The equation between a mosque and Nazi headquarters makes no sense. This is more like being against putting up a German restaurant next to a Holocaust museum. After all, the chef “might” be a Nazi.

All Germans aren’t Nazis. All Muslims aren’t terrorists. And there is a fundamental difference between a political group and a religion. The Nazi party has a platform – a distinct ideology. There is no such thing as a “less fanatical” Nazi – they all believe in a disgusting ideology. No religion falls under that same description. Like any religion, there are many different belief systems within Islam. And the implication is that a billion+ Muslims all think in violent lockstep. It’s plain bigotry.

OK, then the majority of Muslims are violent.

First, you don’t know that. Secondly, the majority of Christians believe in the End Times. That has the potential to be as dangerous as terrorism, as these Christians may actively desire environmental degradation and war to hasten the Second Coming.

Fair point – then what if it’s a matter of self-preservation to abolish religion? If it’s going to lead to World War III, then we’ll have to abolish majority-rule fanaticism.

How do you plan on doing that? Arresting people if they believe in a certain faith?

As I said, if they’re actively trying to sow discord, this may be the only option.

But then you’ve traded one dystopia for another. A fascist dictatorship against free thinking is not the answer because it limits people’s options. Better to educate people on moderate matters of faith – how to avoid extremism. And banning the mosque in Manhattan is a form of extremism, a lesser equivalent of banning religion entirely because of what a subset of the religion believes. It will halt progress just like censorship.

Do you really think “education” is enough?

If it was a priority. Unfortunately, it’s not. And the media doesn’t help by feeding the hysteria – and more people listen to their TV than school.

By that logic we need to censor the media as well. Or at least regulate what people talk about.

Well, not exactly. We just a smarter media, just as we need smarter religious debate. Censorship doesn’t make people smarter, it stops discussion. Once you open the door to thought regulation, that’ll give rise to a religious demagogue who then uses the new regulations to her own purposes.

OK, then, how about this? A Christian right conservative gets into office. She wants to go to war with Islam to start Armageddon. Millions of people support her. What do we do?

We’d have to revolt.

So you do advocate revolution against religion if things got really out of hand?

I guess. This is an issue that’s really been troubling me lately. War makes sense sometimes – and if a politician is legislating based on Biblical law, then basically she has created a type of Nazi party. A political platform that has melded with a religious ideology. Until that point, religion is just religion. Once it’s merged with the state, it becomes a different animal, hence our Constitution.

And I’ll add, the extremist notion that all Muslims are terrorists is as dangerous as a notion as “All Christians are good” or “America can do no wrong.” It’s that kind of black and white thinking that can lead to Sarah Palin’s rise and demagoguery (that’s who we’re talking about, right?) So sowing bigotry by banning a mosque is a step towards a world where black and white thinking becomes the norm. The result? More war based on good/evil principles that don’t exist in this complicated world. Certainly, there are evil regimes like the Nazi’s, but what’s happened here is that people without the same extremism are being lumped together. That’s a dangerous precedent.

So what you’re saying is that things might not get any better.

Basically.

Should a 15-story mosque and Islamic cultural center be built two blocks from the site of the worst jihadist atrocity in living memory? Put this way, the question nearly answers itself. This is not to say, however, that I think we should prevent our fellow citizens from building “the ground zero mosque.” There is probably no legal basis to do so in any case—nor should there be. But the margin between what is legal and what is desirable, or even decent, leaves room for many projects that well-intentioned people might still find offensive. If you can raise the requisite $100 million, you might also build a shrine to Satan on this spot, complete with the names of all the non-believing victims of 9/11 destined to suffer for eternity in Hell.

There’s a difference between being an intellectual atheist and being bigoted about religion. Here he falls into the latter camp.

I too fall somewhat into that camp – part of me thinks any belief in one religion is a kind of fanaticism. How can the tenets of one religion describe the God of the entire universe/multi-verse? It’s fairly senseless. Some small part of believers must be open to the idea that, Hey, maybe the Buddhists are right, or the atheists. If you take the orthodox approach to any religion, they’re mostly demented. I honestly wish all people could drop their religion, no matter how moderate. But I also get that people can use religion to do good works or for personal growth. More importantly, freedom of thought should be a more-cherished idea than “these things should not be believed.”

The slippery slope is a terrible one, especially in the hands of the fascist-prone far-right. By Sam Harris’s logic, there should be no church or cultural center erected, given the ludicrous ideas of all religions when taken to their extreme. Never mind the proximity of the center to Ground Zero – Harris is arguing that Islam itself is problematic, which means it’s problematic wherever they choose to erect a new cultural center. Indeed, this could come back to bite Sam Harris when the freedom-hating right gets into power and bans atheists from public discourse. They could argue that Godless secularism is an “evil.” Just to provide a science fictional example – hindering freedom is a terrible precedent.

Islam is a young and, yes, fucked-up religion in some ways (”Allah commands his followers to slay infidels wherever they find them, until Islam reigns supreme”) – but please don’t tell me that the orthodoxy of Judaism has not also been intensely violent, drawing up lines on a map based on Biblical text. They’re fucked up, the lot of them. But the way for society to improve is to embrace the moderate elements of these religions. If he wants “frank acknowledgment of these unpleasant truths” from the Muslim community, treating them all as terrorists might not be the place to begin. Slamming the door in the face to moderates will just give further fuel to the jihadists, as has our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan. In short, don’t go to war with people, whether it’s with the military or ideology.

Some ideologies need to be eradicated – war can be justified, but many of the people advocating that we bomb Iran would just as soon wipe away Islam – in a way, that’s the side Sam Harris is on. Muslims don’t deserve fair treatment. They should be banned from existing. Whether it’s one cultural center or many is irrelevant. That’s the slope he’s started. He should keep an eye on who’s running the show of this hysteria – the people who advocate a closed society. That he’s also jumped on board shows a similar closed-mindedness, which colors his views on atheism. They’re all fanatics.

He ends with:

The erection of a mosque upon the ashes of this atrocity will also be viewed by many millions of Muslims as a victory—and as a sign that the liberal values of the West are synonymous with decadence and cowardice.

I would think the reaction would be the exact opposite of what he’s stated. That we triumphed over simple bigotry. That we are not all Sarah Palin.

(via Dangerous Minds & RadioFreeOz.com)

Apparently, the Sinclair Lewis quote is apocryphal, but it’s still effective.  It has its roots in this 1948 article:

Meanwhile, Dutch fascist Geert Wilder has been invited to an anti-mosque rally alongside Glenn Beck and Newt Gingrich.  A man who in the past has been too far-right for Charles Krauthammer.

Yesterday, I got into it on a Facebook post by Whitley Strieber that said, “Putting an Islamic center at Ground Zero is like putting a Shinto center at pearl. Wrong.”

My basic comment, though there were many:

‎”The Muslims” don’t equal Al Qaeda. Like Kamikaze pilots don’t equal Shinto.

The Muslim cultural center is blocks away from Ground Zero. It’s only become an issue because fanatically prejudiced right wingers have made it an issue. If they don’t forge on, it’s a victory for the racists. Freedom of religion means freedom of religion – there is no gray area. It shouldn’t even be up for argument.

The secret to defeating fanatical Islam is welcoming moderate Islam – not painting all of Islam with the same brush – which irony of ironies is a form of fanaticism.

A long argument ensued with a right-winger who said that it’s “very wise” to be intolerant and Islam is equal to pedophilia, in the sense that all of Islam can be condemned equally.  Those siding against the mosque should realize just who they’re siding with.

While people are busy making generalizations.  Anyone who thinks the Islamic center shouldn’t be built at “Ground Zero” is a fucking moron.  Anyone.  If that seems insensitive to the 9-11 families who are opposed to the project, that’s the point.  Generalizations about entire groups of people don’t make sense.

Update: This Salon piece shows just how this controversy was manufactured by the right and the Stop Islamization of America project.

The Pew report found that 1 in 6 American adults were not affiliated with any particular faith. That number jumped to 25% for people ages 18 to 29. Moreover, most mainline Protestant denominations have for years experienced a net loss in members, and about 25% of cradle Catholics have left their childhood faith, the study showed.

And in a 2008 study by Trinity College researchers, 27% of Americans said they do not expect a religious funeral.

American Christianity is not well, and there’s evidence to indicate that its condition is more critical than most realize — or at least want to admit.

Pollsters — most notably evangelical George Barna — have reported repeatedly that they can find little measurable difference between the moral behavior of churchgoers and the rest of American society. Barna has found that born-again Christians are more likely to divorce (an act strongly condemned by Jesus) than atheists and agnostics, and are more likely to be racist than other Americans.

Last bit is not so heartening, but unsurprising. The moral: stay away from congregations, they lead to groupthink.

More:

It makes sense to hypothesize that SBNR Americans would place themselves to the left of center politically, at a bare minimum because the Republican Party today is so widely identified as being “friendly” to organized religion. The data I analyzed bear this hypothesis out: SBNR respondents were significantly more Democratic in their party identification and liberal in their ideological orientation than their religious counterparts. Following the work of George Lakoff, we might also hypothesize the SBNR individual to be less authoritarian than one who is traditionally religious. The data support this assertion as well: SBNR survey respondents were significantly less likely than religious respondents to agree with the statement, “It is sometimes necessary to discipline a child with a good hard spanking.” On a related note, definitions of morality might also be hypothesized to differ between religious and SBNR Americans, and, again, the data show that the two groups do differ significantly. Religious survey respondents are more likely to define “moral values” as “social issues, such as abortion or gay marriage,” “family values, such as trying to protect children from sex and violence on TV and the Internet,” and “compassion and concern for the sick and needy,” while SBNR Americans are more likely to define moral values as “social justice, such as preventing human rights abuses or discrimination,” and “personal values, such as honesty and responsibility.”

I don’t have any great beef with the Mormon church. Despite some strangeness and incongruity in their beliefs (Jesus visiting America), they’re mainly relegated to Utah.  Mitt Romney isn’t going anywhere.  I looked up Mormon and horses and turns out there’s some controversy with horses in the Book of Mormon:

The Book of Mormon mentions horses, yet these animals seem not to have been known to native Americans who greeted the Spaniards upon their arrival in the New World in the sixteenth century. Moreover, archaeological evidence for the presence of the horse in the pre-Columbian Americas is presently scant and inconclusive. How can this be explained?

Could it also be about these guys?

Found this interesting interview about the Mormon perspective on the Apocalypse.

What is your religion’s classical interpretation (if any) of the Apocalypse?

ANSWER: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes that there will be a Second Coming of Christ (also known as the Millennium) to the earth and that the earth will be cleansed at that time.  We also believe that a resurrection of souls to their physical bodies will occur.  The resurrection will bring souls and bodies back together but our bodies will then be immortal or without blood.  The Millennium was prophesied in the Old Testament, and as its name specifies, will last one-thousand years.  During the Millennium, LDS belief is that the earth will be cleansed from its current telestial state to a celestial state (this will be at the end of the Millennium).  The degrees/kingdoms of glory are a large subject and full descriptions of all three (telestial, terrestrial and celestial) degrees can be found in the Doctrine and Covenants section 76, verses 81-113.  Also, we believe there will be more than one resurrection at that time.  We also believe that the Millennium will be a time of peace when Christ is on the earth.  Events leading up to His coming, will not be peaceful.

But not completely.  Here’s some info about Mel Gibson’s church:

Gibson’s secretive sect is not recognised by the Catholic Church because it does not acknowledge the authority of the Pope or the Vatican and rejects the universally accepted teachings of the Second Vatican Council….

Gibson’s church, which offers a daily morning Mass in Latin, follows an antiquated ideology of Catholicism dating back to the 16th century.

Female followers must abide by a strict dress code requiring them to wear veils over their hair and long skirts. Pants are banned.

The last one is the most telling, of course, because he’s a misogynist prick. Not just misogynist, but murderous. Listening to Mel Gibson’s rants is like being inside OJ’s mind before the murders. It’s not just normal drunken anger, it sounds demonic, which is particularly telling given that his story about Jesus didn’t focus on peace, but violence.  Say what you will about the ADL, but there’s truth to this:

“If it’s true what’s reported, frequently hatred, bigotry and prejudice, which is controlled, explodes at moments of stress and crisis,” said Rabbi Abraham H. Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League. “Liquor loosens the tongue of what’s in the mind and in the heart, and in his mind and in his heart is his conspiracy theory about Jews and hatred of Jews.”

Given the torture porn of “The Passion,” a lot of people saw this coming.  It is a plainly insane movie.  What is just as insane is that people were moved by the endless flagellation of a spiritual figure.  Mel Gibson is evidently an abusive person, and he was willing to abuse – not just his mistress – but his savior.  This is demented.

But what’s also demented is the number of apologists you’ll see online.  If you go to Radar Online, you’ll see many, many comments defending Mel Gibson and claiming Oksana Grigorieva drove him to it, she’s a gold digger, etc.  To them, quotes like this are reasonable.

(Click for all)

So celebrity doesn’t just drive certain movie stars crazy – it drives followers crazy as well, much like religion. Mel Gibson’s actions are totally indefensible, as are the Pope’s on sex abuse, or Pat Robertson’s on virtually everything. Perhaps the truth will always come to the surface – it just takes years. Which means Palin may one day have a hard Shakespearean fall, and everything that’s so obvious to many people will become obvious to her adherents. Except religious leaders say stupid things constantly and people look for ways to justify it. Such is blind devotion – and why I think Hollywood is just as anesthetizing as religion.

Mel Gibson is an incredible blend of both movie star and religious figure, which is why his fall is so  important.  Anything that exposes the hypocrisy of fundamentalists is good by me.  Apologists of Mel Gibson’s actions today aren’t that much different than apologists for the “Passion of the Christ” – they both excuse violence.  I’ll grant the difference: “The Passion” inspired increased piety.  Mel Gibson’s murderous rants accomplish nothing. But mixing violence and religion is as dangerous for Christianity as it is for radical Islam – and Mel Gibson’s rants today are just proof what kind of dangerous mind that movie came from.  There are millions of fans of “The Passion” that are likely disgusted by Mel Gibson and feel betrayed, but they shouldn’t. They should feel betrayed by “The Passion.”

A Youtube video by the protester against the flotilla attack who lost an eye.

Yesterday on the drive home, went past the protest at the Turkish consulate on Wilshire Blvd. Looked like this:

Felt physically revolted.  I’m Jewish – by birth only. But hard not to feel some tug in support of Israel.  Except they’re trying to create a country based on Biblical boundaries.  It’s madness.  No different than Islamist fanaticism.

Still, the episode shines a light.  The world’s finally losing patience, and things likely need to get a whole lot worse before they get better.

Felt the same way about Rand Paul’s recent antics. Didn’t get into it before because it gets tiring focusing on people’s grand stupidity.  But he finally called attention to the fact that hardcore libertarianism makes no sense. So you limit government power in order to what – increase corporate power?  Aren’t these the guys who protest the Fed because it doesn’t have enough government oversight?  Enron, BP, and Goldman Sachs are proof enough that non-regulation makes no sense.

Weirdly, libertarianism has a strange faith that people will behave themselves without state intervention.  Humans are children – they’ll break things if they’re given no boundaries. Especially those humans who try to find new ways to make money.

Click the “more” arrows at Youtube for the lyrics. But basically:

If you cover for another motherfucker who’s a kiddy-fucker,
Fuck you, you’re no better than the motherfucking rapist.