Well, unlike some people I'm glad to see that the pastor can listen to reason.
SecDef Gates gives short call and asks nice, pastor concedes and plans to meet up with the Iman in NY later on.
[...]
This is also why I admire Gates - he gets it done. No fuss, no muss or pleading for the cameras. Just gets a phone number from one of his spooks and talks it out.
Yes, because there is exactly no way in which an incendiary nutjob finding out he gets to talk to a cabinet member just because he's an incendiary nutjob could ever cause any problems down the road, ever.
Kabbage: This is why you shouldn't be so quick to question the first. As wrong as the book-burning was, it was a protest based on fears grounded on the historical fact that Muslim states tend to build mosques on the churches or temples of the states they conquer.
Yeah, THAT'S what it was.
Fuck's sake, SCD, I know you hate Muslims and all, but spit out the Kool-Aid for a minute. A community center with a prayer room a couple of blocks away from the attack site -- from American Muslims who have no ties to the terrorists who attacked the WTC -- is hardly a giant raised middle finger to a "conquered state".
The guy's fears weren't "grounded in historical fact". He's an insane bigot who hangs out with Fred Phelps and does crazy shit to get attention.
More importantly, the attempted protest and the drama that ensues has encouraged dialog in a way that would not happened if the national or state government intervened (the burning without a permit would only pave way for a fine). Now the Pastor and Iman, who under normal circumstances or those of which you suggested would never have met, have a chance to really sit down and talk over coffee or tea, something that would likely assist greatly the Iman in his attempts to find funding for the center.
Yeah, because all the people screaming about OMG GROUND ZERO MOSQUE are going to change their minds over this.
There's only one thing that's going to get Fox News to stop the "Ground Zero Mosque" stories: we hit the second week of November and they don't need election-year posturing anymore.
No one should object on the basis that he has no right to burn the Koran, and any number of Korans that are his property, and the same goes for the ground zero Al-Qaeda 19 Memorial Education Center, or whatever it is. Particularly when there are so many other grounds from which to object.
See, the narrative where these two things are compared and mentioned in the same sentence is as nasty a side effect of this conversation as anything.
Yes, burning Korans is covered by the First Amendment even if people consider it morally wrong.
And yes, building a community center two blocks from Ground Zero is covered by the First Amendment even if people consider it morally wrong.
But beyond that superficial similarity, they're pretty damn different situations. Burning Korans is a deliberately incendiary (literally as well as figuratively) act rooted in intolerance. In the case of the Islamic community center, I've seen no real evidence that it's intended as some kind of TERROR VICTORY MOSQUE -- in this case, it's the people who OBJECT to it who are unreasoningly intolerant.