Political Aside

Aug 16, 2010 11:30

Let me be frank. If you think that the Cordoba center should not be allowed to be built near the site of the World Trade Center, you are an idiot and a bigot and you're willing to sell out one of the of the most fundamental rights we have to prevent a few other idiots and bigots from having their feelings hurt. If, like many commentators and ( Read more... )

Leave a comment

leech August 17 2010, 14:04:08 UTC
I wrote some angry e-mails to the spineless pigfuckers at the ADL.

Reply

zixi August 17 2010, 14:40:04 UTC
Oh thank god I'm not the only person who was absolutely livid at the ADL for that one.

Reply

bennj August 17 2010, 19:08:23 UTC
Honestly, how could the ADL do that? When someone first told me about it, I was sure it was a hoax.

Reply

zixi August 17 2010, 20:21:01 UTC
I know!

What gets me is this part:
We categorically reject appeals to bigotry on the basis of religion, and condemn those whose opposition to this proposed Islamic Center is a manifestation of such bigotry.

Which they say right before explaining why the Center shouldn't build there, in a manner that sure as heck seems to be manifesting that bigotry.

This stance just goes against everything the ADL claims to stand for and makes me wary of supporting them.

Reply

bennj August 17 2010, 20:30:09 UTC
The thing is, it sounds exactly like something AIPAC would say, which is why I just assumed that the person who told me screwed up which giant Jewish lobbying group said anti-Muslim things.

ADL should be much more tolerant than this. However, seeing their stance made me wonder if there's more to the questionable funding of the project than has been reported.

Reply

zixi August 17 2010, 23:20:14 UTC
No kidding. *sigh*

The thing with the funding is that I keep seeing people who are against Cordoba House make reference to a questionable funding source but I haven't seen anywhere anything more concrete than "the funding source is questionable" which makes me really skeptical - I mean, you'd think arguing it concretely would prove the point better.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up