Tag: discrimination

ADL Jumps In On The Wrong Side Of The Mosque Debate

Every once in a while, something happens that is so completely wrong, so inexplicably confused, that it makes you shake your head in utter  disbelief.  Today was one of those days.  The Anti Defamation League  (ADL), an organization that has been in the forefront of the battle for religious tolerance for decades, announced that it opposed the building of a mosque near the former World Trade Center site.  I find this almost impossible to believe.

The New York Times reports:

The nation’s leading Jewish civil rights group has come out against the planned mosque and Islamic community center near ground zero, saying more information is needed about funding for the project and the location is ”counterproductive to the healing process.”

The Anti-Defamation League said it rejects any opposition to the center based on bigotry and acknowledged that the group behind the plan, the Cordoba Initiative, has the legal right to build at the site. But the ADL said ”some legitimate questions have been raised” about funding and possible ties with ”groups whose ideologies stand in contradiction to our shared values.”

”Ultimately this is not a question of rights, but a question of what is right,” the ADL said in a statement. ”In our judgment, building an Islamic center in the shadow of the World Trade Center will cause some victims more pain — unnecessarily — and that is not right.”

Please read this carefully.  The Cordoba Initiative has an unquestionable legal right to build at the site.  But apparently, that’s not the end of the discussion.  The right to build the mosque is not in question.  No. Something trumps that.  ADL tells us that they have questions about funding, as if that were ADL’s business, and then there’s this magnificent urban planning point.  Apparently, there is theoretical penumbra around former World Trade Center site in which all of the construction should not be “counterproductive to the healing process.”  If the mosque were further away, say 2 more blocks, maybe it wouldn’t impinge on the theoretical penumbra, but as it is now, it’s too close for comfort.  What shameful rubbish.

The big question is what the construction of a mosque has to do with 9/11.  On any level.  Islam is a religion of peace. The people who brought down the World Trade Towers were fundamentalist lunatics.  Nobody is saying that the proposed mosque has anything at al to do with those people.  Or their views.  Or supported the events.  Or is subversive.  No.  There is no arguable connection.  The connection, if you want to call it that, is just this: the hijackers were muslim, and the mosque is muslim.  You see how that prevents healing?  I don’t.  You can put all of the whip cream you want on that steaming pile, and it will never, never, never be a dessert.

The Cordoba Institute says it will be transparent and will deal with the Attorney General’s Charity Bureau about its funding.  Great. That ought to be the end of that thread of the argument. We can expecct the Attorney General to check the funding. What remains, I am saddened to say, is the bigotry.

And whenever there is collossal bigotry,  people line up to justify it.  The  Community Board, the Mayor, and many others recognize that there is no legal, justifiable basis in a city to say that the Mosque that can legally be built on this site shouldn’t be built.  It has a right to be built.  Who can abrogate that right?  Nobody.  And whose against it?  Can you guess?  Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin, and a caterwauling mass of rightwing nut jobs. And joining them, to my shock and my great horror, ADL.

ADL’s position has horrified others as well:

The ADL, one of the most prominent groups in American Jewish life, is known for its advocacy of religious freedom and interfaith harmony. Its position on the mosque was met with shock and condemnation by several groups.

Jeremy Ben-Ami, head of J Street, the dovish, pro-Israel group, said he would hope ADL would be at the forefront in defending the freedom of a religious minority, ”rather than casting aspersions on its funders and giving in to the fear-mongerers.”

The Rev. Welton Gaddy, head of the Interfaith Alliance, a Washington advocacy group, said he read the ADL statement ”with a great deal of sorrow.”

”As an organization that for nearly 100 years has helped set the standard for fighting defamation and securing justice and fair treatment for all, it is disappointing to see the ADL arrived at this conclusion,” Gaddy said.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations urged ADL to retract its statement.

You can add my voice to those.  The ADL is seriously and embarrassingly off course here.  It needs to retract its statements.  But that doesn’t matter to ADL’s National Director:

Abraham Foxman, national director of the ADL, defended his position.

In a phone interview, he compared the idea of a mosque near ground zero to the Roman Catholic Carmelite nuns who had a convent at the Auschwitz death camp. In 1993, Pope John Paul II responded to Jewish protests by ordering the nuns to move.

”We’re saying if your purpose is to heal differences, it’s the wrong place,” Foxman said of the mosque. ”Don’t do it. The symbolism is wrong.”

Read that again.  It makes no sense whatsoever.  If your purpose is to heal differences, you don’t jump into disputes on the wrong side, when religious freedom is at stake, and you don’t attempt to justify your position by incendiarily invoking the Nazis.  That is just entirely too much.  And it show how terribly wrong ADL’s position is.


————–

simulposted at The Dream Antilles and The Stars Hollow Gazette and dailyKos

The Week in Editorial Cartoons – Mission Accomplished

Crossposted at Daily Kos and The Stars Hollow Gazette

Chris Britt

The Oil Crisis is Solved by Chris Britt, Comics.com, see reader comments in the State Journal-Register (Springfield, IL)

12

How to throw Rosa Parks off the bus, by John Stossel and Rand Paul

STOSSEL: because private businesses ought to get to discriminate.

~snip~

(I)t should be their right to be racist.

“I want my country back”

Back to when? 1963? or 1910? or 1810?

When Rosa Parks was thrown off of a bus for refusing to sit in the back in accordance with discriminatory Jim Crow laws it helped begin the Civil Rights movement.

It was racist then, and it would still be racist now.

Except, of course, if you are a libertarian or a Republican.

   In the last 24 hours, both Kentucky Senate candidate Rand Paul and Fox News Corp employee John Stossel have made the case that it is OKAY to throw Rosa Parks off the bus if it is owned by a private business.

more below the fold

Friday Philosophy: An Unsustainable Life

Twelve days ago, I encountered the following comment by a well-known member of Daily Kos.

What exactly is the medical condition that is treated by transgender surgery? Is it vanity? Something is not right about drastic alteration of a healthy body. I feel the same way about plastic surgery, by the way.

Transgender is an acquired condition, a choice, unlike homosexuality, and I don’t think it deserves the same protections.

I’ve let it steep and marinate, trying to come up with a way to address the comment.  And during that time, I’ve wondered how many people of like mind inhabit DK.  Given the number of anti-trans bigots that respond to general news story blogs in regards to stories about people who are trans, I’m willing to bet the commenter who made that comment is not flying solo.

So how should I approach it?  I decided that a trip back in time might fit the bill.

The Week in Editorial Cartoons – A Cry for Help

Crossposted at Daily Kos

THE WEEK IN EDITORIAL CARTOONS

This weekly diary takes a look at the past week’s important news stories from the perspective of our leading editorial cartoonists (including a few foreign ones) with analysis and commentary added in by me.

When evaluating a cartoon, ask yourself these questions:

1. Does a cartoon add to my existing knowledge base and help crystallize my thinking about the issue depicted?

2. Does the cartoonist have any obvious biases that distort reality?

3. Is the cartoonist reflecting prevailing public opinion or trying to shape it?

The answers will help determine the effectiveness of the cartoonist’s message.

:: ::

John Sherffius

John Sherffius, Comics.com (Boulder Daily Camera)

Friday Philosophy: Protections we don’t have

Have you ever worried that you might be fired if you gave any inclination that you might be straight?  You can be…with impunity…in any state which does not give equal employment protection based on sexual orientation.

It’s true that it rarely happens that someone would be fired for being straight, but it has happened.

To my knowledge, nobody has every been fired for being cisgender (i.e non-transgender).  But there is no reason, in most states, why it couldn’t happen.

The examples of people being fired for being transgender are too numerous to include.

That’s the thing about laws protecting gender-identity or sexual orientation.  They are for the protection of everybody, not just GLBT people.

Arizona: Papers Please/Papeles Por Favor

Please add the following update to your travel guides about visiting Arizona. It may be of assistance in avoiding unwanted, undesirable discussions with Arizona law enforcement, arrest and detention, and police harassment. If you already live in Arizona, something I wish on no one today, you already know everything I am about to write.  I am writing this so that others may reflect on your situation.

This is a bus stop in Tucson, Arizona.  I know it doesn’t look like a bus stop in New York, or Chicago, or New Orleans.  This is an Arizona bus stop:

tucson bus stop

There are some things that are very important if you are waiting for the bus at such a stop in Arizona.  

Grayson NAILS IT! No Dems Allowed = No Blacks Allowed

     There is a fine art to making a powerful point without making that point. Usually, the way to do this is by saying something and then immediately follow by saying “That is not why I’m saying”.

   With that in mind, I give you Congressmen Alan Grayson (Kick Ass-FL), who, in an interview with Anderson Cooper last night, made the point ( without making it ) that to turn away Obama voters from your doctors office is pretty much the same thing as hanging a sign that says “No Blacks Allowed”

GRAYSON:     Well, in fact, where he lives, in Mount Dora, which is in my district, many, many of the Democrats who live in Mount Dora happen to be African-Americans.

    So, by saying that he will not treat somebody who supported Obama, he’s saying that he’s not going to treat a large number of African-Americans in the community

crooksandliars.com

Bold text added by the diarist

    A short transcript and more below the fold

The Swiss Minaret Vote – Now that some of the dust has settled…

As probably everyone has heard by now, the Swiss sovereign voted by about 57% of the popular vote and the assent of 22 of the 26 full and half-cantons (States) to write into our Constitution that the construction of new minarets is banned, and this despite opposition to this People’s Party-supported initiative from the government, from parliament, from all parties (except the People’s Party and the fringe Protestant Democratic Party), the unions, the churches, industry, banking – pretty much every establishmentarian institution.

I’m not happy about the ban – it was a pointless affront to a section of our population.  Swiss zoning laws are arbitrary and byzantine enough to stop virtually anything if the local population put their mind to it, so the ban was not necessary.  True, a minaret is not essential for a mosque, but it’s only the conservative fringe like the Wahhabis who are actually opposed to it.  The call of the muezzin is banned anyway (not consistent with noise regulations- and it would be drowned out by church bells).

The vote was in some elements misdirected, but in others it spoke to legitimate concerns.  Popular votes are a rum thing, and you’re only given the option of voting “yes” or “no”, there is no possibility of a nuanced response.  But I certainly don’t think it is any “crisis of democracy”, or “failure” of anything except the failure of the political elites to deal with the issues that led to the “yes” vote.  

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is good because why?

I wrote this months ago on my blog but since DADT is still being implemented I figured I’d post here.

Some retired military people decided to write an article for the Washington Post saying that they don’t want to serve with gays.

In doing so, they came up with perhaps the most. Freudian. title. EVER. Seriously. They should’ve just titled it, “Dudes, stay the fuck away from my ass!” But I guess that might appear to be homophobic or something. Wouldn’t want that.

Good News on the LGBT front! (and what you need to do to help)

Once more to the well.  

Without rehashing the last weeks’ debates over President Obama’s relationship with the LGBT rights movement, I wanted to outline a list of legislation that is currently in play, along with recommendations about what we can do to help speed the processes along.  There’s nothing worse than the feeling that we have no say in the political process, but here are four opportunities to get vocal in a concrete, direct way:

1. the Domestic Partner Benefits and Obligation Act

2. the Employment Non-Discrimination Act

3. the Matthew Shepard Act

4. the Military Readiness Enhancement Act

And the best part is, you really can help.  All four of these bills are before Congress (or about to be introduced), and your representatives are waiting to hear from you.

Let’s Fight Hate

cross posted from The Dream Antilles

Photobucket

In the continuing post Prop 8 fall out, the Mormon Church is ramping up its attacks on gay people, slurring gay people and even accusing them of domestic terrorism. The campaign of hate continues to rage, just as it simultaneously continues to claim that it is a victim of attacks.  Let’s fight back.

I know.  The Mormon Church denies that this was ever a campaign of hate.  There I pointed that out.  In a wonderful circumlocution, the Church even denies that its work on Prop 8 is anti-gay.  No, it’s about being “pro- marriage,” they say.

Jump with me across the broom.

Load more