Worship Huts

Yet another interesting take on the (close to) Ground Zero Mosque, this one courtesy of Overcompensating:

That’s only the first panel; the rest are here. And don’t forget to read the fine print amendment :)

(Thanks to Emily for the link!)

  • Canadiannalberta

    I love it! Tell ‘em like it is! LOL.

  • «bønez_brigade»

    Is it so terrible a thing that not only did I lawl at the comic as a whole, but also at the fact that there’s clearly a hole in the ground in the first pane? I blame it more on the subtle attention detail than on my gallowistic humor. ‘Tis a great comical take on the situation, no doubt.

  • http://onestdv.blogspot.com OneSTDV

    I have two questions:

    What symbolic gesture would actually cross the line? Is there anything one could do that would you would reject on moral grounds? How about a Confederate historical museum two blocks from MLK’s childhood home and just for good measure, one two blocks away from where he was killed?

    Does national symbolism mean nothing? Sure they have the LEGAL RIGHT to do it, but that doesn’t mean it’s a MORALLY TENABLE act. This will upset people, not because they believe all Muslims are responsible, but because they view it as a triumphalist symbolic gesture of Islamic hegemony, a sentiment now expressed by several terrorist groups.

    Our nation isn’t entirely predicated upon laws. You might derisively dismiss symbolism as an important aspect of a nation, but not all are so glib.

  • Citizen Z

    OneSTDV:

    Yes, I believe there are lines of propriety, things people can do legally yet are immoral. (Forget hypothetical museums, a more simple example would be publishing racist literature – legal yet immoral.)

    This will upset people, not because they believe all Muslims are responsible, but because they view it as a triumphalist symbolic gesture of Islamic hegemony, a sentiment now expressed by several terrorist groups.

    The only reason it’s being viewed as a “triumphalist” symbol is precisely because they believe all Muslims are responsible.

    Either all Muslims are responsible or they’re not. If they are not all responsible, then there’s no reason why they shouldn’t build a mosque a couple of blocks away from Ground Zero.

  • Hammurabi

    I don’t understand why we’re so fucking afraid of muslims. They can build their imaginary friend cage wherever they like. History is going to look back at the time from 9/11 to now as the worlds most disproportionate response to a threat of all time. Why don’t we stop spending trillions of dollars we don’t have killing arabs in two countries, organize our intelligence agencies to be less of a tangled nest of “kabuki-theater” security and more organized and efficient, and most importantly we should restore and preserve the freedoms of all americans, including the right of american muslims to freely assemble on private property.

  • http://www.negativentropy.blogspot.com/ Jen

    A few pictures of the “hallowed ground” in question:

    http://daryllang.com/blog/4421

  • http://onestdv.blogspot.com OneSTDV

    The only reason it’s being viewed as a “triumphalist” symbol is precisely because they believe all Muslims are responsible.

    Maybe it’s considered a triumphalist symbol because it actually is one. The location and the name are not coincidental. If these two things changed, I’d reconsider but given these two aspects of the project (AND the furtive funding sources), it’s rather obvious what the intention is. I can’t believe that extremist Muslims see this, but some of us refined Americans can’t (thankfully over 65% of Americans oppose the mosque).

  • http://onestdv.blogspot.com OneSTDV

    The mosque was originally named the Cordoba house, paying homage to the Spain city of Cordoba. Here’s some background:

    http://www.rethinkme.org/?p=636

  • http://miketheinfidel.blogspot.com/ MikeTheInfidel

    What do you mean “the name” – Park 51? Or are you referring to the previous name – Cordoba, a city in Spain that was lost by its Muslim rulers? How is that a triumphalist symbol at all?

    And what do you think of the fact that there already is a mosque nearby – closer, in fact, than the new one they’re building? And that it’s been there since the ’70s?

    Give me a break.

  • Valhar2000

    OneSTDV Says:

    I have two questions:

    Fire away!

    What symbolic gesture would actually cross the line? Is there anything one could do that would you would reject on moral grounds?

    Reject on moral grounds? Well:

    1) Proposition 8.
    2) Christian Fundamentalist homeschooling.
    3) Tax exemption for churches.
    4) Incarceration of foreign and American citizens without evidence, probable cause, habeas corpus or any means of challenging the accusations.
    5) Torture.

    Well, you get the idea.

    How about a Confederate historical museum two blocks from MLK’s childhood home and just for good measure, one two blocks away from where he was killed?

    Disgusting, indeed, much more so than a simple Muslim Community Center and Mosque complex built in an area with a significant Muslim population, but nonetheless legal.

    Does national symbolism mean nothing?

    Yes! Exactly! Wow! I am very pleasantly surprised by that burst of intelligence you have just shown. National Symbolism is, indeed, absolutely worthless, and is merely the province of people who are so intellectually and personally impoverished that they have to resort empty posturing to give some sort of significance to their lives, instead of doing something of lasting value.

    Sure they have the LEGAL RIGHT to do it, but that doesn’t mean it’s a MORALLY TENABLE act.

    Allowing the Government to legislate morality will be orders of magnitude more damaging to the country, and the entire world, than anything that Al Qaeda could ever hope to achieve. Indeed, the rule of BushCo is the greatest harm that Al Qaeda has done to the USA, and a large part of its harm was caused by BushCo’s willingness to convert the morality of some of the cruelest and most morally miopic americans into Law. So, no, I very much do not want to talk about about morality when we get into matters of Law. We have all suffered enough.

    This will upset people, not because they believe all Muslims are responsible, but because they view it as a triumphalist symbolic gesture of Islamic hegemony, a sentiment now expressed by several terrorist groups.

    So how is this not believing that all Muslims are responsible? If any expression of religiosity by any Muslim is suspect on the grounds that some kook somewhere hails it as a great victory for the Jihad, now is this not superposing the opinions of the worst of the worst in the group onto the group as a whole?*

    Our nation isn’t entirely predicated upon laws.

    Which is relevant how?

    You might derisively dismiss symbolism as an important aspect of a nation, but not all are so glib.

    I am not sure glib is the right word to use here. As I pointed out before, I do realize that nationalism and the symbolism attached to it are very important to people who have little else to go on, and little else to use in deluding themselves into thinking that their lives are worth living. They are wrong, of course, but there seems to be little hope at this juncture of making them realize that. I expect that all those people you talk about who “are not so glib” will continue to fire themselves into a furious frenzy over something that has not relevance, or lasting effect on the world.

    Maybe that is why this symbolism you reference is so popular: since it is entirely disconnected from and irrelevant to anything real, it can never be conclusively shown to be wrong (at least not in a way that cannot be hand-waved), and thus the people who worship it never have to experience the discomfort of being shaken from their comfortable cocoons of righteous indignation with the requirement to get off their asses and actually do something.

    * At this point you will probably retort with something about atheists assuming that all christians are fundies. I have never made that claim myself, and it is, obviously, bogus.

  • Citizen Z

    Maybe it’s considered a triumphalist symbol because it actually is one.

    And maybe David Icke considers the Queen of England a lizard person because she really is a lizard person. (?) You’d have to come up with actual evidence.

    The location and the name are not coincidental.If these two things changed, I’d reconsider but given these two aspects of the project (AND the furtive funding sources), it’s rather obvious what the intention is.

    First of all, those are not the reasons given by most of the opponents of the mosque. Those reasons are irrelevant to them. Sarah Palin did not make one mention of that in her “refudiate tweet”, nor in her response to Obama’s comments on the mosque. Newt Gingrich compared Muslims to Japanese people, I don’t know how much more obvious you can get. So it’s not obvious, it’s only obvious if you look for Muslims under the bed at night.

    Oh, an “furtive funding sources”? I believe the term for that phrase is “snide innuendo”. I haven’t seen any evidence, as desperately as people are trying to search for it post hoc.

  • http://www.shadowmanor.com/blog/ Cobwebs

    I can’t believe that extremist Muslims see this, but some of us refined Americans can’t (thankfully over 65% of Americans oppose the mosque).

    Even more thankfully, whether or not they oppose the mosque has exactly zero to do with whether or not it’s legal to build it.

  • muggle

    Mr. President, why aren’t you encouraging the mosque developers to accept Governor Paterson’s generous offer of assistance in finding a new location for the mosque on state land if they move it away from Ground Zero?

    (from Citizen Z’s link above, quoting that jackass Palin)

    Oh, perhaps because unlike the Governor of New York, the President realizes that would be a church-state violation. Perhaps that’s why the mosque isn’t taking it, wild and crazy notion that that might be to you that a house of worship actually recognize the wisdom of not intermingling church and state. That this church-state violation Paterson’s proposing is all the more aggrevious given how freaking broke the State of New York is at present.

    Little things like that! Don’t get me freaking started!

    Paterson’s an evil little man so pissed off at the State of New York for not wanting his insane ass in office that he’s doing all he can to fucking hurt it before he leaves office at the end of the year. He’s probably perfectly well aware of what he’s setting the State up for with that assinine move. AU is opposing it. I’m so proud that I renewed my membership like the day before the news hit that they were.

    But I do wish our State Legislature would move to impeach his ass before he can do any more harm. Unfortunately, we can barely get them to move to pass an annual budget so that ain’t going to happen either.

    If the State of New York can spare this fucking public land, perhaps Paterson should put it up for sale instead of threatening to lay off 1,000 state workers!

  • Nolano

    I agree, we shouldn’t allow a mosque near ground zero. And while we’re at it, we shouldn’t allow any catholic churches in Europe or any country with lots of World War 2 related deaths, because Hitler was catholic.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X