Atheists Making Atheists Look Bad

Atheists are already a despised minority here in America, to the point that many people are afraid to even admit to atheism, for fear of job loss or other repercussions. As an atheist, I find it particularly irritating when groups claiming to represent atheists take unnecessary public positions that accomplish nothing other than stirring up more dislike for all of us. Consider the picture below. This is a a new street sign in Brooklyn, honoring seven firefighters killed on 9/11. The name "Seven in Heaven" is how they are referred to locally. Some New York atheists objected, and their objection was seconded by American Atheists. Here's part of the American Atheist statement on their blog.

A street has been named for them which, unfortunately, encroaches unnecessarily on the separation of Church and State. ... Named “Seven in Heaven Way”, the street uses the tragedy of 911 to legitimize Christianity by asserting that Heaven is a real place, and that all these heroes are actually there.

I've seen some stupid and counterproductive claims by atheist groups before, but this one has to be the most idiotic. These people are just looking for something to offend them. The idea that a sign saying "seven in heaven," a phrase that can be interpreted metaphorically and which refers to no specific religion, is some sort of violation of church state separation is utterly ludicrous. Making such a claim against an innocuous memorial street sign not only promotes hostility toward atheists, but undermines the credibility of both the New York atheist group and American Atheists. The next time either organization has a legitimate case against a real violation of church state separation, it will be easy for opponents to dismiss them as extremists nuts who want to ban public use of words with any religious connotations.

Sikhs Behaving Badly

One religious group you don't usually hear too much about is the Sikhs. I was surprised to read about a violent incident at a Sikh temple in New York City.

Seven people were arraigned on riot and assault charges Monday for their roles in a vicious turf battle at a Sikh temple in Queens.

Assailants wielding cricket bats and small swords disrupted prayer services Sunday morning

Apparently the fight had something to do with opening the membership rolls. The article doesn't say how much damage was done, but notes that "at least one cop was injured" attempting to break it up and make arrests. I'm sure there will be calls from NYC politicians for sword and cricket bat control.

Smearing People As Accessories to Murder

Some maniac attempted to kill a Muslim cab driver in New York City. His vicious attack appeared to be motivated by hatred of Muslims. As soon as I saw this story, I wondered how long it would take left-wingers to start smearing critics of the Ground Zero mosque project as accessories to the crime. Since smears are a standard leftist tactic, I figured it wouldn't take long, especially since it has happened pretty much any time some nutcase with arguably anti-government or right-wing views has committed a crime. The story has been up for only 20 minutes on Memeorandum, and already the leftists are swarming. Here's left-wing propagandist Juan Cole, a member of what Robert Gibbs called the "Professional Left."

The slasher was apparently “very drunk,” but what does being drunk do to a person? Makes them suggestible, lets primal emotions come to the fore. Newt Gingrich and Rick Lazio may as well have kept Enwright in their basements in chains and whipped him into a frenzy as to spew their hatred on the airwaves.

One guy in a city of millions attacks a Muslim, and suddenly we have "pogroms" according to Cole. Leftists love the "blood on your hands" smear, regardless of how utterly illogical it might be. Cole libels the entire Republican party for good measure.

A New York cabbie came close to dying for the sake of the G.O.P. Tuesday night. ... Shame on you, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Lazio, and Sarah Palin, and all the other hatemongers. You have blood on your hands,and will have more if you go on this way.

If you've ever read any of Juan Cole's garbage, you'd be aware that he's much more of a "hatemonger" than any of the people he's attacking. And it's pretty funny to write a post practically seething with hatred while calling others "hatemongers." But then again, people who want reasoned, logical analysis don't read blogs by people like Cole.

When you constantly demonize your opponents as racists & bigots over any political disagreement, it's not much of a leap to start pretending that they are somehow responsible for the crimes of random lunatics. After all, you've already built them up in your own mind as monsters.

Protest Does Not Equal an Attack on Religious Freedom

Before I address the main point, I want to note a few things, since my last post on this subject attracted various comments and questions. When this controversy first erupted, I refrained from posting anything. It's not really a big issue for me if a Muslim group wants to build an Islamic center near Ground Zero. My first thought was: that's a really bad idea which will anger a lot of people. But, if they own the property they have a right to build it. I was not surprised that large numbers of people started to protest. A strong majority of Americans were going to object to the project for what I think are obvious reasons -- and those reasons (for most) do not include bigotry toward Muslims. What caught my attention was the almost immediate campaign, led by the left, to smear the majority of Americans as ignorant bigots for daring to object, even in mild terms, to an Islamic center near Ground Zero. I find this campaign particularly annoying because of the rank hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty of the loudest voices. In my opinion, there is no question that many of the same people screeching about religious freedom, pretending that there are no reasonable grounds for objection, and smearing those with differing opinions would be on the opposite side were this an issue involving a Christian or Jewish structure planned for a place where it was guaranteed to cause offense. That's why I feel compelled to address the mosque issue myself.

Returning to the main point... As many have rightly pointed out, the question of whether or not the Islamic center should be built is not a religious freedom issue. Saying that it is, over and over again, no matter how loudly, does not make it one. This has been one of the main false narratives from mosque supporters, that opponents are against the constitution and want to restrict religious liberty. Public protest is not an attack on religious freedom. It is instead an attempt to persuade, to change minds, to demonstrate the strength of public opinion in opposition and to convince those being protested to change their behavior or designs. It is an exercise of free speech. If a land developer of any kind wants to construct something on private property that others find offensive, protesting it is what we do here in America. The fact that this is a religious project in no way turns protests into an attack on religious liberty. Being religious does not and should not shield someone from criticism or protest.

The only time religious freedom becomes an issue is if government intervention is suggested to shut down the project by force. If this is the case, then the Islamic center development becomes not only a religious freedom issue, but a question of property rights. But most people protesting the project are not suggesting government action of that kind -- although a few are. There is a giant red line between protesting the construction and calling for government intervention. But supporters of the Islamic center have lumped both positions together, and labeled all opposition as bigotry, and an attack on constitutional rights. They are not only wrong, but in my opinion intellectually dishonest, as most are aware of the distinction between protest and government action.

64% Oppose Ground Zero Mosque in UK Poll

Admittedly it's an unscientific opt-in online newspaper poll. But I was surprised to see that level of opposition at the Guardian of all places, a newspaper that is well on the political left. It seems that even many people in the UK recognize that the project is in poor taste. As of now the poll is running 35.4% approve, and 64.6% disapprove. 

Excellent Article on the Ground Zero Mosque

After reading assorted liberal nonsense on the issue, I was thinking of writing a post about the proposed Islamic center. But Dorothy Rabinowitz, writing in the Wall Street Journal, did it for me.

The question today is whether Americans of any era have ever confronted the bombardment of hectoring and sermonizing now directed at those whose views are deemed insufficiently enlightened—an offense regularly followed by accusations that the offenders have violated the most sacred principles of our democracy.

The left is outraged on the rare occasion that one of their own, such as Shirley Sherrod, is the victim of a smear. But smear tactics are standard procedure when political opponents dare disagree with politically correct wisdom.

without the civilizing dictates of their superiors in government, ordinary Americans are lost to reason and decency. They are the kind of people who—as a recent presidential candidate put it—cling to their guns and their religion.

That pretty much sums up the typical attitude of many on the left.

In the plan for an Islamic center and mosque some 15 stories high to be built near Ground Zero, the coercive power of politically correct pieties and the unyielding political assault on all dissenters is on full display.

Yes it is, even though the reason for most opposition is obvious -- and it isn't bigotry. Large numbers of Americans think that putting an Islamic center so close to Ground Zero, where the U.S. was attacked by Islamic extremists, is at best in poor taste, and a worst, an outright offensive attempt to establish an Islamic presence close to what they see as a sacred site. Most also don't like the fact that the developers won't reveal their funding sources, and therefore there is suspicion that some of the same types of individuals or nations that fund Islamic extremism might be involved in this project, regardless of its seemingly benign purpose.

Here was an idea we have been hearing more and more of lately—the need to show the world America's devotion to democracy and justice, also cited by the administration as a reason to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in New York City. Who is it, we can only wonder, that requires these proofs? What occasions these regular brayings on the need to show the world the United States is a free nation?

Who indeed? Who is it that feels the need to constantly apologize for the U.S., and to genuflect before Islamic sensibilities? I'll give you a hint, it isn't the right.

how is it that the planners, who have presented this effort as a grand design for the advancement of healing and interfaith understanding, have refused all consideration of the impact such a center will have near Ground Zero? Why have they insisted, despite intense resistance, on making the center an assertive presence in this place of haunted memory?

Yeah, interfaith healing & understanding is always facilitated by aggressive insertion of religious centers into areas where there is guaranteed to be massive opposition -- for obvious reasons.

Dr. Zuhdi Jasser—devout Muslim, physician, former U.S. Navy lieutenant commander and founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy—says there is every reason to investigate the center's funding under the circumstances. Of the mosque so near the site of the 9/11 attacks, he notes "It will certainly be seen as a victory for political Islam."

But I guess he must just be an Islamic Islamophobe.

The center may be built where planned. But it will not go easy or without consequence to the politicians intent on jamming the project down the public throat, in the name of principle. Liberal piety may have met its match in the raw memory of 9/11, and in citizens who have come to know pure demagoguery when they hear it. They have had, of late, plenty of practice.

They've had more than enough practice witnessing left-wing smears and hypocrisy. I wonder what would happen if some Christian group wanted to build a mega-church Christian center a couple blocks away from 9/11. What are the odds that the same liberals who are just so concerned about supporting this Islamic center would have a similar position? No doubt the Bloomberg administration, the governor of New York, and the New York City council would be bending over backward to expedite its construction, and avoid putting any red tape obstacles in its path -- right after an entire herd of pigs took flight.

Three-fold Illogical Argument about the Ground Zero Mosque

Naturally I read it on Andrew Sullivan's blog, but it's actually from Charles Johnson at Little Green Footballs.

It should be pointed out (again) that the “Ground Zero mosque” these idiots are ranting about is actually a proposed community center with an auditorium, swimming pool, and restaurants, in addition to a mosque. It would be housed in an existing 13-story building that’s two blocks away from Ground Zero and has no view of the area; there are two very big buildings in between the proposed community center and Ground Zero. Here is an embedded Google Map in which you can clearly see that the idea of this being a “Ground Zero mosque” is a ridiculous paranoid fantasy.

It's pretty impressive to combine three silly, illogical arguments in one short paragraph. First, Johnson pretends that a religious worship site that includes other major features ceases to be a church, and is now a "community center." There are plenty of Christian mega-churches in the U.S. that have similar features to the proposed Islamic center in New York. So do even small religious sites. Down the street from where I live is a Catholic church; it has a large separate building called a parish center, in which they often hold community-based events. But guess what, it's still a Catholic church. Regardless of what other attractions it has, the proposed mosque is still a mosque. 

Second, Johnson would have us believe that it's a "ridiculous paranoid fantasy" to call a mosque sited two blocks away from Ground Zero a "Ground Zero Mosque." Why? Because it's a whole two blocks away, and separated from the site by a couple of buildings. Really? Is that supposed to be a serious argument? Apparently in Johnson-world,  if it isn't located exactly right square on top of Ground Zero, no one can call it a Ground Zero Mosque -- because we never name things for major locations they are close to.  Maybe he should contact United Nations Apartments there in NYC. According to booking information, the apartment complex is located 5 blocks from UN Headquarters. Five blocks! What kind of insane person thought he could name it for the UN when it's a whole five blocks away?

And finally, recent polls indicate that roughly half of NYC opposes the Ground Zero Mosque. According to Johnson, that half of the city is made up of people engaging in a paranoid fantasy. That's a pretty funny assertion coming from someone who is apparently unaware that churches can have major ancillary structures & functions, and that building complexes are often named for significant landmarks that are more or less nearby.

Those Shells Aren't Clams

Some clam fisherman working off the coast of New York got a nasty surprise when they hauled up their catch. Along with the clams, they got a couple of old mustard gas shells, one of which was leaking.

one of its six crewmen, Konstantin Burndshov, reported blistering and shortness of breath. ... Burndshov had painful blisters about three-quarters of an inch high on an arm and a leg

The gas, which had been dumped there sometime between 1945 and 1970, was still highly effective even though Burndshov was wearing "oil skins and elbow-length gloves." A couple of other crewman also reported mild symptoms.

According to the report, the fishing boat was operating in "charted munitions dumping zone," which doesn't carry any fishing restrictions. Maybe it should. This part of the article isn't too reassuring.

A 2001 Army report found 74 past instances of ocean disposal — 32 off U.S. shores and 42 off foreign coasts. For example, in 1967 the Army dumped 4,577 one-ton containers of a mustard agent and 7,380 sarin rockets off the New Jersey shore, according to Army records.

That's a whole lot of chemical weapons sitting off the coast somewhere underwater.

The NYC Car Bomb

I see that the Pakistani Taliban has claimed responsibility, but so far there is no hard evidence linking them to the attempted terrorist attack. I won't be surprised if it turns out that this was just the work of some lone wacko.

Right now I'd take pretty much any information about this incident with a grain of salt, until all the facts are in. Remember how the underwear bomber was described as a non-serious threat, just a laughable attempt at terrorism? Then we later learned that his bomb was actually a sophisticated device that could have brought down the plane. I've already seen several references to this bomb being crude or amateurish -- as if that somehow negates much of the threat. Unfortunately, explosive devices don't need much sophistication to be effective. They just need to go off with enough force in the right place at the right time. Fortunately this one didn't detonate.

This incident points out yet again the value of alert citizens who react quickly, in this case a t-shirt vendor who notified police about the suspicious vehicle. If that guy had acted like many people and just gone about his business, refusing to get involved, we might now be talking about the aftermath of a nasty explosion.

Excessive Gun Sentences

When we aren't busy filling our jails with non-violent drug offenders, we are sending other people to jail for the "crime" of possessing otherwise legal weapons at the wrong place and time. Plaxico Burress was a prime example. He got two years in jail for having a gun accident in public -- an accident in which he himself was the only injured person. But because the incident occurred in New York, instead of a state friendlier to the right to bear arms, he's sitting in jail right now.

The latest high profile case of a celebrity heading to jail over possessing a gun in New York is that of rapper Lil' Wayne. (More on the case here).  He's facing an expected year in jail. A year in jail for what? He apparently had a handgun on his tour bus that was discovered by police while they were searching for -- what else -- drugs. He didn't do anything with the gun. It wasn't stolen, used in a crime, pointed at police, or used in any other way that should justify throwing someone in jail. He simply owned a gun, and didn't have a license to have it in New York. How is that worth a year in jail? Such a procedural offense should be penalized by a moderate fine. 

I'm sure some people look at Plaxico Burress, an arrogant, obnoxious athlete who was stupid enough to shoot himself in the leg, or Lil' Wayne, with all the baggage that comes with the rap scene, and think: it serves them right. Maybe jail will teach them a lesson and knock them down a notch. But the problem is that states like New York, with their ridiculously excessive penalties for gun violations, can turn their wrath against ordinary gun owners. If rich celebrities like rappers and NFL players get thrown in jail for a year or two, what happens to an average person from out of state who drives through New York with his legally purchased weapons, gets stopped, and is found to be in possession of weapons unlicensed and therefore illegal in New York? 

Crazy Political Correctness in New York

New York state has actually passed a law banning the use of the word "oriental" when referring to "persons of Asian or Pacific islander heritage" in state and municipal documents. Think about it. The New York Assembly spent time coming up with a bill, and got it enacted into law, to prevent a word from being used. The bill passed unanimously, with  not even one member of the legislature having the guts to vote against idiocy -- probably out of fear of being labeled a racist.

Was the use of "oriental" such a big problem in official New York documents that a law was required to address it? Does their legislature really have nothing better to do than ban certain words? This couldn't have been solved with a memo to anyone using the offending term? I wonder what other words need to be banned? Hopefully New York lawmakers are working diligently on those critical problems. We wouldn't want someone to use the wrong word in a document and offend someone.

As of now, there is no word on whether or not it is still permissible to sell oriental rugs in New York.