Whenever America faces her toughest challenges, you can always count on the right to be there. Sowing hate, stoking fear. So it’s no surprise that in the midst of a great economic catastrophe, the right would search for scapegoats instead of answers. And so we have the fabricated crisis of the “Mosque at Ground Zero.”
Leave aside the fact that it’s not a mosque and it’s not at Ground Zero. This is really about hate and fear, the right’s old friends.
For the last 45 years, at least, no matter who the Republican candidate has been, hate and fear were really at the top of the ticket.
Recall that in 1968, Richard Nixon won the presidency by stoking fear of Negroes and hippies. The vaunted Southern Strategy of the Republican Party was at its core a campaign of fear. What a ride it’s had.
It’s no longer fashionable to be officially afraid of blacks, but there is no shortage of substitutes. Who is the right afraid of now?
Read the post to find out the new boogiemen are in their list of things to distract us. Like Muslims in a building a few blocks from Ground Zero. Like there aren’t any anywhere else around there now.
#99 You have it backwards, “Nazi” is German for “National Socialist Party.” Socialism is progressive/liberal, not conservative.
Look it up.
Hey Alphie, Remember you still owe me for the other night. I ate all that corn just for you. It was fresh and you even wanted seconds. Now quit acting like a Republican and pay me. I don’t give no shit on credit.
#100–Alfie==it is longer than I thought with much to “disagree with.” Your fallacy will however be very instructive.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/08/obamas-remarks-about-ground-ze.html
#103 No $50 for you.
Red Herring fallacy, constructing a Victory Mosque at Ground Zero is not about religious freedom, there are about 100 mosques in New York and no one is suggesting they be closed or that more cannot be built, its whether zoning should allow one at Ground Zero.
Nothing new about mosques in New York
“… The more than 100 mosques of New York are visual signs, not only of the presence of these Muslim Americans, but also of the religious freedom that distinguishes the American way of life.”
http://cnn.com/2010/OPINION/08/04/dodds.mosques.new.york/index.html
“Free to profess religion” is not “free to build a church anywhere you want.”
Zoning laws applies equally to every religion.
The argument against is against a “Mosque Triumphant” at a site where 3,000 Americans died at the hands of Radical Islam. To make this a “First Amendment” issue is a “Red Herring” meant to misdirect from the real objection to the Mosque.
If the Mosque allowed all faiths to worship there would be no outcry. The refusal of proponents to disavow financing from radical Islamic sources is also fueling objections.
Some of the 9-11 families who object have stated their opposition this way: “Build your mosque next to my house, but don’t build a Victory Mosque at Ground Zero that radical Islamists will cite as proof they have defeated the Great Satan.”
A red herring is invalid because the “middle term” is undistributed, “all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion” has no connection to “the construction of mosques in certain communities” as Obama noted by saying it must occur “in accordance with local laws and ordinances.”
As is true of every Obama statement wanting to influence public opinion, President Hoover Obama distorts the issue, and utilizes fallacies to misdirect attention away from the real objection, to a straw man he can easily defeat.
The Left and Right (based on their original definitions) are: 1) people who want to fundamentally change society (the Left) versus 2) those who want to conserve or maintain certain aspects of their society (the Right).
There is no less hatred for what society is and has been by the left as there is for the changes that the left imposes on those of us who don’t want their childish and wrong-visioned new social orders.
Hatred is an extension of anger; arising and directed at another who is responsible for the perceived harm or damage they’ve brought. It’s no wonder people come to hate the constant machinations to justify the unjustifiable that the left imposes on us.
Whenever someone responds with apparent hatred, it is respectful to understand what wrongs they think have been the causes; to understand those peoples’ own ideals and hopes and how they may have been destroyed. Instead, the left denies that any ideals or hopes are valid except their own. If there is hatred, it is due to the Left’s astounding self-righteousness and complete disregard for the people in their own society before those of outsiders. The hatred of the left is obvious in their complete and continuous misrepresentation of their opposition as mere caricatures of humans.
The left brings a different kind of hatred. It is the hatred for whole classes of people who refuse to accept their social redefinition for someone else’s benefit. It is their authoritarian use of the state to impose social mores and conditions that could not have been passed through popular vote.
The left invents rights (state privileges) for the causes that they accept yet denies them when they have been well-established social mores or, in fact, the basis of their society. When rights have been hard-fought or won (e.g. property rights), then one is either not “progressive” (as if the Left alone has ideas of what progress is) or one is motivated by anger and hate in the left’s description of the world.
The hatred by the left is shown in their claim to be “democratic” while simultaneously denying as hatred any political or social position with which they disagree. If the anger turns to hatred, it’s no wonder when fundamental disregard for other peoples’ ideals and hopes are trampled through leftist self-righteousness.
Hatred itself is a red herring in any discussion with the left. If you’re compassionate about the opposing view of the leftist, then you’re “driven by hate.” This total misdirection from reasonable discussion to accusations of false hatred is enough to cause both the anger and eventual hatred that didn’t originally motivate the opponent’s position.
If there is a problem with the Right, it is to falsely believe that they have a social compact with people who fundamentally want to destroy the very fabric that defines their society. If the Right has a problem, it is in falsely believing that they can appease the Leftist beast by giving in to it in small scraps. Rather than silence the leftist beast, it proves to the left that their self-righteousness was justified and sets them up for their next misguided cause to alter the social compact that binds them with their fellow man. In the process, the epistemological fabric of society is torn asunder. If the right wants peace, to finally be able to say that society is at peace and rest, it can only come about by being hardliners on the issues for which they are passionate. Ignore the claims of “hatred” and know that you stand for something of value while the Left is looking for their newest social fad and fashion.
#104–Alfie==you did not disappoint. You failed to identify a single Obama fallacy. You talked around it a lot, but nothing on point. As I tried to clue you in: disagreeing with someone does not identify a fallacy.
You are a silly person.
#106 You lack the knowledge to evaluate my analysis. Saying I failed doesn’t make it so, you would have to document how its not a red herring fallacy.
Prove the middle term is distributed.
Yes, you will have to look it up.
Wow, Alfie, that is some boast. You will place yourself on the side that all Obama’s speeches are wrong.
Some time back there was a poster who said they were willing to defend all government regulations. Maybe that was your twin.
We have video of a standing cat, and anti Republican, anti Christian blogs galore, misdirecting us from misdeeds of President Chicago thug Obama:
[b]Glenn Beck: Obama Administration ‘Most Corrupt of All Time’[/b]
http://newsmax.com/Headline/glenn-beck-obama-corrupt-restoring-honor-military/2010/08/20/id/368040
#108 Incorrect, I stated all his speeches since becoming president, where he was pushing health care or some other agenda item, contain fallacy, misdirection.
I said none of you can prove that statement wrong.
Its not a boast, its a “claim” that can be disproved by citing an Obama health care speech, or stimulus speech, or Arizona speech, where I cannot find fallacy.
Then you made $50.
Your once upon a time, there was a poster, ad hominem, only makes you look foolish.
Well Alfie–NAME the fallacy Obama committed in the linked speech. Throwing words on a wall is not proof of your claim.
Where is the red herring other than your claim of being able to find it?
Show us.=====copy the exact words and NAME THE FALLACY!
50 BUCKS if you can do it.
#111 You made claims, nothing more.
I proved my case, cited the precise fallacy, the precise disconnect and even Obama’s words proving he was well aware “freedom religion” did not mean freedom to build anywhere, he said it must be ““in accordance with local laws and ordinances.”
That proves he knew the First Amendment and building where one wanted, aren’t joined at the hip.
If you research logical fallacy, and learn the basics, then you can attempt to prove my analysis incorrect…
Its irrelevant, immaterial and incompetent you claim its unsound, you must prove it.
I expect that will require you take a few weeks off blogging irrationally…
That can be a good thing.
#112–OK Alfie==I’ll let you off the hook. No where in the article does Obama say “freedom religion” or “freedom of religion.” The other phrase more fully is: “I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country. And that includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in Lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances.”
No fallacies except in the same mind that will publicly state that a public figure never makes a statement without a fallacy.
As stated, you can’t make the argument and as you have said, saying you have doesn’t make it so.
Copy the exact words Obama used that comprise a fallacy==not something you simply disagree with.
You can’t do it. But then, no one thought you could.
#133 Red herring, it was never about first amendment, no one was questioning their right to practice religion.
= red herring.
According to CNN, your most trusted source, NY has about 100 mosques…if it was a first amendment issue, these would have been threatened.
On the contrary, opponents even said “build your mosque in my neighborhood, but not at Ground zero.”
Its about propriety, politesse being respectful. The Germans aren’t permitted to build a memorial to WWII soldiers, at Auschwitz, not because none should exist, but because its fitting to do so there.
Obama didn’t address that issue, he set up a Red Herring about the First Amendment = fallacy.
Not only is Obama the most corrupt, he hasn’t stopped lying and distorting since he became President…every time he pushes his agenda, he employs fallacy to do it.
Critical thinkers saw through his fallacies from the beginning, but there are few of us, public education does not teach critical thinking, it only indoctrinates in Progressivism. Critical thinking is its enemy, for then people expect results from their social programs, not just feeling good about themselves.
#114–Alfie==you and I won’t agree who is right or wrong so I post to others who may pass by: you are wrong.
Talking about religion and its related questions necessarily involve the first amendment. The only Red Herring is you claiming restrictions on where a Muslim Church can go that don’t apply to non-Muslim Churches is not a First Amendment Issue: IT IS!
Who, What, When, Where, Why, How one practices their religion, or not, is exactly what the First Amendment is About and “zoning laws” are laws that respect the establishment of religion.
Now, “if” you were right, the fallacy would not be a red herring, it would be a faulty premise. Very closely related and I’d be happy to give you a pass on that if you were right.
But as usual, you are wrong.
I look forward to your next evasion.
Its about propriety, politesse being respectful. The Germans aren’t permitted to build a memorial to WWII soldiers, at Auschwitz, not because none should exist, but because its fitting to do so there.
Nope, not even close. Auschwitz is about GERMANY, as a nation, committing mass murder of millions. There were no German soldiers killed in fighting around Auschwitz. AND, Auschwitz is in Poland, not Germany and I am unaware of any country allowing a former occupier allowing the former occupier to come back and build a monument desecrating the memory of Polish soldiers.
The events of 9/11 were done by a very small group of extremists. We don’t punish the majority for the sins of the minority. Maybe you forget your history, or more like it, you never learned it. Just because the bible has a history of killing off whole cities for the transgressions of a few doesn’t mean we still do it.
Shortly after Columbine Massacre, the NRA held a convention in Denver. The President of the NRA, Charlton Heston, spoke of how the NRA is a responsible organization and one incident by some extreme people shouldn’t reflect on all NRA members.
Now you would have us believe that those that hijacked the planes on 9/11 represent ALL Muslims. That this Community Center is a memorial to those extremists. What a jerk. You’re just a xenophobe trying to justify your racist opinion.
Then a few years ago Ann Coulter published a book where she claimed all widows of those who died in 9/11 were only out for themselves and were just a bunch of selfish people. My my how the right wingers all stood up claiming she had a first amendment right to say that. The very same people now being the loudest about stopping the Community Center. Rush Limpdick, Bill O’Really, Sean Hannity, Micheal Wiener, Dr. Laura, and every other right wing nut failed to chastise for her blatant behavior AGAINST those who died in 9/11. The memory of those who died during 9/11? Ya right, just another attempt by the right wing to rewrite history in order to openly display your hate.
#116 I love muslims, and would die fighting for their right to a mosque in America, the land of the free.
Its not appropriate to erect a victory mosque, funded by extreme Islam, as Ground Zero, that Hamas and others will trumpet symbolize the defeat of America.
That’s how it will be played in extremist circles, we must deny them the symbolism.
OR the mosque should rather be for all faiths to worship, Jews and Christians also. Then its builders are reaching out to Americans of all faiths…
American Muslims died also in the twin Towers.
Since when does the left care about religion, about the right to practice it. You have driven it out of politics, education, you attack our memorials. When a cross honoring WWI dead was left by the courts to decide another day, the left stole it.
You desecrate religion calling it art. There is no way you leftists would fight and die or the right of Americans to practice their religion…that you hate.
This is about dishonoring Americans, its about hating America, anything we freedom loving Americans want, you array yourselves against…
its about tyranny, you imposing your elitist minority un-American view, on us all.
You overturn our elections, through the courts, you subvert everything wholesome, for your nambla perversions…
This November makes the beginning when we rid ourselves of Progressives, proto-Stalinists; protoNazis, haters of personal, religious, and political freedom.
Haters of all who refuse to rob the producers of the world, to feed dependency upon government.
We the masses yearning to be free, will soon be free of you…this November…wait for it.
You will be voted out of our businesses, out of our lives, out of our schools, out of our churches…GET OUT.
#116
One could easily make the reverse argument with a Nazi memorial; that the people that perpetrated Auschwitz were a minority of all Nazis. That argument is as weak as the argument that 9/11 was only about a dozen guys and an airplane.
This has nothing to do with the right of Muslims to put the mosque near ground zero and you know it. We all agree that they have the right. There are a lot of acts to which we have the right but are nevertheless inappropriate and insensitive. The only reason for putting a mosque near ground zero is to incite people. It has nothing to do with need. It has nothing to do with rights. It has nothing to do with “bringing people together”. There is no good that comes from putting a mosque there.
Frankly, they should simply remove zoning for any religious building in that part of Manhattan. Let the Christians worship somewhere else. Let the Muslims worship somewhere else. This deity is supposedly eternal which means he/she/it will get their message if it is done from mid-town.
David Limbaugh asks:
Does anyone find it ironic that the very people who protest so loudly over supposed affronts to Islamic religious expression are often so hostile to the slightest Christian religious expressions — even incidental expressions?
The left is going bonkers over opposition to the ground zero mosque in the name of religious freedom, but the left’s assault on Christian liberties proceeds unabated.
http://newsmax.com/Limbaugh/ground–zero–mosque–religion–Islam–Christianity–Utah–First–Amendment/2010/08/20/id/367999
So what explains the left’s concern for a Muslim mosque?
Its the usual blame America first, we owe them an apology Obamaolitics “give them our wealth” mentality.
The first Anti-American President of the USA naturally supports the mosque, “we owe them,” so left elitists jump on the bandwagon, another proof “American People suck” and must be taught a lesson.
November is when the American People, yearning to be free, can vote the progressive elites out.
Remember to vote against all progressive elites, regardless what party they pretend to be.
#118, Thomas,
One could easily make the reverse argument with a Nazi memorial; that the people that perpetrated Auschwitz were a minority of all Nazis. That argument is as weak as the argument that 9/11 was only about a dozen guys and an airplane.
True, one could make that argument and it would be as you suggest, weak. Which is why I didn’t, Alfie made it.
This has nothing to do with the right of Muslims to put the mosque near ground zero and you know it. We all agree that they have the right. …
This also isn’t about religious freedom, again, as you point out. It is about the right for ALL Americans to enjoy the same freedoms. No one would be up in arms if a Christian Church, Jewish or Buddhist Temple were going up there in stead. It is the arguments used to deny the land use that have stirred the racist pot.
There is no good that comes from putting a mosque there.
Nor would there be any good with putting anything else there, including another Burlington Coat Factory outlet. Unless, of course, you are one of those who would be able to use the Community Center. (Or I suppose shop at the Burlington Coat Factory)
Frankly, they should simply remove zoning for any religious building in that part of Manhattan.
Why stop that short? ANY religious building should be taxed at a regular rate and have the same conditions applied as other forms of activity. Here, in our little town it burns my butt that a church may set up shop anywhere but a strip club may not set up within so far of a church.