'Ground Zero mosque': New Yorkers take dim view of rabble-rousing outsiders

'Ground Zero mosque': New Yorkers take dim view of rabble-rousing outsiders
Mosque near Ground Zero: Tribute to tolerance or symbol of pain?
The controversy grows over a proposed mosque near Ground Zero as more politicians enter the fray.

By Jason Horowitz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, August 20, 2010

NEW YORK -- On a recent afternoon on the streets around Ground Zero, commuters jumped over puddles to make their trains home, French tourists snapped photos, a homeless man jangled a can, an angry woman cried into her cellphone and Ali Mohammed served falafel over rice.

Mohammed's food cart stands equidistant between the site of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and a planned Islamic center that has become the prime target of national conservatives who, after years of disparaging New York as a hotbed of liberal activity, are defending New York against a mosque that will rise two city blocks from Ground Zero.

Newt Gingrich has argued, among other things, that the Muslim congregation shouldn't build the center because "Nazis don't have the right to put up a sign next to the Holocaust Museum in Washington." Sarah Palin has weighed in, too, in opposing the "Ground Zero mosque." The pain she said, is "too raw, too real."

Mohammed, like many other New Yorkers, has reached his saturation point. "They got nothing to do with New York and they don't care about New York," said the 56-year-old from Brooklyn, igniting a Marlboro Light. "They are trying to create propaganda."

This is a point of consensus for New York's entire body politic, from the center's most vocal opponent to its most full-throated defender.

"Newt Gingrich is talking about Nazis and whatever, I mean, that means nothing," said Rep. Peter King, a Republican who has led the local opposition to Park51, a 13-story Islamic center that would include a prayer space with an imam, a 500-seat auditorium, a pool, senior center and meeting rooms. King, a plainspoken Long Islander, argues that the center would be insensitive to the families of Sept. 11 survivors, but noted that some of the most prominent national opponents to the project had taken their rhetoric too far, and until very recently, didn't seem interested in New York at all.

"First of all, this is real America," said King, sarcastically using Palin's phrase for the homeland. "The people who detached themselves from New York are all of a sudden embracing New York."

On the opposite side of the spectrum, Democratic Rep. Jerrold Nadler, the city's most outspoken supporter of the Muslim congregation's right to build the center, couldn't agree more.

"It's disgusting," he said of the remarks by Gingrich and other Republicans who rarely expressed support for the city. "It is an attempt to exploit for purely political motives a sensitive issue. And to exploit people they obviously don't really care about."

The heated national debate is unrecognizable from the reality in New York, both politically and spatially. For starters, there are the practical questions of whether the Islamic center's politically unconnected organizers have the savvy and know-how to navigate the city's real estate universe or to put together the $100 million they need for their ambitious project. But if they somehow do, the city's entire political establishment supports their right to build on private property.

And no one in New York has any misconceptions about what Lower Manhattan looks like. Red cranes may slowly be rebuilding Ground Zero, but they are surrounded by a vibrant cityscape: doughnut shops and strip clubs and churches and mosques and synagogues and off-track betting parlors and podiatry centers.

"New York is a very unusual place in its density," explained Howard Wolfson, deputy mayor of New York who, with Mayor Michael Bloomberg, wrote the speech that has thus far best articulated the case for the mosque, and which President Obama later echoed at an Iftar dinner with Muslim leaders at the White House. "I do not think the average person knows that you would not be able to see Ground Zero from this building, nor would you be able to see this building from Ground Zero."

On Park Place, the faded brick buildings of the planned facility still bear the ghost ads of "Burlington Coat Factory" and "Coats and more . . . for less!" The stores vacated after Sept. 11, but in recent months, Muslims who no longer fit into the Masjid Manhattan, on nearby Warren Street, have used the building as a mosque. Inside the glass doors, a uniformed security guard lazily read the paper in the lobby. Pairs of shoes rested on shelves and on the floor, some suit jackets hung on a coat rack and local Muslims supplicated on a worn carpet.

Television vans and international reporters keep showing up. Earlier this week, Larry Mendte, a correspondent from local station WPIX, stood in front of the building and practiced his lines. "Three, two, one. And if he really wanted to heal wounds, why open a mosque on or even near September 11?" Mendte said, pausing to ask his cameraman, "How's the light?"

Raheel Sida, a 28-year-old from Queens who works in the financial industry, exited the mosque and expressed some chagrin at the circus around him.

"It's a local matter," he said. "People just need things to talk about."

The conflation of al-Qaeda attackers and a peaceful Sufi congregation led by a nationally known New York imam, Feisal Abdul Rauf, is frustrating, to say the least, to the center's organizers.

"The people behind this are New Yorkers," said Oz Sultan, a spokesman for Park51 and a fixture in the city's vibrant digital media community. "These are local yokels."

To the confusion of much of the city's political establishment, Gov. David Paterson has sought to relocate the center, even though it is illegal for him to offer any state land. He has claimed to have meetings set with Rauf and the developer, only to be corrected by his press office. Sultan said there was currently no meeting or offer from a real estate baron to "magically swoop in and trade space with us."

The city's tabloids clearly don't want the issue to go away; they know they have a good thing going. They have splashed their front pages with stories headlined "Hamas Big Backs Mosque" and "Mosque Wars." As a result, it is hard to find anyone in New York who hasn't been infected with the mosque debate fever.

"It's inappropriate," said Damon Thomas, 37, the doorman at the New York Dolls Gentleman's Club, a block from the proposed Islamic center. As nude women danced around poles, and men at the bar watched Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner talk on MSNBC, Thomas complained that his friends dismissed his opposition to the mosque because he works at a strip club. "Hey," he reasoned, "strippers didn't fly planes into the buildings."

Nadler's view

A unique confluence of personal credentials has given Jerry Nadler, a portly, intellectual legislator, unique authority on the mosque issue. He represents the district encompassing Ground Zero and is the chairman of the Constitution subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee. He represents the liberal Upper West Side but also a right-wing Jewish stronghold in Brooklyn. Unlike the rest of the Democrats in the New York congressional delegation, who have said as little as possible about the issue, Nadler has unabashedly supported the congregation's right to build the mosque.

"It's only a slap in the face if you think that the people in the congregation are responsible for al-Qaeda," Nadler said as he sat in his office, where outdated posters, some featuring the Twin Towers, hung on the wall.

A staunch defender of Israel, Nadler said that it is logical that he is fighting for the rights of a Muslim congregation that he said he might very well vehemently disagree with. "Jews, of all people, should know that we have to support religious liberty," he said. "Because if you can block a mosque, you can block a synagogue."

That is one of the reasons he found the political pressure to move the center, including that exerted by Paterson, inappropriate. But Nadler was most exercised about national Republicans who claim to speak on behalf of 9/11 survivors, despite refusing to support legislation to provide those same survivors with health care and economic compensation. He lamented their "cynicism," but also questioned their knowledge of the First Amendment.

"I tend to think that Sarah Palin probably doesn't [understand the Constitution]," Nadler said. "I think that Newt Gingrich is a very bright man; he probably understands it, at least intellectually. But he doesn't agree with it or care about it enough to avoid trashing the Constitution for political advantage."

The politics of religion

City Hall is especially sleepy this August. Construction has relocated noisy council members and sent the press corps out to a green-and-white wood shack that, for much of this month, has been a factory for mosque copy.

At 3:50 p.m. Tuesday, Mayor Bloomberg returned to his office from a trip to Washington. He was as dour and unanimated as usual, perfunctorily saying, "Hello, hello" as he walked through the hall.

The Islamic center debate brought out a different side of Bloomberg earlier this month, when he delivered an uncharacteristically emotional speech in support of the congregation's rights under the First Amendment, declaring there was "no neighborhood in this city that is off limits to God's love and mercy."

Wolfson, a veteran Democratic operative who wrote the speech with Bloomberg, emphasized that point: "He felt the country was founded on the principle, among other things, that government stays out of religion," Wolfson said, sitting in a conference room decorated with two orange and blue seats from the New York Mets' old Shea Stadium. "You don't tell people where to worship, how to worship, who to worship."

The explosion of angry rhetoric that unexpectedly reignited after Obama echoed Bloomberg's sentiments "speaks for itself," Wolfson said, noting, "Generally speaking, a good rule of thumb of American politics is that if you are tempted to make a Nazi analogy, don't."

As for the disconnect between the Ground Zero that the mosque opponents evoke and the actual site in Lower Manhattan, he said he understood their connection to the area, but added: "I don't know if people really understand what Ground Zero looks like now. It's a giant construction site, a place where tens of thousands of people will work."

Pride of place

Around the corner from 51 Park Place, King made clear he was coming at the issue from a different perspective than a lot of the out-of-town opponents.

"It's not anti-Islam," he said. "When people say it's a battle between cultures or it's about the violence in the Koran, I never buy any of that. You can find as much of that in the Old Testament and the New Testament; for me that is not the issue at all."

His phone rang. Gov. Paterson was on the other end.

"Thanks, David," King said after Paterson told him he had secured a meeting with Imam Rauf and the center's developer later in the week.

King stepped out of the coffee shop and walked out into the busy traffic, the commercial tumult and hammering noise of Park Place.

"It's New York hallowed ground," King said. "Maybe you have to be here to fully understand it."

Here is what I think is the difference:

USA: Muslims have the right of religious "FREEDOM". State and Religion are separate.
Islamic Leaders: Declaring Islam the "DOMINANT" Religion. State and Religion are the same.
Islamic Centers rule by their own laws and do not care much about some of the the laws of the country they are living in. There are some problems in Europe already.

Hello Edie, thank you for your commentary.

Could you please explain how your observation is related to the issue explored in the article?

Thank you again.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by edie:

Here is what I think is the difference:

USA: Muslims have the right of religious "FREEDOM". State and Religion are separate.
Islamic Leaders: Declaring Islam the "DOMINANT" Religion. State and Religion are the same.
Islamic Centers rule by their own laws and do not care much about some of the the laws of the country they are living in. There are some problems in Europe already.

---

Hello Valley Oak, I will try to explain.

Islamic leader call Islam a "dominant" religion. America is a "free" country. I know the difference of the meaning of these two words. Now please, tell me what does a "dominant" religion mean in a "free" country?
Some of us are following at least part of the ongoing discussions concerning the mosque at Ground Zero. Nothing is black and white about it and the grey tones have just too many facets- in a free country where every single person has a right to speak up.
So how is a "dominant" religion related to Ground Zero? A mosque is a center for praying- just that- only for prayer? So what do Islamic leader mean by "dominant" religion? Does it mean that Islam might take over America? Of course not- I see you are laughing at me and thinking me naive... oh yes?
Are you sure Islamic leader do not have that in mind? Would it matter? Lets imagine America eventually will be a Moslem country by free will, peaceful and happy with family and all- so why not. I do not think so. Not by a free will.
Do I feel an undercurrent of overreacting on my account thinking that some day I might be forced to change my religion, whatever it is and be part of Islam- in a free country? Perhaps this will not take place in my lifetime but for the next generation?
So what does a "dominant" religion have to do at Ground Zero? I just do not like that word DOMINANT- what does it mean?
OK- I will stop overreacting. It does not matter. It will not happen and if some day it might come to that so what, we will deal with it when it happen?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by edie:

Hello Valley Oak, I will try to explain.

Islamic leader call Islam a "dominant" religion. America is a "free" country.... Does it mean that Islam might take over America? Of course not- I see you are laughing at me and thinking me naive... oh yes?
Are you sure Islamic leader do not have that in mind? Would it matter? ...
So what does a "dominant" religion have to do at Ground Zero? I just do not like that word DOMINANT- what does it mean?
OK- I will stop overreacting. It does not matter. It will not happen and if some day it might come to that so what, we will deal with it when it happen?

---

that's kind of how I feel about the plans of a lot of "Christians" in this country. As a citizen, you've just got to suck it up and tolerate their attempts at total domination. They're way more scary than Muslims, because (despite the 20% that haven't noticed) there's never been a Muslim with any political power here, but there certainly are several high-profile politicians advocating imposition of their religion on all public life. Admittedly, they've only partly succeeded, and since the dominant culture essentially -is- Christian most people don't seem really bothered by introduction of the Bible into civic life. And (again, they have the luxury because they've essentially won; it's just an argument to push the victory farther) the Christians don't propose "imposition of a Christian state", so they seem less aggressive than those wanting Islam to be dominant.
Admittedly, I've only a limited knowledge of Islam and their politics. But if the world was mirrored, with a "dominant" Islam in the west, I suspect the Christians would sound pretty damn similar. They sure did during the age of exploration and imperialism of the west!

[COLOR="rgb(75, 0, 130)"]"But if the world was mirrored, with a "dominant" Islam in the West. I suspect the Christens would sound pretty damn similar. They sure did during the age of exploration and imperialism of the west."
[/COLOR]
This is what I worry about- nearly 2000 years- off and on some gruesome wars because of religious politics. America has religion and politics separate, Islam does not- even a "moderate" Muslim has to obey Islamic rules first.
Some religious groups will always try to get control in one way or another but it is separate from State as it should be. Some small statistics:
France with 65 mill. population- 5.5 mill. Muslims and 2100 mosques
Germany with 82 mill. pop.- 3.3 mill. Muslims and 2600 mosques
USA 305.5 mill. pop.- 2.5 mill Muslims and 1900 mosques
I am sure over the next thousand of years we will work it out somehow...

>>>America has religion and politics separate, Islam does not- even a "moderate" Muslim has to obey Islamic rules first.

But which countries are you talking about, and which Muslims? There are many secular democracies with heavily Muslim populations.

Muslims are as diverse as Christians or any other religious following. With Christians, you can choose to disobey the laws of the state in the name of a "higher belief" and shoot an abortion provider, block entry to a nuclear site, whatever your beliefs demand; or you can do as most of us do, make accommodation. For decade upon decade in the US, the argument was made that "every Catholic has to obey the Pope," and therefore it'd be the death of freedom if we elected a Catholic President. You could still make that argument and look at all Catholics (or Evangelicals who push for theologically-based legislation) as the sworn enemies of freedom. This current craze is just the "Communist menace" in different dress, one of a long string of bogeymen — the Negro problem, the Jewish problem, the Yellow Peril, the Slavic immigrants, the Irish immigrants, the Mormons, on and on.

>>>Some religious groups will always try to get control in one way or another but it is separate from State as it should be.

And I agree. But as you're aware, "separation of Church and State" is subject to a vast spectrum of interpretation, and the influence of religion on politics in the US is profound. If the Bill of Rights goes up in smoke, and lotsa people would like to see that happen (at least the parts that are inconvenient to their causes), I very much doubt it'll be due to a Martian invasion, a vampire virus, or an Islamic takeover of the USA.

Peace & joy--
Conrad

an incendiary, but interesting, idea:



If it is true that the mosque near Ground Zero is to promote tolerance;

It was suggested that a gay nightclub be opened next door to the mosque.

Two names suggested are;
"The Turban Cowboy", and "You Mecca Me Hot".

On the other side they should open a butcher shop that specializes in pork!
And across the street a store that sells and displays bikinis or ladies
lingerie on manikins...or live models.

Back in the early nineties, the alternative greeting card company I worked for in Chicago (I was a casual doorman and security guard, second shift) put out a card that made the following two puns.

Mecca = Make a

Shiite = ...Guess!

They started to receive many irate phone calls and letters. So many calls that a voicemail account was set up so angry Shiite's could record their complaints.

I made the mistake of nervously sniggering when taking one of those calls after hours. The guy on the other end really went ballistic then. I apologized, explained that I wasn't laughing at him, but nervously responding to the absurdity of the whole situation, and transferred his call to the voicemail account.

The only other measure the company took was to string a locked chain across the two alley access routes into the parking lot. Like that was going to prevent a car bomb from being parked next to the old brick building and prevent it from being taken out. Anyone could pull up out front or along the entire rear of the building via the alley, so I didn't see the logic in that.

But having to either unlock the padlock on the chain for employees coming or going, or loan them the key to do it themselves (my preferred option, obviously, especially in the depths of winter), that allowed me to win my unemployment appeal. Since I was fired a couple of years later for leaving the building, and could prove that part of my job duties was to do exactly that.

I'm probably the only person that benefited from the entire, ridiculous, stupid mess.

They did learn not to make puns out of words and concepts held sacred by practitioners of a religion, where sacrifice and martyrdom are central to the founding story.

There's Free Speech, and then there's common sense. You can't legislate the latter.

Funny jokes though, Sara. But try telling them in a cafe in the souk of any predominantly Muslim city in the world. See where that gets ya!

..... This current craze is just the "Communist menace" in different dress, one of a long string of bogeymen — the Negro problem, the Jewish problem, the Yellow Peril, the Slavic immigrants, the Irish immigrants, the Mormons, on and on.....

I agree, but none of these groups you mentioned where part of 911. I respect any group of whatever their goingon or believes are, as long as there is no violence on their horizon and I also know that most of people of any group are peaceful and "normal" campers but a few "mean-spirited" creatures show up any where unexpected and for these later mentioned I wished I would have a second pair of eyes on my back...

Edie,

Who are you quoting at the beginning of your last post? Cause I just skimmed the thread and couldn't find it. Granted, it's late, I'm tired and I didn't do a close reading of every word.

This isn't the first time here you've expressed your dislike, mistrust and fear of extreme elements of Islam. Describe it however you want, but from the way I read you, you come off as biased, and not biased based on reality as I understand it.

Islam has militants, a small percentage of whom have done terrible things to other people. Mostly in their own countries, but also 9/11, and other acts of terror in Western countries. But acts of terror have been carried out by militants from pretty much every other religion known to us. If I was a survivor of an attacked wedding party in say, Afghanistan, or Iraq, or Pakistan, I would probably fear and hate Christian Americans (U.S.) for using a Predator drone and Hellfire missile on me and mine.

The reasons for the terrorism from a minority of Muslims are complex. Based on the popular public debate in this country, they're little understood, or at least not often acknowledged. When you have the intersection of poverty, colonialism, capitalism, nationalism, imperialism, patriarchy/sexism, authoritarianism, a history of exploitation, lies, betrayal and abuse, you're going to get angry, desperate people, who do terrible things, mostly to soft targets, meaning civilians.

I say this not to excuse or justify the acts of Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, and others, but to refer to the explanation of how we've reached this impasse and level of hysteria.

As I've written about the immigration debate, the real threat to us, here in Northern California (most of us, I know people far from here read this board) is not terrorism motivated by marginal extremist sects of Islam, but the breakdown of society in the face of economic stagnation and collapse. Whether it's peak oil, global warming or some other major cause or combination of causes.

Yes there's a threat from a few angry men influenced by their culture, religion and life experience. But there's a much greater threat from angry young men, etc., etc., who live here. And most of them are Christians of some kind or other, at least they were nominally raised that way.

As for the authoritarianism of Islam, countries and cultures differ. I'm not excusing egregious practices such as stoning people for loving one another, etc. But the idea that anyone is going to impose strict Sharia law in the United States? That's completely ridiculous. It's a lie being promoted by the conservative ideologues at Fox, to create public outrage and channel it into the paths they would prescribe for us. Now Christian Dominionism? Stirred up in reaction to a false threat from the Muslim world? That's a marginal wackjob religious threat that I'd take seriously. There are a lot more potential believers in that here, than extremist Wahhabism.

The Foxy demagogues are the authoritarians I fear, not Saudi, Iraqi, Afghan Shiites or Wahhabis. If I lived in Yemen, I'd be saying something different. But I don't live in a traditional, strict Arab Muslim culture, and that culture is not going to take off here. Those who say it might, are either deluded or lying. It seems you've bought the lie. At least that is what you hint about here.

If you want to look at who is killing more people in the world these days. Look in the mirror if you're an American taxpayer. Although the war in eastern Congo, driven by, among other things the desire for small, powerful electronic gadgets, puts one of the greatest ongoing slaughters at the doorstep of everyone in the world with a PDA. Americans (U.S.) may be a large number of people who own cell phones and laptops, but we certainly aren't the only ones.

Al Qaeda et al were, are, reacting to things done by Western countries. Predominantly the United States. That doesn't mean we deserve their violence, but in talking about it, and in facing the threat, we should acknowledge that it takes two to tango. That is little discussed in our public forums. To even mention it, as I am doing here, is cause to be called an apologist, an appeaser, a traitor. I can assure you I am none of those. I'm just someone who reads the news and applies common standards of justice and morality to what I learn. Treat others as you would be treated, being the primary morality I try to practice.

Fear, xenophobia, hatred, prejudice, reduction of the other to evil, those are normal human patterns when dealing with stress and conflict. But they are also the patterns which amplify and deepen conflict. We can act like nervous chickens when the coyote is prowling. Or we can act like adults, try to understand and face the threat, and seek resolution to our conflicts with those who threaten us.

They're not threatening because they're evil, although their actions can be described as such. They're doing it because they have grievances that they believe cannot be addressed any other way. Or they're vying for power in their own society, and taking on the West is a path that they've chosen. Again, it's complex.

And yes, if someone keeps doing harm to others, no matter what their justification, at a certain point I am willing to call them evil people. But that's a matter of interpretation. "Who benefits? Who suffers?"

I do understand, that if someone kills people I know personally, deeply care about, or have a special affinity for because we're from the same place, my first response won't be to try and understand what motivated the killers. It would be to rage and cry for justice. But eventually, the thinking person also tries to understand the motivations of their professed enemy. If only to figure out how to defeat them, and if motivated by love, to figure out how to change their intent to peaceful dispute and efforts to resolve our differences. A tall order, I know.

The "Mosque" in lower Manhattan, which isn't a mosque, is a sideshow, a distraction and a joke. Especially when compared to the real problems humans face at this time and place.

Wise up, cause you're being played. And those playing you do not have your interests in mind. They're happy to use your fear, mistrust, anger and lack of understanding to keep you occupied while they steal us all blind.

The bogeyman is at the door, fear him, trust us, we'll keep you safe! But it will cost you....

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by "Mad" Miles:

Al Qaeda et al were, are, reacting to things done by Western countries. Predominantly the United States.

---

although this second part is more true:

Quote:

---

..... they're vying for power in their own society, and taking on the West is a path that they've chosen. Again, it's complex.

---

I think it's smart to explicitly acknowledge that there is more to it than reaction to the west; it may make it easier for the worried ones to hear the rest of the argument. Of course Bin Laden envisions a world run under strict Islamic law. That's apparently his version of a utopian vision. But spreading the benefits of that to us infidels on the other side of the world wouldn't have become a priority on its own merits - the west matters to him because we project our influence strongly into that part of the world. Still, the shape of their goals should look familiar; it's the willingness to use violence and the disrespect for individual freedom and diversity that's upsetting to us. And there's nothing there that's unique to the Islamic fundamentalists.

Hey Podfish,

Good clarifications. When talking about complex subjects with long complicated histories, a certain amount of generalization is inevitable.

I found the following in my gjdanscinfo digest this morning. The first part is known to anyone following the controversy, but I share it because his overall point and how he makes it in his conclusion, is very good on this issue.

Hurt Feelings and the Ground Zero Mosque by Gary Leupp

Another county heard from!

I didn't agree with Christopher Hitchens in the 2002-2003 lead up to the Iraq invasion. I still think he was wrong although I sympathized with his extreme dislike for Saddam Hussein.

In this piece about the "mosque" controversy, he raises an issue that I do think is relevant, and was not fully covered in my comments here last night. So for balance, here's the link:

"The 'Ground Zero mosque' debate is about tolerance - and a whole lot more"

"Mad" Miles

...The man of many words... teaching us little people so much- I appreciate that.
I never mentioned anything of all the above- nothing new there. You did not really notice but I never mentioned terrorists or the mosque squabbles it was not part of what I talked about. I do not remember to indicate dislike of the Islamic religion or their people, but had a question about their politics and what it means when the leaders declare it dominant in the US- politics & religion being one, in a country that has religion and politics separate.(Politics are lies, and justice does not play much of a part in the law... I know I am gonna get a lots of bull about that?) We all are influenced by what we hear, read or experience etc. Some of the news in the past from France, Germany and other countries in Europe about the day to day clashes in everyday life where disturbing to me.
I do not have a bogeyman in front of the door, I am not angry, I do not have to trust but be cautious, I do not fear... I was plainly interested... I respect any religion but wary when mixed with politics ... finis... end of it...

Edie,

You're correct that I use many words. I try to select them carefully. When it comes to complex and knotty issues, I think many words are necessary to express meaningful things.

I didn't expect you to agree with my criticism. Thank you for your reply.

As for the issues around Muslim intolerance and intransigence taking place in other parts of the world, I'm fairly cognizant of them. As I've repeatedly said, I'm an avid reader of the news. And I don't just read one or two sources. (I'm not implying that you do, I'm only talking about my own news consumption habits here.) The two articles I forwarded, after my reply to you, take into account, from opposite sides of the divide, the issues you've raised.

I'm not persuaded by your claim, "I'm only asking questions..." implying you have no axe to grind, no dog in this fight, so to speak. Your statements, and questions, belie that. I don't have the time, nor the interest, to dig them all up and list them here. Anyone interested in the question can peruse your contributions to this board, on these issues, and decide for themselves, if I'm tripping, or not.

I have no objection to the concerns you say you're raising. As I've indicated I have similar concerns. I do object to the covert and overt generalizations about Islamic culture, religion and politics in various countries, that you have expressed.

Islam is a large and highly complex religion and global culture. Most generalizations about it, are going to be reductive and misleading. Just as generalizations about Christianity (Don't get me started!), Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism (especially!?), The West, The East, etc. are, for the most part, useless.

Except perhaps my generalization about generalization! That's totally valid!!

Opinions differ. Ours certainly do. That's one reason we write here, isn't it?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by "Mad" Miles:

I'm not persuaded by your claim, "I'm only asking questions..." implying you have no axe to grind, no dog in this fight, so to speak. Your statements, and questions, belie that.

---

"Mad" Miles,

...well, I know I am not for ax and dogfight- but I do realize it could sound like it- as it is my second language and my many words of "softening" up a little are missing....

>>>"Mad" Miles
...The man of many words... teaching us little people so much-

Dear Edie,

This way of talking seems to me what I'd call "condescending from below." No one here has put you down for being limited in use of your second language — you're much more fluent than I am in Spanish or French or German — so it doesn't seem quite fair to belittle someone for being fluent and expressive. There's a popular myth that Joe the Plumber has much deeper just-folks wisdom than the so-called "experts," but y'know, plumbers can be just as stupid as college profs.

I'd think you'd be pleased that someone took your posts seriously enough to respond to them at length. If you don't want people to respond to you, except in the manner of the Limbaugh "ditto-heads," you probably should just talk to your cat instead. I'm sorry if you feel backed into a corner, but I truly think Miles & others spent a lot more time thinking about your ideas than you spent thinking about theirs.

Please think about it.

Peace & joy--
Conrad

[QUOTE=theindependenteye;121039]>>>"Mad" Miles
...The man of many words... teaching us little people so much-

Dear Edie,
Dear Conrad,

This way of talking seems to me what I'd call "condescending from below." No one here has put you down for being limited in use of your second language — you're much more fluent than I am in Spanish or French or German — so it doesn't seem quite fair to belittle someone for being fluent and expressive.

I admire and envy anybody who can write "good", I never said that anyone put me down for my writing- nobody new- perhaps some had an incling, and I don't care cause I kind of know what it is... it was more or less an apology for not being as clear then I wanted to be and when it gets wishy washy, I am getting frustrated.... the "teaching us little people" was meant more like with a smirk, because "Mad" Miles always comes along with half a book which makes me smile and admire him, some times he could be a bit over-baring (and he knows it) but thats ok with me too.

I'd think you'd be pleased that someone took your posts seriously enough to respond to them at length.
I am pleased.

I'm sorry if you feel backed into a corner, but I truly think Miles & others spent a lot more time thinking about your ideas than you spent thinking about theirs.

I do not feel backed in a corner but it is interesting how a view lines of words can be interpreted without knowing the person who wrote it- I can imagen its kind of tricky, trickier than a eye to eye life conversation. It was a reply- a conversation- back and forth it goes- perhaps little clarifications?... and... how would you know that I do not spent time thinking about your or other's thoughts... I do, I do...

Please think about it.

I did and I do and I will...

Lots of luff,
Edith