Fox News
As controversy surrounds the construction of a 13-story mosque just two blocks from Ground Zero, FOX News has learned that an effort to place a second mosque close to the hallowed site in New York City is in its advanced stages.
The Masjid Mosque has raised $8.5 million and is seeking an additional $2.5 million to begin construction. While it apparently has not settled on a final location, it has told donors it plans to build very close to where 3,000 people were killed in the September 11 terror attacks.
In fact, the website appealing for donations boldly states that it plans to “build the 'House of Allah' next to the World Trade Center. Help us raise the flag of 'LA ILLAH ILLA ALLAH' in downtown Manhattan."
As controversy surrounds the construction of a 13-story mosque just two blocks from Ground Zero, FOX News has learned that an effort to place a second mosque close to the hallowed site in New York City is in its advanced stages.
The Masjid Mosque has raised $8.5 million and is seeking an additional $2.5 million to begin construction. While it apparently has not settled on a final location, it has told donors it plans to build very close to where 3,000 people were killed in the September 11 terror attacks.
In fact, the website appealing for donations boldly states that it plans to “build the 'House of Allah' next to the World Trade Center. Help us raise the flag of 'LA ILLAH ILLA ALLAH' in downtown Manhattan."
If anyone ever asks you to define "chutzpah", there you go!
ReplyDeleteIs it any worse than putting a convent at Auschwitz?
I hope that New Yorkers will have the guts to tear it down should it ever be built. May G-d give them the strength and determination.
ReplyDeleteMuslims worship the One and True G-d.
ReplyDeleteAs Jews we are on this earth to be a Light unto the Nations, to inspire non Jews to worship the One and True G-d and to turn away from idolatry.
I recently learned that one of the few US Dayyanim whose Gittin and Conversions are still recognized by the Israeli Rabbinute introduced a young woman who was seeking to convert to Judaism to an Imam friend of his.
Today this woman is a devout Muslim who dedicates her life to serving G-d. I am fortunate to have only gotten to know her well and she recently told me that it was an Orthodox Rabbi in LA who led her to become a Muslim.
As Jews we have only one standard of right and wrong and that is our Torah.
We should rejoice that so many non Jews are turning to serve the One and True G-d that there is a such a demand for mosques.
The phrase in the article (raising the flag) is actually:
La - (Lo) - no, none
ilaha - G-d (save for) (same Name as in Hebrew)
ilallah - G-d,
"There is no G-d but G-d. "
That is the Shahada (from shahid- to witness, Hebrew root "aid")
It is the same as the Shema and also the First and Second of the Ten Commandments.
There cannot possibly be any Torah basis for objecting to the proclamation that there is only One and True G-d.
I understand how people feel negative towards Muslims because they attack Israel so much.
ReplyDeleteCan you see the whole picture--or don't you want to?
Can you see that they never attack our belief in G-d, like the chillonim do?...that they never try to convert our children to perversion and sin like the chillonim do day in and day out?...that they never tease us for keeping our holy modesty laws, like the chillonim do day in and day out?...that they themselves protect themselves from sin, not like the chillonim who wallow in sin day in and day out?...
I guess that counts for nothing?
The main thing the Moslems hate about Israel is that Israel is introducing sinful 'Western' values into their land; extolling sin and pritzus and immorality; and denying G-d...
That's just the same thing we don't like about the chillonim!!
Oh, I thought it was the Arabic equivalent of NA NACH NACHMA NACHMAN ME'UMAN
ReplyDeleteGive me a break.. There is overwhelming evidence that Islam worships the pre-Mohammedean moon-god as much as it worships the same G-d that we do.
ReplyDeleteIn any case, their blood-thirstiness puts them beyond the pale of polite company.
As the Bible says about Ishmael, Yado Bakol Veyad Kolbo/his hand will be against every man and every man's hand against him (which is applicable to Tropper as well), Muslims have from with whoever they live with, from Christians In South Philippines , Hindus in Kashmir and Buddhists in South Thailand to name few conflicts.
ReplyDeleteAnd the shote who implies that Muslims are better than chilonim, I am sure he will rather to move to Gaza than to Ramat Aviv.
Joseph2's quick charges seem less than fair.
ReplyDelete(1) Isn't there also plenty of "evidence" that the Torah narratives are recycled Babylonian mythology?
(2) What you're asserting would, from the sound of it, commit you to the assertion that there are basically no real Noahides, that only Jews are monotheists. Do you actually hold to such an extreme stance?
(3) Can you point us to any of this "evidence", or are you content just to allude to it, ever so suggestively?
Because if the religious structure to be erected is Noahide, I for one can't see any halakhic problem with it near Ground Zero. Not too your sensibilities? Go walk down the street; you'll find no shortage of disgustingly vulgar conduct. This, by comparison, is only questionable.
And what's wrong with a convent near Auschwitz, anyway? To object is to have it both ways: we demand that the world take notice of the record of antisemitism, we call them to take account of their own culpability, and then we have the temerity to take offense when their later generations (yes, even of complicitous institutions) take this history to heart? Sounds like self-righteous, good old-fashioned foot-shifting--wantonly abusive, at that.
It seems to me that Gentile recognition & homage to the Holocaust would be worthy, if sincere, and should be welcomed, and all the quick, disdainful umbrage being expressed here strikes more of political kneejerk than reasoned response.
As you all really know, beneath the self-indulgence & racism, there's nothing wrong with a mosque at Ground Zero, and if you want to say that it's inviting enemies to come commemorate some horrid act, well they're going to commemorate it through their prayers regardless; who cares where they make those prayers, exactly? All religions pray for the earth being remade into their image; what's so shocking about that? why are we so insecure as to try to prevent it, & who really cares if those prayers take place across the globe, two towns over, or right down the street?
Remember that the freedom of religion afforded this country's citizenry is what made it a refuge for Jews in the first place.
I guess there's plenty of evidence too that Judaism worships Jesus, especially if you ask the J for Js about it.
ReplyDeleteIf Joseph2 really thinks there are 1,500,000,000 bloodthirsty Muslims in the world, I'm sure he can explain how they haven't wiped every non-Christian on earth already.
His views are most unJewish, and unAmerican.
No Halacha observant Jew or Constitution respecting American can possibly have a basis for objecting to a Mosque being built near the ground zero site.
Here we go again with the Muslim-love-fest propaganda in the comments section, Rabbi E. Nothing makes me sicker. These people wait for you to mention Muslims so they can spread their sheker.
ReplyDeleteWhether Islam is monotheistic is irrelevant to this discussion. It was Islam that perpetrated the 9/11 massacre. To put a mosque on the site of ground zero says that the Muslims achieved their "conquest" just like Muslims put mosques over every site they conquer from other religions and cultures. This is plain common sense. It is a slap in the face to every victim. The victims are outraged. Any compassionate human being should also be outraged. Having a monotheistic faith (Kol Hakavod! Mazel Tov!) does not permit murder.
"The main thing the Moslems hate about Israel is that Israel is introducing sinful 'Western' values into their land; extolling sin and pritzus and immorality; and denying G-d...
ReplyDeleteThat's just the same thing we don't like about the chillonim!!"
Really, is that why they used to blow up the #2 bus while it drove through the Meah Shearim neighborhoods with many tzadikim riding the bus to a fro the Kotel?
Gee, you make a lot of sense.
This is a national conflict, and it doesn't matter what garb you wear or what religion you practice. If the religious Chovevei Tzion (which proceeded the official historically successful zionist movement) would have amassed huge numbers to their cause and established a religious state under Torah law before "the chilonim" had the chance or only with the help of chilonim as a minority to a religious majority, the Arab response would have been the same. They were not ok with a Jewish religious state or with a Jewish secular state. The problem is Jewish sovereignty/self-rule and Islamic jihad plus Arab nationalism. Period. We brought the "values" of Jewish presence and control over a middle eastern land (they consider it Arab land and/or dar-al-Islam in Islamic terms). Everything else is window dressing.
Fan of the LA Dayyan raises a really interesting point. To the extent that we should discourage converts, should we do so by directing them to another outlet that is nonetheless still theologically proper, ie Islam? Personally, I like the idea. An argument could be made that Islam exists in part as a filter to find true geirim. Practically, however, any rav who sees fit to redirect someone seeking geirus to an imam ought to have a reliably sane imam for referrals. It serves Clal Yisroel no good on a political level when a would-be ger redirected to Islam finds teachers who then make a terrorist or anti-semite out of her.
ReplyDeleteAlso, shahada most likely relates to the aramaic, as in "Jagar Sahadusa", which, as we all know, translates literally to the Hebrew "Gal Eid," i.e. "stone of testimony".
[formerly, "Get Over Yourselves"]
ReplyDeleteStu V,
Thank you for your moving celebration of mob-rule ethics. "Outrage" is entirely irrelevant, no matter how righteous the victim. (Is something of a political joke actually: If I do X, what'll you do back? Oh, you'll be outraged.) And "Muslim-loving", even if it were true, is hardly the point.
Here is the point, and I gather that it comes, amazingly, as something of a newsflash for you: It's a free country. It demands we coexist peaceably with all kinds of people, however outrageous. If your Muslim enemy wants to gloat all day & think all manner of despicable thoughts etc. etc., well too bad. The brunt of your argument (if I can call it that) seems to be that this latest architectural venture is offensive to ordinary sensibilities. Well, that just demands another newsflash: Communal insensitivity is no crime. I personally have known many a character to have enjoyed to the full his privilege to be rude or irritating or wantonly eccentric, all with total impunity. The country was fashioned that way. I do gather it may not be well suited to cryptofascist sensibilities such as some of those finding a voice here, but ultimately either you have to maintain that Islam is intrinsically violent, and thus all mosques are de facto a terrorist threat and so should be universally torn down; or just accept that saying daily prayers, studying Koran, etc. etc, is technically just fine decent activity, however unfine & indecent you find the practitioners to be, & however ill-chosen their locale.
And while I'm not looking to play devil's advocate exactly, since it is with such clear self-assurance that you pronounce "Islam" the executor of 9-11, I feel moved to ask why Judaism would not similarly be the agent of Yitzchak Rabin's assassination (by rebranded Kahanaites), or the controversial King David Hotel bombing (by the Irgun) not a proud triumph of world Judaism? What I'm asking is this: Who is to say what is an expression of the mainstream and what the act of a splinter group? It seems to me that whether 9-11 was an act by "Islam" is to be decided individually by that faith's adherents, just as, similarly, "which Judaism" can faithfully claim authentic representation (i.e., Orthodox, Conservative, Reform) is not properly a question for world onlookers but devolves first upon those professing themselves to be Jewish.
To me, your plain "common sense" seems entirely baseless.
The alternative, of course, is to go the more extreme route I intimated above, but that would require America taking a theocratic stance outlawing mosques. Obviously, that's not "America".
The heroic bombing of the King David Hotel (at that time a British military headquarters) was not carried out under the banner of Judaism. It was, however, approved by the leadership of the Haganah as a mission against a British military installation at a time when the Haganah participation with the Irgun had not ended. If it was carried out under the banner of Judaism, it would have been a greater kiddush Hashem than it already was.
ReplyDeleteContrarily, the evil act of 9/11 WAS carried out under the banner of Islam.
"but ultimately either you have to maintain that Islam is intrinsically violent"
Well, it is. Ever hear of jihad?
Similar to the fact that "Reform" or "conservative" so-called Judaisms cannot claim authenticity or to express mainstream "real" Judaism, any "pacifist" form of Islam also cannot claim to represent real Islam. Judaism has rules and a structure to its laws whereby the heretical movements trangress its boundaries. Lehavdil, Islam also has a rule structure and anyone departing from the traditional hadith and adopting abrogated verses is a heretic. Of course, there has not developed any "reform Islam" so your point is moot even if it did make sense.
In any case, it is ridiculous to suggest that a mosque in this location is no different from any other mosque. You are taking abstract theoretical political thought and trying to blind us into a lack of discernment with it. Similar to your mistake with Islam, as you would have us think there is solely subjective points of view and that all are equally valid. Muslims and particularly this group funding the "mosque for ground zero" are choosing to antagonize victims of their own religion's attacks. Why do you and others here insist on condemning the victims' protest and response? You will lecture to them that they must be "tolerant?"
If you state that the Muslims have a right to offend and be obnoxious like all citizens, the victims also have a right to be angry about their being offensive and obnoxious, etc. And trying to do something about it, if possible.
As to the other event you mentioned, sorry you got the wrong guy - I'm not going to shed a tear over Yitzhak Rabin and join in the circus of rabin matyrdom worship.
As to "Muslim loving" "hardly being the point" - On the contrary. You took that out of context where it is precisely the point. The commenters who jump on every opportunity to promote Islam in the comments section of this site, by professing undying allegiance to the statements of the Rambam that Islam is monotheistic and trying to convince us all that we can't dare say a negative thing about Muslims and should be praising them etc etc - in that case Muslim-loving is exactly the point, as it underlies their actions here. I'm sure I'm not the only reader who is sick of it.
While on the one hand you defend and excuse the Muslim mosque-builders overstepping their bounds and committing a grievous insult to the public and to the victims of 9/11 by their actions, if Jews ever did something of similar nature in their host country to their kind hosts, perhaps something along the lines of a public statement of solidarity with Israel over the home country and its foreign policies, I'm sure you'd be up in arms and shocked and dismayed that the Jews could overstep what many see as their bounds and be so "offensive."
And like a true leftist, you couldn't leave a comment without calling me a fascist.
The "Masjid Mosque"?
ReplyDeleteIs that going to rise between the Ecclesia Church and the Beis Haknesses Synagogue?
(Yes, I've spent considerable time at R' Aharon Kahn's Cong. Bais HaKnesses in Flatbush).
.... The problem with such a position is NOT whether or not Islam is rightfully deemed so, which you harp so happily on, but how America could ever take such a theocratic stance. There is, actually, a definite platform in America for such a direction (see, for example, this popular editorial making the email rounds: http://cjunk.blogspot.com/2006/02/why-peaceful-majority-is-irrelevant.html); it is, after all, a very Christian country, and the day may come when we see this land having taken such shape, but to argue for it essentially requires that we view the constitutional America "of old" (which Jews today rightfully celebrate, for obvious historical reasons) to have gone the way of the Roman Empire as collapsed & unworkable. I take it for granted that this is a difficult position to press on multiple grounds. As I was pointing out, perhaps not expressly enough, they are difficulties you seem happily deaf to.
ReplyDeleteAs for victims' outrage, when did I condemn the victims? In my two posted comments all I've done is uproot fallacious vitriol proffered in their name. Speaking of which, where is that outrage? You take it on faith, but I have yet to hear a whiff of it. In any case, IF the ACTUAL victims see the building as outrageous, well then with a relatively small effort at coordination they'll have little trouble getting the city govt to stand in its way. NYC is among the most onerous municipal governments on real estate developers (the profit margin there being such that it can afford to be), and a 9/11 coalition of firefighter families, etc., wields good political clout. That's not outrage, that's organized political action, and it's not only entirely legitimate but even, some may dare say, praiseworthy, spreading by example a rationalism probably entirely Jewish in origin (via Egyptian gerus: Yisro). Can't same the same for seeking to destroy enemies simply because you count them, on whatever private reckoning, to be your enemies--a sentiment that's goyishly universal.
We can take for granted that when someone calls himself Jewish, he is never faced with the problem of distancing himself from the two incidents I cite, despite the fact that both incidents were perpetrated by certain very vocal Jews in the name of Judaism as they understood it. I pointed out that that is because the rest of those who call themselves "Jewish" refuse to claim those acts as their own--even if, in fact, they commend them. So what is or is not "Judaism" is decided internally--that is, by Jews themselves. That was my point, at any rate, and as an illustration of this fairly uncontroversial, almost factual, klal, I pointed out that it's Jews themselves who define what they call Judaism even in its most sweeping generality (Reform heresies, etc.).
ReplyDeleteYou respond to this by supplying the internal Orthodox argument against "Reform" persuasions by which to establish their invalidity -- which seems more in keeping with my point than some refutation of it. And for some reason you seem to think I meant to draw some kind of analogy between Islam & Judaism (I drew none), and that I cited the two incidents I did (the Irgun bombing & the Rabin assassination) in order to condemn them. (I didn't, and I wouldn't.) And on the basis of those claims you decide I'm spewing "moot" "[non]sense". Even more strangely, you open by pointing out that my examples are poorly chosen because an organization that called its mouthpiece the "Voice of Fighting Zion" was not acting under a Jewish banner. With such a take on the world, I won't put too much energy into wondering how the posuq "Vengeance is mine" is too "abstract" a "theoretical political thought" for you.
Of course, I find this all quite strange, but in any case, until some clear, rational rebuttal can be brought, the simple point stands, and on its basis I argue that it then makes for an awful leap to decide EXTERNALLY what was done under Islam's name. Much of Islam's historical spreading by the sword is embraced by its own internal narrative, but to my knowledge no Islamic representative other than the Taliban perpetrators have claimed the 9/11 attack for Islam, so on what basis can we point to it as an attack on America that warrants America declaring war on world Islam? Now, I ask that without any proactive leanings on the matter, but as a sincere, open question; I'd be happily educated regarding it. If a non-ideological, level-headed American without your religious commitments asked it of you honestly, ready to be won over on rational grounds, I doubt you'd be able give a better answer than some version of ominous fire & brimstone warnings. To which frustration you reply here by willfully misrepresenting what I say and falling back on name-calling ("true leftist", that I must be some kind of double-std liberal Jew, or whatever your current term for "turncoat" -- the usual fare). You don't like my "cryptofascist" remark? Scroll up to the top of this comment thread, and you'll find someone praying for riotous acts of destruction by the New York populace.
If you reread what I wrote in the previous post, you'll see not only that I took pains not to be misunderstood on this last point I just spelled out again slowly for you, but I also explicitly left OPEN the possible avenue of viewing Islam as intrinsically violent and thus EVERY American mosque to be treasonous....
"despite the fact that both incidents were perpetrated by certain very vocal Jews in the name of Judaism as they understood it. "
ReplyDeleteWrong again. The underground along with the Haganah in resisting the British acted in practical terms and did not claim to act in the name of Judaism or that it was a "mitzvah" to take down the British military sites. Halavai!
You are confusing Zionism with Judaism, (there you go again equating everything) when historically they are not the same thing. Halavai that zionism and its leaders in various strands carried out acts under the banner of Judaism and Hashem. However, that's not the case historically. They did not see themselves as carrying out the Jewish religion called Judaism.
As to: "I pointed out that it's Jews themselves who define what they call Judaism even in its most sweeping generality (Reform heresies, etc.)."
Ok, except imams cannot find real scriptural basis in Islamic law to disown 9/11 as a sacred duty. (NOT including the phonies who cite abrogated verses to deceive the public about their "version" of Islam and are in fact heretics of Islam).
Aside from that, a clear difference: The perpetrators did carry out the acts in the name of their religion - not a separate political philosophy. Several of the hijackers made videos in which they read off their wills - you can watch these videos and see if they are referring to Islam or just basic distaste for America for whatever reason.
"Much of Islam's historical spreading by the sword is embraced by its own internal narrative, but to my knowledge no Islamic representative other than the Taliban perpetrators have claimed the 9/11 attack for Islam,"
Listen to the imams in their own words. Aside from blaming Mossad, was the response from the imams of middle eastern countries to condemn it? Blaming Jews and the Mossad is actually a convenient way to avoid having to condemn something that is mandated and praised by the religion but not PC to openly support. There were British imams who openly praised the bus bombings in London however. Were they "al qaeda" ? Video can be found on youtube. I never took a survey about 9/11, but I would be shocked to see any Saudi imams bashing it, even though the enemy of the royal family carried it out.
"falling back on name-calling"
Nice try. I did not 'fall back' on anything, I replied to your name-calling with one line as a response in kind. That you accuse me of namecalling even while acknowledging you called me a name is beyond ironic - quite strange. I was reacting to your childish namecalling, which is a typical tactic of people who have nothing to say.
"Scroll up to the top of this comment thread, and you'll find someone praying for riotous acts of destruction by the New York populace."
Huh? So you call me a name because of something someone else said? (Not that it makes logical sense to call public assembly a "fascist" exercise, but I don't know who "prayed" for riotous acts here or public protest). Why do I get called a fascist because someone else said something you don't like? This is insanity.
"Can't same the same for seeking to destroy enemies simply because you count them, on whatever private reckoning, to be your enemies--a sentiment that's goyishly universal."
What are you babbling about? Destroying enemies? From where do you get this stuff? And can you explain the relevance.
Student V,
ReplyDeleteOnce again, I see I'm going to have to walk you back through the playbook of discussion here. No one has called you any names. I first made the point on this Comment Thread, under the moniker Get Over Yourselves, that Joseph2's response was un-American, a point then seconded by someone writing in as Archie Bunker's Nemesis. After your haranguing of the "Muslim-loving" contingent, I then decided to reiterate the same point (re-monikered as now), this time alluding to the previous thread thus: "[American freedom of expression] may not be well suited to cryptofascist sensibilities such as some of those finding a voice here [i.e., on this Thread]." My Comment may have been posted addressed to you, but naturally in the course of its content it referred to a discussion you had joined. Gee, what a mystery that must have been for you. Of course, if I wanted to refer to you, I would have expressly referred to you & your words.
The comment I had in mind is hard to miss; it's the second Comment posted: "I hope that New Yorkers will have the guts to tear [this mosque] down should it ever be built. May G-d give them the strength and determination." In my most recent posting I characterized this comment as "praying for riotous acts of destruction by the New York populace," which seems an awfully fair representation and hardly the "call[ing for] public assembly" you describe. Upon your accusing me of calling you names, I informed you that it was you who was so stooping, whether you realized it or not (and also listing the ways you had, to help you realize it), and in anticipation of any misunderstanding you might be prone to, directed you to the Comment just quoted, telling you to "Scroll up to the top of this comment thread" to see the basis of my phraseology & to what it referred. Mystery solved.
In other words, not only was I not calling you names, I wasn't engaging in name-calling at all. A fair definition of fascism is the autocratic handing down of judgment with no regard to judicial process or to independent judicial rule of law, most notably against enemies summarily designated as such on grounds purely arbitrary. To spur a crowd into looting is anarchy; to spur them to visit destruction upon a personalized enemy is fascism. (Mussolini explicitly built a regime on just such a nationalist program; hence the provenance of the name.) When such a philosophy masquerades under some other guise, as it very often does (in this case in religious dressing), I call it "crypto-"fascism, although I confess the term is likely become hackneyed sometime in the last few decades. And I articulated the principle underlying this philosophy--or, as I put it, the fascist "sentiment"-- as wanting "to destroy enemies simply because you count them, on whatever private reckoning, to be your enemies" (i.e., as opposed to trying & sentencing a criminal) precisely in order to charge, as I did, that it's an un-Jewish sentiment.
"Insanity," huh? I'd think you'd know from learning seder by now that whenever your own qasha rings so very mightily strong so quickly, more likely than not you've missed peshat. There's simply no good reason for you to have such gross misunderstandings. Or if you did, for your tone to be as overbearing as it is; one would expect some recognition on your part that you may have misunderstood your interlocutor. What's more, your overgrown, exaggerated bewilderment is wasteful. See how much I just wrote in the last three paragraphs? I'm happy to have written all that content, except in this case the amazing fact is that it's nothing I haven't written already; it's all recap from the same Thread! And why should I have to? If you just thoughtfully read through the posts before responding in kind all this would have been averted and we could be discussing (dare we dream?!) actual substance!...
(cont'd)
ReplyDeleteNot surprisingly, you've failed to address the major problem that there's no clear evidence that the victims of 9/11 themselves consider the mosque an insult. Even if they did, your most recent remarks seem to imply that you're of different stripes than Joseph2's tyrannical vigilantism, and presumably you'd concede that their only legitimate recourse would be by some political petition (which itself would no doubt be successful, I've argued). The only point to contend is whether Islamic sites & Muslim communities in America are inherent terrorist threats that need be subjected to greater legal stringencies, but if you were for that radical line you would have championed it by now, especially as I've broached the possibility twice. The Irgun issue is a distraction from the main point, which even were you completely right about would not weaken my argument almost at all (although still on this peripheral point I think it clear enough that you're missing the substance entirely). And whatever the 9/11 attackers themselves claimed to be their motivation is irrelevant, as should be obvious by now. Best as I can make out, you're looking to decry leftism wherever you, um, "find" it, and to maintain that mainstream Islam celebrates the 9/11 atrocity. This last matter is actually kind of interesting, and I'm piqued by your references, but at this point I'm too skeptical of your acumen to trouble you to share them. Red herrings aside, you're basically stuck with the mah nafshakh of choosing between maintaining how very rightfully outraged a 9/11 ought be, which has no political meaning whatsoever and is at this point still factually dubious, or joining the ranks of fundamentalist Christians rooting for a re-fashioned theocratic America at war with world Islam. If the former, you'd have been best served by limiting your comments to an "Amen" on Ironheart's incisive one-liner that the downtown mosque project is quintessentially chutzpadik.
Besof sof: We are countermanded by God against hatred. All the nations of the world have treated us badly, yet we are enjoined to be a light unto them, a qiddush H', charged at most with remembering, in two cases, to keep ourselves separate from them and in only one case to annihiliate; but even those are chiddushim, and even by Amalek it's prophesied that such will not be fulfillable until Moshiach (i.e., soon). Our bringing forth din comes properly not in the form of ayin hara (itself a natural vehicle of din) but from beis din. And especially in nations with the Noahide shoftim so thoroughly well entrenched as in America we owe deference to these values all the more--yes, even with regard to those who make of themselves a flagrant example of bad taste. They are values that sacred.
"The comment I had in mind is hard to miss; it's the second Comment posted: "I hope that New Yorkers will have the guts to tear [this mosque] down should it ever be built. May G-d give them the strength and determination." In my most recent posting I characterized this comment as "praying for riotous acts of destruction by the New York populace," which seems an awfully fair representation and hardly the "call[ing for] public assembly" you describe. "
ReplyDeleteWell, that's only because I thought you referred to something I said, when in fact I never said such things. It really doesn't make sense to attack other people's posts (indirectly) while you address me with criticisms of supposedly my position. With the unclear language, it suggests that these criticisms apply to me and distorts and derails our conversation.
This is going to be slightly off topic but I can't help
ReplyDelete"if the former, you'd have been best served by limiting your comments to an "Amen" on Ironheart's incisive one-liner that the downtown mosque project is quintessentially chutzpadik."
Could you be anymore pompous? Your writing style is quite revolting. It is so intolerable I couldn't resist to comment on it if only to save you from being such a pompous donkey to other people in the future... Hope you'll take the constructive criticism in a good-natured way as I do not mean it to be insulting. But your writing is insulting!
"The only point to contend is whether Islamic sites & Muslim communities in America are inherent terrorist threats that need be subjected to greater legal stringencies, but if you were for that radical line you would have championed it by now, especially as I've broached the possibility twice."
ReplyDeleteActually, I did agree to that premise already in this thread. Perhaps if you weren't reading and rereading and obsessing over Joseph's post 100 times, you would have seen it in my post before you replied to me. It went like this:
you: "but ultimately either you have to maintain that Islam is intrinsically violent"
me: "Well, it is. Ever hear of jihad?"
Yes yes I caught the jihad remark (all my wild obsessions notwithstanding), but you weighed in only halfway, which is why I ignored it. You were quoting selectively. I had said,
ReplyDelete"ultimately...you have to maintain that Islam is intrinsically violent, and thus all mosques are de facto a terrorist threat and so should be universally torn down"
That SECOND clause is the meat of my invitation, the consequences of which are hard to chase down. If you can, labriyut, but, again, most would find it difficult to make that stance mesh with the constitutional America we know of. That stance, just to be clear, is declaring mosques to be de facto treasonous. Jihad or no, you've got that pesky First Amendment in the way. And what kind of proof is jihad when Christianity has its own counterpart, crusade? Of course, you might find some maneuvering room in the WWII Japanese interment camps, but still it's a tall order--one you've passed on. (Yes, I re-checked.)
As for the donkey issue, well, seeing as I've already accused you of being overbearing, you're surely allowed that. But I couldn't help wondering if maybe this was another swipe at what you perceive to be my political leanings? As I've twice made the case for your memory to be less than elephantine, I left myself without a witty quip to offer back.... :^)
Not sure what you're referring to, though. From the sentence you quote, you'd be referring most obviously to my presumptuousness in telling you what you should have said. As a gesture, I grant that that's a bit unnecessary. (It did have its context there, of course, but still I agree.) What leaves me unsure is that you name rather my "writing style" itself. I suppose at some level I could grant that as well, except I haven't the foggiest what then you'd be referring to. (My use of the word "quintessentially"? Seemed appropriately chosen for the context. A gratuitous "former"/"latter" syntactic construction?) May it's just your quotation there that's throwing me off track and it's something more obvious?
As I've never been one to be easily offended (b"H), you're welcome to elaborate. And, needless to say, I'm willing to apologize....