bedrog

Thu, Sep 23, 2010 : 6:17 a.m.

'roadman'..the 'massive defeat' i was referring to was of you all at the local coop where the synagogue harassers leader---a candidate for the board running on a 1-issue boycott platform-- polled 60 out of 800 votes cast ( which i sort of suspect you already know very very well, 'roadman'). His running mate..a "GREEN" ( a party both locally and nationally with an agenda that has abandoned its original ecological focus to one promoting jew baiting.. did only marginally better, because he was less notorious initially, although a number of good folks did an effective job of rectifying that ignorance on sites like this and elsewhere. As to madam a.l.smith, also a 'GREEN", such votes as she got came mostly from Dearborn's middle eastern residents, as indeed is the case with many supporters of the GREENS abroad, given the immigration issues facing Europe. All of which are valid reasons for many here to be less-than-gushy about the one sided resolution into which the city council blundered, however naively and well-meaningly. And i will concede such good intentions to be the case with the council itself, although not necessarily with the ICPJ framers. AS to getting accurate information about hate groups from their own self-publicity, once again the now canonical and oft-cited WASHTENAW JEWISH NEWS articles deal with that bit of self- hypnosis quite effectively especially the one by one of your defectors ( "the few and the just').

Roadman

Wed, Sep 22, 2010 : 9:50 p.m.

Regarding "massive defeat" at the polls of the Green Party platform, take a gander at the website of the Green Party of the United States and it documents that there are 141 current Green Party officeholders in the U.S. not to mention Green members in public bodies worldwide including the Swedish parliament. Green Party members have sat in several state houses. The Green Party has enjoyed a steady increase in elected officeholders statewide during the course of the last decade largely due to its call for racial tolerance and respect for the environment and mankind in general, which has offended nationalistic ambitions and sensibilities.

Michael Schils

Wed, Sep 22, 2010 : 9:19 p.m.

demistify, the utter ignorance/bigotry of your inference that 9-11 was a Muslim "political action" supports the need for the resolution.

demistify

Wed, Sep 22, 2010 : 9 p.m.

@Speechless: I would like to see you "reaffirming a commitment to religious tolerance". Instead, you keep slicing and dicing on the issue, on one side with respect to Muslims, on the other side with respect to Jews. You are vehement that it is bigotry to hold the building of a mosque in New York hostage to arguments about the political actions of other Muslims (the destruction of the World Trade Center 2 blocks away and the attendant mass murder). But you view with equanimity holding the functioning of a synagogue in Ann Arbor hostage to arguments about the actions of the Israeli government (3000 miles away). It adds up to your political partisanship transcending any "commitment to religious tolerance". We have had some pretty clear comments on this thread by some of the synagogue harassers. Are you with them?

bedrog

Wed, Sep 22, 2010 : 7:41 p.m.

I for one am delighted to see old 'friends' from the (now defunct )'arbor update' threads on the humiliatingly failed antisemitic boycott effort at the coop posting here in their usual fashion ( hi michael schills, 'roadman' et al). It is gratifying to have you reaffirm, better than i can, precisely the reasons why the current islamocentric resolution at issue on this thread totally misses the mark on the real religious harassment/ bigotry issue that a2 must confront...and why it clearly won't be the ICPJ that does it. Contremilice...and the multiply mentioned WASHTENAW JEWISH NEWS articles on the synagogue stalkers---are of course right on target and,in particular, accurately portray aimee smith's credibility as a candidate/ 'humanitarian'/'progressive'/etc.. and MODERATORS: we are talking about shamelessly flamboyant public figures here ( exhibitionists really), per what i know to be A2.com's thoughtful deliberations on how critical comments on such should arguably be treated with a bit more latitude than when critiquing the more demure among us.

Blaine Coleman

Wed, Sep 22, 2010 : 7:28 p.m.

A central sponsor of this resolution is the Interfaith Council for Peace and Justice. Both the ICPJ and City Council members have proudly reminded everyone of their outrage at the Palestine vigils on Washtenaw Avenue. However-- currently at the top of the ICPJ Web page is a fervent (and true) call to "Say 'No' to oppression, exploitation, and U.S.-sponsored militarism." Is that language directed at U.S. support for the Israeli military? No, it is not. That language is directed at U.S. support for Latin American militaries. The ICPJ Web page encourages readers to get on the bus to protest-- right at the "Gates of Ft. Benning, GA". Is there any place in this country where ICPJ or City Council would encourage an anti-Israel vigil to "Say 'No' to oppression, exploitation, and U.S.-sponsored militarism"? Given what Israel has done to Gaza, is that really asking too much?

ContreMilice

Wed, Sep 22, 2010 : 7:11 p.m.

PS: And, Roadman, Aimee Smith is a purveyor of the worst kind of antisemitism besides apparently subjecting her own daughter to her screaming loud slogans through a bullhorn at people at an annual celebration at the Jewish Community Center. And seeing that she is not a Moslem herself, it's kind of a sick joke that she wears a hijab all the time, in solidarity with her oppressed "sisters" in such "ramparts of freedom" as Iran--whose tyrannical, theocratic, misogynist, homophobic, antisemitic excesses don't seem to bother her in the least as it's not a _Jewish_ state--where most of her '"sisters" are compelled to cover up. She can run from now until forever, but she'll always suffer massive defeat at the polls along with her and the "Green" Party's platform of hate, monomania, and unwillingness to ever complain even about Moslem-on-Moslem violence. Yes, such a fighter for human rights!

Speechless

Wed, Sep 22, 2010 : 7:03 p.m.

"... The HRC [Human Rights Commission] resolution re-affirmed the condemnation of the synagogue harassment.... launched a major effort to have that condemnation removed...." The approved resolution reaffirming a commitment to religious tolerance has been driven by a desire to counter growing anti-Muslim rhetoric in the wake of the anger and lunacy surrounding protests against the Park51 community center. The city council quite appropriately chose to maintain its focus and not dilute the original intent and purpose by including additional issues. Any possible reaffirmation of the previous council resolution on the actions outside the synagogue should be handled separately. At a future meeting, the council can, with open input from the public, discuss the ongoing pickets, anti-semitism, the Gaza situation, and so forth, and then take another vote.

ContreMilice

Wed, Sep 22, 2010 : 6:54 p.m.

Mr. Schils,the problem is that this resolution deftly ignores the true acts of bigotry and racism going on right here in Ann Arbor while wringing hands on something taking place hundreds, even thousands, of miles away. How can one decry racism elsewhere and ignore it right in our own backyard? And, besides, Maple asked a question, and Maple was entitled to a response. And Roadman, anyone calling the action at Beth Israel a "vigil" would just as likely label what the Nazis did (the "vigilers" here often carry signs with swastikas on them, by the way) when they stood in front of Jewish institutions in the 1930s in Germany with similar signs of hatred targeting Jews as having taken part in a "vigil." What a bunch of cynical dis-ingenuousness. The Green Party is worthy of only disdain and contempt. They have gone from being the party of ecology to the party of all-hate Israel and only Israel all-the-time. Good that they always get soundly defeated at the polls. They are an irrelevant nuisance with nothing to show for their years of posturing but worthless rhetoric and failure. Oh, yes, I forgot, they succeeded in helping George W. Bush steal his way into the White House in 2000 and louse up the US and world but good. Now _there's_ some accomplishment! Thank you, Ralph Nader (and his apologist supporters)!

Roadman

Wed, Sep 22, 2010 : 6:09 p.m.

It has already been done, Michael. Several years ago, the Ann Arbor City Council, despite warnings by then-First Ward Council member Bob Johnson that free speech guarantees were implicated, passed a resolution introduced by then-Second Ward City Council member Joan Lowenstein to express disapproval over the weekly synagogue vigils. Ann Arborites should show their growing approval of the vigil movement by voting for Green Party nominee for U.S. Congress Dr. Aimee Smith, a key supporter of the vigils, in the 15th Congressional District. Aimee received thousands of Ann Arbor votes in her previous run for Congress in 2008.

Michael Schils

Wed, Sep 22, 2010 : 5:53 p.m.

This thread has been hijacked. Why don't those who are so concerned about their synagogue being mistreated submit THEIR OWN resolution? (...and then, when an article is posted about it, we can then talk about THAT subject...)

ContreMilice

Wed, Sep 22, 2010 : 3:58 p.m.

Maple said: I have seen numerous references to a particular synagogue being harassed but cannot find a reference to it here on annarbor.com. Can anyone provide me with a link describing what is going on? Is this a continuous, ongoing problem or has it been stopped? Who is doing it? Why did they choose one particular synagogue? Actually, Maple, as Bedrog and Demisitfy stated, the links were listed in a thread in which you recently commented, Ann Arbor community and faith leaders responding to 'anti-Muslim rhetoric' sweeping nation by Ryan J. Stanton, Posted: Sep 10, 2010 at 12:34 PM. You can see all the links and pertinent background material under my signature at http://www.annarbor.com/news/ann-arbor-community-and-faith-leaders-responding-to-anti-muslim-rhetoric-sweeping-nation/index.php#comment-143121 or here are all the links that I cited there that lead to the detailed story of the cast of characters that perpetrate this local exercise in bigotry and hatred: 1-False witnesses in _Washtenaw Jewish News_ (WJN), December 2009/January 2010, pp. 1 and 26-27 online at http://www.washtenawjewishnews.org/PDFs/wjn-dec-09.pdf 2-The few and the justpp.1, 8, and 13. In the same issue: False Witnesses II: The devils in the details (or vice versa), p. 9 at http://www.washtenawjewishnews.org/PDFs/wjn-02-10-web.pdf 3-False Witnesses create own Newspeak in WJN, March 2010, pp. 1 and 32-33; Its the witness, not the name, thats false, pp. 2 and 33-34; and Jewish peace activist distributes Hamas forgery, other hate texts, and fraudulent internet quotes, p. 33, all at http://www.washtenawjewishnews.org/PDFs/wjn_march_2010-web.pdf And yes, this is an ongoing action that has been taking place every Saturday, which is the Jewish Sabbath, and other days sacred to Jews for the last seven years or so. The perpetrators? A group with the misleading, disingenuous, and cynical name "Jewish Witnesses for Peace and Friends." The leader of this band of synagogue stalkers? Henry Herskovitz. Why do the synagogue harassers pick this particular house of worship, you ask? The reason(s) behind the selection of Beth Israel Congregation are tortuous and are explained in some of the articles cited above. The leader of this _local_ harassment (not taking place in New York, Florida, Tennessee but _right here_ in Ann Arbor, a city that purports to be welcoming to all religions, ethnicities, and nationalities) has offered a multitude of shifting rationales for his targeting this institution: from not allowing him to go inside and harangue the members from the pulpit with his extremist views with the aim of sanctimoniously pointing out the error of their ways; to the fact that an Israeli flag (also the ancient banner of Jews) flies in the sanctuary in a secondary position to the US flag, by the way (while conveniently ignoring another fact: that such foreign banners fly in the front of almost all houses of worship, from the flag of England in Episcopalian churches to the Greek banner in Greek Orthodox churches, etc.); to the fact that the congregationas almost all synagogues dohas a prayer for the state of Israel in its prayer books (along with, I should add, a prayer for the United States and for peace in the Middle East and the whole world); to even something so obvious as the name of the congregation. All the reasons are just hollow justifications for something that is unjustifiable: the targeting of a particular religio-ethnic group in its house of worship on its holiest days.

bedrog

Wed, Sep 22, 2010 : 3:41 p.m.

chuck warpehoski..Rather unfair comments to demistify and me, given that I, at least,have seen correspondence between you and the Human Rights Commission in which you seemed seemed to offer a more balanced resolution that would have been far less contentious...but then evidently retracted it, resulting in the current one that has clearly proved itself counterproductive to its stated intent. your remarks about 'spitting in cakes' is immature and hardly 'peaceful' or 'just' given the informed, substantive and logical bases of pretty much everything demistify and i have said on these matters on this and other threads ( although i neither deny nor apologize for my own capacity for 'snark' when directly responding to conspiracy theorists and others of the demonstrably malicious and mendacious --and actually multiply arrested in a particular case-- whenever and wherever they post. And ive taken my lumps from moderators on that score, and may well again with this, although i certainly hope not, since it's both factual and a fair response to an unfair one from you.

demistify

Wed, Sep 22, 2010 : 3:35 p.m.

@Chuck Warpehoski: Thank you for clarifying that, in your view, condemning antisemitism is like cake, superfluous and unhealthy. It explains why you worked so diligently to exclude it from the resolution, outmaneuvering the city's own Human Rights Commission which had drafted a resolution that was more balanced. You mention that the City Council passed a resolution in 2004 disapproving of the harassment of the synagogue. Six years later, this harassment still goes on. The HRC resolution re-affirmed the condemnation of the synagogue harassment. You launched a major effort to have that condemnation removed. Why?

Scarlet

Wed, Sep 22, 2010 : 1:31 p.m.

@technojunkie: The Council on American Islamic Relations is a Hamas propaganda arm? Thank you for providing some more rhetoric making this resolution seem like an even better idea...almost necessary with people like you around the community

Technojunkie

Wed, Sep 22, 2010 : 11:39 a.m.

@Bryce: nicely said. @Bpf: that turned out to be a hoax perpetuated by the Hamas propaganda arm known as CAIR: annarborchronicle.com/2010/08/15/hate-crime-rhetoric-not-supported-by-facts/ What's really sickening is that a Granholm appointee to the state's Civil Rights Commission is largely responsible and hasn't been fired.

Will Warner

Wed, Sep 22, 2010 : 11:17 a.m.

Heres a resolution I could support: Whereas we have been asked to express solidarity with our Muslim Americans and a sense of ruefully disappointment in America for revealing once again its bigoted and intolerant nature; and Whereas everybody knows that religions are perpetually in conflict and mutually hostile the world over; and Whereas Americans are human so some of them buy into the hostility; and Whereas in America, at least, the government must permit the free exercise of religion; and Whereas constitutional protection of religion restrains the government, but it does not mean that your fellow citizens cant be critical of, or hostile to, your religion; and Whereas Muslim Americans understand this as well as any other Americans; and Whereas Muslim Americans are just as thick-skinned and mature as other Americans, and just as capable of telling their critics to go hang themselves; and Whereas the requested condemnation of intolerance would 1) be sanctimonious; 2) dignify the kooks by taking notice of them; 3) imply that Muslim Americans are children who cant make it in the-rough-and-tumble of America; Now, therefore, we resolve to just leave it at that.

Susan

Wed, Sep 22, 2010 : 10:32 a.m.

As a local pastor, at St. Aidan's Episcopal Church, I applaud the City Council for their resolution. We elect these representatives to be leaders in our city and once in a while, I think it appropriate, that they spend time in reaffirming the values of respect and tolerance that make Ann Arbor a great place to live. The constitutional right to freedom of speech allows all sorts of behaviors like burning sacred and patriotic things,and peaceful protest at places of worship. I appreciate that our leaders remind us that we are also free to restrain from intolerant practices and that living with respect for others' religious and political beliefs (whether that be at a synagogue, ashram, Islamic center, church, or political rally), really promotes the kind of America we can be proud of. It also makes this a great city to live in and to raise a diversity of children in.

Chuck Warpehoski

Wed, Sep 22, 2010 : 10:28 a.m.

Demistify and Bedrog, I wouldn't want to be around you when you're on a diet. Your response to this resolution is along the lines of "I'm not getting any cake, so I'm going to spit in yours." I think it was a positive step that the City Council responded to the recent rise in anti-Mulslim activities, just like I think it was good that in 2004 they passed a resolution condemning the picket at the synagogue. The purveyors of hate, whether anti-Muslim, anti-Jewish, anti-black, or whatever, try to convey to their targets, "You're not welcome, you're not wanted, you're not one of us." I think it's important that the community respond to these specific threats by saying, "you are welcome, you are wanted, you are one of us, and the protections and freedoms that we extend to our whole community include you." And for those who think that the hate isn't local, hit "refresh" on your browser a bit faster and try to catch some of the vile comments bashing Muslims that come up before the moderators pull them down. When people are commenting on AnnArbor.com that "we have tolerated Muslims too long," that tells me that the hate and harassment is a local problem, and I thank councilmembers Hohnke, Anglin, and Taylor for responding to it.

demistify

Wed, Sep 22, 2010 : 9:52 a.m.

The world becomes a lot simpler if one adopts conspiracy theories. In this thread, "Ian" has been telling us that al Qaeda did not bring down the World Trade Center. In another thread, he weighs in on the side of the Hutaree Militia. A consistent world view, unlike some others here. To "Speechless", the American political scene is dominated by a right-wing conspiracy, viewed through a very narrow focus lens. Since "Speechless" appears to believe that this conspiracy is focused on Muslims, does that make Muslims ex officio left-wingers? That should be a surprise to the Saudis (including bin Laden). "Speechless" keeps mentioning Father Coughlin, best known for his antisemitic fulminations on the radio many years ago, yet has no cross words for today's synagogue harassers of Ann Arbor (who probably would dubiously claim to be left-wing). The cause du jour mentality is incapable of entertaining more than one narrowly defined set of victims at a time. This month, it is Muslims. Last month, Hispanics (the immigration resolution). Jews do not count. Neither do Native Americans (as someone pointed out in this thread). And African-Americans are so yesterday.

bedrog

Wed, Sep 22, 2010 : 9:26 a.m.

again,dear speechless, none of this applies to ann arbor although the synagogue harassment, on which you, the ICPJ and local muslims are resolutely silent, or just bored and disingenuous...or even approving..does. the apt barney frank line, noting that talking to a particular 'teapartier' was like talking to furniture,applies as well to the ICPJ and its allies here too...sadly. Hypocritical rectitude,and ill informed 'hyper-relativity-itis' would be just tiresome if it didnt have the consequence of encouraging/ apologizing for non -constructive, non self-critical behaviors in certain quarters...which are much needed nowadays.

Speechless

Wed, Sep 22, 2010 : 8:28 a.m.

Below is a link to a page on the Media Matters site with a disheartening compendium of summaries, links and photos on the topic of right wing-sponsored fear and hate directed directed toward Muslims, with the manufactured Park51 controversy as the focal point. The effect of scanning through the length of this page is very sobering. Bigotry is alive and thriving. http://mediamatters.org/research/201008230041 This will provide additional background as to why the resolution from council members Hohnke, Anglin and Taylor is both timely and very necessary. Here is a sample entry, one which which happens to feature a former local boy: In an August 19 Washington Times op-ed attacking Park51, Ted Nugent wrote that "[t]he mosque will attract extremists and radicals who will try to harm America." Nugent repeatedly referred to Islam as a "voodoo religion" and concluded, "If additional American blood is spilled in the Big Apple, the politicians who supported this mosque will be as guilty as the Muslim voodoo kooks who love death and destruction in the name of Allah." Also, the language on a protest sign as seen in the New York Post: "Islam Is No Longer a Legitimate Religion. It's an Invasive Military and Quasi-Military Enemy Force Not Entitled to Constitutional Protection. No Mosque!!!" www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/ ground_zero_mosque_protests_Vgo7fHTSg9uSL70z1epPbK?photo_num=9

bedrog

Wed, Sep 22, 2010 : 7 a.m.

i'd like to uncharacteristically disagree with DEMISTIFY. IN fact more than one of the synagogue harassers has posted here in near certainty...and, re. 'roadmans', the "fine relationship" the 'vigilers' (aka stalker/harassers) have with the AAPD is in their own minds, as is much of their 'reality". The leader is notorious for posting on his assorted blogs how anyone he meets who doesn't flip him the bird or spit on him has been made a convert to his pathetic cause. I do however acknowledge, re. one of the posts from mr warpehoski/ICPJ, that the synagogue baiters hate the ICPJ too, since that group...although clearly biased apologists for anything muslim...do stop short of advocating, at least in public, the outright de facto genocidal approach to israelis taken by the synagogue protestors, whose line of rhetoric is taken directly from Hamas and ahmadineajad ( and david duke too). This is well documented in the WASHTENAW JEWISH NEWS articles often cited in this and other threads.

Hot Sam

Wed, Sep 22, 2010 : 6:18 a.m.

"""Our community should not remain silent in the face of a national campaign of hate being promoted against Muslims.""" If there wasn't an INTERNATIONAL campaign of hate against Christians and Jews, we wouldn't be having this conversation...

Speechless

Tue, Sep 21, 2010 : 11:30 p.m.

"... This is a politically correct waste of time that helps no one, least of all practicing Muslims who might be wary of being abused.... I'd like to just consider them as what they are, aside from their chosen belief system -- they are Americans. Consider them as that and they've got all the affirmation, rights, and privileges they will ever need. Treat them as special cases and you belittle them as a people." Wrong. Our community should not remain silent in the face of a national campaign of hate being promoted against Muslims. The sentiment in opposition to the Park51 project in Manhattan has been driven by lynch mob anger toward Islam to a greater degree than the publicly stated rationale of respect for those who died on 9/11. Nationally, various politicians on the far-right, along with some of the usual suspects in the right wing commentariat, seek to exploit the anger to advance tea party politics and Republican candidates. Unfortunately, demonization of minorities for political gain, or to distract from economic problems, has long been an American tradition. It's a good and necessary thing for our community to speak up and affirm respect at this time. We shouldn't become so insular as to ignore what goes on in the rest of the country and how that may eventually impact us here.

Nephilim

Tue, Sep 21, 2010 : 10:59 p.m.

Bryce that was the most intelligent post I have read here. Good job. The problem is most smaller groups don't want to be "just" Americans. Even after they have come here and become "just" American. Hence the reason we have: American titles for so many groups. No one wants to lose their "identity". I'm not Irish American, I'm not Swedish American. I'm American. Let's move forward.

Will Warner

Tue, Sep 21, 2010 : 9:47 p.m.

Damn, Bryce. Right on. Your closing was perfect: "You know what? I'd like to just consider them as what they are, aside from their chosen belief system - they are Americans. Consider them as that and they've got all the affirmation, rights, and privileges they will ever need. Treat them as special cases and you belittle them as a people. "

Barrett Kalellis

Tue, Sep 21, 2010 : 8:58 p.m.

Ann Arbor = Dhimmitown.

win

Tue, Sep 21, 2010 : 8:50 p.m.

lots of hate, anger and fear. guess they won! come on folks, we're better than that aren't we?

treetowncartel

Tue, Sep 21, 2010 : 8:48 p.m.

@ Ed, you would be amazed at the number of jailhouse lawyers in this town too!Realisiticaly, the best type of attorney to speak to the subject matter at hand is one who specializes in municipal law and can speak to the actions of this elected public body.

stunhsif

Tue, Sep 21, 2010 : 8:45 p.m.

@Bryce, perfectly said, agree 100%.

treetowncartel

Tue, Sep 21, 2010 : 8:37 p.m.

Uhm,people of the Jewish, Christian and Islamic faiths that feel wronged in any way should really take a look into this Country's treatment of the Indigenous people who were here before any of them arrived. That, my friend is intolerance.

demistify

Tue, Sep 21, 2010 : 8:18 p.m.

@Ed Vielmetti: Maple has a valid complaint: In its year-plus of operation, annarbor.com has never mentioned the harassment of Beth Israel synagogue. Perhaps it is local news you should be covering. By contrast, you have published an op-ed piece and a couple of letters by some of the perpetrators of this harassment, not to mention a number of online posts (including one on this thread).

Roadman

Tue, Sep 21, 2010 : 7:53 p.m.

Maple: You should also know that the only criminal prosecution that has arisen thus far from the synagogue demonstrations has been against a synagogue worshiper for allegedly assaulting a demonstrator. The so-called "vigil" movement has had a fine relationship with the AAPD and vigillers' conduct is considered to be protected free speech under the First Amendment. Both the City of Ann Arbor Police Department and City Attorney's office have passed upon the legality of the vigils, which has allowed them to occur on a weekly basis for the last five years. Obviously, the synagogue administration could press a lawsuit for an injunction in the court system if it felt that the vigils had violated their rights, but that has not occurred. Let us applaud the City Council in promoting tolerance of diverse religious beliefs.

demistify

Tue, Sep 21, 2010 : 7:19 p.m.

@Maple: In the Washtenaw Jewish News, issued monthly by the Jewish Community Center of Greater Ann Arbor, you will find an exhaustive account (probably more than you want to know) about of the "demonstrators", their antics and their background. The Web site is washrenawjewishnews.org and you can pull up back issues there. The relevant issues are for last December, February and March. I welcome your interest.

Bryce

Tue, Sep 21, 2010 : 7:13 p.m.

@Peacemaker: Don't take me out of context. I never alluded to there being some kind of right to perpetrate violent acts on another person. For the record, I'm not in any way against Muslims in our community - my point is that I don't think the city council should be wasting time affirming something that doesn't need to be affirmed. The resolution is ridiculous, because it's wording broadens the rights we actually have into some kind of feel-good politically correct mush. I think the people who wanted to burn Qu'rans are just jerks - pure and simple - but they have the right to be jerks. Jerks on the other side who don't like it should go out and burn some Bibles, and that would be their right. That's America, and I for one support that kind of freedom, even for the jerks, because in the end those yahoos aren't going to gain any real traction with these issues. People on both sides of these occasional flare ups just need to calm down. I'll say it again, you do not have the right not to be offended in this country. It's the federal government that constitutionally must not choose one religion over another, or enact some kind of state theocracy - it must not meddle with or involve itself in religion, guaranteeing the free exercise of everyone's chosen beliefs - from Islam to The Force. Affirming "religious tolerance" is ridiculous because an American citizen does not have to be religiously tolerant in any way outside of not perpetrating violent acts on another human being. We don't need to be nice. We don't need to be respectful. The other side doesn't have the right to expect such treatment. That we SHOULD be decent I believe goes without saying, but some will choose not to be. Only miscreants and cultural misfits commit actual violent hate crimes - and it's just a "well, duh" exercise to publicly affirm common sense and decency in that light. Was anyone really concerned that Ann Arbor was somehow AGAINST religious tolerance? Did someone think the city wanted to start up a bunch of witch hunts? Was Ann Arbor in danger of being misunderstood as a place that promoted violence? Of course not. Public affirmation or not, if there's an idiot out there with ill intent, they're going to go do idiotic things regardless of what the Ann Arbor city council's position is on the issue du jour. This is a politically correct waste of time that helps no one, least of all practicing Muslims who might be wary of being abused. It actually just singles them out as somehow being different, and in need of aid. You know what? I'd like to just consider them as what they are, aside from their chosen belief system - they are Americans. Consider them as that and they've got all the affirmation, rights, and privileges they will ever need. Treat them as special cases and you belittle them as a people.

Ian

Tue, Sep 21, 2010 : 5:34 p.m.

@Bedrog, As usual, calling people names rather than looking at things with an open mind. I guess you still believe Iraq had WMDs. Power of government propaganda. Anyways, knowing the truth will end the wars and bring justice for the Muslim community. The new boogymen to scare us.

bedrog

Tue, Sep 21, 2010 : 5:13 p.m.

moderators ( particularly ed vielmetti)..."maple", curiously, seems puzzled by all the above references to synagogue harassment and wants sources,( despite their being multiply refenced on many different a2.com threads, including ones that he/she participated in --e.g the recent one on the original intent to propose the city council motion on islamophobia. i am mortally weary of citing the particular WASHTENAW JEWISH NEWS online references to the 5 excellent recent articles on the matter, so would you be good enough,in your blogmeister role, to do so....thanks. bedrog

bedrog

Tue, Sep 21, 2010 : 5:04 p.m.

ian...thanks for yours wherever they appear. in this time of economic crisis, i'm making a bundle by investing in aluminum foil futures ( a product evidently much in demand for the helmets you folks like to wear). demistify...as ever, right on the money.

Ian

Tue, Sep 21, 2010 : 4:53 p.m.

Google "Building What" to learn the truth.

Sameena Zahoor

Tue, Sep 21, 2010 : 4:47 p.m.

As an American Muslim, I appreciate the council's effort to preemptively set a tone of tolerance and inclusion. To the many of you who feel this is a waste of time, I don't expect you to understand, since it is not your faith or religious identity that is being maligned. It is not your children that are asking you why some people want to burn your sacred text, and why so many are against you building a place of worship in your community. I do AGREE with those of you who criticise the Muslim countries for not allowing more religious freedom, but this is not an Islamic edict.. but a cultural/nationalistic decision. The very fact that so many of your comments contain such indifferent and at some times hostile language reaffirms the need for the Council's Reaffirmation of Religious Tolerance.

Maple

Tue, Sep 21, 2010 : 4:46 p.m.

I have seen numerous references to a particular synagogue being harassed but cannot find a reference to it here on annarbor.com. Can anyone provide me with a link describing what is going on? Is this a continuous, ongoing problem or has it been stopped? Who is doing it? Why did they choose one particular synagogue?

Ian

Tue, Sep 21, 2010 : 4:21 p.m.

If people knew the truth about 9/11, Muslim would not be harassed. Truth will set you free.

demistify

Tue, Sep 21, 2010 : 4:20 p.m.

@Ruth Kraut: "ICPJ has spoken out against the vigils, and I thank ICPJ for condemning violence based on religion in all places." I duly note your reference to the harassment of the synagogue (complete with swastika) as "vigils", the term the harassers use but hardly a correct description. Some of us (not even members of the synagogue like you) are less prone to turn the other cheek. It is misleading to describe the ICPJ as "condemning violence based on religion in all places". The ICPJ only condemns such violence when directed against Muslims. It ignores it when directed at Jews (as happens much more frequently, as you can verify by looking up the survey by the Southern Poverty Law Center). For instance, ICPJ was not disturbed by a mass shooting at a Los Angeles synagogue, nor by the murder of a security guard at the US Holocaust Museum. It has ignored the Sudanese genocide, but boycotts an Israeli cosmetics company. Not exactly ecumenical.

bedrog

Tue, Sep 21, 2010 : 3:24 p.m.

ruth...would that the resolution was more explicit on the beth israel issue, as a number of us were told it would be ( after much what-should- have- been - unnecessary persuasion, direct and indirect, on the ICPJ. seems like some whoppers were told by them (and maybe you in your activist role in that group) and assurances given that didnt pan out. mazal tov.

no flamers!

Tue, Sep 21, 2010 : 3:20 p.m.

Silly. Since the City Council is too weak to decline to adopt these empty resolutions, they will continue to see more parties bring resolutions that advance their own special interest. Since the Council is too weak to decline to engage in this silliness, for fear of making a non-PC vote in the People's Republic of Ann Arbor, I suggest someone who cares about this take a proposed resolution to the next Council meeting that the AA City Council from this point forward will focus on the business of running the Council and will not again pass resolutions commenting on national social political issues.

Ruth Kraut

Tue, Sep 21, 2010 : 3 p.m.

I, for one, am happy that our City Council is condemning violence based on religion and national origin, both in our community and elsewhere. I hope that all of the rest of us--in our own personal lives--will follow suit. I am both a member of ICPJ, AND a member of Beth Israel Congregation, and ICPJ has spoken out against the vigils, and I thank ICPJ for condemning violence based on religion in all places.

PeaceMaker

Tue, Sep 21, 2010 : 2:58 p.m.

@Bryce: "Your freedom ends where my skin begins"! Yes one has the right to be intolerant as one wants to be but crossing the line to burn mosques, crosses, synagogues, temples etc is what should be shunned.

Steve Hendel

Tue, Sep 21, 2010 : 2:56 p.m.

The point (to me) isn't the nature and extent of discrimination against Muslims or Jews or anyone else, either in Ann Arbor or in Arizona or Israel or anywhere else; it's whether or not this is an issue that the City Council should even 'debate and legislate." A few of the other comments above are pertinent to that question (and not all of them agree with each other); mostly, however, the comments are using Council's action as a jumping-off point for the same old ideological debates online. My own opinion is that Council has no more standing to debate and pass resolutions regarding these matters than would the Interfaith Council for Peace and Justice have if it decided to weigh in on the City's downtown zoning policy.

Bill Alt

Tue, Sep 21, 2010 : 2:54 p.m.

I applaud the council passing this resolution and believe it is their role to promote the common good and confront hatred and fear that might erode it. They are responding to concerns brought to them by members of this community. This is what they should be doing.

Heather

Tue, Sep 21, 2010 : 1 p.m.

As an American Muslim I appreciate the efforts of ICPJ. Having lived the last 15 + years in Ann Arbor, I have experienced violence against my person for the sole fact that I am a Muslim woman. Although, it has not happened in recent days, I do appreciate the forethought to prevent this type of act from happening to someone else. As Muslims we are not asking that others like us, or become Muslim, but we would like to have guaranteed the same human rights as all others in the United States. Thank you again ICPJ and the City Council.

Nauman

Tue, Sep 21, 2010 : 12:45 p.m.

This is great! Ann Arbor is setting an example for all others to follow. Kudos and much appreciation!

bedrog

Tue, Sep 21, 2010 : 12:06 p.m.

re blaine coleman's...well if he's upset with the city council, maybe i've been too harsh on them and there is some merit/balance in the resolution.

bedrog

Tue, Sep 21, 2010 : 12:02 p.m.

maple, scarlet and speechless...Your responses ( which wrongly assume all critics of the resolution are respectively, 'ignorant of the truth about muslims ', automatically 'rightwing' and 'hissy-fitty') are precisely why this resolution, as presented ( which all but ignores real local bigotry and harassment in favor of presumed but locally non existant harassment), seems like such a posturing but meaningless gesture to many,and will continue to. indeed the phrase "bliss ninny" comes to mind. sign me 'neither ignorant nor rightwing" ( but i will cop to hissy fitty!)

Blaine Coleman

Tue, Sep 21, 2010 : 12:01 p.m.

The article says: "Multiple speakers at Monday's meeting praised council for the resolution." That is an incomplete statement. I was among the speakers. I told City Council that anyone who truly cared about violence and harrassment against Muslims should push for a much stronger resolution. I told the Council such a resolution would have to call for an immediate halt in the trillions of dollars spent on killing Muslims in Palestine, Iraq, and Afghanistan-- and calling for those trillions to be spent instead on rebuilding Detroit and every inner city. It's revealing that Council spent many years refusing to act on proposals for sanctions against Israel, and suddenly now claims to care for Muslims in a very vague kind of way. Is it remotely possible to defend Israel against sanctions for so many years, and then somehow pose as an ally of Muslims? How?

demistify

Tue, Sep 21, 2010 : 11:57 a.m.

The ICPJ apologia leaves out some important facts: The Human Rights Council (appointed by the City Council) proposed a more balanced resolution on the subject. The ICPJ would not go along with it and exerted its political muscle to push through its own version. The ICPJ has long chosen to ignore the synagogue harassment, and till fairly recently even allowed the ringleader of the harassers to sit in at its meetings. I am not impressed with the claim that the ICPJ has to wait for the leaders of the synagogue to ask it before it will recognize that there is a problem. The fact that the congregants are inconvenienced is a minor issue. The major issue is that for years there has been a blatant display of antisemitism in Ann Arbor and the supposed guardians of religious tolerance keep choosing to look the other way. Antisemitism is directed at all Jews, former Jews and part-Jews (in the Nazi version, one Jewish grandparent was enough) regardless of religious affiliation or lack thereof. Antisemitism should be fought by all people of good will, without waiting for a formal request from the victims.

Speechless

Tue, Sep 21, 2010 : 11:26 a.m.

Thanks to city council for discussing this and passing this resolution. I view it as a statement of intent to support Muslim residents at a time when our country's political far-right increasingly banks its future on a campaign of cultural racism and stereotyping against Islam. Gingrich, Palin and others seek to tap into the same irrational, hateful cultural fears that once led to the years-long internment for innocent, longtime Japanese-American citizens. The existence of fundamentalist religious crazies in places like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan (both U.S. allies, coincidentally) does not, of course, justify a national effort to demonize a diverse, worldwide religion with vast following. This would make no more sense than condemning Catholicism on the basis of the reactionary Opus Dei or the fascist-leaning sympathies of Fr. Charles Coughlin in the 1930s. It makes no more sense than calling for restrictions on Judaism due to the repugnant Shas Party in Israel, or declaring all Protestants dangerous due to the actions of Fred Phelps and Terry Jones.

Scarlet

Tue, Sep 21, 2010 : 11:21 a.m.

All the critics commmenting here must not know how the democratic process works. I attended this meeting for a class I'm taking and I'm pretty sure this resolution was brought TO city council and not brought up BY city council. If any of you whiners and complainers want to get something accomplished (it seems many of you feel very strongly about some issues), then you have to get up (which can be tougher for the lazier ones I'll bet) and get YOUR cause taken to city council. City council members don't necessarily read this message board regularly so stop acting as though you are talking to them. Your messages telling them to "GET BACK TO WORK" and "you think this is what they elected you to do?" are not getting read by anyone other than more people throwing immature hissyfits online.

Bryan

Tue, Sep 21, 2010 : 11:18 a.m.

As a long-time resident of Ann Arbor, Christian and member of ICPJ, I applaud the resolution approved by City Council last night. Protecting and respecting our community's HUMAN infrastructure is every bit as important as its physical one.

dlb

Tue, Sep 21, 2010 : 11:15 a.m.

Given the majority of bigoted comments posted above, it appears that a reaffirmation of Ann Arbor's commitment to religious tolerance was a very important action.

bedrog

Tue, Sep 21, 2010 : 11:01 a.m.

as one of the more vocal critics of the perceived one-sidedness of the IFCPJ resolution, i note in mr. warpehoski's last post it's apparent, and accurate, recognition of the rather "feckless--in - the name- of- forbearing- highmindedness" response to the outrageous ongoing synagogue harassment by local jewish leaders,and the ICPJ's willingness to address that issue too if such a formal motion were to be made by that leadership. However that seems a bit disingenuous given that the IFCPJ was quite aware of a recent lengthy A2.com thread that addressed such matters in detail and gave them ample opprtunity to amend their resolution accordingly. The lack of condemnation of the synagogue harassment by local muslim leaders, and indeed participation in it by members of local christian congregations...such as the Quakers, some of whom are affiliated with ifcpj...is also omitted in his remarks. i remain deeply concerned about not only the rather one-sidedness of this resolution but by the city council's willingness to adopt it without adequate emendations that had been brought to at least some of their attentions.

Bpf

Tue, Sep 21, 2010 : 11 a.m.

Where was the discussion of religious tolerance when the Muslim girl was beat up on the bus coming home from Skyline? What ever happened to the perpetrators of that hate-crime. And yes, do actual work, council.

Maple

Tue, Sep 21, 2010 : 10:59 a.m.

I think many of the comments here made by people who are upset by this resolution are inadvertently showing WHY the resolution is necessary. The degree of prejudice and ignorance out there lately is mind-boggling. There are commentators, preachers, authors, and websites out there peddling "information" on Islam as a religion that is outright false and the sheer volume (both meanings here-- as in bulk and noise) of that "information" has poisoned the minds of many people who are using Muslims as scapegoats for their insecurities and have no problems doing so since they haven't actually bothered to get to know any of us and our beliefs directly.

Technojunkie

Tue, Sep 21, 2010 : 10:51 a.m.

If the protesters had called themselves artists and threatened to burn Bibles instead of Korans they'd qualify for NEA grants. Given how non-Muslims are treated in most Muslim-majority countries, as "dhimmis" (second-class citizens) with far fewer rights than their Muslim oppressors, I'd say that we've been remarkably tolerant. If only the Armenians had been treated so charitably by the Ottoman Empire. A few minor skirmishes where the perpetrators have been prosecuted by law enforcement do not a crisis make. Now, try to pass out Bibles in Dearborn...

Interfaith Council for Peace and Justice

Tue, Sep 21, 2010 : 10:36 a.m.

@Demystify: First, the resolution "continues to affirm its commitment to the full rights and dignity for people of all religions and those who are nonreligious, promotes a community of respect and compassion for all people." I think this does include the harassment at Beth Israel Congregation. Second, I do believe that the called-for commemoration of Religious Freedom Day is a chance to engage on how to deal with the harassment that members of Beth Israel Congregation face. Third, ICPJ has called for the protests at the synagogue to stop, and we are the 2nd favorite target of the protesters. The question we face is how best to respond. The resolution did not mention the pastor in Florida who threatened to burn Qur'ans because we didn't want to give any more attention to somebody who so clearly wanted people to pay attention to him. I have heard debate within the Jewish community, including the leadership of Beth Israel Congregation, of how best to deal with the protests there. Should the approach be containment and trying to limit the attention and disruption the protesters create? Or should it be continued resistance, even if it brings the protesters more attention and increases the level of disruption they cause? I believe this is a decision for the leadership of the community affected to make, not outsiders like ICPJ. The Muslim community asked for resolutions like the one passed by Council last night, and ICPJ worked to move that request forward. If we get similar requests from the synagogue board or rabbi, we will also respond to those. In the meantime, the Council took an important step last night to affirm that this community strives to be welcoming and accepting to everybody; now the work comes back to community groups like the Interfaith Roundtable and ICPJ to lead actions that make this vision more of a reality.

bunnyabbot

Tue, Sep 21, 2010 : 10:16 a.m.

waste of time

demistify

Tue, Sep 21, 2010 : 10:14 a.m.

The supporters of this resolution tell us that it is intended to reaffirm that it is unacceptable bigotry to blame all American Muslims for the atrocities of Muslim terrorists (al Qaeda, Hizbollah, Hamas, etc...). Fair enough. But why are these same supporters (including the so-called Interfaith Council for Peace and Justice) so resistant to condemning such bigotry when directed against other religious denominations? The resolution refers to events in other places, but none in Ann Arbor. There have been no incidents at the Ann Arbor Islamic Center. On the other hand, for the past 7 years Beth Israel synagogue in Ann Arbor has been harassed during its services by a group (sometimes sporting a banner with a swastika) that claims to be protesting the existence of the State of Israel. In other words, the congregants are Jews, the Israelis are Jews, so the congregants should be held accountable for any perceived sins of Israel. Just how we are told not to reason about Muslims. So where is the ICPJ on this? The synagogue harassers advocate the complete eradication of Israel and the expulsion of all its Jewish inhabitants. In other words, ethnic cleansing. The US reacted to the Serbs implementing a similar program against the Kosovo Muslims by going to war. Where is the outrage in this case?

Interfaith Council for Peace and Justice

Tue, Sep 21, 2010 : 10:05 a.m.

Is this a local issue? I think so. There are Muslims in our community who feel threatened and under attack. I think it's worth a little bit of Council time to say, "hey, we respect your right to be here and welcome you as part of the community." @Bryce, you are free to be intolerant, but not to engage in violence or vandalism. The resolution does not criminalize intolerance; it's on sound Constitutional footing. In a recent NY Times column Nicholas Kristof made the point that If we ask moderate Muslims to speak out against extremism, then we should, too. I'm grateful for the Council for passing a resolution affirming a safe community for everyone.

Judy S

Tue, Sep 21, 2010 : 9:48 a.m.

Once again we are bending over backwards to accomodate a small minority in the community. Interesting that the history of this community is to murder and oppress anyone that does not believe in the same tenants their faith preaches. People, get a grip! We should have tolerance for all religions, but don't think that your resolution is going to do anything to improve the current tensions in the world. You can't be that ignorant.

Bryce

Tue, Sep 21, 2010 : 9:48 a.m.

Since none of you folks on the city council are Constitutional lawyers, scholars or in any position to affect such matters one way or another, I'd actually prefer that you just get on with the business at hand, which is Ann Arbor. As an American, I think it's my right under the Constitution to be as INtolerant as I choose. Of course, it's your right to be intolerant right back to me. Being an American does not give you the right to not be offended, disparaged, called out, mocked or disputed.

Duane Collicott

Tue, Sep 21, 2010 : 8:59 a.m.

You think this is what we elected you to do? This has nothing to with the business of the city. It is an abuse of position and power you were given by the citizens. If a citizen brought a resolution to ask the city council to stay on the topic of the business of the city, how much debate time would it get?

antikvetch

Tue, Sep 21, 2010 : 8:53 a.m.

Well, thank God we took care of THAT problem....

xmo

Tue, Sep 21, 2010 : 8:27 a.m.

It must be a slow week at city council, they have lots of problems and they choose to work on this? Who votes for these crazy DEMOCRATS?

bedrog

Tue, Sep 21, 2010 : 8:21 a.m.

insidethe hall..the stymied monaghan crucifix you refer to was gonna be 200-plus feet high and a preening, arrogant 'in your face' public eyesore, since it would have been a mandatory sight for all despite being on private property. It would have thus been a symbolic antithesis of a religiously pluralistic society. Sort of like the historical role of minarets, actually....and also cathedrals,for that matter. which brings us back to the improprieties of singling out particular faiths for either discrimination.. or unwarranted 'victimhood', as was done with this resolution.

Ian

Tue, Sep 21, 2010 : 8:17 a.m.

We really should not have to reaffirm anything as long as we uphold the freedom of religion and freedom of speech as outlined in the Constitution. Make sure our local law enforcement and leaders know the Constitution inside and out and uphold it. Unlike those in the federal government that want to destroy the Constitution. Because of the Quran burning thing, Supreme Court Justice Breyer wants to limit freedom of speech. The feds are using every incident to take away our rights. Even events staged by them.

Brad

Tue, Sep 21, 2010 : 7:50 a.m.

Thanks for wasting another however-many minutes on a topic that isn't consequential for our city, council. You continue to just not get it.

GRANDPABOB

Tue, Sep 21, 2010 : 7:44 a.m.

Are there any CHRISTIAN churces in SAUDI? Of course not they are not allowed. So why all the fuss about this by the councilmen? They should stick to things that concern AA.

Thomas Jones

Tue, Sep 21, 2010 : 7:42 a.m.

This whole thing seems a bit unequal... Time for a quick pole question, Do we need to reaffirm anything? If this was any other religious group would we have a reaffirmation? My answer is that I don't thing so.

InsideTheHall

Tue, Sep 21, 2010 : 7:37 a.m.

Where was the religious tolerance towards Tom Monahan when he developing Ava Maria law school and wanted to erect a cross on his private property????????????????????? America has lost its way when the Starbucks crowd engages in selective religious freedom.

walker101

Tue, Sep 21, 2010 : 7:11 a.m.

Unfortunately, what goes around comes around.

KeepingItReal

Tue, Sep 21, 2010 : 7:09 a.m.

Let's see. Our Michigan economy is the pits, our schools are struggling financially, we have streets that are in need of repair, foreclosure and a host of other problems that need council attention. Yet, we have a council that is responding to " a perceived threat" toward Muslims across the country by spending time to pass a resolution condeming these threats. I don't recall any of the mentioned council persons listing this concern in their campaign literature nor do I recall any such threat to Muslims in our community. We need to focus on issues that are affecting a large portion of our community.

bedrog

Tue, Sep 21, 2010 : 7:05 a.m.

i was led to believe that a component of the actual resolution, after some needed behind the scenes "reality checking" by its framers, was to be modified to address the one case of ACTUAL and ongoing religious harassment here in town, which involves a synagogue...not a muslim institution. the article seems to have glossed over that, unless i was misled. In which case shame on someone(s) for a frivolous feelgood exercise..

Macabre Sunset

Tue, Sep 21, 2010 : 6:59 a.m.

Now if only we could go to a Muslim city and ask for similar treatment for those of other religions.

bob

Tue, Sep 21, 2010 : 6:39 a.m.

@1BlockRadius - answer to your question....YES they are that ARROGANT.

Commoncents

Tue, Sep 21, 2010 : 6:35 a.m.

Are these council members really that arrogant to think their opinions matter on this subject? GET BACK TO WORK!

Steve Hendel

Tue, Sep 21, 2010 : 5:40 a.m.

The sentiments behind this resolution are noble, but have really nothing to do with the responsibilities of a Councilmember. They are not elected for their views on Quran-burning or (to cite just one previous issue on which Council has taken a stand) Arizona's (anti) immigration laws. Councilmembers, unlike officials or members of churches, community groups like the Interfaith Council..., are not the moral leaders of the community and should not "pontificate" as if they were.