It All Makes Sense Now

I've finally figured out why folks are so worked up about the Cordoba Center mosque near the WTC site.



To be fair, that "I [bomb] NY" in shrubbery is pretty impressive.

Obama Walks Back Religious Freedom Remarks

After issuing a strong statement in favor of the right of Muslims to build a mosque/community center several blocks from the WTC site, the President trimmed his sails slightly, saying that he meant to support only the "legal" right of Muslims to build there (or anywhere). He was not, he said, making any statement about whether he supported the particular decision of the local Muslim community to situate their mosque at that location.

How unfortunate. Nobody is going to give credit to the President for trying to slide on through the middle here. The folks who oppose the mosque still will view him as an enemy, and the folks who support the mosque now can effectively lump in the President with the ADL. And all of this comes after the President looked to actually be showing leadership on the matter.

The issues here are very clear. People have the right to build religious buildings to serve their local community. There should not be a mosque-exclusion-zone of indeterminate radius in south Manhattan. Asking the community to relocate is not just patronizing, it's idiotic -- the community center is designed to serve the Muslim community that already exists in southern Manhattan -- it doesn't do them any good to build out in Queens.

Calvin & Hobbes Search Engine

No joke, I've been wanting something like this to exist for years.

Leveraging Experience

Ta-Nehisi Coates has an excellent post up on Pankaj Mishra's essay about Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Tariq Ramadan and Paul Berman. Mishra recalled the following anecdote from Arendt:

During the Vietnam War, Hannah Arendt noted that members of the Democratic Administration had frequent recourse to phrases like "monolithic communism," and "second Munich," and deduced from this an inability "to confront reality on its own terms because they had always some parallels in mind that 'helped' them to understand those terms."

Coates adds:

When I was college, it was common for student activists to call slavery "the Black Holocaust" or "The Real Holocaust." There's an argument to be made about America, and the stories we tell ourselves when we see ourselves as heroic, and when we don't. But most of these activists--some of them anti-Semites--knew very little about Jews, Europe, Nazism nor, frankly, slavery. And they didn't much care. They were not interested in specifics. They were interested in leveraging the moral power of other people's experience, in order to bolster the moral power of their own. It was narcissism, laziness, and basic lack of respect--not simply for the Jewish experience--but for the specifics of the African-American experience.

I've stated my distaste for the appropriation of "Holocaust" to other contexts in general. And I think that Coates is right both that such a move is both demonstrative of a lack of imagination, and represents an astoundingly disrespectful attempt to leverage one group's experience on behalf of another (often without that group's consent, and often -- as Jews well know -- against the group itself).

Hey, Data Point!

A major part of my comment thesis is that courts don't protect the politically powerless, but rather only intervene once a marginalized group has demonstrated some clout in the political arena. And wouldn't you know it if, fresh on the heels of Judge Walker's historic opinion striking down California's anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment, we see a poll indicating that half of all Americans agree with him.

Of course, my suspicion is that these things aren't independent of each other. High profile gay marriage victories make it more likely that more people will label themselves in support of gay marriage, because the position has moved from fringe to mainstream (and people generally don't like to consider themselves fringe). At the same time, of course, growing popular support for gay marriage is what makes pro-gay marriage rulings feasible -- it's what moves them from "kooky, frivolous argument" to "position I have to take seriously".

I should say that I don't think whether gay marriage is constitutionally protected is dependent on whether a majority wills it so. I just think descriptively, judicial recognition of gay rights (or really any rights claim) seems to move in tandem with popular recognition of the same.

Fun With Civil Procedure

Rule 32 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows depositions to be used by an adverse party "for any purpose". A clever lawyer read that language literally, giving us this colloquy (quoted in Wright and Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure Sec. 2141 n. 1).

The Court: Next witness.
Ms. Olschner: Your Honor, at this time, I would like to swat Mr. Buck in the head with his client's deposition.
The Court: You mean read it?
Ms. Olschner: No sir, I mean swat him in the head with it. Pursuant to Rule 32, I may use this deposition for any purpose, and that is the purpose for which I want to use it.
The Court: Well, it does say that. (pause) There being no objection, you may proceed.
Ms. Olschner: Thank you, Judge Hanes. (Whereupon, Ms. Olschner swatted Mr. Buck in the head with the deposition).
Mr. Buck: But, Judge....
The Court: Next witness.

You never know what new trial tactics will emerge if you read the rules closely enough. That's a tip, kids, write it down.

It's That Most Magical Time of Year

There's nothing like the thought of sticking it to Muslims that makes conservatives suddenly care about gay rights:

I’m announcing tonight, that I am planning to build and open the first gay bar that caters not only to the west, but also Islamic gay men. To best express my sincere desire for dialogue, the bar will be situated next to the mosque Park51, in an available commercial space.

This is not a joke. I’ve already spoken to a number of investors, who have pledged their support in this bipartisan bid for understanding and tolerance.

As you know, the Muslim faith doesn’t look kindly upon homosexuality, which is why I’m building this bar. It is an effort to break down barriers and reduce deadly homophobia in the Islamic world.

The goal, however, is not simply to open a typical gay bar, but one friendly to men of Islamic faith. An entire floor, for example, will feature non-alcoholic drinks, since booze is forbidden by the faith. The bar will be open all day and night, to accommodate men who would rather keep their sexuality under wraps – but still want to dance.

To be sure, a deliberate attempt to provoke is not akin to an accidental one. Nonetheless, it does not seem to occur to them that, while certainly the right to build a bar is not a bedrock tenet of America's civic traditions like building a house of worship is, there certainly is no reason why Muslims or anyone else should be able to prevent an otherwise legal and properly zoned* gay bar just because they find it offensive.

* Of course, as the post seems to recognize, zoning laws do sometimes take issue with bars being opened right next to houses of worship. In any event, assuming that there are no zoning issues -- sure, build the bar. I have no quarrel with it.

Every Inch of America is Consecrated Ground

The New York Times has an excellent report on nationwide protests against mosque construction, in such hallowed American locations like Sheboygon, Wisconsin (hi, Joe!) and Murfreesboro, Tennessee.

Of course, the opposition to the New York City mosque that has breached the Muslim-site-exclusion-zone-of-indeterminate-radius could not possibly stem from similar motivations. It is a principled defense of the legitimate pain of 9/11 victims.

(Same ban rules apply to NF, CC, and Joe. Oh, and we'll say Superdestroyer too -- I've been meaning to do that for awhile anyway. I'll decide when -- and if -- I feel like lifting those.).

Zakaria Returns His Check

When the ADL first decided to come out in opposition to the proposed mosque/community center being built near the WTC site, Jon Chait declared that it was "such a fundamental violation of the ADL's principles that the group is no longer supportable."

This weekend, Fareed Zakaria became one of the highest profile figures to turn those words into action, electing to return an award and honorarium received from the ADL in 2005. He said that he can no longer in conscience accept either given the dramatic breach the ADL has just initiated with its own founding motives.

And you know what? He's right.

Abe Foxman responds here, and it remains clear that he doesn't get it. As I noted the other day, Foxman continues to believe he is the real victim here -- that he was just misunderstood, that folks today can't grasp "nuance". What I see is that Mr. Foxman believes that Muslims have an obligation to not have a community within some indeterminate radius in southern Manhattan, because other Muslims committing a terrorist atrocity nearby. They have an obligation to restrict their own rights, to limit their freedom of worship, because of the "feelings" of others. Even though we feel sympathy for the victims, insofar as their feelings manifest in the form of blind, unguided anger towards Muslims qua Muslims, they do not deserve the backing of a organization that putatively defends religious liberty.

So, good for Zakaria. And while I highly doubt that the ADL will be admitting their mistake any time soon, here is to hoping. They were wrong on this -- wrong on the deepest, most fundamental level -- and I believe it is a mortal wound to their credibility.

Oh, Joe and N. Friedman are both banned from commenting on this thread. I will delete comments from you sight unseen. Any other commenters are welcome.

Tennessee Sense

The Tennessee primaries are done, and after a year in which we've seen candidates like Sharron Angle nominated and incumbents like Bob Inglis (R-SC) knocked off for insufficient crazy, it's nice to see that at least one state seems to have (miracles of miracles!) made sensible choices.

Surprising nobody, Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN) handily turned back a primary challenge from former Memphis Mayor Willie Herenton, winning by over a 55 point margin. Herenton had once again tried to race-bait his way to victory in this majority-Black district, and once again the voters showed that they weren't having it.

On the Republican side of things, the nominee for Governor is Bill Haslam, the mayor of Knoxville and the only one of the three major GOP candidates in that race not to go all-in on the crazy (Lt. Gov. Ron Ramsey had argued that Islam was "cult" that should be deprived of protection on the First Amendment, and Rep. Zack Wamp had floated seceding from America).

So, good for Volunteer State voters on both sides of the aisle. I salute you.

Palin Endorses Murphy, Ehrlich Breathes Sigh of Relief

Sarah Palin has endorsed long shot challenger Brian Murphy in the Maryland Republican gubernatorial primary.

Former Governor Robert Ehrlich is the overwhelming favorite in that race, and I doubt this endorsement will cause him too much trouble in the primary. And with all due respect to Governor Palin's star power (though if it can't win you Kansas, what can it do?) I have to think that a Palin endorsement would be a 200 lbs anvil that incumbent Democratic Governor Martin O'Malley would hang around Ehrlich's neck in the general. This race may be tight, but Maryland remains one of the most liberal and well-educated states in the nation. This is not real America Palin territory.

Prop. 8 Reversed

The opinion is here, I'm reading it now.

Huge win for equal rights. It won't be the last stroke in the battle by any means. But tonight, we can celebrate.

Nearly Half of All GOPers Doubt Obama Was Born in the US

CNN provides a staggering new poll indicating that a full 41% of Republicans harbor serious doubts about whether President Obama was born in the United States. Only 19% of Independents and 15% of Democrats believe that Obama "probably" or "definitely" was born in another country.

It truly amazes me just how deeply entrenched birtherism is inside the modern conservative movement. Rush Limbaugh is, of course, only the latest to fall into the fever swamp.

Meanwhile, in not entirely unrelated news, vanquished Rep. Bob Inglis (R-SC) recounts his meeting with the tea partiers. It starts with folks telling him how Social Security numbers indicate how people are (literally) owned by banks, and goes downhill from there (with the usual pitstops in old school anti-Semitic conspiracy-mongering).

Today in Mosquedom

A ton of news cropped up regarding the WTC mosque/community center. This post will be about half-substantive, half-roundup.

First, I can't think of a better place to start than Mayor Bloomberg's stellar speech on the subject. It really hits home that the question here is one of our deepest commitments to religious liberty.

“Let us not forget that Muslims were among those murdered on 9/11, and that our Muslim neighbors grieved with us as New Yorkers and as Americans. We would betray our values and play into our enemies’ hands if we were to treat Muslims differently than anyone else. In fact, to cave to popular sentiment would be to hand a victory to the terrorists, and we should not stand for that.

“For that reason, I believe that this is an important test of the separation of church and state as we may see in our lifetimes, as important a test. And it is critically important that we get it right.

“On Sept. 11, 2001, thousands of first responders heroically rushed to the scene and saved tens of thousands of lives. More than 400 of those first responders did not make it out alive. In rushing into those burning buildings, not one of them asked, ‘What God do you pray to?’ (Bloomberg’s voice cracks here a little as he gets choked up.) ‘What beliefs do you hold?’

“The attack was an act of war, and our first responders defended not only our city, but our country and our constitution. We do not honor their lives by denying the very constitutional rights they died protecting. We honor their lives by defending those rights and the freedoms that the terrorists attacked.

Damn the fuck straight.

Meanwhile, I wish I could give a cookie to the AJC for not opposing the building of the mosque, but you know what? I can't. This is such an open and shut case that the mealy-mouthed, ham-handed decision by which the AJC -- after agonizing deliberation -- deigned to give its approval is worth nothing to me. This passive-aggressive "questions have been raised" formulation, wherein any Muslim in the public sphere must carry a punch card indicating the last time they condemned Osama bin Laden, is incredibly pernicious and must be countered at all costs. I bow to no one in opposing radical extremists of all stripes and denominations -- Islamic ones included -- but Muslims don't have an a priori obligation to show themselves to be peace-loving. Like all other persons, we ought to assume they fully buy into the panoply of human rights protections and human values until they, personally, show themselves otherwise. The burden is on those making the allegation that this group is aligned with Islamic radicals. It is a burden they cannot meet.

Of course, that pales in comparison to the contempt I feel for Abe Foxman right now, and the tragic little tears he's crying about how everyone is ganging up on the poor ADL and not recognizing for its "nuance" ... ugh. Gag me. That was decidedly not the lesson Foxman needed to learn. The lesson he needed to learn is that pissing away decades of credibility opposing religious bigotry is going to meet with backlash. As it should.

That being said, I'm not sure the ADL's position on this is fairly traceable to its position on Israel. In fact, I think Beinart misunderstands the proper role the ADL should take with regards to Israel, for the ADL is not a domestic Israeli human rights organization. To be sure, it should oppose religious discrimination anywhere and everywhere, including in Israel. But the ADL, as an international organization, is properly concerned with the way that anti-Israel animus in the global community both inspires and is inspired by anti-Jewish sentiment. I reject the notion that the fact that Israel is a place where Jews have power completely obviates any and all discussion of anti-Semitism in the context of Israel.

The far-right ACLJ has announced it is filing a legal challenge seeking to reverse the decision of the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission declining to designate the site a "landmark", thus allowing the mosque to proceed. The suit must be for show, because I can't imagine even the ACLJ believes it will win an "abuse of discretion" argument, and effectively their suit can be summarized as haling the NYCLPC into court for not deciding to violate the Constitution (Cf. Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993)).

Finally, the backers of the have publicly thanked their Jewish backers. You're welcome, but honestly? Just doing my duty as an American.

No Worries

The last time Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN) faced a race-baiting challenger in his majority-Black African-American district, he thrashed Nikki Tinker by a 60 point margin. I promised at the time that I wouldn't worry that the voters of the 9th District of Tennessee would fall for such naked appeals to prejudice. This time around, Cohen drew a decidedly tougher challenge in Memphis Mayor Willie Herenton, who also is trying to race-bait his way to victory.

Fortunately for my promise, I still don't need to worry -- Cohen appears to be cruising to victory, and by now has to be considered firmly entrenched in the district. And that's a good thing: Cohen is an excellent Congressman who deserves a long and successful career in Washington.

I Bring a Knife, You Pull a Gun

I generally like my laptop, but one thing that it hates is wireless internet. After two years of struggle, I finally effectively ceded the issue upon moving into my Virginia apartment, connecting to the internet via a direct landline.

But upon moving to my new place in Chicago (which I love), I foolishly decided to break that ceasefire, and attempt to set up a new wireless network. Oooh, the laptop didn't like that, and it retaliated by destroying the ability to connect even through a landline.

Wireless internet remains at the laptop's discretion, which is why I'm able to post this message from the airport. But things are not looking peachy right now.

ADL-Approved Religious Discrimination

Absolutely outrageous. The Anti-Defamation League has released a statement approving of efforts to bar the construction of a Muslim mosque in southern Manhattan, several blocks from the WTC site. While attempting to disassociate themselves from the conceded "bigotry" which they acknowledge animates some of the mosque's opponents, the ADL claims that the site "will cause some victims more pain – unnecessarily – and that is not right." "[U]ltimately this is not a question of rights, but a question of what is right."

I submit that it is a question of both, and the precedent that the ADL is adhering to is one that is exceedingly detrimental to the safety and equality of religious minorities worldwide, including Jews.

The ADL's attempt to distinguish folks whose opposition to the mosque is based on "bigotry", and those for whom it isn't, is unavailing. It's all bigotry -- some of it is simply better dressed than others. Restricting the civil rights of a given population because some members of that population committed horrible acts is bigotry per se. There's no getting around it. We might sympathize with folks who -- having been brutally victimized by members of religious group -- are fearful or otherwise antagonistic towards that group as a whole. But such sentiments simply can't be given force of law. To force members of a religious group to bear additional burdens based on the actions of their brethren in faith -- actions which they themselves oppose stridently -- is bigotry in its purest form.

I am literally shaking with rage over this, because I trust the ADL to be there when the rights of religious minorities are threatened. I can no longer do that. That the ADL apparently views Egypt's treatment of its Jews as a model example of religious liberty is disqualifying for them to be taken seriously as a civil rights organization concerned with the fair and egalitarian treatment of all people. Their position on this issue is absolutely unconscionable, and is an embarassment to anyone who truly cares about the rights of religious minorities in the United States and worldwide.

Other commenters:

Greg Sargent: "On this one, you're either with the bigots or you're against them. And ADL has in effect sided with them."

Adam Serwer: "I learned a very important lesson in Hebrew School that I have retained my entire life. If they can deny freedom to a single individual because of who they are, they can do it to anyone."

Tablet Magazine: "Founded in 1913, the ADL, in its words, 'fights anti-Semitism and all forms of bigotry, defends democratic ideals and protects civil rights for all.' Except when it does the precise opposite."

Conversos

I will admit that I harbor some prejudice against Jews who convert to another faith. It's not something I'm proud of, but there it is. There is a feeling of abandonment -- we're an embattled minority, and these folks are taking the easy way out. A socially sanctioned (encouraged, even) Michael Jackson pill, if you will. And sometimes, converts, in their quest to prove their loyalty to their (new) faith, are amongst the most zealous oppressors of their former brethren (this, of course, is not limited to folks converting from Judaism).

But this my problem, and my prejudices do not deserve any more protection by the law than anyone elses. So when an Israeli Oxford Professor claims she was discriminated against after converting from Judaism to Anglicanism, assuming her story is accurate, I think she has every right to legal redress.

Of course I have the right to oppose anti-Jewish behavior from any source, whether it be from Jews, Gentiles, or formerly-Jewish Gentiles. But neither I, nor anyone else, has the right to take a preemptive strike -- discriminating for fear of discrimination. My prejudices are my own problem, and I should be the one (as much as possible) to bear their burden.

Via.

Who's Afraid of the Big Bad Tea Party?

Not Democrats -- they see the far-right movement as their best hope for keeping political control in 2010, by forcing the GOP to run terrifyingly fanatical candidates like Sharron Angle. But the GOP, which denounced as "quackery" a Democratic attempt to tie the GOP to the tea partiers, might be getting a bit nervous.

They got to be careful, though. Republicans who denounce the far-right tend not to last long in Republican primaries (Bob Bennett and Bob Inglis, wave from the galleries!). I hardly think the tea party will be thrilled by public GOP efforts to disassociate themselves. But I hardly think voters will be thrilled if they don't.

Rough gig.

Take Two

I'm not convinced that someone who truly screwed up (as opposed to committing the gaffe of honestly stating his beliefs) would need two cracks at the apology apple (see also: Fatima Hajaig). But I don't speak for the ADL.

Still, as far as I'm concerned, Oliver Stone is just a sober Mel Gibson.