Log in

No account? Create an account
Mosques in Manhattan - The Fucking Bluebird of Goddamn Happiness [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

Mosques in Manhattan [Aug. 20th, 2010|01:26 pm]
I know y'all read him, but my sweet baboo really hits it out of the park in his argument for why the Islamic Cultural Center should be allowed to be built in Manhattan.

[User Picture]From: shezan
2010-08-20 08:33 pm (UTC)
If you want to twist things so that they fit your definition of "a public policy decision" (in what universe? It's a municipal zoning ruling, and an insensitive, crass one at that; Obama has durably harmed his party's chances in November with his thoughtless statement, which even Harry Reid has disclaimed) you can always justify something that'll make your inbuilt liberal tropes resonate. That was precisely the object. This center is not public policy, it's a provocation. There are two mosques already in the area, one four blocks away, the other one twelve blocks away. It is neither necessary nor, until now, requested by any local Muslims (who are essentially 250 blocks away, where there are several mosques including the large 96th St mosque.) Rolling over and playing dead is the way to yield to terror, not refusing to let the other side steamroll you over the area of confrontation.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: reynai
2010-08-20 08:52 pm (UTC)
If the only possible reason that I could be all right with the center's being built there is me regurgitating 'liberal tropes', then what does that necessarily mean about you, then? I like to think that I'm capable of being an adult and making my own decisions regarding things, but if you're not capable of accepting that, I'll feel free to take my time and words elsewhere.

Honestly, I don't care what Obama did or didn't say about it -- I'm not a big fan of the president. And that's neither here nor there.

Two other mosques nearby? In a commercial district. So there can't possibly be need for another. Well, I work in a downtown commercial/governmental district, and I drive past a good half-dozen churches on my way to work. All of which are of different Christian denominations. Islam has multiple denominations too. Parking sucks, btw, so I'd imagine most people use public transit, or park once and leave their vehicle there. Which means? You leave the office for lunch, you're walking. A mosque twelve blocks away is too far to easily get to if you want to pray there during your midday. A couple blocks is better.

And sorry if I didn't use precise perfect legalese for whatever exactly a zoning ruling is (In my universe, public means...public! Like the government! And a policy decision is..a decision, on a policy, you know, like a ruling on zoning rules. But maybe I'm wrong, eh?). And 'insensitive and crass?' I'm sorry, but I must disagree. Unless there is something regarding those zoning rules that would otherwise forbid the building of a community center in a commercial zone (and if there are, do inform me -- but I haven't heard anyone mention any yet), forbidding its construction only due to the Islamic nature of it is entirely unconstitutional. Baldly so.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: theferrett
2010-08-20 09:53 pm (UTC)
This center is not public policy, it's a provocation.

"Provocation" is what I repeatedly hear from homophobes whenever two gay people express any sort of affection in a space they're uncomfortable with. In other words, when you don't like it, it's politicized, and when you really don't like it, that means they're just trying to piss you off.

Frankly, if there are two mosques in the area - which I've known about for some time - then three mosques shouldn't be an issue.

As far as the steamrolling, this whole issue arose because conservatives said, "OMG, LOOK! MUSLIMS!" in an attempt to distract from their shameful handling of the 9/11 relief fundings. And then it became an issue when there was none because conservatives kept shrieking about it.

So your argument here is basically, "We shouldn't roll over and play dead to an argument that we ourselves blew into a huge issue, or we're caving. We must FIGHT for our artificially-induced trauma, or they will WIN!"

Nice logic, but I don't buy it. Frankly, I'm far more likely to say we shouldn't be steamrolled by hair-trigger conservatives raising arguments.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: dana3
2010-08-21 01:07 pm (UTC)
... I love your brain ... :D
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)