High school football is about to begin. I'm as excited as anyone in the county and I can't wait until Sandy Creek travels to Goza Road Friday night to take on the Whitewater Wildcats -- or, actually, I couldn't wait until a few events transpired today.
In an effort to play up the rivalry and get fans excited, I published a picture of a banner hung this week at Sandy Creek, supposedly by Whitewater students in the Thursday Fayette County News. It read, "On Friday night, We bury you." The 'W' in 'we' looked like a Whitewater logo. The banner referenced the infamous 'Wildcat Casket' that Creek fans snuck into last year's game. I published the image with good intentions. It included a cutline to explain the context and I wrote a story about the rivalry.
Well, I got a couple of angry phone calls today. A coach and administrator have accused me of being a fan of the other team, completely biased and have even suggested that my sports page is going to start a riot. Take a look at the paper and let me know if you find it offensive. I'd also be curious to see if you can guess what team's coach and administrator were infuriated by the thing. I didn't see it as one-sided at all. Needless to say, I won't be publicizing any more student pranks in the Fayette County News. Even if you and I think it's all in good fun, others aren't going to see it that way.
And it sure would be nice to get a call from a coach or administrator when we do something they like or appreciate -- like, say, get photos and write-ups about their actual children in the newspaper. Just saying.
I'm pretty flabbergasted by the outrage. Even more now that I've had the chance to sit on it for a while.
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Searching for sanity in the great mosque debate
Have you seen Time Magazine this week? The cover of the issue shows an Islamic crescent moon and star depicted with America flag colors on a white background. The words “Is America Islamophobic?” jump off of the cover, representing Time’s seat at the national media’s great Lower Manhattan Mosque feast.
You can’t turn on a radio or a television without hearing something or other about the mosque planned near ground zero. And you’re most likely going to get some bad information, heavy handed opinions and ridiculous analogies from opponents and supporters of the project.
The entire mosque debate is in need of a heavy dose of reality. We’ll start with Time’s cover. The term “Islamophobic” is defined as an “irrational fear and/or hatred of Muslims and their culture.” Do a few polls and some protests about a planned mosque near ground zero mean that all of America has an irrational fear and/or hatred of Muslims? That appears to be what Time’s editors are asking.
The author of the accompanying story, Bobby Ghosh, essentially answers the question with “Maybe, but we’re still less Islamophobic than Western Europe.”
Regardless of what Time says, America, as a whole, is not Islamophobic. How many protestors have you seen parading outside of Fayetteville’s downtown Muslim Community Center over the past decade? I haven’t noticed any. The doctor’s office where I happened to see this week’s copy of Time is run by a group of M.D.’s, several of whom are Muslim. I doubt that the patients in the crowded waiting area were secretly bringing hatred and/or fear of their doctor’s religion with them to the examination room.
My next point of contention has to do with the name and location of the proposed mosque. It is to be called Park 51, a 13-story Muslim community center designed much like a big city YMCA. It is a full two city blocks from ground zero. Park 51 is no more the “Ground Zero Mosque” than the building it is set to replace is currently the “Ground Zero Burlington Coat Factory.” Park 51, a Muslim community center, is to be located in a fairly typical lower Manhattan neighborhood. Nearby tenants include other storefront mosques, stores and fast food restaurants.
Calling Park 51 “The Ground Zero Mosque” is simply not a true statement.
Building a mosque near ground zero has nothing at all to do with "Muslims rubbing in their 'victory,'” as some talking heads like Newt Gingrich so childishly suggest. Conservatives like Newt are supposed to go back to the Constitution when making arguments against or for anything. The Constitution is pretty clear on this one. Newt can make an argument that building a mosque near ground zero is in 'poor taste' until the cows come home. But it doesn’t change the fact that the Constitution specifically prevents the government from stepping in and prohibiting the mosque from being built. If the former Speaker wants to do the legal gymnastics needed to force Park 51 to move to another site, then he’s using big government to get the outcome he desires.
Tossing the ideals and founding principles of our Democracy aside to promote the tyranny of the majority is far, far worse than 'poor taste' -- at least in my opinion.
And then there’s the ‘poor taste’ argument itself. It, too, is based on faulty logic.
I think Oregon Senator Jeff Merckley has explained it best. In a Sunday letter in the Oregonian, Merckley wrote, “Many mosque opponents argue, just because it can be built does not mean it should be. They say it would be disrespectful to the memories of those who died on 9/11 to build a Muslim facility near the World Trade Center site.
“I appreciate the depth of emotions at play, but respectfully suggest that the presence of a mosque is only inappropriate near ground zero if we unfairly associate Muslim Americans with the atrocities of the foreign al-Qaida terrorists who attacked our nation. Such an association is a profound error. Muslim Americans are our fellow citizens, not our enemies.”
Merckley closed his piece quoting the 43rd president of the United States, who always went out of his way to distinguish between Al-Qaida and American Muslims.
“President Bush understood the importance of separating the terrorists from over a billion peaceful Muslims around the world whose faith has been used as an excuse by those bent on killing,” Merckely wrote. “Speaking at a mosque just six days after the World Trade Center attack, President Bush said, ‘These acts of violence against innocents violate the fundamental tenets of the Islamic faith, and it’s important for my fellow Americans to understand that.’”
Now, if only Bush would break his post-presidential silence. I have a feeling I know where he would stand on this issue. It might not make Newt or Sarah Palin or happy, but an opinion by Bush might insert some sanity into this debate.
You can’t turn on a radio or a television without hearing something or other about the mosque planned near ground zero. And you’re most likely going to get some bad information, heavy handed opinions and ridiculous analogies from opponents and supporters of the project.
The entire mosque debate is in need of a heavy dose of reality. We’ll start with Time’s cover. The term “Islamophobic” is defined as an “irrational fear and/or hatred of Muslims and their culture.” Do a few polls and some protests about a planned mosque near ground zero mean that all of America has an irrational fear and/or hatred of Muslims? That appears to be what Time’s editors are asking.
The author of the accompanying story, Bobby Ghosh, essentially answers the question with “Maybe, but we’re still less Islamophobic than Western Europe.”
Regardless of what Time says, America, as a whole, is not Islamophobic. How many protestors have you seen parading outside of Fayetteville’s downtown Muslim Community Center over the past decade? I haven’t noticed any. The doctor’s office where I happened to see this week’s copy of Time is run by a group of M.D.’s, several of whom are Muslim. I doubt that the patients in the crowded waiting area were secretly bringing hatred and/or fear of their doctor’s religion with them to the examination room.
My next point of contention has to do with the name and location of the proposed mosque. It is to be called Park 51, a 13-story Muslim community center designed much like a big city YMCA. It is a full two city blocks from ground zero. Park 51 is no more the “Ground Zero Mosque” than the building it is set to replace is currently the “Ground Zero Burlington Coat Factory.” Park 51, a Muslim community center, is to be located in a fairly typical lower Manhattan neighborhood. Nearby tenants include other storefront mosques, stores and fast food restaurants.
Calling Park 51 “The Ground Zero Mosque” is simply not a true statement.
Building a mosque near ground zero has nothing at all to do with "Muslims rubbing in their 'victory,'” as some talking heads like Newt Gingrich so childishly suggest. Conservatives like Newt are supposed to go back to the Constitution when making arguments against or for anything. The Constitution is pretty clear on this one. Newt can make an argument that building a mosque near ground zero is in 'poor taste' until the cows come home. But it doesn’t change the fact that the Constitution specifically prevents the government from stepping in and prohibiting the mosque from being built. If the former Speaker wants to do the legal gymnastics needed to force Park 51 to move to another site, then he’s using big government to get the outcome he desires.
Tossing the ideals and founding principles of our Democracy aside to promote the tyranny of the majority is far, far worse than 'poor taste' -- at least in my opinion.
And then there’s the ‘poor taste’ argument itself. It, too, is based on faulty logic.
I think Oregon Senator Jeff Merckley has explained it best. In a Sunday letter in the Oregonian, Merckley wrote, “Many mosque opponents argue, just because it can be built does not mean it should be. They say it would be disrespectful to the memories of those who died on 9/11 to build a Muslim facility near the World Trade Center site.
“I appreciate the depth of emotions at play, but respectfully suggest that the presence of a mosque is only inappropriate near ground zero if we unfairly associate Muslim Americans with the atrocities of the foreign al-Qaida terrorists who attacked our nation. Such an association is a profound error. Muslim Americans are our fellow citizens, not our enemies.”
Merckley closed his piece quoting the 43rd president of the United States, who always went out of his way to distinguish between Al-Qaida and American Muslims.
“President Bush understood the importance of separating the terrorists from over a billion peaceful Muslims around the world whose faith has been used as an excuse by those bent on killing,” Merckely wrote. “Speaking at a mosque just six days after the World Trade Center attack, President Bush said, ‘These acts of violence against innocents violate the fundamental tenets of the Islamic faith, and it’s important for my fellow Americans to understand that.’”
Now, if only Bush would break his post-presidential silence. I have a feeling I know where he would stand on this issue. It might not make Newt or Sarah Palin or happy, but an opinion by Bush might insert some sanity into this debate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
