Multi-culturalism boon or bane?

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Should we ban any christian building from being built in Oklahoma City because Timothy McVeigh was a christian?

Just for the record, McVeigh described himself as an agnostic, though he also said he believed in God, in vague terms of a natural order- he was raised Catholic, but said he drifted away from it. A lot of people are under the impression- I used to be- that he was part of the Religious Right, but he wasn't- his concerns were basically political.

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by Valandil

I am not opposed to the Establishment Clause. But throughout America - many religious buildings are not built at particular locations for any number of reasons. I've even heard there is an Orthodox Church which was destroyed by the 9/11 fallout, for which the rebuilding efforts have been snarled in New York City red tape. But even apart from that - all kinds of church building efforts get rejected for all kinds of reasons. All across America. We simply find other solutions - and don't get locked into site selections that lead to provocation.

This story about St Nicolas Greek Orthodox Church is one of those being circulated on right-wing websites.

Full story here.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/19/ny...urch.html?_r=1

Basically, it's a question of money.

As well, the Church's site would be directly opposite the 9/11 memorial, and the city didn't want the memorial overshadowed. By contrast, the mosque/community center is two blocks away in a former Burlington Coat factory store, and despite the claims of the opponents of a 13 storey building towering over the memorial, is not even visible from Ground Zero because it is blocked from view by even higher buildings.

(Also two blocks away from the sacred ground- the New York Dolls strip club.)

As for religious buildings, in 2000 Congress unanimously passed a federal law making it very difficult to block the construction of places of worship.

Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act

The land use provisions of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000cc, et seq., protect individuals, houses of worship, and other religious institutions from discrimination in zoning and landmarking laws (for information on RLUIPA's institutionalized persons provisions, please refer to the Civil Rights Division's Special Litigation Section ).

In passing this law, Congress found that the right to assemble for worship is at the very core of the free exercise of religion. Religious assemblies cannot function without a physical space adequate to their needs and consistent with their theological requirements. The right to build, buy, or rent such a space is an indispensable adjunct of the core First Amendment right to assemble for religious purposes. Religious assemblies, especially, new, small, or unfamiliar ones, may be illegally discriminated against on the face of zoning codes and also in the highly individualized and discretionary processes of land use regulation. Zoning codes and landmarking laws may illegally exclude religious assemblies in places where they permit theaters, meeting halls, and other places where large groups of people assemble for secular purposes. Or the zoning codes or landmarking laws may permit religious assemblies only with individualized permission from the zoning board or landmarking commission, and zoning boards or landmarking commission may use that authority in illegally discriminatory ways.

To address these concerns, RLUIPA prohibits zoning and landmarking laws that substantially burden the religious exercise of churches or other religious assemblies or institutions absent the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental interest. This prohibition applies in any situation where: (i) the state or local government entity imposing the substantial burden receives federal funding; (ii) the substantial burden affects, or removal of the substantial burden would affect, interstate commerce; or (iii) the substantial burden arises from the state or local government's formal or informal procedures for making individualized assessments of a property's uses.

In addition, RLUIPA prohibits zoning and landmarking laws that: (1) treat churches or other religious assemblies or institutions on less than equal terms with nonreligious institutions; (2) discriminate against any assemblies or institutions on the basis of religion or religious denomination; (3) totally exclude religious assemblies from a jurisdiction; or (4) unreasonably limit religious assemblies, institutions, or structures within a jurisdiction.

I don't see where it says "except for Muslims".

[The Gaffer]

Also found this really good piece on how the story broke in the media. 2 minutes of your time well spent.

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/w...mosque_origins

The proposition is that it was kept alive by a small group of right-wing bloggers and columnists, eventually got picked up by the New York Post, and then went like wildfire through the mainstream right-wing media.

The leader of the mosque building project is quoted as saying "We want to push back against the extremists,".

[GrayMouser]

The "Ground Zero Imam" that the mosque opponents are raving about (some demanding he be deported):

In 2003, Imam Rauf was invited to speak at a memorial service for Daniel Pearl, the journalist murdered by Islamist terrorists in Pakistan. The service was held at B'nai Jeshurun, a prominent synagogue in Manhattan, and in the audience was Judea Pearl, Daniel Pearl's father. In his remarks, Rauf identified absolutely with Pearl, and identified himself absolutely with the ethical tradition of Judaism. "I am a Jew," he said.

There are those who would argue that these represent mere words, chosen carefully to appease a postentially suspicious audience. I would argue something different: That any Muslim imam who stands before a Jewish congregation and says, "I am a Jew," is placing his life in danger. Remember, Islamists hate the people they consider apostates even more than they hate Christians and Jews. In other words, the man many commentators on the right assert is a terrorist-sympathizer placed himself in mortal peril in order to identify himself with Christians and Jews, and specifically with the most famous Jewish victim of Islamism. You can read the full text of his remarks on the B'nai Jeshurun website, but here is an especially relevant portion:

We are here to assert the Islamic conviction of the moral equivalency of our Abrahamic
faiths. If to be a Jew means to say with all one's heart, mind and soul Shma` Yisrael, Adonai Elohenu Adonai Ahad; hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One, not only today I am a Jew, I have always been one, Mr. Pearl.

If to be a Christian is to love the Lord our God with all of my heart, mind and soul, and to
love for my fellow human being what I love for myself, then not only am I a Christian, but I
have always been one Mr. Pearl.

And I am here to inform you, with the full authority of the Quranic texts and the practice of
the Prophet Muhammad, that to say La ilaha illallah Muhammadun rasulullah is no different.

It expresses the same theological and ethical principles and values

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...een-one/61761/

(The author of that piece, Jeffrey Goldberg, is a conservative American Jew who actually went to Israel and joined the Israeli Army)

Rauf was also selected by the Bush Administration as an outreach ambassador to Muslim countries, to go overseas and tell their people that America wasn't anti-Muslim.

[GrayMouser]

And in France, Sarkozy cracks down on Gypsies

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/20/wo.../20france.html

Also happening in Italy, Sweden, Germany and Denmark.

Signs of the times? The result of the recession, people facing high unemployment and economic uncertainty turning against immigrants and outsiders ?

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

And in France, Sarkozy cracks down on Gypsies.

Hm, I can't fault the French for wanting to expell people who stay in a country illegally, even though I don't think the action is very constructive. The travellers obviously have found ways around the existing rules.

Just last month there was much to do about a group of gypsies passing through our country. They took over somebody's field without permission, destroying his hay yield in the process. They promised but eventually refused to pay the owner. The city provided them water, which they didn't pay for either. And when moving on two weeks later, they left all their trash behind for the owner to clean up. Judging by their shiny and expensive-looking camper models, they were not a poor band of gypsies either.

You can't really fault a town for not wanting to play host to such a group. But then it's never the groups that pass through that don't cause trouble or damage to everyone that you hear about...

[inked]

"Is it time to return the Stars and Bars to the South Carolina State House?

I ask because I thought the rule was that an understandable revulsion to the memory of an emotionally-wounding time was enough to win out over a noisy, self-promoting group’s determination to advertise its views in a prominent, highly-symbolic area… but now I find that’s not so true, not so true.

So — Confederate flag at the SC statehouse again?

Because the people flying the flag there say they too have good, non-objectionable motivations for doing so — a reminder of heritage, honoring the dead, etc., etc. But previously we have shown skepticism towards their claimed motivations, and also decided their motivations were irrelevant — it wouldn’t even matter, we decided, if their motives were pure; the important thing was the Confederate flag was too hurtful to have near the people’s house of government.

Again, so I now find out this isn’t the rule anymore.

So if it’s not the rule anymore: Why can’t we have the Confederate flag at the SC statehouse?

Yes, I know, blacks (and others, including whites) consider it offensive and a nasty reminder of a national tragedy; but the spokesmen from Cordoba House have a response to such concerns, and that response is “F___ yourself, get over it already.” "
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/304852.php

I copy this particular linkage to answer the question of what do I think about the mosque near ground zero. Other than the allegation of attribution and its employment of the F*word, I agree with the above. This is what I think of it, because as a native South Carolinian, I have lived through the "concerns" over the Confederate flag. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If they can take away the Confederate flag because of protests about "concerns" about racism, violence, reminders, et cetera, then they can block a mosque near Ground Zero on the same grounds - equal application of the same principle. Nothing to do with religion, race, or creed ... Just "concerns".

[inked]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

Hm, I can't fault the French for wanting to expell people who stay in a country illegally, even though I don't think the action is very constructive. The travellers obviously have found ways around the existing rules.

Just last month there was much to do about a group of gypsies passing through our country. They took over somebody's field without permission, destroying his hay yield in the process. They promised but eventually refused to pay the owner. The city provided them water, which they didn't pay for either. And when moving on two weeks later, they left all their trash behind for the owner to clean up. Judging by their shiny and expensive-looking camper models, they were not a poor band of gypsies either.

You can't really fault a town for not wanting to play host to such a group. But then it's never the groups that pass through that don't cause trouble or damage to everyone that you hear about...

Hey, Earniel, does that apply to illegal immigrants in America? The State of Arizona?

Here's a snopes.com fact-checked picture file of the lovely deposits of illegal immigrants ...
At any rate, I went to Snopes.com to check it out. Snopes verifies it as true and even has the photos that were in the email. Originally from 2007 (I discovered), the Snopes site has been updated as of 5-19-2010.

So, for good information regarding what is actually transpiring, with photo documentation see...

http://www.snopes.com/photos/politics/restarea.asp

Just wondering if it's OK for France but not for the US states to address the issue!

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by inked

"Is it time to return the Stars and Bars to the South Carolina State House?

I ask because I thought the rule was that an understandable revulsion to the memory of an emotionally-wounding time was enough to win out over a noisy, self-promoting group’s determination to advertise its views in a prominent, highly-symbolic area… but now I find that’s not so true, not so true.

So — Confederate flag at the SC statehouse again?

Because the people flying the flag there say they too have good, non-objectionable motivations for doing so — a reminder of heritage, honoring the dead, etc., etc. But previously we have shown skepticism towards their claimed motivations, and also decided their motivations were irrelevant — it wouldn’t even matter, we decided, if their motives were pure; the important thing was the Confederate flag was too hurtful to have near the people’s house of government.

Again, so I now find out this isn’t the rule anymore.

So if it’s not the rule anymore: Why can’t we have the Confederate flag at the SC statehouse?

Yes, I know, blacks (and others, including whites) consider it offensive and a nasty reminder of a national tragedy; but the spokesmen from Cordoba House have a response to such concerns, and that response is “F___ yourself, get over it already.” "
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/304852.php

I copy this particular linkage to answer the question of what do I think about the mosque near ground zero. Other than the allegation of attribution and its employment of the F*word, I agree with the above. This is what I think of it, because as a native South Carolinian, I have lived through the "concerns" over the Confederate flag. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If they can take away the Confederate flag because of protests about "concerns" about racism, violence, reminders, et cetera, then they can block a mosque near Ground Zero on the same grounds - equal application of the same principle. Nothing to do with religion, race, or creed ... Just "concerns".

I'd need to know a little more; in particular, is the question about flying it in an official capacity, in addition to/as a replacement of the United States flag? If so, then I would say no, the Confederate flag should not be flown; that would imply that the State of South Carolina is a member of the Confederacy in addition to or instead of the United States. It's difficult to see how the Confederate flag could be flown over the statehouse without it being official, but if it were so, then it seems as though it would be all right.

Let it be said that I sympathize with the South. If the colonies had the right to remove themselves from the govt of the crown, then the colonies had the right to remove themselves from the federal govt. I have no problem with the Confederate flag as such or its use by private individuals, but to fly it over the statehouse seems a sort of violation of SC's place in the US.

Of course, the fundamental difference between the issues is where the location is. When it is an official building, particularly a governmental one, then it seems to me that there should be a great deal more freedom given to the govt about deciding what may or may not be in a particular place.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

Hm, I can't fault the French for wanting to expell people who stay in a country illegally, even though I don't think the action is very constructive.

Hafta say, I would fault them. Perhaps its not as hypocritical as when the US does (give me your tired, etc.), but there's still an element of inhumanity to it.

[GrayMouser]

The people being deported come from Romania, Bulgaria and Hungary, where large populations of Roma existed, often facing severe discrimination. There are also other groups who have been long resident in France and Spain and are citizens of those countries.

Of minority groups, it's often unfairly said they don't want to work, adopt majority middle-class values, they're prone to criminality etc.

However, with some (not all, certainly), of the Roma, that appears to be true. Part of their culture is based on a wandering lifestyle, with a view that settled people are a resource to be exploited- sometimes by day labour, but often by begging or petty crime: pick-pocketing, burglary, fraud etc., and that, yes, some of them do teach their children to beg or steal.

On thing about the peole being deported- they can, and often do, immediately return to France, where they can re-enter quite legally and stay another 90 days.

Even this will only last to 2014, when the right to residence laws come fully into effect for those countries.

Incidentally, another 4 million+ people currently residing in the poverty-stricken areas of Moldova, Macedonia, Serbia, Ukraine and Turkey are getting EU passports courtesy of Romainia, Hungary and Bulgaria.

BUCHAREST, Romania—Passport loopholes offered by three EU nations could be indirectly expanding the boundaries of the bloc -- potentially giving nearly 5 million outsiders, mostly from Europe's poorest countries, the coveted right to live and work in the union.
......
EU members Romania and Bulgaria already are handing out passports to ethnically linked groups or minorities outside their borders, and Hungary plans to do the same as of January.

The main beneficiaries are citizens of Moldova, Macedonia, Serbia, Ukraine and Turkey -- about 4.7 million people with living standards at a fraction of the EU average whose countries are years away from membership.

The figure was arrived at by adding up the number of Romanian-speaking Moldovans, Slavic Macedonians, ethnic Hungarians living in Serbia and Ukraine, and the number of Turks who fled Bulgaria to escape a forced assimilation campaign there during the communist era. All are eligible for EU citizenship under passport giveaway programs.

http://www.boston.com/business/artic...stPop_Emailed6

[GrayMouser]

First, thanks to the link to Ace o'Spades, inked- during the Bush years he was one of the prominent links that left blogistan would always link to for a laugh- just the other day I was wondering if he'd disappeared- glad to see him still around and whining about the poor downtrodden white folk.

The point about the Confederate battle flag flown at the South Carolina was that it was an official site. If the US government had proposed erecting an official state mosque (or church or synagogue or temple) at Ground Zero that would have been objectionable , too.

If a private group had wanted to buld a private flagstaff on private ground for the display of the Confederate flag, that would have been their own business.

(Yes, I know I'm Canadian so I should mind my own business.)

Second, the meaning of the Confederate flag at the South Carolina statehouse:

Was this a time-honoured display in salute of the war dead?- why, no, it was
placed there by the South Carolina legislature in 1962, as a deliberate act of defiance to the Civil Rights movement- at the time, of course, segregation was in full force and n*****s, oops, nigras, oops, coloreds, oops African-Americans, were subject to arrest, imprisonment and state-sanctioned murder in the South for the crime of attempting to vote.

The same thing happened in Georgia (adopted in 1956).

So let's be clear- the people who placed the flag there did so in honour of white supremacy , not any concept of "Southern Heritage" or "State's Rights" -other than the heritage of Jim Crow and the right to buy and sell black people like cattle.

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Let it be said that I sympathize with the South. If the colonies had the right to remove themselves from the govt of the crown, then the colonies had the right to remove themselves from the federal govt. I have no problem with the Confederate flag as such or its use by private individuals, but to fly it over the statehouse seems a sort of violation of SC's place in the US.

Alexander Stephens, Vice-President of the Confederate States of America:

But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution- African slavery as it exists amongst us, the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea ; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics. Their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails. I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle, a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of men. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds, we should, ultimately, succeed, and that he and his associates, in this crusade against our institutions, would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as it was in physics and mechanics, I admitted; but told him that it was he, and those acting with him, who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal.

I'm afraid my sympathies lie elsewhere.

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by inked

Hey, Earniel, does that apply to illegal immigrants in America? The State of Arizona? Just wondering if it's OK for France but not for the US states to address the issue!

Huh? Dude, what's with the hostility? I never even mentioned the US. I am not American, so excuse me if I don't constantly apply every post I make to US situations and standards.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Hafta say, I would fault them. Perhaps its not as hypocritical as when the US does (give me your tired, etc.), but there's still an element of inhumanity to it.

I can understand that. However, no nation can take in every person in the world who is looking for a better life. A line has to be drawn somewhere, even though it will never be perfect.

[inked]

Earniel, I never had the least "inkling" of "hostility" - honest Injun, cross-my-heart-and-hope-to-die, really. I am astounded.

Gwai et alia, I understand your remarks and quotations. However, as a "child of the Confederacy" who did research on family to prove my ancestors gave their lives in defense of their country (quite apart from the reasons they may have had, which, I confess, I do not have any record of), I can assure you that the emphasis of the honor was not upon slavery as an institution or some seeking of its return. It was to honor the memory of those who gave all in the matter. I quite understand that those with Yankee forebears do the same.

The matter at question is sensibilities and related concerns. If you vaunt the ideas above as the reasons for the refusal to fly the Confederate Jack, then, reasonably, you must apply the same reasoning to the proposed structure in NYC. I am not being obtuse. How do you separate the vast majority of alleged moderates who do not intend what you (generic, not personal) allege in SC? Does the same apply to NYC and the proposed site?

I would say they do and for the same reasons. Your mileage may differ.

[brownjenkins]

The obsession to hold on to the south was probably the biggest mistake in the history of our country. We'd be much better off today if we had let them go their own way. Trying to put too many cultures under one tent simply doesn't work with humans. The Europeans learned that a long time ago, and the Russians a little later, but we are still getting there.

In terms of flying a confederate flag, if they really still feel like the need to hoist it, then by all means let the do it. Much like with kids, sometimes the best way to teach is to simply let them do it. Once it ceases to be a point of contention, it will cease to have a point. Which goes for the Muslim center in NYC or any Christian building anywhere in the world. Symbols only have power for those who choose to give it to them, for the rest of us, they are all just relics.

[GrayMouser]

Just to make sure I'm getting the comparison clearly, the argument is:

1- people opposed to the Confederate flag at the statehouse see it as a symbol of racism and a celebration of slavery and segregation.

2- people who support the flag say no it isn't, it's a symbol to honour their ancestors' courage and sacrifice.

1a- people opposed to the community center see it as a symbol of violent Islamism and a celebration of Muslim hatred of America.

2a- people who support the center say no it isn't, it's a symbol of rejection of violent Islamism and to promote reconciliation and celebrate the acceptance of American values by Muslim Americans.

But the analogy would only hold if either

-the Cordoba Center was built to honour the courage and sacrifice of the 9/11 hijackers, even if the builders acknowledged the cause for which they died was wrong.
or

- the South Carolina legislature announced they were flying the flag as a symbol of rejection of their ancestor's support for the Confederacy, slavery, and segregation.

Which would be kind of hard to do.

I mean, reunited Germany built a Holocaust Memorial in the middle of Berlin to atone for their anestor's sins; they didn't hoist a Swatiska over the Reichstag to celebrate the undoubted courage and sacrifice of the German soldiers in the Second World War.

[inked]

Interesting idea, BJ. Does it apply to Haggia Sophia - now a Muslim conquered cathedral cum redecorated museum?

But the guys in Cordoba ... http://www.christiantoday.com/articl...ar+Religion%29

So, do Muslims adopt Western standards of live-and-let-live or is such tit-for-tat a one-way street just for the West?

Hmmm...................................

[Gwaimir Windgem]

That may be, inked, but there is still the basic issue that the Confederate Flag was being flown over a state building, whereas Cordoba is, as far as I am aware, a private one. It seems that there is more leeway for regulating expression in a state building than a private one, because a state building functions as a part of the face of the government.

You're certainly right about the Hagia Sophia; its loss was a travesty, and Turkey will not have any real human rights credentials until the Patriarch of Constantinople is able to worship freely, and until laws restricting the election of the Patriarch are abolished.

[inked]

GW, the parallel is the PUBLIC intent, which, as I understand it, is precisely what is contested - in both cases. Possibly, I misunderstand, however, I think I do understand the feelings generated (rather like the Pope in the matter of the convent).

The issue is just that, is it not?