Hysteria over Muslims spreads all over America!

[Cleveland_7795]

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/8/26/headlines#5

I fail to see how rejecting a building permit can be seen as Anti-Muslim bias. The cheering was inappropriate, for sure, but that's about all. The only reason the ACLU is involved is because the rejected permit happened to be for a mosque. I could wallpaper the Kremlin with number of rejected permits for churches, Hindu temples, synagogues, etc from Ohio alone, but you haven't, and won't, hear a peep from the fucking ACLU. I know for a fact that the Hindu Temple near my house was rejected several times before it was approved due to parking, curb restrictions, sewage, etc, and it's in the middle of nowhere. People are trying way too hard now...

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=13016

[Khalil]

That's fine, there's a history of blocking permits, regardless of religious beliefs. What we're trying to convey is that there's a general animosity for Muslims in the country atm. Vandalizing in Cali, refusal of Mosque in Tennessee, Community center near Ground Zero and this hate-crime. Also, there was a link in Reddit somewhere in the politics somewhere where nearly 43% of people have some fear of Muslims as opposed to the 13-20% of Jews and 10-15% of Christians. I need to find the link for you.

[Cadsuane]

Aren't all the Abrahamic faiths worshipping the same imaginary sky-parent?

Answer is arbitrary. Alot of them refer to the same scripture, but god has been interpreted to be many things. Before the jews were carted off to Babylon Judea didn't even have a monotheistic religion, they just insisted that Yahweh was greater than all other gods. So if the answer to your question is no then you have to square away the fact that before the prophets the jews essentially worshipped a pantheon which means that a good bit of scripture was written by heretics, and if the answer is yes then you have to square away that Judaism came out of a very large family of similar semitic religions who could also be said to have worshipped the same god(s).

[Cleveland_7795]

That's fine, there's a history of blocking permits, regardless of religious beliefs. What we're trying to convey is that there's a general animosity for Muslims in the country atm. Vandalizing in Cali, refusal of Mosque in Tennessee, Community center near Ground Zero and this hate-crime. Also, there was a link in Reddit somewhere in the politics somewhere where nearly 43% of people have some fear of Muslims as opposed to the 13-20% of Jews and 10-15% of Christians. I need to find the link for you.

My main issue is that alot of this Anti-Muslim bias seems to be trumped up to fit an agenda, on both sides, and some of it is even fabricated. The building permit refusal and the ACLU's involvement was just 1 example of trying to find this bias where it doesn't actually exist. The cabbie attack couldn't have been better timed...

Even so, as terrible as it is, and the dude should get life in prison, it was one incident. Only its timing makes it seem to be on a larger scale than it actually is.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2008/victims.html

Barely edges out Catholicism, doesn't hold a candle to Judism. (2009 hasn't been posted yet, and I doubt there will be that much of a swing....2008 is still post 9/11/01 though. Also notice, it has been decreasing since at least 2005).

[Khalil]

I'm actually a bit more curious how the data will shift from Dec 2009-August 2010.

You can see the timeline Kuya posted. The story about the islamic center was only local news and began in Dec 2009 with Laura Ingraham actually praising Daisy Khan. Around the same time, that Pam Geller started this anti-islam garbage. I have no concrete evidence if any other political pundit or whatever started this hatred but I'm sure Geller began this. So far, only the House Speaker and few Democrats have expressed a bit of concern over the center but a large majority are for it. The majority of the right-wing are oppose to it. I highly doubt Democrats have anything to gain from this unless they don't want the public to know this Fair Elections Act bill voted on or something.

[BerenTebogo]

Palin tweeted something like "Muslims please dont build a mosque on ground zero!" and some mayoral aid in NYC basically told her to get stuffed.

That's how this all got brought to the headlines I think (in part anyways).

[Zoolander]

If you don't think there is an obvious widespread fear and anger against Muslims in this country you are woefully oblivious to the world you live in. ACLU backing the Muslims is freaking obvious, do you live in a vacuum or something?

[archibaldcrane]

http://www.salon.com/news/new_york_c...ght_hate_diary

People like Sarah Palin, Newt and that crazy Atlas chick should be held responsible for the atmosphere they helped create. On a positive note however, this attack on a Muslim might take some wind out of the sails of the hate mongerers.

I have a feeling that the year he spent embedded with the US Military in Afghanistan shaped his opinion of Muslims way more than a few political pundits.

[Baha]

My main issue is that alot of this Anti-Muslim bias seems to be trumped up to fit an agenda, on both sides, and some of it is even fabricated. The building permit refusal and the ACLU's involvement was just 1 example of trying to find this bias where it doesn't actually exist. The cabbie attack couldn't have been better timed...

Even so, as terrible as it is, and the dude should get life in prison, it was one incident. Only its timing makes it seem to be on a larger scale than it actually is.

The anti-muslim side is much louder though. All the lies about the NY community center, the blocking of the Tenessee mosque (even though it's just a new location for a mosque that's been in the town for more than 20 years), the vandalizing. Black guy with skullcap walks near a protest rally and gets harrassed cause idiots think he's a muslim?

Noone is judging all of Christians by the actions of some crazy evangelical church. Yet all muslims are basically treated like (potential) terrorists on national TV, leading to a lot of hate against them, and this is somehow not a problem?

[Kuya]

I have a feeling that the year he spent embedded with the US Military in Afghanistan shaped his opinion of Muslims way more than a few political pundits.

Possibly, but no effort should be wasted to portray this assault as having resulted of the toxic discourse over the community center. Nothing will kill their hate boner faster than an actual physical assault of a Muslim.

[archibaldcrane]

Possibly, but no effort should be wasted to portray this assault as having resulted of the toxic discourse over the community center. Nothing will kill their hate boner faster than an actual physical assault of a Muslim.

I'd prefer to try to focus on trying to find the truth as opposed to engaging in point-scoring.

[Kuya]

That's not point scoring. It's called a tactic. And a rather effective one at silencing the bigots.

[archibaldcrane]

That's not point scoring. It's called a tactic. And a rather effective one at silencing the bigots.

Only if it's true. Swampy has already dismissed the idea that this has anything to do with hateful rhetoric and used it to reinforce the conspiracy in his head that libruls are trying to manufacture fake outrage towards the ill-treatment of Muslims, you think he'll be alone?

[Kuya]

Nothing stops anyone from both using this as a means to crush the hate mongerers and search for what really led to the guy's attack. The hate mongers don't give a damn about truth, because if they did, they wouldn't be outraged over this at all. So let's not kid ourselves that the facts matter to them. What matters to them is emotion. Next, this issue works for our benefit either way. We can try to portray this as a result of anti-muslim rhetoric, which is difficult to disprove because it's so abstract, and if it just so happens that this is not effective, we can go the other way and contend that wars in the Middle East breed bigotry in our soldiers such as this man, anti-muslim bigotry, which helps the anti-war stance. Either way benefit can be extracted from this. It just so happens that the first scenario has the most benefit given the current situation.

In closing it doesn't matter if it's true. All that matters is that it's powerful. They're not the ones we're trying to convince. We're trying to portray them as anti-muslim bigots, to deligetimize them.

edit: Logic and reason only convinces those who are logical and reasonable.

[Demosthenes11]

I've been wondering lately if in 50 years, our textbooks will compare this islamophobia with the red scare and macarthy to palin and beck. My brother (history major) has been ranting all day about the rally those 2 are having at the lincoln memorial on the anniversary of the "I have a dream" speech where they are going to "claim back the civil rights movement." Hard rage. Hard. Fucking. Rage.

[Kuya]

I believe Glenn also said that "blacks don't own Marthin Luther King". The right-wingers are getting bold.

[archibaldcrane]

In closing it doesn't matter if it's true.

edit: Logic and reason only convinces those who are logical and reasonable.

While your edit is true, I have no desire to stoop to that level of idiocy. The idea of "whatever works is what we should do, fuck morality, fight fire with fire" holds no appeal for me.

edit: Actually you know what? I don't even really think your edit is true. People will use and believe logic and reason as long as it fits the narrative they have already established. And when the intelligent manipulators of the right-wing talking points figure out that this attacker formed his negative viewpoint of Muslims by watching US soldiers getting blown up by them in Afghanistan (which, let's be real, is probably what happened), and start espousing that view, the masses will believe it because it is both logical AND it fits their narrative. It's not a lack of capacity for reason, it's a decision not to try to use it that these conservative cunts possess.

[Kuya]

While your edit is true, I have no desire to stoop to that level of idiocy. The idea of "whatever works is what we should do, fuck morality, fight fire with fire" holds no appeal for me.

You're exaggerating. Proposing that this attack was motivated by anti-muslim environment and rhetoric is not idiocy; your statement is nonsense. Perhaps dishonest is the word you're looking for. Furthermore, you're right, this dose amount to "means justify an ends". I have no problem with that, given that not all means are justified by their ends. Some methods exact too great a toll.

Also, stating that this was likely caused by anti-muslim rhetoric is not lying. It's a mere assumption. You just believe that his stay in Afghanistan is the greatest factor, but you can't prove that. It just seems more plausible. But just as easily it can be claimed that the anti-muslim environment aided such an attack. None of this means that i'm right of course. What it means is that i'm choosing to stick to one side of the story for its use, and what an effective story it is.

[archibaldcrane]

You're exaggerating. Proposing that this attack was motivated by anti-muslim environment and rhetoric is not idiocy; your statement is nonsense.

I just hate jumping to conclusions, especially if we are intentionally jumping to a less-likely conclusion for political benefit. Yes, the dishonesty bothers me.

[Cadsuane]

That sounds a little demagogue-ish Kuya, kinda conforms to liberuhl cliches doesn't it? Siezing upon sensationalized issues for moral leverage in a debate I mean. Shouldn't you be sticking to a story because you think it's true?