpose of the caller's questions. Dr. Laura needed to help this woman with her problem, but instead she used it as a platform to denounce Barack Obama (not like that's been done before...). Second, as was stated so eloquently in an article by Mary Curtis, Dr. Laura is stepping into the ring of race by being blatantly racist. She is using stereotypes about black voters (they automatically vote for black candidates) and she is assuming that black voters use "logic and reasoning" when picking their candidate. She uses that as a platform to jump to making a point about having a "half-black" person in the White House as a reason to suddenly stop decrying racist remarks.
But, where her ridiculous lack of pragmatic foresight comes in is when she starts repeating the aforementioned epithet over, and over, and over and over again. Let's pull the Rawlsian Veil of Ignorance over ourselves for this moment and assume ceteris paribus. The word has a historic meaning that is unbelievably offensive, and she suddenly thinks she will not get an opposing reaction to her repetition of it, as if it were household rhetoric. You have a public forum and you are spouting out a very racially charged word? What did you think would happen? Either she is ridiculously stupid, or she has been living under a rock for the last 400 years (I suspect the former).
Her outrage over her inability to use this racist epithet did not advance our ability overcome social or racial inequality. It did not advance the idea that we should decry any divisive language and work together to solve social issues. All it did was show that a sad, old, crazy white woman is mad because there's a Democrat in the White House, and he happens to be, yes...you got it..."half-black."
Monday, August 16, 2010
Ground Zero Mosque Naysayers are Ignoring American Values
I don't usually start my blogs off with a quote, but I found this one (from a Michael Cohen article titled "Why I Miss George W. Bush") appropriate for this post:
Our nation must be mindful that there are thousands of Arab-Americans who live in New York City...And we must be mindful that as we seek to win the war, that we treat Arab-Americans and Muslims with the respect they deserve ... the attitude of this government is we should not hold one who is a Muslim responsible for an act of terror
- President George W. Bush (A few weeks after Sept 11th)
Yes, you read that name right... President George W. Bush. This is the same Bush that presided over the bifurcation of the pre and post-9/11 world. I challenge all my readers to find an era before the Bush presidency, pre-9/11, where Islamic extremism and Islamic terrorism became a everyday topic for a long period of time (in our case, 9 years and counting). Putting aside the Aircraft Carrier sized "Mission Accomplished" bumper stickers and the sheer stupidity of calling something a "War on Terror," let's look at the substance behind the Dubya remark, putting in its historic context:
In the first few months after 9/11, Islam became a vulnerable minority religion in the United States. I remember stories of people attacking mosques and hearing about death threats against Muslims, or those who looked like Muslims. The United States had just entered a war in Afghanistan against a the Taliban who used Sharia Law to justify public executions and tyrannical rule. Most Americans did not understand the difference between the Religious Extremists who were responsible for the 9/11 hijackings and an everyday religious Muslim. It is in this environment of suspicion and paranoia that Bush made this remark. Bush's message was not only that we honor the Constitutional right of freedom of religion by respecting Islam, but that we should not succumb to swaying from our founding values, thereby confirming the affects of the 9/11 terrorists (and their backers) actions.
Bush's message rings true today, in the right over building a mosque at Ground Zero. President Obama used straightforward language to explain his support for the mosque (from a Hugh Collins article):
As a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country. That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances. This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable.
What is most effective about Obama's statement is that he did not politicize it. He told it as it was: This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable. Just like Bush, Obama has emphasized that we not change our values in the light of the actions of a few extremists.
But, it seems as if some people don't see the contradictory or unsound nature of their opposition. Here are some remarks made against the Ground Zero Mosque, and my answers:
1. There should be no Mosque because there are no Churches or Temples in Saudi Arabia.
This isn't Saudi Arabia...don't even talk about religious tolerance and mention Saudi Arabia in the same sentence.
2. Obama has abandoned America by supporting the Mosque.
OK. Not relevant. Hyperbolic appeals to patriotic emotion and personal insults don't count as viable arguments. Next.
3. Putting a Mosque there would insult the 3,000 who died during 9/11 and all the troops that have died fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.
To honor those who died and those who are fighting, we should make sure our American values, including the value of freedom of religion are kept intact. Ever heard of something called a united "home front?"
4. Putting a Mosque near Ground Zero is like putting a Nazi museum near Auschwitz. Nazism and Islam are both religions.
Oh god, no. I thought I had read enough about Nazi references. Islam is a religion, Nazism is a political, economic and social movement in Germany during WWII that was tyrannical and SECULAR. Extremist outliers in Islam were responsible for 9/11, and the majority of Islamic scholars have rejected violence. Nazism, and Auschwitz are representatives of a vast movement dedicated to the mass murder of Jews, Gypsies, Russians, Poles, Gays, etc. with a highly interconnected system that perpetuated genocide. They were not the exception, they were the rule.
5. The mosque will desecrate the ground of those who were murdered by people who practice Islam, or at least an element of Islam. Islam is not just a religion, it is also a political doctrine. (Former Sen. Rick Santorum)
This is blatant disregard for the fact that mainstream Islam has denounced the use of violence. You do not collectively punish an entire religion for the acts of a few extremists.
And, that last part...(expletive) you. You're a Roman Catholic-Republican-former Senator, and you are saying that a dangerous aspect of Islam is because it is a political doctrine as well as a religion!!! Really?!?!?! This is coming from the same guy whose positions on privacy, abortion, gay rights and evolution are derived from his Christian morals! The same guy who helped pass the Workplace Religious Freedom Act! Hypocrite doesn't even come close. I guess you were asleep when Christian conservatism also became a "political doctrine." Christian doctrine has pervaded U.S. politics since Independence. It wasn't meant to (ala "separation of church and state"...whatever that means anymore), but it's still there.
Emotion, personal attacks, hyperbolic rhetoric and ridiculous comparisons don't make viable arguments. These naysayers are forgetting the simple value of religious freedom, which must be kept intact.
Our nation must be mindful that there are thousands of Arab-Americans who live in New York City...And we must be mindful that as we seek to win the war, that we treat Arab-Americans and Muslims with the respect they deserve ... the attitude of this government is we should not hold one who is a Muslim responsible for an act of terror
- President George W. Bush (A few weeks after Sept 11th)
Yes, you read that name right... President George W. Bush. This is the same Bush that presided over the bifurcation of the pre and post-9/11 world. I challenge all my readers to find an era before the Bush presidency, pre-9/11, where Islamic extremism and Islamic terrorism became a everyday topic for a long period of time (in our case, 9 years and counting). Putting aside the Aircraft Carrier sized "Mission Accomplished" bumper stickers and the sheer stupidity of calling something a "War on Terror," let's look at the substance behind the Dubya remark, putting in its historic context:
In the first few months after 9/11, Islam became a vulnerable minority religion in the United States. I remember stories of people attacking mosques and hearing about death threats against Muslims, or those who looked like Muslims. The United States had just entered a war in Afghanistan against a the Taliban who used Sharia Law to justify public executions and tyrannical rule. Most Americans did not understand the difference between the Religious Extremists who were responsible for the 9/11 hijackings and an everyday religious Muslim. It is in this environment of suspicion and paranoia that Bush made this remark. Bush's message was not only that we honor the Constitutional right of freedom of religion by respecting Islam, but that we should not succumb to swaying from our founding values, thereby confirming the affects of the 9/11 terrorists (and their backers) actions.
Bush's message rings true today, in the right over building a mosque at Ground Zero. President Obama used straightforward language to explain his support for the mosque (from a Hugh Collins article):
As a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country. That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances. This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable.
What is most effective about Obama's statement is that he did not politicize it. He told it as it was: This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable. Just like Bush, Obama has emphasized that we not change our values in the light of the actions of a few extremists.
But, it seems as if some people don't see the contradictory or unsound nature of their opposition. Here are some remarks made against the Ground Zero Mosque, and my answers:
1. There should be no Mosque because there are no Churches or Temples in Saudi Arabia.
This isn't Saudi Arabia...don't even talk about religious tolerance and mention Saudi Arabia in the same sentence.
2. Obama has abandoned America by supporting the Mosque.
OK. Not relevant. Hyperbolic appeals to patriotic emotion and personal insults don't count as viable arguments. Next.
3. Putting a Mosque there would insult the 3,000 who died during 9/11 and all the troops that have died fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.
To honor those who died and those who are fighting, we should make sure our American values, including the value of freedom of religion are kept intact. Ever heard of something called a united "home front?"
4. Putting a Mosque near Ground Zero is like putting a Nazi museum near Auschwitz. Nazism and Islam are both religions.
Oh god, no. I thought I had read enough about Nazi references. Islam is a religion, Nazism is a political, economic and social movement in Germany during WWII that was tyrannical and SECULAR. Extremist outliers in Islam were responsible for 9/11, and the majority of Islamic scholars have rejected violence. Nazism, and Auschwitz are representatives of a vast movement dedicated to the mass murder of Jews, Gypsies, Russians, Poles, Gays, etc. with a highly interconnected system that perpetuated genocide. They were not the exception, they were the rule.
5. The mosque will desecrate the ground of those who were murdered by people who practice Islam, or at least an element of Islam. Islam is not just a religion, it is also a political doctrine. (Former Sen. Rick Santorum)
This is blatant disregard for the fact that mainstream Islam has denounced the use of violence. You do not collectively punish an entire religion for the acts of a few extremists.
And, that last part...(expletive) you. You're a Roman Catholic-Republican-former Senator, and you are saying that a dangerous aspect of Islam is because it is a political doctrine as well as a religion!!! Really?!?!?! This is coming from the same guy whose positions on privacy, abortion, gay rights and evolution are derived from his Christian morals! The same guy who helped pass the Workplace Religious Freedom Act! Hypocrite doesn't even come close. I guess you were asleep when Christian conservatism also became a "political doctrine." Christian doctrine has pervaded U.S. politics since Independence. It wasn't meant to (ala "separation of church and state"...whatever that means anymore), but it's still there.
Emotion, personal attacks, hyperbolic rhetoric and ridiculous comparisons don't make viable arguments. These naysayers are forgetting the simple value of religious freedom, which must be kept intact.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)