[We have posted many articles on the mosque and ground zero. This one is by far the best.]
Said Mayor Michael Bloomberg to New Yorkers.
BY William Kristol, WEEKLY STANDARD
Last Tuesday, standing in front of the Statue of Liberty, New York mayor Michael Bloomberg spoke on the subject of the proposed mosque at Ground Zero. His remarks will be read with curiosity by future generations of Americans, who will look back in astonishment at the self-deluding pieties and self-destructive dogmas that are held onto, at once smugly and desperately, by today’s liberal elites. Our liberation from those dogmas, and from those elites, is underway across the nation. But it’s worth taking a look at Bloomberg’s speech, if only to remind us of what we need to ascend from so our descendants can look back with curiosity at the ethos to which we did not succumb.
As is the way of contemporary liberals, Bloomberg spoke at a very high level of abstraction. He appealed to the principle of religious toleration, while never mentioning the actual imam who is responsible for and would control the planned Ground Zero mosque. To name Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf might invite a consideration of his background, funding, and intentions. Do Rauf and his backers believe in the principles underlying the “inspiring symbol of liberty” that greets immigrants to the United States and before which Bloomberg stood? Bloomberg didn’t say. It apparently doesn’t matter. Toleration means asking nothing, criticizing nothing, saying nothing, about whom or what one is tolerating. This is the Sergeant Schultz standard of toleration: I know nothing.
Knowing nothing, or wishing to know nothing, about the mosque, Bloomberg took it upon himself to lecture his fellow New Yorkers on their obligation to be true to “the best part of ourselves.” That part is apparently the part of us that allows at once for intellectual obfuscation and moral preening. Bloomberg never acknowledged that sane and tolerant people might object to a 15-story Islamic community center and mosque right next to Ground Zero. He could not be bothered to take seriously the reservations and objections of a clear majority of his constituents. “In fact, to cave to popular sentiment would be to hand a victory to the terrorists—and we should not stand for that.” So public sentiment be damned. There’s nothing to be learned from the ignorant and bigoted residents of New York.
Instead, Bloomberg lectured: “On September 11, 2001, thousands of first responders heroically rushed to the scene and saved tens of thousands of lives. More than 400 of those first responders did not make it out alive. In rushing into those burning buildings, not one of them asked ‘What God do you pray to?’ ‘What beliefs do you hold?’?” True, certainly true. But Bloomberg did not permit himself to ask what vision of god, what set of beliefs, inspired those who set those buildings aflame. Bloomberg said that it was our “spirit of openness and acceptance that was attacked on 9/11.” But attacked by whom? Bloomberg wouldn’t say.
In fact, he denied the propriety of asking such a question. It would have been one thing—a more defensible thing—if Bloomberg had argued that there was little that could be done legally to stop the mosque and that New Yorkers should therefore make the best of a bad situation. But that was not his message. Instead, Bloomberg came to the Statue of Liberty not simply to accept the mosque, but to praise it: “Of course, it is fair to ask the organizers of the mosque to show some special sensitivity to the situation—and in fact, their plan envisions reaching beyond their walls and building an interfaith community. By doing so, it is my hope that the mosque will help to bring our City even closer together. .??.??. I expect the community center and mosque will add to the life and vitality of the neighborhood and the entire City.”
But have the real, existing organizers of the mosque shown much sensitivity to other New Yorkers? The answer is no—but if you’re a contemporary liberal, you don’t get into the actual, existing facts in order to make a judgment. You govern on the basis of what the organizers’ “plan” nominally “envisions,” you appeal to a hope and expectation that even Bloomberg can’t really believe in. But it allows him to avoid coming to grips with what is really happening and what lies behind the popular sentiment of disgust, even revulsion.
The conclusion of Bloomberg’s speech was odd: “Political controversies come and go, but our values and our traditions endure—and there is no neighborhood in this City that is off limits to God’s love and mercy, as the religious leaders here with us can attest.” Do the rest of us need Bloomberg’s hand-picked religious leaders to tell us that there are no limits to God’s love and mercy? We do doubt that encouraging this mosque to be built is an appropriate expression of respect for God’s love and mercy for those who were killed almost nine years ago. And we would note that no expression of New Yorkers’ love and gratitude for the victims of September 11 has yet been built at the site of Ground Zero during Mayor Bloomberg’s tenure.
It is likely, we believe, that civic pressure will cause the mosque to be moved elsewhere—Bloomberg’s lecture notwithstanding. But if Bloomberg were to have his way, it’s worth noting that he would presumably attend a dedication of Feisal Abdul Rauf’s mosque at Ground Zero before he would attend a dedication of a proper memorial to those who died there.
Contemporary liberalism means building a mosque rather than a memorial at Ground Zero—and telling your fellow citizens to shut up about it.
Hophmi, you have been derailed, trying to argue against counter arguments or exchange ad hominem barbs. You are chasing your own tail.
To summarize, your original premise I believe is that the building of the Cordoba project is legal, the plans having been approved by the Lower Manhatten Development Corporation, that Imam Rauf and his cadre have the constitutional right under freedom of religion and the Bill of rights to build their project anywhere they want and that those opposed to the mosque are bigots because their opposition amounts to a refutation of American values of tolerance.
How wrong you are.
This controversial issue is not so much, if at all about the law, constitution and Bill of rights including freedom of religion.
9/11 is still an open wound for most Americans. The opponents are not saying no mosques should be built anywhere. The opposition to this project is saying that the Cordoba project should not be built so close to Ground Zero. There is a huge difference between opposing building any mosque and opposing the location of the mosque.
That difference makes this not an issue of denying freedom of religion, but rather an issue of the opponents of the Cordoba project expecting and demanding from Imam Rauf and his people tolerance and respect for their sensibilities and sensitivities.
This reality puts the lie to your premise that the issue is one of law and freedom of religion.
Imam Rauf has stated that the purpose of building the mosque near ground zero is a matter of Muslim outreach to Americans to build bridges of mutual respect, understanding and tolerance between Islam and non-Muslim religious Americans.
In spite of growing opposition to the site of the Cordoba project, Imam Rauf and his people are pushing forward to build their Cordoba project at the site they chose.
Two things are apparent:
1. Imam Rauf appears intolerant and insensitive to the sensitivities and sensibilities of the very non-Muslim Americans he expects to build bridges of tolerance, respect and mutual understanding with;
2. That Imam Rauf and his cadre are not backing down, they are assuring that their stated purpose, intentions and goals about building bridges will never be realized.
Taking into account that 9/11 was committed in the name of Islam, that there have been a number of hienous terrorist attacks against Americans by Muslims who had hidden their true agendas before they struck and that authorities have uncovered and prevented many terrorist and terrorist supporting plots, many of which were hatched in American mosques by Muslims who disguised their true natures and agendas, there is every good reason to be suspicious of Imam Rauf’s true intentions.
That Rauf in past has refused to cite Hamas as a terrorist group, has accused Americans of having brought 9/11 on themselves and that he refuses to divulge who his financiers are only adds to suspicions as to whether in stating his intentions and goals as regards the Cordoba project, he is telling the truth. Add to that the fact that Rauf’s statement about building bridges as being his noble intent and goal, raises huge credibility issues since his insistance on pushing forward with the project, is burning those bridges before they are even being built.
Opponents of the Cordoba project at the chosen site have every reason to be circumspect and demand answers to the questions they pose. They also in the circumstances have every right to oppose this project, not only pursuant to their own freedom of speech, but their understandable right to have their sensibilities and sensitivies respected and tolerated.
Obviously, you were a square peg in a round hole toddler, and you haven’t changed. What should be known by nature, is missing.
“The stupidity of legal queers marriage will open a literal Pandora box. I love it and hope enough people will challenge the courts on the stupidity of what they have loosed upon America. I love it, really I do. You stupid assholes don’t yet fathom what you are creating.”
Keep screaming, Chicken “Fred Phelps” Little. And while you’re at it, perhaps you can point to one example of a heterosexual couple who did not marry because gay people were granted the right to marriage.
“recreational sex can be regulated or not as long as they make babies they fulfill the biblical and biological purpose of sex and humans. Queers don’t meet either criteria.”
So do you favor regulating recreational sex or not? How about contraception? I assume you’re against condoms.
We then should all file papers to marry our daughters. Brothers and Brother, sisters and sisters, mothers and sons, mothers and daughters fathers and sons, The marriage options now become infinite. Break one set of societies normative values others take their place. If the courts uphold the principle that everyone has the right to marriage they can have no reason or legal argument to ban any other options that will open to us. It will have destroyed the whole purpose and concept of marriage.
The stupidity of legal queers marriage will open a literal Pandora box. I love it and hope enough people will challenge the courts on the stupidity of what they have loosed upon America. I love it, really I do. You stupid assholes don’t yet fathom what you are creating.
Any so called rabbi performing such a ceremony should be dis-rabbied with his head removed from hist torso, Muslims got somethings right.
recreational sex can be regulated or not as long as they make babies they fulfill the biblical and biological purpose of sex and humans. Queers don’t meet either criteria.
“The posing of such a question speaks volumes about postmodern society. The outlook for the future of civilization is very bleak.”
Don’t give me that nonsense. This is not postmodernism. If this were postmodernism, there would be no need for the question because there would be no need to discuss core values in the first place. You suggest that gay marriage offends or affects your core values. You do not bother to say which ones or how they affect your core values. This is, frankly, why gay marriage is becoming accepted, because at the end of the day, opponents cannot articulate any real arguments against it save religious dicta and empty calls to “respect tradition.” Saying it offends your core values is not an argument. Simply citing tradition is not an argument either. It’s the same nonsense that was used to defend slavery, denying women the right to vote, segregation, and so on down the line. Every one of them was accompanied by hyperbole about this change causing the destruction of society.
You can’t answer that question because there is not, in fact, any “core value” gay marriage actually offends. It doesn’t offend the core value of monogamy; it supports it. It doesn’t offend the core value of marriage for the purpose of creating a family, since most gay couples seem to want to start families. In fact, it creates additional opportunities for adoption. So I’m asking you, which core values are lost?
And why is that an argument against legalizing gay marriage? It seems to me that no sexual practice is more widespread than heterosexual promiscuity. Should we outlaw that, since it offends the core values of sex for procreation and sexual monogamy? Should we outlaw adultery which leads to divorce? Should we outlaw divorce, which is now over 50% nationwide?
core value is lost by legalizing gay marriage?
The posing of such a question speaks volumes about postmodern society. The outlook for the future of civilization is very bleak.
“So, let’s say, for the sake of argument, that some, to varying degrees among different individuals, do have a natural tendency toward that behavior. Does that mean that it is not a lifestyle choice?”
I think the science suggests a lot more than a tendency. That aside, I’m always puzzled by the use of the word lifestyle. It’s as if a homosexual person is defined only by who they have sex with. In the context of a discussion on gay marriage, it seems particularly out of place, since marriage is a very traditional “lifestyle choice.” And again, the comparisons to obvious criminal/immoral/unethical acts are strange. How is homosexuality like violence, stealing, or lying?
“This reinforces my perception that America as we have known her is finished. Once you lose core values the society is unsustainable.”
Yamit, if American conservatives are anything like you (and most thankfully are nothing like you), it would definitely be finished.
“Once you lose core values the society is unsustainable.”
What core value is lost by legalizing gay marriage?
apparently American public opinion is evenly split for and against but there is a wide gap between conservatives and the rest except for the over 45 age group where a big majority are against. The under 45 age group a majority are in favor.
This reinforces my perception that America as we have known her is finished. Once you lose core values the society is unsustainable. Every Empire and civilization self-destructed from within before they were defeated from outside. America seems to be well on the way to self-destruction.
Genetics or not, there does seem to be a predisposition in some people toward homosexuality. So, let’s say, for the sake of argument, that some, to varying degrees among different individuals, do have a natural tendency toward that behavior. Does that mean that it is not a lifestyle choice? No; some people are predisposed to be violent, to steal, or be untruthful. These are natural impulses that some people are more prone to to than others. Sexual behavior is also driven by natural impulses, but it is up to the individual to decide what to do with the impulses. Because there is a division over what is right and what is wrong, people are faced with a choice. Sheep anyone? Those who choose to give into their desires will also be more likely choose ideology to support their choices. There you have why homosexuals tend to leftist ideology, and why the left will propagate such behavior in their attempt to normalize their deeds as an acceptable lifestyle.
“Taking your argument of 1st amendment rights, Why not polygamy?”
Because outside of extreme Mormons, nobody wants polygamy, and because the outlawing of polygamy was not specifically directed at the Mormons.
By the way, what on earth does the legalization of homosexuality or gay marriage have to do with polygamy? Most conservatives argue that we should preserve traditional marriage because traditionally marriage is about making children and preserving “the traditional definition” of one man-one woman. Seems to that polygamy both produces children and is an old tradition.
“Why can’t I marry a sheep or dog?”
Have people been asking to marry sheeps and dogs? Can animals consent? What does any of this have to do with gay marriage? Can sheep and dogs vote? Do they have constitutional rights? Are they religious? Do you not realize how utterly ridiculous this argument is? Or how reminiscent of dumb slippery slope arguments made every time a right is expanded?
“The right according to the ruling of the court is the right to marry . It say nothing relating to gender, numbers or species.”
Right. Because bigamy and beastiality are ILLEGAL, yamit82, and there are strong, credible secular arguments underpinning the prohibition of both. There’s no reason for the court to discuss it.
“Your argument is silly and when expanded to it’s silly conclusions you and those like you prove to be idiots. Your specious arguments are no more than logical fallacies.”
Yes, you can keep stating that, but in the absence of argument, fact, logic, intelligence, and common sense, it’s not going to become true.
“Queers by any definition are social and sexual deviants.”
No, yamit82, gays (welcome to the 20th century) are social and sexual deviants by YOUR definition. Actually, yamit82, I’d say given your views, you are definitely a social deviant of some kind. Sexually I wouldn’t presume to guess.
“To have sex does not require a formal legal marriage.”
Maybe, yamit82, it’s not about sex for them. Did you ever think of that?
“Their only purpose in pressing the issue is to gain benefits from the state afforded to normal couples and or to destroy the moral values of the nation just like the left seeks.”
Yeah, some of it is about benefits, I’m sure. I see nothing wrong with seeking to pay the same marriage tax penalties as other Americans in a country with a 50 percent divorce rate. But a lot of it is about being able to express their love for each other in a frankly traditional and normal way. How this destroys your moral values I’m not sure. There are so many things in this world that the right claims destroys moral values, from Hollywood to pornography to divorce to affirmative action to TV to government. (Not stuff like Wall Street or the death penalty, of course.) It would seem to me that two people who want to affirm their monogamy is the least of your problems.
“Interesting that most queers seem to be on the political left, so it can’t be genetic and must be lifestyle choice. ”
That’s a great argument. Most Jews and Blacks are on the political left too, so I guess being Jewish or Black is not genetic either. It could have something to do with the fact that people don’t usually join the political forces of people who hate them.
“Where I grew up the kids on the block had a saying” Kill a queer for Jesus” We thought is funny then and some I suspect still do.”
That’s unfortunate, yamit82. I’ll leave it at that.
Taking your argument of 1st amendment rights, Why not polygamy? Limitations on numbers is a religious concept not a legal one. Why can’t I marry a sheep or dog. Where is my 1st amendment rights? The right according to the ruling of the court is the right to marry . It say nothing relating to gender, numbers or species. Your argument is silly and when expanded to it’s silly conclusions you and those like you prove to be idiots. Your specious arguments are no more than logical fallacies. Queers by any definition are social and sexual deviants. To have sex does not require a formal legal marriage. They can sodomize each other grounded in a legal contract. Their only purpose in pressing the issue is to gain benefits from the state afforded to normal couples and or to destroy the moral values of the nation just like the left seeks.
Interesting that most queers seem to be on the political left, so it can’t be genetic and must be lifestyle choice.
Where I grew up the kids on the block had a saying” Kill a queer for Jesus” We thought is funny then and some I suspect still do.
“Then you are in favor of polygamy, incest, bestiality etc. the basis in law for their proscription is religious.”
Huh? I know you love to make that utterly ridiculous argument that legalizing homosexuality is the same as legalizing these other practices, but I’m sorry to say that it does not permit you to impute support for these practices to everyone who supports gay marriage.
“It is your views that seem to be the anomaly not mine. Mine are in line with over 70% of all Americans and yours?”
Which views? Your views on banning homosexuality altogether are not in line with mainstream views.
“So Americas laws reflect the values of most Americans and as a Canadian what thew hell do you care about the 1st amendment? Your knowledge on 1st amendment law is about as shallow as your knowledge of Judaism and Islam.”
I have no idea what you’re talking about here. You keep citing public opinion statistics. They have nothing to do with First Amendment arguments.
“Are you a Queer hophmi? You do protest too much?”
My sexuality is none of your damned business. What’s your sexuality? You tell me yours and I’ll tell you mine. I’m just an American who believes in First Amendment values and believes that gay people deserve the right to marry if they want it. That’s all that’s important here.
“A queer Muslim bar next to the Mosque is a novel idea. How about a halal meat market called Porky’s meat emporium. or the Halal Pig Market? Just an idea considering 1st amendment rights etc.”
Sure, go for it. It’s the argument of people who have no arguments.
Ted my comment blocked again
Then you are in favor of polygamy, incest, bestiality etc. the basis in law for their proscription is religious. It is your views that seem to be the anomaly not mine. Mine are in line with over 70% of all Americans and yours? So Americas laws reflect the values of most Americans and as a Canadian what thew hell do you care about the 1st amendment? Your knowledge on 1st amendment law is about as shallow as your knowledge of Judaism and Islam.
Are you a Queer hophmi? You do protest too much?
A queer Muslim bar next to the Mosque is a novel idea. How about a halal meat market called Porky’s meat emporium. or the Halal Pig Market? Just an idea considering 1st amendment rights etc.
When the Muezzin blast his call to prayer over mega sized speakers 5 times a day starting at 5am I want to see who wins the battle of 1st amendment.
So this is the only mosque being planned in the US, I take it? ‘Cause I don’t hear too much ruckus, about others.
As they say in the real estate biz, location, location, location.
The level of outcry is, in this case, overwhelmingly about location. To say otherwise, makes you look ignorant.
“Charles was specific as there is no difference between on mosque an another, There is no reconstructionist Islam, no reform Mosques. Islam is by definition orthodoxy. You don’t need to dissect each imman and his quotes and thoughts. ”
Exactly. Which proves that opposition to the mosque has nothing to do with where it’s located. Charles just doesn’t support the First Amendment. It’s OK, he’s entitled to his viewpoint. I’ll look forward to his (and your) campaign to repeal it.
I called you an imbecile, Moron would be as apt. Charles was specific as there is no difference between on mosque an another, There is no reconstructionist Islam, no reform Mosques. Islam is by definition orthodoxy. You don’t need to dissect each imman and his quotes and thoughts. If his beliefs were different than orthodoxy he wouldn’t be.
The issue is precisely this imam, who advocates for Sharia. You’re chasing your tail now so I’ll make this my last post on the subject.
Your comments on alleged sexual abuse are vague but the matter is irrelevant; Orthodox Judaism doesn’t endorse, advocate, or apologize for child molestation. It is recognized as a crime in the community. That there may be Orthodox Jews who have committed the crime or others who may have protected the perpetrators doesn’t make the abuse widespread and doesn’t institutionalize the practice within Orthodox Judaism. Sharia and the abominations it purveys, are part and parcel of orthodox Islam — as practiced in Sunni Saudi Arabia, Shia Iran and advocated for in the US by Rauf.
You’re correct that the First Amendment protects religious thought but when violence against women, against homosexuals, against non-Muslims is an integral part of a belief system, enshrined in the sacred books of that belief system, taught in the pews and schools of that belief system, and advocated for as part of a perversion to the Constitution of the United States by the leaders of that belief system, there is reason to worry in my view, to monitor very closely the adherents of that belief system, and to ask pointed questions about funding and doctrine.
I’m certain Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, and other “bigots” would agree.
“A red herring and a straw man. As I wrote, there is no recognized theological school within Judaism or Christianity today that advocates for the execution of homosexuals — as does Sharia. As such, and for the other abominations integral to Sharia which are antithetical to the Constitution, it must never be given an opportunity to gain a foothold here.”
Again, you make general statements about Sharia and none about this actual mosque or this actual imam.
“Produce some evidence that this is widespread or consistent with taught orthodoxy or Orthodoxy.”
It’s unfortunately quite widespread in very religious Orthodox communities, such as those in Williamsburg and Boro Park. There are Talmudic bases for this behavior, but most of it is a cultural holdover from communities where Jews had much more tenuous relations with the governing authorities and snitching carried obvious dangers for the entire community. That’s why there have been major campaigns by Dov Hikind and others to get victims to speak out, and even these have faced serious opposition. As with anything of this nature, statistics are difficult because people keep quiet. But do a search in the Jewish Press or the Jewish Week and you’ll find plenty of articles on the issue. I mean, for G-d sakes, look at the Catholic Church. How many times have you heard the Pope and other clergy talk about settling issues of culpability for the molestation crisis through Canon Law rather than civil law?
“You’ve got it backwards. A religious position does not guarantee the exercise of First Amendment “rights”. Read Reynolds v. the United States.”
Yes, the bigamy case. But what you advocate is punishing people for thought, not action. The law in Reynolds did not outlaw favoring bigamy as a political position. It outlawed the practice of bigamy. Brigham Young could still go around and tell people he favored bigamy. He could petition his representative in Congress to overturn the bigamy statute. Sharia may favor stoning homosexuals. Stoning homosexuals is illegal. If the Imam brings a challenge to the criminal law outlawing murder and says it violates his First Amendment rights because it does not include an exception for the stoning of homosexuals, he’s going to lose for the same reason Reynolds lost his suit to overturn the bigamy statute.
A red herring and a straw man. As I wrote, there is no recognized theological school within Judaism or Christianity today that advocates for the execution of homosexuals — as does Sharia. As such, and for the other abominations integral to Sharia which are antithetical to the Constitution, it must never be given an opportunity to gain a foothold here.
Produce some evidence that this is widespread or consistent with taught orthodoxy or Orthodoxy.
You’ve got it backwards. A religious position does not guarantee the exercise of First Amendment “rights”. Read Reynolds v. the United States.
“Are you fucking thick? He advocates for Sharia and all of those abominations are integral to Sharia. They’re not a part of any recognized theological school of either Judaism or Christianity today.”
And he responds with profanity. You must be kidding. Have you ever read what some of the evangelicals have to say about homosexuality?
“And your Beth din example stinks. Beth din respects and is subordinate to secular law in the country”
What makes you think that granting the Muslims something similar would not conform to secular law? I don’t believe Rauf is advocating a system of allowing Islamic criminal courts here. And by the way, the practice of keeping religious law within the Jewish community does NOT always conform to secular law. Witness the growing scandal of child molestation in the Orthodox community, where no one wants to talk to the police because they could face societal shunning for turning in another Jew.
And yet again, I must remind you that a political position does not disqualify someone from exercising their First Amendment rights. Holding that Muslims should be allowed to govern themselves with Sharia is a political position. If an institution actually practiced illegal activities, a la polygamy like the Mormons, that would be a different story.
As far as Yamit’s comments on homosexuality: I believe Christianity also prohibits homosexuality. I’ll simply say he’s entitled to his dinosaur views on sexual morality but not entitled to have the law of the land reflect those views.
Charles is correct hophmi is an imbecile. The principle in Jewish law is: DINA DE MALCHUTA DINA [ THE LAW OF THE LAND IS THE LAW ]
There are a few exceptions but this is the principle.
Of all major religions, only Judaism and Islam explicitly prohibit homosexuality. Ataturk understood the importance of sexual morality for religion, thus protected and promoted homosexuals in his drive to uproot Islam. In Egypt, relaxation of anti-gay laws similarly took place when secular government confronted Islam. Conservative and Reform Judaism are the only two major religious movements that accept gay and lesbian priests. These rootless movements have no values to defend.
Historically, many cultures tolerated homosexuality, but many had also tolerated excessive drinking, violent conquests, or communism. Acceptance of a behavioral trait doesn’t prove its morality. Societies are often intolerant to alien rather than abominable practices. In the past twenty years, American attitudes quickly moved toward acceptance of homosexuality because media made that lifestyle familiar, non-threatening. But the public acceptance of homosexuality sunk after the Massachusetts court mandated gay marriage and therefore posed a threat to societal values. In Judaism, homosexuality threatens ritual purity of the society.
Torah bans gay relations and various improbable modes of female bestiality, but not lesbian relations. The message is clear: any recreational sex is fine, but do not deviate from normal procreation. One of Judaism’s major tenets is sanctity of life, specifically of moral life. Gay relations threaten that tenet on both counts: of life and morality. Only a tiny fraction of homosexuals are biological deviants. For most, homosexuality is a lifestyle issue. Or should we imagine that pop culture and media are stuffed with biological deviants?
Homosexuality is not the only biological deviation. There are various mental diseases—kleptomania, for example. But people with these diseases don’t promote their lifestyle in schools. We don’t proclaim stealing an innocent behavior because a number of people cannot abstain from stealing. Societies suppress harmful behaviors, whether lifestyle choices or inborn traits.
Homosexuality is often a conspicuous sign of moral degradation. Homosexuality is widespread among self-hating Jews, cosmopolitan pop idols, and the ultra-left.
It must be for a reason that every major religion condemns homosexuality. Hinduism, Buddhism, and Confucianism are silent on homosexuality, but implicitly condemn it as a failure to meet the major societal obligations of familial life and procreation. Homosexuality, in statistical terms, is a deviation without any signs of being a beneficial trait. And people naturally detest deviations because they threaten social stability. Prohibition of homosexuality is not central to the Torah. The ban on homosexuality merely interprets the Ten Commandments’ prohibition of adultery. The Torah contains several lists of sexual taboos, and only one such list includes homosexuality. Still, the prohibition is there.
A ban on homosexuality is not tremendously important per se, but it underscores the gap between the Torah’s moral purity and the impurity of political correctness. Expunging homosexuals from the Land of Israel would be a declaration of abandonment of leftism in favor of Jewish values. A society which proscribed homosexuals would smoothly continue to proscribing Arabs and members of subversive groups like Peace Now.
Are you fucking thick? He advocates for Sharia and all of those abominations are integral to Sharia. They’re not a part of any recognized theological school of either Judaism or Christianity today.
Nice attempt at disinfection but he doesn’t say “as long as they don’t conflict with American law”. He says “leeway to judge among themselves according to their own laws”. FULL STOP.
And your Beth din example stinks. Beth din respects and is subordinate to secular law in the country.
Try again?
Interesting choice of screen names. Intentional misspelling of Hophni? Hophni would seem to fit who you appear to be. You seem to have a grasp of Hebrew by inferring I am of female gender?
The terms fag Kapo and scumbag, seem to rattle you and your delicate sensitivities. Hmmm I’ve considered Ted’s suggestion and I think I will execute my first amendment right to express myself in a way befitting my understanding and my point of view those persona and situations that I deem warrants the use of those perfectly acceptable terms and found in all dictionaries and thesaurus.
example: n. slang
as a disparaging term for this homosexual man. I could have used in place of fag: fairy, nance, pansy, queen, queer, poof, poove, pouf.
Or I could have just called him a sexual deviant abomination, that is abhorrent and condemned in all monotheistic religions and frowned upon in Hinduism and Buddhism. I think though that Fag is short not overly wordy and expresses in perfectly clear English what I was trying to convey. Likewise Kapo and scumbag.
No society should be tolerant of social deviants. Every society by trial and error evolution develops norms and values and deviants tend to disrupt and threaten, even destroy time developed societal values. Defending ones values overrides any consideration of the feelings and pique of those few deviants who would impose alien norms and values on a majority. That’s akin to abnormal sections of a given population, afflicted with cycle-cell anemia determining the genetics of a population devastated by malaria, abnormals survive and normals die out.
In Jewish Law the penalty for male homosexual public behavior is death but 2 witnesses are required for conviction. What is done in private is of little concern to the society in general. Female homos are not included in the prohibition. Just males.
“Lol. If Rabbis in this country advocated for the execution of homosexuals, the stoning of adulteresses, and the institutionalized discrimination of all non-Jews, their First Amendment rights would come under the same scrutiny and justifiably so.”
What evidence do you have that Rauf actually holds any of those positions? And by the way, the Torah sanctions every practice on your list to some extent. The question is whether they would practice any of these things. Same goes for Christians.
“For the record, here’s what Rauf wrote:
“For America to score even higher on the ‘Islamic’ or ‘Sharia’ compliance scale, America would need to do two things: invite the voices of all religions to join the dialogue in shaping the nation’s practical life, and allow religious communities more leeway to judge among themselves according to their own laws.””
Sounds like any Christian evangelical – let religion play a role in shaping American societal life, and allow us to shield our children from culture as we see fit. Religious communities already have this leeway, so long as they don’t conflict with American law. The Beth Din, for example.
“If that’s the kind of society you wish to live in, I suggest you ship off for Mecca or Tehran.”
I extend the same offer to you, since you apparently don’t care to respect the First Amendment, whether willfully or out of ignorance.
Lol. If Rabbis in this country advocated for the execution of homosexuals, the stoning of adulteresses, and the institutionalized discrimination of all non-Jews, their First Amendment rights would come under the same scrutiny and justifiably so.
For the record, here’s what Rauf wrote:
“For America to score even higher on the ‘Islamic’ or ‘Sharia’ compliance scale, America would need to do two things: invite the voices of all religions to join the dialogue in shaping the nation’s practical life, and allow religious communities more leeway to judge among themselves according to their own laws.”
If that’s the kind of society you wish to live in, I suggest you ship off for Mecca or Tehran.
“I’ve provided you with evidence that a large segment of the mosques in the US are Saudi-funded and supported and that this represents a serious threat to the civil liberties pseudo-libertarians like you claim to support. ”
You presented me with a Freedom House report that says nothing about this mosque.
“The imam refuses to divulge where his funding is coming from so its not possible (at the moment) to follow the money.”
And he doesn’t have to.
“However, we do know — because he has said so — that Rauf advocates for Sharia.”
I have seen that he is a follower of Sharia law. I know rabbis who follow Torah law. Does that mean they should not be permitted to build synagogues?
“The rest, on your part, is just ad hominem.”
None of it is. The truth hurts. Sorry.
I’ve provided you with evidence that a large segment of the mosques in the US are Saudi-funded and supported and that this represents a serious threat to the civil liberties pseudo-libertarians like you claim to support. The imam refuses to divulge where his funding is coming from so its not possible (at the moment) to follow the money. However, we do know — because he has said so — that Rauf advocates for Sharia. That’s really all we need to know. The rest, on your part, is just ad hominem.
hophmi: Do not allow the lynch mob to get the better of you. You may expect that you will soon hear cries, Ted get rid of hophmi, he has the audacity to offer a contrary point of view, which is heresy in these parts.
You may rest assured, should this issue come to the courts, the blockage of the construction of the mosque would clearly be ruled as unconstitutional. A violation of freedom of religion.
But what does this gang care about the U.S. constitution or the well being of America?
You present no evidence that this mosque is Wahhabist. You present no evidence that the Imam is a Wahhabist. You present no evidence that the worshippers are Wahhabist. You present no evidence that this mosque is a threat. All you present is a report that says there is too much Saudi money flowing through American mosques. This is not a First Amendment argument; there are no serious First Amendments against the mosque.
Your opposition is based on the fact that this is a mosque. And your argument suggests that no mosque should be built anywhere, because it might be founded with Saudi money. That’s a bigoted position.
This is becoming a tired tactic; there is apparently no Muslim moderate enough to satisfy those who say only moderate Islam should be permitted. But in the end, most of the bigots are simply applying a political test, a sort of loyalty oath where the imam must say “I love America” and “I love Israel” in order to pass the test. I happen to have no problem saying either statement myself, but I know flimflam when I see it, and your arguments are flimflam.
16 minutes between the time I posted and the time you replied; somehow I don’t think you had time to read the 95-page report from Freedom House. If you had, you wouldn’t be so quick to shit a cheap, meaningless label that you picked up watching MSNBC or reading LGF and that only serves to distract from the issue.
I’ll repeat my position so you can see that I’m focused on the law, not on what you consider “bigotry”. The First Amendment is not unconditional. There have been a host of groups engaged in practices under the banner of the First Amendment where members were arrested or where the group was threatened with Federal action like a loss of tax-exempt status because their “religious” practices did not conform to the law or because they threatened the safety and security of the community or nation. The Mormons are one example.
As documented in the Freedom House report, a large number of mosques in the US — perhaps a majority — are Saudi-funded and supported with books, training, and educational materials. These mosques preach and practice the most extreme, hateful, vile and truly BIGOTED dogma one can imagine. They consider you as a Jew to be a virus unworthy of life or liberty. They want to see Sharia law enacted in this country — something that if ever came into being would violate nearly all of our Constitutional rights, turn women into chattel, and permit discrimination against all who are not Muslim. That’s the dominant – and ascendant — state of Islam in the world today and one that is being propagated and funded right here in the US.
Does my desire to see that ideology blocked and diminished make me a bigot? You may wish to look up the word before you decide.
“Lol. You attempt to use public sentiment as an argument in support of the mosque and when I demonstrate that a majority of New Yorkers are opposed, you change arguments. Slick.”
I didn’t change arguments. I merely pointed out a fact. The fact is that Manhattanites favor it and it’s going up in Manhattan. Zoning is a local issue. Utica has no say over Manhattan. Neither does Yaphank. The First Amendment is nationwide, however, and the relevant analogs in the New York State Constitution are statewide. I rely on those.
“A $100 million mosque will generate oodles of construction jobs, purchase oodles of building materials and hire oodles of employees who pay taxes just like other businesses. That’s big wampum for the city.”
Not as much as a $100 office building would. It’s New York. Most things are more profitable than an Islamic community center.
“No one here is engaged in any illegal practices. Islam is not illegal.
Not yet.”
Thank you for making my point for me, that opposition to the mosque is about bigotry.
Lol. You attempt to use public sentiment as an argument in support of the mosque and when I demonstrate that a majority of New Yorkers are opposed, you change arguments. Slick.
A $100 million mosque will generate oodles of construction jobs, purchase oodles of building materials and hire oodles of employees who pay taxes just like other businesses. That’s big wampum for the city.
Not yet.
OK, a majority of New Yorkers oppose the mosque. What does that prove, exactly? Nothing morally, unless you believe in the morality of the mob. Your First Amendment argument is bigotry, not law. No one here is engaged in any illegal practices. Islam is not illegal. Everyone, including the ADL, acknowledges that the law is certainly not on their side here. That’s because this is not about law. This is about fear and bigotry.
The community board has economic interests? What would those be, exactly? This is a community center and a place of religious worship, not a business.
Kristol’s piece is the usual collection of red herrings to avoid the issue. It is not about whether a memorial has been built for the victims. That’s demagogic poppycock. It is also not about how much the builders have reached out to other New Yorkers. As a Jew, I wouldn’t avoid building a synagogue somewhere in Manhattan because someone in Utica or Yaphank doesn’t like it.
You conveniently omit all New Yorkers outside of Manhattan:
http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local-beat/New-Yorkers-Oppose-Ground-Zero-Mosque-Poll-97602569.html
http://www.nypost.com/p/blogs/knickerbocker/majority_of_ny_ers_oppose_ground_X7jkOAS2wzSnL6bLgBR0jK
The community board has economic interests.
The First Amendment is not unconditional. When a “religious” group is engaged in illegal or unconstitutional practices, i.e., child molestation, polygamy, we are not obliged to accommodate them or allow them a safe house.
. . . will choose to use a sledge instead of a finishing hammer.
Yamit is actually a very smart guy who delights in shocking but it doesn’t take away from his insights. I am sure we can do without the perjorative terms like “fag”. Perhaps Yamit should reconsider.
It’s unfortunate that someone like yamit82 is permitted to post on your blog, Ted. I’m not sure what she contributes except her bigotry. What use have you for a person who uses phrases like “fag judge” and “Kapo Jew scumbag?”
Kristol is simply wrong on several fronts. A majority of Manhattanites favor the community center. The local community board favors the community center. And with all due respect, positions of soft bigotry are always favored by “sane” people (and in this case it’s a minority, not a majority). That’s why we have a First Amendment. We don’t throw the First Amendment (or any other part of the Bill of Rights) in the garbage every time we don’t love the group exercising it.
I view the building of ground zero mosque as a partisan American issue and not a Jewish or Israeli issue. We have more important concerns on our plate than fighting others internal battles. That said, Bloomberg and those like him are Kapo Jew scumbags and should be treated as such.
Nobody is deceiving anyone who is not already predisposed to being deceived or they are just brain-dead. Unfortunate most Americans seem to fall into the categories I listed,so America will succumb in the end. Bye Bye America.
Many people, and especlaily liberals, are confused with WHAT they are dealing with. They fail to see the ESSENSE of the problem. Instead, they are looking at the FORM. in case of the muslims, the form is a RELIGION, the essense is an ENEMY. People preaching Islam, willingly or not, are subjected by the dogmas of Islam fed to the masses in the form of the “holy war”. Whether we want it or not, the war is declared and is going on for many years now. Opening one’s eyes in clear defintion of who is one’s enemy, is the first most important step if we want to surive. Liberals and progressives like Blumberg and Obama, are deceiving all of us by calling to our natural sense of humanity and habit to tolerance. Objectively, they are acting as the agents of the proponents of the “shariah law”. So, objectively, they are the same. Wake up, the threat is mortal!
You may be right. Everything we know and have heard about Islam and Mosques is and has not been good. For a religion, it certainly has a bad track record. Make things even worst, you don’t find too many so called moderate Muslims calling out on radical Islam.
Why do they want a mosque at ground zero, maybe a symbol of Muslim victory at America’s financial district.
The mayor gave a weak and gutless excuse hiding behind religious tolerance, forgetting the sensitivity of the families and friends of those who died there. Well Bloomberg, that puts you in the same category as Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod. Good company, huh.
They are not Jewish, on JINO.
I don’t know why it is so difficult to understand Islam, to be properly understood, is not a religion, in the pedestrian concept of the word “religion.” Islam is not a religion in the sense of a spiritual view explaining of mankind’s existence in the Universe. Islam is a political proselytizing world view in which their “religion” is to kill you unless you adhere to
their “preaching” Here I use a word which further shows the cause of misunderstanding. Preachers preaching death as “religious” oratory is politics in disguise. Islam is politics. It is not a religion. We accept its pretension of being labeled a religion at our peril. Notwithstanding, if, to be kind –or not fools — we continue to believe the argument that a world view termed Islam can be accepted as a “religion” as in ordinary accepted connotation, we will all soon be drinking Kool Aid.
I share SarahSue’s outlook.
I agree. However, there are a lot of really good people left in America, not a majority, but really good people have never been a majority. America may never reach the same heights, but the remnant of good people in America will stand taller, maybe than ever.
I’m afraid I essentially agree with yamit82 on this. America is on a downward drift, and in a few years they will be where Britain is today, and then later on, even worse. America’s growing financial crisis alone will wreak tremendous distruction in the not too distant future, and with everything else, it will be very bad, I fear.
Sorry to disagree with you SarahSue but the fag Judge who ruled in favor of the deviants in California drove a near fatal blow to what was left of normal America. The inmates now control the asylum.
We can now marry a sheep or dog even a stump of a tree. We all now have a constitutional right to marry. Think of all the possibilities that have been opened up by this decision?
Americans, as a group, are a kind, generous, tolerant group of people. The private money donated to 9/11 victims was the largest amount ever collected for a disaster in the history of America.
Mayor Bloomberg is trying get us to extend that generosity to the very people that caused the tragedy. He is trying to make us understand that all religions are the same and deserve the same protections.
We need to remove the umbrella of religion from islam. We need to see that it is not the same as the religions that our forefathers tried to protect.
No leader has had the guts to say that islam is not a religion, and in fact, all mosques need to be removed from American. It is not just the mosque at Ground Zero, but all mosques that are an issue.
The American people are being forced to come up to speed on exactly what islam is. It is a painful journey, but one that has to be made. I have faith in my fellow Americans that they will get there.
The ideology that promotes dhimmitude is repugnant to Americans. When they realize that is the direction that islam is taking us, the battle will be won.