Piss Off, Wingnuts

Posted on 08/06/2010 at 2:20 pm by Bob Cesca

The “ground zero mosque” story is pretty much a thing of the past at this point, but it’s worth mentioning that there were Muslim prayer ceremonies INSIDE the Pentagon after 9/11. You know, the building that was also struck by a hijacked airplane on that day.

And there were Muslim iftar dinners at the White House during the Bush administration.

President and Mrs. Bush host an iftar dinner every year because they want people around the world to know how much they respect Islam and the many Muslims living in the U.S. who are free to worship as they want, and are an integral part of our society,” said Gordon Johndroe, spokesman for the White House National Security Council.

Also, while not “two blocks away,” there are a number of shinto shrines in Honolulu — just eight miles or so from the sunken U.S.S. Arizona at Pearl Harbor.

So go eff yourselves, you intolerant unconstitutional wingnut bigots.

This entry was posted in Terrorism and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • Elias Schewel

    Hear! Hear! Tell ‘em, Bob. Love the blog

  • http://www.apple.com/iPhone/specs.HTML Ronna Sommers

    So very proud of Mayor Bloomberg & brave supporters for standing up for the Cordoba Center-I’m overwhelmed, actually.. They are the living proof of our constitution, and show that it is A LIVING document…FOR ALL..!

  • http://kcdad.livejournal.com Charles Brown

    Not one of the wingnut Neopublicans can tell the truth about the community center. They have to use “ground zero”,(it’s not), “a mosque” (which doesn’t mean place of worship , but instead a place for gathering), and any other inflammatory buzz words they can think of (or that Frank Luntz can give them).

  • http://www.bubblegenius.com pea

    I think I love you.

  • josephS

    Sorry Cesca, but I don’t agree with you on this one, starting with your invective. Yeah, there are some “wing-nut” bigots involved, but most in opposition are not. There are Muslims in this country concerned about the project as well, because they know that $100,000,000 mosques need funding and there’s a history of involvement from the Muslim Brotherhood and others (but, who cares, right?). eff’n this , eff’n that – sound like a 40-somthing adolescent.This ulitmately has nothing to do with the Constitution. Nobody (of consequence) is suggesting we change the Constitution. A little sensitivity on the part of the Cordoba House promoters? Yes. But that doesn’t seem to be forthcoming, because they’re too busy participating in an excercise (I guess is what you’re saying), what, to make this all about the 1st Amendment? Whatever happened to sensitivity to the wishes, feelings, and concerns of the victims’ families? What of context? Oh I know, some have grudgingly gone along with the proposal – but what else could they do? Mayor Bloomberg (Mr. Constitutionality?) has dubiously come out and chastised them for their apparent lack of tolerance!There are New York firefighters opposed to Cordoba House as well – more “intolerant unconstitutional wingnut bigots”?? There’s a wellspring of sentiment across the country that sees the placement of the mosque as proposed as an exercise in poor taste. Just more “intolerant unconstitutional wingnut bigots”?? More than half of liberal New York opposes the Cordoba House “community center.” Just more “intolerant unconstitutional wingnut bigots”?? Staten Island reeeaally doesn’t like the idea (I can just hear you – “Yeah, but Staten Island is 70% white. Duh”). Just more “intolerant unconstitutional wingnut bigots”??But never mind all that shit. This is about the Constitution! says Mr. Cesca. Give me that mosque or give me death!Are we all just robots, or do we just act like them sometimes? Where’s your tolerance? Any compassion in there? Any sensitivity? Awareness? So far I’m not seeing it, either from you or Cordoba House.

  • alopecia

    @josephS: To the best of my knowledge, no one objected to Christian churches being built in Oklahoma City after Timothy McVeigh (a blond, blue-eyed Christian) blew up the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building, or even made the claim that doing so was insensitive to the victims.What is the substantive difference between Oklahoma City and Lower Manhattan?That’s not snark, I really want to know your answer. If it’s insensitive for Muslims, who were not involved in the attack on the World Trade Center towers, to build a community center two blocks away from the site of the attack, why was it not insensitive for Christians, who were not involved in the attack on the Murrah Building, to build churches near that site?Two other points, if I may:”… [T]here’s a history of involvement from the Muslim Brotherhood …” Feisal Abdul Rauf denies any connection to the Muslim Brotherhood. What evidence to the contrary do you have?”This ulitmately has nothing to do with the Constitution.” Yes, it does. Do you truly not see the constitutional ramifications of subjecting one religious group’s plans to greater scrutiny than others’? Do you not see the constitutional ramifications of doing public opinion polling on whether a specific religious group should be allowed to build a community center (to serve members of that religion in that area) on property they own?Again, I’m not being snarky, I’m trying to understand.

  • jane

    Gosh, alopecia, I hear crickets.

  • josephS

    @alopecia – If the KKK rather than “Cordoba House” had gathered up the funds to purchase the property and planned to build a 20-story monument to Hitler and “the supreme intent and accomplishments” of Hitler’s Reichstag, by your logic, those who opposed the project (and there would be many) would and should be condemned for their opposition.After all, it’s not about the negative connotations and feelings resulting from such an outrage and total lack of sensitivity to victims, survivors etc, it’s all about the Constitution!” Cesca would be right there accusing opponents of being “intolerant unconstitutional wingnut bigots”, and Mr. Bloomberg would be right there backing him up.Or would he? I doubt it. Oh, he might make a quick comment about the 1st amendment, but I’ll bet you $100,000,000 he’d make sure everyone knew how “inappropriate” he felt the plans were. Hell, he’d probably even express that view “on behalf of all New Yorkers and the country.”I’m not saying Cordoba House is akin to the KKK – not whatsoever – but I think you see my point. Opponents to Cordoba House want answers to questions. They want their concerns addressed and their fears alleviated.It’s not about the Constitution.My point about Muslim Brotherhood “involvement” wasn’t that Cordoba House is being financially backed by them but that the MB does back/has backed Mosques (the Wahabi bent) here and abroad, and given the scale of Cordoba, the good Imam is going to need lots of financial help and it wouldn’t be surprising if the MB and other such orgs chipped in. Whether you think that’s a big deal or not, or even irrelevant, is not the point. The point is, there are a lot of knowledgeable people (eg. Zuhdi Jasser) who are suspicious of the initiative for that very reason. Don’t agree with him? Fine. But even Jasser (a devout Muslim and no lunatic -see http://www.aifdemocracy.org/) has been accused of being alarmist and off base just for his suspicions, which are far from irrational or bigoted. He doesn’t take Feisal Abdul Rauf’s word, nor should he.Cordoba House will be built. Don’t worry. At cordobainitiative.org, we learn that Cordoba House will be “a center guided by Islamic values in their truest form – compassion, generosity, and respect for all.“ That might be Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf’s true belief and intention. I truly hope that in the end, it is.

  • josephS

    @alopecia – As far as Timothy McVeigh is concerned, I’ll offer up this little thought, and you can agree or disagree, whatever…When we drive by a Christian church in America, what for most people do you think comes to mind? Granted, many will think of that crazy right-wing group of religious zealots or Jeramiah Wright. But most probably do NOT instinctively associate that church with violent, terrorist, Jihadi-like ideology. Certainly not in the here and now.Unfortunately, that’s not the case with Mosques in America, and while I don’t automatically assume a mosque is linked in some way to terrorism, many do. We hear about Muslims flying into skyscapers, highjacking planes, blowing up World Cup spectators, killing Army recruiters, planting bombs on themselves to blow up airplanes and embassies, planting bombs in Times Square, planning to bomb LA Airport or subways in New York, mass-murdering colleagues on military bases, and so on. Jihadis are recruiting young men from Mosques in Minnesota no less.None of which is to say there are not similar events perpetrated by non-Muslims in America, but associating those events with Christianity (as in motivated by) I think is very much harder. I don’t think most people would accept such a link. Occasionally the Left will attempt to make the claim with the few abortion doctor attacks that have occured, but most people in the US do not automatically associate Christianity with violence in 2010, here or anywhere else in the world, because there is not enough evidence of it to make the case.That’s not true with Islam. It’s the dominant link to terror in the world today. As such, Americans are sensitive to it, aware of it, and suspicious of it. It’s unfair to suggest mere ignorance is the culprit.Bloomberg wanted to pretend the Times Square bomber was probaly somebody angry about healthcare. What if his suggestion were taken seriously by, say, the FBI or local police? Mayor Bloomberg is so squeamish about offending Mulslims, he can’t even describe the 9/11 attackers as the Muslims they were. Apparently he’s accepted Feisal Abdul Rauf line that the 9/11 attackers were NOT really Muslims. Gee, if they weren’t Muslims, was Timothy McVeigh REALLY a Christian? How convenient that we can just boot up some moral equivalence and whitewash the world.Mayor Bloomberg’s PC issues notwithstanding, most Americans weren’t persuaded by it.So, no, I wouldn’t draw up the comparison between the Cordoba House project and Christion churches near the Alfred P. Murrah federal building.

  • alopecia

    @josephS: You didn’t address the questions I asked, sir, you simply repeated and amplified your talking points.So, I’ll try again.1) What is the substantive difference between Oklahoma City and Lower Manhattan? (Just because people in the United States associate terrorism with Islam but don’t make that association with Christianity is not a substantive difference.)2) What evidence can you provide that the Muslim Brotherhood is (or would want to be) involved in Cordoba House? (The Muslim Brotherhood is conspicuously anti-modernist, so why would it fund a project run by a pro-Western modernist?)3) Do you not see the constitutional ramifications of treating one religious group differently than others? (When was the last time, for instance, a public referendum was held on the building of a Catholic church?)I look forward to your answers.

  • Ref

    JosephS: What kind of idiot gins up a “comparison” like your KKK example? The simple answer is “They won’t” for the simple reason that social opprobrium prevents them from ever having the kind of resources needed for such a project. We’re talking about a recognized global religion, not a bunch of teabaggers. Islam did not attack NY on 9/11/01, and we’re not talking about opening an Al Quaeda recruiting center.

  • josephS

    “What kind of idiot gins up a “comparison” like your KKK example? The simple answer is “They won’t” for the simple reason that social opprobrium prevents them …”YES! “Social opprobrium prevents them…”But, you cop out here, you little weasel. What if the KKK didn’t care about “opprobrium” and did have the resources, legally purchased the worn out old building, then proceeded with its project? What would stop them? They’ve retained a constitutional lawyer just in case (I assume we’re agreed that the Constitution doesn’t discriminate when it comes to “free speech”). But they wouldn’t need one, because you and Cesca would be out there in the streets passionately defending the KKK’s right to build its shrine to Herr Hitler, is what I hear you saying. You and Cesca AND Mayor Bloomberg!The point is, people are claiming the 1st amendment is all they need to defend Cordoba House’s plans. I’m saying that argument is BS under the right conditions, or am I correct in assuming you and Cesca would be just a outspoken if it were the KKK as you are now?Again, forget Cordoba. I am NOT implying they’re anything like the KKK. I’m just moving the players around, and look how it changes things.

  • josephS

    @alopecia –1) What is the substantive difference between Oklahoma City and Lower Manhattan? (Just because people in the United States associate terrorism with Islam but don’t make that association with Christianity is not a substantive difference.)No, I think the perceptions and the feelings of the country do matter. You obviously don’t. The other substantive difference is 9/11.2) What evidence can you provide that the Muslim Brotherhood is (or would want to be) involved in Cordoba House? (The Muslim Brotherhood is conspicuously anti-modernist, so why would it fund a project run by a pro-Western modernist?)Do I need proof that the Muslim Brotherhood IS partially behind Cordoba? NO, I don’t. The point of my first post regarding this topic wasn’t (and I’m stating this AGAIN here) that the MB had necessarily signed on, but given their history, it is reasonable to question whether they have ( http://www.mzuhdijasser.com/7459/mosque-unbecoming ). Do you not see the constitutional ramifications of treating one religious group differently than others? (When was the last time, for instance, a public referendum was held on the building of a Catholic church?)Of course I do. I haven’t implied (and where you get this from I don’t know) that the Constitution should change or that Cordoba should be treated differently under the Constitution. Public referendums on Catholic Churches (or the lack thereof) are irrelevant. They start recruiting young men to blow themselves up in Somalia or elsewhere, then you’ll begin to see referendums.

  • alopecia

    @josephS: Thank you for responding directly and without vituperation to my questions. I think I understand your point of view better now, though I still strongly disagree with you and that’s not going to change.See, I know Muslims. Not a lot, but some. Most of them are kind, thoughtful, intelligent and decent people (and a few are insufferable pricks) who—in common with 99.9+% of Muslims in the United States and 99+% of the Muslims in the world, even the insufferable pricks—had absolutely nothing to do with the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Just as 99.9+% of Christians had nothing to do with the Oklahoma City bombing, the vandalism and bombing of family-planning clinics, or the murder of physicians.Blaming, even in part, even by implication, 99.9+% of a population for horrors perpetrated by

  • alopecia

    Wow, that’s weird. The third paragraph above should read:Blaming, even in part, even by implication, 99.9+% of a population for horrors perpetrated by that

  • alopecia

    Jeez Louise. TypePad does hate me. Third time lucky?Blaming, even in part, even by implication, 99.9+% of a population for the horrors perpetrated by that

  • alopecia

    Blaming, even in part, even by implication, 99.9+% of a population for horrors perpetrated by that 0.1% is, quite simply, bigotry. Insisting that that law-abiding 99.9+% change its behavior in order to make other people feel more comfortable violates what was once called common decency, quite apart from anything else.

  • alopecia

    Whew! *wipes brow with cartoonishly large handkerchief*

  • josephS

    @alopecia – I would guess that, on the point I was making, you might agree. The point in a nutshell is there are two ways to argue the Cordoba case. 1) On Constitutional grounds. 2)On some “principle” based on facts or emotion (for or against).I think the opponents to Cordoba (whether misguided or not) are arguing #2.Cesca argued #1, but I suggested that, under certain conditions, he might argue #2 (eg if the KKK were building a monument instead of Cordoba).Cesca called opponents of Cordoba “intolerant unconstitutional wingnut bigots.”Today, Cesca has a new post (More like this please, picturing two guys with signs. Today, Cesca could be arguing #1 for the guy on the left, but instead, he’s arguing #2 in support of the guy on the right. I guess it just depends on which side he agrees with. I don’t think we’ll see Cesca including the guy on the right with the “intolerant unconstitutional wingnut bigots.”

  • alopecia

    @josephS: I can’t speak for Bob and wouldn’t even if I could.I do agree that there are (at least) two ways of arguing about the Cordoba House project. However, you brushed off any constitutional argument in your first comment, with a flat “This ultimately has nothing to do with the Constitution.” By doing so, you tried to preempt your first way of arguing about Cordoba House. I argued that there are constitutional issues (in case you were wondering, the 1st and 14th amendments), as did Bob.Your second way of arguing is messier. I think my counter-example (Oklahoma City) is more on-point than yours (the KKK), partly because the KKK isn’t a religious organization and is therefore not as privileged under our constitution and laws, but mostly because, while there are indisputably innocent Muslims, there are no innocent members of the KKK.I’ll give a different counter-example. If I understand your argument correctly, if the members of Westboro Baptist Church were to stop picketing and instead set off car bombs in WeHo or the Castro and killed thousands, the victims and families of those victims (and political opportunists around the country) would be justified in opposing the plans of a Christian organization (unaffiliated with Westboro Baptist) to build a community center near (whatever that means) the site of the murders.I repeat what I said last night: blaming the overwhelming majority of a population for the acts of a tiny minority is bigotry, full stop. Opposing the construction of Cordoba House because it’s being built by Muslims (look at the signs that were waved at the public hearings and tell me the opposition is on any other grounds) is bigotry. Opposing a Christian project (solely on the grounds it’s a Christian project) because Fred Phelps and The Inbred Clown Posse murdered people would be bigotry. I don’t see the difference, and I don’t see a principle worth defending.Ultimately, we are just going to have to agree to disagree.

  • josephS

    “This ultimately has nothing to do with the Constitution” – for the people opposed to the Cordoba House, which isn’t to say they are opposed to the Constitution or ignorant of the 1st Amendment, just that they are arguing the “emotional” side.Disagreeing with building the mosque near ground zero is not the same thing as disagreeing with the Constitution, despite Cesca’s assertion that any who do are “intolerant unconstitutional wingnut bigots.”Gotta go. Thanks