Well, I got a hoot out of this item, shared by Stan Dubinsky:
Greg Gutfeld To Open A Gay Bar Next To Ground Zero Mosque To Cater To “Islamic Gay Men”
No, this is not a joke. In fact, it is instead one of the most brilliant pieces of provocations in recent years. Greg Gutfeld from Fox News’ Red Eye announced today via his blog that he is actively speaking to investors and plans on opening a gay bar next to the controversial mosque being built near Ground Zero in New York. To make matters worse (better?) the bar will be specifically designed to cater to homosexuals of the Islamic faith. God, this is going to be an exciting block.Here’s Gutfeld’s entire post which he will expand upon during tonight’s Red Eye:“So, the Muslim investors championing the construction of the new mosque near Ground Zero claim it’s all about strengthening the relationship between the Muslim and non-Muslim world.As an American, I believe they have every right to build the mosque – after all, if they buy the land and they follow the law – who can stop them?Which is, why, in the spirit of outreach, I’ve decided to do the same thing.I’m announcing tonight, that I am planning to build and open the first gay bar that caters not only to the west, but also Islamic gay men. To best express my sincere desire for dialogue, the bar will be situated next to the mosque Park51, in an available commercial space.This is not a joke. I’ve already spoken to a number of investors, who have pledged their support in this bipartisan bid for understanding and tolerance…
I just don’t know what I can add to that, other than to point out the obvious: The folks who want to build this mosque there have every right to do so, no matter how it may offend the sensibilities of many touchy Americans. In keeping with that principle, they are under NO obligation to, say, move it a few blocks away. At the same time, this guy is perfectly within HIS rights to start this bar, no matter how deeply offensive it would be to many touchy Muslims.
As a sorta kinda communitarian, I’m always interested in the tension between what people have a RIGHT to do, and what they OUGHT to do if they are sensible folk.
Related Posts
Who is Greg Gutfeld, and why is he “championing” Islamic gay men? See, the people building the mosque are sincere Muslims–may Muslims died in the Towers, btw–victims with as much right to be honored–i somehow doubt this guy is trying to be anything other than provocative.
It’s why I totally respect Doug Ross, for one, with whom I seldom agree, because he’s sincere and trying to advance the discussion. Will Folks–not so much.
The touchy Americans who are offended by this mosque are really iritating to me. If an extremist christian group committed an act of violence, would the victims be correct in holding that against mainstream protestants or catholics. I don’t think so.
Is everything in Lower Manhattan now going to be simply defined by adjacency to Ground Zero? In a city where there are thousands of people per block, is a mosque situated four blocks away really a big deal? Not that it should be if it were located across the street, either.
Not to slander another’s religion, but somehow I have a sneaking suspicion that there are gay bars catering to Muslims all over the world already. Hardly an original thought, I’d say. Neither is the poke in the eye approach to humor.
I think that the joke falls pretty flat on the millions of American Muslims. It’s also exactly the kind of things Jews (and every other ethnic group) have historically been subjected to. We all need to share the sandbox we call society.
Not surprised to see it promoted by FOX News, however.
Timothy McVeigh
… and Maurice can open a Piggy Park on the other side…
It’s a shame that some of us must stoop to the insensitivity that they accuse others of.
If an extremist Christian group committed the same mass murder in an Islamic country as the Islamic terrorists did on 9-11, I seriously doubt a true Christian would want to build a church next to it for any reason whatsoever. In fact, liberals would be screaming at the top of their lungs, “foul, foul, foul” because of the “insensitivity” of the Christians who would dare desecrate the site with any structure commemorating Christianity or the practice thereof.
But, then again, Pope John Paul II finally had to order the Carmelite nuns to relocate their convent away from the Auschwitz death camp in Poland in 1993 because of a long running controversy about its location.
From a NYT article, April 15, 1993…”The presence of the nuns, who live in a convent converted from a two-story building used by the Nazis as a storehouse for the deadly Zyklon B gas, has been an impediment to improved relations between Roman Catholics and Jews in Poland and elsewhere.
Many Jews view the red brick convent just outside the barbed wire perimeter at Auschwitz, where some 1.5 million Jews perished, as an affront to Jewish sensibilities.”….
I prefer using the entire article because there was a faction within the Catholic Church who did not agree with the edict by the Pope. But, if you are interested, you can go online and find the article for yourself.
I guess the Jews were just being “touchy” about what they perceived as an offense to their sensibilities. In fact, I am one of those “touchy” Americans who believe it is an affront, and a purposeful one, for the Muslim Iman Rauf to propose building, not the remodeling reported, of a new multi-story mosque. And for all us “touchy” Americans, Iman Rauf is heading to the Middle East on an “outreach” trip to Muslims, a trip being paid for by the State Department, i.e., our tax dollars at work once again.
Iman Rauf is headed to the Emirates, which by most standards is about as Westernized as you can get in the Muslim world. I know, I worked in Dubai many years ago. And, with the other fact that the mosque is in need of funding to the tune of $100 million dollars, ya think he just might use the trip for a little fund raising, or am I just being “touchy”?
Sorry, didn’t mean to “irritate” anyone.
The proposed mosque will replace a commercial business that paid its fair share of taxes to NYC (property as well as income), in addition to city income taxes collected from its employees).
As a ‘religious’ institution the mosque will pay zero tax. But, its aim is to heal the community with cross-cultural performing arts they claim.
I will tell you this. The public is as likely to see a production of Little Orphan Annie in that mosque Gutfeld is to open a nearby gay bar. Watch and see.
The gay bar guy is just grand-standing to promote his new enterprise. Go capitolism and PR. So what. If the Islamic center meets all code then I don’t give a flip where it is in NY. Maybe they were looking at that property before 9-11 and just now have the money to build it. Sucks to be a hater. And SC Pride week is coming up soon, so, go
gay SC Muslims!
Scout, I think you are foolish to think all Christians would not be held accountable if a group of extremist Christians committed such a heinous act.
And I do believe that the placement of the mosque is intentionally provocative, but I also believe in the freedoms that make our country what it is. They have the right to build there, even though I think NY should have worked harder to talk them out of it.
This mirrors an interesting argument in my home: I feel that a child born to illegals in the US should be a citizen. That’s what makes us America! My wife firmly disagrees.
Bart,
I actually think if an extremist Christian group had committed 9/11, that it would be natural for other non-extremist Christians to want to have a church there — in order to display true Christians virtues in a place where they had been desecrated.
I don’t know if that’s a part of this mosque’s motivation or not, of course.
@ Bart– I certainly hope we are holding ourselves to a much higher standard of tolerance and inclusiveness than any Muslim country, don’t you?
And the uproar about the Carmelite nuns near Auschwitz was wrong, too.
and two wrongs don’t make a right.
@Greg,
I recognize that some probably would hold all christians accountable, but I do not believe it would be right for them do so, which is what I was trying to say. What is right and what happens are often different, I know. I thought that visualizing it from a christian perspective would make the point more apparent to some. Perhaps I was foolish to think thus. Bart you don’t have to apologize. You have a right to iritate me if you so desire. I still disagree though.
I like the Piggy Park idea. Perhaps we could have a whole block devoted to businesses that offend the business next to them. Perhaps that way everyone would see that their neighbor is just a human being trying to make their way through life as best they can. Eventually all the bigotry would fall away and everyone would get along. At least it’s worth a try. How about it Maurice?
building on what @knobby wrote… a mosque at Ground Zero is different from a Confederate Flag in front of the State House how?
How can you be for putting the mosque there when it offends so many people but for removing the flag because it offends so many people?
No flag, no mosque. The people have spoken.
@ Doug–
The flag is on property that belongs to everyone; government property. Flying the flag in any capacity acts as an endorsement of what that flag represents.
A mosque on private property does not purport to represent anyone’s beliefs except those who worship there.
Open a branch of Southern Patriot right across the street from the State House, if you like. You can no more put a mosque on the State House grounds than you should be able to fly the flag there.
and we don’t vote on “rights”–The People would not vote for the Bill of Rights, many surveys have shown.
It did occur to me that there are overtones of the confederate flag conversation here, but after thinking about it awhile, I think it is different because, as Michael Rodgers points out…
it’s not our state flag, (It could be argued that no flag, regardless of offensiveness or lack thereof, should fly over the state house except our officially adopted state and national flags)
whereas, in the case of the mosque,
to be able to build a mosque there or wherever is an expression of a protected right (free speech, religion)
Can’t we all just get along?! #WTF
@ scout–
Actually, FWIW, there’s no “freedom of religion”–there’s free exercise –“Congress shall make no law…” and non-establishment—no state religion. Zoning churches and other religious structures is perfectly fine, so long as it is neutrally applied–the same rules for the same impact of the use on the community. That’s why churches have to provide adequate parking, say, and are subject to fire codes.
Free speech is also not absolute–the state has to permit a reasonable forum, but not everywhere.
The freedom of religion under law in no way means that superstition (either ALL religions are superstition or ONLY one is not) deserves respect.
ALL Islam (as anyone who has visited Islamic countries will note) is “extremism” by Western secular standards. While we are Constitutionally required to extend Constitutional rights to our enemies, let’s not ever forget that the specific end goal of the Islamic religion as practiced is an Islamic society. Islam is not some lame social club like Christianity or Judaism. Anyone with doubts on that score should visit Saudi Arabia, which contains the Holy Places of Islam, Mecca and Medina. Comparisons to trivial political speech in the US are a naive misdirection of the discussion by people who are unable to understand that there are many ways to play the game. It was inevitable that a smart opponent could exploit blind adherence to conventional American ideals. Time to become less emotional and much more sophisticated. See things for what they are, without comparison to anything else.
Amazing, absolutely amazing. So many on this blog are tripping all over themselves to prove how tolerant and accepting they are of Muslim plans to build a high profile mosque next to Ground Zero. Anxious to prove their support of the right to worship for anyone and everyone. Just because Muslims have a fundamental right under our constitution to worship as they please does not make it the right thing to do by building a worship center next to the location of an atrocity that will celebrate the religion of extremists who chose to commit mass murder on 9-11.
Problem is, my comments were not to dispute the right of the mosque to be built nor denial of Muslims to worship as they please. My comments, if not understood, were to point out the obvious fact, IMHO, the mosque location is and will be a sore point and will NOT improve relations between Muslims and the average American. And, to point out, the man behind the initiative is not as moderate as his public persona leads one to believe.
And, @ Kathryn, it was NOT wrong for the uproar over the Carmelite nuns locating their convent next to Auschwitz in defiance of the wishes and sensitivities of Jews who had millions of fellow Jews slaughtered by whatever evil means possible. Just as the uproar over this one is NOT wrong. It has not one thing to do with inclusiveness but common decency, sensitivity, and constraint on a very touchy subject. Or is freedom of expression over a perceived insult “wrong”? BTW – where did the Timothy McVeigh reference come from? Did you read or hear of threats from radicals planning something similar to what McVeigh did? Or is this a vague inference to equate disagreement with extremism?
The majority of Americans, unsophisticated as they may be on some subjects, have an innate sense of right and wrong. In this instance, the majority of Americans are opposed to the location of the mosque, not the mosque itself. There is a difference.
I don’t get caught up on if they should build the Mosque or not.
Anyone that thinks Americans accepting and allowing a Mosque to be built near ground zero will make us look better in the eyes of the Muslim word couldn’t be more wrong.
President Obama voiced his support at the White House for the Mosque site. Those in attendance (mostly Muslims) loudly applauded the President. Ironically most of them are from countries where practicing Christianity will get you put in prison.
Ah. Let’s prove we can be as intolerant as the Muslim countries? We can’t be America, so let’s be Iran.
@Bart–
The Timothy McVeigh reference was in response to Greg Jones’s suggestion about Christian extremists–I don’t know if he was nominally Christian, but he was certainly white.
The mosque is two blocks away from Ground Zero, which is not trivial.
and Carmelite nuns didn’t exterminate Jews.
No one said Carmelite nuns exterminated Jews. It was the decision to locate the convent next to Auschwitz that was the controversy. Just as the decision by the Imam to locate the mosque where it is planned has created a controversy. I’ve said all I’m going to say about the subject. You have your position, I have mine.
And, what does McVeigh being white have to do with anything? The guy who shot and killed several of his fellow soldiers in Texas was NOT white. Yet, the Army, administration, and MSM has gone out of their way to avoid the officer’s skin color religious beliefs, brown and Muslim. Are the victims any less dead because of the skin color of the murderers, McVeigh and the officer? I think not. Has it come to the point that anything associated with violence must have a skin color attached to it?
@ Bart–you seem to determined to twist what I say into negative comments and misunderstand things. I don’t know why.
I believe the issue with the location of the mosque is that the perpetrators of 9/11 were Muslims.
The perpetrators of Auschwitz were not Carmelite nuns. In either case, the “brand” attached to the perpetrators is irrelevant to what innocent parties who happen to have the same “brand” wish to do.
McVeigh’s white-ness is a likely indicator of his religion—just as we make assumptions about Arabs.Read Greg Jones’s comment above; it will help you understand my comment. McVeigh’s skin color, and indeed no one’s skin color, or religion, has any bearing on what that one bad actor did–so why not allow a mosque two blocks away? A crime was perpetrated at Ground Zero. People who share, nominally, the same religion want to build a house of worship two blocks away. I don’t see the connection any more than if, say, a Baptist killed one of my loved ones and some other Baptists wanted to build a church two blocks away from the site of the crime.