More good stuff from Jay Vorhees, this time looking at the ‘ground zero mosque’ from the perspective of US history.
…the concerns raised about Muslim expansionism in recent weeks shouldn’t surprise us, for they are the extension of the John Birch Society raised concerns about the election of a Roman Catholic president during the election of 1960. While the media has focused on the Ground Zero mosque for it’s symbolism, the fact is that in places like Murfreesboro and Antioch, TN there are even more heated battles over the ability of Muslims to build community centers and places of worship. In these places there is no symbolic consideration, no hallowed grounds to protect. No, the concerns raised are blatant NIMBYism, driven by the same motivations that led Puritans to tie Baptists to dunking stools and hold them under water until they drowned. And as folks search for justifications for their fears, the rhetoric rises and political leaders co-opt those fears for political purposes.
Another hit, I think.
{ 7 comments… read them below or add one }
Mike Claridge 08.23.10 at 11:56 am
See Charlie Brooker in the Guardian too.
Ground Zero Mosque?
Richard 08.23.10 at 12:09 pm
Thanks a good link, a great rant. Thanks Mike.
malc 08.23.10 at 12:14 pm
Charlie there asked exactly the same question I was wondering… if this Islamic Centre is actually TWO blocks away from Ground Zero and that’s deemed too close… how far away does it have to be to be acceptable to those who find the idea so offensive?? Five blocks… ten blocks… city limits, state limits… another country perhaps…??
Since when has it been possible to say where definded sacred* boundries for such places as Ground Zero are?? And who definds it?? The Roman Catholic Church?? The Anglican one?? The city mayor, the state govener, the President of the United States or maybe the most rabidly offended person going??
* - and to be honest, though it is a site of a terrible tragedy I wouldn’t call it sacred myself.
Tim Chesterton 08.23.10 at 3:27 pm
There’s a few repeated sentences in your snippet there. In fact, it’s rather incoherent.
Kim 08.23.10 at 3:48 pm
Maybe, Tim, it’s to ape the opposition.
Tim Chesterton 08.23.10 at 3:57 pm
Richard 08.23.10 at 3:59 pm
Or it could have been me making a mess of the cutting-and-pasting…