I subscribe that the two Americas are are the WITTs (We're In This Together) and the YOYOs (You're On Your Own) as set out by Jared Bernstein in All Together Now: Common Sense for a Fair Economy.

Carla, I agree with you.

Bigotry is not wisdom, but it can be politically potent. It's scary.

Well said, Carla. Thank you.

Carla, I think we can wax poetic about our home town, but I also grew up in small town Oregon. It was rife with bigotry. I remember well our popular sheriff laughing about the fact he kept an Indian in jail for a month without seeing a judge or a lawyer without any consequence. I remember the prevalence of the "N" word in locker rooms and playgrounds. I remember that my cousin, the local sports hero, beat up a black friend of mine, in a clearly racially motivated goading and attack. I remember that any public manifestation of gay behavior was a target of violence. We have changed some, but not that much. Let us not forget that our beloved state was founded as a white homeland, and people of color were not even allowed to own property. The deed of the house I used to own in a suburb of Portland had a provision that no people of color were allowed to own property there, nor live there unless they were servants. Our heritage of honoring human rights or the constitution is not a proud one.

Elaine Rector as a part of CFEE (Coaching for Educational Equality) and LFEE (Leading for Educational Equity) has analyzed Oregon's untold history related to race, immigration and education from 8,000 BCE (before the common era) to the present.

Since 1954 Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka made history when the Supreme Court unanimously agreed that segregated schools were "inherently unequal" and must be abolished even though segregation continues to this day (look at Portland Public Schools that are still fairly segregated).

In 1954 Operation Wetback rounded up and deported 1 million Latino Farm Workers many of whom were U.S. citizens mistaken for illegal immigrants.

In 1959 Oregon finally ratified the 15th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which provided that no government may prevent a citizen from voting based on that citizen's race, color, or previous condition of servitude (slavery).

In 1965 Portland Public Schools began busing African American students as a major means to desegregate schools.

In 1970 James Lowens book: Sundown Towns: A Hidden Dimension of American Racisim, documents towns in Oregon that warned People of Color to be out of town by sundown.

I grew up in one of those Oregon towns. In the late 60"s my mother received death threats for selling a Japanese family a home when she ran her own real estate business.

This outcry of concern in NYC is a continuation of of this nations history that is pockmarked with racial injustices.

Whole BlueOregon columns could be written here discussing white privilege.

Bill Ryan said it best in the first post when he stated the radical right are using the NYC Cordoba Community Center to gin up more fear. Nancy Pelosi is getting it right when she asks who is funding the opposition to the Cordoba Community Center.

Whether it is illegal immigration or the Community Center -- if people would stop using their "lizard" brains only and started using their God-given or Darwinianly-evolved higher brain, they would understand that embracing the Muslim moderates by welcoming the Sufi-influenced Center that would exist there would undermine and weaken our common enemies -- the Quaeda extremists -- far more than dozens of drone hits.

This explains why we should embrace the Center far better than I could:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/17/opinion/17dalrymple.html?_r=1

Let's call it what it is, a bigoted attempt by the right to gin up this election cycles Willie Horton ad.

Let me take this argument down the crazy slippery slope....should Catholic church's be prohibited from being located next to schools or day care centers? Should Christian churches be banned from being near a doctor's office/medical clinic/hospital?

If the right want's to open this can of worms, then lets take this ALL the way to Crazyland!

I don't think 9/11 was an attempt by Muslim extremists to "undermine who we are and what we are about as a country", as Carla Axtman posted. That is to restate the "they hate us for our freedoms" meme, which I think is in error.

Rather, I think a revenge motivation would be more accurate, considering Western incursions into the Muslim world that are historical and are ongoing. Not to say that that is any justification for hijacking planes, etc., but I would say I think that was the motivation of the perpetrators.

Anyway, I still don't see how two steel-framed skyscrapers collapse at nearly free-fall speed due to local impact and fire. It's physically impossible.

That and the unknown level of bin Laden's or Zawahiri's actual involvement in this deal are among unanswered questions.

And, don't you, by now, wish the U.S. had taken up the Taliban's offer to have bin Laden given over to a neutral third-party country, back in 2001? Maybe we could have really gotten some answers (and saved many lives).

You forgot the Rockefellers, the council on foreign relations, the world bank, the fed and the jewish bankers....

Jeebus.

There's no apostrophe in the possessive "its."Everything else has been said.

Mitchell Gore, kindly check this website:

AE911truth.org

It has support of over 1000 professional architects and engineers who question the idea of a steel-framed skyscraper collapsing at near free-fall due to local impact and fire.

I didn't say anything about Trilateral, Bildeberger, or anything else like that- I'm merely bringing up a concern about an alleged circumstance that has never previously occurred (and still hasn't).

But, as this is not in the top-down-mandated concern of the GOP-lite Party, I guess you're not inquisitive enough to research it.

"thoroughly debunked"- by whom?

I get it Mitchell. You're an ideologue and therefor incapable of considering alternate views as having any potential worth. It's too bad and I'll keep further interchanges to a minimum if only to point out where you are clearly wrong. TTFN.

I read a story yesterday about the imam who is being demonized by the GOP as a radical "Islamist." He was a speaker at the funeral of Daniel Pearl, and made the pronouncement, "I am a Jew." and went on to say that the Jewish "Sh'ma" which is the central prayer and spiritual foundation of Judaism and of Christianity, is also the essence of the teachings of the Quran. The prayer is "Sh'ma Y'Israel.." "Hear O Israel, the Lord our God is One. Love the Lord your God with your whole mind, heart, spirit, and strength. When the GOP attacks the peacemaker and reconciler, they become the ally of the radical, the hater, the Bin Ladens of the world.

The GOP crazyland march continues. Yesterday from one of its spiritual fathers, Franklin Graham, son of Billy Graham. According to him it doesn't matter that Obama worships with Christians because his faith was passed to him genetically by his father."I think the president's problem is that he was born a Muslim, his father was a Muslim. The seed of Islam is passed through the father like the seed of Judaism is passed through the mother."

The GOP may be the band leaders, but plenty of lefties are playing this tune as well

President Obama's defense of the right of Muslims to build a mosque and Islamic center in New York City turned the issue into one of religious freedom. That was wrong, and so are you.

He could have said, and so could of you: American law and values do not support discrimination, certainly not against Muslims; our history proves that.

There are about 2, 000 mosques in the United States, serving about 8 million Muslims; NYC alone has a dozen mosques.

President Obama could have noted that mosques are often political and social centers, some which are problematic, and so could of you. FBI estimates , 10 % of the mosques in the United States are associated with radical Jihadist ideology. Others estimate that 80% of mosques are dominated by the extremist Wahhabi ideology promoted by Saudi Arabia. And they are allowed to practice, under American principles of freedom of religion.

Unlike houses of worship in America which are built and supported by the local population, most mosques receive funding from foreign countries, especially Saudi Arabia.

President Obama might have noted that the Moslem Brotherhood, a Nazi organization that is banned in Egypt, is associated with some American mosques.

A study by Freedom House concluded that "American mosques are filled with Saudi publications that promote hate ideology. All of the books and publications were found to have some connection to Saudi Arabia. According to the study, these publications advanced a "dualistic worldview in which there exist two antagonistic realms or abodes that can never be reconciled, Dar Al-Islam and Dar Al-Har, or Abode of War and that when Muslims are in the latter, they must behave as if on a mission behind enemy lines."

The study also concluded that these publications "pose a grave threat to non-Muslims and to the Muslim community itself." The study further found that the "spread of Islamic extremism, such as Wahabbism, is the most serious ideological challenge of our times" and that "[t]he Saudis' totalitarian doctrine of religious hatred now planted in many America mosques is inimical to our tolerant culture, and undermines the war on terrorism by providing the intellectual foundation for a new generation of Islamic extremists."

President Obama could have explained that this is obviously not an issue of religious freedom. He could have defended America, its reputation, institutions and values. Instead, he incorrectly reinforced the view that America is bigoted, and so are you.

For that, President Obama owes every American an apology,and so do you.

Building a Victory Mosque on the graves of our innocent dead, is not a issue of religious freedom no matter how you want to frame it. It is an affront to our nation and our sensibilities, and if you don't like that you are free to leave.

Your personal insults aside. I knew people that were there that day. You come across as a very insulting foolish woman.

You are offending the sensibilities of ALL Americans by suggesting you hold some moral high ground over the rest of us, that this is an issue of religious freedom, or that I or anyone else are not being sensitive toward the Muslims murdered that day by Islamic extremists. I do not put human beings innocently slaughtered into categories I must be sensitive to. I mourn for all of them.

I stand with the vast majority of the American people in affirming that you do not build a Victory monument, an enemy fort if you will, on the graves and the site of the greatest massacre on American soil in our lifetimes, as you wouldn't allow the KKK to build a White learning center on the spot were MLK died. It's an affront. Do you get it!? Where's your decency? Where's your sensitivity for all Americans?

No one is arguing against religious freedom, as this isn't the issue, only you and a few misguided lemmings are trying to frame it as such. Strange you want so desperately to use the American Constitution against America.

Lenin would call you a useful idiot.

If you really were concerned with religious freedom, you would be demanding proof of the source of foreign money used to build this potential abomination and asking for strong public statements of rebuke from the Imam of all terrorism, terrorist acts, terrorist groups and oppressive sharia law, in order to insure that religious freedom is what is being applied....not attempting to use religious freedom as a political cover for the enemies of the free world and those freedoms you say you hold so dear.

Again Carl, Lenin would call you a useful idiot.

I know I'm feeding the trolls, but something about John Kuzmanich's tone leads me to believe he may actually believe what he's writing, and that's scary. Sir, you can't believe you're holding a "deep respect for all this country stands for" and earnestly tell folks who disagree with you that they are "free to leave". You must understand that they are also "free to stay right where they are and disagree with you." I would also respectfully ask you to stop using the term "all Americans" as it is extremely clear that there are a great many Americans that totally disagree with you. I for one, feel that your fear of Muslims and complete inability to discern between American-Muslims and radical terrorists is profoundly anti-American, at best. "Victory Mosque" is in itself an offensive term as it lumps all Muslims into a single group and assumes them terrorists. Enough of your fear. Enough of your demagoguery. America is now and will continue to be the home of the brave as long as there are enough Americans that have the courage to hold their convictions higher than their cheap fears and prejudices. A far as being angry, isn't anger appropriate when it is the very fabric of inclusion, tolerance and courage that has for two hundred years bound our country together in the face of all adversity that you so rabidly seek to tear away? No Sir, you are entitled to your views, and to stay in America as you hold them without being asked to leave, but don't for a second equate them with patriotism when it is the very sacred core of our union that you would dismantle.

Brian,

First off, you are correct that my tone is sincere. Why wouldn't it be? I agree with you, and you are right that Carla and people like her are free to leave or free to stay, and your point is well taken....that people are free to disagree with her, me, or anyone. I would never want it otherwise. Their is no one size fits all in America. That would be group think unamerican Marxism. I was merely suggesting to Carla an option that might suit her since she seems so at odds with the majority of people of this Country, so intent on believing anyone that dares to disagree with her prior to debate must be bigoted. Some of her assertions are down right silly.

She sounds very much like a child that can not defend her positions like an adult, and resorts to weak and unprofessional attempts to hide it, deflect, or project.

Carla started her article by entitling it, "I can not reconcile the two Americas". Her sense of self importance, and her blatant contempt without debate for the vast majority of Americans who disagree vehemently with her opinion for reasons other than what she's incorrectly stated on their behalf, is insulting, and shows a lack of decency, poor debating skills, and an inability to put together a decent argument.

I will again repeat that there is no issue of Religious freedom of which anyone is disagreeing with. I believe on religious grounds they have the right to build that mosque. Again, that is not the issue, but Carla appears to like it to be. That said, for reasons I've repeatedly mentioned they potentially should NOT. For her to claim that Americans that disagree with her are insensitive to muslims is laughable. I do not classify Americans into one group or the other and assess blame, special sensitivities, needs, or treatment. I treat Americans equally giving special privilege to none. Is it sensitivity she's worried about when an issue like this polarizes the nation? Does the building of this Mosque promote social unity or divide it? How about an individual like Carla stating she can not reconcile....by that definition there is no room for discussion or anything but division.

Those who want to build this Mosque, the people who pay for it, are not American, and in fact it is no stretch to ask or question their intentions when building a 15 story edifice on the ground of our innocent dead, breaking ground on 9/11 the very day of this atrocity, in spite of calls of our people otherwise. In fact it is grossly negligent to do otherwise.

Carla, you can have your opinion, but from what I can tell it is based on gross misrepresentations of what you would like things to be, not what you know it is through dogged pursuit of the facts, and your lack of concern for the truth to back up your beliefs is grossly negligent, as is your disdain for anyone who rightly might disagree with you.

CNN/Opinion Research poll last week that found that 70% Americans were opposed to the planned project, while 29% support it.

Carla, you can not reconcile with 70% of America? Where did all your sensitivity go?

According to a new Time magazine poll published Thursday, 61 percent of Americans are opposed to the construction of an Islamic community center and mosque near Ground Zero in lower Manhattan. Only 26% of respondents came out in support of the building project, with more than 70% agreeing that proceeding with the plan would be an insult to the memories of 9/11 victims and their families.

70% think your stance insults the victims and their families.

A Sienna College poll cited by the Associated Press on Thursday found that 63% of registered New York voters were opposed to the Cordoba House project, with only 27% supporting it.

This is not as you have incorrectly stated, an issue of religious freedom. Our rights as Americans to freedom of religion is not in question, nor is it the argument against this Mosque, so attacking or defending the building of the mosque on those grounds is just you shadow boxing with yourself.

Do you have an argument in support of the Mosque if it is found to be being built by enemies of the United States, supporters of oppressive intolerant sharia law, & haters of the freedoms the Constitution itself provides?

Would you distort and use the Constitution against your own Country still?

That again is what Lenin deemed a useful idiot.

A thoughtful and intelligent answer COULD do well to prove you otherwise.

Carla, lets not play the poll game. You're setting up a false argument again. No one is disagreeing with you that Muslims should have the same rights.

Why are you avoiding the question?

Do you have an argument in support of the Mosque if it is found to be being built by enemies of the United States, supporters of oppressive intolerant sharia law, & haters of the freedoms the Constitution itself provides?

Would you distort and use the Constitution against your own Country still?

mitchell,

Underlying all the issues of our day is the ideological debate.....

How do YOU justify your beliefs?

You don't seem to be a very attractive man, as so far you seem intellectually small.

Your anger and vitriol I would guess is a compensating factor for your lack of ability to argue on facts.

Let's start from the beginning, shall we?

I hear lots of Marxism coming out of the blogs on blueoregon.......... class warfare rhetoric, social division, social justice, redistribution of wealth, etc, and a fear to call it what it is.

This issue underlies all your petty comments, and in fact is obvious in the apparent disgust Carla and obviously you have for the vast majority of Americans who are disagreeing with you on nearly every issue of the day.

My opinion and I believe all the polls agree with me, is that you are losing the ideological debate, you're losing the trust of the people and main street America, and insulting them will not win them over, whether you want to have it, acknowledge it, or not.

That said, if you believe so fervently in you progressive ideology, as I believe in mine, defend it, define it, explain it.

If you can't you can spin and squirm as much as you want, but reality trumps fiction and failed policy based on failed ideology.

When you try to attack me, spin, or project, I take it as a win, as it appears transparent that you are unable to defend your own positions, and instead prefer to shadow box with yourself.

I'm not afraid of the actual debate.

So here we go. I believe the ideology behind your beliefs and Carla's as well, is failing you, and our Country. It's why you increasing are finding yourselves at odds with the majority of the population, economic realities, and historical data, and why on so many issues you are turning to discredit your perceived opponents, which in reality are your fellow countrymen, with calls of racism, bigotry, etc., and it's not working, because it's disingenuous. It's comes across to most as antithetical to all that we are as a country, and in opposition to what we can see with our own two eyes. It comes across as blaming Americans for not seeing how really smart your ideas are. It comes across as elitist and condescending. That obviously is not your intent, as you sound frustrated. You obviously believe you are right, and everybody else and the data are wrong, but you are failing to prove that to anyone by attacking those who don't agree with you instead of actually showing support for your beliefs.

So, if you really believe your ideological views are superior to anyone else's, what are you basing that on?

That is where you are failing miserably.

So What are your ideological views based on?

A failure to defend or define them, by default discredits everything else you say.

It makes you appear ugly, bitter, and without merit.

Can you defend yourself, and the ideology behind your beliefs?

What are you hiding from?

Is Sharia compliant Islam Compatible With Constitutional Government?

At least since JFK (who had to assure Americans that the first Catholic president would not be controlled by the Pope) one of the most popular and sacrosanct liberal shibboleths states that our constitution calls for the "separation of church and state." Of course, no such phrase exists in the constitution, and the establishment clause was written to assure that no state-sponsored church could be founded in the United States.

But if we adhere to the liberal view that there is an implicit constitutional guarantee of separation of church and state, then perhaps liberals should consider Sharia compliant Islam to be at least as dangerous and threatening as conservatives consider communism to be.

Sharia compliant Islam is not merely the practice of a faith, but a complete integration of religious and social spheres, one that doesn't eschew, but explicitly demands, the union of church and state. Mosque and Sharia are one.

Why then haven't liberals had the courage to propose a legal ban on the practice of Sharia compliant Islam, since in its current form it clearly violates their sacred constitutional principle requiring the separation of church and state?

Do you support Sharia law, and do you believe it is compatible with freedom and our Constitution?