Friday, August 20, 2010

Who exactly is lacking common sense and decency?

The debate about the mosque discussion is typically formulated in two parts: 1) does the Constitution guarantee the right to put the Cordoba House sort of near Ground Zero? and 2) even if they have a Constitutional right to put it there, is it bad manners to choose that location.

Tim Fernholz writing at TAP gets to the heart of the manners question:
The debate demonstrates how the project's critics simply assume that it is offensive for Muslims to celebrate their faith two blocks from the World Trade Center, to the point where they simply take the proposition as self-evident. Cupp kept repeating the phrase "common sense and decency," as if those terms are defined a priori, but couldn't explain why it's common sense that Muslims worshipping near the World Trade Center is indecent. That's because it's not common sense -- unless you happen to blame the religion of Islam for what happened on 9/11. It's an ugly kind of bigotry to admit.
It's offensive to even entertain the manners question.


Michael said...

So when I say it's bad manners to establish the mosque there, you're offended? How exactly?

Stephanie said...

See my Fernholz quote.

It's like telling Catholics that it's just bad manners and inappropriate for them to offer Sunday School to children. (To borrow from John Oliver -- Daily Show clip below that you may not have watched.) That's ridiculou right? In this example, you can clearly see the mistake that's being made -- conflating the whole of the Catholic Church with the reprehensible behavior of a few.

Actually, I wonder what the numbers are. There may be more pedophile priests in the Catholic Church per capita than there are would-be terrorists practicing what they call Islam per capita. And by per capita I mean population of members/followers.

Michael said...

Ace asks a question:

So -- Confederate flag at the SC statehouse again?

Because the people flying the flag there say they too have good, non-objectionable motivations for doing so -- a reminder of heritage, honoring the dead, etc., etc. But previously we have shown skepticism towards their claimed motivations, and also decided their motivations were irrelevant -- it wouldn't even matter, we decided, if their motives were pure; the important thing was the Confederate flag was too hurtful to have near the people's house of government.

Again, so I now find out this isn't the rule anymore.

So if it's not the rule anymore: Why can't we have the Confederate flag at the SC statehouse?

Stephanie said...

Ace is kidding, right? He's not actually comparing the Civil War to the "war" on terrorism is he? Well-nigh half the country was aligned with, approved of, supported, participated in a secession fight and, at least in part, the impetus for that secession was to preserve the practice of enslaving human beings. It's not like 20 dudes had slaves and put up a fight to be able to keep them while the rest of the South didn't share their views. The Confederate flag symbolizes the attitudes/actions of half a country; 9/11 does not symbolize the attitudes/actions of all of Islam.

love johnson said...

For me, it's not a question of rights or's of wisdom. Is it wise to put it there? My answer is no...because it's going to be vandalized in some way.

And the conspiracy theory part of me says that is what the Muslims who want it there want to happen. "We are peaceful, and you Americans talk of freedom of religion, but look what happens to our place of worship"..."You say you are tolerant, but look at the vile things written on our building". "during prayers, a fire bomb comes through a window, what type of country tolerates attacks on places of worship where woman and children are praying".

Michael said...

Krauthammer addresses today the spurious claim that the 911 prepatrators were a fringe element.