Jump to content

Mosque going up in NYC building


Guest American Woman

Recommended Posts

As for whether Raheel Raza thinks it's a "victory mosque" in Imam Rauf's mind - "Well, it could be ........."

I guess you and I see differently on what a person might mean about "victory mosque"--which could connote "victory" over bigotry, or a "victory" in bringing people of different faiths to some sort of understanding...clearly it's open for interpretation.

Not only that, but interpretation at second hand, as we're talking about one man's opinion of what "might be" the case for someone else, after the question is brought up by a third party.

Compare all that to "Muslim triumph over the West," which has different, and certainly openly hostile, connotations. (In fact, denotations.)

Not even the same ballpark.

Edited by bloodyminded
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 2.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest American Woman

Fair enough. But if Muslims are the main group he did not consult, then that is more of an internal matter for the Muslims, but I agree none the less that they should have been consulted. That would still be an internal matter though.

It's not "the main group," just part of the group. And in light of the reason(s) for their objections, it wasn't an "internal matter" - it involves much more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman

I guess you and I see differently on what a person might mean about "victory mosque"--which could connote "victory" over bigotry, or a "victory" in bringing people of different faiths to some sort of understanding...clearly it's open for interpretation--as opposed to "Muslim triumph over the West," which has different, and certainly openly hostile, connotations. (In fact, denotations.)

You might want to actually listen to the video to hear the question she was directly responding to before speaking of what "'victory mosque' .... could connote." There's no mistaking what it meant.

Edited by American Woman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You might want to actually listen to the video to hear the question she was directly responding to before speaking of what "'victory mosque' .... could connote." There's no mistaking what it meant.

Yes, now I see what you mean, but again, we're talking about one person's opinion of what another person "might be" thinking.

That she's a Muslim doesn't have much bearing for me on the subject at all. I'm not going to fall in the Breivik "good Jews versus bad Jews" mode of thinking, based purely on my personal ideological leanings.

And I hasten to add that I don't disagree with her on every point: personally, I think Islam is long past due a liberalizing reformation. Matters of personal freedoms, women's rights, and political violence are not more debatable, in my view, than is organized racism or any number of other ills.

I do enjoy her summoning "bleeding heart white liberals," in strict accordance with her reactionary conservative brethren in North America, however.

How could one ever get sick of the "blame the left" mentality? It's fun and nutritious! :)

Edited by bloodyminded
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman

Yes, now I see what you mean, but again, we're talking about one person's opinion of what another person "might be" thinking.

Yes, we are, but in light of the description of those who think that way ........ well, I think it's quite amusing that a prominent MUSLIM is all those things.

That she's a Muslim doesn't have much bearing for me on the subject at all. I'm not going to fall in the Breivik "good Jews versus bad Jews" mode of thinking, based purely on my personal ideological leanings.

That wasn't my intent when making my post - I only wanted to show how ludicrous it is to paint everyone who opposes this project and everyone who thinks the reasoning behind it may have been less than pure, as bigots, et al.

I find it very ironic that a member of the Muslim Canadian Congress is a BIGOT - against - MUSLIMS. And of course her reasons for opposing it are - bigoted!

I do enjoy her summoning "bleeding heart white liberals," in strict accordance with her reactionary conservative brethren in North America, however.

How could one ever get sick of the "blame the left" mentality? It's fun and nutritious! :)

She's not "blaming the left" - she's blaming only the "bleeding heart" faction of the left - of which many in this thread fall. I'm on "the left" myself, just not of the "bleeding heart" variety that thinks I have to love and approve of every single thing that every Muslim does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That wasn't my intent when making my post - I only wanted to show how ludicrous it is to paint everyone who opposes this project and everyone who thinks the reasoning behind it may have been less than pure, as bigots, et al.

I find it very ironic that a member of the Muslim Canadian Congress is a BIGOT - against - MUSLIMS. And of course her reasons for opposing it are - bigoted!

I understand, and have never made the claim that all--or most--opponents of the Mosque have been bigots.

Others have made the claim, yes. I haven't.

She's not "blaming the left" - she's blaming only the "bleeding heart" faction of the left - of which many in this thread fall. I'm on "the left" myself, just not of the "bleeding heart" variety that thinks I have to love and approve of every single thing that every Muslim does.

"Bleeding heart" as a "faction" is worse than imprecise--it means nothing, absolutely nothing. It is used to describe liberals generally at times; and then to describe "factions" that scarcely exist (or don't exist at all, perhaps).

The goalposts move continually.

In your formulation, it is those who "love and approve of every single thing that every Muslim does." (Yes, not be taken absolutely literally, I understand.)

So who are these people?

And there are so many that they are affecting public policy...that they are partly to blame, according to Raza?

And yet none can be pointed out, I take it? An invisible force of "bleeding hearts" with no face, no voice, who love everything every muslim does...and whoever they are, they are powerfully affecting things.

:)

No, Raza is being intellectually lazy here, using the term either because she's a reactionary blowhard (which does not seem to be the case)...or as a sop to them, because she finds them intimidating. (This phenomenon occasionally occurs among weak-kneed liberals, as a sop to the hostile-to-thought sectors of conservatism.)

Or, she could be one of those hawkish liberals, the type who admire conservatives on everything except maybe women's rights, on which point they tend to fall squarely liberal. Manji is another of these, utterly ignorant outside a narrow realm of insight and (yes) real decency. (She really thinks the neocons are genuinely interested in "freedom" of oppressed people...I could explain at length, using some of the neocons's own histories, to discredit this preposterous, mythical idea of freedom-loving liberators.

But the true believers, including Muslims, aren't interested in such facts. They hate them, really. But that's their own fault, of course.)

"Bleeding heart"?

Who is she talking about?

I mean: exactly who? If the question cannot be answered, then she is talking about a straw man, a phantom.

Edited by bloodyminded
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Raza is entitled to her opinion. Just because she is a muslim does not necessarily mean she is right.

I don;t know what's going to happen. And I don't know if the people who want to build the mosque really intend to do it as an affront to non-muslim America. I doubt it, based on some evidence. But I do hope that they will be able to build some cultural bridges that over time will lessen the hostility some people feel towards law-abiding muslims who have no thretening agenda, live by our rules and just want to mind their own business.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I don't know if the people who want to build the mosque really intend to do it as an affront to non-muslim America. I doubt it, based on some evidence.
But why have they picked that place and rejected just about every other place?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am all for a mosque near the Ground Zero site.

I am also all for a Catholic Church and/or a Jewish Synagogue built in Mecca.

Anyone tell me why this would be different?

It would be diferent because you expect Saudis to be religious zealots and you expect religious intolerance there. In the US, any group can build a church wherever they like as long as local bylaws are honored etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman

Raza is entitled to her opinion. Just because she is a muslim does not necessarily mean she is right.

Yes, she is entitled to her opinion. And it doesn't make her a bigot or anti-Islamic, nor does it mean she blames all Muslims. It doesn't mean her objection is based on bigotry. And the same applies to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman

I understand, and have never made the claim that all--or most--opponents of the Mosque have been bigots.

Others have made the claim, yes. I haven't.

The claim you made was that everybody who thought Imam Rauf might be building the mosque as a "victory" were "paranoid, bigoted conspiracy theorists." People had reasons for believing that might be the case, and even Raza said "it could be..." which would make her a paranoid, bigoted conspiracy theorist.

Ironic, no?

"Bleeding heart" as a "faction" is worse than imprecise--it means nothing, absolutely nothing. It is used to describe liberals generally at times; and then to describe "factions" that scarcely exist (or don't exist at all, perhaps).

You don't like the word "faction?" Fine. It describes a certain segment of the left, just as fundamental Christian describes a certain segment of the right. There are a lot of people on the left who are so PC that it colors their every view. They are as predictable as the sunrise. They are the ones who support anything Muslims do - and anyone who doesn't do the same is a bigot. They just can't begin to see how anyone could think differently, and therefore all those other thoughts are based on bigotry.

People speak of "blind patriots," and I think the mindset of the liberals that Raza was referring to follow the same mindset. Again, she was not "blaming the left;" she didn't refer to "liberals," but "bleeding heart liberals" - the same as people have referred to "religious conservatives." That is not a reference to "the Right" either.

The goalposts move continually.

Whose goalposts?

In your formulation, it is those who "love and approve of every single thing that every Muslim does." (Yes, not be taken absolutely literally, I understand.)

So who are these people?

And there are so many that they are affecting public policy...that they are partly to blame, according to Raza?

Who they are is clear to see. And yes, the can - and do - affect public policy.

And yet none can be pointed out, I take it? An invisible force of "bleeding hearts" with no face, no voice, who love everything every muslim does...and whoever they are, they are powerfully affecting things.

:)

Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I'm guessing you can see the segments of the extreme right that are affecting public policy though. :)

No, Raza is being intellectually lazy here, using the term either because she's a reactionary blowhard (which does not seem to be the case)...or as a sop to them, because she finds them intimidating. (This phenomenon occasionally occurs among weak-kneed liberals, as a sop to the hostile-to-thought sectors of conservatism.)

I see. It has to be one or the other. Either she's a reactionary blowhard or she finds them intimidating. Because you don't see it/agree with her. So there's positively no other reason for her to be saying it/believing it. And of course there are weak-kneed liberals, they are an identifiable group - but no bleeding heart liberals, who are not an identifiable group. Because this is how you see it. Or don't see it.

Or, she could be one of those hawkish liberals, the type who admire conservatives on everything except maybe women's rights, on which point they tend to fall squarely liberal.

Oh my. We have a third choice here. She could be a "hawkish liberal." Another identifiable group.

As she's "intellectually lazy" for referring to "bleeding heart liberals." Because they don't exist.

I'm learning so much! :P

Manji is another of these, utterly ignorant outside a narrow realm of insight and (yes) real decency. (She really thinks the neocons are genuinely interested in "freedom" of oppressed people...I could explain at length, using some of the neocons's own histories, to discredit this preposterous, mythical idea of freedom-loving liberators.

But the true believers, including Muslims, aren't interested in such facts. They hate them, really. But that's their own fault, of course.)

"Bleeding heart"?

Who is she talking about?

Guess that's one group of liberals you seem to have a problem with, eh? So again, they don't exist. Shame on her.

I mean: exactly who? If the question cannot be answered, then she is talking about a straw man, a phantom.

The question can be answered just as certainly as the question of who "weak kneed liberals" or "hawkish liberals" are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The claim you made was that everybody who thought Imam Rauf might be building the mosque as a "victory" were "paranoid, bigoted conspiracy theorists." People had reasons for believing that might be the case, and even Raza said "it could be..." which would make her a paranoid, bigoted conspiracy theorist.

Ironic, no?

No. A quietly throwaway remark, not a manifesto. And I agree, not really accurate.

You don't like the word "faction?" Fine. It describes a certain segment of the left, just as fundamental Christian describes a certain segment of the right. There are a lot of people on the left who are so PC that it colors their every view. They are as predictable as the sunrise. They are the ones who support anything Muslims do - and anyone who doesn't do the same is a bigot.

And i ask again: who are these people, exactly, and what makes you say they "support anything Muslims do"?

All I'm asking for is you to tell me who, exactly, these poeple are...and, even more importantly, how they are "affecting policy."

People speak of "blind patriots," and I think the mindset of the liberals that Raza was referring to follow the same mindset.

Which liberals? she didn't refer to any; she referred to "bleeding hearts," which has been repeatedly used to denote liberals of every stripe, including those who oppose the death penalty, support prison reform, state concern for impoverished people, and any number of things.

Whose goalposts?

Like I said, who constitutes "bleeding hearts" is defined by a continual shifting of goalposts.

Which is necessary, since it's a flatly meaningless term.

Who they are is clear to see. And yes, the can - and do - affect public policy.

As you've insisted.

Yet remain unable or unwilling to tell me who (exactly) they are, and how (exactly) they are affecting it. If you can't do this, then you're speaking from impression, which is not very workable here.

Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Just because you claim it exists doesn't mean it does.

Who is it?

I'm guessing you can see the segments of the extreme right that are affecting public policy though. :)

I'm cautious about assigning such things. You might even say I'm conservative about it.

If you don't believe me, find where I have specifically decried something called "the far Right" as they influence public policy. I consider it far more complex.

And of course there are weak-kneed liberals, they are an identifiable group

Weak-kneed liberals are those who, for example, strenuously opposed Bush's wiretapping program...and then supported it wholeheartedly the moment Obama got into office. They work not on principle, but on the usual adoration of powerful people, albeit coloured with a partisan lens.

Keith Olbermann performed exactly this way.

Or the liberals who oppose every war automatically...except for the "liberal war" (Clinton, Blair, Chretien) conducted in Europe in '99.

The hawkish liberals are folks like NYTimes' Thomas Friedman, who never met a war--ever--that he didn't intially love. He's more predictably hawkish than any conservative, who tend to be more principled than the Friedmanesque liberals. Her also opined that the US should strive for "the best of all worlds: an iron-fisted Iraqi junta without Saddam Hussein." That's a hawkish liberal. See, I can name one off the top of my head; whereas you struggle to find a "bleeding heart," much less one who has influence and readership....much, much less one who "affects public policy," in the view of yourself and Raza, content to throw terms around like grenades without backing them up.

Some people might call the so-called "neocons" hawkish liberals as well; I dunno, it's worth thinking about. I"m agnostic on that point.

Those who oppose tyranny but think Castro is super-duper awesome are of a similar camp...though they aren't of the hawkish variety, but rather the weak-kneed one.

but no bleeding heart liberals, who are not an identifiable group. Because this is how you see it. Or don't see it.

Who are they? they're so obviously there, and so clearly "affecting policy."

And they're not secretive or invisible, you say.

So give us some names?

As she's "intellectually lazy" for referring to "bleeding heart liberals." Because they don't exist.

I'm learning so much! :P

I wish.

Guess that's one group of liberals you seem to have a problem with, eh? So again, they don't exist.

I don't know if I have a problem with them, because you stubbornly refuse to say who they are and how they are affecting their "bleeding heart" policies, which are such a problem for society.

Edited by bloodyminded
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman

"Bleeding heart liberals" have been named - examples have been given - by Raza, in the post I made. Same as you named "weak kneed liberals" and "hawkish liberals" in your post. "Bleeding heart liberals" exist as surely as the segment of liberals you see exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Bleeding heart liberals" exist as surely as the segment of liberals you see exist.

Yes, and they account for all liberal-minded people, including yourself. Raza's own feminist credentials palce her in the same category, I'm afraid.

Instead, she defines it as "those who are too easy on Muslims," so I understand.

Which is why I consider it meaningless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman

Yes, and they account for all liberal-minded people, including yourself. Raza's own feminist credentials palce her in the same category, I'm afraid.

Instead, she defines it as "those who are too easy on Muslims," so I understand.

Which is why I consider it meaningless.

I don't see any evidence that she "defines" it that way. What I do see is evidence that she's referring to that aspect of it - because of the issue she's discussing.

But I'm sure you do consider it meaningless - as you see meaning in the segments you choose to refer to. <_<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see any evidence that she "defines" it that way. What I do see is evidence that she's referring to that aspect of it - because of the issue she's discussing.

But I'm sure you do consider it meaningless - as you see meaning in the segments you choose to refer to. <_<

Since you are--by "definition"--a "bleeding heart"...I'm not sure why you'd make some distinction between "bleeding hearts" and other (ie good) liberals.

Or why Raza would, for that matter.

Oh, right...she misspoke, having insufficiently thought her words through.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman

Since you are--by "definition"--a "bleeding heart"...I'm not sure why you'd make some distinction between "bleeding hearts" and other (ie good) liberals.

No, I'm not by definition a bleeding heart. Any more than a conservative is by definition a hawk. Any more than anyone on the right or left is automatically, by definition, part of every segment that's associated with one or the other.

Or why Raza would, for that matter.

Because there is a distinction - not all liberals are this, that, or the other thing.

Oh, right...she misspoke, having insufficiently thought her words through.

Says who? You? <_<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I'm not by definition a bleeding heart. Any more than a conservative is by definition a hawk. Any more than anyone on the right or left is automatically, by definition, part of every segment that's associated with one or the other.

Because there is a distinction - not all liberals are this, that, or the other thing.

Ah. so "bleeding hearts," we're to understand, means "those who love everything Muslims do."

That's your definition? Or Raza's? Or both of you?

Or are there any other aspects to this brand new use of an old anti-liberal slur?

Says who? You? <_<

Uh, you're stating your opinion, and I'm stating mine.

Now, I know it's thunderously outrageous, and quite baffling, that anyone might disagree with you.......

Edited by bloodyminded
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman

Uh, you're stating your opinion, and I'm stating mine.

Now, I know it's thunderously outrageous, and quite baffling, that anyone might disagree with you.......

What's "quite baffling" is your claim that this segment of the liberal crowd doesn't exist - as you refer to other segments that do. But yes, it is merely your opinion that there isn't a "bleeding hearts" segment within the liberals camp. Glad we cleared that up. :)

Edited by American Woman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's "quite baffling" is your claim that this segment of the liberal crowd doesn't exist - as you refer to other segments that do. But yes, it is merely your opinion that there isn't a "bleeding hearts" segment within the liberals camp. Glad we cleared that up. :)

So I'm asking for a more expansive definition...unless "bleeding heart liberal," a term that's been around for quite some time, means exactly and only "those who are afraid to criticize Muslims," or something along those lines.

Is that it? That's what "bleeding heart liberal" now means? If so, when did the term change from one connotative of all sorts of perceived liberal foolishness end, and its explicitly denotating a softness on Muslim intransigence begin?

Some clarification would be nice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman

Some clarification would be nice.

I've already given you the clarification. In this case it means supporting Muslims in anything and everything - because it's the PC/oh-so-tolerant thing to do. Fill in the blank for the definition accordingly regarding other issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...