When I first came to Vancouver, Canada nearly 32 years ago, Ramadhan – the holiest month of the Islamic calendar, in which Muslims fast from dawn to dusk – was in its last week. Because of the strike by the employees of the Air Canada, I had to settle for the Greyhound Bus to complete the last leg of my journey. It was a 28-hour long trip via some of the most scenic places on earth. I ended up arriving in Saskatoon just the night before Eid-ul Fitr, the day of festivity after the month-long fasting.
With all the schedule changes with my date and time of arrival, there was no university official from the Office of the International Students to receive me at the bus terminal. Instead, Dr. Shakeel Akhtar, an Indian Canadian and an old-time friend and roommate of Professor Nuruddin Ahmed of BUET (who did his PhD from the University of Saskatchewan), whom I had called soon after my arrival was gracious enough to pick me up from the terminal. He was a noble soul and took me to his home. [In 2005, Dr Akhtar was awarded the prestigious Saskatchewan Volunteer Medal at the Legislative Building that recognized his outstanding volunteer service and exceptional community involvement.]
In the midst of the journey, I had lost count of the Ramadhan, and was told by Mrs. Akhtar (now deceased) that the next day was the Eid. The next morning we drove to the Islamic Center, located a few miles from the university campus. It was a newly bought property which was a church before it was sold to the Muslim community. In those days it was the only mosque to cater to the spiritual needs of several hundred Muslims that lived in the city. The provincial capital city Regina did not have any mosque. Dr. David Russell, a chemistry professor at the University of Saskatchewan, was the president of the Islamic Center. The congregants for the Eid prayer included several foreign students and residents – both local and from the nearby towns. Some congregants came from places that were more than a hundred kilometer away from the Islamic Center.
It was simply heartening to meet so many Muslims from so many parts of the world who had come to the center for observing the Eid. I met nearly half a dozen Bangladeshi graduate students. I also met many Pakistani and Egyptian students there. After the Eid prayer, two of the Pakistani students took me to their university dorm for temporary accommodation before I could find an apartment. Over the next 22 months, I would occasionally come to the Islamic center for the Friday prayer service and Taraweeh prayers during the month of Ramadhan.
Both Professor Russell and Dr. Akhtar tell me that as the city size and population had grown in the last 32 years, so did the Muslim community. There are now more than 3000 Muslims living in the city. As the old Islamic center was not big enough to hold the local congregants, there are now two centers in the city of a quarter million people.
When I came to southern California in the fall of 1980 to pursue a PhD degree the localities surrounding the University of California campuses had no mosques or Islamic centers. Muslim students in Santa Barbara rented a small apartment to perform daily prayers. Los Angeles city, which by then had more than a hundred thousand Muslim residents, had only a handful of Islamic centers and makeshift mosques. Other than the Islamic Center on the Vermont Avenue and the Inglewood mosque, most of these were small places, not large enough to accommodate every Muslim within the local community for the Friday prayer services. Masjid Umar ibn-al-Khattab, near the USC campus, was still in the planning stage. On the days of Eid, space was a huge constraint to accommodate congregants and most Islamic centers and mosques would have multiple offerings of the Eid prayer. Many communities would rent city or municipal halls, or open spaces to perform such yearly events, a trend which continues to this very day. While the number of mosques and Islamic centers has since multiplied several folds in California, these are still too few and far between to meet the spiritual needs of the growing Muslim community.
In the late 1980s when I moved to the Philadelphia area, the situation here with mosques and Islamic centers looked even worse than those felt in Los Angeles. Outside the Bawa Mohiuddin Fellowship Center near St. Joseph University and the two mosques on the Walnut Street of Philadelphia, close to the U Penn campus, there was hardly any full time mosque. Most of these other mosques and centers were too small for the congregants and were open only on some prescribed times of prayer, usually dawn, evening and night, i.e., three out of five required prayer times. Most Muslims living in the tri-state (Greater Delaware valley surrounding Philadelphia) area ended up praying in rented rooms or narrow basements with bare pipes snaking along the ceilings and walls.
I remember driving almost 30 miles in Philadelphia to attend my first congregation prayer in a mosque that is still located at the intersection of the 45th Street and Walnut Street. That property used to be an abandoned church which was bought for a hefty price and converted to a mosque. Attending Friday prayer there on a regular basis was simply inconvenient for me. Later when I was able to locate a Turkish mosque in Levittown, which was about ten miles from my work place, I offered my Friday prayers there occasionally.
The situation has now improved quite a bit with more mosques and Islamic centers in the Greater Philadelphia area. However, many of these new mosques are makeshift structures – mostly old homes or shops – bought from previous owners which have been converted to prayer halls or rooms. None of these is a new structure built from ground up with Islamic architecture and planning. A visit to most of these makeshift mosques and Islamic centers would also show that these places are not large enough to accommodate every congregant coming on the Fridays, let alone on the Eid days.
As expected, during the month of Ramadhan, most of these mosques and Islamic centers throughout North America are crowded with devotees who are trying to revive or improve their individual spirituality. It is the best time for seeking repentance and self-improvement. According to Islamic tradition, the reward of every good deed done during this month is multiplied several folds. And as such, many pious Muslims devote long hours in prayers, meditation, contemplation, and giving in to charity and alms-giving, and engaging in voluntary community activities.
Breaking the fast with a small meal called Iftar after sunset in the mosque or Islamic center is a common tradition amongst most devotees. North America is no exception to that general practice. Many Muslims here volunteer to feed fasting Muslims and non-Muslim visitors after the sunset prayer. Many mosques and Islamic centers offer special devotional programs between evening and nightly prayers from learned scholars. It is also the time when people get to know each other better and create bonding.
In spite of 9/11 and a plethora of problems – global and local, imposed and self-inflicting - Islam is thriving. It is the fastest growing religion in the USA. It is estimated that some six to eight million Muslims now live in the USA. Many of them are either first generation American Muslims (White, Hispanic and Afro-American) or children born to immigrant Muslim parents. Quoting the Gallup and PEW polls, Professor John Esposito says that American Muslims are one of the most diverse communities in the world, representing 68 different countries as well as indigenous African Americans and converts. Muslims represent men and women spanning the socioeconomic spectrum: professionals (doctors, lawyers, engineers, and educators), corporate executives, small business owners, or blue-collar workers and laborers. Esposito writes, “In fact, 70 percent have a job (paid or unpaid) compared to 64 percent of Americans overall. Muslim women report monthly household incomes more nearly equal to men's, compared with women and men in other faith groups. Education is a priority for many Muslims, who, after Jews, are the most educated religious community surveyed in the United States. Forty percent of Muslims have a college degree or more, compared to 29 percent of Americans overall; 31 percent are full-time students as compared to 10 percent in the general population.” (The Future of Islam, pp. 14-15)
According to published records there are some 1900 mosques in the United States, which run the gamut from makeshift prayer rooms in storefronts and houses to large buildings with adjoining community centers. That is like: one mosque for every 3000 to 4000 congregants (on the average most of these mosques don’t accommodate more than a hundred worshippers). It should not therefore come as a surprise why American Muslims are looking for newer mosques to cater to the spiritual and social needs of its growing community that is economically in a stronger footing today than ever before.
However, no time before since the first couple of years of the George W. Bush era has the Muslim community witnessed so much open hatred and xenophobia hurled against it as it has in recent days. There is no denying that Islamophobia is on the rise in America. Republican candidates and its future presidential aspirants are appealing to fascist attitudes towards Islam and Muslims as a political wedge to gain electoral votes in the coming November elections (2010 and beyond). These hatemongering bigots have turned a local issue like the proposed mosque near ground zero in Manhattan into a national issue. Aided by right-wing political commentators, chauvinist Christian ministers and bloggers, they characterize this Muslim cultural center as a "monument to terrorism." Heated confrontations have also broken out in communities across the country where mosques are proposed for far less hallowed locations. Borrowing pages from the Nazi literature, these promoters of hatred say that they are in a war against Islam “for the survival of America."
Far from the hateful message of these bigots, a two-year study by a group of academics from Duke’s Sanford School of Public Policy and the University of North Carolina on American Muslims and terrorism concluded that contemporary mosques are actually a deterrent to the spread of militant Islam and terrorism.
Last Friday, President Barack Obama, using a White House dinner celebrating Ramadhan, proclaimed that “as a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country.”
But who can educate a bigot? Neither the New York city Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s historic speech on Governors Island nor the President’s strong defense on Friday night of the proposed mosque in Manhattan can change their mind.
Xenophobia has no place in any society that takes pride in its civilization – which owes so much to its immigrants, openness and religious tolerance. Let this Ramadhan be an eye-opener to all those caught in the middle to see the beauty of Islam. Efforts to demonize Islam will never succeed. American Muslims will not allow the promoters of hatred to use them as political pawns.
Sunday, August 15, 2010
On questions of intolerance
A reader Freek (geubel@home.nl) wrote:
"You wrote about Religious Intolerance in America.
What about Religious Intolerance in the Muslim countries?
Why can't Christians build a church in, let say Saudi Arabia or read even a Bible?
Do you understand the meaning of the word "tolerance"?
It must come from both sides will we ever live in peace on this world.
FG,
The Netherlands"
My comments follow:
Religious intolerance is against the very spirit of the Qur'an, as enunciated in many verses. One can read my detailed article on the subject, based on my lecture at the interfaith conference in Nashville, Vanderbilt University.
If some Muslims are violating the noble precepts then it is they themselves who are blameworthy. Such intolerance against anyone including fellow Muslims of different sects is simply unacceptable, and would be punished by God on the Day of Judgment.
The question on Saudi Arabia (SA) is a flawed one. Nonetheless I shall try to answer it. First, SA does not have any Christian citizen, unlike what we have here with Muslim citizens in the western world. Muslim citizens in the West are tax paying citizens, as do the temporary or guest work permit holders. There is a well known principle on statecraft: no taxation no representation. So, with no taxes paid the people in SA cannot even expect representation. And yet, the Saudi rulers allow a limited form of representation from the tribes and communities that live within the kingdom. This statement should not be construed as approving the Saudi policy on people representation.
Second, Saudi Arabia is a monarchy, with its rules and policies that are not only at odd with other democratic countries but also with Islam in so many grounds. The ruling elite comes from the most extreme group within the religion of Islam, i.e., Wahabism, which historically killed fellow Muslims on the ground that they were not Muslims having adhered to certain traditions that they considered innovation or deviance. Interestingly though, the monarch considers itself the custodian of the Islam and its holy shrines, much like how the Vatican leadership sees itself as the custodian of Christianity in general, or Catholicism in particular. When the Vatican allows a mosque to be built on its holy ground probably the Saudis may allow the same for church.
Third, it is NOT true that Christians can't read the Bible in SA. No one in SA cares about what goes inside the house or office. Unlike western countries, it does not spy on its citizens or visitors, esp. on matters happening inside the four walls. Thus, all non-Muslim workers are allowed to practice their religion within the confines of their homes and offices. These non-Muslims have been celebrating their mass services inside their workplaces and homes, and offices for many decades. During Christmas, many hospitals where the Christians work host the mass service with approval of the Saudi Directors. The propaganda that non-Muslims can't either read the Books or worship is a blatant lie. Again, let me reiterate -- the absence of a structure for church or temple does not mean that they are prohibited from worshiping or reading their books in SA.
Again, comparing apples and oranges can only delude one's judgment on a serious issue like tolerance. Muslims in the West whether they are in Europe or Americas are citizens with rights, protected by the constitution. If they were non-tax paying non-citizens then it would have been a different thing altogether. Similarly, if they had lived in a country where the laws of the land don't permit mosques, it would have been a different thing. Comparing their plight today in the West with Christian temporary workers in SA is not unfair, it is outright stupid and criminal. Let's face it: what the opponents of mosques are doing is sheer bigotry. It is Islamphobia, much like what anti-Semitism has been for centuries. Both are vices and condemnable.
Enough said.
"You wrote about Religious Intolerance in America.
What about Religious Intolerance in the Muslim countries?
Why can't Christians build a church in, let say Saudi Arabia or read even a Bible?
Do you understand the meaning of the word "tolerance"?
It must come from both sides will we ever live in peace on this world.
FG,
The Netherlands"
My comments follow:
Religious intolerance is against the very spirit of the Qur'an, as enunciated in many verses. One can read my detailed article on the subject, based on my lecture at the interfaith conference in Nashville, Vanderbilt University.
If some Muslims are violating the noble precepts then it is they themselves who are blameworthy. Such intolerance against anyone including fellow Muslims of different sects is simply unacceptable, and would be punished by God on the Day of Judgment.
The question on Saudi Arabia (SA) is a flawed one. Nonetheless I shall try to answer it. First, SA does not have any Christian citizen, unlike what we have here with Muslim citizens in the western world. Muslim citizens in the West are tax paying citizens, as do the temporary or guest work permit holders. There is a well known principle on statecraft: no taxation no representation. So, with no taxes paid the people in SA cannot even expect representation. And yet, the Saudi rulers allow a limited form of representation from the tribes and communities that live within the kingdom. This statement should not be construed as approving the Saudi policy on people representation.
Second, Saudi Arabia is a monarchy, with its rules and policies that are not only at odd with other democratic countries but also with Islam in so many grounds. The ruling elite comes from the most extreme group within the religion of Islam, i.e., Wahabism, which historically killed fellow Muslims on the ground that they were not Muslims having adhered to certain traditions that they considered innovation or deviance. Interestingly though, the monarch considers itself the custodian of the Islam and its holy shrines, much like how the Vatican leadership sees itself as the custodian of Christianity in general, or Catholicism in particular. When the Vatican allows a mosque to be built on its holy ground probably the Saudis may allow the same for church.
Third, it is NOT true that Christians can't read the Bible in SA. No one in SA cares about what goes inside the house or office. Unlike western countries, it does not spy on its citizens or visitors, esp. on matters happening inside the four walls. Thus, all non-Muslim workers are allowed to practice their religion within the confines of their homes and offices. These non-Muslims have been celebrating their mass services inside their workplaces and homes, and offices for many decades. During Christmas, many hospitals where the Christians work host the mass service with approval of the Saudi Directors. The propaganda that non-Muslims can't either read the Books or worship is a blatant lie. Again, let me reiterate -- the absence of a structure for church or temple does not mean that they are prohibited from worshiping or reading their books in SA.
Again, comparing apples and oranges can only delude one's judgment on a serious issue like tolerance. Muslims in the West whether they are in Europe or Americas are citizens with rights, protected by the constitution. If they were non-tax paying non-citizens then it would have been a different thing altogether. Similarly, if they had lived in a country where the laws of the land don't permit mosques, it would have been a different thing. Comparing their plight today in the West with Christian temporary workers in SA is not unfair, it is outright stupid and criminal. Let's face it: what the opponents of mosques are doing is sheer bigotry. It is Islamphobia, much like what anti-Semitism has been for centuries. Both are vices and condemnable.
Enough said.
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
What the hatemongers say about the proposed mosque in lower Manhattan
There is no doubt that Islamophobia is on the march. In New York, opponents of a Muslim community center and mosque are trying to stop its construction near the site of the 9/11 attacks. They are hatemongers. Just a reading of their statements and speeches show that they are closet fascists.
The Slate writes, "There's that telltale phrase again: a mosque. It's the same phrase Gingrich used a week ago: "It is simply grotesque to erect a mosque at the site of the most visible and powerful symbol of the horrible consequences of radical Islamist ideology." The same phrase Sarah Palin used: "To build a mosque at Ground Zero is a stab in the heart of the families of the innocent victims of those horrific attacks." The same phrase Rudy Giuliani used when he called it "a mosque that's in exactly the wrong place." The same phrase Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, a Republican presidential aspirant, used this weekend: "I'm strongly opposed to the idea of putting a mosque anywhere near Ground Zero.""
Promotion of hatred and xenophobia is a crime against humanity. Not only do such crimes prepare the groundwork for persecution of the targeted group, in so doing they also rob the very persecutor of its humanity. It is a loss-loss proposition on all sides, and must therefore be stopped before its caustic effects create serious problems in the society.
America cannot afford Islamophobia or any form of prejudice to win. Let's stop the promoters and merchants of xenophobia from winning the 2010 election, and enable voices of reason and plurality like Mayor Bloomberg to win.
The Slate writes, "There's that telltale phrase again: a mosque. It's the same phrase Gingrich used a week ago: "It is simply grotesque to erect a mosque at the site of the most visible and powerful symbol of the horrible consequences of radical Islamist ideology." The same phrase Sarah Palin used: "To build a mosque at Ground Zero is a stab in the heart of the families of the innocent victims of those horrific attacks." The same phrase Rudy Giuliani used when he called it "a mosque that's in exactly the wrong place." The same phrase Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, a Republican presidential aspirant, used this weekend: "I'm strongly opposed to the idea of putting a mosque anywhere near Ground Zero.""
Promotion of hatred and xenophobia is a crime against humanity. Not only do such crimes prepare the groundwork for persecution of the targeted group, in so doing they also rob the very persecutor of its humanity. It is a loss-loss proposition on all sides, and must therefore be stopped before its caustic effects create serious problems in the society.
America cannot afford Islamophobia or any form of prejudice to win. Let's stop the promoters and merchants of xenophobia from winning the 2010 election, and enable voices of reason and plurality like Mayor Bloomberg to win.
Mayor Bloomberg's speech on the near-Ground Zero Mosque
The following are New York City Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg's remarks as delivered on Governors Island.
We have come here to Governors Island to stand where the earliest settlers first set foot in New Amsterdam, and where the seeds of religious tolerance were first planted. We've come here to see the inspiring symbol of liberty that, more than 250 years later, would greet millions of immigrants in the harbor, and we come here to state as strongly as ever - this is the freest City in the world. That's what makes New York special and different and strong.
Our doors are open to everyone - everyone with a dream and a willingness to work hard and play by the rules. New York City was built by immigrants, and it is sustained by immigrants - by people from more than a hundred different countries speaking more than two hundred different languages and professing every faith. And whether your parents were born here, or you came yesterday, you are a New Yorker.
We may not always agree with every one of our neighbors. That's life and it's part of living in such a diverse and dense city. But we also recognize that part of being a New Yorker is living with your neighbors in mutual respect and tolerance. It was exactly that spirit of openness and acceptance that was attacked on 9/11.
On that day, 3,000 people were killed because some murderous fanatics didn't want us to enjoy the freedom to profess our own faiths, to speak our own minds, to follow our own dreams and to live our own lives.
Of all our precious freedoms, the most important may be the freedom to worship as we wish. And it is a freedom that, even here in a City that is rooted in Dutch tolerance, was hard-won over many years. In the mid-1650s, the small Jewish community living in Lower Manhattan petitioned Dutch Governor Peter Stuyvesant for the right to build a synagogue - and they were turned down.
In 1657, when Stuyvesant also prohibited Quakers from holding meetings, a group of non-Quakers in Queens signed the Flushing Remonstrance, a petition in defense of the right of Quakers and others to freely practice their religion. It was perhaps the first formal, political petition for religious freedom in the American colonies - and the organizer was thrown in jail and then banished from New Amsterdam.
In the 1700s, even as religious freedom took hold in America, Catholics in New York were effectively prohibited from practicing their religion - and priests could be arrested. Largely as a result, the first Catholic parish in New York City was not established until the 1780's - St. Peter's on Barclay Street, which still stands just one block north of the World Trade Center site and one block south of the proposed mosque and community center.
This morning, the City's Landmark Preservation Commission unanimously voted not to extend landmark status to the building on Park Place where the mosque and community center are planned. The decision was based solely on the fact that there was little architectural significance to the building. But with or without landmark designation, there is nothing in the law that would prevent the owners from opening a mosque within the existing building. The simple fact is this building is private property, and the owners have a right to use the building as a house of worship.
The government has no right whatsoever to deny that right - and if it were tried, the courts would almost certainly strike it down as a violation of the U.S. Constitution. Whatever you may think of the proposed mosque and community center, lost in the heat of the debate has been a basic question - should government attempt to deny private citizens the right to build a house of worship on private property based on their particular religion? That may happen in other countries, but we should never allow it to happen here. This nation was founded on the principle that the government must never choose between religions, or favor one over another.
The World Trade Center Site will forever hold a special place in our City, in our hearts. But we would be untrue to the best part of ourselves - and who we are as New Yorkers and Americans - if we said 'no' to a mosque in Lower Manhattan.
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 lifetime - as important a test - and it is critically important that we get it right.
On September 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?' 'What beliefs do you hold?'
The attack was an act of war - and our first responders defended not only our City but also 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.
Of course, it is fair to ask the organizers of the mosque to show some special sensitivity to the situation - and in fact, their plan envisions reaching beyond their walls and building an interfaith community. By doing so, it is my hope that the mosque will help to bring our City even closer together and help repudiate the false and repugnant idea that the attacks of 9/11 were in any way consistent with Islam. Muslims are as much a part of our City and our country as the people of any faith and they are as welcome to worship in Lower Manhattan as any other group. In fact, they have been worshiping at the site for the better part of a year, as is their right.
The local community board in Lower Manhattan voted overwhelming to support the proposal and if it moves forward, I expect the community center and mosque will add to the life and vitality of the neighborhood and the entire City.
Political controversies come and go, but our values and our traditions endure - and there is no neighborhood in this City that is off limits to God's love and mercy, as the religious leaders here with us today can attest.
We have come here to Governors Island to stand where the earliest settlers first set foot in New Amsterdam, and where the seeds of religious tolerance were first planted. We've come here to see the inspiring symbol of liberty that, more than 250 years later, would greet millions of immigrants in the harbor, and we come here to state as strongly as ever - this is the freest City in the world. That's what makes New York special and different and strong.
Our doors are open to everyone - everyone with a dream and a willingness to work hard and play by the rules. New York City was built by immigrants, and it is sustained by immigrants - by people from more than a hundred different countries speaking more than two hundred different languages and professing every faith. And whether your parents were born here, or you came yesterday, you are a New Yorker.
We may not always agree with every one of our neighbors. That's life and it's part of living in such a diverse and dense city. But we also recognize that part of being a New Yorker is living with your neighbors in mutual respect and tolerance. It was exactly that spirit of openness and acceptance that was attacked on 9/11.
On that day, 3,000 people were killed because some murderous fanatics didn't want us to enjoy the freedom to profess our own faiths, to speak our own minds, to follow our own dreams and to live our own lives.
Of all our precious freedoms, the most important may be the freedom to worship as we wish. And it is a freedom that, even here in a City that is rooted in Dutch tolerance, was hard-won over many years. In the mid-1650s, the small Jewish community living in Lower Manhattan petitioned Dutch Governor Peter Stuyvesant for the right to build a synagogue - and they were turned down.
In 1657, when Stuyvesant also prohibited Quakers from holding meetings, a group of non-Quakers in Queens signed the Flushing Remonstrance, a petition in defense of the right of Quakers and others to freely practice their religion. It was perhaps the first formal, political petition for religious freedom in the American colonies - and the organizer was thrown in jail and then banished from New Amsterdam.
In the 1700s, even as religious freedom took hold in America, Catholics in New York were effectively prohibited from practicing their religion - and priests could be arrested. Largely as a result, the first Catholic parish in New York City was not established until the 1780's - St. Peter's on Barclay Street, which still stands just one block north of the World Trade Center site and one block south of the proposed mosque and community center.
This morning, the City's Landmark Preservation Commission unanimously voted not to extend landmark status to the building on Park Place where the mosque and community center are planned. The decision was based solely on the fact that there was little architectural significance to the building. But with or without landmark designation, there is nothing in the law that would prevent the owners from opening a mosque within the existing building. The simple fact is this building is private property, and the owners have a right to use the building as a house of worship.
The government has no right whatsoever to deny that right - and if it were tried, the courts would almost certainly strike it down as a violation of the U.S. Constitution. Whatever you may think of the proposed mosque and community center, lost in the heat of the debate has been a basic question - should government attempt to deny private citizens the right to build a house of worship on private property based on their particular religion? That may happen in other countries, but we should never allow it to happen here. This nation was founded on the principle that the government must never choose between religions, or favor one over another.
The World Trade Center Site will forever hold a special place in our City, in our hearts. But we would be untrue to the best part of ourselves - and who we are as New Yorkers and Americans - if we said 'no' to a mosque in Lower Manhattan.
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 lifetime - as important a test - and it is critically important that we get it right.
On September 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?' 'What beliefs do you hold?'
The attack was an act of war - and our first responders defended not only our City but also 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.
Of course, it is fair to ask the organizers of the mosque to show some special sensitivity to the situation - and in fact, their plan envisions reaching beyond their walls and building an interfaith community. By doing so, it is my hope that the mosque will help to bring our City even closer together and help repudiate the false and repugnant idea that the attacks of 9/11 were in any way consistent with Islam. Muslims are as much a part of our City and our country as the people of any faith and they are as welcome to worship in Lower Manhattan as any other group. In fact, they have been worshiping at the site for the better part of a year, as is their right.
The local community board in Lower Manhattan voted overwhelming to support the proposal and if it moves forward, I expect the community center and mosque will add to the life and vitality of the neighborhood and the entire City.
Political controversies come and go, but our values and our traditions endure - and there is no neighborhood in this City that is off limits to God's love and mercy, as the religious leaders here with us today can attest.
Monday, August 9, 2010
Fareed Zakaria and the ADL
Today my attention was drawn to Dr. Fareed Zakaria's letter to ADL in which he deplored the latter's opposition to the construction of a mosque on a Muslim property, located a couple of blocks from the Ground Zero. While I have sometimes critiqued Zakaria on some issues relating to his analysis of the Muslim world, I have always admired his ability to present his views in a concise manner. His successful career as the International editor of the Newsweek and the popular host of the Fareed Zakaria GPS in the CNN all speak high about his talent and skill as a good communicator, something lacking in many good writers and analysts of global politics. I have also read his books, and found them to be serious books for anyone interested in global politics to read.
I must however admit that I have often entertained some doubts about him whether he would have the moral guts to stand on highly controversial positions that are politically incorrect. I have imagined that he would behave like an Uncle Tom on issues that affect his own kind, the Muslims. The mosque controversy is a great one to judge his character. I am glad that he passed it with a clean slate. He had the guts to tell Foxman of the ADL:
Dear Mr. Foxman,
Five years ago, the ADL honored me with its Hubert Humphrey First Amendment Freedoms Prize. I was delighted and moved to have been chosen for it in good measure because of the high esteem in which I hold the ADL. I have always been impressed by the fact that your mission is broad – “to put an end forever to unjust and unfair discrimination against and ridicule of any sect or body of citizens” – and you have interpreted it broadly over the decades. You have fought discrimination against all religions, races, and creeds and have built a well-deserved reputation.
That is why I was stunned at your decision to publicly side with those urging the relocation of the planned Islamic center in lower Manhattan. You are choosing to use your immense prestige to take a side that is utterly opposed to the animating purpose of your organization. Your own statements subsequently, asserting that we must honor the feelings of victims even if irrational or bigoted, made matters worse.
This is not the place to debate the press release or your statements. Many have done this and I have written about it in Newsweek and on my television show – both of which will be out over the weekend. The purpose of this letter is more straightforward. I cannot in good conscience hold onto the award or the honorarium that came with it and am returning both. I hope that it might add to the many voices that have urged you to reconsider and reverse your position on this issue. This decision will haunt the ADL for years if not decades to come. Whether or not the center is built, what is at stake here is the integrity of the ADL and its fidelity to its mission. Admitting an error is a small price to pay to regain your reputation."
Like me, Zakaria has also been very positive about Mayor Bloomberg's position on the mosque. In the latest issue of the Newsweek, Zakaria writes, "Bloomberg’s eloquent, brave, and carefully reasoned address should become required reading in every civics classroom in America. It probably will.
Bloomberg’s speech stands in stark contrast to the bizarre decision of the Anti-Defamation League to publicly side with those urging that the center be moved. The ADL’s mission statement says it seeks “to put an end forever to unjust and unfair discrimination against and ridicule of any sect or body of citizens.” But Abraham Foxman, the head of the ADL, explained that we must all respect the feelings of the 9/11 families, even if they are prejudiced feelings. “Their anguish entitles them to positions that others would categorize as irrational or bigoted,” he said. First, the 9/11 families have mixed views on this mosque. There were, after all, dozens of Muslims killed at the World Trade Center. Do their feelings count? But more important, does Foxman believe that bigotry is OK if people think they’re victims? Does the anguish of Palestinians, then, entitle them to be anti-Semitic?
Five years ago, the ADL honored me with its Hubert H. Humphrey First Amendment Freedoms Prize. I was thrilled to get the award from an organization that I had long admired. But I cannot in good conscience keep it anymore. I have returned both the handsome plaque and the $10,000 honorarium that came with it. I urge the ADL to reverse its decision. Admitting an error is a small price to pay to regain a reputation."
I hope Zakaria's letter and return of the plaque with the honorarium would help the ADL to rethink its wrong decision and see the light, much like Mayor Bloomberg. An organization can't expect itself to be honored as a civic or human rights organization fighting religious bigotry when it joins the wagon of hatred. Shame on the ADL and cheers to Dr. Zakaria. You make us proud. Thank you.
I must however admit that I have often entertained some doubts about him whether he would have the moral guts to stand on highly controversial positions that are politically incorrect. I have imagined that he would behave like an Uncle Tom on issues that affect his own kind, the Muslims. The mosque controversy is a great one to judge his character. I am glad that he passed it with a clean slate. He had the guts to tell Foxman of the ADL:
Dear Mr. Foxman,
Five years ago, the ADL honored me with its Hubert Humphrey First Amendment Freedoms Prize. I was delighted and moved to have been chosen for it in good measure because of the high esteem in which I hold the ADL. I have always been impressed by the fact that your mission is broad – “to put an end forever to unjust and unfair discrimination against and ridicule of any sect or body of citizens” – and you have interpreted it broadly over the decades. You have fought discrimination against all religions, races, and creeds and have built a well-deserved reputation.
That is why I was stunned at your decision to publicly side with those urging the relocation of the planned Islamic center in lower Manhattan. You are choosing to use your immense prestige to take a side that is utterly opposed to the animating purpose of your organization. Your own statements subsequently, asserting that we must honor the feelings of victims even if irrational or bigoted, made matters worse.
This is not the place to debate the press release or your statements. Many have done this and I have written about it in Newsweek and on my television show – both of which will be out over the weekend. The purpose of this letter is more straightforward. I cannot in good conscience hold onto the award or the honorarium that came with it and am returning both. I hope that it might add to the many voices that have urged you to reconsider and reverse your position on this issue. This decision will haunt the ADL for years if not decades to come. Whether or not the center is built, what is at stake here is the integrity of the ADL and its fidelity to its mission. Admitting an error is a small price to pay to regain your reputation."
Like me, Zakaria has also been very positive about Mayor Bloomberg's position on the mosque. In the latest issue of the Newsweek, Zakaria writes, "Bloomberg’s eloquent, brave, and carefully reasoned address should become required reading in every civics classroom in America. It probably will.
Bloomberg’s speech stands in stark contrast to the bizarre decision of the Anti-Defamation League to publicly side with those urging that the center be moved. The ADL’s mission statement says it seeks “to put an end forever to unjust and unfair discrimination against and ridicule of any sect or body of citizens.” But Abraham Foxman, the head of the ADL, explained that we must all respect the feelings of the 9/11 families, even if they are prejudiced feelings. “Their anguish entitles them to positions that others would categorize as irrational or bigoted,” he said. First, the 9/11 families have mixed views on this mosque. There were, after all, dozens of Muslims killed at the World Trade Center. Do their feelings count? But more important, does Foxman believe that bigotry is OK if people think they’re victims? Does the anguish of Palestinians, then, entitle them to be anti-Semitic?
Five years ago, the ADL honored me with its Hubert H. Humphrey First Amendment Freedoms Prize. I was thrilled to get the award from an organization that I had long admired. But I cannot in good conscience keep it anymore. I have returned both the handsome plaque and the $10,000 honorarium that came with it. I urge the ADL to reverse its decision. Admitting an error is a small price to pay to regain a reputation."
I hope Zakaria's letter and return of the plaque with the honorarium would help the ADL to rethink its wrong decision and see the light, much like Mayor Bloomberg. An organization can't expect itself to be honored as a civic or human rights organization fighting religious bigotry when it joins the wagon of hatred. Shame on the ADL and cheers to Dr. Zakaria. You make us proud. Thank you.
Sunday, August 8, 2010
Is Xenophobia eating up American fabric on mutli-culture and pluralism?
As I noted earlier, religious intolerance is penetrating America. It is a sign of fascism that is led by some hateful, bigoted elements within the American society. Unless, this evil is smashed promptly, America will traverse the same fate that visited many such countries that once embraced xenophobia. It is time for America to wake up and stop this hatred once and for all time.
Here is a NY Times article that discusses resistance to some proposed mosques in various localities in the USA. It is a sign of disgrace and shame for America.
Here is a NY Times article that discusses resistance to some proposed mosques in various localities in the USA. It is a sign of disgrace and shame for America.
Gingrich and Palin – Two of the same kind
Last Tuesday, August 3, 2010, New York City’s Landmarks Preservation Commission voted 9 to 0 approving the construction of the mosque and Islamic center. As the New York Times editorial rightly concluded “It was not just the right thing to do, it was the only thing to do.” With this vote, the commission reaffirmed one of the basic tenets of democracy: religious tolerance.
New York Mayor Bloomberg has also endorsed the mosque proposal and correctly said that the owners of the building (i.e., the Muslim) have the right to use their property as a house of worship. “The government has no right whatsoever to deny that right,” he said.
What the opponents wanted was use the mosque controversy to foment hatred and bigotry against some six to eight million Muslims who live in the USA. As we know quite well the Republicans have been shamelessly playing the politics of fear since 9/11. It was therefore not surprising that with just about three months left for the mid-term November election, the Republican politicians saw this near-Ground Zero mosque as an opportunity to whip up anti-Muslim hysteria amongst the non-Muslim voters. With outsider players vying for national attention and conservative radio and TV talk show hosts beating the drum hysterically, soon the proposed mosque project became a national controversy. These promoters of religious intolerance wanted to portray New York Attorney General Cuomo (a Democrat) and Mayor Bloomberg (an independent) – both vying for the Gubernatorial seat – as soft, liberal and out of touch with the New Yorkers.
Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich, both presidential hopefuls from the Republican Party, came out roaring like a bitch and a boar, respectively, trying to sell their prejudices against Muslims. The Republican gubernatorial candidate Rick Lazio of New York did not want to fall behind either in such hysteria and joined the hate campaign. “This is not about religion,” he said. “It’s about this particular mosque.” He can’t hide his bigotry under such charade.
It is worth mentioning here that both Palin and Gingrich have many things in common. Both are registered Republicans and are perceived by many conservative party members as their mouthpieces. Both are however viewed very negatively by most Americans for their shallow and polarizing opinions. But such public opinions have not been able to throw a cold shower on their hot ego. Both tried to self-promote themselves as highly ethical and social conservatives. But such exaggerated claims could not hide their rather problematic past records on ethics and morality.
In May 1988, Gingrich along with 77 other House members brought ethics charges against Democratic Speaker Jim Wright, who was alleged to have used a book deal to circumvent campaign-finance laws and House ethics rules. During the investigation, it was noted Gingrich had his own unusual book deal, for Window of Opportunity, part of whose publicity expenses were covered by a limited partnership, which raised $105,000 from Republican political supporters around the country to promote sales of the book. That is not the end of Gingrich’s double standards. It is only a small part of his flawed character. As noted in the New York Times (Clymer, Adam, "House Revolutionary,” August 23, 1992) Gingrich himself was among the 450 members of the House who had engaged in check-kiting; he had overdrafts on twenty-two checks, including a $9,463 check to the Internal Revenue Service in 1990. Wait, there is more on Gingrich’s not-so-ethical past. On January 21, 1997, the House voted 395 to 28 to reprimand Gingrich for ethics violations dating back to September 1994. The House ordered Gingrich to pay a $300,000 penalty, the first time in the House's 208-year history it had disciplined a Speaker for ethical wrongdoing. Eighty-four ethics charges, a record in the House, were filed against Speaker Gingrich during his term.
By 1998, Gingrich had become a highly visible and polarizing figure in the public's eye, making him a target for Democratic congressional candidates across the nation. His approval rating dropped to 45% in April 1998. Gingrich suffered much of the blame for the election loss. Facing another rebellion in the Republican caucus, he announced on November 6, 1998 that he would not only stand down as Speaker, but would leave the House as well. We thought that we had seen the end of this political clown in the American politics. But we were terribly wrong.
Gingrich has not given up on his hope for a political comeback and has been trying hard to draw attention of his fellow Republicans to his side. He is affiliated with a neocon think tank (AEI). It is not too long ago that Gingrich authored a book, Rediscovering God in America, in which he tried to demonstrate that the Founding Fathers of America actively intended the new republic to not only allow, but encourage, religious expression in the public square. And yet, it is the same Gingrich who wants to stop Muslims of New York from expressing their religious freedom in praying in their own mosque. Hypocrites can’t hide their ugly self and Gingrich has proven this age-old maxim once again.
As to Gingrich’s personal life, it is quite interesting to note that Gingrich has been married three times. He first married Jackie Battley, his former high school geometry teacher, when he was 19 years old and she was 26. He left Battley in the spring of 1980. According to Battley, Gingrich visited her later that year while she was in the hospital recovering from cancer surgery to discuss the details of their divorce. That says a lot about what kind of insensitive man Gingrich has been! Six months after the divorce was final, Gingrich wed Marianne Ginther in 1981.
One may recall also that Gingrich was very vocal about President Clinton’s flawed character and wanted him impeached for the Lewinsky scandal. During the same period while he was asking for impeachment, Gingrich began an extra-marital affair with Callista Bisek, who is 23 years his junior, in the mid nineties. This again shows what a hypocrite he has been! In 2000, Gingrich married Bisek shortly after his divorce with second wife Ginther was finalized. He, a Baptist, converted to Catholicism, his wife's faith, on March 29, 2009. Many would discover an opportunist trait in this conversion.
It is perhaps correct to say that Gingrich has been one of the most prejudiced and polarizing American politicians of our time. He wants to finish Bush’s unfinished war against Islam, and has been trying to sell his poison pill for quite some time, esp. in the Obama period. True to his hateful character, he has even tried to bring a non-issue like the shariah law in American politics. Fortunately, that has not seen much success thus far.
As to the other demagogue, Sarah Palin, the former governor of Alaska, the least said the better. She, a former beauty peasant, was the running mate of Senator John McCain in the last presidential election when they unsuccessfully tried to play the race card to polarize American voters. Like Gingrich, she also tried to present herself as an ethical person with higher moral values. She presented herself as a social conservative and became the symbol of Christian Right and a favorite amongst the neoconservatives. As it turned out, however, her own family was a far cry from what one could call an ethical family. Her teenage daughter Bristol gave birth to a child out of wedlock. Bristol’s boyfriend was later to be found posing nude for the Playgirl. After some two-years of separation, and bad-mouthing and trashing the Palin family, the boyfriend is now back with his bastard child and Bristol.
During the presidential campaign of July 2008, Palin was involved in a political scandal – the Troopgate – when she dismissed Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan citing performance-related issues, such as not being "a team player on budgeting issues." Monegan, however, challenged the accusation citing that he had resisted persistent pressure from Palin, her husband, and her staff, including State Attorney General Talis Colberg, to fire Palin’s ex-brother-in-law, Alaska State Trooper Mike Wooten; Wooten was involved in a child custody battle with Palin’s sister after a bitter divorce that included an alleged death threat against Palin's father.
On August 1, 2008 the Alaska Legislature hired an investigator to review the Monegan dismissal. Legislators stated that Palin had the legal authority to fire Monegan, but they wanted to know whether her action had been motivated by anger at Monegan for not firing Wooten. On October 10, 2008, the Alaska Legislative Council unanimously voted to release the Branchflower Report, in which investigator Stephen Branchflower found that firing Monegan "was a proper and lawful exercise of her constitutional and statutory authority," but that Palin abused her power as governor and violated the state's Executive Branch Ethics Act when her office pressured Monegan to fire Wooten. The report stated that "Governor Palin knowingly permitted a situation to continue where impermissible pressure was placed on several subordinates to advance a personal agenda, to wit: to get Trooper Michael Wooten fired." The report also said that Palin "permitted Todd Palin to use the Governor's office [...] to continue to contact subordinate state employees in an effort to find some way to get Trooper Wooten fired."
On July 3, 2009, Palin announced at a press conference that she would not run for reelection in the 2010 Alaska gubernatorial election and would resign before the end of July.
In recent months, Palin has been credited with the revival of the Republican Party in the post-Bush era. As noted earlier by me, she remains one of the most venomous voices opposing the construction of the Mosque in New York. She is joined by Christian evangelist and bigot Pat Robertson of 711 Club. The latter has filed a lawsuit threatening the mosque construction proposal. Such lawsuits against the mosque should be easily thrown out by the court, because giving air to bigotry would only make a laughing stock of New York and its court system.
It is disconcerting to note that what the Republican politicians like Palin, Gingrich, Lazio and others are doing today against Muslim minorities is no less worse than what the Nazis did in the early days of Hitler against Jews. One would have thought that Jews would have no role in this kind of prejudice against minority Muslims. But as I noted earlier, some of the most hateful campaigns are led by Jews. More problematic is the behavior of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), which eagerly piled on with the opponents of the mosque. It should not be built “in the shadow” of the World Trade Center, the group said, because it would “cause some victims more pain.” The New York Times was distressed to see the rationalization of bigotry used by an organization that has been fighting discrimination of all kinds, especially during some of the worst days of the Ku Klux Klan.
But I am not surprised at all. For too long I have been studying the behavior of ADL and self-righteous bigots like Paterson, Palin, Eli Wiesel, Gingrich and others. When push comes to shove, they show their true ugly naked self. None of them have higher moral grounds. Most of them are closet fascists, let alone being opportunists and bigots. They are all essentially evil people who would have had no problem bowing down to anyone for the right kind of price or stick. They deserve each other, and no one else. As it is said in Bangla: ratan-e ratan cheenay (birds of the same feather flock together).
It is silly that they try to sell the poison pill that 9/11 was a war of Islam lodged against America. When did OBL become a symbol of Islam?
I am reminded here that when the hunter gets hunted it is no longer fun. It loses its common sense and wit. Shame on such messengers and promoters of hatred!!
New York Mayor Bloomberg has also endorsed the mosque proposal and correctly said that the owners of the building (i.e., the Muslim) have the right to use their property as a house of worship. “The government has no right whatsoever to deny that right,” he said.
What the opponents wanted was use the mosque controversy to foment hatred and bigotry against some six to eight million Muslims who live in the USA. As we know quite well the Republicans have been shamelessly playing the politics of fear since 9/11. It was therefore not surprising that with just about three months left for the mid-term November election, the Republican politicians saw this near-Ground Zero mosque as an opportunity to whip up anti-Muslim hysteria amongst the non-Muslim voters. With outsider players vying for national attention and conservative radio and TV talk show hosts beating the drum hysterically, soon the proposed mosque project became a national controversy. These promoters of religious intolerance wanted to portray New York Attorney General Cuomo (a Democrat) and Mayor Bloomberg (an independent) – both vying for the Gubernatorial seat – as soft, liberal and out of touch with the New Yorkers.
Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich, both presidential hopefuls from the Republican Party, came out roaring like a bitch and a boar, respectively, trying to sell their prejudices against Muslims. The Republican gubernatorial candidate Rick Lazio of New York did not want to fall behind either in such hysteria and joined the hate campaign. “This is not about religion,” he said. “It’s about this particular mosque.” He can’t hide his bigotry under such charade.
It is worth mentioning here that both Palin and Gingrich have many things in common. Both are registered Republicans and are perceived by many conservative party members as their mouthpieces. Both are however viewed very negatively by most Americans for their shallow and polarizing opinions. But such public opinions have not been able to throw a cold shower on their hot ego. Both tried to self-promote themselves as highly ethical and social conservatives. But such exaggerated claims could not hide their rather problematic past records on ethics and morality.
In May 1988, Gingrich along with 77 other House members brought ethics charges against Democratic Speaker Jim Wright, who was alleged to have used a book deal to circumvent campaign-finance laws and House ethics rules. During the investigation, it was noted Gingrich had his own unusual book deal, for Window of Opportunity, part of whose publicity expenses were covered by a limited partnership, which raised $105,000 from Republican political supporters around the country to promote sales of the book. That is not the end of Gingrich’s double standards. It is only a small part of his flawed character. As noted in the New York Times (Clymer, Adam, "House Revolutionary,” August 23, 1992) Gingrich himself was among the 450 members of the House who had engaged in check-kiting; he had overdrafts on twenty-two checks, including a $9,463 check to the Internal Revenue Service in 1990. Wait, there is more on Gingrich’s not-so-ethical past. On January 21, 1997, the House voted 395 to 28 to reprimand Gingrich for ethics violations dating back to September 1994. The House ordered Gingrich to pay a $300,000 penalty, the first time in the House's 208-year history it had disciplined a Speaker for ethical wrongdoing. Eighty-four ethics charges, a record in the House, were filed against Speaker Gingrich during his term.
By 1998, Gingrich had become a highly visible and polarizing figure in the public's eye, making him a target for Democratic congressional candidates across the nation. His approval rating dropped to 45% in April 1998. Gingrich suffered much of the blame for the election loss. Facing another rebellion in the Republican caucus, he announced on November 6, 1998 that he would not only stand down as Speaker, but would leave the House as well. We thought that we had seen the end of this political clown in the American politics. But we were terribly wrong.
Gingrich has not given up on his hope for a political comeback and has been trying hard to draw attention of his fellow Republicans to his side. He is affiliated with a neocon think tank (AEI). It is not too long ago that Gingrich authored a book, Rediscovering God in America, in which he tried to demonstrate that the Founding Fathers of America actively intended the new republic to not only allow, but encourage, religious expression in the public square. And yet, it is the same Gingrich who wants to stop Muslims of New York from expressing their religious freedom in praying in their own mosque. Hypocrites can’t hide their ugly self and Gingrich has proven this age-old maxim once again.
As to Gingrich’s personal life, it is quite interesting to note that Gingrich has been married three times. He first married Jackie Battley, his former high school geometry teacher, when he was 19 years old and she was 26. He left Battley in the spring of 1980. According to Battley, Gingrich visited her later that year while she was in the hospital recovering from cancer surgery to discuss the details of their divorce. That says a lot about what kind of insensitive man Gingrich has been! Six months after the divorce was final, Gingrich wed Marianne Ginther in 1981.
One may recall also that Gingrich was very vocal about President Clinton’s flawed character and wanted him impeached for the Lewinsky scandal. During the same period while he was asking for impeachment, Gingrich began an extra-marital affair with Callista Bisek, who is 23 years his junior, in the mid nineties. This again shows what a hypocrite he has been! In 2000, Gingrich married Bisek shortly after his divorce with second wife Ginther was finalized. He, a Baptist, converted to Catholicism, his wife's faith, on March 29, 2009. Many would discover an opportunist trait in this conversion.
It is perhaps correct to say that Gingrich has been one of the most prejudiced and polarizing American politicians of our time. He wants to finish Bush’s unfinished war against Islam, and has been trying to sell his poison pill for quite some time, esp. in the Obama period. True to his hateful character, he has even tried to bring a non-issue like the shariah law in American politics. Fortunately, that has not seen much success thus far.
As to the other demagogue, Sarah Palin, the former governor of Alaska, the least said the better. She, a former beauty peasant, was the running mate of Senator John McCain in the last presidential election when they unsuccessfully tried to play the race card to polarize American voters. Like Gingrich, she also tried to present herself as an ethical person with higher moral values. She presented herself as a social conservative and became the symbol of Christian Right and a favorite amongst the neoconservatives. As it turned out, however, her own family was a far cry from what one could call an ethical family. Her teenage daughter Bristol gave birth to a child out of wedlock. Bristol’s boyfriend was later to be found posing nude for the Playgirl. After some two-years of separation, and bad-mouthing and trashing the Palin family, the boyfriend is now back with his bastard child and Bristol.
During the presidential campaign of July 2008, Palin was involved in a political scandal – the Troopgate – when she dismissed Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan citing performance-related issues, such as not being "a team player on budgeting issues." Monegan, however, challenged the accusation citing that he had resisted persistent pressure from Palin, her husband, and her staff, including State Attorney General Talis Colberg, to fire Palin’s ex-brother-in-law, Alaska State Trooper Mike Wooten; Wooten was involved in a child custody battle with Palin’s sister after a bitter divorce that included an alleged death threat against Palin's father.
On August 1, 2008 the Alaska Legislature hired an investigator to review the Monegan dismissal. Legislators stated that Palin had the legal authority to fire Monegan, but they wanted to know whether her action had been motivated by anger at Monegan for not firing Wooten. On October 10, 2008, the Alaska Legislative Council unanimously voted to release the Branchflower Report, in which investigator Stephen Branchflower found that firing Monegan "was a proper and lawful exercise of her constitutional and statutory authority," but that Palin abused her power as governor and violated the state's Executive Branch Ethics Act when her office pressured Monegan to fire Wooten. The report stated that "Governor Palin knowingly permitted a situation to continue where impermissible pressure was placed on several subordinates to advance a personal agenda, to wit: to get Trooper Michael Wooten fired." The report also said that Palin "permitted Todd Palin to use the Governor's office [...] to continue to contact subordinate state employees in an effort to find some way to get Trooper Wooten fired."
On July 3, 2009, Palin announced at a press conference that she would not run for reelection in the 2010 Alaska gubernatorial election and would resign before the end of July.
In recent months, Palin has been credited with the revival of the Republican Party in the post-Bush era. As noted earlier by me, she remains one of the most venomous voices opposing the construction of the Mosque in New York. She is joined by Christian evangelist and bigot Pat Robertson of 711 Club. The latter has filed a lawsuit threatening the mosque construction proposal. Such lawsuits against the mosque should be easily thrown out by the court, because giving air to bigotry would only make a laughing stock of New York and its court system.
It is disconcerting to note that what the Republican politicians like Palin, Gingrich, Lazio and others are doing today against Muslim minorities is no less worse than what the Nazis did in the early days of Hitler against Jews. One would have thought that Jews would have no role in this kind of prejudice against minority Muslims. But as I noted earlier, some of the most hateful campaigns are led by Jews. More problematic is the behavior of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), which eagerly piled on with the opponents of the mosque. It should not be built “in the shadow” of the World Trade Center, the group said, because it would “cause some victims more pain.” The New York Times was distressed to see the rationalization of bigotry used by an organization that has been fighting discrimination of all kinds, especially during some of the worst days of the Ku Klux Klan.
But I am not surprised at all. For too long I have been studying the behavior of ADL and self-righteous bigots like Paterson, Palin, Eli Wiesel, Gingrich and others. When push comes to shove, they show their true ugly naked self. None of them have higher moral grounds. Most of them are closet fascists, let alone being opportunists and bigots. They are all essentially evil people who would have had no problem bowing down to anyone for the right kind of price or stick. They deserve each other, and no one else. As it is said in Bangla: ratan-e ratan cheenay (birds of the same feather flock together).
It is silly that they try to sell the poison pill that 9/11 was a war of Islam lodged against America. When did OBL become a symbol of Islam?
I am reminded here that when the hunter gets hunted it is no longer fun. It loses its common sense and wit. Shame on such messengers and promoters of hatred!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Bangladesh detains 38 Rohingya Muslims fleeing Burma
Rohingya families, including 16 children, crossed by fishing boat amid continuing violence and forced displacement in Burma's Arakan S...