FoxNews
They're separated by thousands of miles, but they share a common controversy: Mosques.
Murfreesboro, Tenn., has joined a growing list of midsized towns in the U.S. that are embroiled in conflicts over proposed mosques being built or bought in their neighborhoods.
Including Murfreesboro, residents have risen up against mosques in two other Tennessee towns; in Staten Island, N.Y.; Sheboygan County, Wis.; and the Sheepshead Bay neighborhood of Brooklyn, as well as the proposed mosque and Islamic Cultural Center near Ground Zero, which has garnered some of the most heated battles.[...]
They're separated by thousands of miles, but they share a common controversy: Mosques.
Murfreesboro, Tenn., has joined a growing list of midsized towns in the U.S. that are embroiled in conflicts over proposed mosques being built or bought in their neighborhoods.
Including Murfreesboro, residents have risen up against mosques in two other Tennessee towns; in Staten Island, N.Y.; Sheboygan County, Wis.; and the Sheepshead Bay neighborhood of Brooklyn, as well as the proposed mosque and Islamic Cultural Center near Ground Zero, which has garnered some of the most heated battles.[...]
Yeah, it's the same thing as back in good, old Europe, where it was forbidden to build synagogues...
ReplyDeleteThis kind of racism will never die out, I guess...
A shameful turning away from the American ideal to try to resist the ideology of our opponents by accepting it. Americans should not fight Islamic intolerance and exclusivity by promoting American intolerance and exclusivity.
ReplyDelete'New'?! Not even a havamina that it's new--the norm, more like! And in the current climate, America, its foundational political principles notwithstanding, is steadily returning to that older, familiar foundation.
ReplyDeleteSee, for example, the Dutch, um, 'filmmaker' Geert Wilder's relatively recent talk -
http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/wilders.asp
...and this editorial by Canadian blogger Paul E. Marek that periodically makes the email rounds-
http://cjunk.blogspot.com/2006/02/why-peaceful-majority-is-irrelevant.html
...not to mention, of course, the latest slew of bestseller ideological tracts trumpeting out, for the none-too-wise bookreading public, easy "history" lessons-- "culture clashes" of "world civilizations" blah blah blah. In addition to the neo-intelligentsia there's a whole litany of fundamentalist groups littering the fly-by States who flock readily to such fodder.
Funny thing is, their position isn't at all unfounded. It's just found expression mostly in demagoguery. And, yes, it's pretty sad how readily it catches on in frum circles.
Why wasn't my post posted saying thay'll be the end to all of us? This seems obvious to many people.
ReplyDeleteAnon,
ReplyDeleteWhile I don't know the contents of your nonposted post, whether the growth of observant Islam will or will not be the "end of us" is not the point. What is it you propose be done about it? Outlaw mosques? Start a preemptive worldwar against Muslims?
Even were such proposals were feasible (how could they be?), historically & hashkafically considered, Jews don't do that...
Anon,
ReplyDeleteSeeing as this post has fast moved from the front page, more than likely it's off the general readership radar. I'm not sure how much sense it makes to have a discussion that's attended/observed by only us two.
What's more, your question is so open & general, unframed by thoughtful analysis, that the prospect of discussion seems less attractive still.
For example, let's say I were to grant in principle what you say entirely ("murder & mayhem" etc.), well, what's the practical relevance? You're still dodging the main point at issue (i.e., what to do) with ideological banter (they're so terrible blah blah blah). Worldwar against a worldwide religion, even WERE it justified, is so entirely unfeasible and strangely messianic as to be delusional.
And why should anyone grant in principle your tenet at all, esp. as you're ignoring the most basic questions, for example these:
(1) if Zionism is distinguishable from Judaism proper (as I think everyone would grant), then why can't Gentile groups claim for themselves the same distinction of ideology/religion and disavow the actions of ideologues in their religion's name? If you claim somehow that no they can't, then why isn't every Chareidi bochur answerable for the action of every Kahanite, Mizrachi, & Agudahnik? You're just having it both ways, which is the hallmark of all ideology.
(2) And if you bring "scriptural" proofs from Islamic texts to "prove" their antisemitism, well isn't the Web littered with anitsemitic sites quoting the Bible, Talmud, & the rest of the Jewish corpus in order to buttress the Protocols of the Elders of Zion? What makes your interpretation so legitimate, or more credible than odious hatchet jobs by neoNazi journalists?
(3) Even if you were correct that every single Muslim on the planet harbored enmity in their heart toward Jewry, is it so clear that that merits a similar response from us? Prior to chiddushim learned out of some marei maqomos, the most natural din would be that we defend ourselves against attacks manifested in action, not in word & sentiment. If everyone who in his heart harbored some murderous sentiment toward another were deserving of retaliation, well then most of the world population would have become chaiv misa at some point in their teenage years. And then the mere possession of a yetzer hara would make us sinners, instead of how each of us individually acts & behave while under its influence. So then so what if some Muslim hated me; until he actually attacked me, what real relevance do his sentiments have?
With 3 independent qashas hanging on your question with regard to matters of principle, and one very glaring qasha with regard to matters of fact, your question just never gets off the ground. I'm not saying there are not ways to answer the above 4 questions, but the fact that you haven't even begun to, that you haven't even acknowledged that you'd HAVE to in any remotely intelligent discussion, already telegraphs that real, substantive discussion here is almost for sure foreclosed at the outset. That itself, I think, from a religious kopf qualifies as a chillul H'. What could be worse than that?