…two blocks from the site of the World Trade Center collapse on Sept. 11, 2001.
Not smart.
Any reasonable person with an ounce of common sense—not to mention a conscience—ought to be asking why. What could possibly motivate American Islamic leaders to want to build a Muslim holy place so close to what has become hallowed ground in the United States of America? Moreover, what possible advantage is there in digging up painful memories and inflaming angst, anger and resentment all over again?
President Barack Obama is quite correct about Islam’s Constitutional right to freedom of religion. He’s also right about the attainment of private property. No reasonable person should be disputing the Constitutional rights of American Muslims to practice their religion, assemble freely and be secure in their property.
But, in my opinion, the issue is not whether Islam can establish a mosque two blocks from the site of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The rights of American Muslims are as plain and self-evident as those of all other Americans. As long as local zoning and building codes are not in violation, there is nothing legally to prevent the mosque from being built.
The real issue to me is whether or not the mosque should be built. We ought to know that it can be built. But just because we can do something doesn’t necessarily mean we should. And just because something is legal doesn’t necessarily mean it’s right, either.
Would it be right for the Catholic Church to build a church near the site of Aztec, Mayan or Incan ruins? Such places have special spiritual significance for the descendants of these extinct people, and I’ve no doubt that there is resentment among native Central and South Americans toward the Spanish Inquisition that occurred in the New World during the 16th Century. Deliberate efforts to force native Central and South American civilizations to conform and convert to Catholicism helped to all but wipe them out.
Would it be right for a Neo-Nazi group to build a compound near a Jewish Synagogue, or near the site of one of many infamous European death camps? Considering that the German Nazis of the mid-20th Century were responsible for the deaths of millions of European Jews, I think such an endeavor would be in extremely poor taste.
Likewise, the religion represented by the 19 fanatical hijackers who killed 3,000 Americans should think twice before building a holy site so close to where so many people perished in the name of Allah and Islam.
I must, therefore, question the wisdom and the motivation of the American Muslim community in selecting this site for a new mosque and cultural center.
The wisdom, or lack thereof, of this endeavor is as plain as the nose on my face.
The motivation, however, is not so clear.
What constructive purpose could erecting an Islamic Mosque two blocks from where the twin World Trade Center towers collapsed nine years ago possibly have?
Many Americans are justified in asking this question and opposing the project.
We know about the rights. But this is not really about rights as much as it is about right versus wrong.
While it is true that the 9/11 culprits represented an extreme, fundamental minority of Islamic believers, the fact is that the attacks were carried out in the name of Islam. As such, the horrific results reflect on Islam.
Personally, I don’t believe that all Muslims agree with or support the actions of fanatical al-Qaeda. But precious few have also come out and publicly condemned the numerous Islamic terrorist attacks committed worldwide before and since 9/11/01. Rather, Islam both here in America and around the world has remained largely silent on the activities of its extreme elements.
Why?
If al-Qaeda and other fanatical fundamentalists claiming to act on behalf of Allah and Islam do not represent the religion, then why haven’t more Muslim leaders come out in public opposition to them? Why didn’t we hear a public condemnation from American and international Imams immediately following the 9/11 attacks? It has taken a good many years for Islamic religious leaders to finally come out and say what should have been said years ago. Many others, however, have remained strangely silent on condemnation, and yet are quick to separate themselves from the actions of the Islamic terrorists.
It seems to me that too many Muslims both here in America and around the world are just plain reluctant to condemn their extremist brethren. They talk out of both sides of their mouths. On one side, they try to separate themselves from the destruction caused by Muslim terrorists; but then, on the other side they refuse to speak against those who acted in the name of Islam.
Well, if al-Qaeda fanatics do not speak for the Muslim community at large, why does Islam continue to harbor them? Why not ostracize them from the faith if what they do and say is not consistent or representative of Islam?
The inconsistency and, dare I say, hypocrisy of Islam with regard to its extremist elements is a credibility issue with the rest of us.
Why should we believe that the American Islamic community pushing for this mosque and community cultural center two blocks from the World Trade Center site is anything other than peaceful innocence?
There are many Americans who rightly feel that building a mosque so close to where their loved ones perished is akin to rubbing their noses in it and pouring salt onto the wound. And let’s be honest here: American Islam has done little to separate itself from those who carried out the 9/11 attacks. Simply saying that they don’t believe as the fundamentalists do is not good enough. If American Muslims aren’t willing to come out and publicly condemn al-Qaeda and other extremist elements, then their words are empty…and cheap.
Show the rest of America that the monsters who savagely murdered 3,000 people aren’t your religious brethren by standing by your words.
Otherwise, how can we really believe you when you say that your mosque will promote peace and shall honor those who perished in the World Trade Center nine years ago?
Indeed, how do we really know that your Islamic center isn’t going to eventually include a Madrassa, like the publicly-funded school in Minneapolis, Minnesota, where fundamentalism is not only taught, but is also part of the core curriculum?
What assurances do we have that your Imams who preach at this mosque aren’t going to preach fundamentalism; the kind that inflamed and impassioned the 19 hijackers on Sept. 11, 2001?
The answer is none, because Islam has not been willing to publicly condemn or separate itself even from its most extreme elements. Muslims worldwide talk a good game when it comes to denying any support for the violence perpetrated by fundamentalist followers. But they haven’t proven to me that they can play one.
At the end of the day, when all is said and done, Muslims by and large tend to regard these misguided extremists still as brethren. And their silence speaks louder than their words.
I oppose the construction of a mosque so close to the World Trade Center site because I see it as more than a coincidence. It is deliberate irony.
American Islam thinks that it can improve its image by building a mosque that honors the 9/11 victims and serves as a “memorial” of such. But Muslim leaders had to have known that building their religious center two blocks from the impetus of the international War On Terror would inflame anger among the non-Muslim population. They had to have known this. How could they not? Are they really so naïve and ignorant as to believe that the deaths of 3,000 people nine years ago has cooled off enough that few would even care?
That’s like saying World War II happened so long ago that Americans shouldn’t care anymore if Japan wants to build a monument to the pilots lost during the attack on Pearl Harbor. Or, Jews shouldn’t be concerned if Germans want to build a memorial to Adolph Hitler and the Third Reich.
This is not at all about Constitutional rights. It has everything to do with what is right and what is wrong.
I go back to my premise about essential liberty: Just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should. Essential liberty is about choosing to do the right thing in spite of having the freedom to choose the wrong thing.
If American Muslims wish to demonstrate that they are worthy of essential liberty, then they ought to practice it by choosing to do the right thing rather than insist on doing the wrong thing here.
Building a mosque in close proximity to the World Trade Center site is not only in very poor taste, but it is just plain wrong, because it deeply offends non-Muslim Americans; especially those who lost loved ones at the hands of fanatics claiming to act on the side of Islam.
To American Islam, I’d like to respectfully ask that you reconsider relocating your planned mosque elsewhere in New York City; at least where it can’t and won’t be associated or linked with the World Trade Center. It is only the right thing to do.
Monday, August 16, 2010
Economy the wrong angle for Sharron
I support Sharron Angle’s candidacy for U.S. Senate, but I question the wisdom of her attacks on incumbent Harry Reid. I also question her focus.
Most of her campaign ads blame Reid for Nevada’s poor economy. Her campaign blames Reid for the loss of real estate values. And the Angle campaign blames Reid for Nevada’s high unemployment.
I’m not saying that these attacks aren’t without merit; but they aren’t entirely accurate, either.
Reid alone isn’t to blame for our economy, job losses or real estate values. All of those things came as a consequence to the recession, the worst one in decades. The plain reality is that we all are to blame to some degree for the mess that our state, and our nation, is in.
The individual is to blame for reckless abuse of credit and borrowing. We are to blame for the mess we have put our own households in. I’m as guilty as the next person of buying things with credit cards.
The American public is to blame for its complacency and apathy in the political and economic process. When times are good, the public doesn’t seem to care that its actions now may have consequences later. The public has turned a blind eye on Washington, D.C., letting elected representatives do whatever they want. We’ve allowed politicians like Harry Reid to become entrenched in power, surrounded by influence and fueled by money. We are to blame for becoming so sick of politics that we just don’t want to hear about it anymore. We would rather live in blissful ignorance than know the truth and feel powerless. That is our fault exclusively.
Where Harry Reid has responsibility in this recession is his support of legislation and policies that either led to, exacerbated or perpetuated economic anemia. He is supposed to promote and provide for the general welfare of the United States; meaning as a representative, he should be supporting policies and laws that will foster and encourage growth and prosperity for all.
Instead, he has supported policies and laws that are counterproductive to the economy. For example, he supported the establishment of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac federal home loan programs. And he supported their management, which eventually became mismanagement by Reid’s own colleagues and close political allies in Washington.
It was the federal government’s insistence on providing affordable loans to low income consumers that helped lead to the mortgage catastrophe that started the recession in the first place. The mortgage industry was strongly encouraged with tax incentives, and even required in some cases, to offer products that low income consumers could afford. Nobody had any objections to the interest-only products with expiration dates offered on the market; that is, not until the real estate balloon popped. Then all of a sudden, it was the fault of greedy sub-prime lenders out to make a fast buck. Somehow, the government’s role got swept under the rug, and with it, the responsibility of our lawmakers in promoting policies that led to the real estate collapse.
Reid as Senate Majority Leader is arguably the third most powerful politician in Washington, D.C. And yet, in the three and a half years since ascending to that position, the economy in Nevada has only worsened; in spite of all the “help” that the Reid Campaign claims he sent us.
Where is the bail-out money for the numerous casinos that have closed their doors over the years? Is City Center more deserving than Fitzgerald’s?
If Senator Reid is so effective in securing pork for his state—and it’s true that he is—then why hasn’t he secured more to help more Nevada businesses from going under and to save more jobs?
I ask this question as the devil’s advocate; not because I believe the feds should be bailing private industry out. I don’t believe in doing that at all. But it has been Harry Reid who claims that no one, not even the individual like you and me, can do more for Nevada than he can. That’s his campaign slogan this year, after all.
It has been Harry Reid who has supported corporate bail-outs and throwing money at every economic problem that Nevada and the nation have faced.
And yet, despite hundreds of billions—trillions, in fact—of dollars in bail-out cash being spent to infuse the economy, the national jobless rate remains near 10 percent, consumer spending remains anemic, and venture capital investments are still on shaky ground; investors still very weary of recovery.
Huge national corporations representing their industries have had to file bankruptcy despite being bailed out by the government. In the case of the Big Three Detroit automobile manufacturers, they were bailed out twice, and still had to file bankruptcy. Vast amounts of public tax dollars and borrowed deficit wasted, and Harry Reid has been there in support of these actions.
As skilled as he is at bringing home the bacon to Nevada, he has not been able to bring home enough to lower the nearly 14 percent statewide unemployment rate to a significant degree. He has not been able to bring significant relief to the real estate market by reducing the number of foreclosures. He has not been able to bring significant relief to small, medium and large businesses struggling to stay afloat and keep their doors open. And he has not been able to bring more education dollars to his state, which is among the nation’s worst in drop-out rates, graduation rates, and test scores.
If you listen to all of the education experts these days, more money means higher quality education. Well, if that’s so, then show us the money, Harry. Where’s the beef—er, pork?
If Harry Reid is so good for Nevada, then why is his state leading the nation in many negative socio-economic categories, despite his position of power as U.S. Senate Majority Leader? If federal funding is the solution to so many of our ills, then why hasn’t Sen. Reid been able to lead Capitol Hill in the amount of pork secured for his state to help ease unemployment, save jobs, improve education, bail-out homeowners facing foreclosure, and so on?
I ask only because I personally haven’t seen where Reid’s influence has been a benefit to the state of Nevada during the recession.
Frankly, Sharron Angle’s campaign should be asking the same questions, instead of simply blaming Reid for the economy.
She is just asking to be humiliated because Reid secures pork for political purposes. The more he brings home to Nevada, the more feathers he can put in his election cap and point to when people ask, “What have you done for me lately?”
Pork is buying votes. It is bribery of the electorate. Reid knows this, so he’s going to exploit it for all it’s worth.
Angle should avoid falling into the trap, because eventually, the Reid Campaign will counter her claims that he has hurt the economy by showing the money that Reid has brought home. It is called empirical evidence, and it is difficult to refute.
Instead of outright blaming Reid for Nevada’s economic woes, the Angle Campaign should be focusing on Reid’s overall ineffectiveness as Senate Majority Leader with regard to Nevada’s economy and its dubious national distinction.
Angle ought to be focusing more on Reid the career politician, and Reid the wheeler-dealer, because that is the root of the angst these days. People are fed up with political demagogues who have feathered comfortable nests for themselves on Capitol Hill and established for themselves castles and kingdoms within the Beltway. People want citizen legislators who will be responsive to them and not patronize them.
They don’t want someone who has made a career for himself by buying support with government pork. They don’t want someone who thinks so lowly of them that he believes his constituents will vote for him just because of what he claims to have done on their behalf.
Harry Reid doesn’t listen as well these days to the voices of his constituents. He listens better to the jingle of cash.
If Sharron Angle is going to win in November, then she would do much better to focus on Reid’s obsession with money; his ineffectiveness as Senate Majority Leader toward his state’s problems; his distinction as a party mouthpiece, attack dog and, frankly, political thug; his rise to the top of national politics because of greater loyalty to his party than to the people he represents; and his corruption as a career politician rather than statesman and advocate for his state.
Those are the things that will hit Harry Reid square in the jaw and below the belt. They are the things that will make him buckle over. They are blows to his popular façade, because they are true.
But if Angle continues to simply blame Harry Reid for the economy, then she is going to lose. It isn’t hitting Harry where it hurts, but rather playing right into his hands.
Right now, he’s bluffing her with a lot of rhetoric; and if Angle isn’t careful, she’ll fold to a losing hand.
Most of her campaign ads blame Reid for Nevada’s poor economy. Her campaign blames Reid for the loss of real estate values. And the Angle campaign blames Reid for Nevada’s high unemployment.
I’m not saying that these attacks aren’t without merit; but they aren’t entirely accurate, either.
Reid alone isn’t to blame for our economy, job losses or real estate values. All of those things came as a consequence to the recession, the worst one in decades. The plain reality is that we all are to blame to some degree for the mess that our state, and our nation, is in.
The individual is to blame for reckless abuse of credit and borrowing. We are to blame for the mess we have put our own households in. I’m as guilty as the next person of buying things with credit cards.
The American public is to blame for its complacency and apathy in the political and economic process. When times are good, the public doesn’t seem to care that its actions now may have consequences later. The public has turned a blind eye on Washington, D.C., letting elected representatives do whatever they want. We’ve allowed politicians like Harry Reid to become entrenched in power, surrounded by influence and fueled by money. We are to blame for becoming so sick of politics that we just don’t want to hear about it anymore. We would rather live in blissful ignorance than know the truth and feel powerless. That is our fault exclusively.
Where Harry Reid has responsibility in this recession is his support of legislation and policies that either led to, exacerbated or perpetuated economic anemia. He is supposed to promote and provide for the general welfare of the United States; meaning as a representative, he should be supporting policies and laws that will foster and encourage growth and prosperity for all.
Instead, he has supported policies and laws that are counterproductive to the economy. For example, he supported the establishment of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac federal home loan programs. And he supported their management, which eventually became mismanagement by Reid’s own colleagues and close political allies in Washington.
It was the federal government’s insistence on providing affordable loans to low income consumers that helped lead to the mortgage catastrophe that started the recession in the first place. The mortgage industry was strongly encouraged with tax incentives, and even required in some cases, to offer products that low income consumers could afford. Nobody had any objections to the interest-only products with expiration dates offered on the market; that is, not until the real estate balloon popped. Then all of a sudden, it was the fault of greedy sub-prime lenders out to make a fast buck. Somehow, the government’s role got swept under the rug, and with it, the responsibility of our lawmakers in promoting policies that led to the real estate collapse.
Reid as Senate Majority Leader is arguably the third most powerful politician in Washington, D.C. And yet, in the three and a half years since ascending to that position, the economy in Nevada has only worsened; in spite of all the “help” that the Reid Campaign claims he sent us.
Where is the bail-out money for the numerous casinos that have closed their doors over the years? Is City Center more deserving than Fitzgerald’s?
If Senator Reid is so effective in securing pork for his state—and it’s true that he is—then why hasn’t he secured more to help more Nevada businesses from going under and to save more jobs?
I ask this question as the devil’s advocate; not because I believe the feds should be bailing private industry out. I don’t believe in doing that at all. But it has been Harry Reid who claims that no one, not even the individual like you and me, can do more for Nevada than he can. That’s his campaign slogan this year, after all.
It has been Harry Reid who has supported corporate bail-outs and throwing money at every economic problem that Nevada and the nation have faced.
And yet, despite hundreds of billions—trillions, in fact—of dollars in bail-out cash being spent to infuse the economy, the national jobless rate remains near 10 percent, consumer spending remains anemic, and venture capital investments are still on shaky ground; investors still very weary of recovery.
Huge national corporations representing their industries have had to file bankruptcy despite being bailed out by the government. In the case of the Big Three Detroit automobile manufacturers, they were bailed out twice, and still had to file bankruptcy. Vast amounts of public tax dollars and borrowed deficit wasted, and Harry Reid has been there in support of these actions.
As skilled as he is at bringing home the bacon to Nevada, he has not been able to bring home enough to lower the nearly 14 percent statewide unemployment rate to a significant degree. He has not been able to bring significant relief to the real estate market by reducing the number of foreclosures. He has not been able to bring significant relief to small, medium and large businesses struggling to stay afloat and keep their doors open. And he has not been able to bring more education dollars to his state, which is among the nation’s worst in drop-out rates, graduation rates, and test scores.
If you listen to all of the education experts these days, more money means higher quality education. Well, if that’s so, then show us the money, Harry. Where’s the beef—er, pork?
If Harry Reid is so good for Nevada, then why is his state leading the nation in many negative socio-economic categories, despite his position of power as U.S. Senate Majority Leader? If federal funding is the solution to so many of our ills, then why hasn’t Sen. Reid been able to lead Capitol Hill in the amount of pork secured for his state to help ease unemployment, save jobs, improve education, bail-out homeowners facing foreclosure, and so on?
I ask only because I personally haven’t seen where Reid’s influence has been a benefit to the state of Nevada during the recession.
Frankly, Sharron Angle’s campaign should be asking the same questions, instead of simply blaming Reid for the economy.
She is just asking to be humiliated because Reid secures pork for political purposes. The more he brings home to Nevada, the more feathers he can put in his election cap and point to when people ask, “What have you done for me lately?”
Pork is buying votes. It is bribery of the electorate. Reid knows this, so he’s going to exploit it for all it’s worth.
Angle should avoid falling into the trap, because eventually, the Reid Campaign will counter her claims that he has hurt the economy by showing the money that Reid has brought home. It is called empirical evidence, and it is difficult to refute.
Instead of outright blaming Reid for Nevada’s economic woes, the Angle Campaign should be focusing on Reid’s overall ineffectiveness as Senate Majority Leader with regard to Nevada’s economy and its dubious national distinction.
Angle ought to be focusing more on Reid the career politician, and Reid the wheeler-dealer, because that is the root of the angst these days. People are fed up with political demagogues who have feathered comfortable nests for themselves on Capitol Hill and established for themselves castles and kingdoms within the Beltway. People want citizen legislators who will be responsive to them and not patronize them.
They don’t want someone who has made a career for himself by buying support with government pork. They don’t want someone who thinks so lowly of them that he believes his constituents will vote for him just because of what he claims to have done on their behalf.
Harry Reid doesn’t listen as well these days to the voices of his constituents. He listens better to the jingle of cash.
If Sharron Angle is going to win in November, then she would do much better to focus on Reid’s obsession with money; his ineffectiveness as Senate Majority Leader toward his state’s problems; his distinction as a party mouthpiece, attack dog and, frankly, political thug; his rise to the top of national politics because of greater loyalty to his party than to the people he represents; and his corruption as a career politician rather than statesman and advocate for his state.
Those are the things that will hit Harry Reid square in the jaw and below the belt. They are the things that will make him buckle over. They are blows to his popular façade, because they are true.
But if Angle continues to simply blame Harry Reid for the economy, then she is going to lose. It isn’t hitting Harry where it hurts, but rather playing right into his hands.
Right now, he’s bluffing her with a lot of rhetoric; and if Angle isn’t careful, she’ll fold to a losing hand.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
