As Robert Mackey points out in "The Lede," a New York Times blog, the furor over the Park511 mosque only reinforces the behavior that coservatives deplore among Muslims. While Deroy Murdock and others would like to say that American behavior has nothing to do with the crimes of terrorists, it's clear that people everywhere are acutely aware of American hypocrisy when it arises.
Conservative Americans can not demand that US and state governments conform to their Christian practices while at the same time excoriating Muslims for wishing the same. They can not distinguish between freedom-loving and democracy-promoting America on one hand and repressive religionist terrorists on the other if the Americans do all the oppressing. (Or rather, that can -- and do -- do all this, but it comes with a cost.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Saturday, August 28, 2010
At Least an Explanation
I don't often agree with what is written in The National Review. In fact, I usually find it quite baffling.
But at least its authors attempt a rational explanation of their positions, which allows for reasonable debate and respectful dilaogue. So, while I think Deroy Murdock spouts silliness here, at least it's an explanation for why the Park51 Mosque should not be opened.
First, he says that he objects to the mosque's leader, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf’s noting that “I wouldn’t say that the United States deserved what happened, but the United States’ policies were an accessory to the crime that happened.” ... And therefore he should not have a mosque.
In other words, by pointing out the historical context of the 9/11 attacks -- that many Arabs were and are furious with the US policies of repression and aggression between 1945 and 2001 -- Imam Rauf committed an egregious act, an should therefore have his right to build a mosque restricted by the government.
Murdock's big beef is with Rauf's description and mild advocacy of the need for some implementation of shari'a law. Rauf says only that Muslims want to live in place where secular law does not interfere with religious law. Such sentiments sound very much like what Jerry Falwell and the Christian Coaltion -- and The National Review -- say all the time.
But Murdock then launches on a description of the nastiest examples of shari'a-gone-bad he can find, and they are really mean: killing, maiming, torture. And that is where he palys the sleight-of-hand. Rauf does not advocate any of these practices, and shari'a is not synonymous with them. They are a misapplication of shari'a in the same way that John Yoo's torture memos were a misapplication of the US Constitution. The application, not the law itself, ought to be condemned.
So, while Murdock at least plays the game of making a logical case, he fails to do it well. That only proves why the argument against a mosque is so ridiculous and reinforces the value of the 1st Amendment, which allows all ideas to be expressed, no matter how hateful or dopey they are.
But I guess the 1st Amendment is not the first thing on Murdock's mind.
But at least its authors attempt a rational explanation of their positions, which allows for reasonable debate and respectful dilaogue. So, while I think Deroy Murdock spouts silliness here, at least it's an explanation for why the Park51 Mosque should not be opened.
First, he says that he objects to the mosque's leader, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf’s noting that “I wouldn’t say that the United States deserved what happened, but the United States’ policies were an accessory to the crime that happened.” ... And therefore he should not have a mosque.
In other words, by pointing out the historical context of the 9/11 attacks -- that many Arabs were and are furious with the US policies of repression and aggression between 1945 and 2001 -- Imam Rauf committed an egregious act, an should therefore have his right to build a mosque restricted by the government.
Murdock's big beef is with Rauf's description and mild advocacy of the need for some implementation of shari'a law. Rauf says only that Muslims want to live in place where secular law does not interfere with religious law. Such sentiments sound very much like what Jerry Falwell and the Christian Coaltion -- and The National Review -- say all the time.
But Murdock then launches on a description of the nastiest examples of shari'a-gone-bad he can find, and they are really mean: killing, maiming, torture. And that is where he palys the sleight-of-hand. Rauf does not advocate any of these practices, and shari'a is not synonymous with them. They are a misapplication of shari'a in the same way that John Yoo's torture memos were a misapplication of the US Constitution. The application, not the law itself, ought to be condemned.
So, while Murdock at least plays the game of making a logical case, he fails to do it well. That only proves why the argument against a mosque is so ridiculous and reinforces the value of the 1st Amendment, which allows all ideas to be expressed, no matter how hateful or dopey they are.
But I guess the 1st Amendment is not the first thing on Murdock's mind.
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
The Republicans and the Mosque
AS New York City rebuilds the area around the former World Trade Center, it faces a host of controversies. In this case, architecture can have wide and deep cultural impliactions. For example, some say the new structure should be even taller than the old WTC as an indication that "we" will not "cave in" to the terrorists. That the old WTC was a blight on the neighborhood, making it darker and less livable; that it was never full and lost money; that no one really liked the building became secondary considerations for these people, most of whom never set foot in the city.
Now many of these people want to outlaw or otherwise bully out of existence a new Muslim community center set to be built near "ground zero." As a recent aNew Yorker rticle pointed out, most of the people who object to the center are from places as far as possible from the site. Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, John McCain and others from "the heartland" say that allowing Muslims to interact with New Yorkers near place of our most recent national catastrophe (excepting, of course, the self-inflicted disasters in the Gulf of Mexico) would be an affront to Americans -- an un-patriotic act.
Two elements of this position strike me as deeply ironic. First, before the attack, many of these people saw New York as nothing but a cesspool -- a symbol of everyhting wrong with modern America. They would not even weant to visit, much less be there. Now, though, they want part ownership, as if they had anything to do with September 11 attack.
Second, even conservative New Yorkers, like Mayor Bloomburg, support and embrace the project. They realize that New York stands for the way forward: multi-culturalism, openness and flexibilty. The people most affected by the decision like it. So where is all the railing against elitist and federal "outside intervention" now? Why must people in Kansas be left alone, while people in New York conform to the sensibilites of whack-jobs like Palin, who could not even spell "mosque" under pressure?
This is a perfect illustration of whast is wrong with the GOP.
Now many of these people want to outlaw or otherwise bully out of existence a new Muslim community center set to be built near "ground zero." As a recent aNew Yorker rticle pointed out, most of the people who object to the center are from places as far as possible from the site. Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, John McCain and others from "the heartland" say that allowing Muslims to interact with New Yorkers near place of our most recent national catastrophe (excepting, of course, the self-inflicted disasters in the Gulf of Mexico) would be an affront to Americans -- an un-patriotic act.
Two elements of this position strike me as deeply ironic. First, before the attack, many of these people saw New York as nothing but a cesspool -- a symbol of everyhting wrong with modern America. They would not even weant to visit, much less be there. Now, though, they want part ownership, as if they had anything to do with September 11 attack.
Second, even conservative New Yorkers, like Mayor Bloomburg, support and embrace the project. They realize that New York stands for the way forward: multi-culturalism, openness and flexibilty. The people most affected by the decision like it. So where is all the railing against elitist and federal "outside intervention" now? Why must people in Kansas be left alone, while people in New York conform to the sensibilites of whack-jobs like Palin, who could not even spell "mosque" under pressure?
This is a perfect illustration of whast is wrong with the GOP.
Thursday, August 12, 2010
The Garden's Lawlessness
Much has been made on sports-talk radio and on ESPN of the New York Knicks’ recent re-flirtation with Isaiah Thomas. Thomas left the Knicks and Madison Square Garden in disgrace a couple of years ago, but own Jim Dolan always liked the guy, and so announced last week that Thomas would return to the basketball team as a “consultant.”
Most of the ire in sports-page banter has been directed at Thomas’ utter incompetence as a basketball executive. Thomas was a great basketball player himself, but he managed with the blessing and support of his owner, to run a relatively successful professional franchise into the ground. He touts himself as a great talent evaluator and recruiter, but his drafts were absolutely incomprehensible, and yielded no long-term benefits for the team. He wooed several redundant and overpaid players who could not play together, did not respect the job or their employers and put the Knicks so far over the league payroll cap that the team was essentially handicapped for three years after Thomas left. The best example was Stephon Marbury, a local playground star who never learned how to play with professional teammates and who imploded 18 months after he returned to New York.
None of these failures seemed to bother Dolan, however. He did not push Thomas out until Anucha Brown Saunders sued Thomas for sexual harassment and the Garden for doing nothing to stop it. In fact, the Garden fired Brown for accusing Thomas of harassing her – one of those obvious no-no’s. Rather than settle the case and apologize, the Garden went to trial, where witness after witness described in vivid detail the sexual predations, schoolboy antics and outright paranoia of the whole organization, with Thomas as the star idiot. Not until NBA commissioner David Stern stepped in to demand it did the Knicks finally apologize, settle and send Thomas packing.
I have not seen any commentary on the implications of this part of the story. Dolan’s decision to bring Thomas back looked to me like defiance of Brown, the judicial system that was about to support her and the NBA that treated Dolan like the immature brat he is. It was like none of it happened.
Turns out that the NBA once again stepped in to stop the hire. Because Thomas is also the head basketball coach at Florida International University, where he racked up a 7-21 record in his first year, it would be a violation of NBA conflict-of-interest rules for him to work for the Knicks. Wielding this technicality, Stern quietly told the Knicks and Thomas to “voluntarily” comply and cut the whole thing out.
(Why FIU would hire a jerk like Thomas is another matter. The university makes Thoams a major presence on its website, with no mention of his peccadillos. No different from Kentucky going out to get John Calipari, I guess. Note that this fan blog ) makes no mention of the fact that Calipari has already had two Final Four appearances voided for major rules violations.)
The moral is that Jim Dolan, spoiled heir to his father’s cable TV empire and owner of the Knicks for no other reason, considers himself above the law and the rules. He wants to play with his toys without adult interference, and he will do whatever he can to get away with it. Makes you wonder what he does with the rest of his life, doesn’t it?
Most of the ire in sports-page banter has been directed at Thomas’ utter incompetence as a basketball executive. Thomas was a great basketball player himself, but he managed with the blessing and support of his owner, to run a relatively successful professional franchise into the ground. He touts himself as a great talent evaluator and recruiter, but his drafts were absolutely incomprehensible, and yielded no long-term benefits for the team. He wooed several redundant and overpaid players who could not play together, did not respect the job or their employers and put the Knicks so far over the league payroll cap that the team was essentially handicapped for three years after Thomas left. The best example was Stephon Marbury, a local playground star who never learned how to play with professional teammates and who imploded 18 months after he returned to New York.
None of these failures seemed to bother Dolan, however. He did not push Thomas out until Anucha Brown Saunders sued Thomas for sexual harassment and the Garden for doing nothing to stop it. In fact, the Garden fired Brown for accusing Thomas of harassing her – one of those obvious no-no’s. Rather than settle the case and apologize, the Garden went to trial, where witness after witness described in vivid detail the sexual predations, schoolboy antics and outright paranoia of the whole organization, with Thomas as the star idiot. Not until NBA commissioner David Stern stepped in to demand it did the Knicks finally apologize, settle and send Thomas packing.
I have not seen any commentary on the implications of this part of the story. Dolan’s decision to bring Thomas back looked to me like defiance of Brown, the judicial system that was about to support her and the NBA that treated Dolan like the immature brat he is. It was like none of it happened.
Turns out that the NBA once again stepped in to stop the hire. Because Thomas is also the head basketball coach at Florida International University, where he racked up a 7-21 record in his first year, it would be a violation of NBA conflict-of-interest rules for him to work for the Knicks. Wielding this technicality, Stern quietly told the Knicks and Thomas to “voluntarily” comply and cut the whole thing out.
(Why FIU would hire a jerk like Thomas is another matter. The university makes Thoams a major presence on its website, with no mention of his peccadillos. No different from Kentucky going out to get John Calipari, I guess. Note that this fan blog ) makes no mention of the fact that Calipari has already had two Final Four appearances voided for major rules violations.)
The moral is that Jim Dolan, spoiled heir to his father’s cable TV empire and owner of the Knicks for no other reason, considers himself above the law and the rules. He wants to play with his toys without adult interference, and he will do whatever he can to get away with it. Makes you wonder what he does with the rest of his life, doesn’t it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)