magicalfreddiemercury 14.07.2010 06:13 |
There has been a highly emotional debate going on in New York as of late. The Cordoba Initiative, whose tag-line reads, 'improving Muslim-West Relations', and the American Society for Muslim Advancement, have collaborated on a project. This project is the building of a $100 million, 13-story, community center that would have a pool, various secular and interfaith activities, and a mosque at Ground Zero. The Community Board decided there was no reason this community center could not be built despite the thousands of people who voiced their anger, displeasure and grief over the possibility of it. Those for it claim those against it are simply "Islamaphobic". Those against it feel the very idea of putting a mosque so close to Ground Zero – and demolishing a 154-year-old building to do so – is an insult to the memory of those who died on 9/11. Others have taken it further and said building an Islamic center at Ground Zero would be a symbolic victory to the terrorists. At this moment, New York's Landmarks Preservation Commission is deciding whether to give the building landmark status. If they do, the building will be preserved as is and its demolition will not be permitted. The Cordoba Initiative will be forced to find a new location for its center. The joint statement is that they hoped to build this community center as a way to give Muslims living in New York an opportunity to 'give back' to their community. The opposition says, "It would be more appropriate maybe to build a center dedicated to expunging the Quranic texts of the violent ideology that inspired jihad, or perhaps a center to the victims of hundreds of millions of years of jihadi wars, land enslavements, cultural annihilations and mass slaughter." Your opinions? |
L-R-TIGER1994 14.07.2010 09:30 |
I think US should bomb it and there would be a draw Muslim terrorists 1-USA 1. |
The Real Wizard 14.07.2010 11:23 |
magicalfreddiemercury wrote: The opposition says, "It would be more appropriate maybe to build a center dedicated to expunging the Quranic texts of the violent ideology that inspired jihad, or perhaps a center to the victims of hundreds of millions of years of jihadi wars, land enslavements, cultural annihilations and mass slaughter." Sure! But to even out the playing field, they should include all the bible verses that encourage death as well. If they get it right, it'll outnumber the Quran about 5:1. Then, have a full exhibit chronicling the crusades, inquisition, catholic pedophilia, and Israel's current apartheid regime. Wishful thinking.. |
pma 14.07.2010 13:21 |
A mosque at Ground Zero? That sounds ridiculous. However, I have submitted plans (drawn them on the wall of a public restroom once...) of a 13-storey high family planning center, with fake abortion clinics targeting young pregnant teens. The ground floor will become a massive gay bar, I'm thinking of a place that would be styled after various public restrooms. It's about time Ground Zero was put into good use. |
Amazon 14.07.2010 14:58 |
magicalfreddiemercury wrote: "Those against it feel the very idea of putting a mosque so close to Ground Zero – and demolishing a 154-year-old building to do so – is an insult to the memory of those who died on 9/11. Others have taken it further and said building an Islamic center at Ground Zero would be a symbolic victory to the terrorists." They can do what they want but to claim that building a mosque in an 'insult to the memory of those who died on 9/11' IS Islamophobic and to claim that it would be 'a symbolic victory to the terrorists' is even more Islamophobic. All this proposal has done is reveal how much Islamophobia there is in the US (and no, there is no justification for it.) If it does mean that they don't attempt to build the world's tallest building, that's a good thing. Surely 9/11 taught us that we shouldn't attempt to break all records. '"It would be more appropriate maybe to build a center dedicated to expunging the Quranic texts of the violent ideology that inspired jihad, or perhaps a center to the victims of hundreds of millions of years of jihadi wars, land enslavements, cultural annihilations and mass slaughter."' 'hundreds of millions of years'? These people do realise that Islam was only created (or revealed) in the 7th century? Do they also realise that Christianity has much more blood on its hands than that of Islam? But, hey, let's not let facts get in the way of bigotry. I also agree with Sir GH. If they want to be consistent, they should have an exhibit 'chronicling the crusades, inquisition, catholic pedophilia.' They can target the Koran, but they shouldn't forget the Bible. L-R-TIGER1994 wrote: "I think US should bomb it and there would be a draw Muslim terrorists 1-USA 1." You do realise that not all Muslims are terrorists? The 'Muslim terrorists' are actually perverting their faith, one that is shared by by millions of peace-loving and law-abiding Americans. You also realise that if the US were to bomb it, it would be mass murder? If you condone it, then how can you condemn a terrorist attack? Furthemore, do you realise that the victims would also be American? Yes, that's right. Muslims can be American too. This is such a slly and nasty post. You've been watching a Fox 'news'/teaparty version of the World Cup for too long. Do us a favour; get over the World Cup (soccer is not real life), read up on Islam, and develop a conscience and some morality! |
Holly2003 14.07.2010 15:02 |
"100s of millions of years" !!! That's what happens when idiots are given a medium to express their uninformed views. |
magicalfreddiemercury 14.07.2010 20:21 |
Holly2003 wrote: "100s of millions of years" !!! That's what happens when idiots are given a medium to express their uninformed views. ===== I saw that in the quote and was going to change it but... it was a quote. :-/ Despite that, I think the sentiment was fair and heartfelt. I don't think it's 'Islamaphobic' to oppose a mosque at Ground Zero. I think it's a logical response. The terrorists attacked in the name of islam so it makes sense there would be sensitivity to islamic temples being built at the site. To say otherwise is, in my opinion, insensitive and dismissive. Hardly a way to earn brownie points. I also think the organizations are hypocritical for saying their purpose is to improve muslim-western relations and then ignore/disregard the wishes of the very people with whom they say they want to improve relations. It's in the hands of the historical committee now, since the community board found no reason beyond the emotional to deny the building of this center. All I can say is there will be a lot more unhappy New Yorkers than those who are accepting of this project. |
tcc 14.07.2010 22:07 |
magicalfreddiemercury wrote: I don't think it's 'Islamaphobic' to oppose a mosque at Ground Zero. I think it's a logical response. The terrorists attacked in the name of islam so it makes sense there would be sensitivity to islamic temples being built at the site. To say otherwise is, in my opinion, insensitive and dismissive. Hardly a way to earn brownie points. I also think the organizations are hypocritical for saying their purpose is to improve muslim-western relations and then ignore/disregard the wishes of the very people with whom they say they want to improve relations. It's in the hands of the historical committee now, since the community board found no reason beyond the emotional to deny the building of this center. All I can say is there will be a lot more unhappy New Yorkers than those who are accepting of this project. You have expressed the sentiments very well and I totally agree with you. |
YourValentine 15.07.2010 01:47 |
I do not know anything about the "Cordoba Initiative" but the name does not sound like "improving relationships" to me at all. No Muslim organisation that is really interested in improving the relationship of Muslims and Non-Muslims would think about building a Mosque near the premises of the World Trade center. It is true that Muslims are not responsible for the attack of 9/11 but it is insensitive to pick this place. There must be numerous other places in NYC where such centers can be built without creating a controversy. It's like Germany would build a Goethe institute near a Holocaust memorial: you just do not do that - even though no living German who is capable of building anything is responsible for the Holocaust. You can claim your constitutional rights and ignore the feelings of your neighbours but it certainly won't improve any relationships. |
john bodega 15.07.2010 03:37 |
It is like saying to the Fundamentalists, "knock more buildings over, we'll put mosques there". I know they're not real muslims, and you know they're not real muslims - they're just assholes who use religion as an excuse to be pricks - but to them, they're muslims, and I think building a mosque is just an absurd form of rewarding them (the fundamentalists). Ask any ordinary muslim, they won't care where you put the new mosque. There is no logical reason to put the mosque near Ground Zero, just as much as there is no reason to not put it there. It could go anywhere - the difference is, putting it closer ot the other side of town won't upset an appreciable number of people. I am in favour, however, of the NRA throwing functions outside Yoko's window. |
ParisNair 15.07.2010 14:02 |
If they are planning to build a center for secular and inter-faith activities, what's the need for a a mosque, or any other exclusive religious place? In any case a mosque at ground zero is a very bad idea anyway. But the idea fits in well with the ways of the islamic "authorities" all over the world. The reason anyone would think of building a mosque at ground zero is the same as why they want to buid the tallest, largest, mosques every where in the world they are allowed to- to prove supremacy of islam over other religions/communities. |
ParisNair 15.07.2010 14:05 |
" hundreds of millions of years of jihadi wars" LOL!! reminded me of what i had read some years ago in an american magazine - india and pakistan have been at war for hundreds of years. fact is british india split into india and pak only around 60 years ago. |
Amazon 15.07.2010 14:47 |
ParisNair wrote: "But the idea fits in well with the ways of the islamic "authorities" all over the world. The reason anyone would think of building a mosque at ground zero is the same as why they want to buid the tallest, largest, mosques every where in the world they are allowed to- to prove supremacy of islam over other religions/communities." As opposed to Christians who set out to build large churches? Not to mention statures of Christian saints. I think you will find that Christians are just as guilty as Muslims of wanting to 'prove supremacy of ... over other religions/communities.' Although, to be fair to both faiths, generally speaking neither build tall and large mosques/churches for that reason. The reason why so many Christians and Muslims want to build large and tall mosques/churches is because of pride. It's as simple as that. Plus concerning Muslims; contrary to what people like Angela Merkel thinks, Muslims have every right to showcase their religiosity by building large and tall mosques. The Christians do it with their churches, and the Muslims are not obligated to keep out of sight. They have as much right as Christians to showcase their faith and their religious pride. |
magicalfreddiemercury 15.07.2010 16:00 |
Amazon wrote: They have as much right as Christians to showcase their faith and their religious pride. == I'm not disagreeing with you but this comment struck me. If "they" - meaning those 'of faith' - have the right to showcase their faith and religious pride, then the same right should apply to those who do not adhere to any faith or religious sect. However, the people against the building of this mosque are called 'islamaphobic'. People who do not believe in 'the prophet' are called infidels and, therefore, are deemed disposable. There's no hint that this particular situation is for showcasing faith and religious pride but rather of forcing islam into the faces of those who suffered because of the 9/11 attacks - attacks made in the name of islam. It's been made clear - in multiple town-hall meetings about this issue - that the mosque would cause pain rather than 'improve relations between muslims and the west' and yet they insist on pushing the project through. That's not about faith or religious pride. It's about arrogance and control. |
Saint Jiub 15.07.2010 20:32 |
Imam Faisel Abdul Rauf is the leader of the American Society for Muslim Advancement and the Cordoba Initiative, and while he talks a good game about peace, he does appear to have some radical fundamentalist views about Shariah law and seems to sympathize with the radical elements of Islam. Quotes: In a 60 Minutes interview shortly after the September 11 attacks Imam Rauf said, "I wouldn't say that the United States deserved what happened, but the United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened." During an interview on New York WABC radio in June 2010, Imam Rauf declined to say whether he agreed with the U.S. State Department's designation of Hamas as a terrorist organization. Responding to the question, Rauf said, "I'm not a politician. I try to avoid the issues. The issue of terrorism is a very complex question... I am a peace builder. I will not allow anybody to put me in a position where I am seen by any party in the world as an adversary or as an enemy." April 29,2009 - "It is important that we understand what is meant by Shariah law. Islamic law is God's law, and it is not that far from what we read in the Declaration of Independence about the Laws of Nature and Nature's God... What Muslims want is to ensure that their secular laws are not in conflict with the Quran or the Hadith, the sayings of Muhammad. Where there is conflict, it is not with Shariah law itself but more often with the way the penal code is sometimes applied. Some aspects of this penal code and its laws pertaining to women flow out of the cultural context. The religious imperative is about justice and fairness. If you strive for justice and fairness in the penal code, then you are in keeping with the moral imperative of the Shariah. What Muslims want is a judiciary that ensures that the laws are not in conflict with the Quran and the Hadith. Just as the Constitution has gone through interpretations, so does Shariah law. The two pieces of unfinished business in Muslim countries are to revise the penal code so that it is responsive to modern realities and to ensure that the balance between the three branches of government is not out of kilter. Rather than fear Shariah law, we should understand what it actually is. Then we can encourage Muslim countries to make the changes that achieve the essence of fairness and justice that are at the root of Islam." link link |
Amazon 15.07.2010 21:01 |
magicalfreddiemercury wrote: "I'm not disagreeing with you but this comment struck me. If "they" - meaning those 'of faith' - have the right to showcase their faith and religious pride, then the same right should apply to those who do not adhere to any faith or religious sect." Absolutely. However I contrasted it with Christians because Christians are the dominant religion in the West (which does not make the West Christian BTW). "However, the people against the building of this mosque are called 'islamaphobic'." It depends on why they are against the building of this mosque and what comments they make. L-R-TIGER1994 on this thread, and others who talk about bombing it are Islamophobic. Similarly those who claim that it is a victory for the terrorists even when it is pointed out that the terrorists perverted Islam are either Islamophobic or needlessly ignorant. Similarly those who claim that it would be an 'insult to the memory of those who died on 9/11' even though some of the 9/11 victims were Muslim are also Islamophobic. Additionally 'It would be more appropriate maybe to build a center dedicated to expunging the Quranic texts of the violent ideology that inspired jihad, or perhaps a center to the victims of hundreds of millions of years of jihadi wars, land enslavements, cultural annihilations and mass slaughter' is horribly Islamophobic. People may be concerned, and personally it doesn't concern me either way, but we do need to acknowledge that in the US there is a high level of Islamophobia (Obama was even 'accused', god forbid, of being Muslim!) as well as anti-Muslim acts and quite frankly I am sick of people trying to rationalise it (I am not saying that you are.) "People who do not believe in 'the prophet' are called infidels" No, that's not true. While extremist Muslims do use the term infidel, it was actually originally used by Christians and often against Muslims; and people who do not believe in The Prophet are not referred to as infidels at all in traditional Islam. In fact, no traditional Islamic text features to the word, which as I mentioned wsa used originally by Christians. "and, therefore, are deemed disposable." By extremist Muslims, yes, but not moderates. Please, if we are going to debate this, can we draw a distinction between moderates (those that want to build the mosque) and extremists? Let us not forget that afterall that the majority of terrorist attack victims have been Muslim. I would hope as well that this does not turn into an anti-Islam discussion. "There's no hint that this particular situation is for showcasing faith and religious pride but rather of forcing islam into the faces of those who suffered because of the 9/11 attacks" I very much doubt that. I am aware of the work of the Cordoba Initiative and I know of Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, and I can honestly tell you that this is not about 'forcing Islam into the faces' of anyone. If anything it's about tolerance and building bridges. BTW, I don't like the phrase 'forcing islam into the faces.' It is a religion, and Muslims shouldn't have to hide themsleves simply because bigots and Islamophobes (again, I'm not referring to you) don't want it forced in their faces. As Michael Bloomberg says, "If somebody wants to build a religious house of worship, they should do it and we shouldn’t be in the business of picking which religions can and which religions can’t. I think it’s fair to say if somebody was going to try to on that piece of property build a church or a synagogue, nobody would be yelling and screaming. And the fact of the matter is that Muslims have a right to do it too. What is great about America and particularly New York is we welcome everybody and I just- you know, if we are so afraid of something like this, what does it say about us? Democracy is stronger than this. You know, the ability to practice your religion is the- was one of the real reasons America was founded. And for us to say no is just, I think, not appropriate is a nice way to phrase it." "attacks made in the name of islam." Attacks which perverted Islam. You know what, I would be more sensitive to the opposition if I knew that they would have no problem if the reverse occured; that is, if in Iraq, plans to build a church were rejected because of Bush's evangelical christianity. Would they accept it? "It's been made clear - in multiple town-hall meetings about this issue - that the mosque would cause pain rather than 'improve relations between muslims and the west' and yet they insist on pushing the project through." They aren't insisting on pushing the project through. They are exercising their democratic rights. If America is the liberal democracy it claims to be, then it should not fear this. "That's not about faith or religious pride. It's about arrogance." Knowing what I do about the Cordoba Initiative, arrogance is not a word I would use. It's interesting though, you would think that Americans would want to showcase their religious freedom and tolerance to the world. Or does it apply to all religions save for Islam? Bill Keller, a Florida televangelist, wants to build a Christian evangelical center there. Personally I find him more confronting than any plan for a mosque (“My whole thing is to get into the marketplace and not battle Islam for souls but battle Satan for souls,” “Rather than a [protest] event we’re going to have an ongoing work of God right there because the Bible says you combat the darkness with the light.”) but I don't think he should be denied his religious freedom. link America is either a liberal democracy or not. If it is, then IMO the mosque should be allowed. That's not arrogance, that's the exercising of a right to live as equal members of society. |
Amazon 15.07.2010 21:16 |
Panchgani wrote: "Imam Faisel Abdul Rauf is the leader of the American Society for Muslim Advancement and the Cordoba Initiative, and while he talks a good game about peace, he does appear to have some radical fundamentalist views about Shariah law and seems to sympathize with the radical elements of Islam." I will be happy to go into further detail, but he actually doesn't have 'radical fundamentalist views about Shariah law and seems to sympathize with the radical elements of Islam.' Those quotes you posted don't actually indicate that. They are actually quite reasonable. It may not appear that way, but as an example, with the first one, he's not saying that the US deserved 9/11, but that it was blowback; something which many American political/terror experts would agree with. |
magicalfreddiemercury 15.07.2010 21:56 |
Amazon wrote: ...I am aware of the work of the Cordoba Initiative and I know of Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, and I can honestly tell you that this is not about 'forcing Islam into the faces' of anyone. If anything it's about tolerance and building bridges. BTW, I don't like the phrase 'forcing islam into the faces.' It is a religion, and Muslims shouldn't have to hide themsleves simply because bigots and Islamophobes (again, I'm not referring to you) don't want it forced in their faces. As Michael Bloomberg says, "If somebody wants to build a religious house of worship, they should do it and we shouldn’t be in the business of picking which religions can and which religions can’t. I think it’s fair to say if somebody was going to try to on that piece of property build a church or a synagogue, nobody would be yelling and screaming. And the fact of the matter is that Muslims have a right to do it too. What is great about America and particularly New York is we welcome everybody and I just- you know, if we are so afraid of something like this, what does it say about us? Democracy is stronger than this. You know, the ability to practice your religion is the- was one of the real reasons America was founded. And for us to say no is just, I think, not appropriate is a nice way to phrase it." "attacks made in the name of islam." Attacks which perverted Islam. You know what, I would be more sensitive to the opposition if I knew that they would have no problem if the reverse occured; that is, if in Iraq, plans to build a church were rejected because of Bush's evangelical christianity. Would they accept it? "It's been made clear - in multiple town-hall meetings about this issue - that the mosque would cause pain rather than 'improve relations between muslims and the west' and yet they insist on pushing the project through." They aren't insisting on pushing the project through. They are exercising their democratic rights. If America is the liberal democracy it claims to be, then it should not fear this. "That's not about faith or religious pride. It's about arrogance." Knowing what I do about the Cordoba Initiative, arrogance is not a word I would use. It's interesting though, you would think that Americans would want to showcase their religious freedom and tolerance to the world. Or does it apply to all religions save for Islam? Bill Keller, a Florida televangelist, wants to build a Christian evangelical center there. Personally I find him more confronting than any plan for a mosque (“My whole thing is to get into the marketplace and not battle Islam for souls but battle Satan for souls,” “Rather than a [protest] event we’re going to have an ongoing work of God right there because the Bible says you combat the darkness with the light.”) but I don't think he should be denied his religious freedom. link America is either a liberal democracy or not. If it is, then IMO the mosque should be allowed. That's not arrogance, that's the exercising of a right to live as equal members of society. ====== I think I failed to make my point clear. What I referred to in my entire post is the Cordoba Initiative's desire to build this community center - which will house a mosque - as a way for New York muslims to 'give back' to the community. The Cordoba Initiative's goal, supposedly, is to improve relations between the west and islam. You mention in your post how you disagree with my saying they're trying to force islam into the faces of those who endured the attacks of 9/11 and instead expressed it as ‘tolerance and building bridges’. How can any of this be viewed as tolerance and building bridges when the community they say they're trying to do this in is still suffering the effects of an attack in the name of the very religion backing this project? Yes. The attacks were perpetrated by extremists in that religion, but the average muslim is not out there denouncing those attacks - then or now. Instead, there seems to be an eerie silence from the community. And yes, as you say, they are exercising their democratic right to continue with this project. But so are those opposed to it. You mentioning knowing something about the Cordoba Initiative and that you wouldn't use the word 'arrogance' to describe it. I will be very honest - I know nothing about the Cordoba Initiative except this project and from it I can only see arrogance since the desires of this community are being ignored and plans for building are intended to move forward. If that is not arrogance, I do not know what it is. America is not always tolerant - of various religious beliefs, personal choices and marriage, for example - however this is not about intolerance. This is about pain. YourValentine said it beautifully in her post - "It's like Germany would build a Goethe institute near a Holocaust memorial: you just do not do that - even though no living German who is capable of building anything is responsible for the Holocaust. You can claim your constitutional rights and ignore the feelings of your neighbours but it certainly won't improve any relationships." Pushing this project through despite the desires of the community certainly won't improve the relationship between muslims and the west. Can they do it? Sure. Is it their democratic right to do so? Yes. Should they? No. Not if a majority of people are opposed to it. Pulling the project would be the neighborly, bridge-building thing to do. Not this. "America is either a liberal democracy or not. If it is, then IMO the mosque should be allowed. That's not arrogance, that's the exercising of a right to live as equal members of society." And a responsibility of being an equal member of society is considering the wants and needs of that society, not simply those of a select group without regard for the effect on others. |
magicalfreddiemercury 15.07.2010 22:11 |
Amazon... I should say... I respect your opinions and I do appreciate hearing the 'other side'. I simply disagree with it. :-) |
john bodega 15.07.2010 23:23 |
I honestly think people are missing a rather crucial point, here - a mosque does not need to be there. There's no racial prejudice in that statement, it's just (for want of a better word ...) a fact. Why does it have to go there, specifically? Anyone with a brain knows that Islam had virtually nothing to do with 9/11. If they weren't claiming to be muslims, then they would've just had some other doctrine to back up their actions. But all the same, there's a mental association for some people between 9/11 and that religion, and if you can spare people heartache by just putting the mosque somewhere else, then why the fuck not? Building a mosque there will upset people, whether they have a reason to be upset or not. Sometimes the decent thing to do is take it easy on people and compromise, even if you happen to think their reasons for being upset are not very well thought out. There are perfectly rational, non-prejudiced reasons for not wanting a mosque there. Admittedly, I'm one of those people who feels that there are enough churches, temples and mosques on the planet to last us until (heh) Judgement Day, but I don't have anything against more of them being built if it makes people happy. This one is not making people happy. |
YourValentine 16.07.2010 03:08 |
@ Amazon: please tell me what Angela Merkel thinks, I would want to know because she is the head of German government (unfortunately!). We have no mosque discussions or Burqua prohibitions in Germany - yet. As to the Cordoba Initiative: from their website I see that they think that Cordoba was such a model of "interfaith tokerance" - but let''s not forget that it was under Muslim rule. When the Muslims conquered Spain they built the great mosque of Cordoba on the premises of an old Christian church they had torn down using the material of the church. Of course we do not see any analogy here at all :-) The Spanish reconquista turned the Mosque into a Catholic church when they drove the Muslims out of the country centuries later. It is true that the Christian faith was ecxcuse and pretended reason for many imperialistic and colonialistic atrocities throughout the existance of Christianity. However, we want to advance as a human race and a culture and I do not see anything good in exchanging one religious dominance for another one. Please let me point out that I have no problem at all with any faithful person of any religion but I have loads of problems with religious organisations "Sharia indexing" countries - what is that supposed to mean? I do not want any pope to tell me which laws a democracy can have and I certainly do not want some medieval mullah to tell me if the laws of my country comply with Islamic law! For all I care they can Sharia-index Iran or Saudi-Arabia where the majority of the people live by that law but in a Western country they have to accept the constitution which says that church and state have to be separated. Sorry, I cannot trust an organisation who spits on the feelings of so many people. I understand Mayor Bloomberg but I do understand the people who lived through the horror of 9/11, as well. If the Cordoba Initiative were an organisataion who wants to bring Islam and Western culture together, they would not insist on their right to build that mosque in that area. |
Winter Land Man 16.07.2010 05:20 |
Yeah, I get it! Grace farted a shitty shit shit! A juicy, ranking, horrible fart! STINKY! DIRTY! CUNTISH! BITCHES! GRACE THAT SON OF A PRICK! |
magicalfreddiemercury 16.07.2010 05:54 |
Zebonka12 wrote: I honestly think people are missing a rather crucial point, here - a mosque does not need to be there. There's no racial prejudice in that statement, it's just (for want of a better word ...) a fact. Why does it have to go there, specifically? Anyone with a brain knows that Islam had virtually nothing to do with 9/11. If they weren't claiming to be muslims, then they would've just had some other doctrine to back up their actions. But all the same, there's a mental association for some people between 9/11 and that religion, and if you can spare people heartache by just putting the mosque somewhere else, then why the fuck not? Building a mosque there will upset people, whether they have a reason to be upset or not. Sometimes the decent thing to do is take it easy on people and compromise, even if you happen to think their reasons for being upset are not very well thought out. There are perfectly rational, non-prejudiced reasons for not wanting a mosque there. Admittedly, I'm one of those people who feels that there are enough churches, temples and mosques on the planet to last us until (heh) Judgement Day, but I don't have anything against more of them being built if it makes people happy. This one is not making people happy. ==== I was going to quote the last sentence of your second paragraph but as I read I found myself still nodding in agreement. It's all beautifully said. I concur. :-) |
magicalfreddiemercury 16.07.2010 06:16 |
YourValentine wrote: Sorry, I cannot trust an organisation who spits on the feelings of so many people. I understand Mayor Bloomberg but I do understand the people who lived through the horror of 9/11, as well. If the Cordoba Initiative were an organisataion who wants to bring Islam and Western culture together, they would not insist on their right to build that mosque in that area. ===== This sums it all up. Mayor Bloomberg is saying what is right legally. The town-hall meetings, however, are for the average person to express feelings and reasons for those feelings. If the organizations were indeed trying to carry out their stated mission, they would listen and not follow through with the project as is. Unfortunately, it seems they are determined to do the opposite. Something else we need to remember when discussing this - and calling the opposition islamaphobic - is that other ideas, ideas without religious connections - for building on or near the site were met with the same resistance and most of those plans were dropped. It took years of negotiating to build a consensus and, though rebuilding has begun, the negotiations continue. Shouldn't it be the same for this center? |
More Cowbell 16.07.2010 07:58 |
Just another example of how religion always, & for the rest of time fucks everything up! Mosques are like McDonalds, they appear everywhere & nobody quite knows how or why. |
Amazon 16.07.2010 09:25 |
More Cowbell wrote: "Just another example of how religion always, & for the rest of time fucks everything up! Mosques are like McDonalds, they appear everywhere & nobody quite knows how or why." Opinions like yours are like McDonalds; cheap and completely unhealthy. I love having discussions on QZ, but every so often someone comes along and contributes a really idiotic and nasty comments. Like yours. |
Amazon 16.07.2010 09:32 |
YourValentine wrote: "@ Amazon: please tell me what Angela Merkel thinks," I don't have the exact quote, however she warned that Muslims should not build mosques with too big minarets. Look it up on the Time website, it should be there. " I would want to know because she is the head of German government (unfortunately!). We have no mosque discussions or Burqua prohibitions in Germany - yet." Really? I seem to recall parts of the country wanting to prevent teachers from wearing the veil? Also Islamic related, Germany is against Turkey joining the EU, and newspapers published the Mohammed cartoons even though you don't believe in absolute freedom of speech. I bring up the last two examples as examples of intolerance towards/of Islam, which I suspect is motivating many of the critics of this proposal. "As to the Cordoba Initiative: from their website I see that they think that Cordoba was such a model of "interfaith tokerance" - but let''s not forget that it was under Muslim rule...." True, however it's all relative. Non-Muslims such as Jews lived more peacefully under Muslim rule in Spain than under Christian rule. When Jews were expelled or forced to convert, it was under Christian rule. BTW, I'm not suggesting that Islam is perfect. I simply have a deep personal connection to Islam, I know much about it, and I don't always think that one has to be completely balanced. :D |
YourValentine 16.07.2010 11:10 |
Amazon wrote: YourValentine wrote: "@ Amazon: please tell me what Angela Merkel thinks," I don't have the exact quote, however she warned that Muslims should not build mosques with too big minarets. Look it up on the Time website, it should be there. " I would want to know because she is the head of German government (unfortunately!). We have no mosque discussions or Burqua prohibitions in Germany - yet." Really? I seem to recall parts of the country wanting to prevent teachers from wearing the veil? Also Islamic related, Germany is against Turkey joining the EU, and newspapers published the Mohammed cartoons even though you don't believe in absolute freedom of speech. I bring up the last two examples as examples of intolerance towards/of Islam, which I suspect is motivating many of the critics of this proposal. "As to the Cordoba Initiative: from their website I see that they think that Cordoba was such a model of "interfaith tokerance" - but let''s not forget that it was under Muslim rule...." True, however it's all relative. Non-Muslims such as Jews lived more peacefully under Muslim rule in Spain than under Christian rule. When Jews were expelled or forced to convert, it was under Christian rule. BTW, I'm not suggesting that Islam is perfect. I simply have a deep personal connection to Islam, I know much about it, and I don't always think that one has to be completely balanced. :D Quite interesting points. I apologise to magicalfreddie for my off-topic reply. - Not "parts of the country" prevent teachers form wearing scarves during work (they can wear in their private time whatever thy want), courts do. The courts had to decide if the rights of the teacher to wear religious clothing or the right of school children not to be influenced by religion in school is more important. Since most parents in the schools in question were not Muslims the court upheld the ban which was decreed by the school. In another rulings a school had to provide for a prayer room for a 13 year old Muslim who then never used the room, so in another ruling the school got permission to use that room for other purposes. In yet another ruling a school had to remove the cruxifixes from the classrooms. You tell me about the anti-Islamic tendencies of these rulings. - "Also Islamic- related, Germany is against Turkey joining the EU". This is not "Islamic related", it's "economy-related" and it's not Germany who is against Turkey in the EU, it's the current administration and the majority of the population. The reason: The Turkish economy is very backward, the Turkish government does not respect the human rights and the Turkish state solves conflicts with their minorites (for example the Kurds) in a very violent way. It has nothing to do with Islam - Turkey is a laicist state and the restrictions against religion are much stricter than - for example - in Germany. These days when German tax payers have to provide for 20 billion euro to bail out Greece and to provide for hundreds of billions to prevent more EU members from going bankrupt, not many here want another economically weak member in the EU. There are limits, it has nothing to do with "anti-Islam" - that is just ridiculous. - "newspapers published the Mohammed cartoons although you do not believe in absolute freedom of speech" - I am not quite sure what you mean by that but not many newspapers re-published the cartoons and they only published them after lots of Muslims raised merry hell about them, rallied the streets, burnt Danish flags and called for murder. Two. editors of newspapers were killed for publishing the cartoons. I have not heard much regret from any Muslim organization about these murders and my opinion is that it was completely right to re-publish the cartoons : in my country no mullah tells an artist what he can draw and what he cannot draw and we have to defend the right of artists to express themselves even if other people are offended and even if I think the art is in bad taste. -"examples for intolerance towards Islam" - My answer: you call defending our values like freedom of speech, separation of state and religion and even the freedom to choose our economic partner intolerant of Islam - I cannot accept that: Muslims can exercise their religion in every possible way, they are not restricted in any way - even not in the height of their minarets (Merkel has no say in this matter, the cities decide about buildings). They can not, however, tell the non-Muslims to surrender their rights which have been obtained in a long process of enlightenment and progress only to please the more extreme Muslim organizations. There is always a need to improve respect and cooperation of all members of a society, there is certainly a need to be aware of intolerance but "intolerance" cannot be used as the magic word to annihilate the right of the other person. |
magicalfreddiemercury 16.07.2010 11:29 |
YourValentine wrote: -"examples for intolerance towards Islam" - My answer: you call defending our values like freedom of speech, separation of state and religion and even the freedom to choose our economic partner intolerant of Islam - I cannot accept that: Muslims can exercise their religion in every possible way, they are not restricted in any way - even not in the height of their minarets (Merkel has no say in this matter, the cities decide about buildings). They can not, however, tell the non-Muslims to surrender their rights which have been obtained in a long process of enlightenment and progress only to please the more extreme Muslim organizations. There is always a need to improve respect and cooperation of all members of a society, there is certainly a need to be aware of intolerance but "intolerance" cannot be used as the magic word to annihilate the right of the other person. ==== No apology necessary. Your entire post is brilliant and I agree 100%. |
Amazon 16.07.2010 11:51 |
magicalfreddiemercury wrote: "How can any of this be viewed as tolerance and building bridges when the community they say they're trying to do this in is still suffering the effects of an attack in the name of the very religion backing this project?" Because it will show that the religion is about peace and not violence. "Yes. The attacks were perpetrated by extremists in that religion, but the average muslim is not out there denouncing those attacks - then or now. Instead, there seems to be an eerie silence from the community." Not true. Many average Muslims have denounced the attacks. Just because you don't always hear about it does not mean that there is an 'eerie silence.' It's actually completely false to say that average Muslims didn't denounce it. Many did. It's just that Islam doesn't have an organised structure, the media often prefers to report the bad over the good, and of the Muslims who did not denounce it, they (like many Catholics concerning sex abuse for example) probably don't feel that they need to denounce something that they had nothing to do with. I have to say that while I don't know what you think about Islam, statements like "People who do not believe in 'the prophet' are called infidels and, therefore, are deemed disposable" (which as I pointed out was not accurate), and "forcing islam into the faces" and your comment about average Muslims on 9/11 concern me. You may not care, I'm just saying. "And yes, as you say, they are exercising their democratic right to continue with this project. But so are those opposed to it." Well, yes, but that is democracy for you. Not everybody will be happy with the outcome. "from it I can only see arrogance since the desires of this community are being ignored and plans for building are intended to move forward. If that is not arrogance, I do not know what it is." Is it arrogant to ignore intolerance? You know, the sad truth is that if many Americans got their way, there would be NO mosques in the country at all. Is it arrogant to override those wishes? Or would you support there being no mosques at all since so many Americans don't want mosques? To take it further, many Americans don't want a Muslim president and don't want a Muslim politician swearing on the Koran. Should prospective Muslim politicans bow to these wishes? If the answer is yes, then my response is that sometimes you have to ignore intolerance. "America is not always tolerant - of various religious beliefs, personal choices and marriage, for example - however this is not about intolerance." Yes it is. You can justify it, but call it for what it is. If it was a temple or a buddhist temple, people wouldn't care. If it was an evengelical christian centre (set up by someone who hates Muslims and non-evengelical christians), people wouldn't care. I know that you think that it is valid to oppose it but at least have the intellectual honesty to admitt that it's about intolerance. These people are opposing the mosque because they are intolerant. Does that mean that they should automatically not get their way? No. People are intolerant of alot of things (gay marriage for instant which is illegal is most nations), but at least have the intellectual honesty and courage of admitting that it's intollerance, and then we can talk about whether the intolerance is justified. Furthermore, if you truly believe it's not intolerance, then what do you say about some of the quotes I mentioned in my previous response to you? "This is about pain." As I pointed out in my earlier post, Muslims also died on 9/11. Nonetheless, it's irrelevent that it's about pain. Don't get me wrong, I feel for the people who lost loved ones in 9/11 (I still remember where I was when it occured), but simply because one feels pain does not automatically justify intolerance and ignorance. While the pain of the 9/11 families should be taken into account, I don't think that it should be the only thing taken into account. "YourValentine said it beautifully in her post - "It's like Germany would build a Goethe institute near a Holocaust memorial: you just do not do that - even though no living German who is capable of building anything is responsible for the Holocaust. You can claim your constitutional rights and ignore the feelings of your neighbours but it certainly won't improve any relationships."" Please do not bring The Holocaust and Germany into this. It is entirely different and is not a valid analogy. I don't mean morally different, but structually different. Comparing 9/11 with The Holocaust is like comparing apples with oranges. That said, Muslims are equal members of American society, so maybe their neighbours need to get over their ignorance and intolerance. It's not as of their neighbours have made such an effort to improve relationships. "Pushing this project through despite the desires of the community certainly won't improve the relationship between muslims and the west. Can they do it? Sure. Is it their democratic right to do so? Yes. Should they? No. Not if a majority of people are opposed to it. Pulling the project would be the neighborly, bridge-building thing to do. Not this." Oh, please. So in order to build bridges, they need to disappear. To be seen and not heard is that it? Sorry, but that is intolerance. "And a responsibility of being an equal member of society is considering the wants and needs of that society, not simply those of a select group without regard for the effect on others." Oh, give me a break. Do you really believe that every group does this? Or most groups? That they 'consider the wants and needs of that society, not simply those of a select group without regard for the effect on others'? The problem is that it is subjective. You believe that this is not 'considering the wants and needs of that society', well I believe that allowing an evengelical christian centre for someone who hates Muslims and non-evengelical christians (see the link I provided in my previous post) is not 'considering the wants and needs of that society'. Who is to say who's right? One last comment. I mentioned this in my previous post, but you didn't respond to it. Imagine if in Baghdad, plans to build a church were rejected because of Bush's evangelical christianity. What do you think the reaction would be? My guess is that it would be taken up by evengelical Christians, conservatives and Islamophobes as 'another example of Islamic intolerance towards Christianity!' I would also bet that many of the people you claim to oppose the mosque for understandable reasons would condemn the Baghdad decision. I think it's hypocritical, and considering that America is a liberal democracy, the hypocricy is enhanced. "Amazon... I should say... I respect your opinions and I do appreciate hearing the 'other side'." Thanks. :D "I simply disagree with it. :-" Nothing wrong with that. I must say, that while QZ sometimes gets abusive and troll-affected, I do apreciate a good QZian discussion. :D |
magicalfreddiemercury 16.07.2010 13:16 |
>>Because it will show that the religion is about peace and not violence.<< Surely you understand building something in a community where it is clearly not wanted will do nothing to show this religion is about peace and not violence. >>Not true. Many average Muslims have denounced the attacks. Just because you don't always hear about it does not mean that there is an 'eerie silence.' << There is indeed an eerie silence. If we were to make this situation smaller, and say it was a member of my family who attacked another, and a portion of the public considered my family to be as violent and evil as that one member, you can bet my family would be very vocal and honest about our feelings. There would be no doubt as to where we stand on the issue. >>It's actually completely false to say that average Muslims didn't denounce it. Many did. It's just that Islam doesn't have an organised structure, the media often prefers to report the bad over the good, and of the Muslims who did not denounce it, they (like many Catholics concerning sex abuse for example) probably don't feel that they need to denounce something that they had nothing to do with. << I don’t know what to make of this statement. First, there may not be a central spokesperson for Islam, but if Islam is indeed a peaceful religion and if the attacks were considered an atrocity by muslims around the world, then there need not be a central figure to speak out against them. Instead, clerics from various countries could have made their voices heard by standing up as individuals with followers to openly denounce the attacks – and not just the 9/11 attacks but other violent attacks and movements by extremists. That is the eerie silence to which I refer. Second, if someone is so appalled by what people within their community have done, they would absolutely feel the need to denounce it. When you denounce something, you’re not apologizing for it, you’re showing disgust and disapproval. How many leaders from around the world denounced the 9/11 attacks? Queen Elizabeth was one of them. Did she have something to do with 9/11? Because, according to your theory, since she didn’t she would have had no reason to denounce it. >>I have to say that while I don't know what you think about Islam, statements like "People who do not believe in 'the prophet' are called infidels and, therefore, are deemed disposable" (which as I pointed out was not accurate), and "forcing islam into the faces" and your comment about average Muslims on 9/11 concern me. You may not care, I'm just saying.<< My feelings about islam are the same as my feelings about all religions. And in the case of the Cordoba Initiative and this project, they are indeed forcing islam into the faces of those who suffered on 9/11. They have acknowledged that the reason for building in this spot was to show how muslim’s can be and are part of the community and how they want to ‘give back’. They are already distinguishing themselves as the underdog. Yet when they are called on it, the opposition is called ‘phobic’. I reject that statement as you reject several of my statements, and in all honestly, the attempt to reverse perceived prejudice concerns me as well. >>Is it arrogant to ignore intolerance? You know, the sad truth is that if many Americans got their way, there would be NO mosques in the country at all. Is it arrogant to override those wishes? Or would you support there being no mosques at all since so many Americans don't want mosques? << Yes, I would support there being no mosques in America. I would also support there being no temples, churches, or other religious symbols. But I would never support forcibly removing them just for the sake of it. I have mentioned this before… in my area there is a huge Korean community. Members of this community have purchased many of the old stately homes only to demolish them and build churches in their place. There are now more Korean churches in my area than bars, and that’s saying something. Is it Korea-phobic to speak out against the building of more of these churches? Is that intolerant? If so, why is that intolerant but dismissing the will of the people who do not want these churches is not? >>To take it further, many Americans don't want a Muslim president and don't want a Muslim politician swearing on the Koran. Should prospective Muslim politicans bow to these wishes? If the answer is yes, then my response is that sometimes you have to ignore intolerance.<< Americans don’t want an Atheist as president either. You ask, should prospective muslim or atheist politians bow to these wishes? There is no bowing. There’s public opinion. And if the public doesn’t want them in, they won’t get the votes. And if they don’t get the votes, they don’t get the job. That’s as it should be in this scenario and in the one proposed by the Cordoba Initiative. >>I know that you think that it is valid to oppose it but at least have the intellectual honesty to admitt that it's about intolerance.<< I will freely admit it’s about intolerance, but not as you describe it. IMO, it’s intolerance toward the wishes of the community. >>As I pointed out in my earlier post, Muslims also died on 9/11. Nonetheless, it's irrelevent that it's about pain. Don't get me wrong, I feel for the people who lost loved ones in 9/11 (I still remember where I was when it occured), but simply because one feels pain does not automatically justify intolerance and ignorance. While the pain of the 9/11 families should be taken into account, I don't think that it should be the only thing taken into account. << And yet the very reason for the building of this center is BECAUSE of the pain of 9/11 and the desire to ‘help heal’ it by helping New York Muslims ‘give back to the community’. I have to repeat those words from the Cordoba Initiative because the cause and conflict are already built in, yet when the opposition points them out, they’re called phobic or intolerant. I reject that fully. A lot of good people died on 9/11 – there was no distinction between them. On that day, they were all New Yorkers. >>Please do not bring The Holocaust and Germany into this. It is entirely different and is not a valid analogy. I don't mean morally different, but structually different. Comparing 9/11 with The Holocaust is like comparing apples with oranges. << It’s not comparing the Holocaust with 9/11 but comparing the sensitivities of the people. Surely you see that. >>"Pushing this project through despite the desires of the community certainly won't improve the relationship between muslims and the west. Can they do it? Sure. Is it their democratic right to do so? Yes. Should they? No. Not if a majority of people are opposed to it. Pulling the project would be the neighborly, bridge-building thing to do. Not this." --Oh, please. So in order to build bridges, they need to disappear. << Yes. Those were my exact words. Re-read my statement and you’ll see that. Oh, wait. I didn’t say that at all, did I? >> Oh, give me a break. Do you really believe that every group does this? Or most groups? That they 'consider the wants and needs of that society, not simply those of a select group without regard for the effect on others'? << Yes I do. I’ve been to town-hall meetings. I’ve voiced my opinion. Hell, I’ve even been swayed by the opposition at times. More often than not, when public opinion is overridden, it’s because someone was paid off. And yet, there are times, like with the community board who found no legal reason for this mosque not to be built, public opinion is heard but without changes to the laws, opinion are ignored. It’s at that time when the developer has an option to respect the wishes of the people or trample all over them. |
magicalfreddiemercury 16.07.2010 13:19 |
Clearly, my message was too long because I have to post it in parts... === >>The problem is that it is subjective. You believe that this is not 'considering the wants and needs of that society', well I believe that allowing an evengelical christian centre for someone who hates Muslims and non-evengelical christians (see the link I provided in my previous post) is not 'considering the wants and needs of that society'. << And I would agree with the evangelical centre issue as not considering the wants and needs of that society. I’m not sure why you would imply that because I do not agree with the mosque at Ground Zero that I might agree with another religious symbol being built where it is not welcomed. Though maybe I’m reading more into that than is intended. >>Who is to say who's right? << Me. And I am. That’s all there is to it. I jest, of course. >> One last comment. I mentioned this in my previous post, but you didn't respond to it. Imagine if in Baghdad, plans to build a church were rejected because of Bush's evangelical christianity. What do you think the reaction would be? My guess is that it would be taken up by evengelical Christians, conservatives and Islamophobes as 'another example of Islamic intolerance towards Christianity!' I would also bet that many of the people you claim to oppose the mosque for understandable reasons would condemn the Baghdad decision. I think it's hypocritical, and considering that America is a liberal democracy, the hypocricy is enhanced. << I think there are many people who would support the building of an evangelical church in every town in all the world. Baghdad included. I would not be one of them. Yes, there is hypocrisy and there is intolerance, but those two attitudes cannot and should not be the go-to reasons for all disagreements and yet, too often, true discussions turn to screaming matches and neither side wins. |
Amazon 16.07.2010 14:24 |
magicalfreddiemercury wrote: "Surely you understand building something in a community where it is clearly not wanted will do nothing to show this religion is about peace and not violence." No I don't. Simply because the community 'does not want something' does not mean that they should get their way. In NSW, Australia, a community prevented an Islamic school from being build due to extreme racism. The community did not want the school, however it is absolutely outrageous that they got their way. It's like if white supremecists in the American South prevented a black church from being built. "There is indeed an eerie silence.." Except there was not. You should have read letters to newspapers. You should have heard individual Muslims speak. I'm sorry, but that statement is simply incorrect. "First, there may not be a central spokesperson for Islam, but if Islam is indeed a peaceful religion and if the attacks were considered an atrocity by muslims around the world, then there need not be a central figure to speak out against them." And individual Muslims did speak out against it. You even had Iranians holding a candle vigil outside the (I believe) Swiss embassy. "Instead, clerics from various countries could have made their voices heard by standing up as individuals with followers to openly denounce the attacks – and not just the 9/11 attacks but other violent attacks and movements by extremists. That is the eerie silence to which I refer." Okay. You need to understand that there is a massive gap between the clerics and the followers. The clerics have different motivations for what they do and do not say. One American journalist said that when disaster struck, his mother always told him to focus on the helpers. In the case of Islam, focus on the followers. That said, in recent years, clerics have spoken out. Several have issued fatwas against violence and terrorism, and in fact after 9/11, a group of clerics (I believe that Imam Faisel Abdul Rauf was involved) wrote a letter condemning terrorism in the name of Islam. "Second, if someone is so appalled by what people within their community have done, they would absolutely feel the need to denounce it. When you denounce something, you’re not apologizing for it, you’re showing disgust and disapproval. How many leaders from around the world denounced the 9/11 attacks? Queen Elizabeth was one of them. Did she have something to do with 9/11? Because, according to your theory, since she didn’t she would have had no reason to denounce it." I'm simply saying that failure to publicly condemnd something does not indicate that you approve of it. "My feelings about islam are the same as my feelings about all religions. And in the case of the Cordoba Initiative and this project, they are indeed forcing islam into the faces of those who suffered on 9/11. They have acknowledged that the reason for building in this spot was to show how muslim’s can be and are part of the community and how they want to ‘give back’. They are already distinguishing themselves as the underdog." Obviously we are unlikely to ever agree on this. "Yet when they are called on it, the opposition is called ‘phobic’. I reject that statement as you reject several of my statements, and in all honestly, the attempt to reverse perceived prejudice concerns me as well." 'the attempt to reverse perceived prejudice'? I don't quite understand what you're saying. "Yes, I would support there being no mosques in America. I would also support there being no temples, churches, or other religious symbols." This is probably why we are unlikely to ever agree. As I would hate to live in a world in which there are no mosques, churches, temples, etc... People talk about how society is secular. That is true. However that does not mean that religion can not have an equal place. They just can't have the dominant place. "But I would never support forcibly removing them just for the sake of it." Glad to hear that. "I have mentioned this before… in my area there is a huge Korean community. Members of this community have purchased many of the old stately homes only to demolish them and build churches in their place. There are now more Korean churches in my area than bars, and that’s saying something. Is it Korea-phobic to speak out against the building of more of these churches? Is that intolerant? If so, why is that intolerant but dismissing the will of the people who do not want these churches is not?" It's not intolerant. As I said before, the statements attempting to justify to opposition to the building of the Mosque are intolerant. Similarly if you used similar statements in your opposition to the building of Korean churches, then yes, it is intolerant. You know, Islamophobia is serious and it is real. On this thread, we already had one member talk about bombing the Mosque, and another compared Mosques to McDonalds. Opposing the building of new churches, mosques etc.. is not by its nature intolerant. However many of the statements uttered regarding the building of the Mosque are horrible, and I think that it should be recognised that regarding the mosque, intolerance is at play. Don't forget that there are numerous instances of intolerance being sanctioned by the law. BTW, interesting that you mentioned this example. One could argue that it is simply democracy, or capitalism, at work. "Americans don’t want an Atheist as president either. You ask, should prospective muslim or atheist politians bow to these wishes? There is no bowing. There’s public opinion. And if the public doesn’t want them in, they won’t get the votes. And if they don’t get the votes, they don’t get the job. That’s as it should be in this scenario and in the one proposed by the Cordoba Initiative." But why? If the Cordoba Initiative follow the rules, and their application gets approved, why can't they build their mosque? There may be opposition to it, just as there is opposition to the building of the Korean churches. But just as with the building of the Korean churches, you can't always get what you want in a capitalist liberal democracy. We are probably unlikely to agree on this point, however I do think you will find that there are multiple examples in democracies of groups doing things (within the law) which other groups may not approve of. The Cordoba Initiative isn't unique. "I will freely admit it’s about intolerance, but not as you describe it. IMO, it’s intolerance toward the wishes of the community." You should read some of the statements on this thread ('bombing' and 'McDonalds'), and in your opening post (the '100 millions', 'insult to the memory' and 'symbolic victory). You should also read comments on some of the articles on this. To claim that the people who oppose it do not do so out of intolerance is astounding IMO. Our viewpoints are obviously poles apart. "And yet the very reason for the building of this center is BECAUSE of the pain of 9/11 and the desire to ‘help heal’ it by helping New York Muslims ‘give back to the community’. I have to repeat those words from the Cordoba Initiative because the cause and conflict are already built in" Yes, but it still does not mean that the views of the 9/11 families are the only ones which should be taken into account. It may be one factor, but it shouldn't be the only factor. "yet when the opposition points them out, they’re called phobic or intolerant. I reject that fully. A lot of good people died on 9/11 – there was no distinction between them. On that day, they were all New Yorkers." Yes, and rather than repeat myself, I will simply point out that if the statements you posted are not Islamophobic or intolerant, they are extremely ignorant. |
The Real Wizard 16.07.2010 14:24 |
Amazon wrote: "If it was a temple or a buddhist temple, people wouldn't care. If it was an evengelical christian centre (set up by someone who hates Muslims and non-evengelical christians), people wouldn't care. I know that you think that it is valid to oppose it but at least have the intellectual honesty to admitt that it's about intolerance." Fair point. But however rational or irrational the reasons are, if the majority of the public doesn't like an idea and the end result will be inconsequential, then the idea shouldn't be implemented. In a democracy this is the way things should work. I wouldn't be as blunt as More Cowbell who says religion "fucks everything up", but the comment isn't too far off the mark. Most of the west has spent centuries freeing itself from the shackles of medieval religious ideas, and this forward progression needs to continue. In a world where millions have AIDS and billions are starving and/or oppressed, it saddens me that we're even wasting our time on the subject of where to build yet another place of worship, as if there aren't enough of them. If everyone in this world decided not to adhere to ideas from 1+ thousand years ago, roughly 90% of the world's major problems would cease to exist overnight. While there are some positives to organized religion, its underlying purpose is to divide people into groups of thought. If and when the human race understands this simple concept, weapons will be put away and will live in harmony with one another. And the 9/11 site can become a park where our children can play. |
Amazon 16.07.2010 14:26 |
"It’s not comparing the Holocaust with 9/11 but comparing the sensitivities of the people. Surely you see that." No, because it's a completely different situation. Without wanting to go into which was worse, 9/11 was a terrorist attack comprising mass murder launched by religious extremists; extremists who actually hate members of their own faith more than they hate members of other faiths. The Holocaust was genocide launched by a government upon its citizens and with the support/acceptance of a large number of the wider citzenry. Neither event is 'worse' however the structual/ideological differences are such that I don't think you can compare them at all. "--Oh, please. So in order to build bridges, they need to disappear." << "Yes. Those were my exact words. Re-read my statement and you’ll see that. Oh, wait. I didn’t say that at all, did I?" My apologies. I leaped before I looked. ">>Oh, give me a break. Do you really believe that every group does this? Or most groups? That they 'consider the wants and needs of that society, not simply those of a select group without regard for the effect on others'? <<" "Yes I do. I’ve been to town-hall meetings. I’ve voiced my opinion. Hell, I’ve even been swayed by the opposition at times. More often than not, when public opinion is overridden, it’s because someone was paid off." Are you suggesting that payoffs were involved in this case? Public opinion is overridden all the time, it's done legally, and people aren't always paid off. In regards to development, public opinion may be overriden for political reasons, it may be for commercial reasons, it may be for ideological reasons or it may simply be that the authorities made the rare decision to do what is right. Beyond development, there are so many examples of public opinion being overridden. In Australia, the Government was forced to alter a proposed resource tax after extensive campaigning by the wealthy resources sector. "And yet, there are times, like with the community board who found no legal reason for this mosque not to be built, public opinion is heard but without changes to the laws, opinion are ignored. It’s at that time when the developer has an option to respect the wishes of the people or trample all over them." Well, all I can say is that, depending on where you live, I think you'll find that many (if not most) developers choose to trample over the wishes of the people. That said, simply because many, or the majority, of people are opposed to something does not mean that the proposal should be rejected, or that if the developer goes through with it, he is 'trampling' over the wishes of the people. Sometimes, quite honestly, it does no matter what the people think. In NSW, that particular community did not want the Islamic school. Well, quite honestly, if the proposal had not been rejected, their wishes absolutely should have been 'trampled' on. Just because the people in this community are a pack of redneck racists, does not mean that their wishes should be respected. The same goes for a group in the Deep South opposing a black church. If there is one Muslim in Texas, and he wants to build a Mosque, who really cares if the community opposes it? "I’m not sure why you would imply that because I do not agree with the mosque at Ground Zero that I might agree with another religious symbol being built where it is not welcomed. Though maybe I’m reading more into that than is intended." No, I'm not implying that. I'm simply showing that it's subjective. "Me. And I am. That’s all there is to it. I jest, of course." Of course you would say that. :D :D "I think there are many people who would support the building of an evangelical church in every town in all the world. Baghdad included. I would not be one of them. Yes, there is hypocrisy and there is intolerance, but those two attitudes cannot and should not be the go-to reasons for all disagreements and yet, too often, true discussions turn to screaming matches and neither side wins." True, however (and clearly we are unlikely to agree on this) but I do think that intolerance is the go-to reason here. This has been a great discussion. I'm sorry if my posts read too much like essays, and if you want to call a 'truce' I will completely understand, but I really did (do) enjoy our discussion. :D |
The Real Wizard 16.07.2010 17:05 |
Amazon wrote: "It's like if white supremecists in the American South prevented a black church from being built." I completely disagree. A very important distinction needs to be made. White supremacists want non-white people to disappear and would make it happen themselves if they could. On the other hand, most people who don't like a particular religion (or even religion as a whole) simply don't like the ideology. To compare people in favour of dogma-free thought to white supremacists is a complete skewing of the natural world and an insult to everything that rationality stands for.. so I certainly hope that's not what you're doing. 'the attempt to reverse perceived prejudice' If I may jump in, magicalfreddiemercury.. This is when someone is condemned for being "intolerant" of someone or a group of people who are intolerant in the first place. Instead of focusing on the issue at hand, they simply attack the messenger (i.e. label them as having a phobia), and hope the counter-attack will be louder than the original point. This has nothing to do with Islamophobia. Even if it did, to have a problem with a single faith group is to completely miss the point here. Simply put, the 9/11 site is pretty touchy subject for most Americans, and a single faith group shouldn't have a monopoly on it. Put up a plaque and let's move on to something of greater importance. |
YourValentine 17.07.2010 02:41 |
Yes, try to build a Christian church anywhere in Baghdad - really funny. More than half of the 1 million Christians in Iraq had to flee the country since the fall of the laicist regime of Saddam Hussein. Thousands were killed by militant Muslims and almost all of them were diplaced within the country. I have not heard many Muslim calls for more tolerance of Christians in Iraq. |
john bodega 17.07.2010 04:12 |
I have no doubt that people might use this issue as a means to air their own ignorant agendas, but the fact remains that there are perfectly sane reasons for not wanting a mosque to go there. I hate to go all Treasure Moment on you guys, but it's a Fact Fact Fact Fact Fuckety Fact. I don't think a mosque should be there - but I don't think ANYTHING should be there, 'cept maybe a park or something. I think the idea of building a new tower there is just insane. I think putting a mosque there is rewarding the misguided people who organised the attacks in the first place. Would it kill anyone to put it a few blocks downtown? If you move it from Ground Zero, then the only protests you have are from the bigots who just don't want mosques at all, and then the debate is a much easier one to settle. You can just ignore them. People who are saying it's prejudiced to say no to a mosque at Ground Zero are being so bloody ignorant towards the concept of there being a traumatic association between 9/11 and certain other topics. Should I be allowed to open a guns and ammo shop next to the book depository? Saying that there's no reason not to put it at Ground Zero, in one sentence, completely dismisses people's feelings as a factor. It's callous, and it's only as bad as the other shit in this thread (re: 'bomb it' or 'it's like McDonalds'). If I had my way, the tower, the mosque, the complex - all of it would be scotched and there'd be a hospital there. Or a park, like I said. Anything but these endless bloody debates that really do show the worst in people. |
Mr Mercury 17.07.2010 05:25 |
Zebonka12 wrote: I don't think a mosque should be there - but I don't think ANYTHING should be there, 'cept maybe a park or something. I think the idea of building a new tower there is just insane.Thats exactly what I thought when I visited NY years ago and went to the site......... NY doesnt need yet another tall building. A park of some sort would have been a better idea imo.... As for building a mosque there - that is a no for a start. Anywhere else would be fine, just not there. |
john bodega 17.07.2010 05:33 |
My way of thinking is this - muslims were not responsible for 9/11, ASSHOLES were responsible for 9/11. There might not be an actual problem with putting a mosque there, but there is a perceived one, and it would be the human thing to do to just accept that it's going to cause offense, and put it somewhere else. |
magicalfreddiemercury 17.07.2010 06:07 |
>> Zebonka12 wrote: My way of thinking is this - muslims were not responsible for 9/11, ASSHOLES were responsible for 9/11. There might not be an actual problem with putting a mosque there, but there is a perceived one, and it would be the human thing to do to just accept that it's going to cause offense, and put it somewhere else.<< Especially if the declared reason for building there in the first place is to help unify two sides. It's like taking a vegetarian to dinner at a steak house then getting annoyed because they seem ungrateful. It's seems deliberately misunderstood. >>Sir GH wrote: If I may jump in, magicalfreddiemercury.. This is when someone is condemned for being "intolerant" of someone or a group of people who are intolerant in the first place. Instead of focusing on the issue at hand, they simplyattack the messenger (i.e. label them as having a phobia), and hope the counter-attack will be louder than the original point. << Absolutely, and I thank you for it! >>Amazon wrote: Well, all I can say is that, depending on where you live, I think you'll find that many (if not most) developers choose to trample over the wishes of the people.<< True. And by showing such disregard, they anger the community - no intolerance, phobia or prejudice about it. >>Amazon wrote: This has been a great discussion. I'm sorry if my posts read too much like essays, and if you want to call a 'truce' I will completely understand, but I really did (do) enjoy our discussion. :D << I found your points thought-provoking and, though my opinion has not shifted, I appreciate the opportunity to discuss it so thoroughly. |
Donna13 17.07.2010 14:53 |
If you Google "Mosques in Manhattan", you can see that there are already more than a few - just look at all the dots on the map. Some of those dots may represent places of worship and others community centers (maybe both). And Manhattan is some of the most expensive real estate in the world. I would say, that because this organization is looking to change certain laws to be in agreement with Islam, they would be wanting to build near "ground zero" just for the purpose of exposure - as in "location, location, location." They have a political agenda that they want to work on, and they think this is the way to get started. It's obvious, especially to all the New Yorkers who are routinely exposed to people from all around the world, different religions, and different cultures. They are not such an ignorant group (New Yorkers), nor are they intolerant, except maybe of people from New Jersey (who, apparently, are very bad drivers). |
Amazon 17.07.2010 15:11 |
Sir GH wrote: "I completely disagree. A very important distinction needs to be made. White supremacists want non-white people to disappear and would make it happen themselves if they could. On the other hand, most people who don't like a particular religion (or even religion as a whole) simply don't like the ideology." Violent acts have occured against people of a particular religion, because people 'simply don't like the ideology.' You can't divorce the ideology from the person. When someone is assaulted/threatened/made to feel unwanted in their own country and told to go back to where they came from/discriminated against because of their religion, you can't simply divorce the ideology. Additionally saying to someone that I simply don't like your religion is like telling a gay person that you don't like their sexuality. In the case of both a gay and a religious person, their sexuality and religion is an intrinsic part of whom they are. I know that as Jew who is bi, I couldn't be friends with someone who disliked Judaism and homosexuality. The community in NSW who opposed the Muslim school are no different to homophobes and are complete bigots. They are also no different to white supremecists, since many of them probably want Muslims 'to disappear and would make it happen themselves if they could.' At the very least, the hatred which they put out (which includes calls for Islamic immigration to be cut) creates an atmosphere in which Muslims get attacked. "To compare people in favour of dogma-free thought to white supremacists is a complete skewing of the natural world and an insult to everything that rationality stands for.. so I certainly hope that's not what you're doing." Oh please. I want it on the record that I have never attacked athiesm, not on this site, not anywhere. However you have absolutely no problem in attacking religion. Anyway, the people who opposed the Muslim school in NSW (whom I compared to white supremecists) are not simply in favour of 'favour of dogma-free thought'. They are horribly and disgustingly Islamophobic in the true sense of the word. They are repulsive bigots and to try to give them any credibility at all does your case tremendous harm. "If I may jump in, magicalfreddiemercury.. This is when someone is condemned for being "intolerant" of someone or a group of people who are intolerant in the first place. Instead of focusing on the issue at hand, they simply attack the messenger (i.e. label them as having a phobia), and hope the counter-attack will be louder than the original point." Two comments. One, as I have constantly said (all to no avail it seems), it is not intolerant to oppose the mosque, but many of the statements to justify the opposition to it are. It really frustrates me because time and time again, I have provided examples of intolerant statements, and yet people are saying that I am calling the general opposition intolerant. I am simply referring to some of the statements which are completely intolerant. Two, the Muslims who proposed it are not necesarilly intolerant (I know that Imam Faisel Abdul Rauf is not.) "This has nothing to do with Islamophobia. Even if it did, to have a problem with a single faith group is to completely miss the point here." How is it to miss the point? Are you saying that Islamophobia can be justified? You know, there are rational and reasonable reasons to oppose the mosque, but Islamophobia is not one of them. "Simply put, the 9/11 site is pretty touchy subject for most Americans, and a single faith group shouldn't have a monopoly on it." That is reasonable (especially if it means that the evangelical christian centre shouldn't be build as well), but it is unreasonable to even attempt to defend Islamophobia. I mentioned this before, but it doesn't really concern me whether the mosque gets built. What does concern me are some of the statements provided by some of the opposing parties, as well as the hypocricy. |
andreas_mercury 17.07.2010 15:39 |
stupid anyway to build that!!!! moslems should save their money then will be rich as the jews |
Amazon 17.07.2010 15:48 |
"YourValentine wrote: "Yes, try to build a Christian church anywhere in Baghdad - really funny." I guess that we consider different things to be funny. Anyway my point was (in case you missed it) and I didn't have to pick Baghdad, was that plenty of people in the West would be up in arms if an evelgelical christian group was prevented from building a church in a Muslim majority nation. "More than half of the 1 million Christians in Iraq had to flee the country since the fall of the laicist regime of Saddam Hussein. Thousands were killed by militant Muslims and almost all of them were diplaced within the country." It wasn't just Christians who suffered. "I have not heard many Muslim calls for more tolerance of Christians in Iraq." Perhaps not, but as members of a liberal democracy, I hope that we would be better than that. Anyway, as I said, I only brought up Baghad as an example. BTW, I was going to respond to your previous post, but I lost it. I'll sum it up in just a few sentences. I confused Germany with Spain/Belgium/France in regards to Islamophobically calling for bans on Muslim clothing. While you may claim that many, or most, Germans are opposed to Turkey's joing the EU on economic grounds, I am not convinced that there are Germans, as well as French and other Europeans, who are not opposed on religious grounds. Regarding freedom of speech, the Mohammed cartoons simply showcased Western hypocricy. I don't think that republishing the Mohammed cartoons makes one a freedom of speech hero. If anything it makes one a freedom of speech coward, since you won't go to prison for it; and in the West, freedom of speech has been reinterpreted as freedom to villify Islam. Afterall if you truly support the republication of freedom of speech, because no mullah tells you what to write, then stand up in public and deny The Holocaust. You won't of course. I don't oppose the Holocaust laws, but I find it absurd that you think that by republishing the cartoons (whose original purpose was to provoke), you're striking a blow for our values like freedom of speech and on behalf of Western society. You aren't; you're simply executing speech within the safe confines of your nation, which won't have any negative consequences for you, and at the sake of a minority. |
Holly2003 17.07.2010 16:13 |
That's an odd argument when you consider that Islamic nutjobs have threatened the lives of those publishing the cartoons. Think about that for a second: threatened with kidnap and beheading for publishing a cartoon. Is this the 21st century or the 12th? Sadly for some living under Islamic law, it's more like the 12th. As for the hypocrisy of Westerners, in the UK there are incitement to hatred laws which protect muslims among others from hate-filled diatribes. Ironically, the last time I saw those laws used was against hate-filled radical Islamicists who hoped to use our hard-earned liberal laws protecting freedom of speech and freedom to demonstrate to spread hatred of the host counntry they have chosen to come to. You really couldn't make it up. Let's be clear: there is a great deal of mistrust of Islam in the west, and there's good reason for that since Islam often seems at odds with liberal democracy. As for the mosque at the 9/11 site, it's a disturbing and potentially offensive idea and should be opposed. |
magicalfreddiemercury 17.07.2010 16:30 |
>> Amazon wrote: “It really frustrates me because time and time again, I have provided examples of intolerant statements, and yet people are saying that I am calling the general opposition intolerant. I am simply referring to some of the statements which are completely intolerant.” Amazon wrote: “While you may claim that many, or most, Germans are opposed to Turkey's joing the EU on economic grounds, I am not convinced that there are Germans, as well as French and other Europeans, who are not opposed on religious grounds.” << == You know, I thought our conversation had ended with an understanding but these comments of yours to SirGH and YourValentine change things. The comments you referred to repeatedly were not made by the people holding conversations with you here but by others either on this thread or in news articles. The way you’ve used those comments to make your point that Islamophobia is at play here shows that you’ve closed your eyes and ears to other arguments and are only focusing on the extreme. Though we are having a civil conversation and are explaining our views, you continue to point to those comments. It’s as if you are blaming everyone for the actions/comments of a few. Does that ring familiar? And further, you insist that while YourValentine gave a reason of ‘economics’ for Germany not wanting Turkey in the EU, you insist there are those opposed on religious grounds as if to say that is the true reason and you have uncovered some dark secret by saying so. To me, this reeks of paranoia and the ‘reversal of perceived prejudice’ I have previously said concerns me. |
The Real Wizard 17.07.2010 16:45 |
Amazon wrote: "However you have absolutely no problem in attacking religion." I'm not attacking religion. I'm simply stating facts. The word 'attack' implies that I am unjust in my commentary and puts a negative slant on it irrespective to the points I'm making in the first place. Like I described above, you're now attacking me for pointing out the flaws and history of organized religion instead of focusing on those points themselves, effectively turning the tables and trying to vilify me instead. It's an age-old tactic and it will never work. Exactly how many wars have been started in the name of atheism? The answer is zero. Enough said. I have every right to point out the atrocities of organized religion and not be demonized for it. "in the West, freedom of speech has been reinterpreted as freedom to villify Islam." There was a young Muslim woman who recently came to Canada to study at a university in Montreal, with tuition paid for in full by the government. She showed up the first day with a full burqa on, and was told by school authorities that the burqa was not permitted on campus. She continued to wear it for weeks and eventually got expelled, and she had the nerve to complain that her rights were being trampled on - even though she was effectively telling the country who took her in (and was paying for her education) that her values were more important than theirs. If she likes her traditions so much, then she should have stayed at home and gotten the education there. With stories like this in the news, so-called 'Islamophobia' is quite justified. There is not a single other religious group with people who act like this. On top of that, they are the only religious group trying to incorporate their laws into western countries' laws. Sharia law is an incredibly scary thing. They already have their own banks too. So if Islam is being vilified and there are plenty of Muslims who emigrated to the west who very openly want to change western culture to match theirs, then maybe they deserve it. |
Amazon 17.07.2010 16:51 |
magicalfreddiemercury wrote:"The comments you referred to repeatedly were not made by the people holding conversations with you here but by others either on this thread or in news articles." I never said they were made by those holding conversations with me. I never accused you, or Sir GH or YourValentine, of being Islamophobic. I don't see how you would claim that I did, especially when in my first response to you, I specifically said that when talking about Islamophobes, I was not referring to you. "The way you’ve used those comments to make your point that Islamophobia is at play here shows that you’ve closed your eyes and ears to other arguments and are only focusing on the extreme." No, not at all. I am simply reporting comments made by oppositional parties, including ones that you yourself quoted in your first post. You however said that it wasn't about intolerance, and you brought up the Korean churches. So, if anybody is closing their ears and eyes here, it's not me. I mean, come on, do you even concede that that among the people who oppose the mosque, some of them do so out of intolerance? "Though we are having a civil conversation and are explaining our views, you continue to point to those comments." Because they are IMPORTANT. You can't overlook the statements made by the people who oppose the mosque. Whether this is a civil conversation or not, there is nothing wrong with referring to comments that you yourself quoted! If they weren't important, you shouldn't have quoted them. Or should I only point to comments that you deem to be important and which help your arguments? "It’s as if you are blaming everyone for the actions/comments of a few. Does that ring familiar?" Oh please. I haven't blamed anyone for the 'actions/comments of a few.' That is simply false, and I could challenge you to provide an example, but there is no such example. "And further, you insist that while YourValentine gave a reason of ‘economics’ for Germany not wanting Turkey in the EU, you insist there are those opposed on religious grounds as if to say that is the true reason and you have uncovered some dark secret by saying so." Uh, no. I simply suggested that it was also a factor. magicalfreddiemercury, do you even read my posts? Because I made no such implication. (I should note BTW that it isn't actually a secret.) "To me, this reeks of paranoia and the ‘reversal of perceived prejudice’ I have previously said concerns me." Oh, please. You know what; think what you like, because based on this post, you will anyway. You have shown that you clearly don't read my posts; and if you had read my post to Sir GH, you would have seen that the '‘reversal of perceived prejudice’ you talk about is nonsencical. As for paranoia, considering that you read things into my posts which aren't there (the one with YourValentine being a prime example), perhaps you are the paranoid one. Regardless, at least do me the courtesy of actually reading my posts! |
Amazon 17.07.2010 17:06 |
Sir GH wrote: "I'm not attacking religion. I'm simply stating fact." No, you may imagine them to be facts, but simply because you believe something to be one does not make it so. " The word 'attack' implies that I am unjust in my commentary and puts a negative slant on it irrespective to the points I'm making in the first place." Well, perhaps I do think that you are being unjust. "Like I described above, you're now attacking me" When exactly did I attack you? You know, if you are going to accuse someone of attacking you, at least have some basis for it. "for pointing out the flaws and history of organized religion instead of focusing on those points themselves" Nonsence. I responded to your facts, such as your comment regarding those who 'simply don't like the ideology.' Yet, you aren't even resonding to my comment and are accusing me of attacking you. "effectively turning the tables and trying to vilify me instead." Sorry, the only person doing the vilifying here is you. "It's an age-old tactic and it will never work." Then why do you utilise it? "Exactly how many wars have been started in the name of atheism? The answer is zero. Enough said." Well, that solves it then. Everyone should now become an athiest! " I have every right to point out the atrocities of organized religion and not be demonized for it." Get off your high horse. Nobody is demonising you. I note that you have no problem with people being demonised because of their religion, and you do it yourself. Why aren't I surprised? "They are currently the only religious group trying to incorporate their laws into western countries' laws." So all the Christians who want to ban ban euthanasia, don't want gay marriage to be legalised, want abortion to be criminalised, want the Autralian government to implement a mandatory internet filter don't count? Right. "Sharia law is an incredibly scary thing." Parts of it are; and they are against the law. Considering that you do not live in Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia or Iran, you don't exactly need to worry about those 'incredibly scary' parts. "They already have their own banks too." What a horrible thing. I'm sorry, is this an argument against Sharia? Because you're grasping at ignorant straws. Next you will be saying 'they already have their own schools too' or some other such nonsence. "So if Islam is being vilified and there are plenty of Muslims who emigrated to the west who very openly want to change western culture to match theirs, then maybe they deserve it." And you accuse me of demonising you. Nobody deserves to be villified and demonised based on their religion. Nobody. That said, you do realise that it is a democracy? All groups, whether Muslim or Christian or secular, have the right to attempt to change the law (I'm specifically not referring to 'western culture' since I clearly have a different culture to you and western culture is not monolithic) as long as they do so in a legal manner. |
The Real Wizard 17.07.2010 17:14 |
Amazon wrote: "No, you may imagine them to be facts, but simply because you believe something to be one does not make it so." So I, along with the rest of the rational world, am imagining that the majority of major conflict in human history is due to organized religion? >>They are currently the only religious group trying to incorporate their laws into western countries' laws.<< "So all the Christians who want to ban euthanasia, don't want gay marriage to be legalised, want abortion to be criminalised, want the Autralian government to implement a mandatory internet filter don't count? Right." Those aren't Christian laws - they are the beliefs of certain Christians. Quite different. "That said, you do realise that it is a democracy? All groups, whether Muslim or Christian or secular, have the right to attempt to change the law (I'm specifically not referring to 'western culture' since I clearly have a different culture to you) as long as they do so in a legal manner." You're right, they have the right to attempt. But they should not have the right to come to my country, go on social assistance or have an education paid for by the state, and blatantly tell me that my country's traditions are wrong. If things are so great at home, then they should have stayed there. |
Amazon 17.07.2010 17:21 |
Sir GH wrote: "So I, along with the rest of the rational world, am imagining that the majority of major conflict in human history is due to organized religion?" I love how you use the term rational. Anyway, yes, you are imaging that the 'majority of major conflict in human history is due to organized religion.' The majority of major conflict is due to power; who has it and who wants it. "Those aren't Christian laws - they are Christian beliefs. Quite different." Not so different that gay marriage is still against the law and the Australian Government is attempting to implement a mandatory internet filter which is supported only by the Australian Christian Lobby. In California, gay marriage was banned after a push by the Mormon Church. Muslims are not the only group attempting to change/preserve certain laws, Christians do it as well, and in fact all religions do. It's their right. "You're right, they have the right to attempt. But they should not have the right to come to my country, go on social assistance or have an education paid for by the state, and blatantly tell me that my country's traditions are wrong. If things are so great at home, then they should have stayed there." You may not like it, but that is their right. |
The Real Wizard 17.07.2010 17:46 |
Amazon wrote: "I love how you use the term rational." As do I. The very definition of irrational is being "deprived of reason". Convincing oneself that something they cannot see is physically real is the very opposite of reason. I personally have no problem with people living their lives this way, and if they live fulfilling lives due to this choice, then I'm genuinely happy that this choice has done them well. But it is still irrational. The opposite, which is making choices based on what can be physically seen and explained without reproach, is therefore categorized as rational. "The majority of major conflict is due to power; who has it and who wants it." Yes, political wars were often dressed as religious wars. But it can't be denied that different systems of belief have been known to divide people into groups in the first place, especially a thousand years ago. To this day the Sunnis and Shiites are still killing each other in droves. How about honour killings? How many atheists and agnostics have felt the need to kill their own children for staying out past 9pm and "doing harm to the family name" ? "You may not like it, but that is their right." And it is the right of the majority to point out how ludicrous and arrogant their actions are and, more importantly, keep them out of political power. |
GratefulFan 17.07.2010 20:59 |
Sir GH wrote: How about honour killings? How many atheists and agnostics have felt the need to kill their own children for staying out past 9pm and "doing harm to the family name" ? ============================================== Honour killings are terrible, incomprehensible crimes and as such they make splashy headlines. It's important to remember though that they represent a small fraction of the homicides committed against children and youth by family members. In Canada in 2006, 36 children and youth were killed by family members (on average over the years 90% were killed by their parents), with infants at the greatest risk. So you can almost certainly be sure more than a few non religious or non practising parents have found equally inexcusable reasons for taking the lives of their children. |
The Real Wizard 17.07.2010 21:34 |
Fair point. So, of the bunch that aren't honour killings, one can only wonder how many of these people believe they're sending their children to Jesus? Sometimes it's those package deals where the parents kill themselves too, and we later find out that they wanted the entire family to be in heaven. All one can do is scratch their head in awe. |
GratefulFan 17.07.2010 23:05 |
As it too often does, new media and the blogosphere has likely ruined any chance for this development to be considered rationally and fairly by the majority of the public. Which, please note, isn't to imply that rational and fair necessarily means the centre goes unopposed or is built at all. But breathless and outraged references to a 'Mosque at Ground Zero' conjure images of something glittering and triumphant and mocking looming over the footprint of 9/11 death and destruction. That, I think everybody would agree, would be insane. The reality, at least to me, seems somewhat different. For the hell of it I used Google street view to really get a sense of what was being proposed. The two addresses (if anybody is that geeky as well) are 1 World Trade Centre and 45 Park Place. The WTC location is barricaded behind blue walls with references to the future WTC development written on them and the proposed community centre would replace the mostly disused 'Burlington Coat Factory' building on Park Place. By road, the proposed community centre/mosque is is two densly built city blocks down and half a block over from the closest edge of WTC site. Seeing the sheer amount of concrete, steel and glass between the WTC and the proposed site did make me wonder how many blocks would be enough if two isn't. Four? Six? Out of the line of site? It did start to feel arbitrary. I said 'mostly disused' above because apparently the group making the proposal has actually been employing part of the building for meeting and downtown prayer space since last year. So this isn't coming as a bolt from the blue. Also, the scope of the proposed development is partly in response to pre-existing third party studies that identified a need for a multi function community centre in the downtown area so it would fill or partly fill a known community gap. Only part of the building would be dedicated to Islamic practices and outreach. I think these are important facts, and to say they are not captured by the virtual bold 48 point type of 'Mosque at Ground Zero' is an understatement indeed. Still, the group has not done itself any favours in some ways. Part of this will be financed from outside the country and it doesn't help that the reality is that terror operations funnel money in through charities. That financing structure could have been avoided. It doesn't help either that the centre will have some kind of memorial to 9/11 installed and will be officially opened and dedicated on September 11, 2011. Though they were perhaps damned if they did and damned if they didn't, having that date and anniversary absconded feels a bit like biting on tin foil even if there is a rational argument that as New Yorkers and victims themselve they have as much right to it as anyone else. Even something as trivial as the proposed number of floors - 13 - seems designed to make native westerners a bit crazy. I belive that number's presumed unluckiness comes from the number of people at Jesus' Last Supper. It's worth noting that the official proposal is actually for between 13-15 floors, so the media may have grabbed 13 and run with it, or it may have been put out by the developers so as not to be seen to be outbuilding the neighbourhood (a neighbouring building in Street View appears to have 13 floors). And the 'Cordoba Initiative' is all too easy to spin negatively, as has even been seen here in this thread. The head of the organization has made some comments in the past that are questionable. It all adds up to a rich target for those inclined to take aim. The gut response to this is to me less about religion and more about the mosque as a symbol of something foreign and vaguely threatening linked somehow to suffering and helplessness. As far as the visceral rejection goes it's probably more analagous to a proposal to turn Abu Ghraib into a Hooters than it is to building a Christian church in downtown Kandahar. The wars that 9/11 ostensibly started are still going on. Militant Islam still wants to destroy the West. People are still required operate at some level of fear. America has a right, forever, to denounce the crimes committed against her and her people and I think that's perhaps what's at the core of the resistance. They are really being asked to dig deep here, and that needs to be understood and absolutely respected. In the end, by the smallest margin in my own debate with myself, I guess I think they should find the moral strength and faith in their own constiution to let this happen. PS. To prove you read all this blah blah I want all the M & M's straightened out, except the red ones which should be rotated 90 degrees clockwise. TIA. :) |
YourValentine 18.07.2010 03:35 |
@ Amazon Sorry but I begin to believe that you do not really know what you are talking about! As to Turkey: if Turkey joined the EU, Turks could move into the other EU countries with no restrictions. Since mainly very poorly educated parts of the population move into EU countries, it would be a big burden for our social system. From the 3 million Turks already living in Germany 40% need social security, 40% of their children do not get any education at all, illiteracy is high, only a small minority speaks any German. When I want to emigrate into Australia I must prove that I can pay for my living, that I speak the language and that I am willing to respect the laws of the country. I suppose that makes Australians a bunch of agnostophobes. About freedom of speech: no, I would not deny the Holocaust, neither in public or private but that is because I am not a stupid Nazi. I have doubts about that law because restricting the freedom of speech is always a problem imo but I think there are good reasons for that law: it is often the only possibility to stop Nazis. As to the cartoons: I thought they were tasteless and unnecessary but I refuse to make my own opinion a measure for other people. I believe that much too few papers republished them after Muslims leaders publicly called for murder and two editors were actually murdered. The freedom of speech is very important and we should not let a bunch of extreme medieval fanatics have their ways. The murder threat against Salman Rushdie, the murder of Theodor van Gogh - Muslims have a way to show their tolerance versus other people and cultures: burning flags in the streets, shouting hate and murder. You are right saying that a very religious society like the USA is not so liberal concerning abortion, gay marriage etc. There are annoying extremist like "pro life" fanatics killing abortion doctors and stupid sects harrassing other people. However, in the USA it's not a church ruling, it's religious people ruling. They can be voted out of power and a majority of people can put an end to such restrictions. But the general truth is: the more religious a country is - the less civil rights are guaranteed in the country: death penalty, suppression of gays, lack of abortion rights, discrimination of women.. ..you have that when religion has a say in the socitey. To advance as human beings we must free ourselves from any religious dominance. |
magicalfreddiemercury 18.07.2010 06:51 |
YourValentine, once again I have to applaud your post. I wish one day we could meet to sit and talk. Grateful Fan – the points you made are very well taken. You’ve expressed both sides with logic and made me sit back to question myself. Even I, as a native New Yorker, did not check to see just how close to the footprints this center would be. However, Ground Zero is not just the footprints. Ground Zero, for New Yorkers, is the area affected by the fall of the towers. The building in question was damaged by debris as the towers fell. That changes it from being a whole two blocks away to being an actual part of the site. I doubt if emotions would be quite as high if the plans were for a building beyond the zone of damage and destruction. I do agree the media has, as usual, chosen to spin this in a way that makes the headlines stand out. But I also agree that the Cordoba Initiative has billed this improperly thus creating a unified defense against the entire project. I fear now, wherever they may propose to build, if this option falls through, will be considered improper for one reason or another. They’ve insulted and dismissed the feelings of those they say they want to give back to. There will be no about-face from that. >> “In the end, by the smallest margin in my own debate with myself, I guess I think they should find the moral strength and faith in their own constiution to let this happen.” << Legally, there is nothing to keep it from happening. However, emotions are too high when it comes to plans for Ground Zero. As I said in a previous post, it’s not just this center that is being argued. Other plans – non-religious plans – have been proposed for the area and emotions were just as high. There are those who feel rebuilding anything on or near the site is an insult to the memory of those who perished. There are those who wanted only a memorial, with the actual footprints to remain as footprints with gardens and fountains surrounding them. And there are those who wanted the towers rebuilt to their original appearance. Nothing proposed has been or will be given a unanimous thumbs up but a symbolic reminder of the attacks will receive a majority thumbs down for many years to come. |
Amazon 18.07.2010 13:38 |
YourValentine wrote: "@ Amazon Sorry but I begin to believe that you do not really know what you are talking about!" Why? Because I, god forbid, disagree with you? What makes you think that YOU know what you are talking about? "I suppose that makes Australians a bunch of agnostophobes." When you make comments like that, it defintely proves that you do not know what you are talking about. A great number of the Australian people are anti-Islamic. I'm not saying that most are, but if you read blogs, you will find some disturbing stuff. Additionally, the current election has seen both the Prime Minister and the opposition descend into dog-whisting regarding asylum seekers. In New South Wales, there is a propasal to ban the burqa, and quite honestly, if you want to villify a group and not be censored by everyone, then all one has to do is target Muslims. There have been some disgustingly Islamophobic newspaper articles, which none of the media (particularly the conservative media which published most of these articles) condemns. There have also been some shocking comments made about Muslims, yet if a Muslim makes a controversial comment, everyone is all over it. One journalist has noted that many of the people defending Mel Gibson's comments, and who even support his comments, attacked an Imam who made some dreadful comments about women, but which were not worse than what Gibson said and what some Christian leaders have said. Essentially Islamophobia has become an acceptable prejudice here. In regards to Europe, yes, I am fully aware that economics is a key factor, but you can not deny that intolerance is also a factor. In Germany, Merkel's commented about how minarets shouldn't be higher than church steeples (and which other politicians have also spoken about such as Edmund Stoiber); controversy has arose over plans to build mosques in places such as Berlin, Munich and Cologne; Claus Leggewie, a political scientist at Giessen University who has written about mosques in Germany made the comment that "The protests begin on technical issues, like parking problems and noise," "But it has a cultural bias. There is a nationalist minority, which opposes immigration and especially Muslim immigration." Add to this attitudes in other nations like France, Austria & the Netherlands, and I don't think you can deny that intolerance plays a role. (BTW, I have references for everything above, if you're interested. The reason I'm not including it in this particular post is due to issues with my computer and my time management skills, and should not be read into.) "About freedom of speech: no, I would not deny the Holocaust, neither in public or private but that is because I am not a stupid Nazi." So you completely missed my point. Not the first time that you overlook my point. I'm not saying that you are a 'stupid Nazi'; I'm simply pointing out that there are laws against it, and republishing the Mohammed cartoons makes you a freedom of speech coward, not some kind of hero. "I have doubts about that law because restricting the freedom of speech is always a problem imo but I think there are good reasons for that law: it is often the only possibility to stop Nazis." I completely agree. I think that in regards to freedom of speech, one should be able to say what they like, but hate speech should not be allowed. I'm personally all too aware of how hate speech can descend into violence and persecution. "As to the cartoons: I thought they were tasteless and unnecessary but I refuse to make my own opinion a measure for other people." I'm not saying that you should, yet you say that you support the republication. On this post, below, you say that 'I believe that much too few papers republished them.' You aren't simply refusing to make your 'own opinion a measure for other people.' "I believe that much too few papers republished them after Muslims leaders publicly called for murder and two editors were actually murdered."] Yes, and it was tragic and indefensible. But that does not justify the republication. What does it prove? That you believe in freedom of speech? Well, yes, but only when it suits you. "The freedom of speech is very important and we should not let a bunch of extreme medieval fanatics have their ways." Yet you are willing to allow the government to ban aspects of 'free speech.' Do you not see the inconsistency? This 'bunch of extreme medieval fanatics', although brutal and very public, aren't a threat to you. BTW, you said that you would not deny The Holocaust because you are not a 'stupid Nazi' (which I never said you were) yet you believe that too few papers republished the cartoons, even though you are almost certainly aware of the offensive nature of the cartoons. What does that make you? A stupid Islamophobe? I'm not saying that you are, but do you not see the inconsistency? The truth is that there is no society in which there is absolute freedom of speech, and most people are selective. But being humanly selective does not justify republishing horrible cartoons because you want to prove that 'the freedom of speech is very important'! That is just pure hypocricy. "The murder threat against Salman Rushdie" I don't have enough space to talk about Rushdie, but many conservatives love to proclaim how it was some kind of freedom of speech test. It wasn't. It was originally about power (the Ayatollah wanting to gain dominance of the Islamic world), and it was also about a narcissistic writer. There were questions of freedom of speech, yes, but it was selective and ultimately to call it a test of freedom of speech missed the point. It should be noted as well that when Rushdie got his knighthood, it was following some troubles the UK was having with Iran. "the murder of Theodor van Gogh" Shocking. No matter what he believed, his murder can not be defended. But we are talking about one murder here. Conservatives always point to this, but the reality is that as terrible as it was (and as brutal as it was), it was still one murder. The thing about such murders is that they are deliberately brutal so as to cause fear. But the brutal nature does not increase the threat. It's like with 9/11. That did not change the fact that it's still safer to travel by plane than by car. "Muslims have a way to show their tolerance versus other people and cultures" No, extremists do. I don't know or care what you think about Muslims, but failing to draw a distinction between Muslims and extremists is ignorant at best. "burning flags in the streets, shouting hate and murder." Yes, there are people who burn flags in the streets (not just Muslims BTW, Indians also do for instance), but, and you may not agree, IMO that in itself does not indicate intolerance. As for shouting hate and murder, we are talking about extremists. |
Amazon 18.07.2010 13:54 |
"You are right saying that a very religious society like the USA is not so liberal concerning abortion, gay marriage etc. There are annoying extremist like "pro life" fanatics killing abortion doctors and stupid sects harrassing other people. However, in the USA it's not a church ruling, it's religious people ruling." It's not a church ruling, no, but nor is it a religious people ruling. Jews and Muslims don't necesarilly believe in the things that Christians do. Certainly, within Judaism, we aren't as concerned by these moral issues as Christians are (abortion, euthanasia, pornography, prostitution etc...). "They can be voted out of power and a majority of people can put an end to such restrictions." In theory, yes, although it's debatable to what degree the majority can really put an and to such restrictions. Nonetheless, it is a democracy, which also means that Muslims can attempt to promote or push some of their beliefs. "But the general truth is: the more religious a country is - the less civil rights are guaranteed in the country: death penalty, suppression of gays, lack of abortion rights, discrimination of women.. ..you have that when religion has a say in the socitey. To advance as human beings we must free ourselves from any religious dominance." Can't we simply allow all groups to have an equal footing? Including religious groups? magicalfreddiemercury, why aren't I surprised that you would applaud a response to me but not bother responding to my response to you? |
magicalfreddiemercury 18.07.2010 16:24 |
>>Amazon wrote: magicalfreddiemercury, why aren't I surprised that you would applaud a response to me but not bother responding to my response to you? << I can't speak to why you are not surprised but I did not respond because you accused me of not reading your messages when I had written what felt like tomes in response to each of them. What I see in your posts is not what you say you intend, therefore responding seemed a waste of time for each of us. |
Amazon 18.07.2010 17:14 |
magicalfreddiemercury wrote: "I can't speak to why you are not surprised" I'm not surprised because you have spoken about having civil discussion, yet you clearly aren't interested. Your last post to me proves that you aren't interested, as does the fact that you applaud a post which was a direct response to me (and was insulting). I wouldn't do the same to you, but I guess we have differing views on how to be civil. "but I did not respond because you accused me of not reading your messages when I had written what felt like tomes in response to each of them." I 'accused' you of not reading my message in regards to your last post to me, which was absurd, and which indicated that you don't read my posts. Especially since you only criticised me after my posts to Sir GH and YourValentine, and how you got your interpretation from those two posts, I'll never know. "What I see in your posts is not what you say you intend," What you see is irrelevent. If you claim to see things, and I tell you they are not there, then they are not there. It does not matter what you 'see'. Otherwise, I could do the same to you. If I accuse you, for example, of hating Islam, and you say that the reason for your opposition to the mosque has nothing to do with your feelings about Islam, then I have to accept it. I guess what annoys me is that you don't even acknowledge that you are wrong (such as all the things you accused me of being in that post), or that the things you accuse me of being (having closed my eyes and ears to other arguments for example) could be directly applied to you, yet you don't even acknowledge it. If we are, to quote you, having a 'civil conversation,' then if you are wrong, it is the least you could do. I did so with you, but clearly we have a different interpretation of what constitutes a 'civil conversation'. But of course we do. You don't seem to consider referring to relevent statements which you yourself quoted in your original post to be appropiate in a 'civil discussion.' I guess because those quotes don't help your case. "therefore responding seemed a waste of time for each of us." Clearly, it is. I agree. However, when you respond to someone who specifically responds to me (and even insults me) and applauds that post, to describe that as passive-agrressive is an understatement. |
Saint Jiub 18.07.2010 19:26 |
I wonder what the illustrious forked tongued Imam Faisel Abdul Rauf thinks of this: link We need to be more tolerant of Islam. We need to be more tolerant of Islam. |
magicalfreddiemercury 18.07.2010 20:57 |
>>Amazon wrote: I'm not surprised because you have spoken about having civil discussion, yet you clearly aren't interested. << Right. Disinterest must be what fueled four pages of conversation. >>Your last post to me proves that you aren't interested, as does the fact that you applaud a post which was a direct response to me (and was insulting). I wouldn't do the same to you, but I guess we have differing views on how to be civil. << The post I applauded was filled with facts and on-point topics I found interesting and persuasive. If you’re speaking of the first line in that post where it was said you didn’t know what you were talking about… in all honesty, I didn’t spend more than a second on it. It’s a discussion. I’m a New Yorker. Telling someone they don’t know what they’re talking about is as common as saying hello. If YOU found it insulting, then I apologize for applauding that part of the post. >> I 'accused' you of not reading my message in regards to your last post to me, which was absurd, and which indicated that you don't read my posts. Especially since you only criticised me after my posts to Sir GH and YourValentine, and how you got your interpretation from those two posts, I'll never know. << I explained how I got my interpretations from those two posts in that post. Your response was that you felt the comments you quoted were IMPORTANT. My point is that you mentioned them repeatedly as if they – and only they – were what mattered because they were that over the top. And I agree they were over the top. However, I chose not to give credence to those comments because they are not in line with my thoughts and I felt expressing my own views in our conversation made more sense than trying to explain, understand or debate the comments of others. What I find extremely interesting here is how there are four pages in this thread and yet the few lines that were offensive are the lines you focused on – which is why I said you closed your eyes and ears to other arguments and only focused on the extreme. The reason that is so interesting is because of the argument that only a small portion of muslims (extremists) are responsible for 9/11 while the majority had nothing to do with it… and yet for the west to focus on that small portion is considered intolerant or islamophobic. I don’t know whether you’ll see that paradox, but it’s plain as day to me. Which is why I still stand by the comment I made (which SirGH explained so eloquently) and that you deemed “nonsensical”. >> What you see is irrelevent. << Well, now, that’s not very civil of you, is it? >> I guess what annoys me is that you don't even acknowledge that you are wrong. << Because I don’t think I’m wrong any more than you think you are. Which is why we originally ended our conversation with appreciation (or so I thought) for each other’s opinions even though we still disagreed with each other. However, I found your comments on this thread after that disturbing and said so. >>You don't seem to consider referring to relevent statements which you yourself quoted in your original post to be appropiate in a 'civil discussion.' I guess because those quotes don't help your case. << Yes. That must be it. |
YourValentine 19.07.2010 03:36 |
@Amazon First of all I am sorry that you feel offended about me saying that you do not know what you are talking about. I did not mean to offend you - I just think you do not know what is going on in the EU or my country to make assumptions about intolerance vs Muslims. I tried to explain what is going on with examples and analogies but apparently you did not take this well for some reason. For example, I tried to make you see that the immigration laws of your country, which are normal for every country with a normal immigration policy, can be called "agnostophobic" , i.e. discriminatiing of agnostic people when in fact they are the same for everybody. Just as well can you call Germany refusing to admit Turkey into the EU "anti-Islamic" simply disregarding all the reasons behind that attitude. Not all Turks are Muslims as you know. Interesting what you have to say about the freedom of speech issue: See I talk about my country: here we think holocaust denial is offensive and a cartoon about a person is not. The prophet Muhammad was not God, he was a person and being offended about a cartoon is simply ridiculous. However, any country have their own ways, so if a country bans Muhammad cartoons, let them have laws dealing with that. What I cannot accept is people rallying in the streets and calling for blood and murder if a Danish cartoonist exercises his right to freedom of speech in full compliance with Danish laws. What I cannot accept is when Mullahs call for murder and hatred and no Muslim community in my country distances itself from these outbursts of hatred and violence. It's totally beside the point to call for "tolerance" and at the same time call for murdering people who happen to have another point of view! You said about Salman Rushdie: "It was originally about power (the Ayatollah wanting to gain dominance of the Islamic world), and it was also about a narcissistic writer. There were questions of freedom of speech, yes, but it was selective and ultimately to call it a test of freedom of speech missed the point." It's about a religious leader calling for murder - it's not about power, narcissm , it's about cruel bloody murder and there is no excuse. sorry. You said about Theodor van Gogh: "But we are talking about one murder here. Conservatives always point to this, but the reality is that as terrible as it was (and as brutal as it was), it was still one murder. The thing about such murders is that they are deliberately brutal so as to cause fear. But the brutal nature does not increase the threat. It's like with 9/11. That did not change the fact that it's still safer to travel by plane than by car." I am not conservative but I happen to think that one murder is one too much to accept and to say that 9/11 is basically a statistic problem just shows how very double-standard your whole argumentation is! You call a whole country "islamophobic" because one politician says something about the height of a minaret but at the same time you rationalize hatred killings and terrorism. That is exactly the hypocrisy that makes me angry when discussing "religious tolerance" with Muslims: they use the freedom and liberal laws of my country against me claiming more "tolerance" and complaining about discrimination - when in fact they enjoy all the rights in a democracy like anyone else - while at the same time they downplay murder, intolerance, terror. I know that not all Muslims are like that but I do not see many Muslim organisations call for peaceful togetherness. It's always fingerpointing to the non-Miuslims and I am sick and tired of that. Dear Magicalfreddie - I would love to meet you in person, as well. Maybe some day:-) |
Amazon 19.07.2010 03:44 |
magicalfreddiemercury wrote: "Right. Disinterest must be what fueled four pages of conversation." Oh please. If yu accuse someone of being paranoid, and of being closed minded, the least you can do is respond. "The post I applauded was filled with facts and on-point topics I found interesting and persuasive. If you’re speaking of the first line in that post where it was said you didn’t know what you were talking about… in all honesty, I didn’t spend more than a second on it. It’s a discussion. I’m a New Yorker. Telling someone they don’t know what they’re talking about is as common as saying hello. If YOU found it insulting, then I apologize for applauding that part of the post." Well, thanks, but it's more that you would applaud a post which was a direct response to me, and which quite frankly weren't to do with the topic. "I explained how I got my interpretations from those two posts in that post." And your interpretation is wrong. "Your response was that you felt the comments you quoted were IMPORTANT. My point is that you mentioned them repeatedly as if they – and only they – were what mattered because they were that over the top." I mentioned them (which you your yourself quoted) as examples of intolerance. I wouldn't have had to if you could acknowledge that some people opposed to the project do so out of intolerance. But you can't do that. "And I agree they were over the top. However, I chose not to give credence to those comments because they are not in line with my thoughts and I felt expressing my own views in our conversation made more sense than trying to explain, understand or debate the comments of others." I never said they were in line with your thoughts, but then we wasn't merely discussing your thoughts, were we? "What I find extremely interesting here is how there are four pages in this thread and yet the few lines that were offensive are the lines you focused on – which is why I said you closed your eyes and ears to other arguments and only focused on the extreme." I can say the same about you. You have never conceded that some people opposed to the project do so out of intolerance. You absolutely closed your eyes and ears to other arguments and only focused on one extreme. "The reason that is so interesting is because of the argument that only a small portion of muslims (extremists) are responsible for 9/11 while the majority had nothing to do with it… and yet for the west to focus on that small portion is considered intolerant or islamophobic." Well, yes. But I don't think that's controversial. Should I consider Americans to all be evengelical christian fanatics like Bush? "I don’t know whether you’ll see that paradox, but it’s plain as day to me." Oh, please. You just can't acknowledge that some New Yorkers are intolerant. You know, everything that you say about me here can be said about you. "Which is why I still stand by the comment I made (which SirGH explained so eloquently) and that you deemed “nonsensical”." Here is what I said to Sir GH. 'As I have constantly said (all to no avail it seems), it is not intolerant to oppose the mosque, but many of the statements to justify the opposition to it are. It really frustrates me because time and time again, I have provided examples of intolerant statements, and yet people are saying that I am calling the general opposition intolerant. I am simply referring to some of the statements which are completely intolerant.' It is nonsence. But you know what, think what you like. I think you're an extremist yourself. You can try to deny it, but I won't listen. " Well, now, that’s not very civil of you, is it? No less civil than when you said 'Yes. Those were my exact words. Re-read my statement and you’ll see that. Oh, wait. I didn’t say that at all, did I?' I can tell you whether your interpretation of what I say is correct, just like you can tell me whether my interpretion of you is correct. If you are wrong, then have the courtesy of acknowledging it. Otherwise, maybe I will suspect that you are an Islamophobe. Or can you only misinterpret me? "Because I don’t think I’m wrong any more than you think you are." You are wrong when it comes to your interpetations of me. "Which is why we originally ended our conversation with appreciation (or so I thought) for each other’s opinions even though we still disagreed with each other." This is not about our points of view. This is about you writing a post to attack me, and how those attacks were all false, unfair and hypocritical. "However, I found your comments on this thread after that disturbing and said so." That is what it is about. You, for some absurd reason, found my comments disturbimg (LOL). I explained that they weren't, and that many of them could be absolutely applied to you. You are yet to acknowledge that you are wrong about those charge and that many of them are hypocritical. "You don't seem to consider referring to relevent statements which you yourself quoted in your original post to be appropiate in a 'civil discussion.' I guess because those quotes don't help your case." "Yes. That must be it." Well, you should have acknowledged at least once that some people are intolerant. But no, you are closed to all other arguments. |
magicalfreddiemercury 19.07.2010 05:44 |
>> Amazon wrote: No less civil than when you said 'Yes. Those were my exact words. Re-read my statement and you’ll see that. Oh, wait. I didn’t say that at all, did I?' << I stand by that comment, which is in fact civil, as it was a direct response to your suggestion that I said muslims should ‘disappear’. Clearly, I did not say that and so you agreed you leaped before you looked. >> You are wrong when it comes to your interpetations of me. << So you’ve said, to which I say the reverse is true. You’ve also said we will never agree. On that point, we do agree. And so goes the state of the world. |
Amazon 19.07.2010 09:27 |
magicalfreddiemercury wrote: "Amazon wrote: No less civil than when you said 'Yes. Those were my exact words. Re-read my statement and you’ll see that. Oh, wait. I didn’t say that at all, did I?' "I stand by that comment, which is in fact civil" You can stand by it, but you can not claim it is civil. It is certainly no more civil than my telling you that your interpetations of me are wrong. magicalfreddiemercury, you don't know me. I think I know better than you whether your interpretations of me and what I say are accurate. " as it was a direct response to your suggestion that I said muslims should ‘disappear’. Clearly, I did not say that and so you agreed you leaped before you looked." I did agree. Yet you refuse to acknowledge that your interpretations of me are false. One example; you accused me of arguing that intolerance is the 'true reason' for arguing that Turkey was denied EU entry, when it is one of several reasons, and that I had acted as if I have 'uncovered some dark secret by saying so.' That is false, and yet you refuse to acknowledge it. Then there all the other charges you levelled towards me in that absurd post. I'm not asking for an apology or anything like that. I am simply asking you to treat me like you want to be treated. That is, if you have an incorrect interpretation of what I say, acknowledge it. "You are wrong when it comes to your interpetations of me. <<" "So you’ve said, to which I say the reverse is true." Uh, you can't say the reverse is true, when I actually know much better than you what I think and what I intend to say. You know what, two can play at this game. I think that the reason you oppose the mosque is because you are Islamophobic. You may deny it, but I say that this is true (and since you know me better than I know myself, you may trust than I know you better than you know yourself)! "You’ve also said we will never agree. On that point, we do agree. And so goes the state of the world." I'm not asking you to agree. I couldn't care less whether you are for the mosque or not. That is not what this is about, and you know it. This is about you levelling false and hypocritical charges at me, and about you not willing to play by the rules you expect others to play by! |
magicalfreddiemercury 19.07.2010 10:01 |
>>Amazon wrote: "You are wrong when it comes to your interpetations of me. "So you’ve said, to which I say the reverse is true." Uh, you can't say the reverse is true, when I actually know much better than you what I think and what I intend to say. << It’s responses like this that prove my statement since my statement did not mean what you assumed but rather “the reverse is true” meant that You are wrong in YOUR interpretations of ME. But it doesn’t really matter, does it, since it’s all about perception. To me, you appear intolerant and prejudice against those whose views differ from yours. To you, I’m islamophobic, hypocritical and ignorant. We could each spend yet more time trying to show how we are not as the other believes, but it is my guess that would only deepen our opinions on one another. >> I'm not asking you to agree. I couldn't care less whether you are for the mosque or not. That is nowt what this is about, and you know it. This is about you levelling false and hypocritical charges at me, and about you not willing to play by the rules you expect others to play by! << Actually, it’s about a mosque at Ground Zero, but what do I know, I only started this thread. |
Amazon 19.07.2010 10:16 |
magicalfreddiemercury wrote: "It’s responses like this that prove my statement since my statement did not mean what you assumed but rather “the reverse is true” meant that You are wrong in YOUR interpretations of ME." So you acknowledge that your interpretations of me are wrong? "But it doesn’t really matter, does it, since it’s all about perception." The perception does not always match the reality. If I show that the reality is different, then you must acknowledge that you are wrong. But you never will. "To me, you appear intolerant and prejudice against those whose views differ from yours." Good for you. After all this, I think that coming from you, that is a compliment. Unlike you, I have acknowledged that I was wrong. You never have. (I had hoped that even having provided you with an example, you would acknowledge it, but it's obviously beyond you.) "To you, I’m islamophobic, hypocritical and ignorant." Here's the thing. While I do think that you're hypocritical (and you're entitled to show why you are not) and ignorant (and, again, you're entitled to show that you're not), I don't necessarily believe that you're Islamophobic. I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. However I brought it up to show that if you can misinterpret me, then I can misinterpret you. But, yet again, you fail to see the point. "We could each spend yet more time trying to show how we are not as the other believes, but it is my guess that would only deepen our opinions on one another." No, I'm not going to be spending much more time 'conversing' with you. You can respond to this or not, and I can't say whether I will respond should you respond to me, but this shows that discussing such an important issue with you was a waste of time. You clearly don't like disagreement, you're passive-aggressive, and you are completely unwilling to acknowledge when you're wrong. "Actually, it’s about a mosque at Ground Zero, but what do I know, I only started this thread." Oh, god. You do know that it's an expression? Why do I bother with you? |
Amazon 19.07.2010 10:26 |
YourValentine wrote: "@Amazon First of all I am sorry that you feel offended about me saying that you do not know what you are talking about. I did not mean to offend you - I just think you do not know what is going on in the EU or my country to make assumptions about intolerance vs Muslims." Thanks, however I actually know alot about what is going in Germany and the EU. You may not like my making comments about your country, but intellectually I am entitled. I am also morally entitled, since my family comes from Germany and Austria (and they left in unpleasant circumstances), and I still have family in Germany and Austria. I don't mind if you want to comment on Australia (which you do), but I make no apologies for commenting on Germany and other EU nations. "I tried to explain what is going on with examples and analogies but apparently you did not take this well for some reason." No, it's not that. I mean, yes, partly it's your tone, but also I don't really agree with you. "For example, I tried to make you see that the immigration laws of your country, which are normal for every country with a normal immigration policy, can be called "agnostophobic" , i.e. discriminatiing of agnostic people when in fact they are the same for everybody." As it happens, there are quite a few people here who would accept Zimbarbwe white farmers over Muslim/Sri Lankan asylum seekers. The truth is that Australia is like any country in that there are widely differing viewpoints. Nonetheless, considering that the overwhelming majority of our 'illegal' (a term I hate) immigrants come from Europe, and people are up in arms over a few hundred people that come in leaking boats, it's not really accurate to say that the laws are the same for everybody. "Just as well can you call Germany refusing to admit Turkey into the EU "anti-Islamic" simply disregarding all the reasons behind that attitude." I also stated reasons why you can not discount intolerance. Reasons you have not responded to. "Not all Turks are Muslims as you know." Yes, of course, but the overwhelming majority are. "Interesting what you have to say about the freedom of speech issue: See I talk about my country: here we think holocaust denial is offensive and a cartoon about a person is not. The prophet Muhammad was not God, he was a person and being offended about a cartoon is simply ridiculous." There are many things that one might not find offensive, but one wouldn't say anyway. I don't really find anti-German jokes to be offensive, but I would never tell such a joke in front of you. I also personally consider Holocaust denial to be much more offensive than the Muhammed cartoons, however there are many Muslims who disagree. Whether or not one thinks that something is ridiculous is a little beside the point. "However, any country have their own ways, so if a country bans Muhammad cartoons, let them have laws dealing with that." As I said in my earlier post to you, no society has complete freedom of speech, not even America with its First Ammendment. That's fine with me. What I object to is when you talk about striking a blow for freedom of speech, when the real freedom of speech no-go areas in Germany involve Holocaust Denial, and you completely ignore it. Be inconsistent if you like, everyone is inconsistent, but don't pretend that the editers who republished the cartoons are some of freedom of speech heroes or that you're protecting your freedom of speech. They aren't and you aren't. "What I cannot accept is people rallying in the streets and calling for blood and murder if a Danish cartoonist exercises his right to freedom of speech in full compliance with Danish laws." You don't have to, but republishing the cartoons doesn't prove anything. It doesn't prove that you have freedom of speech. The Danish cartoonist (whose purpose BTW was to provoke) may have been exercising his freedom of speech, but he didn't prove anything. He certainly didn't add anything to intellectual debate. " What I cannot accept is when Mullahs call for murder and hatred and no Muslim community in my country distances itself from these outbursts of hatred and violence. I can not speak for the Muslims communities in Germany. I can simply say none of the Muslims I know support murder. "It's totally beside the point to call for "tolerance" and at the same time call for murdering people who happen to have another point of view!" Well, we are talking about extremists here. I mean, do you really want extremists to set your standards? Plus, the people who call for tolerance are not always the same people murdering people for having a different point of view. " "You said about Salman Rushdie: "It was originally about power (the Ayatollah wanting to gain dominance of the Islamic world), and it was also about a narcissistic writer. There were questions of freedom of speech, yes, but it was selective and ultimately to call it a test of freedom of speech missed the point."" "It's about a religious leader calling for murder - it's not about power, narcissm , it's about cruel bloody murder and there is no excuse. sorry." Did I ever say there was any excuse? Anyway, I stand by what I said. "You said about Theodor van Gogh: "But we are talking about one murder here. Conservatives always point to this, but the reality is that as terrible as it was (and as brutal as it was), it was still one murder. The thing about such murders is that they are deliberately brutal so as to cause fear. But the brutal nature does not increase the threat. It's like with 9/11. That did not change the fact that it's still safer to travel by plane than by car."" "I am not conservative but I happen to think that one murder is one too much to accept" I'm sorry, but that is a bit silly. What do you want me to say? That no, one should accept murder? Come on. The reality is that murders occur. However, when attempting to draw a conclusion from said murders (which is what you did), it does kind of matter how many relevent murders occur. For example, if someone argued that Germans hated Muslims so much that they were willing to murder them, but pointed to just one murder, don't you think that the fact that just one murder occured negates their argument? As I pointed out, it was an incredibly brutal murder (deliberately, so as to enhance the fear), but it does not increase the threat of said murders occuring. " and to say that 9/11 is basically a statistic problem just shows how very double-standard your whole argumentation is!" I don't recall saying that 9/11 was basically a statistic problem. Please, reread what I said. I stated that the fact that 9/11 occured does not change the fact that it's still safer to travel by plane than by car. "You call a whole country "islamophobic" because one politician says something about the height of a minaret" Do you even read what I say? One, I have never called Germany Islamophobic. Two, I referred to more than simply Merkel's comment. There is intolerance, and yes Islamophobia, in Germany. I made several references to that. But I never said that the entire country was Islamophobic. "but at the same time you rationalize hatred killings and terrorism." You mention anger below, well, this makes me angry! When the hell did I ever rationalize hate killings and terrorism? I never did it! READ MY POST! |
Amazon 19.07.2010 10:28 |
"That is exactly the hypocrisy that makes me angry when discussing "religious tolerance" with Muslims:" What hypocricy? Instead of accusing me of nasty things, maybe you could bother reading my posts! Not that it matter BTW, but I'm not Muslim. I'm Jewish. Anyway, I don't really think you should be talking about hypocricy. Puting aside the fact that you completely falsified what I said, you bang on about free speech, but only when it suits you. You say that you wouldn't deny The Holocaust (which is beside the point) because you're not a 'stupid Nazi' yet you think that more newspapers should have republished the cartoons! "they use the freedom and liberal laws of my country against me claiming more "tolerance"" Oh please. Ordinary Muslims are not using freedom and liberal laws against you. As for tolerance, all they want is to be treated as equal members of society. You know, you talk about freedom and tolerance, but you don't show tolerance and you don't show that you know what freedom is. Just so you know, even if you think that the Mohammed cartoons are ridiculous (on which many would disagree), wanting more newspapers to republish them, which proves nothing, does not demonstrate tolerance. " and complaining about discrimination - when in fact they enjoy all the rights in a democracy like anyone else - " So you deny that they suffer from discrimination? Right, whatever you say. "while at the same time they downplay murder, intolerance, terror." Do you not see the difference between ordinary Muslims (many of whom just want to get on with life) and extremists? " I know that not all Muslims are like that but I do not see many Muslim organisations call for peaceful togetherness." I can't speak for German Muslim organisations, however it is certainly true that should look towards individuals rather than organisations. "It's always fingerpointing to the non-Miuslims and I am sick and tired of that." Well, many Muslims would argue that they are sick and tired of being villified and discriminated against. |
*goodco* 19.07.2010 13:55 |
I was disturbed by the near Ground Zero location. And then I read the facts. The place of worship is simply part of the design (thanks for the facts, FAUX News) I feel for the people in Hamtramck, Michigan, whose mosque tolls their bell five times a day. I also feel for my friends south of Kalamazoo, Michigan, who had a Pentacostal building put up in the lot next to their quiet 20 acres, who scream and yell and sing and play the organ up to midnight every day. Then again.....reading history.....the Mormons built a ton of worship buildings in Utah, the Catholics in....., the Methodists in...the Protestants in.............. |
The Real Wizard 19.07.2010 17:28 |
Amazon wrote: "Can't we simply allow all groups to have an equal footing? Including religious groups?" No, never. The more we free ourselves from organized religion, the more society will move forward. As long as people look to ancient scriptures for their morals and beliefs, certain parts of society will remain in the middle ages. There is not a single positive thing that organized religion can do for society today that cannot be accomplished secularly. Organized religion ultimately brings forth divisiveness, and as a result billions of people think they have all the answers, which they don't. If people want to live their lives this way, then great, but this kind of mentality should never be making decisions that affect everybody. "Well, many Muslims would argue that they are sick and tired of being villified and discriminated against." If they continue to associate themselves with islam it's their own fault. They can always choose another spiritual path if they don't like certain things that come to accompany it over time. All the same I have no sympathy for catholics who hate being 'discriminated' against because the church has covered up child molestation for centuries. It's their choice to stay catholic, so they should be prepared to take the heat when it comes. |
Saint Jiub 19.07.2010 18:39 |
Every minority likes to play the "race card" and claim that everyone discriminates against them. Lebron James earns millions for playing basketball, but when the cleveland Cavalier's owner calls Lebron on his obnoxious handling of the free agency circus, Jesse Jackson says Lebron is being treated like a slave. |
YourValentine 20.07.2010 02:26 |
You sum it up perfectly, Mike. I have nothing to add :-) |
Amazon 20.07.2010 02:35 |
Sir GH, we clearly have completely differing viewpoints on morality and religion, and different views on what an ideal society looks like, so I'm not going to respond other than to say that you don't sound so different to some religious fanatics. Especially when you try to rationalize vilification of and discrimination towards Muslims (and Catholics). |
The Real Wizard 20.07.2010 10:58 |
"Rationalizing discrimination"... wow. So we're not allowed to point out the atrocities that people have committed in the name of religion without being accused of discriminating? And I'm an extremist because I refuse to accept the presence of something not proven to exist in the physical world? It is people like you who condemned witches, Galileo, and Darwin in their time. We'd still be in the middle ages if religion got equal footing with secular advancement. Somebody, anybody... please tell me one positive thing that organized religion exclusively can bring or has brought to the world, past or present. I've been waiting all my life to hear some kind of rationalization. If you were the last theist on earth, would your God die with you? Or would he merely languish without a follower for eternity? Once you can realize why 34,000 religions in history (with the possible exception of Deism) have failed to find out the answer to that question, then you can begin to see how absurd most religious people look to the rest of us. |
john bodega 20.07.2010 11:12 |
"Somebody, anybody... please tell me one positive thing that organized religion exclusively can bring or has brought to the world, past or present. " If "personal comfort for a sane majority" is not a positive thing, then what is? You and I find comfort, or solace, or answers, or whatever it is we're after, in different places to religious people. I'm in the Albert Einstein camp, that doesn't need a God because I find the universe sufficiently wonderful and beautiful. I take comfort in the facts and wonders that I know exist already. It's not like that for everyone. Other people (plenty of good people) get what they need from religion. I can't fathom it, but then they usually can't fathom what I consider to be 'the truth' because I get so entangled in the science of it that it starts to sound like spiritualism. Hehe. People always point to religion these days as utterly evil. I put it to you that if it weren't religion being used to take advantage of the masses, it'd be something else. 'The church' is just an institution, and institutions have a tendency to fuck people on a regular basis. I think people like you (well meaning as you are, and I'd agree with a lot of what you say) should rethink exactly what it is you're on the warpath against. An attitude that 'religious belief has never brought anything positive' completely misses the real bones of the matter. The remarkable inability for either side to do something as simple as get along with each other is what makes me want to spit. There is, despite the difference of opinions in this thread, plenty to agree about. |
john bodega 20.07.2010 11:22 |
"So we're not allowed to point out the atrocities that people have committed in the name of religion without being accused of discriminating?" Put it this way - I've never met a religious person that committed an atrocity. People who commit atrocities are users. They use whatever means they can find to get people to do what they want. Whose atrocities are we talking about? The Crusades? The Inquisition? It may have missed your attention but those people were seriously fucked up. If it wasn't God telling them to do what they did, then it would have been something else. It always is. What you and I have got something against is institutions. Plenty of governments have gotten away with atrocities and abuse of human rights without invoking God. Plenty have done it under the banner of religious fervour. As far as I'm concerned it doesn't fucking matter if Atta crashed his plane to the words "Allah akbar" or "fuck Americans". He was a loony, who'd been raised on loony bullshit. Be scientific about this. If one religious person commits murder, whereas the other religious person never lays a hand on anyone in their life, then religion is ultimately not the factor that causes the murder to happen. It can be dressed up to look that way. If you look at someone like Fred Phelps who says "God hates Fags, etc etc etc" it's easy to draw the conclusion that it's a problem based in religion. Ultimately, it isn't. He's been raised a certain way and he's too thick to break the pattern. The issue there is prejudice, not religion. Indoctrination. One can't excuse the acts throughout history that have been perpetrated 'in the name of God' but basically, they're history. That's all. I know that here, today, there are plenty of people who believe in God who are not fucked up. I know a lot of them that would have plenty of reason to get angry at the suggestion that they ARE fucked up, and coincidentally they're usually too good natured to rise to such bullshit. They shake their heads at it, the same way I do. The difference being that I'm comfortable with the idea of life being very finite and the universe being full of nothing but a lot of gas and dust. |
The Real Wizard 20.07.2010 11:29 |
Zebonka12 wrote: "If "personal comfort for a sane majority" is not a positive thing, then what is? You and I find comfort, or solace, or answers, or whatever it is we're after, in different places to religious people." Fair enough. And if there would be no extremism we'd all be fine. I've always said I respect their choices - but there are consequences. We do have extremism, and billions of people effectively support said extremism by not vocally condemning it. It is the average person who lets extremism happen, not only the extremists. "If you look at someone like Fred Phelps who says "God hates Fags, etc etc etc" it's easy to draw the conclusion that it's a problem based in religion. Ultimately, it isn't. He's been raised a certain way and he's too thick to break the pattern. The issue there is prejudice, not religion. Indoctrination." Great example. But here's my two cents - as long as most people are willing to accept the existence of something they can't see, they'll never be able to fully fathom how this same root ideology motivates people like Phelps. They're effectively doing the same thing - Phelps just takes it a step further by going out in the streets. If the majority of the USA realized that their basic mental patterns are no different from his, Phelps' antics wouldn't have a platform to exist. "I put it to you that if it weren't religion being used to take advantage of the masses, it'd be something else." Absolutely. It's the mentality that needs to chance, not the ideology. Mentality is the only thing that keeps ideology alive. |
magicalfreddiemercury 20.07.2010 13:32 |
>> Sir GH wrote: We do have extremism, and billions of people effectively support said extremism by not vocally condemning it. It is the average person who lets extremism happen, not only the extremists. << This is an excellent point, IMO, and one that I feel contributes to anger on all sides. Where there is silence, it's natural to insert one's own thoughts - right or wrong - and wonder if the silence is fear to disagree, ambivalence or outright agreement. And where there is silence, those who are most vocal will receive the most attention, and thereby, the most power. |
The Real Wizard 20.07.2010 14:12 |
magicalfreddiemercury wrote: "And where there is silence, those who are most vocal will receive the most attention, and thereby, the most power." Bingo - the formula for extremism. |
GratefulFan 22.07.2010 00:03 |
magicalfreddiemercury wrote: I do agree the media has, as usual, chosen to spin this in a way that makes the headlines stand out. But I also agree that the Cordoba Initiative has billed this improperly thus creating a unified defense against the entire project. I fear now, wherever they may propose to build, if this option falls through, will be considered improper for one reason or another. They’ve insulted and dismissed the feelings of those they say they want to give back to. There will be no about-face from that. ============================================== Thanks for your thoughts magicalfm. I guess I would just add that the fact that the group is pushing forward is fairly predictable from a human nature standpoint. They've been pulling the idea together for years, and as they appear to feel that the true nature of the project has not been well communicated by the media it's only natural that they don't simply fold. Polling indicated that while 52% of New Yorkers overall object to the project (with 31% approving and the rest undecided), Manhatten itself is 42% in favour, 32% against with the rest undecided. So there is an argument that there is significant relative support in the area that will be most directly impacted by the presence of the centre. Given that, I'm not sure that the raw fact that the group hasn't withdrawn their plans in the face of what is actually a divided public response should really be held too much against them. |
GratefulFan 22.07.2010 00:12 |
Sir GH wrote: If they continue to associate themselves with islam it's their own fault. They can always choose another spiritual path if they don't like certain things that come to accompany it over time. All the same I have no sympathy for catholics who hate being 'discriminated' against because the church has covered up child molestation for centuries. It's their choice to stay catholic, so they should be prepared to take the heat when it comes. ================================= Though I'm not a particularly observant Catholic, I would laugh at anybody who tried to 'discriminate' against me for the criminal actions of a handful of priests who have nothing to do with me, any other Catholic person I know, or any of the dozens of priests I've seen practice over the years. I don't think it's something the average Catholic lives in much fear of. |
magicalfreddiemercury 22.07.2010 07:32 |
>> GratefulFan wrote: Thanks for your thoughts magicalfm. I guess I would just add that the fact that the group is pushing forward is fairly predictable from a human nature standpoint. They've been pulling the idea together for years, and as they appear to feel that the true nature of the project has not been well communicated by the media it's only natural that they don't simply fold. Polling indicated that while 52% of New Yorkers overall object to the project (with 31% approving and the rest undecided), Manhatten itself is 42% in favour, 32% against with the rest undecided. So there is an argument that there is significant relative support in the area that will be most directly impacted by the presence of the centre. Given that, I'm not sure that the raw fact that the group hasn't withdrawn their plans in the face of what is actually a divided public response should really be held too much against them. << I understand what you're saying and in this context, it makes perfect sense, though I have not seen a poll showing a majority for it. That's not to say it isn't true, just that I haven't seen it. Going with that, however, the reactions have been genuine and the organizers have acknowledged 9/11 as the reason for wanting to build this center at this location. They claim sensitivity to views of islam as the reason and say they want to show “the west” that islam is peaceful. I am still confused as to how building a muslim-themed community center at Ground Zero will expose islam as peaceful when it stirs so much negative emotion to do so and they don't address it. And just as an aside… the more the organizers refer to “the west” and islam in one sentence, the more it seems they are not for integrating but rather for further separating the two sides. |
Amazon 22.07.2010 10:04 |
Sir GH wrote: " ""Rationalizing discrimination"... wow." Yes, you are. In that post you say that if Muslims 'continue to associate themselves with Islam it's their own fault.' In previous posts you have said such things as 'so-called 'Islamophobia' is quite justified' (when there is Islamophobia and it certainly can not be justified) and that Muslims who want to change western culture to match their own (when, putting aside the fact there is not really such a thing as western culture, people have the right to attempt to change a culture in a legal and peaceful way) deserve to be villified; complained about Muslims having their own banks (which is like complaining about there being vegatarian restaurants) and have tried to explain away bigots and Islamophobes as simply not liking the ideology (when in fact millions of people have been persecuted and murdered because of their religion). That you would be surprised that I wold accuse you of 'Rationalizing discrimination'? Wow. 'So we're not allowed to point out the atrocities that people have committed in the name of religion without being accused of discriminating?' Two comments. One, you are allowed to do whatever you want, just as I am allowed to respond any way I want. Although I wonder. In your ideal world, in which religion is banned, would believers be able to speak up? At all? Two, you have rationalised discrimination and vilification in this thread (including from your own mouth), and my comment was not about your talking of atrocities committed in the name of religion (you seem to think you're brave for some reason). That aside, yes, atrocities have been committed in the name of religion, but that does not mean that they were caused by religion. Wars have pre-dated religion, and even many religious wars were about power or personal glory or land. Terrorism has traditionally been less about religion than about power. During the 20th century, most of the major genocides and mass murders were not connected to religion. The Holocaust was about religious and racial hatred, but Hitler did not committ his crimes in the name of God. Stalin was essentially a paranoid dictator, just on a grand scale. Mao killed in his interpretation of Socialism, Amin was paranoid, Pol Pot wanted to create a 'worker's paradise', Rwanda was really an ethnic conflict, and Sudan was about power. "And I'm an extremist because I refuse to accept the presence of something not proven to exist in the physical world?" No, you are an extremist because you want to ban all religion. I asked '"Can't we simply allow all groups to have an equal footing? Including religious groups?' which is quite reasonable. You responded with 'No, never' and then went on to attack religion. Well, guess what, you may not like religion (I don't really care), but in a liberal democracy, believers (or whatever you want to call them) have as much right as you to exist, to contribute, to lobby, to run for office, to pray in religious buildings and to go to religious schools. You may not like it, but so what? You can't expect everyone to have the same opinion as you. If you don't like it, well, then don't live in a liberal democracy. It is clear as day that you want to deny me a voice, simply because I believe in God. That makes you an extremist, in the same way that Christian fundamentalists who only accept Christians are extremists. I wouldn't want to live in a theocracy, and I wouldn't want to live in your version of paradise. "You're not a murderer, but let's say you supported Mark David Chapman's decision because you don't like The Beatles. Would you then condemn me for suggesting you support the idea of murdering rock stars? This is no different from choosing to remain with a religious ideology that has led to death." This analogy doesn't make all that much sense. If believers are represented by Chapman, do The Beatles represent other believers or non-believers? Anyway, other than bigots and extremists, I have never expressed dislike of any group. It is not me, on these pages, who has expressed open contempt and in some cases dislike of those with a different viewpoint on God's existence. Nonetheless, the idea that that I 'choose to remain with a religious ideology that has led to death' is absurd and offensive. Just so you know, people who kill in the name of religion are extremists. Abortion clinic bombers, the Jews in the Occupied Territories, Islamic suicide bombers, the Hindu fundamentalists in India; they do not represent the religion, and they are perverting the religious ideology. Do you think that as a Jew, I take pride in everything that Israel does? Of course not. Some of her actions have horrified and saddened me. There are numerous Jews in Israel, as well as in Australia and other countries, who make me embarassed that I share their religion. Similarly, the Muslims that I know are not represented by the terrorists, the Catholics that I know are furious at the handling of the sex abuse allegations, and the Hindus that I've met are incredibly tolerant towards Muslims and non-Hindus. The religious ideology that they, and I, follow has not led to death. It has been hijacked by extremists who took their twisted interpretation to death. "It is people like you who condemned witches, Galileo, and Darwin in their time." People like me? Such a nice guy. Firstly, you don't know me. Secondly, it's comments like this that reveal what a fool and athiest fundamentalist you truly are. You do realise that not all religious people are the same? Believers don't all look the same, and we don't all believe the same things. You have such a black-hat view of the world, it's not funny. "We'd still be in the middle ages if religion got equal footing with secular advancement." Oh please. While nobody can deny the wonders of secular advancement, you can not deny the various inventions/discoveries which were created by believers and religious people (for example, the Muslims who made advancements in math and science were believers), and nor can you deny the art that was inspired by religion and was created by believers (for example the Sistine Chappel). Religious institutions have been disappointing. The Catholic Church for example has been an embarassment, no doubt, and I have no time for them (especially as a Jew), but you seem to believe that as an athiest, you are intellectually superior to those deluded believers. Well, you aren't. "Somebody, anybody... please tell me one positive thing that organized religion exclusively can bring or has brought to the world, past or present. I've been waiting all my life to hear some kind of rationalization." Religion is not something where you write down the pros and cons, and if there are more pros, you will be pro-religion. Religion can not be ralionalized in such a way. People are attracted to religion for different reasons. For some, it's about joy, for others it is about inner peace, for others it is about a connection to others, for others it may be the pleasure to worship God with others, and for others it's something else. Regarding what religion has given the world; among other things, it has delivered a moral code to society and gave a set of laws to societies which previously did not have a rule of law, or at least did not have one as we know it. |
Amazon 22.07.2010 10:05 |
"If you were the last religious person on earth, would God die with you? Or would he merely languish without a follower for eternity?" Well, I don't consider God to have a gender, and I happen to believe that God is eternal. In Judaism, God is often referred to as the Eternal. "Once you can realize why 34,000 religions in history have failed to find out the answer to that question" One problem. That question isn't particularly important. It may be that '34,000 religions in history have failed to find out the answer to that question' but for most religions, it simply isn't that important a question. It certainly isn't important to me, or the other religious people I know. "then you can begin to see how absurd religious people look to the rest of us." To be honest, I couldn't care less whether you think I look absurd or not. I don't determine my morality, curiosity, intellect, or anything else based on you. In your response to Zebronka, you say that you respect people's choices. If you truly believe that, then you must respect the right of religious people and believers to operate as equal members of society. Otherwise, you are just as bad as the religious extremists you criticise, and you yourself are also an extremist. |
The Real Wizard 23.07.2010 18:47 |
GratefulFan wrote: "Though I'm not a particularly observant Catholic, I would laugh at anybody who tried to 'discriminate' against me for the criminal actions of a handful of priests who have nothing to do with me" Anyone who chooses to support an institution that systematically covers up the sexual abuse of children is part of the problem. If parents and their kids wouldn't go to that church, the religion would collapse and the abuse would be over instantly. Right now that seems to be the only way, as the church officials have made it painfully clear that they're more interested in their reputation and power than the well-being of those affected (as well as those who will be affected in the future, as it's not going to stop any time soon). Everyone in the civilized world is aware of this problem, and millions of parents still take their kids to church every week. Therefore it's the parents' fault as much as the church's because they choose not to take an alternate path through life. What is their silence achieving? Do they not realize that their kids or nephews might be next? And when it happens, some of these parents accuse their kids of making up stories because they're too closed-minded to see past their view that their religion is flawless. Sadly that still happens, a lot. |
The Real Wizard 23.07.2010 19:11 |
Amazon wrote: "In your ideal world, in which religion is banned" Where did I state that I'd like religion to be banned? Did I state somewhere that all evil is exclusively religious and that the world would be better in every way if it were banned? "Secondly, it's comments like this that reveal what a fool and athiest fundamentalist you truly are." And where did I state that I'm an atheist? The fact that I'm not a theist doesn't automatically make me an atheist (now who's seeing things black and white?). "the Muslims who made advancements in math and science were believers" Fair point. I didn't state that all advancement was exclusively secular, but the overwhelming majority of it was, especially when it mattered most, in the 17th century. "You do realise that not all religious people are the same? Believers don't all look the same, and we don't all believe the same things. You have such a black-hat view of the world, it's not funny." Please don't patronize me. I realize the plurality and complexity of beliefs and lifestyles in the world of theism. My point is that it's people who vociferously demand the right for their religious views to exist alongside secular advancement are blockading the advancement of the world in the interest of keeping outdated views alive. The viewpoints of the people who condemned witches, Galileo, and Darwin in their time are the same as those who condemn Sam Harris, Nicholas Sarkozy, and stem cell researchers today. The base mentality - acceptance of propositions on belief without evidence or regard to ramifications - remains the same. Canada has moved far backwards in many ways over the last four years because of our conservative party's views - some religiously-based and others not. For example, earlier this year they cut off funds for abortions in third world countries - something we had paid into for decades. As a result, thousands upon thousands of women are going to go to an alley and get a botched abortion job. This is one of countless reasons why having religious people in power can be incredibly dangerous. So, according to your definition of extremism, I guess I'm an extremist because I believe that mentality derived from 1 to 3 thousand year old writings should have no place in modern society. If it wasn't for secular advancement we'd still believe that the earth is the centre of the universe and that illnesses are caused by demons. |
Amazon 23.07.2010 23:53 |
Sir GH wrote: "Amazon wrote:"In your ideal world, in which religion is banned" "Where did I state that I'd like religion to be banned?" You don't have to state it. You implied it. When you stated 'No, never' to my comment about religious groups having an equal footing. There have been numerous other comments as well. It's pretty obvious what you think. "Did I state somewhere that all evil is exclusively religious" No, of course not. But you stated plenty of select/debatable examples about religious evil. I can only go by what you write. Instead of playing with words, as you do all the time (you should be a lawyer), why don't you play it straight for once? If I misinterpret you, then explain why, but don't play these word games. "and that the world would be better in every way if it were banned?" Another word game. Sigh. You never said that the world would be better in every way, but you did say it would be better! Are you so unsure of your views that you can only play these silly word games? You have done it on numerous threads. "And where did I state that I'm an atheist? The fact that I'm not a theist doesn't automatically make me an atheist" I wasn't aware that athiest was a dirty word. If you absolutely don't believe in God, that would probably make you an athiest. You certainly haven't given any indication that you're a believer. If you are a believer, or are unsure of God's existence, then the best I can say about you is that you've been intellectually dishonest. If you don't believe in God, then this is just pedantic and another example of your playing word games. "(now who's seeing things black and white?)." Oh, please. You are the last person to tell anyone that they are seeing things in a black and white way! "Fair point. I didn't state that all advancement was exclusively secular, but the overwhelming majority of it was, especially when it mattered most, in the 17th century." Perhaps you're right. "Please don't patronize me." Reminding you that not all believers are the same is patronizing? Well, then don't make nonsencical black + white statements; and don't tell me 'It is people like you...' which is incredibly offensive. It can hardly shock you if such statements are met with responses you don't like! BTW, I find it amusing how you constantly make incredibly offensive statements, yet you don't want to be patronised! Develop a thicker skin or stop being hypocritical. "My point is that it's people who vociferously demand the right for their religious views to exist alongside secular advancement are blockading the advancement of the world in the interest of keeping outdated views alive." In a liberal democracratic world, there will always be people who vociferously demand things. They will not all be religious, but regardless, they do have the right. "The viewpoints of the people who condemned witches, Galileo, and Darwin in their time are the same as those who condemn Sam Harris, Nicholas Sarkozy, and stem cell researchers today." Let me get this straight? You are putting Sarkozy and Harris in the same category as stem cell researchers and Galileo, Darwin and witches? That is absurd. It is ridiculous. It is a joke. It is also a joke to say that you 'realize the plurality and complexity of beliefs and lifestyles in the world of theism.' You don't. You are even more of an athiest (or non-theorist) extremists fundamentalist than I had thought! I do condemn Sarkozy, and I do so unashamedly. He is a hypocritical, illiberal and repulsive bigot. Those who criticise him (such as myself) are not 'blockading the advancement of the world in the interest of keeping outdated views alive' and those who defend him are not defenders of rationality. While I have no desire to discuss the burqa and Islamic clothing with you again (we have different views and are unlikely to change our minds), I will simply say that I think that Sarkozy is disgusting and I will condemn any politician who tries to ban the burqa in a liberal democracy. Comparing him to stem cell researchers, Galileo, Darwin and witches is so nonsencical that it's not funny. For someone who claims to be so rational, you come up with some irrational statements and this is one of the biggest. It's also incredibly offensive to say that if one condemns this irrelevent and bigoted French president, they are against stem cell research and are the same as those who condemned Galileo, Darwin and witches. Witches weren't satanic; Galileo and Darwin were among the greatest scientists of all time; stem cell research can cure disease. Sarkozy? He's banned the burqa! It is statements such as this that convince me that you have an absolutist view of religion. If you did not, you wouldn't make such offensive and absurd assertions that anybody who attacks your hero Sarkozy are fundamentalists and extremists!!! Just so you know, plenty of non-believers dislike Sarkozy as well. They do so because of his illiberal, anti-Islamic policies. It is allowed to criticise or attack Sarkozy, you know. Believers also have freedom of speech, and criticising or attacking Sarkozy does not mean that one is the witch burning, anti-science/rationality religious monster under your bed. You also mentioned Sam Harris. The absurdity continues. Harris (whom I'm no expert on but I do know enough about him to comment) is a philosopher who has made some incredibly offensive and nonsensical statements about Islam. So if someone criticises him, that's like going after stem cell researchers etc....! Not only is this hypocritical (Harris has criticised religion, but believers can't criticise him?), but he is insignificant. Whether one loves or hates him, he isn't exactly all that important and is unlikely to be remembered decades after his death. By comparing him to Galileo and Darwin etc..., you are doing four things. 1)You are devaluing the contributions made by Darwin and Galileo, as well as stem cell researchers. In fact, I think that witches would be insulted to be compared to him, but that's beside the point. 2)You are implying that you think that while it is okay for people to criticise religion, it is not okay for religious critics to be criticised. I had suspected as much following your other statements, such as that you don't believe that religious groups should be equal members of society, that you believe this. This confirms my suspicion regarding your hypocritical and intolerant views on freedom of speech. 3)You are perpetruating your black+white view of the world, where any person who criticises or attacks someone you admire (whether it be Harris or Sarkozy, and probably Dawkins and Hitchens, both of whom I loath), are basically anti-rational fundamentalist extremists who condone burning of witches and are enemies of science. 4)You are showing that irrationality is not limited to believers. "The base mentality - acceptance of propositions on belief without evidence or regard to ramifications - remains the same." Oh please. This is simply not true. Believers don't have 'acceptance of propositions on belief without evidence or regard to ramifications.' We believe in something which can neither be proven nor disproven, and which is beyond evidence, and as for the ramifications; we believe that God exists. Simple as that. |
Amazon 23.07.2010 23:54 |
"Canada has moved far backwards in many ways over the last four years because of our conservative party's views - some religiously-based and others not. For example, earlier this year they cut off funds for abortions in third world countries - something we had paid into for decades. As a result, thousands upon thousands of women are going to go to an alley and get a botched abortion job. This is one of countless reasons why having religious people in power can be incredibly dangerous." Do you realise that you can vote them out? Do you also realise that they have a right to run for office. I'm pro-choice and I believe in providing abortions in third world countries, where abortion is legal of course, but that does not change the fact that pro-lifers (or as I like to call them anti-choicers) have a right to run for office. Unless you are suggesting that religious people should be prevented from running for office? Now that would be dangerous, and considering your views, unsurprising. BTW, you do realise that not all religious people have the same views? "So, according to your definition of extremism, I guess I'm an extremist because I believe that mentality derived from 1 to 3 thousand year old writings should have no place in modern society. If it wasn't for secular advancement we'd still believe that the earth is the centre of the universe and that illnesses are caused by demons." So as well as playing word games, you don't read my posts? I will simply quote you an answer from one of my previous posts: 'No, you are an extremist because you want to ban all religion. I asked '"Can't we simply allow all groups to have an equal footing? Including religious groups?' which is quite reasonable. You responded with 'No, never' and then went on to attack religion. Well, guess what, you may not like religion (I don't really care), but in a liberal democracy, believers (or whatever you want to call them) have as much right as you to exist, to contribute, to lobby, to run for office, to pray in religious buildings and to go to religious schools. You may not like it, but so what? You can't expect everyone to have the same opinion as you. If you don't like it, well, then don't live in a liberal democracy. It is clear as day that you want to deny me a voice, simply because I believe in God. That makes you an extremist, in the same way that Christian fundamentalists who only accept Christians are extremists. I wouldn't want to live in a theocracy, and I wouldn't want to live in your version of paradise.' One final comment. You ask if you are an extremist because you "believe that mentality derived from 1 to 3 thousand year old writings should have no place in modern society"? Yes, you are. In a modern society, people of numerous different mentalities have the right to exist, including those 'derived from 1 to 3 thousand year old writings'. Unless someone is breaking the law, they can believe whatever they want. Similarly to religious fundamentalists, you are convinced that your way is the right way, and you refuse to acknowledge that your way is not the right way for everyone. You are not morally or intellectually superior, and simply because you disagree with religious people or believers does not make them objectively wrong or you objectively right. I wonder, if you got your way, would you ban religion and religious people from exercising democratic rights? I strongly suspect you would and that is why you are an extremist. As I said before; I wouldn't want to live in a theocracy and I wouldn't want to live in your version of paradise either. |
YourValentine 24.07.2010 02:39 |
I think this discussion has taken a turn to the weird :-) Of course everybody can exercise their religion as they please. Of course the overwhelming majority of religious people are decent, normal people who derive their ethics from their religion. It's the organized churches who cause the trouble. If you look at the Catholic church, for example: the members do not have a say in the church, it's all about centralized power from Rome. Why are there so many cases of abuse within the church? It's because of the inhuman sexual morality, the celibacy and the denial of healthy normal sexual relationships. Since the organisation of the church is so undemocratic, hundreds of thousand of people have been leaving in the last years. Unfortunately, the people who leave are the ones who fought for modernization and renewal of the church structures. The church gets more undemocratic and more outdated. This is not about belief, it's not about "did God create the world in 7 days" etc - it's about a multi-million organisation led by an 80 year old man who does not feel the love for the victims of his sexually frustrated and power-maniac priests! Does that say anything about Jesus? No! Does it mean we have to address the issue? certainly yes. This church has power and money and a say in society and we as a society must end this abuse. Let us take a look at the Islam. Of course there are millions of Muslims who are decent people not wishing anything bad to their neighbours. Nobody has a problem with a pious Muslim. It's the mullahs in the mosques who preach hatred and murder and that women have no rights and can be stoned to death when they are accused of adultery. It's the mullahs who preach the jihad and want the sharia introduced in any country where Muslims live (not all mullahs, I know that!). As a society we have to counter such teachings, we have to insist on our democratic and liberal rights. No woman in a democracy should fear for her life because she refuses to marry her cousin from Anatolia. No woman should be forced to hide her face in public, to stay at home being denied a decent education and to exercise her rights as an equal person. It's not tolerant to allow a hateful organisation to act as they please. No religion can be the excuse for murder and suppression. No religious organisation who has no democratic legitimacy can rule into a modern society. |
The Real Wizard 24.07.2010 23:04 |
Amazon wrote: "Let me get this straight? You are putting Sarkozy and Harris in the same category as stem cell researchers and Galileo, Darwin and witches? That is absurd." I'm not comparing the people per se, but rather the mentality being used to attack progressive minds then and now. Sarkozy is one of the first people in political power to speak up against the burqa, which is far more than just a piece of clothing. Most people in his country see it as a medieval chastity belt imposed on women. Pleasing the majority is democracy at work. Immigrating does not grant one the right to impose their ways on people who have been there for generations or longer. The arrogance and sense of entitlement these people have is bewildering, especially since they left their country for a reason. Sarkozy is far from perfect, but he is right on the money with this one. As for Sam Harris, he is simply one of the greatest minds of this generation. It will take decades, if not centuries, until the average person understands how relevant and vital his thoughts are for the human race. Historically, those with the greatest minds weren't fully understood during their time, and Sam Harris is no different. The faithful vilify him now, the same way they vilified Darwin. It's easier to attack the alternative than to listen to it. >Believers don't have 'acceptance of propositions on belief without evidence or regard to ramifications.' We believe in something which can neither be proven nor disproven, and which is beyond evidence You are obviously not a historian or a scientist. A proposition has two possible states - true or untrue. It is untrue by default until it is proven to be true. At best, "possibly true" equates to potential, but tangibly it is as good as false. Possibilities that cannot be supported with evidence are eliminated to narrow down to the truth, should it exist. The boogie man, the loch ness monster, and humpty dumpty all might exist too, but until we find them, they don't exist. The same goes for any metaphysical being that may reside above, among, or below us. >and as for the ramifications; we believe that God exists. Simple as that. Belief comes first, and ramifications come second. You don't see a problem with this.. ? I do not play word games. I am simply selective with my choice of words out of respect for possibilities, never using the words "all" or "always" to describe things that are "most", "many", "usually", or "often". Please stop putting words in my mouth. I have not outlined my vision of paradise, or even stated that I may have one. You dislike my point of view and have assembled a label for my beliefs, which you actually don't even know of. I am not an atheist. I am simply not a theist. There is vast middle ground between the two positions. Your inability to see this distinction is what is hampering this discussion. |
Treasure Moment 25.07.2010 02:39 |
the elite are smart, they divide stupid retarded people by religion, race, class, the people are too fucking stupid to realize that 9/11 was an inside job and that the government gained A LOT from it. Building a mosque is just to keep up the separation and conflict between people so they can further their agenda, people are so damn stupid they dont get this. |
Amazon 25.07.2010 03:24 |
Sir GH wrote: "I'm not comparing the people per se, but rather the mentality being used to attack progressive minds then and now." Except you are comparing them. You are saying that if anyone attacks Harris and Sarkozy, they are the same as those who attack Galieo, Darwin and stem cell researchers. It is absurd, offensive and completely ignorant. "Sarkozy is one of the first people in political power to speak up against the burqa, which is far more than just a piece of clothing." Yes, but whether it's negative or positive is subjective. He is trying to protect women's rights, by taking women's rights "Most people in his country see as a medieval chastity belt imposed on women." Perhaps, but it doesn't mean I have to agree with them. It also doesn't mean that I have to regard France as a liberal democracy or as tolerant. "Pleasing the majority is democracy at work." Perhaps, but that does not mean he should be admired. You seem to believe that simply because a politician makes a decision which is popular with most of the population, it is always the right decision. It is good to admire democracy, but you take it to absurd lengths. BTW, is is also democracy at work if a conservative/relgious party gets into power and they do things you don't like? "If people new to a country don't like the established ways, then they can go back home if the old country's values are what are dear to them. The arrogance and sense of entitlement these people have is bewildering, especially since they left their country for a reason." Oh please. This is rubbish. People who come to a country have EVERY RIGHT to attempt to change or challenge the established ways as long as they do so in a legal and peaceful manner, regardless of how long they've been there. There is no sense of entitlement. They are simply exercising their rights. I also love it how you call these people arrogant. That's like a lion attacking another animal for eating meat. "Sarkozy is far from perfect, but he is right on the money with this one." I disagree. I think he is as wrong as one can get. Oh, but that's right. You said he is right, so he must be. I forgot that only your opinion counts. "As for Sam Harris, he is simply one of the greatest minds of this generation." Are you serious? In what possible world, in what possible universe, can he be regarded as a great mind?!!! "It will take decades, if not centuries, until the average person understands how important his thoughts and propositions are for the human race." Do you realise how incredibly arrogant you sound like? Those who criticise or attack him are the 'average person' as they don't understand 'how important his thoughts and propositions are for the human race.' This is a joke. Contrary to what you might imagine, you are not a great mind, and you are not in a special position to judge whether Harris is a great mind or not. Personally, I think it's absurd to call Harris a great mind (or even a good mind). You disagree, fine, but do not mistakenly believe that those who criticise him have average minds or do not understand how (un)important he is. We understand just fine. Congratulations though. You would make an excellent lawyer. You made the topic of discussion about whether Sarkozy and Harris are admirable, instead of what it actually is. You are a black/white hat extremist who believes that not only should religious people and believers be denied democratic rights, but they should also be denied the right to criticise/attack your heroes; who themselves criticise/attack religious people and belivers. I am so delighted that you have no power. "Most great philosophers aren't fully understood during their time" Perhaps, but your post did not mention a great philosopher, or even a good one. "and Sam Harris is one of them." No, he certainly is not. If you believe that, you are clearly not a philosopher. "The faithful vilify him now, the same way they vilified Darwin." You are so hypocritical, extremist, arroganrt and ignorant, it's not funny. People who vilified Darwin did so because they didn't recognise his significance. Those who vilify Harris do so because we simply do not believe that he is great. At all! Just because Harris is one of your heroes, does not mean that those who criticise or attack him are unenlightened anti-science/rationality religious fundamentalists. Here's a tip. You are nowhere near as enlightened as you imagine yourself to be, and you are not the moral or intellectual giant your imagine yourself to be either! "It's easier to attack the alternative rather than listen to it.." So let me get this straight. If someone has attacked Harris, it must be because they did not listen to him? It can't be because they listened to him and weren't impressed. You need to learn about logic and consistency. ">Believers don't have 'acceptance of propositions on belief without evidence or regard to ramifications.' We believe in something which can neither be proven nor disproven, and which is beyond evidence" "You are obviously not a historian or a scientist." Actually I have a degree in history. What's your point? Religious belief can not be treated the same way as a scientist and a historian would treat their work. "A proposition is untrue by default until it is proven to be true." Not in the case of belief in God, which is beyond evidence. "Possibilities that cannot be supported with evidence are eliminated to narrow down to truth." Again, you can not treat religious belief scientifically. "The boogie man, the loch ness monster, and humpty dumpty all might exist too." Well, since Humpty Dumpty came from a nursery rhyme, I doubt it. The Bogeyman is more about fear, so really if something/someone has caused great fear, they may be referred to as the Bogeyman. As for the Loch Ness Monster, I don't know and I don't care. "Until we find them, they don't exist." Are you serious? Are you really a scientist? We recently discovered new planets. I guess they only existed once we found them. "The same goes for any metaphysical being that may reside above, among, or below us." As I have said numerous times, you can not treat God scientifically. You either believe in God. Or not (or you are not sure). "Belief comes first, and ramifications come second. You don't see a problem with this.. ?" No. I don't think to myself; 'what are the ramifications of believing in God or not?' |
Amazon 25.07.2010 03:38 |
"I do not play word games. I am simply selective with my choice of words, never using the words "all" or "always" to describe things that are "most", "many", "usually", or "often"." You do play word games. I could provide you with numerous examples, but I will give you just one. You listed all the atrocities that religion was (alledgedly) responsible for, but then demanded to know whether you had said religion was responsible for all evil?! In most of your posts to me, you play word games and you don't play it straight. "Please stop putting words in my mouth. I have not outlined my vision of paradise, or even stated that I may have one." I am not putting any words in your mouth. I am only going by what you say; and that is you want to ban the burqa, want to ban Muslim banks, want to stop religious people from exercising their democratic rights, want to take away freedom of speech from believers, want to remove relgious groups from society and you believe that if believers get discriminated against or vilifed, they have it coming. That is not the kind of society I want to live in (BTW, when I referred to paradise, I wasn't being literal.) "You dislike my point of view and have assembled a label for my beliefs, which you actually don't even know of." Yes, I dislike your view, because of the arrogance and extremism of it. But I don't call you an athiest for that reason. While I hate Hitchens and Dawkins, I have nothing against athiests per se. I simply called you an athiest because you are not a believer. It's not a big deal. BTW, you say that I don't even know of your beliefs. So you don't believe any of the stuff you say? "I am not an atheist. I am simply not a theist. There is vast middle ground between the two positions." Good for you. Interesting that yiu say there is middle ground between the two positions, yet you have a white/black hat view regarding believers. "Your inability to see this distinction is what is hampering this discussion." LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! No, Sir GH; what is hampering this discussion is your extremism, arrogance, lack of humility, black/white hat views and your word games. |
The Real Wizard 25.07.2010 03:40 |
Amazon wrote: "BTW, is is also democracy at work if a conservative/relgious party gets into power and they do things you don't like?" Absolutely. If the majority are on board, then it's fair game. "Not in the case of belief in God, which is beyond evidence." No, you choose to believe that, and label the concept as being beyond evidence out of convenience because that is the only way you can attach some kind of credibility to it. "We recently discovered new planets. I guess they only existed once we found them." Ah, now we're getting into the philosophy of what exists. If a tree falls in the forest and there's nobody there to hear it... etc. But seriously, you cannot equate discovering tangible planets with an intangible concept which cannot be discovered. "Interesting that yiu say there is middle ground between the two positions, yet you have a white/black hat view regarding believers." So exactly how many monotheistic people don't accept propositions they can't prove to be true? Stop with the "religion is beyond evidence" game. Anything and everything can be scrutinized by those who want to do it. Nothing can stop them. Monotheism is the acceptance of a single higher being, full stop. The core belief is the same in every monotheistic person. How they apply it to their lives can vary. This is not a black and white "view". It is a statement of basic fact, not opinion. "I simply called you an athiest because you are not a believer. It's not a big deal." It absolutely is. Just because I do not worship the deity that you choose to worship does not make me a non-believer. First you chose to label me as an atheist, and now I'm an "unbeliever", stated with an obviously derogatory tone. Your unwavering attachment to monotheism and inability to see other possibilities foreign to your choices has led you to label me yet again. I'm done with this. |
Amazon 25.07.2010 04:03 |
Sir GH wrote: "Absolutely. If the majority are on board, then it's fair game." Yet you don't want religious groups to be treated as equal members of society, and you think it's 'extremely dangerous' having religious people in power. Forgive me if I don't believe you. "No, you choose to believe that, and label the concept as being beyond evidence out of convenience because that is the only way you can attach some kind of credibility to it." No, because it is beyond evidence. I don't need to attach credibility to it, it has it. You just can't acknowledge or recognise that that one can't produce a scientific approach to God and religion. "Ah, now we're getting into the philosophy of what exists. If a tree falls in the forest and there's nobody there to hear it... etc. But seriously, you cannot equate discovering tangible planets with an intangible concept which cannot be discovered." You're the one who said 'Until we find them, they don't exist.' Just because you say something silly, don't blame me or try to deflect it. "Interesting that you say there is middle ground between the two positions, yet you have a white/black hat view regarding believers." "So exactly how many monotheistic people don't accept propositions they can't prove to be true?" What's with this double negative? It does not matter how many monotheistic people do it; religious people and believers still come in all shapes and sizes. Which does not fit in with your view of believers/religous people. "Stop with the "religion is beyond evidence" game. Anything and everything can be scrutinized by those who want to do it. Nothing can stop them." It's not a game (you're accusing me of playing games?). It simply is the way it is. If you want to take a scientific approach to everything, religion is not for you. " Monotheism is the acceptance of a single higher being, full stop. The core belief is the same in every monotheistic person." Well, not quite. There are differing views on God godself, you know. "How they apply it to their lives can vary." Yes, that's right. "You are not a believer." "In a theistic God, no. But in other things, yes." Good for you, but we are discussing a theistic God here. "Your unwavering attachment to theism has led you to label me yet again." My unwavering attachment to theism? Not quite, but in the context of this discussion, I'm fine if you believe that. BTW, if you don't like being labelled, then don't generalise about all religious people and say crap like "it's people like you.." "I'm done with this." Great to hear. EDIT: I see that you edited your post. Rather than edit my post, I will simply say: 1)I couldn't care less whether you're an athiest, non-believer, non-theorist or whatever you call yourself. Unlike you, I am tolerant and accepting of those with a different view on God's existence. 2)You do have a a 'black and white "view"'. The fact that you contast those who criticise your hero Harris with those who criticised Darwin proves it. 3)"inability to see other possibilities foreign to your choices." You should look in the mirror before you say such laughably hypocritical nonsence. That sentence sums up you in a nutshell. I'm done here. |
Donna13 25.07.2010 10:28 |
All of us are still learning, no matter our age or educational background. I've never heard of Sam Harris. Ha. I think it is best to keep an open, curious mind. If a person thinks that the worst thing that can happen to them is losing a point in an argument, then they need to readjust their ego. There is nothing wrong in admitting that we are wrong or may not be completely correct on every point. I once had a nice conversation with a retired teacher. He told me that what he thought set him apart from other teachers was that he wasn't afraid to admit when he didn't know something. He said this sort of thing would have embarrassed other teachers. But "I don't know" is such a decent thing to admit. Even if you are an expert on your particular subject, there are always more and more questions to be asked; things that are still unknown. I also had a memorable conversation with a young lawyer who told me that she never admitted ignorance on any point when meeting with clients. Ha ha. She thought they would lose confidence in her legal opinions if she did so. |
magicalfreddiemercury 25.07.2010 11:03 |
>>> Donna13 wrote: All of us are still learning, no matter our age or educational background. I've never heard of Sam Harris. Ha. I think it is best to keep an open, curious mind. If a person thinks that the worst thing that can happen to them is losing a point in an argument, then they need to readjust their ego. There is nothing wrong in admitting that we are wrong or may not be completely correct on every point. I once had a nice conversation with a retired teacher. He told me that what he thought set him apart from other teachers was that he wasn't afraid to admit when he didn't know something. He said this sort of thing would have embarrassed other teachers. But "I don't know" is such a decent thing to admit. Even if you are an expert on your particular subject, there are always more and more questions to be asked; things that are still unknown. I also had a memorable conversation with a young lawyer who told me that she never admitted ignorance on any point when meeting with clients. Ha ha. She thought they would lose confidence in her legal opinions if she did so. <<< Excellent points, Donna. There’s a line from a song in Yentl that I think sums this up – “The more I live, the more I learn, the more I learn, the more I realize the less I know.” In all, I think this has been a great discussion because completely opposing views were expressed and debated. I doubt anyone’s opinion has shifted, in fact, I’m guessing a few have been reinforced. Ultimately, the building – or not – of this mosque will be determined by a small committee whose sole purpose is to determine the historical merit of the building in question. The emotional and political issues won’t (or shouldn’t) come into play, but they will most certainly linger. |
The Real Wizard 25.07.2010 11:18 |
Amazon wrote: "you think it's 'extremely dangerous' having religious people in power." Not if the majority are in favour of it. Such a society wouldn't be dangerous to them, so they're entitled to it. "I am tolerant and accepting of those with a different view on God's existence." But obviously not those who don't believe in your chosen interpretation of God, with statements like this: "I couldn't care less whether you're an athiest, non-believer, non-theorist or whatever you call yourself." It's incredible, really, the irony that you call me arrogant, yet you make comments like this while thinking your beliefs are above scrutiny. I'm not playing any games - I simply am able to defend what I believe and I have a fair understanding of what many others believe. Deism, buddhism, bahai, jainism - a small list of possibilities of what I may believe in. Or I may even be a combination of some or all of these things. You've demonstrated that your view of the scope of spirituality is incredibly finite. All you see is monotheism and absence of belief but nothing in between, thereby labeling all non-monotheism as non-belief. The intolerance and resistance of dialogue therefore begins with you, not me. Great post, Donna. |
Amazon 25.07.2010 14:03 |
Sir GH wrote: "Not if the majority are in favour of it. Such a society wouldn't be dangerous to them, so they're entitled to it." Right. So religious people simply can't exercise their democratic rights in a secular society, is that it? "I am tolerant and accepting of those with a different view on God's existence." "But obviously not those who don't believe in your chosen interpretation of God, with statements like this: "I couldn't care less whether you're an athiest, non-believer, non-theorist or whatever you call yourself." " What's wrong with that statement? All it means is that whether you believe in God or not does not concern me. If you want to read something into that statement, it's your choice, but considering everything you've said about those with a different view to you, you shouldn't throw stones in glass houses. Was I as polite as I could have been? No, but then, considering everything you've said, I don't owe you politeness. I'm through being diplomatic with you. Just because you have a thin (and hypocritcal) skin is not my problem. "It's incredible, really, the irony that you call me arrogant," There is nothing incredible or ironic about it. You are the epitome of arrogance. I don't think you understand the meaning of the word humility. "yet you make comments like this" Explain to me what is so arrogant about telling someone that I couldn't care less about their beliefs? It may be impolite, and brutally honest, but arrogant? You're clutching at straws. "while thinking your beliefs are above scrutiny." No, it's simply that like all religious beliefs, you can't take a scientific approach to them. How many times do I have to repeat that? "I'm not playing any games - I simply am able to defend what I believe" Right, and pigs can fly. You absolutely do play games. As for defending what you believe, well, I wonder if you are just being intellectually dishonest. Either that, or you are playing one of your games. "and I have a fair understanding of what many others believe." Right, whatever you say. "Deism, buddhism, bahai, jainism - a small list of possibilities of what I may believe in. Or I may even be a combination of some or all of these things." Good for you, except here's the thing. We were talking about a theistic God and religious people (presumably those of organised religion.) If you do not believe in a theistic God, then it does not matter what you believe (as opposed to what you don't believe) since we weren't discussing God in general. If you do believe in a theistic God, then you're intellectually dishonest and having a 'discussion' with you was a waste of time. Keep in mind that it was you who originated the discussion, and you had plenty of opportunities to shift the focus of the discussion. "You've demonstrated that your view of the scope of spirituality is incredibly finite." LOL. No, on the contrary. Considering my background, my view of the scope of spirituality is almost certainly wider than yours, but that's not the point. I can only go by what we are discussing, and we are NOT discussing the 'scope of spirituality'! BTW, I find it amusing that you, with your black/white hat view of religious people, would tell anyone that their 'view of the scope of spirituality is incredibly finite.' But then, why aren't I surprised? Consistency is not one of your strengths. "All you see is monotheism and absence of belief but nothing in between, thereby labeling all non-monotheism as non-belief." Again, I can only go by what you say. Considering how you've constantly ridiculed those who believe in God, and have essentially stated multiple times that you don't believe that God exists, it is not unreasonable to presume that you don't believe in God! But this is not the point, and yet again you playing a game. You are retrospectively (because it suits your interests) attempting to change the nature of the discussion. It won't work. "The intolerance and resistance of dialogue therefore begins with you, not me." Yeh, and green pigs can fly. Sorry, but that is crap. I've been perfectly happy to discuss, you've just been playing games and have retrospectively attempted to change the nature of what we were discussing. You don't play it straight, and you turn a discussion with you into an obstacle course. As for intolerance, you are the last person on earth to accuse anyone of intolerance. |
GratefulFan 26.07.2010 01:13 |
Sir GH wrote: GratefulFan wrote: Anyone who chooses to support an institution that systematically covers up the sexual abuse of children is part of the problem. If parents and their kids wouldn't go to that church, the religion would collapse and the abuse would be over instantly. Right now that seems to be the only way, as the church officials have made it painfully clear that they're more interested in their reputation and power than the well-being of those affected (as well as those who will be affected in the future, as it's not going to stop any time soon). Everyone in the civilized world is aware of this problem, and millions of parents still take their kids to church every week. Therefore it's the parents' fault as much as the church's because they choose not to take an alternate path through life. What is their silence achieving? Do they not realize that their kids or nephews might be next? And when it happens, some of these parents accuse their kids of making up stories because they're too closed-minded to see past their view that their religion is flawless. Sadly that still happens, a lot. ======================================= The scandal that led to the bulk of the current knowledge and public sentiment exploded in the United States in 2002 in the archdiocese of Boston through a series of articles in the Boston Globe. That work, thankfully, led to a crisis in the Catholic Church that made denial that the problem exists impossible and forced changes in openess about the nature and extent of the victimization of young people that had taken place. Sweeping changes followed, particularly in the US, along with the commissioning of an independent report to study the nature and prevalence of the abuse over the last 50 years and to attempt to determine the factors that allowed the abuse and secrecy to occur. If you're interested in some of the highlights of that study you can look up 'John Jay Report'. When a young person is abused some of the greatest harm comes from shame, and shame is something that secrecy perpetuates. There are no excuses for the fact that secrecy about sexual abuse became institutionalized in the Catholic Church. Not one. It's horrific enough in secular society, and for it to come from a religious organization is beyond galling. No excuses, but several mitigating factors exist that are not generally known, and thus rarely considered. First, at no time have priests at any point in the 50 years for which we have data ever been more likely than clergy from other faiths or other people in lay society to sexually abuse a young person. Never. The myth that Catholic churches are a vector of this activity is completely false. This has been affirmed and reaffirmed, as recently as this year by the BBC. The incidents of abuse saw un upsurge in the 60's, peaked in the 70's and dropped sharply through the 80's and 90's. This corresponds with secular society that saw the 1970's become the decade in which child protection services were established and the social ethos on childhood sexual abuse and the rights of young persons advanced. 70% of the priests implicated in the scandal were ordained before 1970. In the period studied, about 2% of child sexual abuse was perpetrated by Catholic priests. At any given time a child was 50 times more likely to be sexually abused outside the church as in. Then, as now, a child is a greatest risk within their own family where upwards of 90% of abuse occurs. Then, as now, the next greatest risk is in public shools. So when YourValentine talks about 'so many incidents of abuse' I must ask so many incidents compared to what? Not compared to the family setting, not compared to other religious organizations, and not compared to schools. Compared only to the highest ideals of society, where we all, Catholics and non Catholics alike, would like to see no young person suffer abuse. Never in the history of ever has there been more freedom or societal support for individuals to report abuse by Catholic priests to civil authorities than there has been in the last decade or so. Even in this environment, organizations like the National Centre for Exploited Children confirm Catholic priests are no special threat to children, and the actuarial tables of companies that insure religious organizations against losses through litigation confirm this as well. The infrastructure that supported the secrecy is simply for the most part not there anymore. In the west, orphanages and similar institutions that put children under the direct control of priests were dismantled many years ago. A church that feared scandal was forced to face it's secrets. Catholic parents of children who are theoretically at risk today lead largely secular lives and grew to adulthood well past the time in history where childhood sexual abuse was not discussed. They would far more likely than not march straight to the police and then straight to a lawyer. Children are taught in school and now through the church about how to recognize abuse and protect themselves, including feeling safe reporting to an adult. Priests are better prepared in seminary for a lifetime of celibacy and now have clear rules about mandatory reporting that are also reflected in civil law. (Married clergy of other faiths are no less likely to engage in child sexual abuse BTW, so the celibacy rules are unlikely to have a large impact on incidents of abuse unless you accept that Catholic clergy all things being equal would be *less* likely than other faiths to abuse). And, simply, we as a society know much more about predatory sexual behaviour than we did decades ago. While desire to avoid scandal was a high priority, there were other things at work too in the decisions that were made. In the earliest periods studied many of the acts were not even criminalized in civil law yet. In the 1970's, prevailing medical and psychiatric advice was that sexual offenders could be couselled, and that was the general result when lay persons went to court- they were ordered to counselling. Bishops followed suit. Other groups like the Boy Scouts and school districts shuffled their offenders around under similar pressure and with the same mostly well intentioned if self serving beliefs. (Note that about 60% of priest offenders were only accused of one incident). There was also the theme of forgiveness to grapple with given the nature of the organization. In addition, two thirds of the allegations were not even known to Diocesean authorities at the time they occured because they were made well after the fact. Fully one third of the accusations relating to incidents in the 60's and 70's were made in 2002. There is no question that the church failed victims and future victims utterly by attempting to handle things internally through counselling and reassignment at the time, but there was a social and religous context that went beyond pure self interest. It's worth noting too that governments and even a police agency in at least one large case in Canada have also been implicated in failing to adequately protect, act and disclose in Catholic sex abuse cases. Large organizations in general seem to be vulnerable to poor decisions and avoidance while under pressure and scrutiny. Continued in next post.... |
GratefulFan 26.07.2010 01:19 |
Continued... In the end, the truth remains that the needs of victims and potential victims were, and some would argue still are, subordinated to interests defined, for whatever reason and with whatever intent, by people in positions of religious power. Lessons must be learned, and to a large extent they have been. The Catholic Church has to live with it's history, but's it's history must be fairly considered with all relevant facts and in context. Anti-Catholicism has become an acceptable prejudice that Catholics who have hung in there have simply learned to ignore. Outside the Church, Catholicism is defined by the scandal. Inside the church, Catholicism is defined by joy in the gathering of parishoners, family, the good works of parish communities, the achievements of Catholic schools where they operate, and by faith, gratitude and wonder. In the last decade I'd add humility and growth as well. So you'll pardon the average Catholic it he just rolls his eyes when you call for the immediate and thorough collapse of the church. A final solution, as it were. So there you go. And I'm not even sure I believe in God. Plus, I haven't been to church in six months. But I'm still Catholic! :) |
YourValentine 26.07.2010 02:30 |
GratefulFan - I was referring to the "many incidents" that became public in Germany in the last year. Much the same happened in Ireland, btw: we learn about child abuse committed by Catholic priests in the 1960s, 1970s,1980s which are statute-barred, so the offender must not fear to be prosecuted by law. We learn that in many cases the church knew about the abuse but the offenders were not reported to the police but they were sent to another place - often with other children at their mercy. I know that sexual abuse in families happens much more frequently but that was not the topic here. Children must be protected everywhere and unfortunately much too many are not safe in their families, in school, in churches, I am sure we agree on that. I am not anti-Catholic, I am anti-hypocrisy. In the USA the church paid money to the victims, that does not happen in Europe - maybe because in the USA criminal offenses do not become statute-barred so easily. There is not a single case of the church reporting a priest to the jurisdiction - they always protected the child abuser. In Germany over 200 000 people have left the church after this outrageous behaviour became public just this year. It's the chuch members who feel mostly betrayed by this. The pope lost much of his authority by failing to address the child abuse cases in more uncertain terms. He did release a half-hearted "sorry" after people started to actually flee the church by the thousands. |
The Real Wizard 26.07.2010 22:53 |
Amazon wrote: >If you do not believe in a theistic God, then it does not matter what you believe (as opposed to what you don't believe) since we weren't discussing God in general. *You* weren't discussing God in general. Who put you in charge here to decide what can be discussed? Much of this discussion has been about beliefs. You just didn't like the way I spoke about your beliefs and responded by labeling me as a bigot who simply hates religion. And now you continue to relegate anything you don't approve of to "word game" status. It's actually quite hilarious that you're basically trying to ridicule me for my beliefs without even knowing what they are. The fact that you a) assumed I was an atheist and b) said you don't care what my beliefs are since they're not "relevant to the discussion" is all that one needs to know about your attitude towards people who believe in different things than you do. "Considering how you've constantly ridiculed those who believe in God, and have essentially stated multiple times that you don't believe that God exists, it is not unreasonable to presume that you don't believe in God!" I never said I don't believe in God. I just don't believe in what you and other theistic people define God to be. This is an important distinction that you're obviously not understanding, because you continue to use the word "God" as if the term is exclusive to your chosen definition of what the concept of God means to you. You don't have a monopoly on the term. |
Amazon 27.07.2010 02:06 |
Sir GH wrote: "*You* weren't discussing God in general. Who put you in charge here to decide what can be discussed?" I never said I was in charge. I was only going by what YOU were discussing. You started it; and during the discussion, you continued to focus on one area. Don't blame me because I was staying on-topic (a topic which you originated.) You really are desperate if you think that the stupid and immature 'who put you in charge?' is going to work. What are you, five? "Much of this discussion has been about beliefs." Except you never spoke about your beliefs. You simply criticised/attacked my beliefs. Don't blame me if I presume what you believe, or don't believe, based on what you write. "You just didn't like the way I spoke about your beliefs and responded by labeling me as a bigot who simply hates religion." Except you are. I don't know if you hate religion or organised religion, but you hate one of them, and you are certainly a bigot. "And now you continue to relegate anything you don't approve of to "word game" status." Nonsence. I relegate things to 'word game' stuatus, which ARE word games! Even this post of yours is one extended word game. "It's actually quite hilarious that you're basically trying to ridicule me for my beliefs without even knowing what they are." Two comments. One, it is NOT me who is ridiculing the other for their beliefs. Two, you never stated what your beliefs are! You simply criticised/attacked/ridiculed my beliefs. It is therefore reasonable, based on that, to presume what you don't believe!!! "The fact that you a) assumed I was an atheist" Well, it is a fair assumption. My god, if you say that you think that Robert Plant had a great voice, should I not presume that that you are a Plant fan?! It is pretty reasonable based on what you write to presume that you don't believe in a theistic God. You may not like the term athiest, but unless you state what you believe in or not, it is reasonable to presume that you are one. When you were listing all of the atrocities committed in the name of God, and then asked how many had been committed by athiests, and said something like 'case closed', it was not unreasonable to presume that you are an athiest!!! That is just one example. I don't know if you are being deliberately dishonest, stubborn or have some other motive for this nonsence, but it won't work. "and b) said you don't care what my beliefs are since they're not "relevant to the discussion"" A discussion which you originated, and in which you could have talked about your beliefs. At any time! "is all that one needs to know about your attitude towards people who believe in different things than you do." Right. Whatever you say. Yet again, you prove that you're a hypocrite. I don't need to be told by you, of all people, what attitude I have towards people who believe in different things to me. I know what attitude you have, and I am thankful that my attitude does not come close. BTW I said that I couldn't care less what your beliefs are because I have no obligation to be polite to you anymore. You've shown your true colours, and I'm not impressed. "I never said I don't believe in God. I just don't believe in what you and other theistic people define God to be.' Fine, except this is what the discussion was about!!! "This is an important distinction that you're obviously not understanding" LOL. Forgive me if I'm not particularly insulted by whether you think that I'm understanding it or not. You are nowhere nearly as intelligent as you think you are, and I couldn't care less what you think about my intellect. "because you continue to use the word "God" as if the term is exclusive to your chosen definition of what the concept of God means to you." Right. Except here's the thing. You started the discussion, you asked me questions about a theistic God (such as 'would God still exist if every follower died?'), you never widened the discussion to talk about God in a wider sense, and since I was responding to you, I can only go by what you were talking about! That you would retrospectively bring up the definion of God, when it never occured to you before, is another word game of yours!!! "You don't have a monopoly on the term." LOL. Remind me, who started the discussion? GH, that you would yet again resort to playing word games is unsurprising. You have nothing else to fall back on. |
andreas_mercury 27.07.2010 02:27 |
you are too losing this debate ....... shake his hand and leave |
Amazon 27.07.2010 02:36 |
andreas_mercury wrote: you are too losing this debate ....... shake his hand and leave Are you speaking to me? Whatever. |
andreas_mercury 27.07.2010 04:21 |
but GH is right you are babbling on about the tolerance of other beliefs and you dont care about his beliefs are you saying we only be tolerant when people are nice to us? thats not too very genuine way to live life ........ either be tolerant all the time or not because any thing else is just fake .. |
Amazon 27.07.2010 05:46 |
andreas_mercury wrote: "but GH is right you are babbling on about the tolerance of other beliefs and you dont care about his beliefs" Oh, please. Considering that the discussion does not concern you, who are you to comment? Judging a discussion from afar, and coming in after a few posts does not mean you have special knowledge of whom is right or not (and nor does it mean that people care whom you think is right or not). You don't know what I've been 'babbling' about (what a typically silly comment from you), you can't know whether GH is right or not, and quite frankly, it's none of your business. Just so you know, mercury, considering your various contributions, you have nether the moral right nor the intellectual capability to judge anyone! "are you saying we only be tolerant when people are nice to us? thats not too very genuine way to live life ........ either be tolerant all the time or not because any thing else is just fake .." I'm simply saying that I don't have to be tolerant of intolerance. I don't have to be tolerant of GH's intolerance, and I certainly don't have to be tolerant of your intolerance! |
andreas_mercury 27.07.2010 06:32 |
"Considering that the discussion does not concern you" doesn't concern me?? beliefs concern every human on the planet from the smartest to the dumbest ....... it is all of our right no matter who we are and no matter what you think of me Andreas the guy of treasure moment, it is still my right to an opinion and to say it ....... who made you the boss to the forum "Judging a discussion from afar, and coming in after a few posts does not mean you have special knowledge of whom is right or not" but i am more objective because i am not you people, have you never even heard of the word "mediate" there is a reason to pay a 3rd person to come in to mediate and not get the two people of an argument to do it ... "you have nether the moral right nor the intellectual capability to judge anyone" now i really do laugh . look at your earlier comments to the thread to find out why. xD "I'm simply saying that I don't have to be tolerant of intolerance" you are a simple minded fool then because to live in tolerance is to accept everything. if you cant live life of tolerance then stop asking for it from every person you meet..... |
Amazon 27.07.2010 07:07 |
andreas_mercury wrote: "Considering that the discussion does not concern you" "doesn't concern me?? beliefs concern every human on the planet from the smartest to the dumbest ......." Good for you. However, I was actually referring to a discussion between myself and GH, if you care to read. "it is all of our right no matter who we are and no matter what you think of me Andreas the guy of treasure moment, it is still my right to an opinion and to say it ......." Just as I have the right to respond to you any way I deem fit. "who made you the boss to the forum" How childish. Do you really think that because you have the right to express your opinion, you also have the right to demand that I respond to it in a way which pleases you? "but i am more objective because i am not you people, have you never even heard of the word "mediate" Two comments. One, I don't recall asking for a mediator. Two, if I did, I wouldn't look to you. I wouldn't look to you for anything, least of all guidance! "there is a reason to pay a 3rd person to come in to mediate and not get the two people of an argument to do it ..." Uh, who's paying you? Who asked you? I don't need nor desire your opinion on this, or any other topic. Do you really think that simply because you express your 'objective' opinion (lol), other people should care about it? You have a pretty high opinion of yourself. "you have nether the moral right nor the intellectual capability to judge anyone" "now i really do laugh . look at your earlier comments to the thread to find out why. xD" Good for you. The fact remains that you are a bigoted fool. You're just an unpleasant creature. "I'm simply saying that I don't have to be tolerant of intolerance" "you are a simple minded fool then because to live in tolerance is to accept everything." LOL! No, mercury, the only simple minded fool is you. So to live in tolerance means that should accept everything? Does that include abuse? Racism? Homophobia? What about hate speech? mercury, you are nothing but a dumb child, and for you to call me a simple minded fool proves what an idiot you truly are. You don't have the intellect to call ANYONE a simple minded fool! "if you cant live life of tolerance then stop asking for it from every person you meet....." Uh, I don't ask for it from every person I meet. All I ask for is that stupid trolls such as yourself go back into the cave you crawled out of. |
andreas_mercury 27.07.2010 10:16 |
"So to live in tolerance means that should accept everything?" what other choice do you have in this life? you write many bullshit posts but i accept them because this can't be changed, and the other way is true. |
andreas_mercury 27.07.2010 10:28 |
"However, I was actually referring to a discussion between myself and GH, if you care to read" no, a public thread to a public forum actually. anyone can write in this and that is a fact ..... so sad for you |
Amazon 27.07.2010 10:42 |
andreas_mercury wrote: ""So to live in tolerance means that should accept everything?" "what other choice do you have in this life? If you truly believe that being tolerant means accepting everything, you are even more of a stupid idiot than I had thought. Yet again, you set a new record for stupidity. "you write many bullshit posts but i accept them because this can't be changed, and the other way is true." LOL. I write bullshit posts?! Well, as the king of bullshit posts you would know. Tell me, have you ever written a non-bullshit post? Ever? Just about every post I have ever read of yours is bullshit. You are nothing but a stupid troll. |
Amazon 27.07.2010 10:49 |
andreas_mercury wrote: "no, a public thread to a public forum actually." So? It doesn't make you any less of a troll. "anyone can write in this and that is a fact ....." Good for you. I can also respond to you in any way I deem fit and that is a fact. "so sad for you" You sure are dumb. Sad? How is anything here sad? Other than you of course? mercury, I have better things to do than to lower myself into the gutter and talk to trolls like you. This will probably be my last post on this thread, but regardless, I can't imagine I will be responding to you again. I shouldn't feed the troll. |
andreas_mercury 27.07.2010 18:58 |
was it the religion to make you such an ignorant bitch? or are you born to be like that |
Amazon 27.07.2010 23:10 |
So you're not only a troll, and a mentally challenged piece of shit, but you are also a misogynist like Skip? Is your name Skip? Just so you know, resorting to abuse proves beyond any doubt that you are nothing but a stupid and repulsive troll. But then everyone knew that. |
andreas_mercury 28.07.2010 04:42 |
"resorting to abuse proves beyond any doubt that you are nothing but a stupid and repulsive troll" and now we have a post script to every single one of your posts to the thread so far ..... its nice you are so well touch of your own limits |
Amazon 28.07.2010 08:38 |
andreas_mercury wrote: "resorting to abuse proves beyond any doubt that you are nothing but a stupid and repulsive troll" "and now we have a post script to every single one of your posts to the thread so far ....." LOL. mercury, if you are going to insult me, it's best to come up with something that is actually applicable to me, as well as original. The only people who resorts to abuse around here are you and Skip. Unlike you, I actually have something worthwhile to say. You're just a troll. "its nice you are so well touch of your own limits" LOL. You're such a fool. I could say that my limits far surpass yours, but everyone's limits surpasses yours. Compared to you, everyone else's limits are infinite! |
andreas_mercury 28.07.2010 18:28 |
"I could say that my limits far surpass yours" name one ........ just one. |
Amazon 28.07.2010 20:27 |
andreas_mercury wrote: ""I could say that my limits far surpass yours" "name one ........ just one." Name what? One of your countless limits? How about this for you? You are not only a troll, but a crap one. Holly2003, in another thread, called you out on it. |
andreas_mercury 29.07.2010 00:53 |
i too must live to a life of believing every thing from holly2003 (the comedian of the forum) i sure it's a great life for you .... believing any things you hear .... you are probably used to it as a brainwashed sheep |
GratefulFan 29.07.2010 01:38 |
I still owe this thread a couple of replies, but for now the thing just needs some lightening up. My son's friend showed me this clip tonight and I immediately thought of this thread. The clip has something for everybody: Terrorists, Jews, and Catholic priests, and the audience is big enough that I'm going to hypothesize at least one occasionally amusing fake Swede and a not-a-theist-but-not-an-atheist. And, hilariously, I found one with German subtitles. |
andreas_mercury 29.07.2010 03:00 |
to one post you have outdone every one in the thread!!! genius video |
The Real Wizard 29.07.2010 11:51 |
Amazon wrote: "Don't blame me if I presume what you believe, or don't believe, based on what you write." I absolutely will blame you. It's your own fault for choosing to make foolish conclusions. "I don't know if you hate religion or organised religion, but you hate one of them, and you are certainly a bigot." So one must openly like everything in order to be free of being labeled as a bigot? Hilarious. See above re: foolish conclusions. "if you say that you think that Robert Plant had a great voice, should I not presume that that you are a Plant fan?!" Absolutely not. I can admire someone's skills without being a fan of their work. You're exposing your black-and-whiteness splendidly. "You may not like the term athiest, but unless you state what you believe in or not, it is reasonable to presume that you are one." HAHAHAHA! Incredible. You can't even spell atheist, and you conclude that everyone who doesn't wear their beliefs on their sleeve is thereby an atheist. Just incredible. Awe-inspiring. "When you were listing all of the atrocities committed in the name of God, and then asked how many had been committed by athiests, and said something like 'case closed', it was not unreasonable to presume that you are an athiest!!!" Stating facts related to atheism doesn't automatically mean I'm pledging allegiance to that particular group. You've just demonstrated several times in a single post that you are an absolute fool. |
Holly2003 29.07.2010 11:59 |
C'mon guys, you're both better than this. |
Amazon 29.07.2010 17:38 |
andreas_mercury wrote: "i too must live to a life of believing every thing from holly2003 (the comedian of the forum) i sure it's a great life for you .... believing any things you hear .... you are probably used to it as a brainwashed sheep" Yawn.... Whatever, troll. |
Amazon 29.07.2010 18:07 |
Sir GH wrote: "I absolutely will blame you. It's your own fault for choosing to make foolish conclusions." Right, whatever you say. You are definitely a lawyer. Sorry, GH, but considering what you have said, my conclusions are not foolish but are completely reasonable. It's not my fault at all that you are so dishonest that you would write things that you don't believe, and nor is it my fault that you are unable to write what you believe. You want to blame me? LOL. It's not my problem or my responsibility to help you with your posts. No, you can only blame yourself. Perhaps you could take some responsibility for yourself? "So one must openly like everything in order to be free of being labeled as a bigot?" No, I never said that. Who's choosing to make foolish conclusions now? You're a bigot because not only do you want to deny religious groups their democratic rights, not only do you make intolerant statement such as complaining about Islamic banks, not only do you have a black-hat view of religious people and think that anybody who goes after one of your heroes is a Galieo persecuting witch burning monster, but you rationalise discrimination. "Hilarious. See above re: foolish conclusions." LOL. You're such a hypocrite. You accuse me of making foolish conclusions, yet you do the same thing. It must be painful throwing stones in your glass house. "Absolutely not. I can admire someone's skills without being a fan of their work." Good for you. However, unless you explain that you are not a fan, it is a reasonable assumption. "You're exposing your black-and-whiteness splendidly." LOL. Do you really think you're in a position to accuse anyone of being black + white? Throwing back charges at me doesn't help your case. But wait, I forgot. You just want to distract people from the fact you have no case, so maybe it does help. "HAHAHAHA! Incredible. You can't even spell atheist," LOL. You really are desperate. You think that focusing on a spelling mistake I made proves anything? Wow, I misspelt a word. That proves...? Here's a shock, you are nowhere near as intelligent as you think you are. In fact, every time you respond to me, I see evidence of just how wide the gap between your intelligence, and how intelligent you imagine yourself to be, truly is. To call you unintelligent would be a compliment. "and you conclude that everyone who doesn't wear their beliefs on their sleeve is thereby an atheist." Considering that (1)you criticised/attacked a theistic God and religious people every chance you got, (2)you had numerous opportunities to explain what you believe, (3)you essentially controlled the discussion which originated from a response you made to me, (4)unlike you, I take people on their word, and (5)you had numerous opportunites to explain what you believe, I think it's a reasonable conclusion. BTW, another example of your choosing to make foolish conclusions. "Just incredible." Indeed. It's incredible that I acted like any other reasonable person would. It's also incredible that I wasted my time discussing with you. I should have realised it was a waste of time, the moment you talked about denying religious groups democratic rights. "Awe-inspiring." Yes, the way you lie, twist things around, ignore evidene when it doesn't suit you, retrospectively attempt to change the nature of the dicussion, you really are awe-inspiring. You would make a great lawyer! "Stating facts related to atheism doesn't automatically mean I'm pledging allegiance to that particular group." No, 0f course not. I never said that. Amazing how you choose to miss the point. You made arguments against religion and a theistic God. It's not illogical to presume that, since we weren't having a debate for purely for intellectual reasons, you might believe what you said. But I guess this confirms my suspicion thar you are completely dishonest. "You've just demonstrated several times in a single post that you are an absolute fool." LOL. Wow, I got accused by GH of being an 'absolute fool.' I don't know whether I should feel complimented or not; afterall if anyone knows about being an absolute fool, it's you. Yes, you are certainly the last person to accuse anyone of being an 'absolute fool.' You are so great at it, you could win awards for it! I'm done here. I've said all I have to say to you. |
andreas_mercury 29.07.2010 18:31 |
"I'm done here. I've said all I have to say to you." lol and it says that on every page of the thread .... |
Amazon 29.07.2010 19:05 |
andreas_mercury wrote: "lol and it says that on every page of the thread ...." Yawn.... Whatever, troll. |
andreas_mercury 29.07.2010 19:08 |
how will other of the users know when you actually leave this thread, will you put some signal like *****s or other so that we know you arent lying like the other times |
Amazon 29.07.2010 19:13 |
andreas_mercury wrote: "how will other of the users know when you actually leave this thread, will you put some signal like *****s or other so that we know you arent lying like the other times" You're accusing me of lying? LOL. Tell me, why is it that one post, your english is terrible; in another post, your english suddenly improves? Explain that. Anyway, whether I leave threads is my decision and is none of your business. The fact that you would discuss this shows what a troll you are. |
Donna13 29.07.2010 23:34 |
In the past when threads have gotten too long, the order of the posts started messing up. If this is still the case, and if this one gets too long (not that we should worry about this yet), it will be hard to tell who got in the last point. We might think that Amazon got in the last "Whatever, troll." But maybe it could be Sir GH's "I never said I was an atheist.". Or maybe it could be something from Andreas starting with the letter "b". |
andreas_mercury 30.07.2010 02:10 |
"Tell me, why is it that one post, your english is terrible; in another post, your english suddenly improves?" i don't even get to this, holly2003 says the same thing to me ... |
magicalfreddiemercury 30.07.2010 06:06 |
>>> Donna13 wrote: In the past when threads have gotten too long, the order of the posts started messing up. If this is still the case, and if this one gets too long (not that we should worry about this yet), it will be hard to tell who got in the last point. We might think that Amazon got in the last "Whatever, troll." But maybe it could be Sir GH's "I never said I was an atheist.". Or maybe it could be something from Andreas starting with the letter "b". <<< |
The Real Wizard 30.07.2010 12:18 |
Amazon wrote: "you want to deny religious groups their democratic rights" Assuming your location according to your profile is accurate, religion and politics are inseparable in Israel. You obviously cannot fathom the reality of a secular state, especially when the leaders of your state are currently imprisoning millions of people in Palestine in an apartheid-like scenario kept alive by the theocratic government's propaganda machine whose core ancient scripture-influenced belief is that Israel is their God's special chosen place for his special people, so you are in no position to judge what separation of church and state is like, never mind condemn it. Cheerfully awaiting the anti-Semite card to be thrown (considering how you removed my reference to this situation on page 1 of this thread).. "you have a black-hat view of religious people" No, I do not. I discussed only those who subscribe to theism, and outlined the mindset that supports theism. Theism begins with accepting the existence of a single higher unseen being. Not a single theistic person exists outside of this limit. If they did, they wouldn't be theists - they'd be something else. This reality is not a judgment (positive or negative), nor is it "black-hat." It simply is. "anybody who goes after one of your heroes is a Galieo persecuting witch burning monster" Sam Harris is not a hero of mine - another conclusion you chose to make. Criticism towards him is obviously not as fervent as it was towards Galileo or witches, but the MINDSET propelling said criticism is the same. "However, unless you explain that you are not a fan, it is a reasonable assumption." To you it is. Not to those whose thinking isn't boolean. I say, "Dio was a great singer, possibly the best of his kind." Does acknowledgment of his contribution to music automatically mean I must like early 80s Black Sabbath, or even metal in general? "you had numerous opportunities to explain what you believe" Yes, and not doing so worked to my advantage, as you instead chose to rush to conclusions about my beliefs time and time again. This was fun. Cheers. |
Amazon 31.07.2010 07:29 |
I'm only responding because I want to clear something up. Sir GH wrote: "Assuming your location according to your profile is accurate, religion and politics are inseparable in Israel." My location is Australia, not Israel. I have no idea why my location says Israel (although I am Jewish), but considering that I've mentioned Australia in my posts numerous times, you could safely assume that I'm in Australia. "Cheerfully awaiting the anti-Semite card to be thrown (considering how you removed my reference to this situation on page 1 of this thread)" I 'removed' your reference to it (wow, what censorship), because I don't agree. Imagine that, I don't agree that Israel can be compared to South Africa. I had no desire then, and now, to get into a discussion about whether Israel can be regarded as an apartheid state. Especially not with someone like you. I guess you will be complaining now about how I removed some of your comments from this post. The very fact that you complain shows what a hypocrite you are. Afterall you remove comments of mine all the time. Even in your latest post, you removed comments of mine, yet you complain that I do it to you? You are so hypocritical it's incredible! "Sam Harris is not a hero of mine - another conclusion you chose to make." I couldn't care less. You obviously operate in a world, where even if you refer to your wife, I can't assume you're married unless you actually say that you're married. BTW, who choose to make the assumption that I live in Israel? Even though I refer to Australia in quite a few of my posts? You are the very definition of a hypocrite. "Criticism towards him is obviously not as fervent as it was towards Galileo or witches, but the MINDSET propelling said criticism is the same." This proves it. You're an extremist and an idiot, and I have no time for people like you. "Yes, and not doing so worked to my advantage, as you instead chose to rush to conclusions about my beliefs time and time again." 'It worked to your advantage' because you are a manipulative, hypocritical, dishonest, deceitful fool whom I wasted time having a 'discussion' with. All you do is play games, lie and attempt to distract me from the fact that you have no case. It may shock you, but in terms of curtesy, the least you could do is believe what you say and say what you believe! Also just so you know, I did not 'rush to conclusions' about anything. I made reasonable conclusions. But then, considering that you yourself rush to conclusions in quite a few posts, you should stop throwing stones in glass houses! "This was fun." Not for me. "Cheers." Whatever. |
andreas_mercury 31.07.2010 11:38 |
"You're an extremist and an idiot, and I have no time for people like you" that is a bit of extreme thing to say ... |
magicalfreddiemercury 01.08.2010 10:00 |
A friend sent this video to me and while it's wildly politically incorrect, I wonder if the times don't warrant some political incorrectness. link btw - SirGH - I'm not sure if you're familiar with Pat Condell, but if you visit his youtube page, I think you'd appreciate more than a few of his commentaries. |
magicalfreddiemercury 03.08.2010 09:13 |
And so the vote is in and landmark status will not be granted to the building. I suppose the city should now prepare itself for protests as the organizers of this project go forward despite public opinion. |
GratefulFan 04.08.2010 23:45 |
I read an interesting take on this the other day that approved the legal findings and supported the group's right to build their centre, but condemned their decision to do so. Sort of like enthusiastically supporting free speech while thinking some people's free speech adds nothing to the common good and reserving the right to think they've exercised poor judgment or irresponsibility in asserting their right. However, I remember listening to chilling declarations by bin Laden's number two in the weeks following 9/11 that outlined their goal to destroy America, and the degree of patience they were willing to have. The first pillar of the plan was the attacks, the second was to cripple America financially, and the third was to bring about America's final destruction. Clearly they aren't planning to cleave her in two and have the two halves fall into the oceans. I think they mean to destroy America's power, not only of the military and economic kind, but the power bestowed on it by people rather than regimes. People inside and out who still see America's freedoms and principles and promise as a, if not the, crown jewel of the globe. I think this mosque is a bit of a crossroads. I think there's nothing more bin Laden would like than to see this plan torn and shouted down by Americans. It's that narrative, that America is out to destroy Islam and hates Muslims, that fuels the rage and the whole ugly, deathly operation. There was a piece on 60 Minutes not last Sunday but the Sunday before about a man who became radicalized in the UK by recruiters who tapped into lingering anger he felt over indirect racism he had experienced in his teen years. He was eventually imprisoned in Egypt, and over time absorbed the changed attitudes of old terrorist soldiers from the 1970's after trying and failing to rouse them to his radical agenda. He now travels and speaks to Muslim students in hot spots to smash 'THE NARRATIVE' - you can hear that that's how he thinks of it - in quotes and caps. He does so by talking about how many Muslims and mosques are in America and the freedom and acceptance and integration people of Islamic faith enjoy. New Yorkers who are understandably preoccupied by the thought of any blight to the memory of the victims may get their mosque 10 or 20 or 30 blocks away rather than two, but it might prove a hollow, Pyrrhic victory in the end. There was a NY Times opinion piece a bit ago titled 'A Mosque Maligned' you can search if you want that hit on a couple of those points as well. He said he naively believed there would be no significant objection to the project because he thought people of any idealogical stripe could agree to figure out 'what bin Laden would want', and then 'do the opposite'. I think that and 'the narrative are interesting perspectives that deserve some consideration alongside the ideas of people like that fellow you linked to, before thoughts and positions are hardened. |
The Real Wizard 05.08.2010 00:18 |
magicalfreddiemercury wrote: "btw - SirGH - I'm not sure if you're familiar with Pat Condell, but if you visit his youtube page, I think you'd appreciate more than a few of his commentaries." Excellent stuff. He's right on the money about his views of where the wider Muslim movement is heading and how dangerous it is. He chillingly compares this project to the first mosque built in Spain: "Building mosques on conquered, sacred ground is standard practice. It's what Islam has always done to assert its supremacy, and that is happening here." He's also bang on about how America hides behind the false blanket of "diversity." But I guess Condell is an extremist too because he doesn't accept the "democratic right" of these Islamic nuts to push their agenda through despite their hatred of western values. Honestly, anyone who thinks the simple act of tolerance is what will fix the world's problems needs a lobotomy. Blind adherence to dogma is what needs to be eliminated if we're ever going to eliminate extremism. It all begins with education. Myself, I think the human race will extinguish itself before that ever happens. Thanks for posting. I've watched more of his clips, and he's quite brilliant - and often humourous. Grateful fan, are you a polysci major? With your understanding of world issues you should be a scholar writing books. |
magicalfreddiemercury 05.08.2010 08:04 |
>>> GratefulFan wrote: I read an interesting take on this the other day that approved the legal findings and supported the group's right to build their centre, but condemned their decision to do so. Sort of like enthusiastically supporting free speech while thinking some people's free speech adds nothing to the common good and reserving the right to think they've exercised poor judgment or irresponsibility in asserting their right.<<< That’s the Anti-Defamation League's response to this. They said (paraphrasing) the organizers are within their rights to build this center but that does not mean they are right to do so. The issue for me, since obviously I cannot speak for others, is the conflict of this project and the organizers’ stated goal. They say they want to improve relations yet seem unconcerned about the controversy or emotional impact it will have/is having. It's like an animal-lover giving the ‘gift’ of a puppy to someone who, for various reasons, doesn’t want a pet, and then insisting they should accept that pet so they can learn to appreciate it. It’s a lack of regard for others involved. In all honesty, I believe that is one of the biggest issues people are having with this. The arrogant attitude of saying the project is going through regardless, overshadows the stated goal of the gesture and makes that stated gesture difficult, if not impossible, to believe. However, now that it's been decided and the project will indeed move forward, I hope the anticipated protests do not take place. I fear they will – in fact, a lawsuit has already been filed against the decision – but hope they do not become the norm. I’d like to see people rise above this and stop making it headline news. >>> I think there's nothing more bin Laden would like than to see this plan torn and shouted down by Americans. <<< Personally, I think either way he “wins”. Let me ask you this… assume people accept it because it might be the opposite of what bin laden would want. How would that serve to better the situation? It wouldn’t make it a true welcome or honest show of acceptance. It would be a façade. The community center will no doubt attract people and thrive. But does mean it will help forge a less contentious relationship between ‘the west’ and ‘islam’? I doubt it. If anything, I believe it will only stir suspicions of what’s “really going on in there” since the method in which it was forced upon the city was insensitive and arrogant, albeit within their rights. >>> It's that narrative, that America is out to destroy Islam and hates Muslims, that fuels the rage and the whole ugly, deathly operation. <<< And on the other side, I'd say it’s lunatics who follow a madman, that fuels the rage and deadly operation. America would not be so suspicious of islam if not for the islamic followers who killed 3000 people on 9/11. I remember an interview with some pundit about bush’s desire to bring democracy to the Middle East. This pundit said, quite clearly, that the islamic faith and democracy are diametrically opposed. That the basis of democracy is separation of church and state whereas islam is not just a religion but a way of life. That distinction resonates with Americans and while most are quick to accept their Muslim neighbors they are not willing to compromise their values or freedoms. THAT, IMO, is the conflict between the west and islam. THAT is what needs to be addressed, debated and understood. Not the installation of a symbol of the very thing that divides us in the location in which that divide was made (or expanded, depending how you look at it). >>> He now travels and speaks to Muslim students in hot spots to smash 'THE NARRATIVE' - you can hear that that's how he thinks of it - in quotes and caps. He does so by talking about how many Muslims and mosques are in America andthe freedom and acceptance and integration people of Islamic faith enjoy. <<< While I understand this – and I wish more people would have seen this and held discussions on it, or that it might have generated some headlines of its own – the outcry against THIS building, in THIS location is legitimate. The organizers have chosen this particular location and opening date – of 9/11/11 – because of the rift between the west and islam. They are using 9/11 as the reason for pushing this project through. Yet when the opposition cites 9/11 as they reason they do not want it, suddenly, there are accusations of hatred toward muslims or the west’s attempts to destroy islam. “The West” is to compromise, to set aside its views, but the same is not to be expected from the other side? I wonder how that translates to the rest of the world. >>> New Yorkers who are understandably preoccupied by the thought of any blight to the memory of the victims may get their mosque 10 or 20 or 30 blocks away rather than two, but it might prove a hollow, Pyrrhic victory in the end. <<< I’m not so sure about that. I think the compromise would have made all the difference – here in NY and around the world. But we’ll never know because no compromise was offered. >>> There was a NY Times opinion piece a bit ago titled 'A Mosque Maligned' you can search if you want that hit on a couple of those points as well. He said he naively believed there would be no significant objection to the project because he thought people of any idealogical stripe could agree to figure out 'what bin Laden would want', and then 'do the opposite'. I think that and 'the narrative are interesting perspectives that deserve some consideration alongside the ideas of people like that fellow you linked to, before thoughts and positions are hardened. <<< What I especially like about the commentary in the link I posted is the honesty. He spoke about his feelings without apology. I would love to hear a dialogue such as that between both sides. Maybe if both could/would state what they see as ‘truth’ and why, then a common ground could be found. But then, maybe I’m as naïve as the author of the piece to which you referred. I value your perspective and wish there were more people like you out there equally exposing the credibility and extremes of both sides. >>> Sir GH wrote: Grateful fan, are you a polysci major? With your understanding of world issues you should be a scholar writing books. <<< Or on the circuit – CNN, FOX news and elsewhere – showing what the two sides refuse to see about each other. >>> Sir GH wrote: But I guess Condell is an extremist too because he doesn't accept the "democratic right" of these Islamic nuts to push their agenda through despite their hatred of western values. <<< Yes, he is definitely an extremist, but I must admit, I love the lack of apology in his voice. I wish more people were less afraid of being politically correct and more concerned with explaining their ideas. But in a perfect world, people would not just talk but listen, and many of the problems wouldn’t arise in the first place. >>> Honestly, anyone who thinks the simple act of tolerance is what will fix the world's problems needs a lobotomy. <<< True, but in every instance, I think both sides feel the other needs to show tolerance and yet their idea of “tolerance” is often total acquiescence. >>> Blind adherence to dogma is what needs to be eliminated if we're ever going to eliminate extremism. It all begins with education. Myself, I think the human race will extinguish itself before that ever happens. <<< Sadly, I agree with this bleak outlook. |
magicalfreddiemercury 05.08.2010 12:09 |
Double post. Meant to edit and quoted myself instead. :-/ |
GratefulFan 05.08.2010 18:02 |
Sir GH wrote: Grateful fan, are you a polysci major? With your understanding of world issues you should be a scholar writing books. ================================ I read this last night about 2:00 am and I was too tired to figure out if you were making fun of me, so I decided to figure it out today. I've decided you're not. :) I'm definitely not a scholar of any sort. I'm just another bunch of thoughts on the wind. I read a lot and think a lot, that's all. Sometimes it works out well, sometimes it doesn't. :) |
GratefulFan 05.08.2010 18:58 |
@magicalfm - I think that the nature of this issue means it's probably a decision made largely in the gut, with the reasoning following later. It's probably fair to say that virtually everyone cares about all the issues represented here: honour and fairness for the victims, sensitivity to those affected and left behind, freedom of religion, justness in society, the preservation of American values and culture, the security of society, and other principles I may not have listed here. Clearly, in this instance some of these are conflicting. The difference between the views of one side and the views of the other is which set of concerns triumphs. I've been trying to think about where the split off happens, how we make that decision, and it seems to me to perhaps be at a very fundamental level that determines that either there is a relationship between 9/11 and ordinary Muslims that means they will bear the burdens of those heinous acts, or there isn't such a relationship. Osama bin Laden would love to have you think that 9/11 was 'a valid expression of Islam', to steal a phrase I read recently. I thought about Jim Jones, and whether his mass murder was a valid expression of Christianity. I say no, on both counts. What say you? :) |
magicalfreddiemercury 06.08.2010 05:34 |
>>> GratefulFan wrote: Osama bin Laden would love to have you think that 9/11 was 'a valid expression of Islam', to steal a phrase I read recently. I thought about Jim Jones, and whether his mass murder was a valid expression of Christianity. I say no, on both counts. What say you? :) <<< Excellent points, and I say no as well. However... :-) ...a point that applies to the fears and concerns of the West is that while Jim Jones contained his followers, bin Laden disperses them. |
GratefulFan 06.08.2010 11:52 |
magicalfreddiemercury wrote: Excellent points, and I say no as well. However... :-) ...a point that applies to the fears and concerns of the West is that while Jim Jones contained his followers, bin Laden disperses them. ============================ I agree, absolutely. There is a persistent fear factor in the ongoing threat of terrorism that cannot be minimized. It remains ever present and there are still thousands of radicalized Islamists that would like nothing more than to kill as many people as possible, most particularly in richly symbolic targets like NYC. It's an on going victimization of sorts that affects everybody, and blameless Muslims doubly so because the random and public nature of the targets means that not only do they have to fear for themselves like everyone else, but they must live with both voluntary and involuntary fear and suspicion from the rest of us. Many if not most of us will never experience a circumstance that allows us to be close enough to Muslim individuals, families or groups to have that sense of strangeness and foreigness melt away. Bin Laden inflicted that burden on blameless Muslim individuals in numbers many magnitudes greater than his misguided terrorist disaspora will ever see in a hundred lifetimes. I think that we as both individuals and a collective have a moral responsibility and a practical duty, in the interest of a just and secure society, to do our best to sort out the dangerous from the blameless when we can. What think you? :) |
magicalfreddiemercury 06.08.2010 13:31 |
>>>GratefulFan wrote: I think that we as both individuals and a collective have a moral responsibility and a practical duty, in the interest of a just and secure society, to do our best to sort out the dangerous from the blameless when we can. What think you? :) <<< == I agree, though as a New Yorker, my suspicions will remain until and unless the blameless establish themselves as such by opening and/or maintaining a dialogue rather than doing as the organizers of this project have done, which is to push through a project despite objection and without clear explanation and transparency about its purpose and funding. The issue here is not at all about blaming our neighbors for atrocities others have committed. It’s about the perception given by the developers that their will be done, others be damned. That is an attitude Americans – New Yorkers in particular – will not readily accept. From anyone. And yes, there are those who suffer doubly because of 9/11 and the resulting prejudices. It’s obvious and open and, in fact, it’s supposedly THE reason this project was put forth in the first place. And yet, they (the developers) refuse to show regard for those opposed to it. That, apparently, is okay. But those opposed to it, it seems, are not permitted to voice their objections without being told to be more tolerant, accepting, understanding… and the exhausting list goes on. I’ve watched coverage of this debate on various news channels, have read about it and have participated in live discussions as well. What I’ve come away with is frustration at having a legitimate issue and, rather than having it addressed, having it dissected, analyzed and twisted into something it is not. And, unfortunately, that’s where this national discussion has gone. My only hope now is that the building of this center does not become a new flashpoint and that the conflict ends here. |
GratefulFan 06.08.2010 13:59 |
I hope you don't feel that I'm twisting your thoughts into something new and nefarious, or attempting to subtly delegitimize your position. Not at all! My hope is only to establish whether we agree on some of the foundational stuff so we don't end up talking around each other should we spent a bit more time discussing this. Just briefly, in what way do you feel they haven't been transparent about the purpose and scope of the project? It was my sense that it was fairly well put forward on their website, and in part modeled after an existing Jewish community centre that could be referenced. I wholly understand your point about the funding because of the history of the way external funding has been used previously by those with Islamic interests, but I'd point out that it's not at all unusual at this point in any project not to have highly specific information available about funding. I do think more time is needed before judgements are made about that. You mentioned the group having no regard for the public objections, and you'd previously mentioned a compromise in location. Would you describe a new location that could still serve the community without offending it as a bottom line of sorts? |
magicalfreddiemercury 06.08.2010 18:59 |
>>> I hope you don't feel that I'm twisting your thoughts into something new and nefarious, or attempting to subtly delegitimize your position. Not at all! My hope is only to establish whether we agree on some of the foundational stuff so we don't end up talking around each other should we spent a bit more time discussing this. <<< No, not at all. I’m sorry if it sounded as though I was referring to you. The written word is hard to decipher sometimes. I actually meant the discussions locally and in the media (which, yes, I know are skewed). What I like about all you’ve said is the unemotional aspect of it and how you’ve focused on the logic. Clearly, my reactions come from emotions first. Bottom line, however, is that my feelings are not against people of any faith. My feelings are against the manner in which this project was billed and the way the opposition is considered intolerant despite the validity of the objections. === >>> Just briefly, <<< Briefly? Me? lol === >>> …in what way do you feel they haven't been transparent about the purpose and scope of the project? It was my sense that it was fairly well put forward on their website, and in part modeled after an existing Jewish community centre that could be referenced. <<< The project has been explained as a way to build bridges and improve relations with the west. I want to know how a community center containing a secular prayer area, is expected to do this. The Imam himself, when asked in an interview how this project will improve relations, simply smiled and said, “They will see.” I found the comment insulting and arrogant. I do not want to “see” after the fact, I want to know the intention now. I think after what this city has endured, we are entitled to full disclosure. If it were an evangelical center with an evangelical prayer area, public opinion would lean toward it being exclusive rather than inclusive. Such is the way with this. === >>>I wholly understand your point about the funding because of the history of the way external funding has been used previously by those with Islamic interests, but I'd point out that it's not at all unusual at this point in any project not to have highly specific information available about funding. I do think more time is needed before judgements are made about that. <<< While it might not be unusual for developers of high-profile projects to withhold funding details, this is a highly unusual case given the sensitivities – legal, national and personal – and so those details should be openly discussed. In fact, they should be discussed in the name of bridge building. Instead, the information is being withheld. The secrecy of what might be perfectly honest and innocent, makes it difficult to enlist a wait-and-see attitude. We are at war with terrorism. We are told to report suspicious activity. Plans to build a center containing a mosque near ground zero, without disclosing where the funding comes from and intending to open said center - regardless of public opinion - on the 10th anniversary of the worst attack on American soil by people of a faith under the name of which the attacks were made, is suspicious in and of itself and should not only be thoroughly questioned but thoroughly answered. === >>> You mentioned the group having no regard for the public objections, and you'd previously mentioned a compromise in location. Would you describe a new location that could still serve the community without offending it as a bottom line of sorts? <<< An offer of compromise would have made all the difference, IMO. The immediate area – meaning the entire area damaged by debris from the attacks – should be off limits. Outside of that area would be the compromise and would still serve that community. It’s Manhattan. People walk. Another few avenues wouldn’t make a difference yet at the same time would make all the difference in the world. Another compromise would be to remove the mosque/prayer area or make it appropriate for all faiths. That gesture might show how tolerant the organizers truly are. I have to repeat something I’ve said before… this center in not the only project people have objected to. Other ideas for building ON the actual site were met with just as much, if not more, hostility. There were people who wanted the entire area to be deemed a memorial with fountains and plaques and nothing more. That’s important to remember because objections have been raised for reason besides religion. However, this issue is receiving more attention because of its controversial nature and because it’s been connected to 9/11 by its developers. Something else we should remember is that human remains are still being found on rooftops and elsewhere around this area as recently as last week, in fact - and that only helps to keep emotions raw. Having said all that, I did hear a comment from someone who felt this entire project – location, content and all – was perfect. He said, “In NY we have an opportunity for the muslim community in the US to really put something together to show how the people who took down those towers did not represent their faith.” I don’t think this is that “something” but at least a dialogue has begun. |
The Real Wizard 07.08.2010 10:11 |
magicalfreddiemercury wrote:
Yes, he is definitely an extremist, but I must admit, I love the lack of apology in his voice. I wish more people were less afraid of being politically correct and more concerned with explaining their ideas. But in a perfect world, people would not just talk but listen, and many of the problems wouldn’t arise in the first place.I was actually being sarcastic ! I think it's an absolute shame that in a time when we are able to see things millions of light years away, anyone who wants to live in a world without fairy tales is seen as an extremist. I personally don't think eliminating organized religion would be any kind of solution (i.e. people would still talk instead of listen, as they'd have some other reason to divide themselves from others), but his point of view is very valid. |
magicalfreddiemercury 07.08.2010 11:38 |
>>> Sir GH wrote: I was actually being sarcastic ! <<< Seriously? How funny. Actually, I determine 'extreme' by how angered my family would become, and this guy would piss them all off from word one. lol. >>> I think it's an absolute shame that in a time when we are able to see things millions of light years away, anyone who wants to live in a world without fairy tales is seen as an extremist. <<< I agree wholly, but fact is, when Pat Condell titles his posts "Was Jesus Gay" or "God the Psycho" or "Pimping for Jesus" he's not aiming for the middle. And while I feel many of his comments are brilliant, I'm not left with the impression he's looking for compromise. It's that tone/attitude/whatever, that makes me see him as extremist. JMO. However, he calls it as he sees it and I only wish he could sit face to face with someone with opposing views. How enlightening that would be. >>> I personally don't think eliminating organized religion would be any kind of solution (i.e. people would still talk instead of listen, as they'd have some other reason to divide themselves from others), <<< Couldn't agree more. >>> but his point of view is very valid. <<< I had a feeling you'd appreciate his point of view. :-) |
The Real Wizard 08.08.2010 00:13 |
magicalfreddiemercury wrote: "I determine 'extreme' by how angered my family would become, and this guy would piss them all off from word one. lol." Ha.. ! Hilarious. "And while I feel many of his comments are brilliant, I'm not left with the impression he's looking for compromise." I bet he would if put in the right situation. In his videos he's just taking the Michael Moore stance - assume the opposite position, just to get the reaction (attacking the person, i.e. him, instead of the problem). Works like a charm. Guys like these know that the middle of the road doesn't really get you anywhere. |
GratefulFan 09.08.2010 22:36 |
@magicalfm "The project has been explained as a way to build bridges and improve relations with the west. I want to know how a community center containing a secular prayer area, is expected to do this. The Imam himself, when asked in an interview how this project will improve relations, simply smiled and said, “They will see.” I found the comment insulting and arrogant. I do not want to “see” after the fact, I want to know the intention now. I think after what this city has endured, we are entitled to full disclosure. If it were an evangelical center with an evangelical prayer area, public opinion would lean toward it being exclusive rather than inclusive. Such is the way with this." Just so we're talking about the same thing, I've nicked this broad description of the proposed project from their website: Cordoba House is a Muslim-led project which will build a world-class facility that promotes tolerance, reflecting the rich diversity of New York City. The center will be community-driven, serving as a platform for inter-community gatherings and cooperation at all levels, providing a space for all New Yorkers to enjoy. This proposed project is about promoting integration, tolerance of difference and community cohesion through arts and culture. Cordoba House will provide a place where individuals, regardless of their backgrounds, will find a center of learning, art and culture; and most importantly, a center guided by Islamic values in their truest form - compassion, generosity, and respect for all. The site will contain tremendous amounts of resources that otherwise would not exist in Lower Manhattan; a 500-seat auditorium, swimming pool, art exhibition spaces, bookstores, restaurants - all these services would form a cultural nexus for a region of New York City that, as it continues to grow, requires the sort of hub that Cordoba House will provide. I can say without hesitation that it's a lovely dream. Perhaps his 'They will see" was not meant to be patronizing, but the only way to answer a question to which the answer probably *is* somewhat diffuse and indefinite. I can share something from my own community that may be relevant, though of course less the always present and always important spectre of 9/11. Quite near to my home, up on one of the highest points in the city and with a spectacular view of one of the large lakes in my city's core sits a big honkin' Pentecostal Church complex that was completed a few years ago. It's one of only two Pentecostal Churches that I can think of in my city, because it's a pretty fundamentalist school of religious thought for this area. The centre that they constructed includes a large auditorium and communal area that serves the general needs of the community at large. I have season tickets to my local symphony orchestra, which uses the space several times a year. It's also used as a lecture hall and as any other number of things for which you might want to gather 1200 people. In addition, because of the site's high vantage point over the city, a couple of hundred adults and children gravitate there on Canada Day night to watch the fireworks and avoid the crowds down lakeside. This just kind of happened, but once the church noticed it happening they decided to quietly provide coffee and kool-aid in subsequent years. It's very informal and warm and fun. They also run a summer program/daycare for kids, which unlike the other things I've mentioned does have a small religious component through a short bible study among the other activities each day. I can say that somehow it does work to bring people together and diminish the sense of strangeness, though I can't quite say how. When I'm at the symphony, there is a sense of awareness and gratitude that the church has provided this badly needed space for the city. I'm happy for the beautiful space, and happy for the success of the project for those in the Pentecostal church who gambled on putting it together. The fireworks evenings are nice because they are just a very genuine and spontaneous gathering together of a bunch of people whose lives would likely not otherwise intersect. The church people are happy to quietly share their goodwill and refreshments with those of us who do nothing beyond leave a bunch of cups and tire tracks behind. I leave, and I don't come back until there is some other non religious reason to be there, but I come and go with a new appreciation for a group that are no longer quite strangers. They're proud of their contribution to the city, and they should be. All this to say the I am able to personally attest that the potential for a positive community impact from these multi use facilities does exist, again always mindful that every comparison can't help but be imperfect because of the singularness of the New York circumstance. "While it might not be unusual for developers of high-profile projects to withhold funding details, this is a highly unusual case given the sensitivities – legal, national and personal – and so those details should be openly discussed. In fact, they should be discussed in the name of bridge building. Instead, the information is being withheld." I meant that at this point in time there is a strong possibility that funding is not even in place. Raising capital and gathering investors usually happens after the developers are assured of a location etc. Should the project move ahead, hopefully there is a significant chunk of domestic funding. However, there is value in having Muslim groups around the world with a common interest in improving relations put their money where their mouth is and risking something tangible for the goal. And I guess I disagree that there is an undue cause for suspicion at this juncture, as the record of this guy over a number of years is pretty consistent with his stated goals. Given his high profile and extensive writing and speaking engagements over the years, there is actually very little to point at, and when the handful of controversial positions are seen through the context of his work as a self styled bridge builder, I believe they can be understood even if not directly sanctioned. He seems to be what every expert concerned with terrorism and global security says we want: a moderate Muslim presiding over a contemporary Mosque. To be continued shortly, when I'm more awake .... :) |
*goodco* 12.08.2010 12:51 |
America's beliefs are built upon religious freedoms and expressions........ just ask those who were drowned during the Salem Witch Trials. Or............WTF were we thinking when we allowed Mr. Smith to build his Mormon congregation. Oh, I am sorry, they were white people. btw...........I absolutely HATE the idea of the mosque being built so close to Ground Zero, replacing the Burlington Coat Factory store. but....................this is America. Religious toleration is supposed to be.............well.......tolerated. |
Holly2003 12.08.2010 13:02 |
Just because you have the right doesn't mean you have to exercise it all the time and in every situation. Clearly this is going to be a real slap in the face to many New Yorkers and therefore those advocating it should applaud the fact that the US lets them exercise their religion and in this case they will respond by choosing not to exercise it at this particular site at this particular time. |
GratefulFan 13.08.2010 00:37 |
magicalfreddiemercury wrote: An offer of compromise would have made all the difference, IMO. The immediate area – meaning the entire area damaged by debris from the attacks – should be off limits. Outside of that area would be the compromise and would still serve that community. It’s Manhattan. People walk. Another few avenues wouldn’t make a difference yet at the same time would make all the difference in the world. Another compromise would be to remove the mosque/prayer area or make it appropriate for all faiths. That gesture might show how tolerant the organizers truly are. I have to repeat something I’ve said before… this center in not the only project people have objected to. Other ideas for building ON the actual site were met with just as much, if not more, hostility. There were people who wanted the entire area to be deemed a memorial with fountains and plaques and nothing more. That’s important to remember because objections have been raised for reason besides religion. However, this issue is receiving more attention because of its controversial nature and because it’s been connected to 9/11 by its developers. Something else we should remember is that human remains are still being found on rooftops and elsewhere around this area as recently as last week, in fact - and that only helps to keep emotions raw. ================================== It takes me a while to answer your points sometimes because you really push me to think. I appreciate and respect that quite a lot. I've been thinking about this part of your last post on and off for a few days and I've arrived at what feels like my final position. This is the best I've got, and if you find little of it compelling we'll just have to have a virtual beer and be grateful for the chance to have learned from each other. This was a great topic you started. I'll begin by noting that the difference between Ground Zero proper and the surrounding blocks that were damaged is that the crimes of 9/11 turned the WTC ground into nothing for which some entirely new future had to be envisioned, while the surrounding area is in large part what it has always been: a functioning part of the cityscape of one of the most notable places in the world. It was likely never feasible or desirable to freeze the damaged buildings in time, to preserve them or let them decay in and around the many places of life and work that continue to function in the immediate area. NYC has had a number of years to make zoning and rule changes to disallow development in the area or to require vetting of proposed changes, and they haven't done so. They likely haven't done so for all the best reasons, because outside of the emotion this controversy has rubbed raw it seems apparent to me that such a move would be contrary to key aspects of fundamental things that make America great, from freedom right through to the value the culture places on hard work and entrepreneurship. I'm glad NY didn't do that. It's right that it hasn't. It's likely true that nobody ever envisioned this particular challenge to the limits of human tolerance however. Rights and freedoms are in some ways an honour system, and we agree I think that this issue which has become so terribly divisive is the fault of the cultural centre/mosque development group. Because of the protections offered to Americans, it was unilaterally thrust upon the city the moment that the group staked it's claim on that building. In my mind the time for compromise was long before anybody ever heard of this project, and entirely in the hands of the people who could have avoided all of this by choosing another site in the first place. But, right or wrong, they didn't. They wanted the symbolism of the site to make a strong statement on what they see as the true face of their faith, to make a strong statement against extremism, to contribute to healing, and to advance Muslim acceptance through a contribtion to New York life and culture. Right or wrong, that's what they want and that's what they did. As such, compromise at this point is a different thing all together. People want the development group to respond in a way that implicitly accepts that there is some valid, actionable connection between their decades old peaceful Mosque community and 19 terroristic criminals and their dysfunctional global network, and they want to call that compromise. Compromise is a very seductive word. It sounds like a perfect solution for any seemingly intractable issue. It sounds like the least any well intentioned people would agree to, particularly people whose stated goal is harmony, as you've pointed out. It sounds like common decency. It sounds, in short, like a small thing. It's not. As it pertains to this issue, it's a really big thing. I think too big. Compromise here is really not compromise at all, but something more like capitulation. Capitulation to an emotional tidal wave that wants the group to stay away from Ground Zero because it offends people or makes them feel bad. I can think of no precedent for this kind of alleged moral imperitive. In civil and consitutional law - the pillars of nearly everything in a free society - the perils of emotion and the tyranny of the majority are well known and fiercely guarded against. Suddenly, because of the terrible scope of the horror of 9/11 we're to accept that emotion and anger are not in fact something to be kept at arms length from critical judgements, but in fact great clarifiers? That the angst ridden and angry tail should in fact wag this dog? I don't think so. Everything is a turned on it's head. Your own words in earlier posts indicated that you will remain suspicious until they prove to you that you needn't be, a sentiment that is widely shared by many other perfectly normal and thoughtful people. Guilty until they prove themselves innocent. With no judgement implied, I would like to say that I believe that this is so contrary to basic principles of the Western world that it should be a red flag in anyone's thinking. Secondly, the thought we discussed previously about the responsibilities that come with rights, and echoed above by Holly earlier, has been taken up by no less than the Governor of NY as well via offers of assistance if they'd like to voluntarily relocate the centre. I liked that thought well enough at first. It was attractive and seemed compelling. I went on a couple of dates with that thought, but I've since had to break up with it and tell it we're just going to be friends. The burden, so goes this thought, is on the developers to forgo their right in the name of something like sensitivity, cooperation, common sense or decency. That might fly if what was being asked was that they not mow the mosque lawn before 8:00 am on Saturday, but what they're being asked to forgo is something like equality. In any other area, no right that precious is ever taken or surrendered without the gravest consideration preceded by the most formal of processes. Shifing this burden to the developers is unfair, and though it's not intended, it's also sleight of hand. The burden is always on the state, on the individual or body who would like the right removed or superceded. So should it be here. You want them to voluntarily surrender a right and privilege of American citizenship so New York is not offended. Why should they. There is no constitutional right, no social covenant that protects anyone from being offended, for reasons that are once again abundantly clear away from the pain and emotion of this situation. Continued... |
GratefulFan 13.08.2010 00:39 |
I know that my distillation of this issue into people taking 'offense' may feel glib. I don't mean it to be. 9/11 families and New Yorkers suffered and in many ways continue to suffer greatly. 9/11 families are different from the families other murder victims: there was no trial to attend, no satisfaction in seeing the guilty punished, no guarantees of future protection from the very same menace, and for far too many, no gravesite to visit. For that reason more than any other, Ground Zero is a special, even sacred place. I truly get that. Most of us are fortunate enough never to have to suffer for our democracy, as it just gives endlessly and asks little or nothing in return. It feels unjust that people who have already suffered so much be asked to carry the burden of this one more thing, when the entire debate would be unnecessary but for the desires of a much smaller group of people. I get that too. I don't know if this centre will ever be built or if the project can withstand the pressures being put on it. But if it is, let me make a prediction right now. Someday, there will be columns written about the Imam who quietly and firmly insisted on American greatness when many around him were too vulnerable and too wounded to do so. Whether it's put down to arrogance or stubborness or insight or divine grace, it will have taken some courage and I think America will be better off for it. If this project does go ahead, the burden of proving that this social rift and reopening of fragile wounds was worth it is entirely on the people who want this centre. Preservation of Amerian values or no, history will not judge this kindly if the centre is even a benign presence. It must succeed in meeting stated goals and in earning and honouring it's proximity to such hallowed ground. They believe they can, and with adequate good will from a portion of the community I think maybe they can too. Time, I suppose, will tell. Thanks again for such a thought provoking discussion. -GF |
magicalfreddiemercury 13.08.2010 10:11 |
>>> Sir GH wrote: I bet he would if put in the right situation. In his videos he's just taking the Michael Moore stance - assume the opposite position, just to get the reaction (attacking the person, i.e. him, instead of the problem). Works like a charm. Guys like these know that the middle of the road doesn't really get you anywhere. <<< And I suppose this very notion could apply to the organizers of this community center. By taking this stand they are making a statement that cannot be ignored. Almost like Arizona and their sweeping illegal immigration laws. As unconstitutional as parts of it are, it at least started a dialogue. Maybe that’s part of the purpose – expected or not – of this. I guess we can only hope. |
magicalfreddiemercury 13.08.2010 10:13 |
>>>Grateful Fan wrote: Just so we're talking about the same thing, I've nicked this broad description of the proposed project from their website: … and most importantly, a center guided by Islamic values in their truest form - compassion, generosity, and respect for all. <<< I believe the contradiction lies right there. Compassion, generosity and respect for all. Not one of those virtues is shown by doing something so obviously against the will of those they say they want to serve. == >>> I leave, and I don't come back until there is some other non religious reason to be there, but I come and go with a new appreciation for a group that are no longer quite strangers. They're proud of their contribution to the city, and they should be. <<< This is a beautiful example of how things can work. I would like to see the same at ground zero, but with the, as you said, ‘always present and always important spectre of 9/11’, some concessions must be made, IMO, for this outcome to occur. == >>> I meant that at this point in time there is a strong possibility that funding is not even in place. <<< Actually a fortune in funding has already been spent by the CEO of SoHo Properties – the owner of this building. So far he’s invested millions in the property while only a few short years ago had been waiting tables in a NYC restaurant. Tips? == >>> It takes me a while to answer your points sometimes because you really push me to think. <<< I think it’s because I talk too much. lol == >>> This is the best I've got, and if you find little of it compelling we'll just have to have a virtual beer and be grateful for the chance to have learned from each other. <<< I would take you up on that virtual beer as I’ve had to sit back and consider many of the points you’ve made as well. == >>> You want them to voluntarily surrender a right and privilege of American citizenship so New York is not offended. <<< Not exactly. I would like them to do so as the show of compassion and respect they say they are intending and as a way for New Yorkers to join in the creation of this project rather than rally against it. == >>> It must succeed in meeting stated goals and in earning and honouring it's proximity to such hallowed ground. They believe they can, and with adequate good will from a portion of the community I think maybe they can too. Time, I suppose, will tell. <<< While I understand and see the validity in your points, my concern and doubt remain. However, there’s rarely been a time when I hoped more to be proven wrong. |
GratefulFan 13.08.2010 21:03 |
magicalfreddiemercury wrote: I believe the contradiction lies right there. Compassion, generosity and respect for all. Not one of those virtues is shown by doing something so obviously against the will of those they say they want to serve. First and most importantly, we don't vote for everything in a democracy. And we most certainly don't leave the most important things to instant straw polls. That said, there is no consensus anyway. Not among the New York public, and not among the 9/11 families. The Marist poll released August 10th puts support by Manhattanites at 53%, opposition at 31%. I realize Ground Zero belongs to everyone in important ways, but If you would have the group be guided by public opinion (and I wouldn't), why should special emphasis not be placed on the opinion of the neighbourhood most likely to be directly served by the proposal? Actually a fortune in funding has already been spent by the CEO of SoHo Properties – the owner of this building. So far he’s invested millions in the property while only a few short years ago had been waiting tables in a NYC restaurant. Tips? Faisal Abdul Rauf answers that here, though not apparently to the satisfaction of the poster as the title of the video indicates, and then a few days later he answers the same question again posed by the same person he already answered, this time with questions about Shari'a compliant financing. Tribeca is a place of immense wealth, and I find it completely credible that many, many, many members of the congregation could have easily written checks for 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 20 etc. thousand dollars. A thousand of those members, and you've easily got 5 million dollars. If there is a reason to disbelieve the Imam, and such a reason certainly could exist, it's not presented in either of the two exchanges. Not exactly. I would like them to do so as the show of compassion and respect they say they are intending and as a way for New Yorkers to join in the creation of this project rather than rally against it. I know how reasonable this is to very many people. To me, after a lot of thought that resulted in a 180, it's lipstick on a pig. Why is this compassion and respect a one way street, or at least being withheld until one group of people does what another group of people wants it to? Why doesn't New York start with the compassion and respect? Honestly, who has suffered more for 9/11 - Muslim New Yorkers or the average native New Yorker? One of the unintentional cruelties I've come to perceive in this is that Muslims are treated as if they're selfishly intruding on the memory of an event that happened to other people, something upon which that have no claim. My God. Aside from direct Muslim victims and their feelings as New Yorkers and Americans, how many Muslims have perished in the two wars that started as a direct result of the attacks? For every one emergency worker who tragically lost his or her life in 9/11, how many Iraqi police officers or recruits and other personnel attempting to combat extremism on American terms have died? Maybe 100 for every 1? More? Some estimates of violent civilians deaths reach over 1,000,000 in Afghanistan and Iraq. How many of those Muslims died as persons who through thoughts or actions wished to be partners in peace with America under the most dangerous of circumstances? And yet a Muslim group with 25+ year old roots in the New York community are asked to skulk away from Park Place in the name of compassion and respect and in order not to offend anyone. It makes less sense every time I think about it. So I should probably stop thinking about it. : |
GratefulFan 13.08.2010 21:06 |
Sorry, meant to provide a more general link to the Marist poll that covers more information and additional questions: link |
YourValentine 17.08.2010 05:39 |
This discussion gets really very deep. It's hard to reply to all the single thoughts since I last posted, so let me try to just explain my point of view with regard of what has been said here: Of course it's not about the constitution - it's absolutely obvious that the Cordoba initiative have all the right to build that mosque at that spot. To make it an issue of freedom of religion truly misses the point of the whole discussion. It's not about technical legal issues at all. After all, nobody in the USA challenges the right of the Cordoba Initiative to build that house or to execise their religion. Nobody - as far as we know - has threatened to behead Feisal Abdul Rauf if he builds the house and nobody has attacked or murdered American Muslims just to make a point. The people who do not want the mosque in Manhattan exercise their freedom of speech and the right to have an opinion. It's truly laughable that President Obama thinks he has to call for the right of religious freedom which was never an issue. Yes, it's up to the moderate Muslims to put the fears of other people to rest. While it is absurd to think that all Muslims are terrorists we cannot deny the fact that 99% of all big terrorist acts in the last 10 years were committed by Muslims - in the name of Islam. Of course the Quran can be used as a textbook of violence and terrorism - to deny that is apologetic and does not help fighting against Islamic terror. Fundamental Islam is Islamistic by definition and violence is inherent. It's up to the moderate Muslims to work on this violent tendency, to reform the religion and make it a religion of peace for all Muslims. Apparently, it's not politically correct to name terrorism and hate terrorism and hate but it 's okay to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people in a war of alleged revenge - as GrateFulFan pointed out correctly. To think that the huge Islamic house in question would not offend the victims of 9/11 is so naive that it is hard to believe that the Cordoba Initiative is in fact so naive. The thought that we are dealing with a provocation rather than a naive misconception of "bridge building" is compelling. The fact that the Hamas already utilises the project as a triumph of Muslim dominance just shows how many problems are associated with this project. Nobody said it better than this young Muslim woman whose mother was killed on 9/11: link |
The Real Wizard 17.08.2010 08:41 |
YourValentine wrote:
nobody in the USA challenges the right of the Cordoba Initiative to build that house or to execise their religion.That's just not true. The majority of Americans can't even name five religions, never mind accept their existence. A fair number of people in the USA have no idea of what the wider world is like... and most people in the wider world don't really know what the USA is like. There are still entire counties of white people in the bible belt who have zero tolerance for anything that isn't white or christian. Some of these southern hicks have never even seen a brown person since they've never left their county, and with the right to bear arms, the sky's the limit. Excellent article from the Washington Post, btw. Inspiring, actually. |
magicalfreddiemercury 17.08.2010 09:54 |
I think this thread shows - in a small way - just how divisive this issue is. Neither side is able to see clearly what the other side sees as obvious. Though there have been attempts here from both viewpoints to see the middle, middle ground still has not been reached. I'm still of the opinion that the developers need to make many more concessions than the opposition due to the nature of the conflict they say spurred them to take this action in the first place. But they will not concede an inch and that makes the opposition stand firmer. I agree with Your Valentine's post in its entirety, but most especially with her assertion that President Obama's comment that muslims have the right to practice their religion was ridiculous as it is not relevant to this situation. Of course they have a right. And there are already mosques in the city and around the area. Bottom line is this - the purpose of this community center is to make a statement and the two sides cannot agree on what the statement is. |
GratefulFan 18.08.2010 00:22 |
YourValentine wrote: Of course it's not about the constitution - it's absolutely obvious that the Cordoba initiative have all the right to build that mosque at that spot. To make it an issue of freedom of religion truly misses the point of the whole discussion. It's not about technical legal issues at all. After all, nobody in the USA challenges the right of the Cordoba Initiative to build that house or to execise their religion. Nobody - as far as we know - has threatened to behead Feisal Abdul Rauf if he builds the house and nobody has attacked or murdered American Muslims just to make a point. The people who do not want the mosque in Manhattan exercise their freedom of speech and the right to have an opinion. It's truly laughable that President Obama thinks he has to call for the right of religious freedom which was never an issue. I couldn't disagree more YV. Survey says about 1/3 of the American public in fact don't acknowledge they have the right. And a good chunk of the other 2/3 don't really think so either - at least not when it's pitted against the rights of New Yorkers to control their own destiny on issues surrounding 9/11 - but that group is leaving it up to the community centre developers to do the sweaty work for them. The argument goes something like 'I acknowledge you have the right, but if you are of good faith and good conscience you will not exercise that right, and if you do I will likely work against you". That's logically and functionally identical to saying 'I don't think you really have the right at all- at least not here and not now'. And if you're part of creating a climate so hostile that it becomes impossible for someone to excercise their right you've effectively denied that right, which takes you well out of free speech and into something else altogether. Some people want to essentially limit or footnote critical, foundational sections of the Constitution as it relates to a few thousand Muslim citizens in New York City (to start - there are lots of protests cooking up in other places regarding other mosques), but they want it done 'voluntarily' and off the books so that nobody has to acknowledge, even to themselves, that this turd of a position is in fact a turd, and a rather large, reeking one at that. If Bloomberg et al seem to be repeating themselves it's because it's clear that this emotional issue has resulted in a great number of everyday people having parsed freedom of religion as a 'technical legal issue', seemingly losing sight in any meaningful way of how very essential it is to what America is. (On a side note, anybody unhappy with Obama should note that he's the last big decision Americans made on the crest of a wave of emotion.) Yes, it's up to the moderate Muslims to put the fears of other people to rest. While it is absurd to think that all Muslims are terrorists we cannot deny the fact that 99% of all big terrorist acts in the last 10 years were committed by Muslims - in the name of Islam. Of course the Quran can be used as a textbook of violence and terrorism - to deny that is apologetic and does not help fighting against Islamic terror. Fundamental Islam is Islamistic by definition and violence is inherent. It's up to the moderate Muslims to work on this violent tendency, to reform the religion and make it a religion of peace for all Muslims. Apparently, it's not politically correct to name terrorism and hate terrorism and hate but it 's okay to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people in a war of alleged revenge - as GrateFulFan pointed out correctly. No one, least the Imam himself, has denied there is a problem within the Muslim world that needs fixing and that moderates must lead, which he's attempting to do in a way that is both so bold and so visible that it would be the moderate shot heard 'round the world. Best then that we shuffle him a few blocks north. Not sure how many - somebody can probably run some calculations through the law of diminishing Islamic offensiveness. Moderate Muslims are not responsible for other people's fears. That position is simply not supportable. People who don't wish to be ruled by fear would do well to develop some facility with effectively collating and priorizing the facts at hand. It matters little if 99% of terrorist acts are committed by Muslims (producing victims who are also 99% Muslim on a global basis) when 0% of them have been committed by the Muslim community in question, known to it's Manhattan neighbourhood for 27 years. There is a record. We don't need the general and the scary and the diffuse. We have the specific. I don't care about political correctness at all. Logical cohesion? You bet. To think that the huge Islamic house in question would not offend the victims of 9/11 is so naive that it is hard to believe that the Cordoba Initiative is in fact so naive. The thought that we are dealing with a provocation rather than a naive misconception of "bridge building" is compelling. The fact that the Hamas already utilises the project as a triumph of Muslim dominance just shows how many problems are associated with this project. It's perfectly predictable that someone would say "Hey Hamas! What do you think of this New York Mosque thing?" And Hamas would say "Blah blah blah Islam blah blah". It's hardly ominous. It's political grandstanding and it's completely mundane. But for a reason to condem this project, nobody in the United States would give a flying fuck if Hamas thought people should build mosques everywhere so Muslims can pray like Christians and Jews, or if they thought anything about anything at all. The 'provocation' notion is compelling only if you fancy theories almost completey unsupported by the actual facts. For Mosque Sponsors, Early Missteps Fueled Storm Nobody said it better than this young Muslim woman whose mother was killed on 9/11: link I read that a few days ago and found the author both articulate and moving. But in the end it's a recursive argument where she herself abstracts the proposed centre into an ideaology, and then condems the proposal based on the fact that it will be a battleground for ideologies. In reality, her thoughts flow entirely from private grief. Private grief is best shared and minstered by caring people, not public policy. You can see more clearly how her arguments really don't hold - she herself ends up acknowleding their basis in emotionalty - in this panel discussion with her and three others. It might be my own confirmation bias, but I find the first speaker whose wife died in 9/11 to have made the best case. In my view it's very hard to sustain an argument in opposition that stands up against the facts: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BG23YxKm3C0 |
GratefulFan 18.08.2010 01:24 |
I wanted to add one more little bit about the way people feel. I probably come across as a bit of a hardass, disconnected from the essential emotional core of this issue. Nothing could be further from the truth. If you toss out the hard right bigots and the pie eyed liberalism of the hard left, you have a vast middle of people who are entitled without question to every one of their feelings. I understand the special nature of this grief and this anger. I understand the resentment of people who don't want to feel pulled around by the nose by Islam. I can't imagine anybody started their thinking with anything other than 'Mosque at Ground Zero? WTF!" I certainly didn't. That was where I was headed, and then I Google Street Viewed the 'Ground Zero Burlington Coat Factory' (see?) and wasn't so sure any more. It's grown from there, and I've landed in a place where the situation is actually upsetting me at this point. Must sound so absurd given that I'm not even American! But Canadians, huddled as we are in this massive country down around that southern border, are not indifferent. Most of us have friends there, many of us have family, and even without that there is shared history and a cultural and economic bond. Given that, once you start perceiving this situation as your freedom loving neighbour blindly putting the jackboots to it's freedoms, it's distressing. As inaccurate and unfair as it is to dismiss all opposition as the rotten fruit of bigotry, so is it to assume that support flows from a too narrow scope and a pedantic and unnuanced reading of the Bill of Rights. When people go on and on again about the freedom of religion it's not finger wagging, it's more like a plea. A plea and a belief that you are handing a really big one to terrorism and to the terrorists, while simultaneously poking yourself in the eye with a stick. All this to say that if I'm starting to sound pissy, it's only because I care. |
YourValentine 18.08.2010 02:45 |
@GrateFulFan - I see that we just cannot agree on two basic issues: how to judge the opponents of this project on the one side and how to evaluate the role of moderate Muslims in a Western country. As to the opponents: don't you think it's asking a lot to tell them to not view their opinion? I do not believe that they are all indoctrinated, furious rightwing nuts - we have an example right here in this thread: MagicalFreddie is as level-headed and thoughtful as you can ask and she has reservations about that project. Who can tell her she does not have the right to voice her opinion because that opinion would hurt the right of the Cordoba Initiative to build that house? It simply is not true - she does not limit anybody's right to build the mosque only because she (or anyone else) is offended. The Cordoba Initiative have permission by the city of NY to build that Mosque. To ask that the New Yorkers have to shut up and not say that they are offended is really twisting the right of the Muslims to build their Mosque to the extreme. Let us not forget that Muslims can be so touchy that Comedy Central even censors their own programme which was showing Mohammad in a teddybear suit. Muslims are easily offended and non-Muslims all too eager to cater their touchiness. It's really not okay imo to count blocks and meters and to tell the 9/11 victims that they cannot be offended if a Mosque is opened there on 9/11, no matter if it's one or two blocks away. I am not American myself but I can easily understand that people do not want the opening of a Mosque in short distance on the anniversary of that terror attack - which was, after all, an Islamic attack. Now the role of moderate Muslims. To make you understand my position I want to explain it. I am German, born well after WW2 - even my parents were litte children under the Nazis. My father was traumatized for life after watching the SS shooting his elder brother and jailing his father for supporting a socialist resistance group. My motherly grandfather was put out of job because he did not sentence people according to Nazi laws. He was heavily wounded in Stalingrad and never returned to his normal life. It was the good normal German people who made all the Nazi crimes possible. If more people had resisted the Nazis could not have murdered millions of people. As a German I have the obligation to put other peoples' fear to rest by speaking out against Neo-Nazis whenever they raise their heads. It does not matter that my own family were no Nazis and that I was not even born: it was my country who committed these atrocities and as a country we have the duty to show the other nations that we are no longer a danger to their lives and security. We also have to avoid any insensitive gestures versus the victims, mainly the jews. For example, I would be outraged if a German society had the idea to build any kind of German education or culture center near a holocaust site. No good- will can make up for offending the victims, it's the victims who decide if they are offended or not. In the same sense I expect that moderate Muslims distance themselves in a clear, unmistaken way from the terror acts commited in the name of their religion. I really miss such clear statements from Muslims in all Western countries. It is never really clear where their loyalty lies. Is the Imam Feisal Rauf an American and if yes - why does he have to reconcile the West and the Islam? It's not his job to play the mediator between countries, that's the job of the elected government. His job is to teach his congregation that violence and hatred against infidels is not okay. Just last week a mosque in Hamburg was closed by the police and the German-Arab society which ran it was forbidden. It was the same mosque in which Muhammad Atta, alleged 9/11 hijacker, used to pray. The mosque was not closed because Atta used to go there, it was closed because of evidence that in this mosque Al Quaida fighters were routinely recruited and hatred speeches were delivered each Friday. Unfortunately, the moderate muslims in this community did not tip off the police. I criticize that in the same way as I criticize Catholics who do not report a child abuser only because he happens to be a priest. Of course the moderate Muslims have to put the fears of non-Muslims to rest - after all the threatening, flag-burning, murders and terror that has happened in the last ten years. When I see a flag-burning mob I always remember the Nazis who could carry out their crimes protected by a brainwashed 80 million mob who later did not want to have known what happened! As to my own responsibility: these days it means fighting against German participation in the unjust, criminal war in Afghanistan. 75% of German people are against this war but unfortunately it's almost impossible to make them go to the streets and protest. As a German I cannot be quiet about this. It's my country who kills innocent people in Afghanistan and I cannot say it's not my business because I am against it. |
thomasquinn 32989 18.08.2010 04:32 |
YourValentine wrote: It's not about technical legal issues at all. After all, nobody in the USA challenges the right of the Cordoba Initiative to build that house or to execise their religion. Nobody - as far as we know - has threatened to behead Feisal Abdul Rauf if he builds the house and nobody has attacked or murdered American Muslims just to make a point. The people who do not want the mosque in Manhattan exercise their freedom of speech and the right to have an opinion. It's truly laughable that President Obama thinks he has to call for the right of religious freedom which was never an issue. ============== You are either very poorly informed or deluding yourself. While a majority of those protesting the mosque may do so well within the limits of law and decency, quran-burnings, hate speech and (Christian) religious extremism have all come into play already. ============== Yes, it's up to the moderate Muslims to put the fears of other people to rest. While it is absurd to think that all Muslims are terrorists we cannot deny the fact that 99% of all big terrorist acts in the last 10 years were committed by Muslims - in the name of Islam. Of course the Quran can be used as a textbook of violence and terrorism - to deny that is apologetic and does not help fighting against Islamic terror. Fundamental Islam is Islamistic by definition and violence is inherent. ============== Never did I think that you, of all people, would sink this low. 1) "99% of all big terrorist acts in the last 10 years were committed by Muslims" -> this is a good example of the fact that 84% of statistics are made up on the spot. If you haven't noticed, mutual (organized) violence between Hindus, Christians and Muslims is destroying relative stability in Eastern Asia and has been for several years. Christian fundamentalists have been on a rampage in Africa for years - or have you never heard of the "Army of the Lord"? FARC, nominally socialist and anti-religious, is one of the great actors in worldwide terrorism, and if you don't count the Mexican Drug war as terrorism, you are quite simply unqualified to speak on the topic. These are but a few examples. 2) "it's up to the moderate Muslims to put the fears of other people to rest" Ah. So protestants bear responsibility for the Phelps-family? Catholics for the "Army of the Lord"? It is up to socialists to put the fears among red scare fanatics to rest? Or, an argument you may be sensitive to, it was up to Jews to put fears of Judaïsm to rest in the Europe of the 1930s? The answer to all of the above is "no". In every case, it is the collective responsibility of all the citizenry to remove irrational fears and marginalize fanatics of all denominations. 3) "Of course the Quran can be used as a textbook of violence and terrorism -to deny that is apologetic and does not help fighting against Islamic terror." Of course the Bhagavat-Gita can be used as a textbook of violence ant terrorism. As can the Bible, not to mention the Malleus Maleficarum. Almost any book can be interpreted that way. Yet that is not the argument the islamophobes make - they state that the quran is *nothing other than* a textbook of terrorism. Implicitly, you are supporting their view. Making a sideways excursion for a moment - most examples cited in practice of violence preached in the quran are incorrect translations or taken out of context. Why is this? Because the real examples of calls for violence aren't as shockingly phrased and indeed sound too much like the Bible. 4) "Fundamental Islam is Islamistic by definition and violence is inherent. " Oh dear god. FUNDAMENTAL Islam is not necessarily violent. EXTREMIST Islam is. As you are evidently not sufficiently versed in Islam to understand, I will provide an example from Judaïsm and Christianity: Orthodox Jews, who, as you might have noticed, are not particularly violent, are, by definition FUNDAMENTALIST, in that they take what they believe to be the word of god as absolute, unquestionable and literal guide to every part of their lives. Similarly, even if you'd only read the wikipedia article (link, you'd find that fundamentalist Christianity goes waaaay beyond violence. Perhaps you haven't noticed, but slowly, you are starting to accept the propaganda of ultra-nationalists as reality. |
YourValentine 18.08.2010 08:18 |
Thomas Quinn- you conveniently disregarded my whole second post on this page where I explain my point of view concerning the role and responsibility of moderate Muslims. I never said they are responsible for terrorist acts, I say they have a (moral, not legal) responsibility to stand up and speak out against the use of their religion as a means to terrorize and frighten other people. Of course I never said that socialists, jews or anyone else is responsible for the paranoia of other people or in the case of Jews even responsible for the results of brainwashing a stupid population. I wish you would not twist my words around. You are right about the planned burning of the Quran in NYC, I did not know that and of course every decent Christian person should stand up against this gross act and make it clear that it is not an attitude that can be excused with Christian values. It's just the same issue: the moderates should not allow the extremists to dominate the discourse. I find it intellectually dishonest when you switch my words around (when I say that the Quran can be used as a textbook of violence and terrorism) to make them fit into some racial routine. I did not say that the Quran automatically leads to violence or terrorism or that there is no other option for a Muslim. To deny the violent potential of the Islam is just as dishonest and inhumane as claiming that all Muslims are prone to violence or terrorism. I find it intellectually lazy - to say the leasts - to deny the religious roots of Islamistic terror. While we probably agree about the hatred that is instilled into Muslims by injustice, poverty and social deprivation, we have to realize that jihad fighters are not necessarily the poorest of the poor and European Islamistic converts not necessarily socially deprived. If you ignore the power of fundamentalist mullahs you are certainly more gullible than I am Islamophobic. |
Micrówave 18.08.2010 16:58 |
Sir GH wrote: That's just not true. The majority of Americans can't even name five religions, never mind accept their existence. A fair number of people in the USA have no idea of what the wider world is like... and most people in the wider world don't really know what the USA is like. There are still entire counties of white people in the bible belt who have zero tolerance for anything that isn't white or christian. Some of these southern hicks have never even seen a brown person since they've never left their county, and with the right to bear arms, the sky's the limit. Wow, that's quite a perception, even though you've never been there. Where do you get that information from? Oh yeah, newspapers and websites. You forget, my russian comrade, about how you people treated blacks? No need to dig that up for this thread. I live in Texas. I know many Christians, Bhuddists, Muslims, Hindus, as well as quite a few Jewish people. There's five. I take classes from a Taoist. Oops that's six. And for the record, there are many places in the world that don't have tolerance for white people either. There are also probably a few Russians who think Stalin was onto something. Probably a few Germans left that think Hitler was kinda cool (one lives in Denmark! Hi TQ!). I'm sure there's still some Frenchmen around who think they should be ruling the world. What does all this have to do with the topic anyway? Or are you just doing a TQ impersonation? Throwing out mindless and unresearched information in an effort to cloud the subject at hand. And to say "some of these southern hicks have never even seen a brown person" shows how niave you are. Hate to break it to you, but the majority of Texans ARE brown. It's about 35% Mexican, 30% White, and 30% Black. Louisiana and Mississippi have a higher percentage of Mexican and Black heritage than White. Only Alambama has the White majority anymore. Been like that for years now. So where is this magical land where southern hicks have never seen a brown person anyways? (exclude the former Russian provinces like Georgia and Ukraine, please) |
Micrówave 18.08.2010 17:09 |
But back to the topic. Build the mosque. It would be good for all. New jobs, revenue for the city, a few new restaurants, etc. The other ones don't seem to be causing a panic. Slap a McDonald's inside it and nobody will care what it is. |
GratefulFan 19.08.2010 07:58 |
More later, but just read this backgrounder on how the proposed site was located and purchased, and thought it was interesting yet almost tragically banal. http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/08/19/2010-08-19_it_was_all_his_idea_reality_tv_finalist_steered_developer_to_mosque_site.html |
magicalfreddiemercury 19.08.2010 09:05 |
>>> YourValentine wrote: I do not believe that they are all indoctrinated, furious rightwing nuts - we have an example right here in this thread: MagicalFreddie is as level-headed and thoughtful as you can ask.. <<< Thank you for this, YV. :-) |
*goodco* 19.08.2010 09:52 |
As time has gone by, and I've read more, I have zero opposition to this community center. I still understand the 'raw nerves'. I am speaking now against the hate-mongers and religious and 'Constitutional' zealots who constantly contradict themselves, just to stir sh*t up. I am not condemning those who disagree with my opinion, who oppose without the name calling because, well, that's how they feel. That is their right. The owners have gone through the process. All the specs have been OK'd by the zoning officials. Just as other Muslim businesses in the area. Just as the owners of the strip joint one block away from the proposed center. Many of our Jewish friends in NYC, some who still have not been back to Ground Zero, are supportive of this building. Their reasons: tolerance, the Constitution, an understanding of what this is all about, and in some cases, an outright hatred of the many hypocrites who are against it. As for me, I am not afraid of Kareem Abdul Jabbar, or Jamaal Wilkes (unless they were playing the Detroit Pistons years ago), or Ahmad Rashad, or..... I didn't fear driving through or dining in Dearborn, Michigan years ago. I won't when I go back next year. There are Shinto and Buddhist 'shrines' in Honolulu (sorry, Newt). There are Lutheran churches in DC (sorry, Newt). There are also Muslim Americans who were first responders or family members of 9/11 victims that still work and live nearby who believe differently than the Post article individual. There was, and still is, a mosque in The Pentagon. Should we shut this down and move it 'farther away' as well? And what is 'far enough away'? |
GratefulFan 19.08.2010 21:12 |
ThomasQuinn wrote: 4) "Fundamental Islam is Islamistic by definition and violence is inherent. " Oh dear god. FUNDAMENTAL Islam is not necessarily violent. EXTREMIST Islam is. ================================= True enough. A rather flashy example: a self described Islamic fundamentalist named Mubin Shaikh - a guy with a star and crescent tattoo who is overtly Islamic to the point that he would make many non Muslims uncomfortable - contacted Canadian authorities earlier this decade with an offer to assist in the infiltration of Toronto area extremist groups. His history included spiritual travels in radical areas of Pakistan and even briefly considering the idea of going to Bosnia during the conflict there to fight alongside other Muslims. His work as a police mole uncovered and disrupted a plan to stage 9/11 style attacks in Canada that included the purchase of about 4 times the ammonium nitrate used in the OK city bombing (a harmless substance was substituted in delivery) to blow up targets in the Toronto financial district, Toronto's CN tower and other targets in Canada's capital of Ottawa. They also planned to storm Parliament and behead the Prime Minister and take hostages. |
GratefulFan 19.08.2010 21:27 |
GratefulFan wrote: It's grown from there, and I've landed in a place where the situation is actually upsetting me at this point. Must sound so absurd given that I'm not even American! But Canadians, huddled as we are in this massive country down around that southern border, are not indifferent. Most of us have friends there, many of us have family, and even without that there is shared history and a cultural and economic bond. Given that, once you start perceiving this situation as your freedom loving neighbour blindly putting the jackboots to it's freedoms, it's distressing. ============================ Quoting myself to offer up a similarly themed extract from the Edmonton Journal (a major Canadian daily) today: We have our problems in this country, and racism is among them in some quarters. But, thank goodness, we don't have the likes of Newt Gingrich in our political front ranks, who declared the building of the New York centre as "pandering to radical Islam," a symbol of "Muslim triumphalism." Or Sarah Palin, whose mean-spirited, mindless (and misspelled) tweets on the subject should disqualify her for any public office. Frankly, as admiring friends and neighbours, it is painful for Canadians to watch our allies to the south engage in such a "conversation." |
magicalfreddiemercury 20.08.2010 06:09 |
>>> GratefulFan wrote: Frankly, as admiring friends and neighbours, it is painful for Canadians to watch our allies to the south engage in such a "conversation." <<< Maybe our admiring friends from the north should listen to the conversations of the people not the politicians. Besides, there is no true 'conversation' since the organizers have so far refused all dialogue. |
GratefulFan 20.08.2010 16:29 |
magicalfreddiemercury wrote: Maybe our admiring friends from the north should listen to the conversations of the people not the politicians. Besides, there is no true 'conversation' since the organizers have so far refused all dialogue. ========================== I was a bit worried that my post wouldn't quite get over what I intended, and it seems it hasn't. I only meant to say that I wasn't alone (read nutty) in perceiving something like distress over the situation. I included the bit about the politicians only to give context to her 'painful' statement. And I should add that she began the article acknowledging that these things typically aren't for Canadians to weigh in on. There has been extensive coverage of the situation here, and aware people are indeed aware of the scope of opinion and that the more rigid statements are not reflective of everybody who is in opposition. There has been extensive discussion too, and there is certainly nothing like consensus here either. That journo was of course referring to the 'conversation' amongst Americans who have an opinion, which is without a doubt very noisily going on. The organizers had conversations with plenty of people, not least other faith communities and their local community board. That they have thus far shown little interest in a 'conversation' that appears predicated on accepting some kind of second class citizenship shouldn't really surprise anyone. |
magicalfreddiemercury 21.08.2010 12:04 |
>>> YourValentine wrote: You are right about the planned burning of the Quran in NYC, I did not know that and of course every decent Christian person should stand up against this gross act and make it clear that it is not an attitude that can be excused with Christian values.<<< Just to clarify - the planned burning of the Quran is from a pastor of a small parish in Florida. This isn't being planned in New York City. |
*goodco* 21.08.2010 21:35 |
btw................over 60% of Americans are against this open to all community center. oh, and..........60% are for gay unions, for gay members to be enlisted in the miltary, for abortion rights, against the war in Iraq,..... 80% were against black people being integrated into the military (thank you, Harry Truman, for going against public opinion of the time and doing what was right) another two cents worth |
GratefulFan 22.08.2010 02:44 |
@goodco - Echoes a point earlier about how this should not be a poll driven issue. Constitutional freedoms are enshrined specifically to protect against the whims of public opinion. Whatever one believes you've got to respect Bloomberg for political courage for swimming upstream on this one. Note to YV- I still owe you a reply. I've got one half written in my head, but I'm on holidays and have been here and there and staying up way too late. So just a quick note to thank you for your thoughts and let you know I'm on it. :) |
magicalfreddiemercury 22.08.2010 07:03 |
What’s so disturbing is how the conversation – not just here but in the media as well - keeps going to freedom of religion or comparisons to the civil rights movement. The opposition isn't trying to prevent muslims from practicing their religion and it isn't treating muslims like second-class citizens. That connection – which is constantly being made in the press – is absurd and unsubstantiated. Red herrings. This is about 9/11 and its aftermath. That’s it. 9/11. The worst terrorist attack on American soil. An attack from which we are still recovering – physically, emotionally and financially. It’s about 9/11 because the organizers of this center have named that attack as their reason for initiating this project. Yet that obvious point is constantly overlooked. And so, it’s a direct link to 9/11 that’s, supposedly, meant to heal the wounds of 9/11, yet those wounds should not be considered? The opposition is to be tolerant but intolerance is allowed from the organizers because they're minorities and because they’re within their legal right to continue the project? NY’s governor wants to hold talks about a possible compromise and yet, again, the organizers refuse. They not only refuse, mind you, but proudly state on their website that no meeting is planned with the governor, and that the site will not be moved – meaning no compromise. That intolerance toward the sensitivities of the community and beyond show, IMO, the true purpose of this center and, after all these pages and after the organizers inability or unwillingness to compromise, I can't help but to now believe their purpose is not to build bridges but to add to the already wide divide. And, unless they make some concessions, they will have no one to blame - or congratulate - but themselves. |
tcc 22.08.2010 07:46 |
@magicalfreddiemercury (I might be going into an area where angels fear to tread.) I understand how you feel and I agree that it is not conducive to good relations among the races to build the mosque there. However, since it has been decided to go ahead, why not just accept it and see it this way: If there was no 9/11 incident, would there be objections to a mosque being built there ? If no, it means it all boils down to the 9/11 incident. If you object because of the 9/11 incident, it might be a case of "punishing" the whole world (i.e. all the Muslims in the world) just because of one person. The more people voice their objections, the more publicity those culprits will get and that is what they want. |
magicalfreddiemercury 22.08.2010 08:10 |
>>> tcc wrote: @magicalfreddiemercury (I might be going into an area where angels fear to tread.)<<< OMG. I don't know whether to laugh aloud (which I did) or worry over the impression I've given on this thread. == >>> I understand how you feel and I agree that it is not conducive to good relations among the races to build the mosque there. However, since it has been decided to go ahead, why not just accept it and see it this way: If there was no 9/11 incident, would there be objections to a mosque being built there ?<<< IMO, no, there would not be objections. == >>> If no, it means it all boils down to the 9/11 incident. <<< Correct - as per the organizers. == >>> If you object because of the 9/11 incident, it might be a case of "punishing" the whole world (i.e. all the Muslims in the world) just because of one person. <<< Forgive me, I'm not sure I understand. One person? Do you mean the imam? == >>> The more people voice their objections, the more publicity those culprits will get and that is what they want. <<< True, which is why I'd originally said that since the project was okay'd legally, I hoped there wouldn't be protests and such. But the media, again in my opinion, has skewed the argument. They've made it a civil rights/religious fight and that's not what it is. And now the entire situation - which could have been handled in a more diplomatic way by the organizers - has grown into an international debate. I'm tired of the discussions because I feel as though the base points are being ignored and the action/inaction of the developers has created doubt as to their true motives. But yes... if the final legal measure goes in favor of the developers... which it no doubt will... then I would hope the brouhaha ends. And, as I've said before in this thread, I would like nothing more than to have my concerns proven wrong. **no angels were harmed in the making of this response** |
tcc 22.08.2010 08:22 |
The one person I am referring to is Osama bin Laden. I say where angels fear to tread because I am afraid of being bombarded with all sorts of arguments etc and I am lazy to argue. That's all I have to say folks :-) |
magicalfreddiemercury 22.08.2010 10:09 |
>>> tcc wrote: The one person I am referring to is Osama bin Laden. <<< Got it. Though I don't see him in the singular since his following is so vast. >>> I say where angels fear to tread because I am afraid of being bombarded with all sorts of arguments etc and I am lazy to argue. <<< lol. Fair enough. >>> That's all I have to say folks :-) <<< And that's fine. Every opinion counts regardless how vehemently it's voiced. |
GratefulFan 22.08.2010 15:59 |
magicalfreddiemercury wrote: What’s so disturbing is how the conversation – not just here but in the media as well - keeps going to freedom of religion or comparisons to the civil rights movement. The opposition isn't trying to prevent muslims from practicing their religion and it isn't treating muslims like second-class citizens. That connection – which is constantly being made in the press – is absurd and unsubstantiated. Red herrings. And this is probably the main reason the two 'sides' generally talk completely past each other - this basic disagreement you've identified. To me arguing that this isn't about freedom of religion and the fundamental equality which is the spirit of it is not supportable. That significant segments of the opposition are motivated by sensitivies surrounding 9/11 and have no objections to the practice of Muslim faith outside of this controversy does not mean it 's not about freedom of religion, because the solution - moving the centre - means the developers are being asked to surrender their constitutionally protected rights to worship on private property, in this case private property that is near Ground Zero. Regardless of the reasons for objecting, the end result is an impact on freedom of religion. The argument that they can build their mosques anywhere else and are thus free to practice their relgion holds no weight. If I tell you that you have free speech, but that you (and only you) may not speak in the four blocks surrounding 1 WTC, then you don't have free speech. It’s about 9/11 because the organizers of this center have named that attack as their reason for initiating this project. Yet that obvious point is constantly overlooked. I don't think that's completely reflective of the actual genesis of this project. The group first envisioned the centre pre 9/11 back in 1999, and it didn't advance back then only because the financing fell through (I'm not sure where the property was at that time). The article I posted a couple of days ago claims that the person contracted to find a property for the proposed centre in 2005 was told to look over a large area, and it was mere happenstance that the Burlington Coat Factory was one building identified and that the building was being shown the very next day at what was basically a firesale price. It's proximity meant the 9/11 connection came with it, and I would guess that they became inspired or excited or whatever about the symbolism simply by default, backfilling in the significance after the fact. Daisy Khan has been quoted as saying that it was 'divine' or 'meant to be' or something along those lines, implying the inspiration to connect it to 9/11 may have come later and was not a key part of the vision initially. It makes me think of an example from my own life. I'm associated with an organization that uses a plain trinity cross as it's logo. Back in 1999 that logo was a quick temporary fix pulled from a commercial set of computer graphics because our old logo was no longer relevant because of major changes to the organization. A logo design contest was initiated, and the trinity cross filled in until that process was completed. Except nobody submitted anything even remotely usable, so by default that temporary logo became our permanent one. Once that was the reality, the pair of three intersecting arms of the cross were made to stand for six intersecting pillars of the organization identified for the purpose, with the result being that if you didn't know better (and most people don't) you'd think that the cross was picked to represent the ideals rather than the other way around. Still, those ideals have become a celebrated and identifying part of the organization that people now relate to throughout. So it was backwards, but it worked. I suspect this Park Place location may be something like that. Regardless, you're right that by the time this project was being publically pitched it was the organizers themselves that embraced post 9/11 symbolism as part of their vision. But I'm not sure it started that way, and given the location of the building I don't see how it could be avoided. Having said all this, I don't think they would have been wrong to directly seek a proximal building, but given the facts available right now I'm really not convinced that's what happened. And so, it’s a direct link to 9/11 that’s, supposedly, meant to heal the wounds of 9/11, yet those wounds should not be considered? The opposition is to be tolerant but intolerance is allowed from the organizers because they're minorities and because they’re within their legal right to continue the project? NY’s governor wants to hold talks about a possible compromise and yet, again, the organizers refuse. They not only refuse, mind you, but proudly state on their website that no meeting is planned with the governor, and that the site will not be moved – meaning no compromise. That intolerance toward the sensitivities of the community and beyond show, IMO, the true purpose of this center and, after all these pages and after the organizers inability or unwillingness to compromise, I can't help but to now believe their purpose is not to build bridges but to add to the already wide divide. And, unless they make some concessions, they will have no one to blame - or congratulate - but themselves. Disagreement on the validity of this position seems to me to flow from the same fundamental disagreement about whether this is a freedom of religion issue or not. To propenents of the project who see this as a freedom of religion issue at it's core all this language of negotiation - 'talks' 'compromise' 'refusal' 'concessions' - is incredibly presumptuous and best rejected on principle. You have *no standing* for a 'negotiation'. The group has a right to be there. Period. They in no way have to enter into 'negotiations' about those rights. The group has pledged to reach out to families and New Yorkers (many whom already support the project - this can't be brushed aside either) and has expressed understanding about sensitivies repeatedly, and though I know the developers are walking a fine line, in my view people who are demanding some kind of collective bargaining process as a display of reasonables are totally responsible for any failure in communication themselves by giving nothing more than lip service to their rights as fellow Americans. And what about their website statement is 'prideful'? It's a clarification and a completely dry statement of facts. To me this shows that these people simply can't do anything right in the eyes of some, which isn't meant as a criticism, just a reflection of how hard people are dug in and in fact pretty deaf to the communication they say they want unless the communication is what they want to hear. |
GratefulFan 22.08.2010 16:01 |
magicalfreddiemercury wrote: OMG. I don't know whether to laugh aloud (which I did) or worry over the impression I've given on this thread. ======================== You've been wonderful on this thread, particulary given the emotions at play and at stake. |
magicalfreddiemercury 22.08.2010 17:38 |
>>> GratefulFan wrote: Disagreement on the validity of this position seems to me to flow from the same fundamental disagreement about whether this is a freedom of religion issue or not. <<< There are a myriad of valid points in your posts and while I agree as I follow your thoughts, I find your thoughts and mine still conflict, as you noted above. And while you mention the organizers have expressed sensitivity often, I haven't seen or felt it. Maybe it is as you say - because I've dug in so deeply that I'm not hearing it. I don't know. I certainly like to think I'm listening to both sides. In fact, I hear you well and wish someone like you could have been the designated spokesperson for this project. Maybe then, the two sides wouldn't be as far apart as they are today. And speaking of today - the rallies in the city didn't at all reflect my views. I saw a lot of ignorantly-worded signs being held with pride and anger, and that's just what I had hoped would not happen. |
magicalfreddiemercury 22.08.2010 17:39 |
>>> GratefulFan wrote: magicalfreddiemercury wrote: OMG. I don't know whether to laugh aloud (which I did) or worry over the impression I've given on this thread. ======================== You've been wonderful on this thread, particulary given the emotions at play and at stake. <<< == Thank you for saying this. I think I'll take that virtual beer now. :-) |
7Innuendo7 25.08.2010 05:45 |
imho Either build the Islamic community center, or tear down all the strip clubs and bars in Manhattan. The Republicans are desperate for traction on any issue, and fanning the flames of prejudice prior to elections is an old trick. The Taliban recently killed doctors in Pakistan -- now it's under deluge, and millions need a doctor -- a bit more than ironic indeed. The connection I see between these two statements is that racism, sexism, etc will destroy any community from within, regardless of what buildings (or more to the point, people) you take down-- or build up. |
GratefulFan 26.08.2010 19:12 |
This is one of three men charged with terrorism related offences in Canada over the last 36 hours. I don't know whether to laugh or cry. The accent is totally fake - he's born and bred in Montreal. The whole thing is rather clever and well executed gag. Graduated medical school in 2005 or so and is a practicing pathologist. How do you go from there, to today?
|
magicalfreddiemercury 26.08.2010 20:08 |
>>> GratefulFan wrote: This is one of three men charged with terrorism related offences in Canada over the last 36 hours. I don't know whether to laugh or cry. The accent is totally fake - he's born and bred in Montreal. The whole thing is rather clever and well executed gag. Graduated medical school in 2005 or so and is a practicing pathologist. How do you go from there, to today? <<< This is truly disturbing because it shows how integrated they can be - or pretend to be. Like Atta - who frequented strip clubs just to appear like 'one of the guys'. Disturbing and intimidating. |
magicalfreddiemercury 26.08.2010 20:18 |
>>> 7Innuendo7 wrote: The Taliban recently killed doctors in Pakistan -- now it's under deluge, and millions need a doctor -- a bit more than ironic indeed. The connection I see between these two statements is that racism, sexism, etc will destroy any community from within, regardless of what buildings (or more to the point, people) you take down-- or build up. <<< Good points and if this were simply about a mosque in a regular neighborhood, I would agree completely. My issue here, however, is as it's been all along - the opposition to THIS center in THIS spot is supposed to accept it in the name of 'tolerance' yet tolerance is not equally demanded of the organizers. I like this piece from NBC news - Two Views on the Downtown Mosque and Cultural Center By Gabe Pressman NBCNewYork.com The mosque near Ground Zero has stirred controversy around the world. And the contrasting words of two men should have special meaning to New Yorkers. You have to hand it to Mayor Bloomberg. He is passionate about his defense of the guarantee of religious freedom in this country and, despite an avalanche of criticism of the planned mosque at Ground Zero from people throughout the country and New York, the Mayor sticks to his guns. His viewpoint is worth examining even as we consider the words of another man who has an emotional stake in what happens. He is Judea Pearl, father of Daniel Pearl, the journalist who was beheaded by Muslim extremists seven years ago. And he wants the mosque moved. Bloomberg, at a dinner for Muslim leaders at Gracie Mansion this week, spoke fiercely of his devotion to religious liberty. He declared: ..if we say that a mosque and community center should not be built near the perimeter of the World Trade Center site, we would compromise our commitment to fighting terror with freedom. He said he understood the desire of many people to find a compromise in the controversy, perhaps to build the cultural center and mosque elsewhere. He knew some were hoping for a compromise to end the debate. But, said Bloomberg, it wont. The question will then become, how big should the no mosque zone around the World Trade Center be? Its a test, the Mayor said, of our commitment to American values. He added: We must do what is right, not what is easy. On Thursday, at City Hall, he honored a Muslim cab driver who was slashed a crazed anti-mosque passenger. Judea Pearl, in an interview with the Jewish Telegraph Agency, recalled that he was touched by a eulogy the mosque projects leader, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf delivered at a memorial service for Daniel Pearl in 2003. The slain journalists father said he was discouraged, though, that the Muslim leadership had not followed through on what he hoped would come from his sons death. At the time I truly believed Dannys murder would be a turning point in the reaction of the civilized world toward terrorism. With an edge of bitterness, the father said the Muslim leadership has had had nine years to build up trust by pro-actively resisting anti-American ideologies of victimhood, anger and entitlement. "Reactions to the mosque project indicate that they were not too successful in this endeavor. If I were Mayor Bloomberg I would reassert their right to build the mosque, but I would expend the same energy trying to convince them to put it somewhere else, Judea Pearl told the Jewish Telegraph Agency. The Mayor seems to have softened his attitude toward those who disagree with him on this issue. Now, the question is: can the Mayor, despite his own strong feelings, assume a new leadership role in the controversy? Can he endeavor to bring the parties together in a solution that honors the views of both sides? One Israeli scholar, Yossi Klein Halevi, suggests an interfaith center that would include a mosque, a church and a synagogue as well as a common space for people of all faiths and none. I spoke to Judea Pearl about this. He endorsed the idea wholeheartedly. "It's something Mayor Bloomberg should endorse, putting this multi-religious building under community control. By doing that, you obtain transparency." As for the mosque and cultural center, Pearl said "Today we have a very enlightened imam, but tomorrow you don't what imam will be in charge." Leadership doesnt consist solely of being passionate about what you believe in. It also involves understanding the feelings of all those you lead and trying to bring people together. == |
*goodco* 31.08.2010 10:18 |
Let's be honest: We're all writing and forming opinions so much about the Park51 Muslim cultural center planned downtown because of two things: Fox (FAUX) News (?) (Noise) and other factually incorrect media sources and hatemongers Fox News has gone to such an extreme to stir up controversy that they're deliberately ignoring a glaring hypocrisy. That is, the potential 'holy ground, Ground Zero' mosque financial backer that they accuse of having dangerous Middle East ties is also the second largest shareholder in Fox's parent company, News Corp. Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal owns about $2.3 billion in stock with News Corp. and is an ally of Rupert Murdoch. Fox commentators would have you believe that you should be worried about him funding Park51 because he is dangerous. You won't hear a contradiction or retraction regarding their beliefs or the above information. (This 'news' network recently won a court hearing in Florida that, despite blatent innacurracies in a story, they were protected by the First Amendment and free speech. I can claim that Michelle Bachman and Sarah Palin were in a daisy chain, and Newt and BillO and Glenn and Sean jerked off to it while Keith Olbermann provided commentary........and, well, ...........I have a First Amendment right to say this. oy......frickin.........vey) So, what has happened in recent days. A Mormon holds a rally that the USA was founded on Christian beliefs, and is 'returning to God'. Constantly berates the building of any mosque. In the days that follow, arsonists in Tennessee destroy equipment of a mosque being built, put up hate signs, while hate signs go up in California, along with bullet holes in Islamic buildings. Coincidence? Oh, and 24% of US idiots think our president is a Muslim. Thanks for the 'facts'. btw, if he was, so what? At least he was born in the USA (unlike McCain, who was born in what is now no longer a US territory). A brief snippet of our 44th president's biography: A native of Honolulu, Hawaii, Obama is a graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School, where he was the president of the Harvard Law Review. He was a community organizer in Chicago before earning his law degree. He worked as a civil rights attorney in Chicago and taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School from 1992 to 2004. Compare that to a reformed alcoholic, born again Christian, I'll listen to my 'FATHER' (not my father), got into Yale due to legacy and not merit (then will fight affirmative action college admittance regs), go bankrupt, fail as a baseball owner and ignore juicing of players, be fairly decent as a governor, take a budget surplus and go in the hole, take us into a war under false pretences..............but.............damnit............he was white. Morons. Sadly..........FAKES and all the hubbubbers had US going for a while on moving this community center. Now, we're looking forward to seeing it in a couple of months, and going inside when it's completed (unless some 'patriotic' idiot destroys it first..........right, Tim McViegh?) (parts of this comment borrowed from AP) later edit: just received the recent 'Newsweek'. The cover: The Making of A: Terrorist-Coddling, Warmongering, Wall Street Loving, Socialistic, Godless, Muslim President* (*who isn't actually any of these things) Sadly.........some of the dumber f*cks will see the big print and say, 'told ya, Martha'. |
Holly2003 31.08.2010 10:57 |
Nope, we don't get Fox News in the UK and I don;t watch Sky, which is another Murdoch channel. We do get The Daily Show though ... |
inu-liger 01.09.2010 04:29 |
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/greg-gutfield-to-open-a-gay-bar-next-to-ground-zero-mosque-to-cater-to-islamic-gay-men
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. As you know, the Muslim faith doesn’t look kindly upon homosexuality, which is why I’m building this bar. It is an effort to break down barriers and reduce deadly homophobia in the Islamic world. The goal, however, is not simply to open a typical gay bar, but one friendly to men of Islamic faith. An entire floor, for example, will feature non-alcoholic drinks, since booze is forbidden by the faith. The bar will be open all day and night, to accommodate men who would rather keep their sexuality under wraps – but still want to dance. Bottom line: I hope that the mosque owners will be as open to the bar, as I am to the new mosque. After all, the belief driving them to open up their center near Ground Zero, is no different than mine. My place, however, will have better music.” Hot Air contacted Andy Levy who reiterated that Gutfeld is serious. And, on his blog, Gutfeld points to the lack of humor in the post as further proof of his intentions (although, I think he’s under estimating himself. That last line about the music is hilarious). I, personally, think it’s a brilliant idea. I absolutely abhor all of this anti-mosque nonsense currently going on in this country. It’s disgusting bigotry plain and simple. However, just because I support Muslim Americans in their fight against anti-Islam prejudice, doesn’t mean they shouldn’t get a few dings for their religion’s own prejudice against homosexuals. If you want to be treated fairly, you should treat others fairly as well. Still though, the only thing that would make this plan perfect would be if Gutfeld created a chain of gay bars and plopped them down next to churches and synagogues since it’s not like those religions have been super open-minded. Insomniacs around the country already know that Red Eye is underrated genius. If Gutfeld goes through with his plan, hopefully it will be enough to finally thrust them into the satirical limelight with Stewart and Colbert like they deserve. UPDATE: Gutfeld outlined his plans on Red Eye last night. Check out the segment here. |
GratefulFan 01.09.2010 11:25 |
Old-ish news, this "most brilliant piece of provocation in recent years" 'Brilliant provocation'. That's a couple of words you don't hear together too often. Shows where this debate has gone in some quarters. Though I suppose some opponents see the location of the centre as a provocation in and of itself, so I guess the language is appropriate for that argument . Still, I sometimes feel like there's a whole lot of people who need to be saved from themselves on this issue. I realize how obnoxious that might sound, because it feels a bit obnoxious. But the whole thing has gotten surreal. |
GratefulFan 01.09.2010 12:06 |
*goodco* wrote: Let's be honest: We're all writing and forming opinions so much about the Park51 Muslim cultural center planned downtown because of two things: Fox (FAUX) News (?) (Noise) and other factually incorrect media sources and hatemongers Fox News has gone to such an extreme to stir up controversy that they're deliberately ignoring a glaring hypocrisy. That is, the potential 'holy ground, Ground Zero' mosque financial backer that they accuse of having dangerous Middle East ties is also the second largest shareholder in Fox's parent company, News Corp. Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal owns about $2.3 billion in stock with News Corp. and is an ally of Rupert Murdoch. Fox commentators would have you believe that you should be worried about him funding Park51 because he is dangerous. ===================================== It's been a perfect storm of a hot button issue, an election year and rabid far right element that turned the thing about as ugly as it can get. It's the two latter things that turned it from a resolvable local community issue into an international fist fight. Media gets an assist, though I see it as far more of a far right blogosphere issue and politicians jockeying for position thing than a Fox News problem. It didn't help either that the face of the project was out of the country during the escalation of tensions and the rapid plummet in the tone of the discourse. I've heard the money issue termed as 'Saudi money is halal for corporate America and haram for mosques', which is kind of funny, if anything about this can be termed funny. You mentioned visiting the centre in a couple of years. I think it's far, far from a done deal. In fact, if I was a betting person I would think the odds were firmly on the 'not going to happen' side at this point. I don't know how they possibly get from here to the kind of stability and certainty you need to raise a hundred million dollars. We'll see what the Imam can do on his return. If it were me, I'd halt everything. Then I'd make a public statement that I was committed to the location, that that was not going to change, but that no further advancement in plans was going to happen for x number of weeks while dialogue was initiated to share concerns and ease tensions. The way I see it they have to continue the good fight for that location as I can't see any alternative as anything other than some shade of disasterous at this point. |
Amazon 01.09.2010 12:45 |
GratefulFan wrote: "Old-ish news, this "most brilliant piece of provocation in recent years"" "'Brilliant provocation'. That's a couple of words you don't hear together too often. Shows where this debate has gone in some quarters. Though I suppose some opponents see the location of the centre as a provocation in and of itself, so I guess the language is appropriate for that argument . Still, I sometimes feel like there's a whole lot of people who need to be saved from themselves on this issue. I realize how obnoxious that might sound, because it feels a bit obnoxious. But the whole thing has gotten surreal." ===================================== I completely agree with you. I've stayed away from this thread as the last discussions I was involved in got toxic, but I've been following it and I really admire and completely agree with your posts. I've also become much firmer in my view that if someone wants to build an Islamic centre on land that they own, they absolutely should have the right to do so, and it is their opponents, not them, who need to be sensitive. When you say that 'I sometimes feel like there's a whole lot of people who need to be saved from themselves on this issue', I think that's an understatement. The level to which this has descended is both extraordinary, and in many cases horrifying. The idea of having a gay club next to the Islamic centre, in a neighbourhood which already has strip clubs anyway, is bizarre. The motivation for it, in regards to the 'brilliant provocation', is disturbing. |
Amazon 01.09.2010 14:11 |
GratefulFan wrote: *goodco* wrote: Let's be honest: "We're all writing and forming opinions so much about the Park51 Muslim cultural center planned downtown because of two things: Fox (FAUX) News (?) (Noise) and other factually incorrect media sources and hatemongers Fox News has gone to such an extreme to stir up controversy that they're deliberately ignoring a glaring hypocrisy. That is, the potential 'holy ground, Ground Zero' mosque financial backer that they accuse of having dangerous Middle East ties is also the second largest shareholder in Fox's parent company, News Corp. Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal owns about $2.3 billion in stock with News Corp. and is an ally of Rupert Murdoch. Fox commentators would have you believe that you should be worried about him funding Park51 because he is dangerous." ===================================== "It's been a perfect storm of a hot button issue, an election year and rabid far right element that turned the thing about as ugly as it can get. It's the two latter things that turned it from a resolvable local community issue into an international fist fight. Media gets an assist, though I see it as far more of a far right blogosphere issue and politicians jockeying for position thing than a Fox News problem. It didn't help either that the face of the project was out of the country during the escalation of tensions and the rapid plummet in the tone of the discourse. I've heard the money issue termed as 'Saudi money is halal for corporate America and haram for mosques', which is kind of funny, if anything about this can be termed funny. You mentioned visiting the centre in a couple of years. I think it's far, far from a done deal. In fact, if I was a betting person I would think the odds were firmly on the 'not going to happen' side at this point. I don't know how they possibly get from here to the kind of stability and certainty you need to raise a hundred million dollars. We'll see what the Imam can do on his return. If it were me, I'd halt everything. Then I'd make a public statement that I was committed to the location, that that was not going to change, but that no further advancement in plans was going to happen for x number of weeks while dialogue was initiated to share concerns and ease tensions. The way I see it they have to continue the good fight for that location as I can't see any alternative as anything other than some shade of disasterous at this point." ===================================== goodco and GratefulFan, I love your posts! :D GratefulFan, you are absolutely right that this is about the far right in general. The most disturbing thing about the whole 'Obama is Muslim' thing, for example, isn't IMO that people don't know his actual religion but that being Muslim has become connected to being un/anti-American. But putting that aside and focusing on this issue; the far right, including people like Gingrich and Palin, have been truly horrible. The 'Saudi money is halal for corporate America and haram for mosques' quote is brilliant, as it ecapsulates the hypocricy of the far right; Obama was accused of bowing to the king of Saudi Arabia, which is bad, however Bush has financial ties with the Saudi royal family, and that's okay? I fully agree with you conclusion. I really hope it works out for the best, and that I can visit this centre in the near future. godco, your recent post said it all. Bravo! :D BTW, did you watch Jon Stewart's take on the Faux 'News' hypocricy? It was really superb and spot on. I hate those people. |
magicalfreddiemercury 01.09.2010 15:09 |
>>> GratefulFan wrote: We'll see what the Imam can do on his return. If it were me, I'd halt everything. Then I'd make a public statement that I was committed to the location, that that was not going to change, but that no further advancement in plans was going to happen for x number of weeks while dialogue was initiated to share concerns and ease tensions. The way I see it they have to continue the good fight for that location as I can't see any alternative as anything other than some shade of disasterous at this point. <<< . I could be wrong, but I think a suggestion of dialogue at this point is too little, too late. A commentary I read about the protests held last week, made a lot of sense to me. The author spoke about how this center has now become the focus of all the frustrations in the country, and how we've been so divided these past years, that, in a way, the project has become a "cause" against which Americans can unite. Clearly, Americans are NOT united on this but I thought the concept was interesting. He went on to say the following... the last part of which, I think, is what could help close the divide that the 'good fight for that location' has caused... == "...the vast majority of the signs I saw were sobering: "It's Not About Freedom of Religion, its about Respect for the (3000) Dead;" "The mosque is salt in the wound of 9/11;" "It's my first amendment right to protest this travesty...just because you have the right doesn't mean you should." These are not signs of so-called "Islamophobia," let alone hatred of all Muslims, as the wife of the Imam, Daisy Kahn, sweepingly asserted this week. They are instead common sense and easily anticipated concerns in a community that lost so many lives to Islamist (not Islamic) terrorism less than a decade ago. If the goal of the center is really to promote healing, the reaction so far is evidence of failure. A genuinely inter-faith center on that site would better accomplish those aims. " == Personally, I don't see how moving the site would be disastrous. If anything, I think it would show a willingness to accomplish the supposed goals of improving relations. And, in my opinion, the responsibility to show sensitivity automatically lies with the developers, not the opposition, since it was the developers who instigated this project while acknowledging the rift between sides as the reason for doing so. |
More Cowbell 02.09.2010 13:17 |
Religion: the biggest cause of war in history. Nothing nasty or idiotic about that comment really. Build the mosque and see what the Americans do next. |
Amazon 02.09.2010 14:09 |
I don't think that the developers need to show sensitivity. I think it's the opponents who need to do so. William Saletan, in an essay in Slade said it best: (I took this quote from another site, but the link for the essay is link 'Feelings about 9/11 are raw and real. Many people, including families who lost loved ones that day, find the prospect of a mosque near Ground Zero upsetting. I've heard this reaction in my family, too. But feelings aren't reasons. You can't tell somebody not to build a house of worship somewhere just because the idea upsets you. You have to figure out why you're upset. What's the basis of your discomfort? Why should others respect it? For that matter, why should you? [...] It's natural to be angry at Muslims for 9/11. In fact, it's natural to want to kill them. We've hated and killed each other for centuries. You kill us; we kill you. The "you" is collective. You aren't exactly the infidel who slew my grandfather. But you're close enough. [...] But if our revulsion at the idea of a mosque near Ground Zero is irrational--if it's based on group blame and a failure to distinguish Islam from terrorism--then maybe it isn't the mosque's planners who need to rise above their emotions. Maybe it's the rest of us. Once we recognize the sensitivity argument for what it is--an appeal to feelings we can't morally justify--there's no good reason why the Islamic center shouldn't be built at its planned site, in the neighborhood where its imam already preaches and its members work and congregate. Asking them to reorder their lives to accommodate our instinctive reaction is wrong. We can transcend that reaction, and we should. By all means, let's have a thoughtful conversation about Islam and its place in the United States. Let's ask the imam what he means when he says sharia is compatible with the U.S. Constitution. Let's confront the reluctance of Muslim clerics, including this one, to denounce Hamas. And let's demand transparency in the fundraising process so extremists don't finance the new building. Moving the building farther away from Ground Zero won't advance any of these discussions. It's the wrong fight. Let it go.' |
Yara 02.09.2010 15:57 |
Politics is also about making concessions in order to better acommodate differences of interest and worldview. Today, in the New York Times, we read: "Two-thirds of New York City residents want a planned Muslim community center and mosque to be relocated to a less controversial site farther away from ground zero in Lower Manhattan, including many who say they favor the project, according to a New York Times poll[...].Over all, 50 percent of those surveyed oppose the project’s construction two blocks north of the World Trade Center site, even though a majority believe that the developers have the right to do so. Thirty-five percent favor it.Opposition is most intense in the city’s outer boroughs — 54 percent in the Bronx — but it is even strong in Manhattan, considered a bastion of religious tolerance, where 41 percent are against it. " I think the New Yorkers' demand is fair. Really fair. And maybe it's time for the muslim community and other intellectuals and business men who have financial and political interest in building the mosque to make concessions: no one's saying "don't build it"; people are not saying: "you're not entitled to". People are demanding whether it could be built elsewhere - well, I guess it's a fair demand which could be very well met. Being entitled to something doesn't mean that you HAVE TO DO IT. Sometimes it's not prudent nor desirable to exercise a certain right, and people can always try to exercise it in a more responsible, peaceful and less contentious way. After all, the muslim community has to think about international responsibility as well: how many Muslim theocracies are willing to let churches to be built next to their most sacred sites? Even so, the U.S, albeit all its wrongdoing, is enough of a democracy to be willing to accept this community instead of going after each and every Muslim, as it'd have happened in a good deal of countries. If one can build it elsewhere, do it: people outside the islamic community will respect this mosque even more for the willingness of its supporters to avoid upsetting and offending the rest of the population. New Yorkers know these people are not to blame for 9/11. They know they have the right to build the mosque wherever they want. They just ask themselves why, for the sake of the memory of the victims, the building cannot be erected elsewhere to better accommodate the wishes of all people involved in this. |
magicalfreddiemercury 02.09.2010 16:18 |
Beautifully said, Yara. |
Amazon 03.09.2010 03:17 |
Yara wrote: "I think the New Yorkers' demand is fair. Really fair." Why? Why is it fair? There is a Mosque at the Pentagon, there already are mosques near Ground Zero, why is this demand fair? Anyway, this Islamic centre will not be at Ground Zero. It will be near it, but near is not the same thing as on it. "People are demanding whether it could be built elsewhere - well, I guess it's a fair demand which could be very well met." Three comments. One, there are quite a few people who would prefer that a Mosque not be built anywhere. Two, in a secular liberal democracy, people have the right to build places of worship on land that they own, whereever they want. Three, this is actually an Islamic centre, although whether it's a mosque or not des not IMO alter the justness of the organisers' position. "Being entitled to something doesn't mean that you HAVE TO DO IT. Sometimes it's not prudent nor desirable to exercise a certain right, and people can always try to exercise it in a more responsible, peaceful and less contentious way." True, but isn't it interesting how it only became an issue after the Islamophobes at Faux 'news' took hold of it? They haven't acted in a 'responsible, peaceful and less contentious way' at all. "After all, the muslim community has to think about international responsibility as well: how many Muslim theocracies are willing to let churches to be built next to their most sacred sites?" How is that relevent? The Muslim theocracies you speak of are non-liberal dictatorships and non-democracies. America is a liberal democracy and it is not a Christian country, no matter what some Americans might think. It is just as Muslim as it is Christian and Muslims have as much right to build places of worship in the US as Jews and Christians. What happems in Saudi Arabia is irrelevent. Unless you think that America should be judged by the standards of Saudi Arabia? Furthermore, American Muslims are not Saudi Muslims. What goes on in Saudi Arabia is not their responsibility. To say that the muslim community 'has to think about international responsibility' is nonsence; not just because we are talking about America here (a secular liberal democracy) and not Saudi Arabia (a non-secular non-liberal non-democracy) but also because Muslims do not have to answer for or take responsibility for every misdeed in their name. Unless of course you are willing to take responsibility for all misdeeds in the name of Christianity? "Even so, the U.S, albeit all its wrongdoing, is enough of a democracy to be willing to accept this community instead of going after each and every Muslim, as it'd have happened in a good deal of countries." And Muslims should be grateful for this? Wow, thanks, for not 'going after each and every Muslim.' To think that Muslims should be grateful for this is absurd and incredibly offensive. I can not believe that you would think that Muslims should be grateful that the US has not 'gone after each and every Muslim'. This is extraordinary. My American Muslim friends would be horrified if they learned about this. 'If one can build it elsewhere, do it: people outside the islamic community will respect this mosque even more for the willingness of its supporters to avoid upsetting and offending the rest of the population.' What makes you think that 'the rest of the population' are upset and offended by it? Many non-Muslims are not upset or offended by it. Furthermore, after many of the comments that have been uttered, I don't think it's the 'the rest of the population' which have been offended and upset. The Islamophobia has been horrifying. 'New Yorkers know these people are not to blame for 9/11. They know they have the right to build the mosque wherever they want. They just ask themselves why, for the sake of the memory of the victims, the building cannot be erected elsewhere to better accommodate the wishes of all people involved in this.' Read the link I provided above. I wil simply end by saying that this IMO is not a good reason. Considering that there already are mosques in the neighbourhood, there is a mosque at the pentagon, the Islamic centre is not on Ground Zero (not that it matters IMO but that is beside the point), that this is in a neighbourhood where the Imam and his followers live and work, that some of the victims were Muslim and that the terrorists were a preversion of Islam, and that feelings aren't enough of a reason (just because you feel offended does not automatically mean that your feelings should taken into account); well, I think that the organisers have every right to build the Islamic centre, and I hope they do. |
*goodco* 03.09.2010 08:31 |
Ever notice that when the topic comes up on various 'news' outlets, they show a picture of a traditional mosque? Not the proposed square, ugly, ten story, nondescript, 'looks like everything else in the neighborhood ' building. There can be discussion on this. And disagreements. The pandering of the hate mongers to their base is appalling. They are no different than those whose actions led to the bombing of the black Birmingham church that killed the young black girls in the '60's. Sen. Orin Hatch (R-Utah) finally came out in support of the 'constitutionality' of this building. I would appreciate it if Bush 43 would come out on video and make a comment, as he did after 9/11, about tolerance for our fellow Muslim Americans. Just like Jimmy Carter has done, he could change his legacy of being a bumbling president into something good as an emeritus. |
magicalfreddiemercury 03.09.2010 10:07 |
Well, this thread certainly covers the views from all sides. . It's interesting to read the comments and see which points are chosen to respond to and in what manner. Not that any opinions are wrong, but the way some statements are interpreted often appears at odds with how they were intended. That an offense is taken by parts of comments while the main point of the entire comment is missed shows, I think, why there should have been dialogue earlier. At this point, emotions are so tightly wound that regardless of the intent - of either side - negative assumptions will be made. It's a shame, really, because this could have been a wonderful thing. It could have opened doors to understanding... not just 'tolerance'. When you like someone, you want to know more about them. The developers haven't made themselves very likable and the opposition has taken off on peculiar tangents. Maybe the governor's offer to hold talks will be accepted. Maybe the location won't change because of those talks, but the willingness of both sides to at least discuss it might help to quell (some of) the emotions. . Just one other point... I know the opinion from those in favor of this project is that the opposition being offended isn't reason enough to change the location. However, I think the organizers - in order to hold true to their claim of building bridges and improving relations - have to show a desire to understand what is causing the offense and validate it. That's not to say they have to bow down to it, but, like an irate customer in a department store, if you take the time to actually hear their complaint, you might be surprised at how easy it can be to appease them while still maintaining personal integrity. |
Amazon 03.09.2010 11:16 |
*goodco* wrote: "Ever notice that when the topic comes up on various 'news' outlets, they show a picture of a traditional mosque? Not the proposed square, ugly, ten story, nondescript, 'looks like everything else in the neighborhood ' building." It doesn't surprise me at all. Just like how people constantly refer it to a mosque, the fact that the news outlets show what you describe is something I don't find at all to be suprising. Ignorance, fear-mongering and Islamophobia is what it is. "There can be discussion on this. And disagreements. The pandering of the hate mongers to their base is appalling. They are no different than those whose actions led to the bombing of the black Birmingham church that killed the young black girls in the '60's." Exactly. It is horrifying. Add to it the suspicion that Obama is Muslim (oh my god!) and the statements that by being one, he is disloyal and anti/un-American, and I just think that the hate mongers and the far right (one and the same really) are absolutely disgusting. "Sen. Orin Hatch (R-Utah) finally came out in support of the 'constitutionality' of this building. I would appreciate it if Bush 43 would come out on video and make a comment, as he did after 9/11, about tolerance for our fellow Muslim Americans." He never would. While I'm not entirely certain of his religious affiliation, I do know that many members of the far right belive in an evengelical apocalyptic christianity which dislikes Islam. But also when he did make the comment after 9/11, he was attacked by fellow republicans. "Just like Jimmy Carter has done, he could change his legacy of being a bumbling president into something good as an emeritus." Except that I think that Carter is many times the human being that Bush ever would be (I think that Bush is much more than a bumbling president but that is a discussion for another time.) magicalfreddiemercury wrote: "The developers haven't made themselves very likable and the opposition has taken off on peculiar tangents." I guess this is one thing we will never agree on, as I don't think it's the developers who have failed to make themselves likable. On the contrary, I think that the opposition has done everything in its power to make themselves as unlikable as possible. "That's not to say they have to bow down to it, but, like an irate customer in a department store, if you take the time to actually hear their complaint, you might be surprised at how easy it can be to appease them while still maintaining personal integrity." When you say 'appease' do you mean not build the centre there? Why is it whenever the opposition mentions dialogue, I get the suspicion that what is actually meant is 'do what we want you to do.' |
magicalfreddiemercury 03.09.2010 12:04 |
>>> Amazon wrote: magicalfreddiemercury wrote: "The developers haven't made themselves very likable and the opposition has taken off on peculiar tangents." I guess this is one thing we will never agree on, as I don't think it's the developers who have failed to make themselves likable. On the contrary, I think that the opposition has done everything in its power to make themselves as unlikable as possible. <<< . Which means each side needs to step back and start over. Neither will hear the other while each believes the other to be unyielding. . >>> When you say 'appease' do you mean not build the centre there? <<< No, not at all. I think when each side in an argument takes time to really listen to the other, they usually find, not only a new perspective, but also some common ground. What that common ground might be in this situation… I couldn’t say. I would just hope those who might hold that dialogue – again, both sides - would be willing to discover and reach it. . >>> Why is it whenever the opposition mentions dialogue, I get the suspicion that what is actually meant is 'do what we want you to do.' <<< I think this goes back to what I mentioned in the earlier part of my last post - At this point, emotions are so tightly wound that regardless of the intent - of either side - negative assumptions will be made. |
magicalfreddiemercury 07.09.2010 09:33 |
I’m going out on a limb by making an assumption, but I think it’s a safe one… all of us here are against the intended quran burning in Florida. With that said, I found a quote by the organizer of that ‘event’ to be much the same as statements made by the organizers and supporters of the Ground Zero community center. . In the article I read, discussion with this pastor turned to the effect of his congregation’s intended actions on muslims around the world. . This was his response: "We realize that this action would indeed offend people, offend the Muslims. I am offended when they burn the flag. I am offended when they burn the Bible. But we feel that the message that we are trying to send is much more important than people being offended." . So, it seems they intend to go ahead with their plans despite the emotional impact it will have on the world. Apparently, because being ‘offended’ isn’t reason enough for them to reconsider. It’s much like, in my opinion, the center’s organizers intention to push forward despite the emotional impact it will have – has had – on the community. . So… I’m not seeing this center as doing much good in the way of building bridges. If the organizers would work on this center with leaders/people of various faiths and non-faith, it could lay the groundwork for the bridges they say they want to build. And it could help make a community center that truly represents and serves the community. That method could then be modeled and applauded rather than mocked or used as a flashpoint. . Just sayin’. |
GratefulFan 07.09.2010 11:15 |
magicalfreddiemercury wrote: I’m going out on a limb by making an assumption, but I think it’s a safe one… all of us here are against the intended quran burning in Florida. With that said, I found a quote by the organizer of that ‘event’ to be much the same as statements made by the organizers and supporters of the Ground Zero community center. . In the article I read, discussion with this pastor turned to the effect of his congregation’s intended actions on muslims around the world. . This was his response: "We realize that this action would indeed offend people, offend the Muslims. I am offended when they burn the flag. I am offended when they burn the Bible. But we feel that the message that we are trying to send is much more important than people being offended." . So, it seems they intend to go ahead with their plans despite the emotional impact it will have on the world. Apparently, because being ‘offended’ isn’t reason enough for them to reconsider. It’s much like, in my opinion, the center’s organizers intention to push forward despite the emotional impact it will have – has had – on the community. . So… I’m not seeing this center as doing much good in the way of building bridges. If the organizers would work on this center with leaders/people of various faiths and non-faith, it could lay the groundwork for the bridges they say they want to build. And it could help make a community center that truly represents and serves the community. That method could then be modeled and applauded rather than mocked or used as a flashpoint. . Just sayin’. =================================== Their whole thing even predating this project has been interfaith cooperation. By the rules of their own corporate bylaw the Board of Directors of the Cordoba Initiative may not have any more than 50% of it's members of one faith. It's currently 50% Muslim and 50% non Muslim, according to their website. Decisions were always going to be guided by an interfaith community. What is that they should be doing that they're not already? Edited to add that I don't care if they burn Qurans all day and all night long, because I just think it makes them look like complete idiots. Hell, burn them for a week so you look *really* stupid and have to spend a whole bunch of your Jesus money on books. I'm sure the Muslim popluation may have a different view, particularly given the arson in Tennessee. The fire link between the two is a bit creepy. |
GratefulFan 07.09.2010 11:55 |
This topic makes me feel like Brian May on foxes. I simply can't get my head around the opposing opinion in anything but the most superficial way. I don't understand. It makes me want to call people pathetic, arrogant, jumped-up, snivelling little dweebs and threaten to have their guts for garters. Well maybe not quite, but you know, almost. LOL It fascinates me in a way, because this doesn't happen to me often at all. I'm usually pretty good at seeing alternate views, and being genuinely interested in them and in understanding them more fully. Not so here. In this case they make me crazy. When I get like this, I generally perceive that something has gone wrong and has swamped my rationality, and I have a number of tricks I employ to try and get back on track. I try to talk myself down. I play devil's advocate with myself and build a whole argument in opposition to what my real view is to try and get in touch with the views and sensibilities of the opposition. I walk away for a few days and come back calm and rational with fresh eyes. I read opinion pieces from the 'other side' extensively. I try to indentify what my Achilles' heels are in the argument and guard against them. In this case I've identified a general idealism that may not match reality and a general tendency to the minority opinion and to the defense of people who I perceive to be more in need of a 'voice' that happens so often and so consistently that I have to think it's some kind of 'thing' with me. Even still, NOTHING IS WORKING. I get back on this thread and I just want to stomp all over again. It's strange, but interesting. Pollsters are reporting similar emotional knots and confusion. They'll ask mutually exclusive questions in slightly different ways and get a majority agreeing to answers that essentially cancel each other out. All this to day that if I seem to get slightly ranty please see it as a reflection of me on this issue, for whatever reason, and not of you, or my opinion of you. All you yous. :) |
GratefulFan 07.09.2010 11:59 |
Double post. |
magicalfreddiemercury 07.09.2010 12:08 |
>>> GratefulFan wrote: Their whole thing even predating this project has been interfaith cooperation. <<< . Interfaith cooperation, on their terms, sounds like Amazon said the opposition's desire for 'dialogue' sounds... like a way to insist things are done their way. Especially when they say things like this, from their website - "We look forward to actively engaging with leaders of the victims of 9/11 to respond to their concerns and obtain their support for our efforts." They say "respond to their concerns" then follow up with "obtain their support for our efforts'. They didn't say, "hear their ideas and work on an agreeable solution". It's the same as saying the Florida pastor 'looks forward to actively engaging with leaders of moderate muslims' and obtain their support for his actions. . . >>> By the rules of their own corporate bylaw the Board of Directors of the Cordoba Initiative may not have any more than 50% of it's members of one faith. It's currently 50% Muslim and 50% non Muslim, according to their website. Decisions were always . going to be guided by an interfaith community. <<< . With the board of directors being 50% muslim, those decisions can hardly be made with equality in mind. . . >>> What is that they should be doing that they're not already? <<< . In keeping with the 'interfaith cooperation' they declare, they should make it a space that celebrates all faiths as well as no faith. One that doesn't put one belief above another. That shows acceptance and camaraderie. If, to celebrate Islam, they need prayer space, then prayer space should be represented for all. And, they should clearly show sensitivity to the 'offended' opposition by acknowledging the reasons for the offense. For example... they saw how the original name "Cordoba House" was interpreted. Instead of acknowledging that interpretation, they respond with (also from their website): "Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf originally proposed calling the new center the “Cordoba House.” That name created the impression that the Cordoba Initiative was sponsoring the proposed community center, but this was not the case." THAT was not the impression. . I know I've repeated myself in many of my posts and suppose I should finally keep quiet since the conversation goes in circles because of that. I just felt the actual message was not being heard. Which is why, I should add, I posted what I did about the quran-burning organizers where they say the offense made by their actions is not as important as their message. That argument was used here and by the organizers of this center as a way to denounce, ignore and/or dismiss the legitimate concerns of many (clearly not all) those in opposition. That argument does not work for that Florida pastor, nor does it work for the center on Park Place. |
*goodco* 07.09.2010 12:37 |
If this were a Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Lutheran, Methodist, Mormon etc building.......no one would care. It's a center with a Muslim prayer area. Once again.........big deal. It's all politics. And hate mongering. If this center were one of the afore-mentioned 'religions'........would we insist that they also have a prayer area of another faith? I don't think so. I've read all the posts here on various 'feelings'.......I understand, and they were well said, intelligent, ......something that the wingnut media lacks. As facts continually get out (the building backing TERRORIST owns 22% stock of FOX noise).....the stupider the messanger becomes. The Florida minister...........probably burnt Beatle albums after the 'we're bigger than Jesus' BS. |
magicalfreddiemercury 07.09.2010 12:47 |
>>> *goodco* wrote: If this were a Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Lutheran, Methodist, Mormon etc building.......no one would care. It's a center with a Muslim prayer area. Once again.........big deal. It's all politics. And hate mongering. If this center were one of the afore-mentioned 'religions'........would we insist that they also have a prayer area of another faith? I don't think so. <<< . I don't think so either. Why? Because those centers wouldn't be built in the name of improving relations. . . >>> The Florida minister...........probably burnt Beatle albums after the 'we're bigger than Jesus' BS.<<< . Agreed. Though that action wouldn't empower extremists or endanger soldiers' lives. |
magicalfreddiemercury 07.09.2010 13:03 |
>>> GratefulFan wrote: All this to day that if I seem to get slightly ranty please see it as a reflection of me on this issue, for whatever reason, and not of you, or my opinion of you. All you yous. :) <<< . It's an emotional issue that's grown from an already tense relationship between muslims and non-muslims. The stated intent of this center was to quell those tensions, but it's done the opposite. So, it's natural, I think, for all of us to become over-zealous in defense of our positions. . Personally, I found you to be challenging while honestly seeking to understand. I don't think you've been ranty, just solid in your opinion. I happen to disagree with that opinion and do not see the same fairness that you exhibit, or that you seem to see exhibited, by the organizers. However, I, for one, respect your opinion because of the way in which you presented it. And I thank you for getting me to think more about why I feel as I do. . So on that note, I promise to (try to) resist posting more about this... did I hear someone say, "finally!"??? :-) |
GratefulFan 08.09.2010 17:35 |
Thanks so much for those thoughts magicalfm. I know I sure feel ranty on this sometimes, so I'm happy it hasn't seemed that way. I haven't stayed away because I was uninterested in the discussion, I was just trying to get some greater perspective. I still very much want to figure out what the pounding hell all you mistaken people are talking about. ;) I'm trying to feel more guilty about feeling pretty flip about the Quran burning. I shouldn't be so glib, but I can't get over how collectively stupid it seems to me our culture can be. Is there a world statesperson that hasn't yet weighed in on this 50 congregant fucknut from Alligator, Florida or wherever? He should have been ignored to oblivion in the first place. I should be more concerned about the images of burning holy books inciting radical Muslim agression, but I've thought for weeks that ship sailed anyway. However, pictures are potent things. Bah. He's still a great big idiot. |
The Real Wizard 09.09.2010 00:05 |
The question is... why did the media choose to publicize the pending Koran burning if they knew how damaging such information would be? It's not like the media high-rollers don't choose exactly what news the public gets to hear.. |
tcc 09.09.2010 00:41 |
The media choose to publicize it to make sales. The people who choose to create the issues - build the mosque, burn the koran - all have political agendas and the media helps to publicize their agendas. |
Amazon 09.09.2010 05:15 |
tcc wrote: "The media choose to publicize it to make sales. The people who choose to create the issues - build the mosque, burn the koran - all have political agendas and the media helps to publicize their agendas." It's not a mosque, and there is a massive difference between building a mosque and burning a holy book. To compare the two is absurd. |
magicalfreddiemercury 09.09.2010 08:03 |
The pastor has the legal right to carry out his project but that does not mean he is right to do so. . What I would love to see with this idiotic, irresponsible burning event is a group of regular citizens of all faiths showing up to take part, then at the last moment, forming a unified, human, interfaith shield around the books. . Anyone feel like heading to Florida? |
Donna13 09.09.2010 11:07 |
Well, let's say that this pastor did burn Beatles records when John Lennon said that the Beatles were more popular than Jesus. What if he had? Would the Beatles fans then have declared that they should kill all non-Beatles fans because of this protest? I don't think so. I think the fact that an American cannot burn any book if they feel like it for fear of antagonizing somebody into murdering others is proof that we really have bent over backwards too much. Why should we as Americans give up our freedom of speech? Will the next step be to tell the people writing opinion columns that they cannot say anything negative about religion at any time? Will the government ask newspapers to stop printing anything that might be taken as offensive to any religion? There is nothing wrong with denouncing somebody's religion or aspects of their religion. It is when the denouncing moves on to violence and trying to prevent a person from practicing that religion that it has gone too far. But there is nothing wrong with saying you don't like the Islamic religion and there is nothing wrong in burning a book of any sort. It is a standard form of protest around the world to burn things. Ha. Usually it looks pretty silly, and barbaric, but it is a form of expression. People are burning American flags all the time. When I worked in DC, there was some sort of protest every week. People who say they do not like the Catholic church do not have death threats put upon them. A person could go out and burn Bibles and it wouldn't even make the news. So, I say, let any American or any non-American protest if they want to. They can't legally stop Muslims or any other faith from being in this country or practicing their faith or trying to change American laws, but they can protest all they want. It is their right. Unless a constitutional amendment changes freedom of speech, the government officials should not be trying to use their influence in this way. If General Patraeus is so worried about this sort of thing, maybe they should pull the troops out of there. So, bottom line of what I think is: let the pastor burn the books; let this group build their community center anywhere they have the legal right to do so. Government officials and political candidates should stay out of it. |
john bodega 09.09.2010 11:46 |
People are always in such a rush to exercise their freedom of speech that they really forget to do a great deal of thinking beforehand. "Burn a Koran" might be very marketable but it gives far too convenient an outlet to the wrong kind of people. For every terrorist hiding in a cave that might get upset about this Koran burning, there would be dozens of ordinary Muslims who are probably thinking "WTF" and feeling rather put upon. I don't for one minute deny that these people have the legal right to burn some books, but what has that ever achieved? Ever? They're too thick in the head to think of something better and it is laughable. |
Amazon 09.09.2010 14:00 |
Donna13 wrote: "Well, let's say that this pastor did burn Beatles records when John Lennon said that the Beatles were more popular than Jesus. What if he had? Would the Beatles fans then have declared that they should kill all non-Beatles fans because of this protest?" I don't see it as an issue about whether radical Muslims will kill non-radical Muslims, but rather one of a religious extremist proving he is just as disgusting as those he claims to hate. "I don't think so. I think the fact that an American cannot burn any book if they feel like it for fear of antagonizing somebody into murdering others is proof that we really have bent over backwards too much." Are you serious? The reason most reasonable people don't burn books is not because they fear murder, but because, well, it's a terrible thing to do. It's not about bending over backwards; it's about tolerance. "Why should we as Americans give up our freedom of speech?" Oh please. I swear to god, if I hear one more person use the freedom of speech argument, I'm going to scream. This has nothing to do with freedom of speech. This is about religious freedom, tolerance and being a decent human being. To claim that it's about freedom of speech is not only ridiculous but is also an insult to REAL freedom of speech, which is generally political in nature; e.g. I think that the president is doing a crap job. The other thing is that freedom of speech has limits. You can not yell fire in a crowded theatre; you can not stand up in public and announce that you think that Obama should be given a lynching; you can not expect any Jew to give you the time of day if you publicly deny The Holocaust; you can not expect the New York Times to publish a letter in which you celebrated 9/11. There are limits to freedom of speech; whether they be imposed legally, culturally or simply for moral reasons, and a failure to recognise such limits not only threatens the very basis of freedom of speech, but is a great indicator that you are not a decent person. "Will the next step be to tell the people writing opinion columns that they cannot say anything negative about religion at any time?" Do you really think that burning the Koran, or any other holy book, is the same as criticising religion. This isn't criticism; it's hatred. Pure and simple. "Will the government ask newspapers to stop printing anything that might be taken as offensive to any religion?" The government may ask, but it does not mean that they will be listened to. Quite honestly, I don't see such a scenario ever taking place. I can assure you though that your precious right to desecrate holy books is not being threatened. "There is nothing wrong with denouncing somebody's religion or aspects of their religion. It is when the denouncing moves on to violence and trying to prevent a person from practicing that religion that it has gone too far." Except here is the thing. It DOES lead to violence. During The Holocaust, one of the first things that the Nazies did was burn Jewish books. Now, I'm not suggesting that there is going to be another Holocaust or that American Muslims will be massacred. From a personal perspective, however, the idea of burning holy books terrifies me. Violence doesn't just appear out of nowhere. You may think it's merely criticism; well, I can assure you it's much more than that. "But there is nothing wrong with saying you don't like the Islamic religion and there is nothing wrong in burning a book of any sort." I guess we have a different idea of what's wrong. I thought that writing a letter was the appropiate way to express one's dislike, rather than burning a holy book. I dislike the evengelical Christianity practiced in many parts of the US (as well as in Australia). However I would never burn a Christian bible. "People who say they do not like the Catholic church do not have death threats put upon them. A person could go out and burn Bibles and it wouldn't even make the news." Perhaps, perhaps not, but it still doesn't make it right. I'm not particularly fond of the Catholic Church, but if people burned bibles, I would be horrified. "So, I say, let any American or any non-American protest if they want to.... It is their right." Putting aside the fact that he wants to burn holy books, this isn't merely a protest. People aren't demonstrating and burning Korans in anger. This is a man who has calmly announced that he intends to do so in a public and systematic fashion. But also, you mention rights, again there is a limit. You have the right to use the N word as much as you want to; would you ring up a black radio station and use it? "Unless a constitutional amendment changes freedom of speech, the government officials should not be trying to use their influence in this way. If General Patraeus is so worried about this sort of thing, maybe they should pull the troops out of there." I was actually disappointed about the Patraeus thing. IMO it distracted from the key issue, which is the hatred and extremism. Hillary Clinton's response in which she called it disgraceful was IMO on the money, however I felt that other governmental responses should also have focused on the act itself. One last comment about 'freedom of speech.' The reality is that there is an ant-Muslim backlash. Several hate crimes ahve taken place recently; such as attempted murder, a pipe-bomb incident at a Florida mosque and arson; and these acts have (or are planned to take place) in several cities outside NY including Florida. Add that to the Islamophobia, and this Koran burning, which creates fear and paranoia as well as hatred, is incredibly reckless to say the least. "So, bottom line of what I think is: let the pastor burn the books; let this group build their community center anywhere they have the legal right to do so. Government officials and political candidates should stay out of it." I think that every Government official and political candidate, who cares about such issues, should condemn this Florida extremist for what he is. |
The Real Wizard 09.09.2010 14:23 |
tcc wrote: >The media choose to publicize it to make sales. Exactly. And why wasn't the president on TV a week ago condemning the media for making this an issue in the first place? Because he is not who's in charge here. Very few people notice this. Furthermore, who actually believes this is the the first Koran burning vigil since 9/11 ? Anyone? The reason why this is coming out now is because it's convenient. Mid-term elections are coming up. Right wing superpowers run the media, and it will be the same old Bush-style scare tactics all over again. Watch over the next few months as Republicans running for the house and senate come out saying how they'll keep us safe from the terrorists. |
magicalfreddiemercury 09.09.2010 15:20 |
>>>Sir GH wrote: Watchover the next few months as Republicans running for the house and senate come out saying how they'll keep us safe from the terrorists. <<< . Interesting that you would say this now because just yesterday there was yet another new poll out asking who was better at National Security, Democrats or Republicans. So, forget about a few months from now. It's already started. |
Yara 09.09.2010 16:20 |
Burning books is as stupid as burning the sofa on which your mate cheated on you instead of telling him off or kicking him out: it's a kind of regressive, metonymic and tometic way of thinking about things. Which gets me back to my point: the fact that people are entitled to rights doesn't mean that it's always desirable or convenient to exercise such rights. Suppose I accidentally ran over someone's kid and killed him. Understandably, even if I'm not to blame in this case, the parents will be angry at me. So I decide to have my new house built. What do I do? I can build it wherever I want, but I chose to built it just next to the parents' house, and I say I'm doing so in order to improve our relation. Is it going to be helpful in any possible way? I'd be likely generating more sorrow, angry and bringing back dreadful memories. So if I do want to both exercise my rights and foster peace, I'd better have it built elsewhere. On a different and much more gruesome (burning books is far worse than building any kind of religious center) note, I think we have come to a point where book burning is hardly justifiable anymore. I would have supported, no doubt, the people burning "Mein Kampf" back in the 60s and 70s, but that's because I don't think that thing is a book in the same way that the Coran, we may like it or not, is. That thing is the hateful product of a sick mind devoid of any feelings of humanity and compassion. Muslims are killing muslims - in Palestine (Fatah vs Hamas), in Iraq and many other parts of the world. Muslims are killing non-muslims - Islamic extremism is an actual, serious problem which has to be dealt with: it is not true that this kind of extremim is something "on the fringe". It is not. It's been shown over and over again that way too many Muslims are either supportive of, or condescending to, acts of hatred. In order to build bridges it is important to accept the facts, as bitter as they might be: Islam is today probably the most violent religion in the world. These people do enjoy a lot of support - and they wouldn't thrive if they didn't - and they have been killing in the name of Allah for all too long. The people who blew up the World Trade Center were Muslims and they did so in the name of their god. Extremist muslims have carried out terrorist attacks in Europe as well and continue to do so in the Middle East and Africa. Even moderate Muslims have been over and over again on record saying that the attack was barbaric and all, but that the U.S had it coming - even such intellectuals as Tariq Ali have done so, apparently forgetting that the terrorists didn't attack a thing called "U.S", but innocent people. So if this is about improving the relations between Muslims and people from other creeds, one has to acknowledge that there's a spill over effect: even if you're as a Muslim is not to blame, the terrorist attacks carried out in the name of your god have been so many that you can't expect people not to be defensive in some way or another, PRETTY MUCH AS I CAN'T EXPECT, AS A JEWISH PERSON, TO BE GREETED WITH JOY BY PALESTINIANS OR MUSLIMS IN GENERAL. It'd be naive, it'd be irresponsible, it'd be stupid. I should be prepared for a lot of defensiveness and work hard to build a common ground between us. The opposition to the building of the centre is not based on fox-news brainwashing - it is serious and legitimate, and it comes even from most of New Yorkers who are fairly liberal in their political views. Of course the people behind this project are entitled to build the center wherever they want. They have substantial political and financial support, including from a billionaire Mayor who happens to be Jewish. It's not as if it were a fight between the underdogs and the all-powerful right wing media. It's not, and it's never been. |
JoxerTheDeityPirate 09.09.2010 16:28 |
link the burning has been cancelled |
-fatty- 2850 09.09.2010 16:31 |
Linda McCartney burnt the quorn and now she's dead. Coincidence? I think not? fatty misunderstanding the issues at hand since 1999. |
magicalfreddiemercury 09.09.2010 16:42 |
>>>JoxerTheDeityPirate wrote: link the burning has been cancelled <<< . I heard this just now on CNN, but apparently, it's on the condition that the community center is either relocated or reconsidered. So... it's anyone's guess. . More 'news' is that Donald Trump has offered to buy the building where the community center is supposed to go. It's getting interesting. Almost comedic. |
YourValentine 09.09.2010 16:54 |
Great post, Yara, I could not agree more. On CNN you can watch a video interview with the Imam Feisal Rauf. If this is bridge building, I'd rather not cross his bridges. Basically, he tells the interviewer that Americans should fear retaliation from the "radicals" who might think "Islam is under attack" if the Cordoba House is not built as planned. link |
GratefulFan 10.09.2010 01:23 |
magicalfreddiemercury wrote: The pastor has the legal right to carry out his project but that does not mean he is right to do so. ========================= For me this entire argument structure is such a non starter that I can't even apply it to Pastor Whats-his-name. Probably largely because to me it's not an argument. It's a statement that needs a whole bunch more sentences to make it anything at all. It's like me saying 'Just because 71% of Americans want the community centre moved doesn't mean moving it is the right thing to do'. True, but so what? People say it like they've just said something profound and binding when they've literally said absolutely nothing at all. Worst of all, it appears to shift the burden to the organizers. That really couldn't be more unreasonable and disingenuous, unintended or not. The people making that claim have the burden to support it, not the other way around! Exercising their rights as Americans is not the right thing to do? Prove it then. Make your case. Anybody else who would like to limit or remove the rights of fellow Americans takes on the burden of evidence and understands the need for a process. Emotion and rhetoric are not evidence and they're not a process. Perhaps there is a case to be made on security grounds, or on principles of sanctions designed to force a change in the larger Muslim community. I don't think so myself, but at least that would be an argument, and any actual argument would be a welcome 10 steps up from 'it's offensive'. Yara in a previous post said the group should move so they could 'get even more respect'. To which I said 'ha!' at the time. More respect up from zero respect? Up from negative respect? Too many people don't even respect this group enough to acknowledge that asking them to move for what in many ways are arbitrary, even selfish reasons might be a really big thing. That asking them to voluntarily accept less freedom and diminished constitutional rights just might be a really big thing. That to accept they are to retreat somewhere more palatable to people who are in many cases thousands of miles away, retreat in their own neighbourhood, might be a really big thing. People don't even respect this group enough to acknowledge that this is a freedom of religion issue, claiming they fully support freedom of religion, and then retreating behind 'not the right thing to do'. By definition and by default all of those first amendment rights end with a firm period, not a 'but'. Indeed that is their very essence. If you truly support both the letter and the spirit of freedom of religion in any given situation, you just walk away. You don't have to walk away happy, but you do have to walk away. If however you feel there are extraordinary circumstances which mean an accommodation or exception is warranted, you are completely within your rights to express that opinion or make that argument by any and all peaceful and lawful means. For example, Americans sometimes employ free speech to try and limit the right to bear arms in certain circumstances. But they don't do so while claiming to support the right in that specific circumstance, because in that given instance they don't, or they wouldn't be trying to limit it! It's like holding a placard in your left hand that says "I SUPPORT THE THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS" and a placard in your right hand that says "GUNS NOT THE RIGHT THING TO DO IN DC!" It's muddled, incoherent and intentionally or not, it's completely disingenuous in spirit. No reasonable person would ever conclude anything other than while you may generally support the right to bear arms, you don't support the right to bear arms in DC. And you don't have to. But you need to take basic responsibility for the position in the interest of truth and fairness. |
GratefulFan 10.09.2010 02:10 |
Yara wrote: Which gets me back to my point: the fact that people are entitled to rights doesn't mean that it's always desirable or convenient to exercise such rights. Suppose I accidentally ran over someone's kid and killed him. Understandably, even if I'm not to blame in this case, the parents will be angry at me. So I decide to have my new house built. What do I do? I can build it wherever I want, but I chose to built it just next to the parents' house, and I say I'm doing so in order to improve our relation. Is it going to be helpful in any possible way? I'd be likely generating more sorrow, angry and bringing back dreadful memories. So if I do want to both exercise my rights and foster peace, I'd better have it built elsewhere. ======================================== Despite the lip service, some people don't regard law abiding and patriotic Muslims as any different from terrorists, not really. Imam Rauf didn't run over anybody with his car and he didn't drive any planes into the WTC. Let me tweak your analogy a little: Somebody who is not you runs over the child with a blue Toyota Corolla. You also own a blue Corolla and due to a growing family you move to a location a few blocks away from your old house two and a half blocks away from the farthest corner of the lot of the grieving family. It's a really nice house and you let everybody come and swim in your pool. The grieving family can't see your house, and they'll never see the Corolla unless they actually go out of their way to do so. Nonetheless, some of the family members feel that blue Corolla burning at their back two and a half blocks away, and would like you to know that just because you can drive a blue Corolla doesn't mean it's the right thing to do in their neighbourhood. In fact they think you're insensitive and that you should move or at the very least they should get to come over and park their cars in your garage so the Corolla doesn't stand out so much. Understandably, not everybody agrees with this this. Opponents are hung up on the 'fostering peace' and 'building bridges' rhetoric. Is it the community centre proposal or the response to that proposal that is damaging these processes? Certainly no one will ever get over a bridge when one party is trying to build it and the other party is trying to knock it down on the other side. It's not them dealing a mortal blow to good faith relations, it's you. |
GratefulFan 10.09.2010 02:31 |
YourValentine wrote: Great post, Yara, I could not agree more. On CNN you can watch a video interview with the Imam Feisal Rauf. If this is bridge building, I'd rather not cross his bridges. Basically, he tells the interviewer that Americans should fear retaliation from the "radicals" who might think "Islam is under attack" if the Cordoba House is not built as planned. link ========================== He's just stating facts YV. It's not a 'veiled threat', it's precisely what any security expert will tell you and precisely what many people, including me, concluded weeks ago. He didn't use it as a reason to push ahead, he simply stated the obvious fact that he has a tremendous responsibility to consider all the ramifications at home and abroad in moving forward in any of the possible directions. I have tremendous sympathy for his position. No matter what he does, it's going to be imperfect in the eyes of some, and since opponents are only worrying about their own personal views it does fall on him to navigate the many complexities of this on his own. Ironically, if (when?) the centre is forced to move he will need every ounce of what few seem willing to credit him for now: tremendous good will, pure intent, skillful diplomacy and a peacemaker's heart. I'd probably be too hurt to do anything other than just walk away and allow poison to seep into any wounds to the Muslim community caused by this. |
Amazon 10.09.2010 04:07 |
Yara wrote: "Muslims are killing muslims - in Palestine (Fatah vs Hamas), in Iraq and many other parts of the world. Muslims are killing non-muslims -" And non-Muslims are killing Muslims as well as non-Muslims. In the Palestinian Territories, Jews kill Muslims and in Iraq and Aghanistan Christians kill Muslims. I don't understand the relevence of this unless this is an anti-Islamic rant. "Islamic extremism is an actual, serious problem which has to be dealt with: it is not true that this kind of extremim is something "on the fringe"." The overwhelming majority of Muslims are not extremists, and yes, it is 'on the fringe', whether you like it or not. Furthermore the centre organisers are NOT extremists. "It is not. It's been shown over and over again that way too many Muslims are either supportive of, or condescending to, acts of hatred." That is extraordinarily debatable. Have you spoken to any Muslims? Because you will find that many (I would say most except I haven't spoken to most Muslims) do not support extremism. It should be noted that the Florida pastor, a non-Muslim, wants to committ an act of hate and that those who are either supportive of, or condescending to, this act of hate (as well as other acts of hate aimed at Muslims in the US in recent times) are non-Muslims. So don't spout the nonsence that "it's been shown over and over again that way too many Muslims are either supportive of, or condescending to, acts of hatred." "In order to build bridges it is important to accept the facts, as bitter as they might be: Islam is today probably the most violent religion in the world." Forgive me if I don't accept this 'fact'. I don't accept that at all, but even if it were true (and I don't beleieve that it is), it does not justify burning holy books. BTW, I could easily argue that Christianity is still the most violent religion, or that extremism (of any form) is the most violent, but it doesn't get us anywhere. You obviously dislike Islam, I dislike forms of Christianity as well as extremist Judaism and Islam; this thread is not about that. "These people do enjoy a lot of support - and they wouldn't thrive if they didn't - and they have been killing in the name of Allah for all too long." Oh please. I don't care what you think of Muslims or Islam (although your recent comment that Muslims should be grateful that the US is not going after them was horrifying to say the least and your comment that Muslims have international responsibility is also highly questionable), but at least get your facts straight. Islamicist terrorism is a new phenomenen. As for enjoying a lot of support; considering that most victims of Islamicist terror attacks are Muslim, do you really think that Muslims support that? I've spoken to quite a few moderate Muslims (which you obviously haven't) and they are probably more sickened by extremist Muslims than anyone on this site. Muslims are just like you. Very few support murder. "The people who blew up the World Trade Center were Muslims and they did so in the name of their god." They are extremists and they also did so for political reasons. They have nothing to do with the centre organisers. "Extremist muslims have carried out terrorist attacks in Europe as well and continue to do so in the Middle East and Africa." Most terrorist attacks in Europe have been carried out by non-Muslims. In Africa, most violent attacks are non-religious in nature. In the ME, until recently, most violent attacks were also non-religious in nature. "Even moderate Muslims have been over and over again on record saying that the attack was barbaric and all, but that the U.S had it coming - even such intellectuals as Tariq Ali have done so, apparently forgetting that the terrorists didn't attack a thing called "U.S", but innocent people." Oh please. I've spoken to plenty of moderate Muslims, and none have condoned the murder of innocents. Those who believe that the US had it coming are not referring to the murders of 3000 people (including Muslims), but the idea that the US was attacked. Do I agree? No. Do I understand what they mean and do I understand the difference? Yes. Imran Kahn released a documentary in which he spoke about it. I guess you think he is pro-extremist. "So if this is about improving the relations between Muslims and people from other creeds, one has to acknowledge that there's a spill over effect: even if you're as a Muslim is not to blame, the terrorist attacks carried out in the name of your god have been so many that you can't expect people not to be defensive in some way or another," You can expect people to understand that most Muslims are not terrorists and you can expect people to not be Islamophobic. You can expect people to not committ hate crimes. Even on this thread, it hasn't occured to you that the centre organisers have nothing to do with 9/11. I don't know whether it's because of bigotry or ignorance, but perhaps you could do some research and perhaps you could realise that the terrorists and the centre organisers are NOT one and the same. "PRETTY MUCH AS I CAN'T EXPECT, AS A JEWISH PERSON, TO BE GREETED WITH JOY BY PALESTINIANS OR MUSLIMS IN GENERAL. It'd be naive, it'd be irresponsible, it'd be stupid. I should be prepared for a lot of defensiveness and work hard to build a common ground between us." Perhaps, but it's a slightly different scenario, isn't it? I've met Palestinians, and yes, there was defensiveness on both sides, but Muslims come from different parts of the world. If I talk to an Indonesian Muslim, he would be far less defensive, and I probably would be as well. "The opposition to the building of the centre is not based on fox-news brainwashing - it is serious and legitimate, and it comes even from most of New Yorkers who are fairly liberal in their political views." It may be serious, but is it legitimate? IMO it is not. Muslims already work there; there is already a mosque at the Pentagon (which nobody at Faux 'news' made a fuss over); it's not on Ground Zero; and the Muslims who want to build the centre have NOTHING to do with 9/11. At all. Just because you are 'offended' by it does not mean that your opposition to it is legitimate. They have the right to religious freedom. "Of course the people behind this project are entitled to build the center wherever they want. They have substantial political and financial support, including from a billionaire Mayor who happens to be Jewish." Yes, and I have a tremendous amount of respect for Bloomberg, not just based on this though, but certainly largely based on this. "It's not as if it were a fight between the underdogs and the all-powerful right wing media. It's not, and it's never been." I would suggest that the right-wing media is more powerful than you give it credit for. If it weren't, why don't more people ask the following question; who cares if Obama is Muslim or not? |
Amazon 10.09.2010 05:16 |
GratefulFan wrote: magicalfreddiemercury wrote: The pastor has the legal right to carry out his project but that does not mean he is right to do so. ========================= "For me this entire argument structure is such a non starter that I can't even apply it to Pastor Whats-his-name. Probably largely because to me it's not an argument. It's a statement that needs a whole bunch more sentences to make it anything at all. It's like me saying 'Just because 71% of Americans want the community centre moved doesn't mean moving it is the right thing to do'. True, but so what? People say it like they've just said something profound and binding when they've literally said absolutely nothing at all. Worst of all, it appears to shift the burden to the organizers. That really couldn't be more unreasonable and disingenuous, unintended or not. The people making that claim have the burden to support it, not the other way around! Exercising their rights as Americans is not the right thing to do? Prove it then. Make your case. Anybody else who would like to limit or remove the rights of fellow Americans takes on the burden of evidence and understands the need for a process. Emotion and rhetoric are not evidence and they're not a process. Perhaps there is a case to be made on security grounds, or on principles of sanctions designed to force a change in the larger Muslim community. I don't think so myself, but at least that would be an argument, and any actual argument would be a welcome 10 steps up from 'it's offensive'." I completely agree! "Yara in a previous post said the group should move so they could 'get even more respect'. To which I said 'ha!' at the time. More respect up from zero respect? Up from negative respect? Too many people don't even respect this group enough to acknowledge that asking them to move for what in many ways are arbitrary, even selfish reasons might be a really big thing. That asking them to voluntarily accept less freedom and diminished constitutional rights just might be a really big thing. That to accept they are to retreat somewhere more palatable to people who are in many cases thousands of miles away, retreat in their own neighbourhood, might be a really big thing. People don't even respect this group enough to acknowledge that this is a freedom of religion issue, claiming they fully support freedom of religion, and then retreating behind 'not the right thing to do'. By definition and by default all of those first amendment rights end with a firm period, not a 'but'. Indeed that is their very essence. If you truly support both the letter and the spirit of freedom of religion in any given situation, you just walk away. You don't have to walk away happy, but you do have to walk away. If however you feel there are extraordinary circumstances which mean an accommodation or exception is warranted, you are completely within your rights to express that opinion or make that argument by any and all peaceful and lawful means. For example, Americans sometimes employ free speech to try and limit the right to bear arms in certain circumstances. But they don't do so while claiming to support the right in that specific circumstance, because in that given instance they don't, or they wouldn't be trying to limit it! It's like holding a placard in your left hand that says "I SUPPORT THE THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS" and a placard in your right hand that says "GUNS NOT THE RIGHT THING TO DO IN DC!" It's muddled, incoherent and intentionally or not, it's completely disingenuous in spirit. No reasonable person would ever conclude anything other than while you may generally support the right to bear arms, you don't support the right to bear arms in DC. And you don't have to. But you need to take basic responsibility for the position in the interest of truth and fairness." Absolutely. People who claim that this is not a freedom of religion issue ignore not the fact that there has been opposition to the building of mosques in several cities, not just NY. The reality is that there are people who are opposed to the idea of Muslims building a mosque, full stop. |
magicalfreddiemercury 10.09.2010 05:52 |
>>>> GratefulFan wrote: magicalfreddiemercury wrote: The pastor has the legal right to carry out his project but that does not mean he is right to do so. ========================= ...People say it like they've just said something profound and binding when they've literally said absolutely nothing at all.<<<< . On the contrary, it's saying a lot. It is saying, in this case, that this pastor has the same rights and privileges as everyone else, including the organizers of this community center and that along with those rights come the responsibility to do the right thing. It is in no way restricting the rights of them to do so, is not unreasonable, disingenuous or unintended. It's about looking at the effects their actions will have on others. And I posted it here specifically to show just how similar the two situations are, despite some who say they have nothing to do with each other, or that those opposed to the center are islamophobic. Many against the center, myself included, are also against the burning of the quran. |
Amazon 10.09.2010 06:07 |
magicalfreddiemercury wrote: "And I posted it here specifically to show just how similar the two situations are, despite some who say they have nothing to do with each other, or that those opposed to the center are islamophobic. Many against the center, myself included, are also against the burning of the quran." The two do not have anything to do with each other. The burning of a Koran, or any other holy book, is by its nature a hateful act as well an act of religious extremism (this pastor is no different to those he claims to hate). It is also an act which could lead to violence, as has occured in the past. The centre is not by its nature a hateful act, and nor does it have anything to do with religious extremism. As for whether it is possible to be against the centre and not be Islamophobic, I'm not convinced anymore. When I first heard about the issue, I would have said yes, but now? I'm yet to hear a really good reason against the centre which is not coloured by bigotry or ignorance. Regarding ignorance; you yourself have made comments on this very thread in which you separated Muslims from Americans (when Muslims can be American), implied that there was a conflict between Islam and the West (there isn't) and implied that Islam was against democracy (which is nonsence) and that by accepting this centre, Americans were somehow compromising their values and freedoms (which is incredibly offensive as well as absurd).* *I was going to respond to this when you posted it, but I wasn't emotionally up to returning to the thread. |
Amazon 10.09.2010 06:08 |
GratefulFan wrote: Yara wrote: Which gets me back to my point: the fact that people are entitled to rights doesn't mean that it's always desirable or convenient to exercise such rights. Suppose I accidentally ran over someone's kid and killed him. Understandably, even if I'm not to blame in this case, the parents will be angry at me. So I decide to have my new house built. What do I do? I can build it wherever I want, but I chose to built it just next to the parents' house, and I say I'm doing so in order to improve our relation. Is it going to be helpful in any possible way? I'd be likely generating more sorrow, angry and bringing back dreadful memories. So if I do want to both exercise my rights and foster peace, I'd better have it built elsewhere. ======================================== "Despite the lip service, some people don't regard law abiding and patriotic Muslims as any different from terrorists, not really. Imam Rauf didn't run over anybody with his car and he didn't drive any planes into the WTC. Let me tweak your analogy a little: Somebody who is not you runs over the child with a blue Toyota Corolla. You also own a blue Corolla and due to a growing family you move to a location a few blocks away from your old house two and a half blocks away from the farthest corner of the lot of the grieving family. It's a really nice house and you let everybody come and swim in your pool. The grieving family can't see your house, and they'll never see the Corolla unless they actually go out of their way to do so. Nonetheless, some of the family members feel that blue Corolla burning at their back two and a half blocks away, and would like you to know that just because you can drive a blue Corolla doesn't mean it's the right thing to do in their neighbourhood. In fact they think you're insensitive and that you should move or at the very least they should get to come over and park their cars in your garage so the Corolla doesn't stand out so much. Understandably, not everybody agrees with this this. Opponents are hung up on the 'fostering peace' and 'building bridges' rhetoric. Is it the community centre proposal or the response to that proposal that is damaging these processes? Certainly no one will ever get over a bridge when one party is trying to build it and the other party is trying to knock it down on the other side. It's not them dealing a mortal blow to good faith relations, it's you." GF, I think this is one of the best posts you've ever written! Bravo! :D I would comment on this post, but this post says it all! It truly is superb. |
magicalfreddiemercury 10.09.2010 06:32 |
>>>> Amazon wrote: magicalfreddiemercury wrote: "And I posted it here specifically to show just how similar the two situations are, despite some who say they have nothing to do with each other, or that those opposed to the center are islamophobic. Many against the center, myself included, are also against the burning of the quran." The two do not have anything to do with each other. The burning of a Koran, or any other holy book, is by its nature a hateful act as well an act of religious extremism (this pastor is no different to those he claims to hate). It is also an act which could lead to violence, as has occured in the past. The centre is not by its nature a hateful act, and nor does it have anything to do with religious extremism. As for whether it is possible to be against the centre and not be Islamophobic, I'm not convinced anymore. When I first heard about the issue, I would have said yes, but now? I'm yet to hear a really good reason against the centre which is not coloured by bigotry or ignorance. Regarding ignorance; you yourself have made comments on this very thread in which you separated Muslims from Americans (when Muslims can be American), implied that there was a conflict between Islam and the West (there isn't) and implied that Islam was against democracy (which is nonsence) and that by accepting this centre, Americans were somehow compromising their values and freedoms (which is incredibly offensive as well as absurd).* *I was going to respond to this when you posted it, but I wasn't emotionally up to returning to the thread. <<<< . Whether burning someone’s holy book is hateful is not the issue since the issue is a person’s right to do so. And, the post is not JUST about someone’s right to do so but about their responsibility to resist if what they intend to do is highly disturbing or provoking to their neighbors. Like the community center. They are the same from opposite sides and many against one are equally against the other. About my comments on this thread… we could all pluck chunks of words from others and show how they are bigoted or ignorant. It’s the context that defines the meaning. And while I do not intend to search these pages for the comments you say I made, I am comfortable enough with my sense of fairness to know they were not intended as you perceived. |
Amazon 10.09.2010 07:23 |
It is very much the issue whether or not burning holy books is hateful. That it is by its nature a hateful act is what differentiates it from the building of the centre. The building of the centre is not by its nature a hateful act. It is not by its nature a disturbing or a provocative act. Furthermore, many New Yorkers have no problem with the centre as they recognise that it is not a hateful, provocative or disturbing act. You keep on trying to link the two issues, but simply because you are offended by the building of the centre, does not mean that they are similar. GF said it best in his recent post, so I will simply end by saying that if the neighbours find the building of the centre to be 'highly disturbing or provoking', they need to ask themselves why and they need to figure out a way to get over it. However, nobody needs to ask why burning holy books is offensive. That should be obvious. |
YourValentine 10.09.2010 10:18 |
@GratefulFan I agree that the Imam is in an uncomfortable position and I did not imply that he was threatening the country. However, as an American Muslim he should not consider how Muslims elsewhere feel about the issue. It's grotesque that an American Muslim tells a TV interviewer that somewhere else people might feel that "Islam is under attack" . When he mentioned national security the interviewer even did not seem to get the point. How can a religion feel insulted when free citizens discuss the location of a cultural center? How can a religion feel insulted at all? And even if there are "radicals" in Pakistan or Indonesia or wherever who are offended - why would US citizens have to take it into account? They do nothing wrong - they execute their right to voice their opinion in public and if some "radicals" have a problem with that - well, tough luck. Nobody in their right minds can accept that dropping a specific location before the center is even built can insult anyone except for raving maniacs. If the imam says he does not consider to drop the location because it's his right under the constitution and he thinks that the 9/11 victim families are overreacting, he is perfectly entitled to do that. He should not insist that it's a matter of bridge building, though, when it's obviously not. It's his bad luck that the targets of his bridge building happen to not like the idea. Continuing to insist on this rhetoric only enrages the opponents who feel patronized. I think we all agree that this pastor in Florida is a nutcase who only wants to add fuel to the fire. I wonder if he knows that he stands in the tradition of the Nazis and Ku-Klux-Klan. If the Muslim leaders would speak out against flag burning, hate killings, death threats etc in the same way as the complete American public and political leadership spoke out against the Quran burning we probably would not even have a discussion like this. |
Holly2003 10.09.2010 10:44 |
As has been pointed out before, the heart of this dispute is not freedom of religion (because this center could be built almost anywhere else in NY without controversy) it's about the site of the center, close to the 9-11 site. The 'freedom of religion' argument is a smokescreen IMO. Look at it this way: after Pearl Harbour there was a huge wave of hatred against the Japanese on the west coast of America and in Hawaii. After the war, when the Arizona museum was opened, it took decades for any sign or recognition of a Japanese p.o.v. because it was simply too painful for survivors/veterans to deal with that. Right or wrong, that is how people felt. Those feelings cannot be ignored or dismissed; they were very real. Now we have a similar situation, yet the views of many victims/survivors look like they are being trodden on or ignored, in the name of 'freedom of religion'. Again, you can argue the rights and wrongs of that, but the emotions are real and they need to be recognised and understood. |
Amazon 10.09.2010 11:25 |
Holly2003 wrote: "As has been pointed out before, the heart of this dispute is not freedom of religion (because this center could be built almost anywhere else in NY without controversy) it's about the site of the center, close to the 9-11 site." I disagree. I think that freedom of religion is exactly what this is about. Not only have many of the comments in opposition been dominated by Islamophobia, but there are several other cities in the US in which people have been in opposition to the building of mosques. Not to mention the hate crimes that have been occuring recently. Add to it the the fact that the Muslims already live and work there; there already are mosques in the neighbourhood; the multi-faith community supported the original proposal; the Pentagon has a mosque; and the organisers have NOTHING to do with 9/11. "Right or wrong, that is how people felt. Those feelings cannot be ignored or dismissed; they were very real." The Japanese were treated disgustingly. Yes, those feelings that you speak of may be real, but it does not mean that they are relevent. Just because you have a feeling does't mean that anyone else should care. It is simply not a good enough reason. I mean, there is a belief that people who have such feelings should automatically be listened to (and obeyed). Well, it doesn't work that way. Whether it be with the Japanese, or with the centre, people have the right to their feelings; but they do not have the right to expect other people to consider these feelings. So yes, their feelings can certainly be ignored or dismissed. "Now we have a similar situation, yet the views of many victims/survivors look like they are being trodden on or ignored, in the name of 'freedom of religion'. Again, you can argue the rights and wrongs of that, but the emotions are real and they need to be recognised and understood." The problem is that these 'victims/survivors' did not provide any real, concrete reasons for why the centre should not be built. Saying that they are offended or that they have feelings is irrelevent; just because you have 'real' emotions does not mean that they shouldn't be 'trodden on or ignored.' As I said above, you may have the right to these feelings, but it doesn't mean that people need to care about them. Plus, what does 'recognised and understood' mean? Nobody is lessening the horror of 9/11 and nobody is suggesting that 9/11 families all support this project (although some do). Beyond this, their feelings aren't important. That might sound harsh, but that's the way it is. |
Holly2003 10.09.2010 11:55 |
Those feelings should be ignored? Wow. That's as narrow minded as any opinion I've heard this far. I lived in Northern ireland for 30 years where disputes similar to this occurred frequently. Quite simply, right or wrong, if one side chooses to force through their rights at the expense of the other side, hostility and violence will be the result. That's the reality that these ivory tower debates don't take into acount. If the Japanese had tried to force the issue at PH, hostility would've been the result. It takes time for people to get a sense of perspective about the past. 9-11 was only 9 years ago and feelings are still running high. Ignore that at your peril. I strongly disagree this has anything to do with freedom of religion: do you deny that if this was not close to the 9-11 site there would likely have been no dispute? |
Amazon 10.09.2010 12:30 |
Holly2003 wrote: "Those feelings should be ignored? Wow. That's as narrow minded as any opinion I've heard this far." I didn't say that. I said that it is perfectly okay to ignore them. Just because you have feelings does not mean that other people should care. If you think it's narrow minded, well, that's your choice; but I think it's egotistical to imagine that everybody should care how you feel. It's like with freedom of speech. You may have the right to free speech; you do not have the right to expect me or anyone else to listen to you. To do so is egotistical. "Quite simply, right or wrong, if one side chooses to force through their rights at the expense of the other side, hostility and violence will be the result." They didn't force through their rights. They went through a proper planning process. BTW, hate crimes have been occuring against Muslims recently. But I guess it's the fault of the Muslims. "If the Japanese had tried to force the issue at PH, hostility would've been the result." Except that the organisers have not forced any issue. If anyone has, it's Faux 'news' who made an issue out of it months after it had been approved and reported. "It takes time for people to get a sense of perspective about the past. 9-11 was only 9 years ago and feelings are still running high. Ignore that at your peril." How long should people wait for? 10 years? 20? 50? As I said before, feelings are not a good enough reason. As for your last comment, well shockingly, hate crimes have been committed. Nothing can justify that. "I strongly disagree this has anything to do with freedom of religion: do you deny that if this was not close to the 9-11 site there would likely have been no dispute?" I absolutely do think it is about freedom of religion. I don't want to repeat what I wrote about freedom of religion in my previous post, so I will simply say that many of the comments in opposition are Islamophobic, and in several cities, people have objected to the construction of mosques. Add to it the 'Obama is a Muslim' rumours spread by the right-wing media which are disgusting because not only does it not matter what religion he is, but it also suggests that Muslims are disloyal and un-American. It's horrible. In this climate, whether or not there would have been a dispute if it hadn't been near to the 9/11 site is not that important IMO. |
Holly2003 10.09.2010 13:06 |
I didn;t say or infer 'it's all the muslims fault' -- I noticed you misinterpreting or (less charitably) misrepresenting the views of others like this, please don't do it to me. Ivory tower discussions about freedom of religion don;t change the real-life facts on the ground. The center-builders are forcing their views on others,regardless if they are doing it legally. They are ignoiring the views of many New Yorkers and many Americans. If you and they want to go down that road, you shoudl be prepared to face the consequences of that in due course. As I said, cause and effect: emotions are running high and if it takes 20 or 50 years then that's better than the violence and hostily that could ensue if this center is built. As for the freedom of religion angle, there have indeed been other incidents of anti-muslim feeling in the US -- hardly unexpected of course, but totally unacceptable. You've yet to make a case that these are connected to this particular site. Just because Fox News and other right wing crackpots have joined in the debate doesn't mean that there aren't valid reasons for complaint. And you're ignoring the huge elephant in the room, the 9-11 site which is a stone's throw away from the proposed center. You can't see the wood for the trees. |
GratefulFan 10.09.2010 22:21 |
YourValentine wrote: @GratefulFan I agree that the Imam is in an uncomfortable position and I did not imply that he was threatening the country. However, as an American Muslim he should not consider how Muslims elsewhere feel about the issue. It's grotesque that an American Muslim tells a TV interviewer that somewhere else people might feel that "Islam is under attack" . When he mentioned national security the interviewer even did not seem to get the point. How can a religion feel insulted when free citizens discuss the location of a cultural center? How can a religion feel insulted at all? And even if there are "radicals" in Pakistan or Indonesia or wherever who are offended - why would US citizens have to take it into account? They do nothing wrong - they execute their right to voice their opinion in public and if some "radicals" have a problem with that - well, tough luck. Nobody in their right minds can accept that dropping a specific location before the center is even built can insult anyone except for raving maniacs. If the imam says he does not consider to drop the location because it's his right under the constitution and he thinks that the 9/11 victim families are overreacting, he is perfectly entitled to do that. He should not insist that it's a matter of bridge building, though, when it's obviously not. It's his bad luck that the targets of his bridge building happen to not like the idea. Continuing to insist on this rhetoric only enrages the opponents who feel patronized. I think we all agree that this pastor in Florida is a nutcase who only wants to add fuel to the fire. I wonder if he knows that he stands in the tradition of the Nazis and Ku-Klux-Klan. If the Muslim leaders would speak out against flag burning, hate killings, death threats etc in the same way as the complete American public and political leadership spoke out against the Quran burning we probably would not even have a discussion like this. ================================ Though I certainly wouldn't cast it as anything like 'grotesque', I did come across some thoughts that were similar to yours on the casting of the issue outside the US... http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/akbar_ahmed/2010/09/national_security_does_not_hingeon_mosque.html I agree with you I think about the rhetoric of bridge building being somewhat excessive and unhelpful at this point, but I think it's so on both sides. It's neither the reason the centre should go up, nor the reason it shouldn't. At the heart of it, the building is meant to be a place of bricks and mortar that serves a concrete community need for recreation, faith, fellowship and the arts in what has become an economically depressed area of NYC. The people who understand this project better than most - the community board who passed it - knew this. Polling in the borough in which it sits has consistently supported the project in greater numbers than have opposed it. The Bronx is now also at about 50% support in the latest Marist poll. But the farther away from Park Place you get the more it becomes an increasingly vague symbol of everything and nothing. Literally, in concentric circles emanating out from the heart of New York, the poll numbers drop, and drop and drop from about 43% in opposition (the rest in support or undecided) to that 71% of Americans, most of whom would never set foot in the centre, and likely never set foot in NYC either, in opposition. The farther away you get, the more people are arguing over vapour summoned up from a lot more than just the ghosts of 9/11. I do think you unfairly diminish the Imam's position. He has never dismissed the feelings of 9/11 victims or implied they were overreacting. In fact it is the proponent's side in general who have far more often and far more consistently seen this as a complex issue with multiple competing principles. In fact, in all the weeks I've been following this I don't think I've heard anybody, anywhere get past "it's offensive" and into why they felt that needed to matter in a practical way until Holly's points today. William Saleten in Slate said "Palin, Gingrich, and their chorus of right-wing commentators have had four months to explain, without resort to group blame or religious discrimination, why no Muslim house of worship should be built near Ground Zero. They have yet to answer the question. That's why they keep talking about "sensitivity" and "provocation"—words that cloak the intellectual crudity behind the sentiment." Feisal on the other hand has touched consistently on many aspects, and many times that has included the feelings of the victim's families. Of course those feelings feelings matter. They matter a lot. Every one of them, and some of them are wildly irrational. The question is in a country where freedom is almost everything whether those feelings are appropriately ministered through what is essentially religious persecution that is specifically proscribed by the First Amendment. Certainly one should think no less of him for suggesting that they perhaps are not? That the goals and hopes of everyone may be better served by some other means? |
GratefulFan 11.09.2010 00:43 |
magicalfreddiemercury wrote: >>>> GratefulFan wrote: magicalfreddiemercury wrote: The pastor has the legal right to carry out his project but that does not mean he is right to do so. ========================= ...People say it like they've just said something profound and binding when they've literally said absolutely nothing at all.<<<< . On the contrary, it's saying a lot. It is saying, in this case, that this pastor has the same rights and privileges as everyone else, including the organizers of this community center and that along with those rights come the responsibility to do the right thing. It is in no way restricting the rights of them to do so, is not unreasonable, disingenuous or unintended. It's about looking at the effects their actions will have on others. And I posted it here specifically to show just how similar the two situations are, despite some who say they have nothing to do with each other, or that those opposed to the center are islamophobic. Many against the center, myself included, are also against the burning of the quran. ============================================== Fortunately we have our samosas and magical cats, because we're not going to get this one either. :) First amendment (or their equivalent) rights just are. I don't think of them in terms of responsibilities really, but freedoms. Having freedom to act means also having freedom not to act. It means the freedom to make an ass out of yourself and be an idiot, and be judged an idiot, if you so choose. 'Responsibilities' seems to me to imply some outside standard or arbiter of taste. Enforced by who? The rest of us? We humans are too fallible for that, too vulnerable to squirrelly behaviour, especially in groups. You would prevent the free speech of the Florida pastor on principle using your body as a shield, where I would not. I think about it like I think about my relative liberalism compared to the relative conservatism of someone else. It's all about what side you want to err on, because nothing is going to be perfect. Society makes mistakes. So you have to decide what kind of mistakes you're willing to live with. And I'll take that fruitbat burning the Qurans every time over even the tiniest step toward what I view as some of the more grave mistakes of the past. |
GratefulFan 11.09.2010 00:50 |
Donna13 wrote: Well, let's say that this pastor did burn Beatles records when John Lennon said that the Beatles were more popular than Jesus. What if he had? Would the Beatles fans then have declared that they should kill all non-Beatles fans because of this protest? I don't think so. I think the fact that an American cannot burn any book if they feel like it for fear of antagonizing somebody into murdering others is proof that we really have bent over backwards too much. Why should we as Americans give up our freedom of speech? Will the next step be to tell the people writing opinion columns that they cannot say anything negative about religion at any time? Will the government ask newspapers to stop printing anything that might be taken as offensive to any religion? There is nothing wrong with denouncing somebody's religion or aspects of their religion. It is when the denouncing moves on to violence and trying to prevent a person from practicing that religion that it has gone too far. But there is nothing wrong with saying you don't like the Islamic religion and there is nothing wrong in burning a book of any sort. It is a standard form of protest around the world to burn things. Ha. Usually it looks pretty silly, and barbaric, but it is a form of expression. People are burning American flags all the time. When I worked in DC, there was some sort of protest every week. People who say they do not like the Catholic church do not have death threats put upon them. A person could go out and burn Bibles and it wouldn't even make the news. So, I say, let any American or any non-American protest if they want to. They can't legally stop Muslims or any other faith from being in this country or practicing their faith or trying to change American laws, but they can protest all they want. It is their right. Unless a constitutional amendment changes freedom of speech, the government officials should not be trying to use their influence in this way. If General Patraeus is so worried about this sort of thing, maybe they should pull the troops out of there. So, bottom line of what I think is: let the pastor burn the books; let this group build their community center anywhere they have the legal right to do so. Government officials and political candidates should stay out of it. ========================= I enjoyed a lot of this post...thanks for it. |
GratefulFan 11.09.2010 00:52 |
Amazon = Growly freedom fighter tigress! |
GratefulFan 11.09.2010 01:30 |
Holly2003 wrote: I strongly disagree this has anything to do with freedom of religion: do you deny that if this was not close to the 9-11 site there would likely have been no dispute? =========================================== And if somebody had been trying to build a YMCA with a Christian prayer space in the same spot, would there likely have been no dispute? If they're not free to practice there, specifically and only because of their faith, then they're not free. It's not about just getting to have some mosque somewhere that suits people. That would be an absurd and unacceptably slippery way to structure a law, let alone a fundamental and defining right. It's about practice without fear and without restriction on your own private property wherever that property may be, in accordance with local laws and with the full freedoms and protections that everybody else has. |
Holly2003 11.09.2010 02:21 |
GratefulFan wrote: Holly2003 wrote: I strongly disagree this has anything to do with freedom of religion: do you deny that if this was not close to the 9-11 site there would likely have been no dispute? =========================================== And if somebody had been trying to build a YMCA with a Christian prayer space in the same spot, would there likely have been no dispute? If they're not free to practice there, specifically and only because of their faith, then they're not free. It's not about just getting to have some mosque somewhere that suits people. That would be an absurd and unacceptably slippery way to structure a law, let alone a fundamental and defining right. It's about practice without fear and without restriction on your own private property wherever that property may be, in accordance with local laws and with the full freedoms and protections that everybody else has. ==================================================================================== I fully accept that if this was a christian centre there would be no problem. Then again, 9-11 happened in the name of Islam not christianity, and that's why people make the connection. Do you deny that if this center was built at some other spot well away from ground zero there probably would've been no dispute? |
magicalfreddiemercury 11.09.2010 06:05 |
>>> GratefulFan wrote: Fortunately we have our samosas and magical cats<<< . lol. True. ;-) . . >>> First amendment (or their equivalent) rights just are. I don't think of them in terms of responsibilities really, but freedoms. Having freedom to act means also having freedom not to act. It means the freedom to make an ass out of yourself and be an idiot, and be judged an idiot, if you so choose.<<< . Along with every right/freedom comes a responsibility. Cause and effect. We have the right to drink, and the responsibility to avoid driving if we've had too much. We have the right to cook whatever meal we like in our own home, and the responsibility to keep our kids away from the hot pans. The world is bigger than each of us and while, yes, the pastor has the right to burn whatever he wants to burn, I have the right to try, peacefully, to stop him. Each of us would then be responsible for whatever follows - peace or melee. . . >>>And I'll take that fruitbat burning the Qurans every time over even the tiniest step toward what I view as some of the more grave mistakes of the past. <<< . What of the result of his actions? Despite their value to some, he would only be destroying objects, not people. We are at war with extremist from the religion he is (irresponsibly) insulting. A religion whose followers have turned to violence against people, not just objects, for far less. Would he not bear any responsibility if they did the same because of his actions? . When we see what we perceive as an injustice, it is not only our right but our responsibility to, peacefully, speak out against it. |
Amazon 11.09.2010 11:33 |
Holly2003 wrote: "I didn;t say or infer 'it's all the muslims fault' -- I noticed you misinterpreting or (less charitably) misrepresenting the views of others like this, please don't do it to me." I don't misrepresent anybody's views, and if I misinterpret them, it's up to the poster to correct me (and they don't need you to rush to their defence). I also wouldn't get on a high horse about this since you accused me of saying that the feelings should be ignored. I never said that. I said they 'could' be ignored, not 'should'. There is a difference. So if you don't want me to misrepresent your views, don't do it to me. "Ivory tower discussions about freedom of religion don;t change the real-life facts on the ground. The center-builders are forcing their views on others,regardless if they are doing it legally." If you are going to talk about 'real-life facts on the ground' at least get your facts straight. There was a planning process and a community consultation, in which people had the opportunity to present opposing views. The organisers won the right to buld this centre. They are not 'forcing' anything on anyone; they are simply exercising their rights. Tell me, if the organisers decide not to go ahead, wouldn't that be an example of the opponents 'forcing' their views onto the organisers? Or is only the organisers who are 'forcing' their views? "They are ignoiring the views of many New Yorkers and many Americans." Many New Yorkers and many Americans are also for it. Don't pretend that everybody are against it. Irrespective, considering that quite a few Americans don't want any mosques or Islamic centres to be build anywhere in the US, sometimes it is not a bad thing to ignore views. "If you and they want to go down that road, you shoudl be prepared to face the consequences of that in due course." It's not really up to me whether they go down that road or not; I'm a supporter, nothing more. Anyway the conseqeunces are? You denied that you said it's all the Muslims' fault, but when you talk about 'ignore that at your peril' and 'you shoudl be prepared to face the consequences of that in due course', what are you implying? "As I said, cause and effect: emotions are running high and if it takes 20 or 50 years then that's better than the violence and hostily that could ensue if this center is built." There is violence and hostility already, and the organisers should not have to wait 20 or 50 years. The people who commit the violence should be arrested, and those responsible for the hostility should stop. "As for the freedom of religion angle, there have indeed been other incidents of anti-muslim feeling in the US -- hardly unexpected of course, but totally unacceptable. You've yet to make a case that these are connected to this particular site." So it's a coincidence is it? I don't need to make a case that these are connected, it should be obvious. But if you want to talk about this centre specifically, people have talked about how building it is a 'victory for the terrorists' and have referred to it as a 'victory mosque.' You have the disgusting contributions of people like Limbaugh and Palin. There is much Islamophobia which has been connected to this issue. There has also been attempts to compare it to Nazies building near concentration camps, which is incredibly offensive not just to Muslims but Jews as well. "Just because Fox News and other right wing crackpots have joined in the debate doesn't mean that there aren't valid reasons for complaint." Then provide one. The problem is that I don't think that one has been provided yet (and yes, I'm only speaking for myself). Saying that there are still strong feelings about 9/11 is not a valid reason. "And you're ignoring the huge elephant in the room, the 9-11 site which is a stone's throw away from the proposed center." Oh please. It's not a stone's throw away. It's not that near. GF's latest response said it best IMO: 'And if somebody had been trying to build a YMCA with a Christian prayer space in the same spot, would there likely have been no dispute? If they're not free to practice there, specifically and only because of their faith, then they're not free. It's not about just getting to have some mosque somewhere that suits people. That would be an absurd and unacceptably slippery way to structure a law, let alone a fundamental and defining right. It's about practice without fear and without restriction on your own private property wherever that property may be, in accordance with local laws and with the full freedoms and protections that everybody else has.' " You can't see the wood for the trees." So now you're resorting to insults because you have no other arguments. Very mature. Anyway I can say the same about you. |
Amazon 11.09.2010 12:09 |
GratefulFan wrote: "Amazon = Growly freedom fighter tigress!" Yes, that's me! :D :D :D It's funny, I've been called that (or similar) before and I certainly admit that I do get passionate about the things I believe in. BTW, I love your latest reponse to Holly. I even quoted it in my latest response to him. |
YourValentine 11.09.2010 12:11 |
@ Amazon - the reason why I did not correct you when I felt misinterpreted is that I do not enjoy being called bigoted or ignorant when I happen to disagree with you, therefore I chose to ignore your posts and I will continue to to that. @GrateFulFan - I did not intend to diminish the imam's position towards the victim's families - it has been a grammatical error, sorry. I should have said: If the Imam chose to ignore their oppostion he would have every right to do that. I think that he has two options: to ignore the opposition and carry on to build his center as planned and drop the bridge building rhetoric or to drop the location and build his center somewhere else. I think Holly hits the nail on the head with his posts - if the Cordoba Initiative insists on this project, bridge building is probably the last thing that will happen. The professor whose blog you linked to seems to say the same : there is no gain in fuelling the bad feelings - find us a way out. Certainly freedom of religion is not in danger and there is certainly no persecution going on. As to the freedom of religion: the Cordoba Initiative has all permissions from the authorities and can build the center. If people should try to block them, the police will certainly protect them as the law provides. As to persecution - persecution is what Christians in Iraq have suffered since the Saddam Hussein regime ended: being killed because of their faith, fearing for their lives, getting no jobs, being expelled from their homes and driven out of the country. Persecution means that your religion makes you an outcast with no protection by the government. In NYC we only speak about opposition against a specific building. Freedom of religion is only one aspect of this discussion as Holly correctly pointed out. Freedom of religion should not be used as the hammer that kills all possible discussion. |
Amazon 11.09.2010 12:19 |
YourValentine wrote: "@ Amazon - the reason why I did not correct you when I felt misinterpreted is that I do not enjoy being called bigoted or ignorant when I happen to disagree with you, therefore I chose to ignore your posts and I will continue to to that." That's your choice. However I should note, for the record, that I don't enjoy being misrepresented by you and told, among other things, that I rationalize hate killings and terrorism. You may feel that I misrepresented you but rest assured I feel the exact same way about you. |
Holly2003 11.09.2010 13:15 |
Amazon wrote: Holly2003 wrote: "I didn;t say or infer 'it's all the muslims fault' -- I noticed you misinterpreting or (less charitably) misrepresenting the views of others like this, please don't do it to me." I don't misrepresent anybody's views, and if I misinterpret them, it's up to the poster to correct me (and they don't need you to rush to their defence). I also wouldn't get on a high horse about this since you accused me of saying that the feelings should be ignored. I never said that. I said they 'could' be ignored, not 'should'. There is a difference. So if you don't want me to misrepresent your views, don't do it to me. "Ivory tower discussions about freedom of religion don;t change the real-life facts on the ground. The center-builders are forcing their views on others,regardless if they are doing it legally." If you are going to talk about 'real-life facts on the ground' at least get your facts straight. There was a planning process and a community consultation, in which people had the opportunity to present opposing views. The organisers won the right to buld this centre. They are not 'forcing' anything on anyone; they are simply exercising their rights. Tell me, if the organisers decide not to go ahead, wouldn't that be an example of the opponents 'forcing' their views onto the organisers? Or is only the organisers who are 'forcing' their views? "They are ignoiring the views of many New Yorkers and many Americans." Many New Yorkers and many Americans are also for it. Don't pretend that everybody are against it. Irrespective, considering that quite a few Americans don't want any mosques or Islamic centres to be build anywhere in the US, sometimes it is not a bad thing to ignore views. "If you and they want to go down that road, you shoudl be prepared to face the consequences of that in due course." It's not really up to me whether they go down that road or not; I'm a supporter, nothing more. Anyway the conseqeunces are? You denied that you said it's all the Muslims' fault, but when you talk about 'ignore that at your peril' and 'you shoudl be prepared to face the consequences of that in due course', what are you implying? "As I said, cause and effect: emotions are running high and if it takes 20 or 50 years then that's better than the violence and hostily that could ensue if this center is built." There is violence and hostility already, and the organisers should not have to wait 20 or 50 years. The people who commit the violence should be arrested, and those responsible for the hostility should stop. "As for the freedom of religion angle, there have indeed been other incidents of anti-muslim feeling in the US -- hardly unexpected of course, but totally unacceptable. You've yet to make a case that these are connected to this particular site." So it's a coincidence is it? I don't need to make a case that these are connected, it should be obvious. But if you want to talk about this centre specifically, people have talked about how building it is a 'victory for the terrorists' and have referred to it as a 'victory mosque.' You have the disgusting contributions of people like Limbaugh and Palin. There is much Islamophobia which has been connected to this issue. There has also been attempts to compare it to Nazies building near concentration camps, which is incredibly offensive not just to Muslims but Jews as well. "Just because Fox News and other right wing crackpots have joined in the debate doesn't mean that there aren't valid reasons for complaint." Then provide one. The problem is that I don't think that one has been provided yet (and yes, I'm only speaking for myself). Saying that there are still strong feelings about 9/11 is not a valid reason. "And you're ignoring the huge elephant in the room, the 9-11 site which is a stone's throw away from the proposed center." Oh please. It's not a stone's throw away. It's not that near. GF's latest response said it best IMO: 'And if somebody had been trying to build a YMCA with a Christian prayer space in the same spot, would there likely have been no dispute? If they're not free to practice there, specifically and only because of their faith, then they're not free. It's not about just getting to have some mosque somewhere that suits people. That would be an absurd and unacceptably slippery way to structure a law, let alone a fundamental and defining right. It's about practice without fear and without restriction on your own private property wherever that property may be, in accordance with local laws and with the full freedoms and protections that everybody else has.' " You can't see the wood for the trees." So now you're resorting to insults because you have no other arguments. Very mature. Anyway I can say the same about you. ======================================================================================= I've said my piece. I don't intend to respond or defend myself against your misrepresentations and distortions of my p.o.v. ps stone's throw: link |
Amazon 11.09.2010 13:42 |
Holly2003 wrote: I've said my piece. I don't intend to respond or defend myself against your misrepresentations and distortions of my p.o.v." Oh please, I haven't misrepresented or distorted your p.o.v. I can only go by what you write, and making comments like 'I don't intend to respond or defend myself against your misrepresentations and distortions of my p.o.v.' doesn't mean anything. If you think I misrepresented what you said, explain why, otherwise I can only assume that the real reason you're leaving the discussion (just like you resorted to insults) is that you have no arguments. BTW I note that you haven't responded to my observation that you misrepresented my p.o.v. which tells me everything I need to know about you. "ps stone's throw: link That is not a stone's throw away at all! |
Holly2003 11.09.2010 14:01 |
Amazon wrote: link " That is not a stone's throw away at all! ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ You've obviously never met anyone from Northern ireland ;) |
magicalfreddiemercury 11.09.2010 14:04 |
>>> Holly2003 wrote: And you're ignoring the huge elephant in the room, the 9-11 site which is a stone's throw away from the proposed center. <<< . Holly, I agree with everything you've said in this thread, but just to clarify the above statement... while the location for the community center may not be in the actual footprints of the towers, locals consider "Ground Zero" to be the area directly affected by the attacks. This building was not only damaged by the landing gear of one of the planes that day, but also happens to sit just yards away from where human remains have been found. Also, at a mere 1,000 feet from the footprints, the building is 200 feet closer than where other human remains have been found. . So, it is not a stone's throw away from Ground Zero but rather part of its core. |
Donna13 11.09.2010 15:00 |
I read some interesting comments last night on the Washington Post web site - a few pro-Muslim comments, but it seemed there were more anti-Muslim comments (though I didn't count them). I got started reading that site with an article that was linked from here. There were comments that were saying that Islam is not a religion at all, but more of a political movement or cult. And they were saying that the Koran gives permission to use physical violence against women and teaches men to control women. Also, it was mentioned that the Koran allows believers to try to convert non-believers by force, if necessary. So, boiling it down, they were basically saying that Islam is not compatible with our laws in the United States. I have never read the Koran. I don't even know how to spell it (is it Koran, Quran, Qoran, Kuran?). I'm just wondering if any of these things are true (your opinion or expertise). Some of you must have read it. I also heard that some churches were going to be reading from the Kuran as part of a peaceful movement of sorts, during their church services. So, it seems people are taking more of an interest in the basics, in order to further their understanding. Anyway, I have not observed or heard of any anti-Islamic behavior in my surroundings. But to read such comments on the Washington Post website - that was eye-opening to me. It certainly goes against the way Obama is trying to represent our country to the Muslim countries (all of us as one big happy family - accepting of all religions equally). I have to take anything I read on the Internet with a grain of salt, but eventually I will get to reading the Koran. I suppose I should finish reading the Bible first! Also this brings me to the question, how are regular Muslims turned into radicalized home-grown terrorists? I mean, other than meeting other terrorists and getting along with them and possibly being brain washed, is there something in the Koran that is pointed out to them to convince them to not only kill others but to kill themselves? And if this is the case, is it because they are misinterpreting the Koran, or is it actually spelled out in certain language in the Koran for them to latch onto and be emboldened by as terrorists? ----------------------------------------- Edit / addition: Meet The Press this morning (Sunday) was pretty good. David Gregory interviewed Rudy Giuliani. Here is the link to the transcript. Scroll down because Giuliani comes after David Axelrod's interview. link Here is part of it: ------ We turn now to a Republican candidate for the 2008 presidential election and, of course, the mayor of New York City at the time of the September 11th attacks; Rudy Giuliani joins me now from 30 Rockefeller Plaza in the heart of Manhattan. Mr. Mayor, welcome back to MEET THE PRESS. MR. RUDY GIULIANI: Good morning. How, how are you, David? MR. GREGORY: I'm very well, thank you. I want to talk about a tumultuous week leading up to the ninth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. As you look at the controversy surrounding what happened, this debate over the mosque and community center in lower Manhattan, the threat to burn the Quran by a Florida pastor, and this anti-Muslim sentiment in the country on the ninth anniversary, what's happening? What's behind that? MR. GIULIANI: I can't, I can't tell you exactly what's behind it. I mean, something like this probably could have happened at any time. It's--these controversies happening right now I don't think necessarily are connected to each other. But if you had told me, you know, four years ago someone wants to put a mosque up near Ground Zero, I would have told you that 80, 90 percent of the family members would be very offended by that and very hurt by that for a whole host of reasons having nothing to do with Islamaphopia, but having all to do with how they feel this is sacred ground, that a Moslem center there would not be appropriate, someplace else would be perfectly appropriate. If you had told me that people would have gotten very upset if somebody wanted to burn the Quran three, four, five years ago, same thing would have been the case. So why these things are happening together right now, they could be connected, they could be unconnected. And I analyze them both the same way. The, the imam has a right to put the mosque there. Freedom of religion gives him that right. The minister has the right to burn the Quran. The same amendment to the Constitution gives him that right, the First Amendment. In either case, common sense and a real dedication to healing that these men of God would theoretically have would tell you not to do it because you're hurting too many people. MR. GREGORY: You mention Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, who is imam who wants to build a community center in lower Manhattan. He appeared on CNN this week and, and issued a warning of sorts about this debate moving forward and its impact. Let me play a portion of that. MR. GIULIANI: Yeah. (Videotape, Wednesday) Imam FEISAL ABDUL RAUF: If we move from that location, the story will be that the radicals have taken over the discourse. The headlines in the Muslim world will be that Islam is under attack. And I'm less concerned by the radicals in America than I'm concerned about the radicals in the Muslim word. (End videotape) MR. GREGORY: Are you concerned about that warning? MR. GIULIANI: I'm concerned about the imam doing that. I think that tactic is not the kind of tactic I would have expected from an imam who's featured as a man of conciliation. You know, I analyzed this imam's history pretty carefully, and I hate to simply it, but it's the only way to do it. There's the good imam and the bad imam. The good imam is about reconciliation. He's about being open and transparent about what he's doing and how he's doing it. Then there's the bad imam who said America is an accessory to September 11. America has more Muslim blood on its hands than vice versa. He can't condemn Hamas as a terrorist group. And he will not be transparent about where he's getting the money, how he's getting the money, and has virtually not been open at all about this. And now we have the imam who tells us if doesn't get his way there could be significant and very dangerous violence. Look, those are very, very strong words, and to enter a sort of a suggestion of a threat into this, I worry about this as the kind of tactics he, he pursues. |
GratefulFan 13.09.2010 01:18 |
More to add soon, but just a quick response to the Guiliani thing: the Imam has both condemned the terrorist arm of Hamas, as recently as late last week, and assured transparency in funding multiple times. Rudy is popular with many, but about as many will tell you he has always been a bit too happy to throw kerosene on a fire. Among other things, this opinion piece covers a little bit about why Islam and those who preach it can't be talked about like a monolith, with parallels to more familiar Christian models. I linked to it previously in another context. http://www.slate.com/id/2266870/ Unrelated, I really enjoyed a piece today by a 9/11 widow. I've read a couple of her other pieces in the past. She's really evolved into an effective and moving communicator. For whatever reason, perhaps just because I'm a girl, it made me cry. And probably not in the spots you'd expect. It started with "when did 9/11 victim become sloppy shorthand for white Christian'. That made me cry, like really cry. Then again, this thread has made me cry twice. Being a girl is so cool. You get to cry, like all the time, if you want. http://911stories.org/stories/text-article/71-911-widow-the-media-duped-us Similarly themed was this one: link They're both really important I think, and I hope some will read them. And finally, to Amazon, my little growling freedom fighter tigress. I can't help but have noticed that you've gotten in a conversation ending fight with virtually everybody on this thread. Even people it's usually kind of hard to get in a fight with! :) You've spent too much time on this, and you have too much to offer in this and the more serious conversations on QZ in general, to do this. Plus, I know these are people you like and who like you. What gives? |
YourValentine 13.09.2010 06:57 |
About the Rudy Giuliani's comments - I think he is right in saying that it could have been antagonized that people might be offended by the prospect of an Islamic center near Ground Zero as well as by the announcement of the Quran burning. However, he should make a difference: building a mosque or an Islamic center is not offensive per se while burning the Quran is always offensive - just a stupid act of provocation and hate incitement. I also had to smile about the "good imam - bad imam" part - speaking about hating to simplify it :-) It's funny how many Americans seem to think that any lip service against the Hamas turns a potentially "bad" Muslim into a good one :-) About the "home-grown" terrorism - I do not know why young men are turned into suicide terrorists. From the Hamburg group (alleged pilots of the 9/11 attacks) we know that they were not poor or deprived and even not very religious when they came to Hamburg. From what we know they were turned into "jihad warriors" in the radical Al-Quds mosque in Hamburg which was recently closed by the police. How that happened and why it happened is a mystery to me. As to Islam not being a religion - that is just wrong, of course it's a religion. We have to make a difference between Muslims who follow ther religion and are usually as peaceful, tolerant and friendly as any other people and Islam as a cultural concept which is very different to the Western cultural concept. There is no use in trying to overpaint these differences on the pretext of freedom of religion. @ GratefulFan - you are a girl? :-) Funny how we have debated for weeks and this is the first time I realise you are female :-) About Amazon - it's nothing personal on my part. It's just that I do not waste my time discussing with people who resort to personal insults. I do not mind if people attack my point of view but I would not discuss with people who call me any names in reality, either. That does not mean we cannot talk about any other topic. I do not even know Amazon and I think we had nice talks in other threads. |
GratefulFan 14.09.2010 00:11 |
YourValentine wrote: @ GratefulFan - you are a girl? :-) Funny how we have debated for weeks and this is the first time I realise you are female :-) ==================================== Really? That's funny. That always happens to me on forums...I suspect it happens to many women. For whatever reason, unless there's something immediate and obvious to suggest otherwise I think the default assumption is often that you're male. People start referring to you in the masculine, and it always feels dumb to interrupt a thread just to say you're a girl, so I don't. At some point though I find a way to somehow communicate it somewhere unrelated because you start to feel like you're being dishonest or something. I don't know why it happens. I think I talk like a girl. I certainly get up to a great deal of girl friendly emoting and personal life rambling at times. LOL Anyway, for whatever reason, that misperception seems particularly sticky here at QZ. I've often thought it's related to my NOTW avatar which looks kind of masculine. Maybe not. Don't know, but it would be interesting to find out. I want to make some on topic responses as soon as I have time to organize my thoughts, but until then I have a thought experiment type question for anybody who'd like to answer it. Imagine that in the near to medium term a set of equal solutions for the community centre/mosque issue could be developed through discussion and reflection etc. from both sides. In each case, a healthy majority that would include regular citizens of all faiths and victim families would be satisfied with the proposals. You can assume that neither solution produces a greater or lesser threat of radical type violence than the other at home or abroad as well. One proposal would leave the community centre in it's proposed location, and the other would move it some distance away. Remember, the main issues of both sides of the debate are no longer relevant for the purposes of this question as concerns on all sides have been removed. Which proposal would you see as most ideal and reflective of the goals and needs and structure of post 9/11 American society and the larger world in this all-things-being-equal circumstance? And, if you like, why? You don't get to say 'it doesn't matter then' because there is still a Muslim community centre in lower Manhattan, and that still means something both to you and to observers. Purely a thought experiment. Not intended to be used for or against anyone in any manner in further discussion and debate etc. |
magicalfreddiemercury 14.09.2010 07:09 |
>>> GratefulFan wrote: Remember, the main issues of both sides of the debate are no longer relevant for the purposes of this question as concerns on all sides have been removed. Which proposal would you see as most ideal and reflective of the goals and needs and structure of post 9/11 American society and the larger world in this all-things-being-equal circumstance? <<< . . If the main issues of both sides are no longer relevant then the goals, needs and structure of post 9/11 American society are irrelevant as well since post 9/11 American society was stated as THE reason for the project’s development. . Which leads to this statement by the imam to the Council of Foreign Relations: "Let us therefore reject those who would use this crisis and the sacred memory of 9/11 to achieve their own ends. Let us especially not exploit the memories of the victims of that tragedy or the suffering of their families and friends." . I was stunned to read this and find the hypocrisy staggering. He and his fellow organizers are the ‘those’ who used the ‘sacred memory of 9/11 to achieve their own ends’ as a reason for starting this project. He is the one who linked 9/11 and its aftermath with the city’s need for this community center. Now that 9/11 is being used for the same purpose by those in opposition, suddenly it must be rejected. . I don’t know what his true intentions are but if he is indeed a man of peace, then he needs a new speech writer because his own words are fueling the fire in the gut of the opposition. . So, GratefulFan, if there were no 9/11, and therefore no post 9/11 American society, there would not be a ‘need’ for this “bridge-building” islamic community center/mosque and there would be no Ground Zero. Instead, this would simply be yet another religious building being used in the happily diverse city of New York. No fuss no muss. |
GratefulFan 14.09.2010 13:45 |
magicalfreddiemercury wrote: If the main issues of both sides are no longer relevant then the goals, needs and structure of post 9/11 American society are irrelevant as well since post 9/11 American society was stated as THE reason for the project’s development. . Which leads to this statement by the imam to the Council of Foreign Relations: "Let us therefore reject those who would use this crisis and the sacred memory of 9/11 to achieve their own ends. Let us especially not exploit the memories of the victims of that tragedy or the suffering of their families and friends." . I was stunned to read this and find the hypocrisy staggering. He and his fellow organizers are the ‘those’ who used the ‘sacred memory of 9/11 to achieve their own ends’ as a reason for starting this project. He is the one who linked 9/11 and its aftermath with the city’s need for this community center. Now that 9/11 is being used for the same purpose by those in opposition, suddenly it must be rejected. . I don’t know what his true intentions are but if he is indeed a man of peace, then he needs a new speech writer because his own words are fueling the fire in the gut of the opposition. . So, GratefulFan, if there were no 9/11, and therefore no post 9/11 American society, there would not be a ‘need’ for this “bridge-building” islamic community center/mosque and there would be no Ground Zero. Instead, this would simply be yet another religious building being used in the happily diverse city of New York. No fuss no muss. ================================ A bit of a meander about what I see as an overemphasis on the rhetoric first: I do think it's worth remembering that the idea for the project and the entire broader agenda was initiated several years before the 9/11 attacks, though the attacks certainly changed the face of just about everything, including the realities and concerns of Rauf's American Society for Muslim Advancement (est. 1997). The need for the bridge building existed in the eyes of the bridge builders well before, so perceiving an intent to tie it solely to 9/11 is probably a somewhat selective reading of the facts. Though it's clear that the rhetoric and their embrace and touting of the symbolism of the building's location has really gotten under the skin of many opponents becaue the actuality of some of the feelings being stirred up are counter to the stated goal of bridge building, the rhetoric is not really the reason that you object to the centre. Dropping the rhetoric would not drop the objections. The centre is meant to fill a very real, vey practical and very non rhetorical gap in services downtown, while hoping to address broader and more diffuse social issues, and it's the centre, in that location downtown, that is objected to. The expressed connection to 9/11 is clearly galling to many, but overemphasis turns your argument into a strawman that it doesn't need to be. You don't object to it because the group has expressed a stake and sense of ownership of their own in the events of 9/11 that they'd like to materialize in this particular way, as irritating as that line of expression might feel. You object to the building, in that location, period, for your own reasons. To address your points more directly: Everybody has repeatedly stressed the difference between legitimate opposition and opposition that has clearly slid into something much uglier and more opportunistic. He's not talking about *all* the opposition, he's talking about some of the opposition. Some of the politicians and others trying to advance a narrow and twisted subset of the pertinent facts to grow their own lot in life that manifest in things like the burning tower bus ads or in whipping up the base through refererences that equate all Muslims with Nazis. There is a difference between invoking 9/11 to emphasize a need to mitigate fear and distrust between Muslim and non-Muslim American neighbours when 9/11 clearly had an impact on that very thing, and Rick Lazio etc. trying to get elected or increase blog hits by shocking and scaring the masses. Rauf pointed that out, and he's right. I see no reasonable interpretation of the facts that say Rauf et al were callously or inappropriately leveraging 9/11 to acheive their personal goals no matter what one actually thinks of their ideas and plans. In my mind, there is no hipocrisy at all. He says only that the discourse has been hijacked by the frothing elements on both sides, which includes neither him, nor opponents like you. |
magicalfreddiemercury 14.09.2010 15:47 |
>>> GratefulFan wrote: I see no reasonable interpretation of the facts that say Rauf et al were callously or inappropriately leveraging 9/11 to acheive their personal goals no matter what one actually thinks of their ideas and plans. <<< . I do not feel the initial rationale was callous. However, given the negative response to his offer of this particular attempt at bridge building, his desire to continue it, and his desire to revoke 9/11 as reason when he initially invoked it, is indeed callous and inappropriate. And dangerous. . . >>> The need for the bridge building existed in the eyes of the bridge builders well before, so perceiving an intent to tie it solely to 9/11 is probably a somewhat selective reading of the facts. <<< . I do not see it as such. The very public explanation for building this center in this spot has come from this imam for months and it has been centered on supposedly improving relations between islam and the west. Unless he has been living in another world for the past nine years, he should have known when you compare islam and the west in this post 9/11 atmosphere, 9/11 will be thought of as reason for it. That he himself spoke of 9/11 as the reason for building this center rather than say it was initially unrelated, is enough to take away all subjectivity. . . >>> You object to the building, in that location, period, for your own reasons. <<< . Um… no. I object to the building in that location because of the inappropriate and callous expression of the organizers to dismiss the very raw, very real, hurt of their neighbors as they plow through with a project that is supposedly intended to heal when in fact, it hurts. I object when a specific reason for doing so is stated until that very reason, when used by the opposition, is suddenly rejected. I have stated more than once in this thread, including in my last reply, that if 9/11 had not happened – and, by extension, Ground Zero did not exist – then the location of this center would not be an issue. |
Yara 14.09.2010 17:49 |
Building a religious center in order to worship a God, period, is a religious act - apart from the particular places considered especially holy by either Islam or Judaism, and Ground Zero is not one of them, God is wherever people are correctly and sincerely praying for him; wanting to have it built on a particular and controversial place, being adamant at denying the possibility of erecting it elsewhere and claiming as one of the its main goals the improvement of the relationship between different creeds, is a political act - whether it's a good or a bad one, a well-intentioned or a provocative one, that's all open to discussion, but it's still a political statement. Political statements, based on solid legal ground or thin air, can always be discussed and negotiated. The claim that the very act of asking the organizers if they could move the center elsewhere means disregarding or disrespecting religious freedom is outright absurd. It'd make sense if 9/11 hadn't happened and the organizers didn't want to have it built at Ground Zero, and only there. And, of course, if they had been asked to move to a remote and abstruse place. It's, again, never been the case. It's clearly become by now much more a matter of political affirmation than of religious freedom. And many people don't like the political dimensions of the islamic faith: the fact that a religious center can be built only on a single place, otherwise violence and terror are likely to follow, makes it even more difficult for liberal-minded New Yorkers, many of whom oppose the building of the center according to the most authorative polls, to be more receptive towards Islam. Then again, I'm sure that, if they go on with this project, the organizers won't face any legal obstacles. They'll indeed face obstacles from abroad if they don't go on with it - why? Because there are way too many people who, as the Imam suggested, are willing to kill and behave violently if the center is not built at Ground Zero. The Imam is stating a fact, but a rather sad one: after all, no civilized society can hope to survive having to bow to this kind of permanent threat. Islamic extremism has obviously become a widespread and serious problem. The victims are too much, as the women who must suffer in silent in so many islamic regions and countries. There's an unavoidable and understandable spill-over effect and the islamic religion is not going to be completely dissociated from its radical members in a forseeable future. That's the world the Imam is living in. I've lived in Israel for all too long to be charged with being ignorant of Islam and the problem of Islamophobia. Still, New Yorkers are not the Israeli Army. When they object to the building of the center, they have legitimate reasons for doing so: namely, thousands of innocent civilians were brutally killed in the name of Islam - by people who go as far as to kill themselves in order to take other people's lives. As a Jewish person, I don't expect to be easily greeted by Palestinians; when Ariel Sharon "visited" the Temple Mount, he had the right to do so - it was not ilegal for him to be there. But he acted as an absolute jerk, and his irresponsible, offensive act was one of the reasons why the second intifada began. Peaceful Jews still face the consequences of his idiotic act. There's nothing outlandish about claiming that rights are better exercised in a responsible and careful way whenever possible - this common sense is still one of the reasons why the fabric of a society based on rights doesn't tear apart. We've come to a pretty pass when the building of a religious center on a specific place becomes for some a matter of life and death. The most serious obstacle to peaceful Muslims comes unfortunately from their fellow muslims. If it were not for so many radicals and extremists, this discussion wouldn't even exist. |
magicalfreddiemercury 14.09.2010 18:55 |
I have to say it once again, Yara - your entire post was beautifully said. |
GratefulFan 15.09.2010 16:26 |
Hi! I'm coming back to fight with some of you later, so I thought I'd offer an advance peace token. Actually it's 70% an excuse to post a Rob Thomas video because I'm so totally in love with his sound, but it's 30% because it's got some great shots of New York City streets and New York City people, and it's a rare happy Rob Thomas song, with a nice message about hope and patience and peace and humanity and some other vague things that might be mildly related to this discussion. Even if they're not related, they're nice things anyway, and it's impossible for me to listen to this song and watch this video and not feel happy. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6pODq8_FxE&ob=av2e Bye. You're in big trouble when I get back. Especially you magicalfm! :[ |
magicalfreddiemercury 15.09.2010 17:51 |
>>>GratefulFan wrote: Bye. You're in big trouble when I get back. Especially you magicalfm! :[ <<< . LOL. Don't be angry. It's just about opinion. Besides, we still have samosas. :-) . We DO still have samosas, yes? |
Holly2003 15.09.2010 19:05 |
Right I have a solution to all of this. Let the iman build his mosque-cultural centre, in fact let him build two, then let some crazy christian fundamentalists hijack some Saudi planes and crash them into them. Everybody's happy. In the aftermath, Iran will invade the Bible Belt, declare victory after taking Lubbick, Texas, them to fall foul of an insurgency led by Billy Ray Cyrus and Ann Coulter. Allah el Akbar, bubba! |
GratefulFan 17.09.2010 16:56 |
magicalfreddiemercury wrote: >>>GratefulFan wrote: Bye. You're in big trouble when I get back. Especially you magicalfm! :[ <<< . LOL. Don't be angry. It's just about opinion. Besides, we still have samosas. :-) . We DO still have samosas, yes? ============================ Oh yes. We will always have samosas. :) But I'm keeping all the chutney until you stop being so mean! On an (only slightly more) serious note, you wrote 'Don't be angry. It's just about opinion'. I was going to ask before what the psychological experience, if any, of this thread was for opponents. I like these kinds of discussions, but at the same time I find this one stressful to the point of having to run off for a few days sometimes. Although I know intellectually that it's not the case, every last one of you sometimes feel like you'd happily shove an ice pick into the ear of the next Muslim you see. I perceive injustice and something like suffering on the other end of your arguments. It gets hard to stay engaged on an even keel. Anyway, again, those thoughts are a reflection of me on this topic and not meant to express the actuality of other opinions at all. So don't ice pick me. LOL |
GratefulFan 17.09.2010 17:14 |
Ann Coulter once said that Canada was lucky the US allowed it to exist on the same continent. That we're lucky the US doesn't just roll over one night and crush us. Which was kind of funny, but mean. She built an entire Iraq war non-participation bashing argument around the fact that Canada sent troops to Vietnam. We didn't. Pat Buchanen calls us Soviet Canukistan (also kind of funny) and accused us of being too scared to go to war. Canada has been in Afghanistan since 2002 and no nation has lost more troops in that country relative to size of military or per capita population at home than Canada, because we've been operating in the most dangerous areas at the tip of the spear. A couple of years ago Newt Gingrich called us a terrorist Shangri-la responsible for the majority of the 9/11 hijackers getting over the Canada/US border. Zero 9/11 hijackers came through Canada. So a funny but wildly, wildly ignorant bunch. |
GratefulFan 17.09.2010 18:03 |
magicalfreddiemercury wrote: >>> GratefulFan wrote: I see no reasonable interpretation of the facts that say Rauf et al were callously or inappropriately leveraging 9/11 to acheive their personal goals no matter what one actually thinks of their ideas and plans. <<< . I do not feel the initial rationale was callous. However, given the negative response to his offer of this particular attempt at bridge building, his desire to continue it, and his desire to revoke 9/11 as reason when he initially invoked it, is indeed callous and inappropriate. And dangerous. . . >>> The need for the bridge building existed in the eyes of the bridge builders well before, so perceiving an intent to tie it solely to 9/11 is probably a somewhat selective reading of the facts. <<< . I do not see it as such. The very public explanation for building this center in this spot has come from this imam for months and it has been centered on supposedly improving relations between islam and the west. Unless he has been living in another world for the past nine years, he should have known when you compare islam and the west in this post 9/11 atmosphere, 9/11 will be thought of as reason for it. That he himself spoke of 9/11 as the reason for building this center rather than say it was initially unrelated, is enough to take away all subjectivity. . . >>> You object to the building, in that location, period, for your own reasons. <<< . Um… no. I object to the building in that location because of the inappropriate and callous expression of the organizers to dismiss the very raw, very real, hurt of their neighbors as they plow through with a project that is supposedly intended to heal when in fact, it hurts. I object when a specific reason for doing so is stated until that very reason, when used by the opposition, is suddenly rejected. I have stated more than once in this thread, including in my last reply, that if 9/11 had not happened – and, by extension, Ground Zero did not exist – then the location of this center would not be an issue. =============================== Can I say that I think you're uncharitable to Rauf to the point of irrationality? Can I say that without sounding insufferable? I don't mean to be insufferable. It's just not...true... in my mind to imply that he's 'revoking 9/11 as a reason when he initally invoked it'. He's not in any way objecting to the use of 9/11, he's objecting to the misuse of 9/11 on the exact grounds that many others are objecting, including some victim's families. The very next sentence in the quote you included was "Let us condemn the use of holy texts or religious symbols for political or financial gain, or fame." Those thoughts were a unit. Why drop that sentence off, when it made the intent to focus on the radical and inappropriate use of symbolism, including 9/11 sybolism, much more clear? If you dropped it, I don't think that was fair. If you read it from a source that dropped it, then I think that source is not balanced. In introductory remarks in the same speech he was listing people and things he was grateful for in the midst of the crisis and he said "And for those who have voiced their objections to our plans with civility, with respect, and with open minds and hearts, I am also grateful. You affirm my belief in the decency and the morality of the American People." and; "I do recognize that among the critics are some who lost their loved ones on 9/11. To all of them, I offer my heartfelt sympathy and prayers for their departed souls. Every year we mark the anniversary with great sadness but also with greater resolve to fight against the radical philosophies that are used to justify these acts". Clearly he is aware that these objections are based on 9/11. He's not trying to 'take 9/11 away'. I just don't think that's supportable. You hold the 'desire to continue it' against the group as though turning tail is the only acceptable option. Is that reasonable? There is a process going on! The country is in the middle of a discussion. The discussion isn't finished. A large minority of New Yorkers hold completely different beliefs and hopes for that space than you do. You didn't even like my idea of a hold on the project to explore reconciliation, even though the Imam had been gone for weeks. Why so much contempt by proxy for for your fellow New Yorkers, for that process? Of course the developers desire to continue it. They think they're doing the right thing. At some point, things might evolve such that right or wrong it would be irresponsible to continue, but you're not there yet. It's America. Let them time to make their case. *Small note on my use of the term "for your own reasons" in my last post. It seem that was received as somewhat dismissive. Sorry for the less than optimal choice of words. I was just trying to capture the sense of a breadth of valid reasons for objection. **I'm giving you back your chutney for reading! Yay! |
magicalfreddiemercury 17.09.2010 20:47 |
>>> Can I say that I think you're uncharitable to Rauf to the point of irrationality? <<< . You can say it and I can object to it. But it won’t matter as we seem to have come to an impasse. . === >>> Can I say that without sounding insufferable?<<< . I'll have to get back to you on this. == >>>Why drop that sentence off, when it made the intent to focus on the radical and inappropriate use of symbolism, including 9/11 sybolism, much more clear? If you dropped it, I don't think that was fair. If you read it from a source that dropped it, then I think that source is not balanced. <<< . I don’t know whether I dropped the sentence or whether it was not originally included. What I do know is the sentences I posted seemed to say it all. If I included the sentence you quoted - "Let us condemn the use of holy texts or religious symbols for political or financial gain, or fame." - it wouldn’t have changed my interpretation since I see that merely as a reaction/response to current events. == >>>Clearly he is aware that these objections are based on 9/11. He's not trying to 'take 9/11 away'. I just don't think that's supportable. <<< . You don’t think it’s supportable while I do. Very much so. I understand the concern that a small minority in opposition is using 9/11 in a warped and extreme way. But then… “extreme” is what caused 9/11. And so, it’s naïve, at best, to be surprised extremism has surfaced again. And it would be disingenuous to give credence to the extremists in this instance while describing extremists from the other side as a small minority not representative of the whole. == >>> You hold the 'desire to continue it' against the group as though turning tail is the only acceptable option. <<< . No. In all these pages, I’ve have repeatedly voiced the need for compromise. I have not implied an all or nothing solution, and when it was insinuated that I had, regardless, I clarified. == >>> Is that reasonable? There is a process going on! The country is in the middle of a discussion. The discussion isn't finished. <<< . This is funny, because the imam peppers his speech with comments which leave no room for discussion. He has said the project will move forward. Period. And to many, that sounds very much like an end-of-discussion statement. === >>> A large minority of New Yorkers hold completely different beliefs and hopes for that space than you do. <<< . Okay… and… that’s why I said a conversation needs to be had. That’s why I said maybe the governor’s offer to hold talks could help the two sides reach common ground. I also said I didn’t know what that common ground might be. I have not said it’s my way or no way. === >>>You didn't even like my idea of a hold on the project to explore reconciliation, even though the Imam had been gone for weeks. Why so much contempt by proxy for for your fellow New Yorkers, for that process? <<< . If anything, I think my posts have shown respect for my fellow New Yorkers. === >>> Of course the developers desire to continue it. They think they're doing the right thing. <<< . Of course the opposition desires to end it. They think they’re doing the right thing. === >>>At some point, things might evolve such that right or wrong it would be irresponsible to continue, but you're not there yet. It's America. Let them time to make their case. <<< . Yes. It is America. And in America, both sides are entitled to speak and be heard. One side is not expected to sit quietly while the other makes its case. And when the issues are of such a sensitive nature that so many voices are raised, words begin to carry more weight. To assume otherwise is shortsighted and dangerous. === It seems we must agree to disagree. |
GratefulFan 17.09.2010 20:56 |
magicalfreddiemercury wrote: Along with every right/freedom comes a responsibility. Cause and effect. We have the right to drink, and the responsibility to avoid driving if we've had too much. We have the right to cook whatever meal we like in our own home, and the responsibility to keep our kids away from the hot pans. The world is bigger than each of us and while, yes, the pastor has the right to burn whatever he wants to burn, I have the right to try, peacefully, to stop him. Each of us would then be responsible for whatever follows - peace or melee. I respectfully but strongly disagree. The responsibilities and rights that flow from electing to drink alchohol to excess and electing to burn books are not at all easily comparable. Social response to drinking and driving or child neglect does not require your subjective judgement, as they are acts that were codified in law as a result of rigorous and formal processes that were reflective of the values of society as a whole, but (ideally and usually) insulated from whim and mob rule. On matters like book burning as free speech, when you slip past attemping to influence through peaceful protest into projecting your own or your group's own sense of right and wrong on individuals or other groups to the point of trying to stop them physically or through so much intimidation you've effectively forced them to stop, you're someplace else all together. I felt my own society slip under my feet surrounding a surreal and stunning sociopolitical response to shocking sex killings committed by a young 'beautiful' couple in southern Ontario. I witnessed everything that had felt solid and generally reliable - the fairness of government, the objectivity, independence and courage of a free press, the fair and consistent and dispasssionate application of law, the freedom to speak and act within the law without punishment, freedom in academia and the general ability of a society to police itself and it's fundamentals - utterly corrupted in a witch hunt directed at the female half of the duo. It was fueled by pure emotion and vigilantism, and almost completely unencumbered by reason, sufficient facts or awareness. It's difficult to overestimate the effect this had on my worldview as it relates to human behaviour. I know with unshakable certaintly that I witnessed mechanisms over these many years that have in the past underlain some of the worst human misdeeds by and with the acquiesence of the people. A lot of informal study for my own personal interest in related disciplines followed for me, and it's fascinating and compelling stuff. We simply don't know ourselves as reliably as we think we do, and we can't trust ourselves or our judgements like we think we can. That's why for me any whiff of mob behaviour, even as uncontentious as surrounding a pile of holy books to prevent their distateful use in a free speech ritual, is one step too far. That might seem pedantic. I swear to you it's not. The places you can get to by degrees are at once subtle and stunning. You could rationalize that act. And that's what's scary as hell. That road should simply not be started down in my view. What of the result of his actions? Despite their value to some, he would only be destroying objects, not people. We are at war with extremist from the religion he is (irresponsibly) insulting. A religion whose followers have turned to violence against people, not just objects, for far less. Would he not bear any responsibility if they did the same because of his actions? You know, I have the feeling I'm just not very good at this pastor issue. I can't find the will to care all that much. As you said, the books are just objects. To me the power he had was given to him by the media, and by the statesmen. Did the issue need breathless checking in on every 15 minutes and comments from leaders around the world? I don't think so. Obama could have simply talked about free speech, that disrepect for the holy book was not reflective of majority belief, that Americans were disgusted as well. Cut to pictures of Americans burning their own flag in DC or wherever as illustration of free speech. Done. The Gainsville Gator covers whatever Pastor Jones does or doens't do on September 11. End of. It truly couldn't have been handled any worse. I'll have to defer to you on this one, as I just don't care about burning books in this context, ie a dumb free speech and intolerance ritual. . When we see what we perceive as an injustice, it is not only our right but our responsibility to, peacefully, speak out against it. See the first part of my response. I think peacefulness is abandoned when you actually impede the rights of others. Picketing and lobbying is responsible, blocking is a step too far. None of us are as reliably good at correctly perceiving injustices as we think. |
GratefulFan 17.09.2010 21:04 |
Just read your last thoughts magicalfm... thanks for those. I just want to add that Rauf has not at all said that he is pushing forward. He hopes to solve it where the building stands, that remains his goal, but has said all options are on the table. His full remarks seemed to indicate very clearly that he in no way sees pushing blindly forward in this climate as a good plan in line with his hopes and goals. The full text of the Council of Foreign Relations speech is available in pdf, and there is a podcast where you can listen to the speech, along with a very blanaced Q & A that followed. I think you'd like some of it, be put a bit more at ease by some of it, and still object to some of it. If you haven't heard the recording and think you might be interested let me know and I can direct you to the link. |
GratefulFan 17.09.2010 21:39 |
Holly2003 wrote: I fully accept that if this was a christian centre there would be no problem. Then again, 9-11 happened in the name of Islam not christianity, and that's why people make the connection. Do you deny that if this center was built at some other spot well away from ground zero there probably would've been no dispute? ======================================= The full and truthful answer to this, quite honestly, is I don't know anymore. I don't know how to interperet the unfolding facts. However, for the sake of the discussion I'll state that yes, there are multiple places in New York City that this building could have eventually been built. So what? I understand why people make the connection, of course. But it's not a rational connection because the Muslim Americans that have long been part of the fabric of life in downtown NYC are not the ones that attacked the United States, and choosing to give over to irrationality without even trying doesn't seem desirable to me. Your points about Northern Ireland were well taken. For weeks I was banging my head against the wall waiting for somebody in the papers and punditry to say something, anything, about why 'it's offensive' was supposed to be a complete argument. Though I'd strongly disagree with your characterization of the Muslim Americans forcing (or shoving) their religion (or views or whatever - sorry, I forget the exact quote) on New York, the other things you said made a great deal of sense to me, though I had to twist them up a little, until it wasn't completely what you said I don't think. It ended up for me something like "irrational feelings matter...because they're irrational". They can lead to violence and escalation from which it's hard to climb down, and who is 'right' must be secondary to avoiding such a destructive path. I could understand that, finally, as something to grab on to. So thanks for that. *Last time I posted a Queen related article that contained the words "Northern Ireland" on this forum some poster who I forget mildly freaked out and slapped my wrist, making me somewhat skittish on the topic. I have no idea if I've mischaracterized anything important, so please forgive me if I have, or if I do. Okay? America is not there yet. Although I know that it's a very short walk from toeing the brink to being over the brink, they are not there yet. We're likely all bringing the sociological phenomenon of cultural bias to this argument to some degree. It's likely that we all have pieces of this whole, but that no one projection is perfect. You spoke to Amazon of an 'ivory tower' debate on this side. That's just not true. Although I can't deny being burdened with a significant amount of idealism and comparative liberalism, my strong beliefs on this are not liberal minded abstractions. They're very much born of decades of boots on the ground in a real place - a country of literally everybody - that similar to the US generally holds on to the principals argued on the mosque proponent side for dear life, as part self definition and part necessity. In a culture built entirely from blending other cultures, equality and tolerance and dignity for all is inestimably important in even having something that feels like a culture. And we have a history here in Canada too of a country trying to shake itself apart, first under an IRA style paramilitary group called the FLQ (don't intend a direct comparison to NI beyond that in any way - we were so much more fortunate with only 8 deaths and several hundred injuries through bombings etc. over about 7 years only, between 1963 and 1970, and confined to Quebec) , and from 1970 onward to today through a peaceful if heated political process , so there is real knowledge about what disenfranchisement and power imbalance looks like and what it can do, and how it might move between violence and the political process. Though it's interesting that it took your NI points to bring this into focus for me. The difference between the authority of living it and just reading about it I guess. There are other things: As I wrote in my last post, I have also been profoundly affected by watching the majority rain hell on one small but significant slice of justice and fairness and common sense in Ontario in the years since the early 1990's, on a wave of emotion and vigilantism. There have been consequences in the ability of this public to think straight which I would happily demonstrate if asked. Every Monday we have a sitcom on CBC called 'Little Mosque on the Prairie' where moderate Muslims make fun of themselves. In 2005, Ontario debated an independent recommendation for Sharia tribunals as a voluntary form of dispute resolution in family law, fully subject to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and parallel to existing tribunal options for Christians and Jews. There was much hue and cry and back and forth that echoes the tone of the mosque debate in many ways, but ultimately two strong lobby groups defeated the idea. Those groups were the Canadian Council of Muslim Women and the moderate Muslim Canadian Congress (there was a conservative Muslim group that supported it). In the spirit of full freedom and full respect Ontario Muslims were offered Sharia and they essentially said "No thank you. We embrace the society we have". Not feeling like you have to fight for a place for your culture's mainstream, along with freedom and respect, are very powerful things. When given unconditional freedom and respect, most don't want to give it back. There is still much suspicion between Muslims and non Muslims in Canada, and we live under threat of homegrown terrorism just like everybody else, but in the mainstream we are fortunate through different immigration patterns and a different history to not have the same integration problems of the European situation at this time. So all this to say that while I certainly don't know if I'm right on the mosque issue, I know for sure I'm not in an ivory tower. My experience, and I suspect Amazon's experience as well, is real and relevant, just as everybody else's is. |
GratefulFan 18.09.2010 12:29 |
I wrote 750 million words on here last night on the premise that I was going camping this weekend because my son is away until Sunday night. And now it's raining. Fu........ I came back to tell you something magicalfm that I thought you might laugh at. You know that New York guy from that Bridal store Kleinfeld's or whatever from 'Say Yes to the Dress'. That TLC show? I've always thought of him as gay New York personified. Anyway, my son works as an assistant DJ semi regularly - that's where he is this weekend at an out of town gig. So last night apparently it was a bridal show, and the organizers threw huge piles of money at that 'Say Yes to the Dress' guy to come up to the wilds of Ontario and be at this show, and my son just emailed me a picture of them together looking dapper. It made me laugh right out loud. Disclaimer: All wedding dresses over a thousand dollars should be shredded and reverse engineered until they are once again suitable for important things like food for hungry people rather than sold as dresses for people to wear for 6 hours. Seriously North America. |
Yara 18.09.2010 14:12 |
GratefulFan wrote: Although I know intellectually that it's not the case, every last one of you sometimes feel like you'd happily shove an ice pick into the ear of the next Muslim you see. I perceive injustice and something like suffering on the other end of your arguments. It gets hard to stay engaged on an even keel. Anyway, again, those thoughts are a reflection of me on this topic and not meant to express the actuality of other opinions at all. So don't ice pick me. LOL --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I guess this is the very root of your misunderstanding of many people who oppose the building of this center: you just can't conceive that there are actually people who, despite opposing it, have never felt like doing harm to the next muslim he or she happens to see. I still spend part of the year in Israel. I've been living with Muslims ever since I was a kid. I have never, ever felt an irrational hatred for a person just because he or she happens to be muslim. The whole "muslim thing" was not even an issue when I was a kid - I had, and still have, Muslim friends and, both as a human being and as a Jewish person, I feel utterly annoyed by any statement suggesting that any group of people should be gotten rid of or have their rights trampled because of their beliefs or ethnic background. I'm generally a very peaceful and collected human being. It's hard to make me angry. The building of this center doesn't make me angry at all - I oppose it, but I don't hate it. What does get on my nerves, however, is violence, for political or religious reasons, and racism. These are things I just can't stand. I'd be opposed to anyone trying to prevent the building of the center on legal grounds - religious freedom is much more sacred than religion itself in my worldview because it is one of those values which hold societies together and prevent them from falling apart. This is what I think. It's quite clear. No one has to resort to guesses or make inferences to find out what I think. I make the lives of the people I debate with quite easy! : ) |
YourValentine 19.09.2010 02:44 |
Gratefulfan wrote: I understand why people make the connection, of course. But it's not a rational connection because the Muslim Americans that have long been part of the fabric of life in downtown NYC are not the ones that attacked the United States, and choosing to give over to irrationality without even trying doesn't seem desirable to me ============================ It always comes back to the issue of responsibility, doesn't it? Of course the Imam Rauf and his associates did not attack the USA, I think everybody knows that. The difference is that he claims that building the Cordoba House is only about the freedom of religion while other people - mainly the opponents - think it's a political act designed to cause a rift rather than build a bridge. Personally, I cannot understand how anybody fails to see that it is indeed a political issue and not solely a religious issue. The Imam Rauf is apparently not a "man of the church" as we say, i.e. a priest by main occupation. He is a business man, a leader of a Muslim organisation, he travels on behalf os the state dept in order to conduct talks with politicians in the Middle East. He of all people should have had anticipated that this project would cause problems in NYC - mainly because he introduced it as an act of reconciliation between New Yorkers and the Muslim world. You say that the opposition to this cultural center is irrational. In your view it is irrational when people make their trauma an issue in a discussion about a building. This is a perfectly reasonable and understandable point of view. However - I saw 9/11 happen on TV and still my hair stands up when I only think about these planes crashing into the WTC and I cannot even imagine how people felt who saw it happen in real life - people who had family in the buildings or in the rescue teams, people who lost family members in the attack, people who never even got the body of their family member back. For these people the trauma is very real, it is probably more real than many other "real" aspects of their lives. Yes, you can ask them to "get over it" for the better of the country and the freedom of religion but to deny that there is huge pain is just inhuman. As to irrational - for me it is irrational to spend millions in order to build a house in which you can pray to a non-existing god, call him God, Allah or anything else. However, I would never tell people they should not build that house, it's not my business. I know that "God" or "Allah" is real for them. Now why is the irrationality of building a prayer house so much more important than the irrationality of a traumatized part of the city population? Because it's labelled "freedom of religion" and "freedom of religion" is supposed to shut up any other opinion and mark the opponents as mob, racists, Islamophobes etc. I know that freedom of religion is important - it shows how civilized a society is. However, the whole rhetoric of the Imam Rauf is political, it's not religious. Moving an unbuilt mosque a few blocks away in order to respect the feelings of the traumatized neighbours is not hurting the freedom of religion imo. Always assuming that he has every right to ignore the whole "irrationality" and proceed with his project. He has the law on his side. |
YourValentine 19.09.2010 03:03 |
I want to add an article by the leader of another Muslim organisation. It was published in the wall street journal. I am not a subscriber, so I had to look it up in the google cache. The link is link I do not know if there is any kind of political fight between the author and the Imam Rauf. Maybe it is all politically motivated - I do not know that.I post the complete article mainly because he has such another idea of responsibilty - and because here is an American muslim asking for the separation of state and mosque rather than trying to make the US constitution Sharia -compatible. article: Questions for Imam Rauf From an American Muslim He may not appear to the untrained eye to be an Islamist, but by making Ground Zero an Islamic rather than an American issue he shows his true allegiance. By M. ZUHDI JASSER After a long absence while controversy over the mosque near Ground Zero smoldered, Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf finally held forth this week both in the New York Times and on CNN. Imam Rauf and his supporters are clearly more interested in making a political statement in relation to Islam than in the mosque's potential for causing community division and pain to those who lost loved ones on 9/11. That division is already bitterly obvious. As someone who has been involved in building mosques around the country, and who has dealt with his fair share of unjustified opposition, I ask of Imam Rauf and all his supporters, "Where is your sense of fairness and common decency?" In relation to Ground Zero, I am an American first, a Muslim second, just as I would be at Concord, Gettysburg, Normandy Beach, Pearl Harbor or any other battlefield where my fellow countrymen lost their lives. I must ask Imam Rauf: For what do you stand—what's best for Americans overall, or for what you think is best for Islam? What have you said and argued to Muslim-majority nations to address their need for reform? You have said that Islam does not need reform, despite the stoning of women in Muslim countries, death sentences for apostates, and oppression of reformist Muslims and non-Muslims. You now lecture Americans that WTC mosque protests are "politically motivated" and "go against the American principle of church and state." Yet you ignore the wide global prevalence of far more dangerous theo-political groups like the Muslim Brotherhood and all of its violent and nonviolent offshoots. In your book, "What's Right With Islam," you cite the Brotherhood's radical longtime spiritual leader Imam Yusuf Qaradawi as a "moderate." Reformist American Muslims are not afraid to name Mr. Qaradawi and his ilk as radical. We Muslims should first separate mosque and state before lecturing Americans about church and state. Imam, tell me if you can look into the eyes of children who lost a parent on 9/11 and convince them that this immodest Islamic center benefits them. How will it in any way aid counterterrorism efforts or keep one American any safer? You willfully ignore what American Muslims most need—an open call for reformation that unravels the bigoted and shoddy framework of political Islam and separates mosque and state. There are certainly those who are prejudiced against Muslims and who are against mosques being built anywhere, and even a few who wish to burn the Quran. But most voices in this case have been very clear that for every American freedom of religion is a right, but that it is not right to make one's religion a global political statement with a towering Islamic edifice that casts a shadow over the memorials of Ground Zero. As an American Muslim, I look at that pit of devastation and contemplate the thousands of lives undone there within seconds. I pray for the ongoing strength to fight the fanatics who did this, and who continue their war against my country with both overt violence and covert strategies that aim to undo the very freedoms for which so many have fought and died. Imam Rauf may not appear to the untrained eye to be an Islamist, but by making Ground Zero an Islamic rather than an American issue, and by failing to firmly condemn terrorist groups like Hamas, he shows his true allegiance. Islamists in "moderate" disguise are still Islamists. In their own more subtle ways, the WTC mosque organizers end up serving the same aims of the separatist and supremacist wings of political Islam. In this epic struggle of the 21st century, we cannot afford to ignore the continuum between nonviolent political Islam and the militancy it ultimately fuels among the jihadists. Dr. Jasser, a medical doctor and a former U.S. Navy lieutenant commander, is the founder and president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy based in Phoenix, Ariz. |
magicalfreddiemercury 19.09.2010 07:52 |
What an amazing article. I applaud every word of it. Thank you for posting it, YV. I love it all but think this line sums it up the best - "We Muslims should first separate mosque and state before lecturing Americans about church and state." |
magicalfreddiemercury 19.09.2010 08:05 |
>>>GratefulFan wrote: The full text of the Council of Foreign Relations speech is available in pdf, and there is a podcast where you can listen to the speech, along with a very blanaced Q & A that followed. I think you'd like some of it, be put a bit more at ease by some of it, and still object to some of it. If you haven't heard the recording and think you might be interested let me know and I can direct you to the link. <<< . After 9/11, I had the news on 24/7. Every time then-president Bush would speak, I’d sit riveted. Waiting, hoping for some insight, some form of comfort, some sense of him having a solid grasp on the situation. Like Giuliani. When I listened to my then-mayor speak, I felt secure, as if he and his people were looking into things and doing all they could to keep us safe. Lip-service or not that’s how his words made me feel. As if he was worrying so I wouldn’t have to. It was that sense of security I looked for in Bush’s talks. It never came. He said the same things repeatedly and those things were not helpful. “Bring it on”, “Dead or Alive”. Useless baiting. He had a plan – which seemed to be a predetermined plan that happened to fit beautifully (for him) into the events of the day. And he intended to move forward with that plan, focused only on carrying it out, not on the controversy, the hardship, the right or wrong. . As far as I’m concerned, all the above is the same for the imam. I’ve heard him speak. I’ve read his comments. I’m left neither impressed nor hopeful and wish he would stop talking long enough to see the effects of his words before those effects, like Bush’s, become irreparable. |
Donna13 19.09.2010 12:02 |
YV, that was a very good article. Thanks for posting it. |
GratefulFan 03.10.2010 14:08 |
So, it's been a couple of weeks, and I have thought about this thread from time to time in that span. It's striking to me that the core of us who thought and typed the most about this seemed to get farther away from understanding each other's positions rather than closer, and seemed to feel more misunderstood, on both sides, for all that work. It seems a shame to leave with nothing - essentially an agreement to disagree - again, for all that work. I'd like to at least have learned something. We're all normal people who presumably care about the same sorts of things, and yet we've tripped 10 feet out the gate unable to even agree what the fundamental pieces of this are. My overarching argument - that bin Laden wins if this development doesn't go forward for any reason related to this controversy - seems hopelessly far off when we can't even agree about something basic like the fact that freedom of religion is (or isn't) a factor. It baffles me when Yara says "I wouldn't like it if it was being objected to for legal reasons because freedom of religion is very important" (paraphrasing you Yara...sorry!) Well, how is it not important anyway? I've been trying hard to find something that would bridge the understanding of each other a little, find something that didn't make me perceive prejudice and injustice in all opposing arguments, and I think I might have succeeded in some small way. It's never come up, but I would have a really hard time supporting this if the community centre was built *on* ground zero (using that term to connote the WTC site only), or anywhere in direct sight of visitors to the planned memorial. I'd probably be able to argue some of the same principles, but my heart wouldn't be in it the same way at all. For the sake of families and all visitors to that memorial, I'd want a different outcome. It wouldn't be about the Muslim religion really, but about invading the space and peace of mourners and visitors to the memorial with a symbolic reminder of the horrible event rather than providing a safe place to reflect about the whole lives of the lost in a place of some tranquility, or as much tranquility as can be managed in downtown New York. It would be akin to me to having a huge American Airlines advertising billboard in the same space, or a billboard admonishing people to eat heart healthy or something like that looming in view of any regular graveyard. I guess it's those two and half blocks that change everything for me. Which I guess I knew from the beginning, because it was that Google street view trip I took that moved me away from the original reaction of 'Huh? You want to put a what where?'. Two and half blocks away, the priorities shift. |
magicalfreddiemercury 04.10.2010 06:32 |
>>>GratefulFan wrote: I've been trying hard to find something that would bridge the understanding of each other a little...<<< . I think the two sides understand each other well enough, they simply do not agree. . . >>>Two and half blocks away, the priorities shift.<<< . Opinions such as this from supporters, for example, are well understood by the opposition yet are vehemently rejected. That difference of opinion is one of many keeping the two sides apart. |
GratefulFan 07.10.2010 20:07 |
I know that speaking very narrowly about this conversation, I certainly don't feel that understood. I think YV called me inhuman or something. LOL I don't feel like I understand anybody else much either. More than once I've written a big long thing about some thing or other and gotten back that that's not what the other person meant at all. As I said before, I just regret that after a fair bit of 'work' I haven't been able to take more away from this. I still have doubts this development will ever be built anyway, making this all a little theoretical. Still, it reveals a pretty amazing chasm in America and beyond. |
YourValentine 08.10.2010 03:10 |
GFF, I definitely did not call you inhuman :-) I always thought my English is better than to create such a misunderstanding. I looked up the sentence and I thought it was obvious that I was making a general statement to the effect that it is inhuman when "one" denies the families of the 9/11 victims the right to grieve in a way they think appropriate. I think that this is the heart of the matter. Unfortunately, many political figures have jumped on the bandwagon and heated the conflict when it should have been between the New Yorkers on both sides. Right now there is no real chance left to compromise. We all come to this discussion with our various experiences in life and I thought this made the discussion really interesting. It was also quite civil for Queenzone standard ;-) I also want to say that I had a private conversation with Amazon and we are totally okay with each other as far as I am concerned. This topic has a lot of implications we did not even touch. This cultural center is like a prototypical example of issues we face in this globalized world. Why else would so many people have an opinion about a planned building in NYC. All of a sudden the most liberal people in the whole USA are in the middle of a culture war which nobody saw coming. I think that there is a widespread insecurity and unhappiness within the civil democratic society about the way this society is going and about the way this society is being represented by politics and media. Imo too much is asked from the middle class and there is too little understanding and appreciation for the normal citizen, their wishes and their needs. I think the developers of the Cordoba House are not getting anything positive from insisting on this project. They made such a huge mistake by creating this conjecture between an Islamic center and the WTC that all they get is a rift which was not there before the project and a wave of anti-Islamic sentiments that was not there before the project. |
magicalfreddiemercury 09.10.2010 07:52 |
>>> YourValentine wrote: We all come to this discussion with our various experiences in life and I thought this made the discussion really interesting. <<< . I agree with this and think if any comments from one side made the other rethink their position, then this has been a very productive discussion. Whether opinions have been swayed or held, the challenge has been enlightening. I know there were times I had to consider my opinion and determine why I felt as I did. The initial knee-jerk reaction is never healthy but after detailing my thoughts, I felt more sure of my position. I'm not angry with the other side, and I do feel I understand it. I'm just of a different opinion and do still believe there's opportunity for compromise. It will take a big person to come to the table for it, but I think if peace and stability is indeed the desired outcome, then it's necessary. Unfortunately, it won't happen soon since the imam is out of the state citing threats against his life. Interestingly, no one, including those protecting him (who are getting paid with US tax dollars) is saying exactly which side is issuing the threats. Neither is justified, of course, but it would be interesting to know. |
john bodega 10.10.2010 00:42 |
They should just build an Apple Store instead .... |
Mr Mercury 15.10.2010 10:59 |
It seems that this debate is still raging on. Apparently, Whoopi Goldberg and somebody else walked a chat show the other day. Personally, I think they did the right thing on this occasion. Had it been me, I might have smacked the guy in the mouth for being ignorant to the fact that not all muslims are terrorists. |
magicalfreddiemercury 16.10.2010 07:13 |
Well, Joy said she walked off because it sounded like he was unapologetically spewing hate speech and then she came back when he apologized. I agreed with their walking off in protest but also agreed with Barbara Walters when she said they should have stayed to fight for their point of view (paraphrasing). I think it's better to talk things out than to let them sit unsettled. . Thing is, there are extreme views on both sides and at all levels and, while extremes are wrong, the display of them should not come as a surprise. When there is as much sensitivity around an issue as there is with this, the rise in tension should be expected. The original plans for the community center were not handled well by the organizers, and their naivety, if that's what it is, is truly disturbing given the state of the world right now. Perhaps the opposition overreacted, but given the still oozing wounds of 9/11, it should not have come as a surprise. However, for someone like O'Reilly to "confuse" the terms "muslims" and "extremist muslims" is irresponsible and dangerous. But then, that seems to be his MO so the women of The View, like the community center organizers, should have been prepared for the comments he made. |
john bodega 17.10.2010 16:41 |
Ah, quality TV viewing. Honestly - no one with half a brain would invite Bill O'Reilly on their show and think "this guy is going to be the catalyst for a good debate". |
GratefulFan 18.10.2010 11:52 |
I think the walk off was a mistake. Not only does America and the world not need yet another example of how not to talk about this issue, or any other for that matter, but the move was unprofessional and inconsiderate of Barbara Walters who was left to handle the immediate aftermath on her own. Now at least two of them - Joy and Bill - seem to be leveraging the tasteless event for content on their own shows. I understand the emotions that are raised very well as I have trouble not getting upset myself, but if I was on National TV and it was my job to keep it together I can assure you I'd keep it together, Bill O'Reilly or not. And as has been said, what exactly was it that they expected from Bill O'Reilly? His hyperconservative simmering angry guy schtick is well known. |
john bodega 18.10.2010 12:54 |
He seems to have a 24 hour hotline to the strawman argument. He keeps on about these 9/11 families that he knows, and speaks on their behalf like a total wanker. Funny, considering the times that he's upset these people that he supposedly sticks up for. He even pulled the "cut his mic" routine on one such lad who was the son of a 9/11 victim .... explain to me how that's standing up for these people. I'm sticking to my gut feeling that any construction near that site really ought to be secular as can be. Most faiths are pretty well catered for when it comes to places of worship. Just put a Burger King there. |
magicalfreddiemercury 19.10.2010 09:45 |
>>> Zebonka12 wrote: I'm sticking to my gut feeling that any construction near that site really ought to be secular as can be. Most faiths are pretty well catered for when it comes to places of worship. Just put a Burger King there. <<< . Or... just build a community center without any - ANY - religious affiliation. It's really so simple. |
*goodco* 15.12.2010 14:47 |
link I think this places the 'discussion' in perfect perspective. Thanks, Jon. "Thanks", GOP....... |
*goodco* 23.12.2010 18:35 |
link from last Thursday, before the tax cut approval vote, which allowed these 'heroes' to finally get the health coverage they need (in six months) rip, all you gullianis |
Holly2003 26.04.2013 18:26 |
ha ha I'm digging up an old thread and no one can stop me :) Bit of one of the 9/11 planes found at the site of the proposed mosque. link ("The location is at the site where a mosque and community centre has been proposed") I still think it's a mistake to build a mosque here. |
magicalfreddiemercury 26.04.2013 21:42 |
Holly2003 wrote: ha ha I'm digging up an old thread and no one can stop me :) Bit of one of the 9/11 planes found at the site of the proposed mosque. link ("The location is at the site where a mosque and community centre has been proposed") I still think it's a mistake to build a mosque here.Which is why, two years ago when this thread was active, I explained how the area for the proposed mosque is not blocks from Ground Zero but rather that it IS Ground Zero. |
thomasquinn 32989 27.04.2013 04:24 |
So, because the culprits of the 9/11 attacks were (bad) Muslims, we should not build any more mosques in lower Manhattan? Then I suppose they shouldn't build any churches in Oklahoma City anymore either, because Timothy McVeigh was a (bad) Christian. We should bear in mind that Al Qaeda =/=Islam. It's a group of fanatics hijacking Islam for their own purposes. Bin Laden, for instance, was never a devout Muslim, at any point in his life. He was a secular, pretty westernized Arab who was involved in banking (no qualms about charging interest), consumed alcohol and watched pornography. In short, he did everything fundamentalists feel Muslims shouldn't do. If we start giving in to xenophobe feelings and equate all Muslims and all Islamic institutions with terror groups, the terrorists win - because if we do that, the West is indeed at war with Islam, which is what they are trying to convince the Islamic world is the case. |
Holly2003 27.04.2013 04:44 |
thomasquinn 32989 wrote: So, because the culprits of the 9/11 attacks were (bad) Muslims, we should not build any more mosques in lower Manhattan? Then I suppose they shouldn't build any churches in Oklahoma City anymore either, because Timothy McVeigh was a (bad) Christian. We should bear in mind that Al Qaeda =/=Islam. It's a group of fanatics hijacking Islam for their own purposes. Bin Laden, for instance, was never a devout Muslim, at any point in his life. He was a secular, pretty westernized Arab who was involved in banking (no qualms about charging interest), consumed alcohol and watched pornography. In short, he did everything fundamentalists feel Muslims shouldn't do. If we start giving in to xenophobe feelings and equate all Muslims and all Islamic institutions with terror groups, the terrorists win - because if we do that, the West is indeed at war with Islam, which is what they are trying to convince the Islamic world is the case. This is another example of you jumping in with both feet -- in your mouth -- making insulting comments about xenophobia etc. Instead, why not try reading some of the thread and the arguments? |
thomasquinn 32989 27.04.2013 05:01 |
You really don't understand any of this, do you? As you might've noticed, if you ever noticed anything other than your own narrow-minded prejudice, I followed this thread when it was still new, back in 2010, so I know pretty well what it is about. But apparently you are such a bigot that you believe nobody has any right to even criticize the leaders of the Catholic church, but it's ok to violate the religious freedom of Muslims wholesale. I support equal treatment for everyone, regardless of race, gender, religious views, etc. You clearly don't. |
Holly2003 27.04.2013 13:17 |
thomasquinn 32989 wrote: You really don't understand any of this, do you? As you might've noticed, if you ever noticed anything other than your own narrow-minded prejudice, I followed this thread when it was still new, back in 2010, so I know pretty well what it is about. But apparently you are such a bigot that you believe nobody has any right to even criticize the leaders of the Catholic church, but it's ok to violate the religious freedom of Muslims wholesale. I support equal treatment for everyone, regardless of race, gender, religious views, etc. You clearly don't. No, you just haven't read the arguments. Or perhaps you simply don't understand them. Lashing out in dimwitted frustration is your trademark. |
magicalfreddiemercury 27.04.2013 15:50 |
Stop it, boys. There's more serious stuff to discuss... like conspiracy theories, which, of course are already swirling. Apparently pictures show what looks like a rope tied or tangled around the landing gear they found between these buildings. On the "pro-mosque" side, people are saying someone lowered the gear into place as a way to halt the project - partly by reigniting the debate and partly by forcing the city to declare it a historical site or war memorial. On the "anti-mosque" side, people are saying el-Gamal, the owner of the two properties who intends to build what he once labeled a 'community center', but has recently started calling an “islamic cultural center", knew about the landing gear between the buildings and intended to somehow incorporate it into his cultural center as a 'trophy'. And then there are those, who I'd like to think are the majority, saying this is what is left of the landing gear that punched a hole into the roof of this building on the morning of 9/11. The clear winner for me is the third option. Whatever the outcome, though, right now, the area is cordoned off and will be tested for contaminants. There's also a possibility the medical examiner will want to sift the soil between the buildings to determine whether it contains additional 'artifacts' and/or human remains. If that happens, they'll need better access to the area and that might require some degree of controlled demolition of both buildings. Either way, the entire project is now on hold. ** EDIT - Add Police Commissioner Kelly to the list of those suggesting the gear might have been deliberately placed between the buildings. He's not offering a possible motive for such an act, but said he's not ruling anything out especially since there are no scars on the buildings to suggest the gear landed there naturally. Wouldn't it be nice if they all kept quiet until they had solid information to share? |
The Real Wizard 29.04.2013 00:06 |
thomasquinn 32989 wrote: So, because the culprits of the 9/11 attacks were (bad) Muslims, we should not build any more mosques in lower Manhattan? Then I suppose they shouldn't build any churches in Oklahoma City anymore either, because Timothy McVeigh was a (bad) Christian.And they won't be building any new churches in Norway where Christian terrorist (the media refused to use the term) Anders Breivik went on his shooting rampage, since 78% of Norwegians don't believe in a theistic god. |
The Real Wizard 29.04.2013 00:08 |
thomasquinn 32989 wrote: You really don't understand any of this, do you? As you might've noticed, if you ever noticed anything other than your own narrow-minded prejudice, I followed this thread when it was still new, back in 2010, so I know pretty well what it is about. But apparently you are such a bigot that you believe nobody has any right to even criticize the leaders of the Catholic church, but it's ok to violate the religious freedom of Muslims wholesale. I support equal treatment for everyone, regardless of race, gender, religious views, etc. You clearly don't.People who don't know how to stick to the subject at hand never will learn. Don't waste your time and energy on people who default to shooting the messenger when they read something they know they can't rationally disagree with, like holding up the mirror. |
Holly2003 29.04.2013 01:55 |
Bullshit. Let me repeat my main point for you: would you build a shinto shrine at Pearl Harbor in Jan 1942? Would you build a Catholic Church on the site of the Shankill bombing? Would you build a Church of England on the site of the Amritsar massacre or the site of Bloody Sunday in Londonderry? What about the Nariman House Jewish community centre in Mumbai? After the 2008 attacks, would it have been appropriate to put a Muslim holy site there? If you are Lebanese, why not build a synogue or Christian church at the site of the Sabra and Shatila massacre? Legally, of course, you probably could. None of these would be illegal and individuals could argue they have the right to practice their religion. But it wouldn't be very sensitive to do any of those things and it would likely lead to more hostility, violence etc when that doesn't have to happen because it takes time for people to heal. People can acknowledge they have rights without always having to practise them.That's all I've argued in this thread. I'm fully aware there are rational and sensible counter-arguments to my pov. The irony is, I could make those better than you and without resorting to condescending bullshit. |
thomasquinn 32989 29.04.2013 04:21 |
With every single one of those examples you mention, you are equating the religion with the crime. If you make a certain religion taboo at the site of some horrendous act, you are not just sending out the message that said religion is responsible for said horrendous act, you are also emphasizing the pain associated with the site and you are delaying the healing process. Perhaps you need to read up on the effects of taboos on a society. Anthropologists and sociologists have written plenty of fascinating works on the subject. So, bottom line, despite all the nonsense and attempts at 'intellectual' bullying from your side, I oppose your view on respecting 'sensitivities' because it is counter-productive. |
Holly2003 29.04.2013 04:33 |
thomasquinn 32989 wrote: With every single one of those examples you mention, you are equating the religion with the crime. If you make a certain religion taboo at the site of some horrendous act, you are not just sending out the message that said religion is responsible for said horrendous act, you are also emphasizing the pain associated with the site and you are delaying the healing process. Perhaps you need to read up on the effects of taboos on a society. Anthropologists and sociologists have written plenty of fascinating works on the subject. So, bottom line, despite all the nonsense and attempts at 'intellectual' bullying from your side, I oppose your view on respecting 'sensitivities' because it is counter-productive. No Thomas, try to think instead of just react. I'm aware that there are many who think this way, hence the danger of stirring up more violence and hatred. Is that such a difficult concept to understand -- that my commentating on real-life feelings of others doesn't mean I agree with them or excuse them? So would you do all or any of those things I mentioned, or do you think it might be insensitive and possibly dangerous? |
thomasquinn 32989 29.04.2013 07:07 |
I think it is much more dangerous to give in to those feelings, for the reasons I mention above. You keep telling me to read and consider what is written, why don't you take a page out of your own book and consider the argument I mention? |
magicalfreddiemercury 29.04.2013 07:52 |
thomasquinn 32989 wrote: I think it is much more dangerous to give in to those feelings, for the reasons I mention above.There is a process of healing. It's a normal thing. You mention how giving into these feelings would perpetuate the process. Maybe that's true. But what is definitely true is having a place representative of the very thing that caused immense pain to be planted in the shadow of that pain BECAUSE of that pain. That's what, I feel, has been constantly overlooked in this thread. It's not about a mosque being built. There are plenty of mosques and other religious centers around lower Manhattan and elsewhere. It's about this mosque in this spot for this reason. New Yorkers - probably most Americans and beyond - were looking for a sign from the Muslim community condemning the attacks, and the mindset behind them, in no uncertain terms. If the organizers of this project had taken hold of that need in a more constructive way, I have no doubt the project would have been supported by a great majority. Not all, but a great majority. The organizers should have, perhaps, called a press conference to announce their intent to build the bridge they kept referring to. They should have openly, publically, from the beginning, announced a desire for input from others to enhance this goal of diversity and respect. Instead they announced a somewhat finalized plan between two entities – The Cordoba Initiative and the American Society for Muslim Advancement – to build a 100 million dollar, 13-story community center that would include a mosque. They would not say who was funding them or how they intended this to be a bridge-builder, but instead coyly said, "They will see." That's not what the opposition wanted to hear. The opposition wanted details. The opposition wanted to hear unwavering contempt for the attacks since it was because of the attacks, according to the organizers' own words, that this project had been started in the first place... That makes me think of the Boston marathon bombers' uncle. He immediately came out swinging against his nephews. He called them jerks. He said their actions ruined the good name of his community (paraphrasing), he said they do not represent his beliefs or the rest of his family's beliefs. He went on, angry yet proud. He was impressive and sympathetic and made people who listened, see how this was not an 'us' vs. 'them' situation. Anything similar to that from these promoters would have changed the flavor of the debate. And for the record, despite the intense opposition to this project and beyond the initial picketing, plans have progressed without major incident. It has not been about the public not wanting a mosque in that spot. It's about the way it was presented in the name of sensitivities only to have those sensitivities dismissed as being an invalid argument against the project… even when the developers went as far as to petition for the right to use part of the 9/11 fund for their contentious project. And now, all of this might be wasted energy because after the discovery of the landing gear wedged between the buildings, the medical examiner has decided to sift the soil for human remains, starting tomorrow morning, and demolition of both buildings now seems likely. |
Holly2003 29.04.2013 07:57 |
thomasquinn 32989 wrote: I think it is much more dangerous to give in to those feelings, for the reasons I mention above. You keep telling me to read and consider what is written, why don't you take a page out of your own book and consider the argument I mention? Dangerous in the long run maybe (and even that's open to debate): in the short term, it's much more dangerous to ignore those feelings and perceptions.You didn't answer my question. Do you think it would be sensitive and appropriate to open religious sites at any of the places I mentioned? Or would it be insensitive and possibly damaging to the healing process? ps you can apologise for calling me a bigot, racist etc at any time now. |
GratefulFan 30.04.2013 08:32 |
Holly2003 wrote: ps you can apologise for calling me a bigot, racist etc at any time now.As it appears that won't be forthcoming I'd note again that TQ generally appears to mull things in the middle of a perpetual cerebral stroke, and identifying anybody as anything pretty much gives his subject a lock on being the exact opposite. I'd personally be thrilled if he thought I was a racist bigot. |
magicalfreddiemercury 30.04.2013 08:55 |
So the answer to the mysterious rope, apparently, is simple - a detective first on the scene said he tried to move the part in an effort to locate possible identifying marks on it. Conspiracy theorists will have to come up with something else, if they haven't already. For those interested, this FEMA graphic shows how far from the footprints Ground Zero actually extends - |
ParisNair 01.05.2013 15:18 |
Would you build a Church of England on the site of the Amritsar massacre?We (Indians) don't consider the Jalianwala Baugh (Amritsar) Massacre as being a "Christianity influenced" action againt the native Sikhs and Hindus attending the meeting that day. So building a CoE Church at the site would not offend anyone in that way. We just look at it as British oppressive action. It would only be wiered as there would be hardly any people attending the service. Putting up a statue of a British monarch would probably be met with opposition. What about the Nariman House Jewish community centre in Mumbai? After the 2008 attacks, would it have been appropriate to put a Muslim holy site there?Like 9/11, the attackers were religious fanatics. So any steps taken towards converting the Jewsish place into an Islamic center would be certainly considered as offensive and insensitive. |
magicalfreddiemercury 26.09.2015 10:51 |
So... all these years later, the opposition to this project never gave up the fight, and supporters have grown quiet. And now, it seems, developers have decided to scrap the idea of building a mosque, a community center or a museum on this spot. They've, instead, shifted their focus to a most capitalistic venture - an upscale condominium tower with typical high-priced NY apartments, plus several full-floor luxury apartments costing upwards of $3,000 per square foot, or $1,000,000+. A rather interesting turn of events I'd say. Though who knows how many more ideas will be considered before a final decision is made. link |
ParisNair 27.09.2015 04:06 |
Surprising indeed, that this happened under Obama's presidency. I don't think America has ever been as pro-Islam (policy-wise) as it is today. |
magicalfreddiemercury 27.09.2015 04:56 |
Obama and then-Mayor Bloomberg fully supported the original project, but I think this current decision has more to do with the bottom line than anyone's politics. The property developers tried a number of versions of their original plan, and all failed - especially when it came to funding. There will be investments for this idea though, I'm sure, since there's little doubt about returns on investments. Money speaks. |