by Chris
The heated debate over Cordoba House, the Islamic community center planned to be constructed two blocks away from Ground Zero, has now turned violent.
While many have voiced concerns that the project’s leaders may have ties to terrorism, and that the mosque may be used in order to further a violent, oppressive agenda of Islamist domination, the recent crime wave has in actuality been directed from those opposed to the community center toward Muslims themselves.
This week, vandals have committed a string of hate crimes against a mosque in Madera, just about an hour away from my hometown. A brick was thrown at a window, and menacing signs were left that said “No temple for the god of terrorism” and “Wake up America, the enemy is here.”
While the people behind these attacks (“The American Nationalist Brotherhood”) are undeniably extremists, whom most of the anti-Cordoba crowd would condemn, this is not the only recent incident of anti-Muslim violence, nor is it the scariest.
Earlier this week, a college student slashed the throat and face of a New York cab driver after asking if he was a Muslim. The victim survived.
Back in May, a pipe bomb was set off at a Florida mosque during morning prayer, where about 60 people were in attendance. Luckily, no one was hurt.
If only one of these crimes had occurred, it may have been fair to label it an “isolated incident.” But the sheer number and frequency of these acts shut that idea down immediately. This is indicative of a larger trend of anti-Muslim sentiment. A sentiment that has been fostered, I would argue, by the right wing.
While most opponents of Cordoba House argue that they are not against mosques or Muslims in general, much of the rhetoric from their side has made that claim ring hollow, as well. New mosques in Staten Island, California, and Tennessee have been protested by locals with the same intensity and rhetoric of the anti-Cordoba protesters. Newt Gingrich recently compared Muslims to Nazis, while Ted Nugent called Islam a “voodoo religion.” Signs at the recent protest near the proposed site of the community center read “Islam Kills,” “Islam Is The Enemy” and “Proud to be an Islamophobe.”
“Sharia law” has also become a buzzword among the anti-Cordoba crowd. They use it to arouse fear and suspicion by claiming that Sharia law is by definition oppressive and violent, especially toward women. In actual fact, almost all Muslims believe in some form of Sharia law, but interpretations vary widely. The writings of Imam Feisal Rauf, the leader behind Cordoba House, describe a much more peaceful, moderate, and democratic version of Sharia than the kind advocated by Osama bin Laden.
While I cannot put all of the blame for the recent anti-Muslim violence on the shoulders of the nonviolent anti-Cordoba activists, such distorted rhetoric has certainly contributed to a climate where such acts are more likely to happen.
When someone says that “Mosques are training grounds for terrorists,” as many have claimed lately, then that gives a believer a pretty good reason to attack a mosque.
When a radio show host says, on-air, “If you do build a mosque, I hope somebody blows it up,” that is going to plant the idea in somebody’s head that this needs to be done.
When someone fantasizes on a blog about burning down an Islamic community center, and says that the “hero” who does so would probably get away with it due to probable apathy from New York’s finest, that encourages a terrorist to act.
When even the most moderate and Americanized of Muslims, such as Imam Rauf–who has tirelessly worked towards religious tolerance and peace with the State Department under two presidents, and with the FBI–is constantly misconstrued by everybody on the right wing as some sort of terrorist sympathizer, this gives believers a reason to suspect all moderate Muslims of being potential terrorists.
Words have consequences. Words are fuel to action. Violence directed at any social group never becomes widespread spontaneously; it always follows propaganda. The victims must be dehumanized before they can be killed or oppressed. Oftentimes, as with African-Americans during the formation of the KKK, the group will be presented as a threat to the dominant class. The ANB condemned the Madera Muslims as terrorists, all while committing an act of terrorism themselves. The irony simply did not register with them.
Once again, I stress that most of the Cordoba opponents wouldn’t actually support these violent radicals in their acts of hate. But they’ve certainly given them a reason commit them.
This should become the basis for an interesting debate, thanks Chris.
Can we place blame for acts of volence or hatred on written signs used in protest marches or words spoken on radio and television or placed in print? This is a serious charge but it may become even more serious if people actually believe it and start prosecuting fellow Americans on the basis of speech.
Acts of violence and hate, whether murder, a brick thrown through a window, or a slur scrawled on a wall, are crimes committed by individuals who for some insane reason believe they have a right to break our laws. In America they can hate womever they like but they cannot act on that hate without reprisal.
The claim that these acts are a result of the protest against the ground zero mosque, particularly by the right wing, is predictable. The left has a pattern of name calling and race baiting when they can’t explain or don’t understand something.
Angry or inflamatory statements are not new. Does anyone recall what the left was like during the Bush years? If speech is a killer, GWB would be having regular talks with Jesus now. Neocon hate speech would be blamed for rising anti- Semitism and the many hate crimes against Jews. Those “bitter clingers” would be hunkered in the bunker fending off hateful anti-gun nuts out to kill them or write ugly things on their bunkers.
When leftists call names, make inflamatory accusations, creating hateful protest signs, make jokes or create disgusting performance art against Christian belief are hailed as heroes. They are thought of as enlightened, brilliant, or funny, but no one suggests that they should tone it down or stop because it might incite someone to commit a crime. Nope, it’s clever, it’s creative and all just part of the fun.
Here are a few facts from the 2008 FBI Hate Crimes Statistics page:
66.1 percent were targeted because of an offenders anti-Jewish bias.
7.5 percent were victims because of an anti-Islamic bias.
5.1 percent were victims because of an anti-Catholic bias.
3.6 percent were victims because of an anti-Protestant bias.
0.8 percent were targeted because of an anti-Atheist/Agnostic bias.
12.8 percent were victims because of a bias against other religions (anti-other religion).
4.0 percent were victims because of a bias against groups of individuals of varying religions
Would it make any sense to say that the huge number of crimes committed against Jewish people or their synagogues were a result of negative speech about Jews running the world, neocons influencing the Bush policy in the ME, or Jews “owning the media”?
I don’t think so…but Chris, perhaps you do?
It seems to me that a large part of this article is about people hating Muslims over this NY Mosque and wanting to do violence to them.
However, in reality very few people would want to do that and I think the vast majority of those who object to it just simply don’t want a Mosque next to Ground Zero…that’s all. It has little to do with any fear or bigotry or about Muslims recruiting more terrorists, but more about it’s appropriateness given 9/11.
Hmmm…appropriateness…isn’t that why we have zoning and planning commissions because appropriateness is one of the criterias for things that get built in our communities?
A Shinto Shrine is not considered a recruiting place for violence, but if one were to be erected next to the Arizona Memorial the overwhelming majority of Americans would strongly object to it!
They would rightly object on the grounds that Japanese sunk the Arizona in a sneak attack. It’s not appropriate!
Not all Japanese were involved in that sneak attack, in fact very few were… and many Japanese at the time opposed the war. Yet most Americans would still be offended if a Yamamoto Memorial or Shinto Shrine went up next to the Arizona Memorial. It would be completely… inappropriate!
On another level, and speaking on tolerance now, would peaceful Muslims allow a Synagogue to be built in Mecca as a way to build bridges with the Jewish community? Why not, what’s the problem with that? Well, so much for Muslim tolerance, huh?
This is real simple stuff, yet it seems most of those on the far left can’t get beyond calling everyone a bigot or a rightwing zealot if they merely object to a Mosque being built next to Ground Zero. (Not saying you Chris)
This is really way too much to ask of those families who suffered losses on 9/11. Common sense, if not common decency would dictate they can build all the Mosques they want, but don’t build one here on this site and call it Cordoba!
They are asking for trouble and I have to wonder if this is not part of their agenda? Why else be so admament and intractable about building a Mosque on this one site?
There’s going to be trouble if they build it – who doesn’t see that one coming? This is not a threat, it’s a prediction. People are going to get hurt and it just doesn’t have to happen if these so-called peaceful Muslims showed the least little bit of consideration for the victims of 9/11… instead of shoving their religion in our face where many devout Muslims deliberately and in cold blood killed thousands of Americans.
If these NY Muslims were really all about peace, compassion and buidling bridges they would be the first to backoff, but they need this Mosque to be built on that site for their own narrow reasons that have nothing to do with building bridges. And whats just as bad is the fringe left seem totally incapable of recognizing this sham for what it really is.
I can certainly recall the 8 years of hate speech against George W Bush that the left regularly subjected America too. There were few commentaries calling for caution about the power of words then. It was more of a “oh those rascally college students” head-nodding kind of thing.
In a country where we’re not allowed to put crosses on national monuments, someone planning this mosque should have thought a little harder before planning it next to a place that brought so much pain to our country. THEY should have been more sensitive to our collective feelings this time. THEY have provoked America with their decisions, and created a controversy that could have been avoided. THEY poked their finger in the hornets’ nest. To say this is now the fault of those exercising their right to complain is both wrong and un-American. This whole mess could have been avoided, and I have to wonder now if they planned this on purpose to further aggravate our wounds.
I think it’s a bit of a leap to say the NY cabby was stabbed because people protested the building of this mosque at ground zero.
Enright was a good student at a visual arts school. He was a volunteer with a “bridge building” organization according to the NYT article: “Intersections International, a nonprofit that works to promote cross-cultural understanding and has spoken out in favor of the proposed Islamic cultural center near ground zero.” He was also interested in helping returning vets with stress problems.
So what happened with this nice “bridge building” kid? Could his associations at school or in Intersections International have had an influence on his decision to attack Sharif, the American Muslim cab driver? Why did he attack a Muslim; why not target those protesters?
For 12 hours a day locally–and probably nationally, as well–am radio broadcasts intolerance of Muslims.
People are now growing intolerant of Muslims.
What a coincidence!
Q: “For 12 hours a day locally–and probably nationally, as well–am radio broadcasts intolerance of Muslims.”
Let’s consider just the charge of 12 hours a day locally. That’s a lot of hours.
I listen to local talk radio over a nine hour period five days a week. Those hours are spent on the economy, jobs, whatever current democtrat legislation is on the agenda, SEIU, Acorn, Fannie and Freddie, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, the failing economy…(ooops, I mean the “hopeful signs” in the “summer of recovery”)…tea party activity, campaign issues in various states, border crime, vorder issues, court battles, gay marriage, the Constitutional and Constitutional issues, book reviews, the Barney and Maxine investigations, The adventures of Blago and the Chicago machine, the gulf spill, enviro conflicts, taxes, failing industry, housing troubles, foreign policy and the transformed non battle with our new friends the once terrorists organizations, and all of our current administration’s antics and vacations.
Your charges of 12 hours a day are specious.
I’ve never heard one minute of hate speech on the radio or tv directed towards Muslims in general.
Sure, I’ve heard criticisms, but it’s never been just about Muslims. It’s always tied to some specific event or radical person/group and then its tied to something illegal or immoral.
I need an example because I apparently am not hearing or seeing what you are.
Thanks for posting this, guys. I have always admired your willingness to give time to opposing points of view on this site.
Tina, thanks for the stats. I was surprised to learn that there were far more anti-Jewish hate crimes than anti-Islam hate crimes. I would have expected the opposite. Not that I think anti-semitism is not a problem, but I have always felt that anti-Islamic propaganda is more prevalent in this day and age.
“Would it make any sense to say that the huge number of crimes committed against Jewish people or their synagogues were a result of negative speech about Jews running the world, neocons influencing the Bush policy in the ME, or Jews “owning the media”?
I don’t think so…but Chris, perhaps you do?”
I absolutely do, at least for the first and last example. (I’m still not entirely convinced that “neocons” is a dogwhistle–Dick Cheney has been called a neocon, and he isn’t Jewish. But I’ll avoid the term until I’m sure.) I don’t think it’s at all a stretch to say that violence against a religious group is a natural result of propaganda targeting that group. Do you disagree with this?
I want to stress that I am not trying to say people should be arrested or held legally accountable for “hate speech,” unless of course it gets to the point where it is an obvious threat. But moral accountability is a more complex thing, and I think there are people on your side of this issue whose words have made them morally accountable, to at least some extent, for creating a climate in which these crimes are more likely to occur.
Obviously the criminals themselves are the most accountable for their actions. I do not think their exposure to anti-Islamic propaganda in any way excuses them or makes them less responsible. But they got those ideas from somewhere. I think it’s fair to ask where.
As for the extreme anti-Bush protesters, I think many of their words were irresponsible and could have led to potential danger as well. The comparisons to Hitler and calls for his death were disgusting. I don’t tend to associate with those kinds of liberals, and I honestly don’t remember them getting all that much attention during the Bush years. They were a smaller group then, say, the Tea Party, which featured Ted Nugent telling the president to “sucks on [his] machine gun,” and multiple insistences that we may be heading toward a second America revolution. They didn’t command as large an audience as Glenn “Wash this country in blood” Beck. And because of this, their words did not lead to a climate of extreme anti-conservative violence. Had they been a larger group, this could have happened, and those who burned Bush in effigy would have been morally accountable, in my eyes, for any anti-conservative hate crimes that would have occurred.
I do think it’s a bit different when the words are coming from a stand-up comedian, since no one is supposed to take them entirely seriously, but I do agree with you that some, like Sandra Bernhardt, have crossed waaaaay over the line. She should have been placed in the same category as Michael Richards and Mel Gibson by the media after her racist, misogynistic Sarah Palin act, but for some reason she wasn’t.
Jack, I have heard that there is a Shinto shrine quite near to Pearl Harbor, but I will have to confirm that.
But I must ask: why is four blocks away from Ground Zero enough for a mosque to be located, but two blocks isn’t? How far away should the mosque be for it to not be offensive?
“This is really way too much to ask of those families who suffered losses on 9/11.”
Many of these families are actually standing up in support of Cordoba House.
Steve–“In a country where we’re not allowed to put crosses on national monuments, someone planning this mosque should have thought a little harder before planning it next to a place that brought so much pain to our country.”
I don’t see the correlation. We don’t put crosses on national monuments because it would be considered a government endorsement of religion. The government has nothing to do with this community center.
The rest of your comment is just plain victim-blaming. To say that the Muslims building this community center are responsible for the anti-Muslim violence, rather than anti-Muslims themselves, is simply warped thinking. You might as well say that Muslims need to learn their place and stop being so uppity, that’s the level of rhetoric you’re engaging at. And it’s exactly that kind of rhetoric that enables hate crimes, as any student of black history or the Holocaust or the history of any other minority group is well aware of.
Chris: “…but I have always felt that anti-Islamic propaganda is more prevalent in this day and age.”
And why wouldn’t you with the media constantly telling you that the right is, as Quentin casually implied, all hate speech (against Muslims) all the time? It’s a lie but it certainly gets the intended result.
“I don’t think it’s at all a stretch to say that violence against a religious group is a natural result of propaganda targeting that group. Do you disagree with this?”
I don’t disagree that propaganda can get people worked up, sometimes irrationally so, but it’s a pretty big step translating that to an act, or acts, of violence. These are committed by criminals, deranged persons, nut cases, and power hungry zealots and their followers. Although the media and the political leadership of the left would love to have you and others think the right has such a zealot and following the idea is absurd! But theyVe pretty much convinced you because you don’t make a distinction between passionate speech and plotted action.
“But moral accountability is a more complex thing, and I think there are people on your side of this issue whose words have made them morally accountable, to at least some extent, for creating a climate in which these crimes are more likely to occur.”
If you’re going to climb onto the moral bandwagon you had better be prepared to condemn a long line of democrats, including those in high positions of leadership. I know the belief these days is that hate speech resides, and perhaps was invented by, the right but that is political game playing and myth. As I have often said, the Clarence Thomas show trial was the most egregious case of public, sanctioned, hateful speech and slander I’ve witnessed in my lifetime brought to you by the leadership of the Democrat Party. After reading Barbara Olsens well researched book I feel confident in saying it was all trumped up political theater.
“But they got those ideas from somewhere. I think it’s fair to ask where.”
And I think it’s “fair to ask” why Rauf will not condemn Hamas as a terrorist organization or why he says one thing in the Middle East and the opposite in America. It is fair to question the motive behind his insistance to build at ground zero and his stubborn and thoughtless refusal to consider another spot. And I think it’s fair to be suspicious of those who say that I, and others like me, are Muslim haters and bigots just for bringing up questions and voicing our resentment at the placement of this mosque. I also think it’s “fair” to question the reason for these hostile and false charges!
“I don’t tend to associate with those kinds of liberals, and I honestly don’t remember them getting all that much attention during the Bush years. They were a smaller group then, say, the Tea Party, which featured Ted Nugent telling the president to “sucks on [his] machine gun,” and multiple insistences that we may be heading toward a second America revolution.”
Chris perhaps it’s your age! Michael Moore disgustingly distorted events and facts and fabricated outright lies to paste together a couple of movies seen all over the world. His “art” greatly distorted the world view and helped to shape the opinions of a lot of young skulls. A book was written about how to assasinate the president. Similarly a play was made on the same or similar subject. The worls was exposed to countless displays of performance art against Christians. The “groups” that support this type of drivel have been long established on the left…no need to form new ones. Code pink had very little open support but only because the left discovered after the first gulf war that the antiwar protests of vietnam had backfired on them a few decades down the road. The anti-war undercurrent was there and took the form of vile hatred against the Bush administration.
“They didn’t command as large an audience as Glenn “Wash this country in blood” Beck. And because of this, their words did not lead to a climate of extreme anti-conservative violence.”
Please explain yourself. What climate of extreme violence do you think exists today and what proof is there that this “climate of violence” is any greater than the Bush years for instance?
“Your charges of 12 hours a day are specious.”
I don’t think so. You add up Beck, O’Reilly, Limbaugh, Drudge and all your regional “celebrities”, I think you’ll get 12 hours, and then some.
Very sad.
Libby: “I don’t think so. You add up Beck, O’Reilly, Limbaugh, Drudge and all your regional “celebrities”, I think you’ll get 12 hours, and then some.”
And you, being a faithful, die hard listener to these gentlement and ladies would know. Your “thoughts” are not really relevant even with some “then some” added for effect.
And yes, it is sad, isn’t it, that this silly accusation is all you and Quentin have to add to the conversation?
It amazes me how people in the minority on this issue believe they are standing in opposition to an irrelevant extreme and angry right wing fringe when 70% of Americans are against this choice of location, including many moderate Muslims.
In fact according to one : There is a widespread belief among Muslim teaching that anyone who opposes the construction of a mosque, which is the house of God, is committing a sin. So a lot of people who want to voice their opinion do not want to become a part of the controversy. But especially during the month of Ramadan it is important that our actions not cause pain to anyone. Any action by a Muslim that causes any pain to anyone else should be halted!
Another moderate, an Iraqi Muslim columnist, weighed in from the Middle East:
It takes a lot of courage to say something like this in the Middle East. I applaud this man! Im clear that this is how a moderate, someone that truly wishes to build bridges of tolerance and wishes to bring this religion into the current century, would express himself. This man steps forward bravely to share the history of Cordoba and what he believes to be true about radicals and the methods they might use to attack America (the west) from within. His thoughts lend further credence to the concerns that 70% of Americans have about the intentions of Rauf and his backers.
This 70% is not interested in promoting violence otr hatred against Muslims. They are interested in tolerance being a value that cuts both ways and they are interested in continuing to be vigilent about the radical element that is in this country attempting to establish places where their “dreams of expansion and invasion” can move forward and their goal to “change his religion and to subjugate him” can be realized.
Call it a plan for “peaceful” warfare…it is nonetheless “warfare” and must be stopped. Words and protest are two of the few weapons we have at our disposal to combat this enemy of freedom.
Then no, you are not listening!
I specifically heard one of those clowns–Lars–say ” . . . that group, which attacked America on 9/11 . . . . ” referring to Muslims.
Every day, we are told “The Muslims” attacked us on 9/11.
And now, we have Muslims being attacked by the fans of AM radio.
They don’t call it “Hate Radio” for nothing.
Q: “I specifically heard one of those clowns–Lars–say ” . . . that group, which attacked America on 9/11 . . . . ” referring to Muslims.”
Lars Larson is one of the nicest guys on radio. He is always respectful of callers and always lets them finish their thoughts before offering his own.
But let’s have a test shall we? Yes or no…the group that attacked America on 911 were Muslims.
Stating a fact is not hateful. You’ll have to be more specific because this example just doesn’t live up to the “intolerance” test.
“And now, we have Muslims being attacked by the fans of AM radio.”
Please share with us the evidence you have to show that this is a factual statement. At least one recent example was a young man with leftist leanings and associations. Also there are millions of people who listen to right talk radio…99.999999999999999999% of them have not attacked a single Muslim. This speaks volumes and debunks your hateful assertion.
Give it a rest. After all someone might hold you to the same standard and accuse you of fomenting hatred and inciting violence against fellow citizens.
Give it up, Tina. Nobody’s pipe-bombing the Pentacostals.
Libby I am afraid this is just the beginning of things that will have to play itself out.
Now before we go jumping to any conclusions on the bombings keep in mind there are bound to be at least a few incidents staged for the attention. It’s actually a clever maneuver, it incites Muslims and it gains sympathy. Now lets be clear, I said it was clever – not moral.
You better than anyone should know the left is predisposed to swallow this kind of bait without asking any hard questions and they (fake Mosque attackers) will be counting on you side to do its part as always.
In the case of any real attacks on Mosques, its regrettable, but entirely understandable given what has been done in the name of Islam. Let me be clear again – I am saying it is understandable – not moral.
The fact that almost nothing happened to Muslims or Mosques here after 9/11 speaks to our overall respect, tolerance, restraint and general decency. But, it may not always be that way. There is a growing distain for some of Islam’s attitudes, such as those infamous fatwas calling for the murders of people who defamed Allah in cartoons or the book authors who wrote something they didn’t like. And lets also remember their generalized suppression of women’s rights…that has people ticked off too. Now throw in their acts of terrorism around the world for the last 30 years and the slaughter of a thousands Americans and yeah, people have been very tolerant… and they’ve tried really hard to separate the religion from the radicals, but like I said it may not always be that way, people can only take so much. Then a violent backlash is…..well, understandable.
” … people can only take so much.”
Take what, exactly?