I don't have a blog so......

I am sad/angry that approximately 70% of my country are out of their goddamn minds! I want
someone to explain to me how being offended by an Islamic center at 51 Park Ave. is not holding all
Muslims responsible for the actions of individual persons? How--specifically--is building this Islamic
center “insensitive” to the “9/11 families”? How, again specifically, is this supposed “offense”
explained? I do not feel offended nor understand the putative logic of this “offense”--and since merely
holding a position that is not shared by a majority is no refutation of that position, I would like
someone to explain the “logic” of this “offense.” I can't even mention this topic without pointing out
the prima facie absurdity of brandishing hopelessly simplistic and incoherent notions like “sacred
ground,” “the 9/11 families” or the “sensitivity of the 9/11 families”--are we to understand that the
internal mental and emotional states of thousands of people are somehow univocal? This is so instantly
falsifiable as to make it purely a rhetorical or propagandist trope. I mean, has there been a poll of every
single member of every single family of every single person killed at the World Trade Center attack? Is
there any sense in asserting that “9/11 families are offended by this proposed mosque” as if “they”
speak in one voice? (And do you need a fucking PhD to see the next logical point: even if “they” did
speak in one voice, that is no proof of their being correct!?) If not, then what sense—literally, what
meaning or significance—could the phrase “sensitivities of the 9/11 families” mean? Unless all
members of the Islamic faith are held culpable for what individual members of that faith engage in,
how can an Islamic center cause “offense”? By this "logic" all Christians are culpable for the actions
of the Inquisition or the Salem “witch” burnings or the Florida Pastor Terry Jones' plan to burn Qur'ans
or of Fred Phelps' Westboro Baptist Churchin Kansas who protest at US soldiers' funerals because by
fighting for our country they support homosexual tolerance and deserved to die
(http://www.godhatesfags.com/index.html)—in all these cases what is being done is the familiar (for
those who know logic) fallacy of the undistributed middle. Here's the fallacy:
All A are B, all C are B, therefore all A are C. False
All Oaks are Trees, all Elms are Trees, therefore all Oaks are Elms. False
Got it? Now let's plug in the “argument” behind being offended by an Islamic center at 51 ParkAve:
All Islamic Americans are Muslim.
All Islamic terrorists are Muslim.
Therefore all Islamic Americans are Islamic terrorists. False.
The only “argument” that could “explain” the “offense” at an Islamic center being built two blocks
from “ground zero” is that the religion of Islam is offensive. And the only reason why this could be
“offensive” is if the entire religion of Islam (whatever that could mean) is held responsible or for the
actions of individual persons. This is a bad, i.e. false, argument. Period.
People like to say "I have a right to my opinion"; however, if it is uninformed by any coherent
reasoning or even minimal logic or evidence and is simply asserted as "That's how I feel," then maybe
Glenn Beck is right (for quite different reasons than he thinks): this country is in trouble. Is this the
standard of proof for adjudicating difficult moral or public policy issues: "feelings" or "sensitivities"? If
this lack of rational critical analysis is indeed representative of our collective intellectual abilities, then
it is no wonder why our children are falling so far behind other countries in educational achievement--
why should children value education when their parents are so clearly uninterested in the critical
process of education for themselves. (See the international rankings at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programme_for_International_Student_Assessment#League_Tables
Does anyone really think that what we learned 20 or 30 years ago--while we were negotiating puberty
and nascent adulthood--is sufficient for being a responsible engaged citizen in the 21st century?)
This most recent outburst of rank xenophobia and irrationality only serves to highlight the
national lack of commitment to lifelong education, rationality, knowledge and logic which leads to
incoherent fear-mongering paranoia such as "liberals want sharia law" or “ground zero” is "sacred
ground" therefore no mosque should be built there even though not a word is raised against the strip
clubs or liquor stores currently operating on this hallowed ground. These voices of opposition want to
be heard, so having heard them, I take their assertions seriously by carefully examining them, but often
the assertions make it hard to be serious. One of my favorites is that Liberals (e.g. Supreme Court
Associate Justice Elena Kagan) want to introduce sharia law? In what alternate universe? Aren't liberals
relativist, homo-loving, pot-smoking abortionists—then why in God's name (literally) would they want
a fundamentalist medieval Islamic scholastic legal structure imposing anti-feminist, anti-alcohol (!!),
anti-gay, anti-music laws that govern every aspect of our lives? I mean the stupidity is truly
astounding? (http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/08/elena-kagan-pro-sharia.html)
There has been lot of flippant talk about “sacred ground”: what constitutes the “sacredness” of
this (or any other) ground? What, precisely, are the parameters of this “sacred ground”? What kind of
building or activities will or will not violate the sacredness of this area? Let me just point out what all
these people opposed to the center being built can't seem to understand: far from the Islamic center two
blocks away violating some sacred nimbus around "ground zero," the actual "ground zero" will "honor"
the "sacredness" of the ground by building offices directly on the graves of so many of those who died
on 9/11. If “ground zero” is “sacred ground” then this needs to be answered: Will the current self-
appointed arbiters of the “sensitivities of 9/11 families” demand that any company who will lease space
in the offices to be built directly on “ground zero” will be first cleared by them (and who are the “they”
here) to make sure that their business is not an offense to the 9/11 families? If not, why not?
According to the “logic” used, am I to understand that strip joints and McDonald's are acceptable on
"sacred ground" two blocks away, but an actual house of worship is not ok on the same "sacred
ground"? The "argument" and "reasons" proffered are so prima facie unconstitutional, so utterly un-
American, so poorly reasoned and so comprehensively devoid of knowledge--of Islam, of law, of
political theories of the public square, of our unique American history of religious expression and
tolerance, of Imam Abdul Rauf who was vetted and sent by President Bush on trips to represent this
country for the State Department in the Muslim world
(http://mediamatters.org/research/201008240027), etc.--that there is one response needed: to convince
these 70% that they are incorrect. Their current opinion is based upon erroneous assumptions, and that
they have failed to think through this issue rationally and they lack sufficient knowledge. And why
couldn't they be so thoroughly mistaken? Do you think 70% of Americans would get even a basic
question of calculus correct? Of physics? Of constitutional law? What is the likelihood that these 70%
have educated themselves about Islam or constitutional law or American history of religious expression
to be able to intelligently explore these issues? I offer proof of widespread public ignorance: here are
the Gallup Poll numbers for the percentage of Americans who were against interacial marriage:
Anyone want to defend these numbers? Please notice that public opinion didn't flip until 1991!! A
perfect example of the vast majority holding an opinion based on prejudice and vague “sentiments” that
we now think utterly indefensible and abhorrent. Years from now we will look back on this (like
“freedom fries” and other insanity born of our irrational reactions to 9/11) and be ashamed—well, I
won't be ashamed...
Here's William Saletan in Slate arguing many of the same points with evidence and links to the right
wing demagogues whipping up this xenophobic irrationality:
http://www.slate.com/id/2264754/