New York City mosque

[knapplc]

This is like asking if you would eat this center if it was a fish. You're taking away everything it's supposed to be and putting something entirely different in its place in your hypothetical. What possible value can such a question add to this conversation?

 

What's the value, you say?

 

Hmmm...well...becasue that would be the actual argument against 51 Park Place - drained of the vitriol.

 

Not the straw-men setup and re-framed by MSNBC, Olby, the DNC, NYT, Bloomberg, etc.

It is not an attack on religion, the President (he waded in after the fact), the Constitution or any of the other garbage put out there.

 

No, the actual factual argument is religious intolerance, as has been explained in plain English several times in this thread. We know that because if it wasn't a religious issue we wouldn't even care about it. This center isn't political in nature, it isn't a "victory trophy" or whatever else you want to call it. It's a religious center focusing on a specific religious belief, one that is time and time and time and time and time again linked to the 9/11 attack - by you as well as others, in this very thread, no less.

 

We know it's not political because Islam is not a political movement. We know that it's focused specifically on Islam because there are several churches in the vicinity - even closer to Ground Zero than this joint - yet nobody is making threads about them.

 

You're welcome to pretend this has nothing to do with religion, but don't expect to be taken seriously if you do.

[Ponderosa]

This is like asking if you would eat this center if it was a fish. You're taking away everything it's supposed to be and putting something entirely different in its place in your hypothetical. What possible value can such a question add to this conversation?

 

What's the value, you say?

 

Hmmm...well...becasue that would be the actual argument against 51 Park Place - drained of the vitriol.

 

Not the straw-men setup and re-framed by MSNBC, Olby, the DNC, NYT, Bloomberg, etc.

It is not an attack on religion, the President (he waded in after the fact), the Constitution or any of the other garbage put out there.

 

No, the actual factual argument is religious intolerance, as has been explained in plain English several times in this thread. We know that because if it wasn't a religious issue we wouldn't even care about it. This center isn't political in nature, it isn't a "victory trophy" or whatever else you want to call it. It's a religious center focusing on a specific religious belief, one that is time and time and time and time and time again linked to the 9/11 attack - by you as well as others, in this very thread, no less.

 

We know it's not political because Islam is not a political movement. We know that it's focused specifically on Islam because there are several churches in the vicinity - even closer to Ground Zero than this joint - yet nobody is making threads about them.

 

You're welcome to pretend this has nothing to do with religion, but don't expect to be taken seriously if you do.

 

'Cause then if it is political - then you'd be wrong. We can't have that, now can we?

 

And oh that's right. Silly me.

If person "A" knows that person "B" has the heart of bigot, well then certainly person "A" knows what point person "B" is really trying to make.

 

And the people who support the project, take those who oppose it - on religious grounds, seriously, um...how? By dismissing them as intolerant bigots.

OK so - don't like the point dismiss it; if the point doesn't fit the storyline reframe, then dismiss it. Got it.

 

And finally - no, no - I have not linked it to 9/11.

In point of fact, I have not actually given my opinion. And none have bothered to ask.

[74Hunter]

The "mosque" - which it isn't - has no ties to 9/11 or the people who perpetrated that act. It happens to be a community center that is being constructed by those of the Muslim faith.

From what I have heard, not that I know for sure, the term "community center" is just semantics. And, from what I have heard (no confirmation), those who are proposing this mosque or center, what have you, have been tied to extremist Muslim groups, and possibly terrorists.

[carlfense]

The "mosque" - which it isn't - has no ties to 9/11 or the people who perpetrated that act. It happens to be a community center that is being constructed by those of the Muslim faith.

From what I have heard, not that I know for sure, the term "community center" is just semantics. And, from what I have heard, those who are proposing this mosque or center, what have you, have been tied to extremist Muslim groups, and possibly terorist.

 

I've seen precisely ZERO evidence of this. I've seen a few segments that say that the mosque founder MIGHT have met someone who MAY have once known a Hamas member who COULD HAVE personally shaken hands with someone who ALLEGEDLY had seen a video of Bin Laden.

 

However, nothing that could be construed as incriminating unless the viewer already had decided on an agenda.

[knapplc]

'Cause then if it is political - then you'd be wrong. We can't have that, now can we?

Uh... yeah. Brilliant riposte.

 

If person "A" knows that person "B" has the heart of bigot, well then certainly person "A" knows what point person "B" is really trying to make.

If person "B" evinces bigotry in the words they use, they've defined their own heart, now haven't they?

 

And the people who support the project, take those who oppose it - on religious grounds, seriously, um...how? By dismissing them as intolerant bigots.

People are taking you as serious as your words. If you want to be taken seriously, act like a serious person. If you continue to try to redefine the discussion into something it's not... well, I have bad new for you.

 

OK so - don't like the point dismiss it; if the point doesn't fit the storyline reframe, then dismiss it. Got it.

The only person "reframing" the point is you. And you're doing an exceedingly poor job of it.

 

And finally - no, no - I have not linked it to 9/11.

In point of fact, I have not actually given my opinion. And none have bothered to ask.

 

You're right, you didn't link this to 9/11. Mea culpa.

 

Out of curiosity, why should anyone have to ask your opinion? Nobody has asked anyone their opinion in this thread, near as I can tell. Everyone who's joined this conversation has been up front with their stance... except you. Why do we need to invite you to share your opinion; why can't you just share it like everyone else?

[AR Husker Fan]

Even more to the point, the issue is not affected by whether the the structure will include a mosque. Rather, it's that people find it offensive. Why should it be? Again, if it is the fact that the 9/11 attackers were Muslims, then would that not also call for outrage against any Christian churches being built within viewing distance of the Oklahoma City federal building site or memorial? Those who are protesting are simply sterotyping - it's a form of bigotry, and nothing more.

 

I doubt I'll make any more headway with you than others in this thread.

 

So when you say, "Those who are protesting..." - I read that as being "All who are protesting..." or as "Nearly all who are protesting...".

Is that a fair assessment?

In the sense that I worded it poorly. It should be, "Those who are protesting simply because it is a building that is associated with the Muslim faith..."

 

It is possible that there are those who protest it for other reasons - I haven't heard of any, but that does not negate the fact that they might be out there. To date, the only objections I have heard have been based on the idea that the building is an affront to the memory of 9/11. That's simply another way of saying, "The people who commited the terrorist acts of 9/11 were Muslims - and since the people creating the building are Muslim, it's bad and and an insult to those who died on 9/11." Again, it's the same logic that would hold that all Christians are bad because the bombers of the federal building in Oklahoma City were Christians.

 

Ah, OK. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that it is not blind fear and a deep-seated bigotry the of the religion itself - neither in part, nor in whole.

 

But, and perhaps you won't answer a hypothetical, but what if it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt (to you - your standards) that this specific group is in fact building a "Victory Center"?

Leaving any religious elements aside - if the building is a political symbol/statement by a specific group.

 

So, all the while maintaining their Constitutional right(s) to build the center, as the specific group sees fit.

And merely your own internal and unexpressed, personal opinion. Not in action, not in deed, but in thought alone. Not lifting a finger or nor saying a word.

 

[To yourself] Would you then oppose it?

I'm unclear as to whom this specific group refers. Are you speaking to those who support the actions of the terroists of 9/11?

 

If so, then even then I would not oppose it - it's protected speech, and there are certainly groups within America that advocate its overthrow.

 

If the entity is one that will take actual steps to overthrow the government, then yes, I would oppose the construction - such actions are illegal, and pose a threat that the government is entitled to oppose. However, advocacy alone is not a basis - there are any number of groups, of various ethnicities and religions, that do the same day after day on American soil. I no more fear their retorhic than I do any other.

 

However, as knapplc noted, your hypothetical is irrelevant; it does not address or pertain the the factual situation. The situation, at present and as I noted, consists of people who oppose the construction simply because it is being performed by individuals of the Muslim faith - in short, it is opposed out of fear and bigotry. I would hope that this country, founded on tolerance and the right to think as one desires, would rise above such petty concerns.

 

Is the mosque offensive? Certainly, to some, as this debate indicates. But that raises two points. First, being offended on that point simply demonstrates that the people who are offended fail to grasp the facts. Second, offensive does not equate to impermissible or illegal.

 

We have, in this country, group after group that is offensive to one segment of society or another. That does not mean that they should be denied one of the basic rights upon which this country was founded - the right to espouse those beliefs. To date, I have seen no evidence that the entity that is construction the center has even espoused any position that would be construed as offensive. That leaves just one thing - people who oppose it simply based on the religous beliefs of the owners.

[communist panda]

I am for the mosque.

 

It's like we're punishing people for following the law.

[huskerjack23]

I am for the mosque.

 

It's like we're punishing people for following the law.

Oh man SOCAL would hate you for your username. He would've started a thread based on it.

 

(He was our local Objectivist Anarcho-Capitalist. Where's that guy been BTW? Did I ignore him?)

[AR Husker Fan]

Oh man SOCAL would hate you for your username. He would've started a thread based on it.

 

(He was our local Objectivist Anarcho-Capitalist. Where's that guy been BTW? Did I ignore him?)

Dunno - hasn't been on the Board since May 3.

[carlfense]

Bravo. Bravo.

 

Rauf Responds to Mosque Controversy

 

Posted on: September 9, 2010 11:31 AM, by Ed Brayton

 

After two months of silence, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the leader of the group seeking to open an Islamic center a few blocks from the World Trade Center site, has responded publicly to the controversy in an op-ed in the New York Times. He says that he was silent until now because he has been on a State Department-sponsored speaking tour abroad and did not feel it was appropriate to comment on it while overseas.

 

He says that the center will be much more multicultural and multireligious than previously discussed:

 

Our broader mission -- to strengthen relations between the Western and Muslim worlds and to help counter radical ideology -- lies not in skirting the margins of issues that have polarized relations within the Muslim world and between non-Muslims and Muslims. It lies in confronting them as a joint multifaith, multinational effort.

 

From the political conflicts between Israelis and Palestinians to the building of a community center in Lower Manhattan, Muslims and members of all faiths must work together if we are ever going to succeed in fostering understanding and peace.

 

At Cordoba House, we envision shared space for community activities, like a swimming pool, classrooms and a play space for children. There will be separate prayer spaces for Muslims, Christians, Jews and men and women of other faiths. The center will also include a multifaith memorial dedicated to victims of the Sept. 11 attacks.

 

I think this is a good thing and I hope it comes to fruition. And this passage stuck out for me:

 

Lost amid the commotion is the good that has come out of the recent discussion. I want to draw attention, specifically, to the open, law-based and tolerant actions that have taken place, and that are particularly striking for Muslims.

 

President Obama and Mayor Michael Bloomberg both spoke out in support of our project. As I traveled overseas, I saw firsthand how their words and actions made a tremendous impact on the Muslim street and on Muslim leaders. It was striking: a Christian president and a Jewish mayor of New York supporting the rights of Muslims. Their statements sent a powerful message about what America stands for, and will be remembered as a milestone in improving American-Muslim relations.

 

I have long said that we consistently draw the lines in the wrong place. Rather than drawing them between Christians, Jews, Muslims, atheists and so forth, we should be drawing them between the sane and decent people in all of those groups and the crazy, violent, bigoted people in all of those groups (and there are plenty of both kinds in each of them).

 

Dispatches From the Culture Wars

[knapplc]

I got into an argument with my dad over the weekend about this mosque. He called me a Liberal, and I just laughed. I told him he was a bad dad for raising such a Liberal son.

[Haspula]

Just let them build the mosque

 

Quit trying to harm a religion

[HeyBurke]

David Koresh and Timothy McVeigh considered themselves Christians - maybe not the definition of Christian most Christians believe, but that was their belief. I don't see anyone getting upset that there are half a dozen Christian churches within the same radius of Ground Zero as this mosque will be.

 

If we're going to hold all of Islam accountable for the actions of Osama bin Laden then we're going to hold all of Christendom responsible for the actions of McVeigh, et al. That's how this works.

 

We could spend a couple of pages in this thread listing off all the harms done to the world in the name of Christianity, from the Inquisition to the missionaries to Africa and Central/South America to the pedophilic plague in the Catholic church to whatever. Mainstream Christians abhor these things as much as anyone, and feel no responsibility for them. Why should Muslims feel responsibility for, or be held accountable for the actions of bin Laden and his ilk?

 

It doesn't make sense. Let them build their mosque.

 

knap, you just hit the nail on the freaking head.