Back in December, no one cared. People asked were in favor of it, including a family member of one of the victims. Even Laura Ingraham was for it!
quote:Dec. 21, 2009: Conservative media personality Laura Ingraham interviews Abdul Rauf's wife, Daisy Khan, while guest-hosting "The O'Reilly Factor" on Fox. In hindsight, the segment is remarkable for its cordiality. "I can't find many people who really have a problem with it," Ingraham says of the Cordoba project, adding at the end of the interview, "I like what you're trying to do."
While there were some grumblings here and there, it wasn't until rabid anti-Muslim blogger Pamela Gellar single-handedly hammered it into the news (specifically, the always-ready-for-a-controversy New York Post) and launched it into the undeserved spotlight for terrified people everywhere to cower before. ("The terrorists will have pools! And exercise programs! They'll be toned!")
Glad to see journalism being committed every now and then.
[ August 16, 2010, 03:58 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: Glad to see journalism being committed every now and then.
Always a nice change. Good article -- thanks for the link.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Isn't trying to argue against the opposition to the mosque by pointing to the person who first made an issue about it kind of ad hominem-y?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
"Instead of"? There is no "instead of" in pointing fingers.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
It's not so much the "who" as the "how." When the story made national media before, including conservative media, it was no big deal. It was only when someone saw an opportunity to leverage it into a nontroversy that it became a big deal with all the players taking their assigned roles. People became offended when they were told it was offensive.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I'm not arguing against the opposition to the mosque, although I'd be happy to if you like. I'm pointing out an article that went a different direction from all the others. I'm also enjoying seeing, for once, a fairly clear lineage of hysteria-building that I usually only see on the Daily Show, and I'm glad to see it can still happen.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I love the term "nontroversy." Who coined it?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
I'm not sure and a quick googling doesn't shed any light.
I can't view that at work; what's the gist?
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
I would argue that it is the "who" and not the "how.
The "who" in this case being the man that wants to build it and his radical views. Saying that Osama Bin Laden was created in the USA and that America was an accessory to 9-11, as well as saying he wants Sharia law here in the US doesn't exactly promote tolerance and understanding.
If the mosque was being built by a person that was actually known for teaching peach, equality, and tolerance, I would not have a problem with the mosque at all. I know others would still have an issue with it though.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
You got a link to him saying that?
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I have no problem with people saying US was an accessory to 9-11. I view it similar to my daughter and one of her friends. She will take a toy he wants, mock him for a while and then he will whack her. Both end up in time out, though the hitter gets a worse punishment. She did not deserve to be hit and that was an unacceptable response, but it wasn't like he was the only one in the wrong in that situation. Her actions were part of what led to that end result. I don't excuse her friend for hitting- that was wrong. But I don't deny the part she played in the escalation. And looking at US foreign policy, it really isn't surprising that a lot of Muslims feel like the US was screwing with them. I don't think that what the terrorist was right, morally acceptable or anything but reprehensible. But it wasn't like the US govt was behaving like angels either.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:The Kuwaiti-born Rauf, 52, is the imam of a mosque in New York City's Tribeca district, has written extensively on Islam and its place in modern society and often argues that American democracy is the embodiment of Islam's ideal society. (One of his books is titled What's Right with Islam Is What's Right with America.) He is a contributor to the Washington Post's On Faith blog, and the stated aim of his organization, the Cordoba Initiative, is "to achieve a tipping point in Muslim-West relations within the next decade, steering the world back to the course of mutual recognition and respect and away from heightened tensions." His Indian-born wife is an architect and a recipient of the Interfaith Center Award for Promoting Peace and Interfaith Understanding.
quote:If the mosque was being built by a person that was actually known for teaching peach, equality, and tolerance, I would not have a problem with the mosque at all.
I submit that you have made little to no effort to learn anything about the gentleman in question or the community center being built beyond what conservative muckrakers have told you.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Yeah, everyone else ignored it, but this is straight-up bigotry.
Bigotry, incidentally, that is almost wholly uninterested in dealing with the facts of the Park 51 project.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Juxtapose, some of us didn't ever watch it (sorry, Lisa posting something connected to the middle eastern makes me think certain things about content- I think I once went to a link and it was like someone blowing up or something very unpleasant and so I don't watch her links anymore).
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Yup. And if those buildings had been laying damaged and unusable for the past 9 years because pieces of terrorist plane fell on them on 9/11, I'd object to having mosques there as well. What's your point?
Going by distance alone is a cheap rhetorical tactic. The places he shot those photos weren't smashed on 9/11.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
The building isn't actually being built in the rubble, just nearby- two and a half blocks away from ground zero. It just sounds a whole lot catchier to talk about it as ground zero- even if that is a load of crock.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Yeah, everyone else ignored it, but this is straight-up bigotry.
Bigotry, incidentally, that is almost wholly uninterested in dealing with the facts of the Park 51 project.
Of course it's bigotry. It's Lisa. Why would you even click on one of her links and not expect ugly bigotry?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by natural_mystic: I can't view that at work; what's the gist?
quote:Hello America. I'm just a few hundred feet from Ground Zero, where a group of Muslim terrorists crashed two planes into the World Trade Center killing close to 3,000 people. Nine years later, two groups of Muslims, the Cordoba Center and the American Society for Muslim Advancement, are planning to build a massive thirteen story mosque right here behind me.
Now understandably, many people here in the West are concerned that this isn't an attempt to honor the families of 9/11, as the Muslims here are claiming. Instead, it may be an attempt to build a symbol of Islamic victory. Now I have the same concern, but mine is slightly different. My concern is based for the most part on a photograph I saw while I was still in college. When I was in college, my best friend was a Muslim named Nabil Kareshi. Nabil showed me some photographs shortly after the September 11th attacks, and I found them quite surprising. Muslims were passing these photographs around and Nabil thought that they were absolutely hilarious. The first photograph was of George W. Bush as a Muslim. And I have to admit that one was actually pretty funny. George W. looked like he had joined the Taliban. The second photograph wasn't so funny. It was a photoshopped picture of the Statue of Liberty covered in a full veil. Now this one bothered me a little bit. It was the Statue of Liberty, a symbol of freedom and justice, covered by a full veil, a symbol of oppression and shariah law.
Now these two pictures actually worked their way around the internet, so lots of people are familiar with them. The third picture is the one that really disturbed me, however. It was a photoshopped picture of New York City covered in mosques and minarets. In the bottom corner it said "New York City 2006". The idea was that the terrorist attacks had cleared the ground for the construction of new mosques.
Now when I asked Nabil why he found this photograph so funny, he said, "Am I the only one who's dealing with this tragedy through humor?" But that really didn't work. People who dealt with 9/11 through humor made fun of the terrorists. They didn't joke about terrorist attacks clearing the way for a new Mecca. So this was when I first realized -- this is when I realized for the first time -- that there are two forces at work within Western Muslims like Nabil. On the one hand, Nabil was born and raised in the United States, his father had been in the US military, he loved America. But on the other hand, even though he came from the most peaceful sect of Islam, there was something in Nabil that allowed him to smile when there were terrorist attacks.
He goes on to show verses from the Qur'an which direct Muslims to show a different face towards unbelievers. To smile in their faces and hate them in their hearts. He also points out that it's Muslim practice for the past 13 centuries to build large mosques and shrines atop the holy places of areas they've conquered. Like the Dome of the Rock on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, for example. And that while the US doesn't have holy places like that, it does have spiritual centers, and New York City is probably the biggest one.
Agree with him or disagree with him, he makes a lot of good points. And dismissing him as a "racist" or a "hater" is just a way of saying, "I don't want to think about that."
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:The places he shot those photos weren't smashed on 9/11.
Can I ask why you think this is a relevant distinction?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
No, Tom, you may not. Because I'm 99.99% sure you know why. And if you don't, you haven't thought about it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I have thought about it. And unless you think the center is somehow intended to be a testament to the attacks itself, which is frankly bigoted beyond belief, I can't see any reason why it would matter.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
There already is a mosque 2 blocks from the site. This mosque is 2.5 blocks away. So, if the goal is to build a shrine where they "conquered" in NYC, they could already check that location off.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I think what Tom means is, why is it a sufficiently relevant distinction to trump the first amendment and to enshrine in our government firm opposition to Islam?
I can't imagine a measure that would more decisively indicate defeat for the United States. Now, if the question is, "Should this be built," from a moral and philosophical standpoint, that's a different discussion, and a potentially interesting one. Should our government stop it from being built? Absolutely not. Frankly it's a disgrace that elements of our government are even considering stopping it from being built, but I suppose that's the kind of inevitable disgrace that comes of having high ideals mixed with ordinary people.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: There already is a mosque 2 blocks from the site.
IIRC, that mosque pre-dates the World Trade Center. So if that was the goal, they would really still need to build another one to really drill the point home.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I think what Tom means is, why is it a sufficiently relevant distinction to trump the first amendment and to enshrine in our government firm opposition to Islam? ...
I'm not sure it has to. Ban *all* religious buildings in the required radius as a compromise. That should relieve your government of having to take sides Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Should our government stop it from being built? Absolutely not. Frankly it's a disgrace that elements of our government are even considering stopping it from being built
Amen.
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
Okay, the way this whole thing is being handled, by both sides, is a testament to how poor the political dialogue in this country has become.
There is enough insensitivity on both sides of this debate in all arenas to show how so much of this country has completely abandoned any attempt at trying to understand each other, and instead just villifies their opponents.
In this thread, and all over the internet, we're seeing people point to the worst examples of the anti-Islamic bigots who are against the mosque.
Yes, they're there. And they're being terrible. I don't need to point more fingers at them because fingers have been pointed in this thread.
But stop and think about whether that's really the arguement you want to use. That would be like the people on the other side saying, "Well, the actual terrorists themselves would be happy the mosque is going up, therefore everybody who wants to build the mosque supports terrorism."
Everybody's going to have extremists on their side, and in the age of the internet it becomes easy to find those folks, link to them, and say "This is what you think." That was the whole purpouse of the Salon article.
But it's intellectually dishonest and lazy to simply assign the opposition the opposite motives of your own. If my motivation is a desire to be tolerant of the religion of islam, the motivation the other side can have is an intolerance of islam.
That's not seeing the world as it is, that's projecting the world out the way you want to see it. Even finding links to people who DO have that as their motivation doesn't actually make that the way the world is.
If you're having trouble figuring out what people could possibly be motivated by besides predjudice, imagine this analogy:
Imagine someone, affiliated with the US Air Force or not, decided to build a US Air Force Memorial dedicated to the triumphant heroism of the US Air Force in Hiroshima, within two and a half blocks of where the bomb fell. Not dedicated to World War II, per se, but just to the Air Force.
Even among Japanese citizens who loved the US, can you see how that might be seen as insensitive? As a little uncaring and unsympatetic towards the people who lost family and loved ones in that bombing?
Both sides are actually feeling the same thing, here. One side is feeling like people are being unsympathetic towards all the members of Islam who did not participate in the 9/11 attacks. The other side feels like these members of Islam, who did not participate in the 9/11 attacks, are being insensitive towards those who experienced loss that day.
And all of us, as a nation, experienced loss.
And then it all balloons out from there, mostly from everybody starting to assign crazy motives to the other side.
Then, when the other side so grossly distorts what one side knows to be thier position, they become more sure their own grossly distorted position is correct. And next thing we know, one side is sure the other is a bunch of bigots and the other side is sure the others hate America.
Welcome to discourse in the 21st century.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote: Imagine someone, affiliated with the US Air Force or not, decided to build a US Air Force Memorial dedicated to the triumphant heroism of the US Air Force in Hiroshima, within two and a half blocks of where the bomb fell. Not dedicated to World War II, per se, but just to the Air Force.
That's a pretty poor analogy for a whole lot of reasons. The simplest being that even if you equated Hiroshima and the WTC exactly on all counts except for location and date, there is an enormous difference between a monument honoring a specific organization, unique and very easy to pinpoint, and a religious building constructed by a given group of something like 1.5b< Muslims across the planet, if I'm not mistaken.
Can I understand why some people don't like the idea of a mosque going up there? Sure. That's easy to understand, though not if one actually becomes informed about the particular group in question, to agree with. But this is America, and we're Americans. We are not supposed to say to a particular religious group, "You can't do that here just because you're you." We're not, in fact, supposed to say that to anyone for that reason. We're supposed to have reasons for saying that, concrete provable reasons such as 'you didn't pay taxes' or 'you killed someone' or 'it's not your land' or something. Not 'we're uncomfortable with your religion'. Which is what it boils down to.
quote: Both sides are actually feeling the same thing, here. One side is feeling like people are being unsympathetic towards all the members of Islam who did not participate in the 9/11 attacks. The other side feels like these members of Islam, who did not participate in the 9/11 attacks, are being insensitive towards those who experienced loss that day.
Well, no, that's not right either. On the one hand you object to a binary framing of this problem, one side vs. the other, but here you're speaking as though there were two sides. First things first, there are not just two sides. There are at least three sides. Speaking strictly for myself, and whoever else is of like opinion, one side thinks: America=can't say no based on not liking religion. Fundamental. Other considerations irrelevant.
As an American, cold as it is to say, I don't care if someone thinks 'they're celebrating 9-11!' Or, to be more accurate, I am concerned about that, not because I believe it but because I think it's absurd, but I am far, far more concerned with the notion of our government saying 'no Muslims!' It's very straightforward. We're not supposed to do that here.
A bunch of slave-owning rich old white men over 200 years ago were smart enough to understand this idea, or at least the ideal. I think enough time has passed that we can stop skirting the issue and averting our eyes and pretending that it's somehow understandable that we're considering forbidding this. It's only understandable if we collectively slept through various civics classes and culture related to civics, or for some reason think they only count unless we're really upset about something as opposed to especially counting when we are.
Posted by daventor (Member # 11981) on :
I think the people who own the property do have the right to build the mosque there if they wish, and no, I don't think the government should stop them from building it (unless in investigating where the funds for the mosque are coming from they do find some shady sources).
I do wish, though, regardless of when the controversy started and who started it, that the Cordoba project people would reconsider their choice of location. It's been less than ten years since the attacks, and however they wish the mosque/cultural center/what-have-you to be taken, there are a lot of people offended at the idea of it. I've seen several polls showing much more people opposing its construction than favoring it, so if the idea is to help build bridges between Muslims and non-Muslims, this might not be the best way to accomplish that. Sensitivity should not be a one-way street.
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
Seriously, Rakeesh, if you think you have to defend your position to me, don't worry about it. I get it. My own opinion doesn't fall into one category or the other either.
That's the point.
I know your position isn't the one anybody would cubbyhole you into. Neither is mine. That's sort of the point of my post--whatever postion you want to cubbyhole the other side into, that's not neccessarily where they're sitting.
My analogy wasn't meant to be perfect and foolproof and convert anybody. It was just meant to give a glimpse into the way the situation could be seen in a different light. Some in this thread, and in other places online are doing a "pseudo-understanding" thing where they pretend to be really, really trying hard to understand, but actually "consider" the other side as dismisively as the other side "considers" them.
Seriously, my post wasn't about the mosque. Just about our absolute inability to see each other as people who could possibly have noble motives.
Same as, say, the issue of welfare. You get one side claiming that the "vast majority" of unemployment recepients are anxious for the handout. The other side claiming that the "vast majority" of unemployement recipients are anxiously looking for work. When the facts there's this huge spectrum of people who fit into all categories that are receiving unemployment, and every possible set of feelings about the whole thing are going to be present.
Same thing here. We have people whose own, personal values fall along all kinds of spectrums.
Sensitivity to the victims vs. Sensitivity to regular practitions of islam. Maybe that's an X axis.
As you pointed out, those who believe freedom of religion is absolute vs. those who feel land use issues regarding American historical sites matter. Maybe that's a y axis.
And there are z, w, and whatever else, too.
Everybody's going to fall somewhere or another on all of those spectrums. But they're all values. They're all valid.
The problem is when everybody dismisses the values that the other side is acting based on, and just inserts a flipped-around anti-my-values agenda onto the other side.
Then it degenerates into "I'm fighting you because you see me as the bad guy." And that's the position both sides end up taking. And when the arguement is over who the bad guy is instead of what a solution is, we will never come to an agreement. Because neither side will ever, ever admit they're the bad guy.
And in this case, there are probably bucketloads of solutions that all sides could be happy with, if they'd all just stick to caring about thier positions instead of being so all-fired desperate to have the other side be really, really evil.
Edit: Because I hadn't seen daventor's response when I posted, so I made it more clear who I was responding to.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Imagine someone, affiliated with the US Air Force or not, decided to build a US Air Force Memorial dedicated to the triumphant heroism of the US Air Force in Hiroshima, within two and a half blocks of where the bomb fell. Not dedicated to World War II, per se, but just to the Air Force.
But people who think this is what is being done are idiots. This is a stupid analogy. It simply does not apply.
Honoring that dumb analogy by pretending it should apply just because some people are dumb enough to think it should does no one any favors. Why should I pretend that they're entitled to be idiots?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:Here's the analogy I want to try out. Imagine a suburban street where three kids in a single family were molested by a Catholic priest, who was subsequently transferred by the archbishop to a faraway parish, and never prosecuted. Nine years later, a devout Catholic woman who lives five or six doors down decides that she's going to start a prayer group for orthodox Catholics -- they'll meet once a week in her living room, and occasionally a local priest, recently graduated from a far away seminary, will attend.
Even if we believe that it is irrational for the mother of the molested kids to be upset by this prayer group on her street, it's easy enough to understand her reaction. Had she joined an activist group critical of the Catholic Church in the aftermath of the molestation, it's easy to imagine that group backing the mother. As evident is the fact that the devout Catholic woman isn't culpable for molestations in the Catholic church -- in fact, even though we understand why her prayer group upsets the neighbor, it is perfectly plausible that the prayer group organizers never imagined that their plan would be upsetting or controversial. In their minds (and in fact), they're as opposed to child molestation as anyone, and it's easy to see why they'd be offended by any implication to the contrary.
Presented with that situation, how should the other people on the street react?
The only reason for the community center to be offensive is if you associate all Muslims with terrorist acts, or if you have compelling evidence that this particular center will be used for terrorist activity. That's really it. What other reason is there?
Muslims also died in the attacks, Muslims also helped rescue survivors and dig out the dead. Muslims also mourn.
Asking to move the community center somewhere else utterly defeats the purpose, because it's a community center and for those to be effective they kinda sorta have to, you know, be in the community they're serving.
Personally, I'd like to see a massive interfaith chapel set up right at Ground Zero, on the grounds, the first thing you see. One of the big reasons we were targeted was for our tolerance of other religions. To me, that means we need to double down and be even more tolerant and accepting and inclusive.
Posted by Risuena (Member # 2924) on :
Daryl's follow-up to yesterday's blog with a photo of the location for Park51, and a map showing where he took the photos.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
I wonder if the Park1 mosque has to do all of the studies, enviornmental impact, accessory use, traffic, septic, building codes, CEQR, and on and on and on.... I'm battling this currently trying to find a property and I am amazed how difficult it is to get approvals for a very small business, let alone a massive community center in Manhatten.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Personally, I'd like to see a massive interfaith chapel set up right at Ground Zero, on the grounds, the first thing you see.
Barring that, a giant monument carved with the words "If you're killing someone in the name of God, you're doing it wrong."
------
quote:I wonder if the Park1 mosque has to do all of the studies, enviornmental impact, accessory use, traffic, septic, building codes, CEQR, and on and on and on....
You're lying. I say this because if you really wondered, at all, you could find out. All of that information is public.
(The answer: yes.)
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Not lying, just lazy. Or musing out loud. Lying would be "but they don't even have to do all the studies, environmental impact, etc etc". I wonder a lot of things I don't care enough about to look up.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: You're lying.
I did do a quick search "nyc zoning permit to build park 51 mosque" and didn't find the information I was looking for so I was still wondering and not lying. Thanks for still being you, TD, you are a peach.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"In this thread, and all over the internet, we're seeing people point to the worst examples of the anti-Islamic bigots who are against the mosque."
Yes. Because the only possible reason to be against the mosque, and the only one that has been expressed, ANYWHERE, is outright bigotry.
When you find someone who is opposed to the building of this Islamic Communinity Center who is not acting out of idiotic bigotry, you will have found the first.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: ... The only reason for the community center to be offensive is if you associate all Muslims with terrorist acts, or if you have compelling evidence that this particular center will be used for terrorist activity. That's really it. What other reason is there?
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I have thought about it. And unless you think the center is somehow intended to be a testament to the attacks itself, which is frankly bigoted beyond belief, I can't see any reason why it would matter.
What's bigoted about it? Or is it bigoted just because you don't like it? Is "bigoted" now a word like "fascist" that's empty of content but usable as a blunt instrument whenever you want to pummel someone?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: There already is a mosque 2 blocks from the site. This mosque is 2.5 blocks away. So, if the goal is to build a shrine where they "conquered" in NYC, they could already check that location off.
Stop with the distance nonsense. (a) That location wasn't effectively destroyed in the attacks on 9/11. (b) A 13 story building is a bit different than a storefront.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I think what Tom means is, why is it a sufficiently relevant distinction to trump the first amendment and to enshrine in our government firm opposition to Islam?
I can't imagine a measure that would more decisively indicate defeat for the United States. Now, if the question is, "Should this be built," from a moral and philosophical standpoint, that's a different discussion, and a potentially interesting one. Should our government stop it from being built? Absolutely not. Frankly it's a disgrace that elements of our government are even considering stopping it from being built, but I suppose that's the kind of inevitable disgrace that comes of having high ideals mixed with ordinary people.
Rakeesh, you tend to be a little more rational than some people here. You understand the difference between opposing something and trying to make it illegal, right? There've been demonstrations. Do you have a problem with that? There've been attempts, within the law, to have the place declared a protected location. Do you have a problem with that? How is that any different than zoning restrictions?
I'm not in favor of the government saying, "No. You may not build there." But I very much hope if they do build it, that Greg Gutman builds his Muslim-friendly gay bar next door. Because that's an exercise of freedom as well.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Daryl's follow-up to yesterday's blog with a photo of the location for Park51, and a map showing where he took the photos.
"in a retail space that used to be a clothing store"
Interesting that he leaves out why it isn't a clothing store any more.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: ... When you find someone who is opposed to the building of this Islamic Communinity Center who is not acting out of idiotic bigotry, you will have found the first.
Don't be silly. Here's Sam Harris who is normally viewed as one of the "nicer" New Atheists as compared to Christopher Hitchens or Richard Dawkins.
Here's a statement statement from the ADL which explicitly "reject[s] appeals to bigotry" and details their opposition to the Islamic Center.
Here's one from PZ Myers who would oppose religious buildings in general around Ground Zero and cites Jeffrey Rowland as well.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: "In this thread, and all over the internet, we're seeing people point to the worst examples of the anti-Islamic bigots who are against the mosque."
Yes. Because the only possible reason to be against the mosque, and the only one that has been expressed, ANYWHERE, is outright bigotry.
When you find someone who is opposed to the building of this Islamic Communinity Center who is not acting out of idiotic bigotry, you will have found the first.
I'm with Paul on this one. As a liberal who usually steers clear of incendiary threads. I'm sick of having to equivocate. I understand while people could be offended or believe it to be in bad taste. I support all their efforts to express this opinion in a way to convince the Cordoba Project to move their proposed community center. Insofar as the Cordoba Project follows all relevant laws, I support their right to not bow to the pressure.
I don't support fomenting half-truths (like the dedication date being 9/11/2011, or that it is a mosque) to force government to take action.
The major drivers of this controversy ARE bigots who are using untruths to convince busy, normal people to support their cause, because the busy, normal people don't have the time/knowledge to go on Google or Snopes or MediaMatters and find out that the outrage is being manufactured by insidious elements of our society.
I have yet to read anyone decrying the community center simply stating that it is in poor taste, and have it gain traction in the way "ground zero mosque" and "9/11/2011 inauguration/dedication date" have.
quote:What's bigoted about it? Or is it bigoted just because you don't like it? Is "bigoted" now a word like "fascist" that's empty of content but usable as a blunt instrument whenever you want to pummel someone?
Nah, it's more like statist, or progressive, or liberal, or socialist.
Lisa, see my text above. However, the people are being whipped into a frenzy to protest based on lies (like the dedication date).
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Hey look! Sam Harris being a bigot! Associating all islam with jihadism!
Hey look! The ADL being bigoted, by saying that the bigots feelings should be respected!
Hey look, PZ Myers being bigoted against all religions!
I'm sorry, if that's the best you can find, you make my case for me.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: ... The only reason for the community center to be offensive is if you associate all Muslims with terrorist acts, or if you have compelling evidence that this particular center will be used for terrorist activity. That's really it. What other reason is there?
What reason is there to oppose the center if you do not associate Muslims with terrorists? A Christian or Jewish or Hindu community center there would pass without comment. The reason for the outrage is because it's a Muslim center. Which makes no sense, unless you believe that Muslim = terrorist. Is there another reason?
Yes, actually. Lisa, I assume that most of the people opposing the center are doing so out of compassion for the feelings of the offended victims. To a degree, I think they're feeling the same sort of second-degree horror that causes many people against abortion to still permit exceptions for rape and incest. The ideal is obvious, to a pro-lifer all life deserves protection, but forcing the mother to go through the ordeal of raising a child that will forever remind her of the horrific events of its conception is too horrible for even many pro-lifers to imagine. Similarly, even though a majority of Americans, when polled, agreed with freedom of religion in America, it's hard to tell grieving families from a nationally traumatic event that what's hurting them has to be tolerated because of the First Amendment.
But the feelings of those opposing families, I believe, are bigoted. Understandably so, but still bigoted. If your children were murdered by a black gangbanger I could understand why you'd be uneasy with an African-American family moving in next door. But if you blame and accuse an entire class of people for the actions of a very few insane fringe members, yeah, that's kind of the definition of bigoted.
And the constant fanning of the flames by professionally outraged media may or may not be bigoted. It might just be opportunistic, but it's certainly playing to the bigots out there.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Rakeesh, you tend to be a little more rational than some people here. You understand the difference between opposing something and trying to make it illegal, right? There've been demonstrations. Do you have a problem with that? There've been attempts, within the law, to have the place declared a protected location. Do you have a problem with that? How is that any different than zoning restrictions?
The problem with this argument is that you can't say, "I'm only opposing it, not trying to make it illegal," and then go to the government and try and get them to use laws to, well, make it illegal. Frankly that's the kind of government interference that ought to make you pretty darn furious, judging from your politics elsewhere, and I suspect probably would if not for it dealing with an Islamic matter.
But to answer your question, yes, I do have a problem with the attempts within the law to prevent this from being built, because these attempts have been profoundly either hypocritical or disingenuous. Protected site? Protected from what? Well, what people mean when they propose that is simple: protected from Islam. As others have thoroughly and decisively noted, there is nothing 'protected' or somehow sacred about the neighborhood. It doesn't need to be 'protected' from strip clubs, betting places, fast food, or ugly empty lots-just, apparently, Muslims.
Put another way, I have a problem with people attempting to use the power of the state in a way designed to infringe on the rights of other individuals, particularly when that infringement is on areas the state is supposed to be protecting in the first place.
quote: I'm not in favor of the government saying, "No. You may not build there." But I very much hope if they do build it, that Greg Gutman builds his Muslim-friendly gay bar next door. Because that's an exercise of freedom as well.
I would have absolutely zero problem with that, and if it happened, the folks outraged by that would be behaving in a decisively unAmerican fashion as well.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I think building a mosque there is a stupid, tacky move on the part of those who want it. I hope, if it happens, someone does build a bar right next to it. The entire idea is irritating.
However, the first amendment is no joke. No one should be prevented by law from building a mosque there.
I don't have a problem with people protesting the mosque. It is right that people have the freedom to build, and it is right that people have the freedom to let them know what an insensitive, unwise PR move it is.
And it is right that people have the freedom to slander the protesters. All sorts of stupid, nasty things fall under the first amendment.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I think building a mosque there is a stupid, tacky move on the part of those who want it. I hope, if it happens, someone does build a bar right next to it. The entire idea is irritating.
Arabesque.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
The same reason I think it's irritating and tacky to fly the Confederate flag. It doesn't mean to the flyers what it means to those who see it, but a little consideration and wisdom is called for.
I'd like to see the people who are vigorously denying that there is anything even untoward about the idea defend people who fly the Confederate flag just as vigorously.
And if they won't, and they won't, then maybe back off from the insults. You don't get to call yourself empathetic and understanding unless you are to everyone.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: What reason is there to oppose the center if you do not associate Muslims with terrorists?
I definitely associate Muslims with terrorists. If you hear there's been a terrorist attack and lay down a bet that the perpetrator had an Arabic name, you're going to win most of the time. That's a fact. Obviously not all Muslims are terrorists. In fact, those who are active terrorists are a small minority (but then, even a tenth of a percent of a billion people is still a million people). Those who knowingly support terrorists with money and places to hide are also a minority, though not nearly as small as the terrorists themselves. Those who don't support them with money and places to hide, but who support them verbally, probably aren't even a minority. And those who think a photo of NYC covered in mosques shortly after 9/11 is giggle-worthy are probably a solid majority.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
That's actually kind of funny.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I do understand why victims and families of the attacks would be upset, I've said that. I just don't think it's enough of a reason to cast aside our First Amendment ideals, and I think the potential value of the center outweighs the potential harms.
The Confederate flag is a good point, but that just feeds my argument. If we allow a Muslim center to become associated with evil, the way that the Confederate flag has become associated with pro-slavery, we risk drawing unnecessary lines against a sizable chunk of the rest of the world. It is important, now more than ever, to demonstrate that we understand the difference between a Muslim and a murderous bastard.
Assuming that we do.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I said in my post that the first amendment must hold - no legal impediments.
And that it would show a great deal of wisdom and sensitivity on the part of the proponents to build it elsewhere. They should, in fact. Not legally should, but they should. And the people who want them to are not the terrible names they are being called.
Setting up a mosque near where thousands of people were killed in the name of Islam isn't going to prove anything constructive. People don't thank you for tolerating them. There are so many, many downsides.
It is not the people who are opposing the mosque that created the association between Muslims and mass murder. The destruction was done in the name of Islam. They didn't speak for everyone, but they tried to. If you're upset about the association, you're getting mad at the wrong people. Just like the Confederate flag -it doesn't mean just pro-slavery, but it isn't like the people who don't like the flag invented that meaning for it.
Tossing out the first amendment is an unthinkable disaster, but the mosque should still be built elsewhere, and the people who propose it should decide to do it.
----
I also don't like the argument that this one is okay because the leader is moderate, as if the leader changed from moderation or a new one came in, the mosque would be abandoned. If the only thing that makes it okay is the personality of the person currently holding the job title, then it isn't okay.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: What reason is there to oppose the center if you do not associate Muslims with terrorists?
I definitely associate Muslims with terrorists. If you hear there's been a terrorist attack and lay down a bet that the perpetrator had an Arabic name, you're going to win most of the time. That's a fact. Obviously not all Muslims are terrorists. In fact, those who are active terrorists are a small minority (but then, even a tenth of a percent of a billion people is still a million people). Those who knowingly support terrorists with money and places to hide are also a minority, though not nearly as small as the terrorists themselves. Those who don't support them with money and places to hide, but who support them verbally, probably aren't even a minority. And those who think a photo of NYC covered in mosques shortly after 9/11 is giggle-worthy are probably a solid majority.
Actually I respect that more than most of the arguments. At least I know where you stand
This is also why supporting the majority of Muslims -- you know, the non-murderous ones, many of whom also died in the attacks a few blocks away -- is vital. We have no hope of defeating the extremists if we do not have the moderates on our side.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: What reason is there to oppose the center if you do not associate Muslims with terrorists?
Asking that question again doesn't move one iota toward eliminating the other possibilities.
quote:A Christian or Jewish or Hindu community center there would pass without comment.
Who says? Who is eliminating my right (or anyone else's right for that matter) to comment?
Paul Goldner: If all you can do is call people "bigoted" without examining the actual substance in their positions, then it's sad, but I have to say that Lisa is right on this one.
"Bigot" IS being used as a weak instrument, just like "socialist" or "liberal" ever was. Weak.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:And that it would show a great deal of wisdom and sensitivity on the part of the proponents to build it elsewhere.
And how does that solve the problem that called for the creation of the center in the first place, the overcrowding at the other (already existing) area mosques?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:Asking that question again doesn't move one iota toward eliminating the other possibilities.
Which have not been provided. I asked because I want to know the answer.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It's a big city. There's no way that that's the only location.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: The problem with this argument is that you can't say, "I'm only opposing it, not trying to make it illegal," and then go to the government and try and get them to use laws to, well, make it illegal.
What is this "then"? Assuming I even cared enough, how would a Canadian even go about going to the New York government to advocate on this matter?
This argument cannot be used as a blanket tool to to shut down debate on whether the mosque should be opposed across the board, only in those cases where a person has actually advocated government action.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"It's a big city. There's no way that that's the only location."
Its a big city. With several of these places already built. But none near the one that is being planned, where there is a substantial muslim population.
And the confederate flag comparison fails on a fairly fundamental level. A place for a group of people to gather is not the same thing as a symbol of a nation.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges:
quote:And that it would show a great deal of wisdom and sensitivity on the part of the proponents to build it elsewhere.
And how does that solve the problem that called for the creation of the center in the first place, the overcrowding at the other (already existing) area mosques?
It should be noted that even according to the "pro" literature, they chose the location specifically due to its proximity to ground zero.
quote:The location was precisely a key selling point for the group of Muslims who bought the building in July. A presence so close to the World Trade Center, “where a piece of the wreckage fell,” said Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the cleric leading the project, “sends the opposite statement to what happened on 9/11.”
quote:Asking that question again doesn't move one iota toward eliminating the other possibilities.
Which have not been provided. I asked because I want to know the answer.
Then this is progress. You're admitting that you don't know the other possibilities, not that there *are* no other reasons as you have previously claimed.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Have you ever visited, or lived in NYC, katharina? A block is often an entire community, with its own grocery stores and restaurants. There are 9 Starbucks within 6 blocks of the World Trade Center, with several of them on opposing corners of the same blocks.
The local community was OK with it. The local community board voted for it. Why is the nation butting in?
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Paul Goldner: If all you can do is call people "bigoted" without examining the actual substance in their positions, then it's sad, but I have to say that Lisa is right on this one. "
If there were people not being bigoted than I'd agree. But you posted three articles, and it looks like you agree with the last one... all three of which meet my definition of bigotry. In one case, associating all members of a religion with its worst elements, in one case saying that a religion should be sensitive to people who feel that the religion is to blame for its worst members (which is bowing to the pressures of bigotry, and therefore bigotry), and one saying that religious people shouldn't be able to build buildings where they can gather(I.E. anti-religious people bigotry).
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:This location was no mere coincidence.
I've already discussed the need for outreach and acceptance, which is the other stated goal mentioned specifically in that article. Is it a bad thing?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
This need for outreach and acceptance is going in the wrong direction. Maybe the mosque needs to recognize that a larger PR job needs to be done and there is a need for some serious outreach and acceptance to the people who watched destruction in the name of their religion.
Why are people butting in? Because they can, and they care enough to. Vive le First Amendment! If you invoke it to protect the mosque, you must invoke to protect the protesters.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: ... in one case saying that a religion should be sensitive to people who feel that the religion is to blame for its worst members (which is bowing to the pressures of bigotry, and therefore bigotry)
I disagree. For example, there are many both inside and outside the Catholic Church that are sensitive and argue for more sensitivity to the issue of priests that molest children. I don't believe that this is remotely bigotry, merely smart policy.
quote: ... and one saying that religious people shouldn't be able to build buildings where they can gather(I.E. anti-religious people bigotry).
Not particularly, they don't rule out eliminating all monuments to atheism in the area as well. The goal is to find a compromise that both sides find acceptable.
After all, it's not like PZ Myers particularly cares about the issue in absence of religionists needing to find a compromise. After all, the very title of the post is called "I don't care about a mosque/community center in New York"
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I haven't said people can't protest. They can, and if they feel strongly enough about it, they should. I just think they're mistaken and misguided and I plan to continue voicing my own opposition to their opposition.
I fully expect the center to get picketed every day for months, and I support that, too. Maybe the picketers can hit the gay bar afterward.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: It's a big city. There's no way that that's the only location.
But it may be near a large community of Muslims in the city. If so, it makes no sense to set it up away from the community it is supposed to serve.
Also, how far away is good enough? Mid-town, Harlem? Outside of the borough of Manhattan? Off the island of Manhattan? Outside city limits?
EDIT: Ignore, various posts from all sides have made this post obsolete.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: What reason is there to oppose the center if you do not associate Muslims with terrorists?
I definitely associate Muslims with terrorists. If you hear there's been a terrorist attack and lay down a bet that the perpetrator had an Arabic name, you're going to win most of the time. That's a fact. Obviously not all Muslims are terrorists. In fact, those who are active terrorists are a small minority (but then, even a tenth of a percent of a billion people is still a million people). Those who knowingly support terrorists with money and places to hide are also a minority, though not nearly as small as the terrorists themselves. Those who don't support them with money and places to hide, but who support them verbally, probably aren't even a minority. And those who think a photo of NYC covered in mosques shortly after 9/11 is giggle-worthy are probably a solid majority.
Actually I respect that more than most of the arguments. At least I know where you stand
This is also why supporting the majority of Muslims -- you know, the non-murderous ones, many of whom also died in the attacks a few blocks away -- is vital. We have no hope of defeating the extremists if we do not have the moderates on our side.
That might be true. If it weren't for the fact that Islamic culture views our "supporting them" as "surrendering to them". If that seems counterintuitive to you, that's because you come from a different cultural outlook. And unfortunately, it doesn't look like you're able to look past it to see the way other people look at it. Ironic.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
quote:It's a big city. There's no way that that's the only location.
I'm not going to get in on the argument here, but I do have to ask a question to others that may know: how much available real estate is there in Manhattan? I imagine the demand for any piece of property on the island must be astronomical.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Wish I could take credit for it.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
My brother just moved into an apartment on the southwest portion of the island with a roommate, and they are paying $2200 a month.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:If it weren't for the fact that Islamic culture views our "supporting them" as "surrendering to them". If that seems counterintuitive to you, that's because you come from a different cultural outlook.
Probably because I come from a cultural outlook that has, over the last two thousand years, also committed atrocities, tried to take over or destroy other cultures with varying degrees of success, and devoted a great deal of its time proselytizing its mythology while confidently predicting its own eventual triumph. Members of some aspects of that culture are still committing atrocities, and their organization scrambles to hide or defend or ignore them. And yet I defend the creation of churches.
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
Okay, I'm going to try to explan this one other way, and then I'll shut up about it.
It's impossible to come up with an explanation besides bigotry for the ground zero mosque if you ask, "What feelings for the other party could be motivating this action?"
But that's not the way people think. People generally don't start out thinking about the other person, they start out thinking about themselves. They start out thinking, "What are they saying about me?"
And they stick up for their own feelings, worries, concerns, whatever.
And then they start saying a bunch of stuff about the other person that they see as defensive, but the other person takes as offensive. Like the husband who never takes out the trash telling his wife, well you never do X. He thinks he's just defending himself.
The other party doesn't see it as defensive. They see it as an attack, a judgement saying, "You're the bad guy." The wife, in this case, doesn't hear, "I'm doing the same thing you are," she hears, "No, you're lazy."
And then she defends herself by saying, "No, you're lazier."
And so he defends himself by saying, "No, you're lazier."
And what started out as people just trying to get their feelings heard turns into a war over who the bad guy is.
If you really want to understand a person, their initial motivations usually aren't, "What do I think about that person?" They're usually more along the lines of, "What does that person feel about me?"
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I'm not certain about this, but from what I've gathered, the people behind the construction of this community center hold and are teaching a version of Islam that is directly opposed to the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Is that accurate?
If so, shouldn't we be encouraging them to build their center in a symbolically significant place?
I don't really think the confederate flag is a good analogy, but wouldn't this be sort of equivalent to people uniting under the confederate flag to oppose racism by other people who are using the confederate flag as the racist rallying point it often is?
It seems like people are arguing that openly being a Muslim anywhere near ground zero is somehow disrespectful or insensitive, no matter the nature of your beliefs or content of your character. To me, we should specifically be courting Muslims with peaceful motives who abhor the terrorism of some of their coreligionists, not treating them as enemies.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Here's Sam Harris who is normally viewed as one of the "nicer" New Atheists as compared to Christopher Hitchens or Richard Dawkins
Though he is, in general, one of the "nicer" New Atheists, he has always been very anti-Islam. His position here is no surprise.
quote:Here's one from PZ Myers who would oppose religious buildings in general around Ground Zero
You are misrepresenting him here. He says that he sees nothing untoward about the buildings. He then says the "no mosques" position of the right wing would only be sensible if there were a blanket "no religious buildings" rule.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: It's a big city. There's no way that that's the only location.
It's not that big. Densely populated, yes, but Lower Manhattan is only a bit more than a mile wide. Does someone propose a minimum distance for the center from ground zero that is still within the area that they are trying to serve?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
In Iraq, the U.S. need to be courting Muslims.
And yeah, at Ground Zero, in New York, Muslims need to be courting their fellow Americans. It sucks, but blame the people that committed mass murder in the name of Islam, not the people who noticed.
Hire a PR person, do some courting, make some sort of statement. The onus on courting public opinion is on them. This is only partly a theoretical stance - it is a purely practical one. Ground Zero exists because of the destruction wreaked in the name of the religion. The non-crazy members of the religion have work to do. If the method is to insult people, they are doing it wrong.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Muslims need to be courting their fellow Americans
You are suggesting an equivalence between an outsider - "In Iraq, the U.S." - and members of our own community - "in New York, Muslims." The Muslims in New York *are* Americans who owe no special consideration to the rest of the country based on what people have done in the "name of Islam" if their version if Islam is not the same.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
"their fellow Americans"
You're wrong. Read it again.
----
Wouldn't it be wonderful if no one connected the terrorists who kill in the name of Islam with followers of Islam who don't kill? But they do, and are not crazy for doing so. From a practical point of view, the peaceful followers have an enormous job to do to distance themselves and put forth a different story. "We don't have to" isn't cutting it. It doesn't matter what should be - there is PR work to do, and it is the responsibility of the peaceful followers of Islam to do it.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:Here's Sam Harris who is normally viewed as one of the "nicer" New Atheists as compared to Christopher Hitchens or Richard Dawkins
Though he is, in general, one of the "nicer" New Atheists, he has always been very anti-Islam. His position here is no surprise.
Note the context, I brought him up as an example of a non-bigoted person that still disproves of the mosque (and note, still acknowledges their right to build it, just that they shouldn't).
That said, in terms of New Atheists, I wouldn't necessarily call him "very" anti-Islam. For example, Hitchens is still on the record as being supportive of military action and the Iraq War because it specifically opposes Muslim terrorism. Sam Harris proposes, well, argument.
quote:
quote:Here's one from PZ Myers who would oppose religious buildings in general around Ground Zero
You are misrepresenting him here. He says that he sees nothing untoward about the buildings. He then says the "no mosques" position of the right wing would only be sensible if there were a blanket "no religious buildings" rule.
I respectfully disagree. Go further, "I like his ban. It would instantly free up a lot of real estate for productive use."
Yes, I welcome your summary of how he got to his conclusion, but I see nothing wrong with saying that his conclusion is that he would be in favour of no religious buildings in general around Ground Zero.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
So their insensitivity is not in building the center, but in not executing an effective PR campaign to respond to the anxiety created outside Manhattan by bloggers and media organizations interested in drumming up controversy?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
It's not even that it isn't the same. It's that it's directly opposed to the terrorism. To me, having this community center that is fostering this message and attracting Muslims who believe in it is - well, not necessarily courting other Americans, but doing things that should inform these people of other aspects of Islam and make them more positive towards this.
And, as far as I can see, this is very much in the best interests, not just of Muslims and especially Muslim Americans, but America as a whole.
kat, you seem to have a problem with this and don't seem to think that it is something that we as a whole should be encouraging, do you disagree that it would benefit us as a whole? If so, why?
It may need to be noted that there was no problem with this site. It was approved by the neighborhood and it was even publicly praised by many of the people who now claim to have such a problem with it.
It seems to me that people have made the decision to deliberately conflate these Muslims with the terrorists who committed and supported the 9/11 attacks, often by dishonest methods, in order to advance their own agendas. That seems to me to be a thing that is bad for almost everyone involved and definitely bad for America as a whole. They seem to be bent on inciting fear and hatred towards people who not only don't deserve it, but are the very people we should be most encouraging and supporting of were we focused on achieving what was best for America.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Since I haven't actually stated my opinions on this as a whole I thought I'd do that, rather then getting pulled into defending one thing at a time in several directions.
I think the center as envisioned was a good idea. I think the people behind the center want to ease tensions rather than increase them, and I think that goal is the most important and most effective way (long term) to fight Islamic terrorism. Do they want to celebrate their own heritage and faith? Of course. Are they a splinter cell of terrorist activity? I've seen accusations, but no proof or even shadows of proof. I think that had this not caught fire in the media it would have opened with little fanfare and ultimately been about as religious as the local Y.
I think that someone who hates all Muslims everywhere got herself a bullhorn and shouted about it, as is her right. I think that others who agree with her shouted with her. I think that a newspaper seeking controversy and single copy sales saw an opportunity and pounced on it, giving a small group a much louder voice than it deserved.
I think that the predictable media voices took their black and white sides, for and against, without really having a sense of the community's needs or the organizers' plans. I think that it was spun and misrepresented and screamed about in such a way as to deliberately fire up viewers because that's what gets ratings. I think a lot of names got called, which made things worse. I think that politicians jumped on it to enrage their voting blocs, capture the news cycle and force opponents to make public statements that can be used against them later. I think that Obama made a good speech about it one day, and then utterly undermined himself the next.
I think that the feelings of the 9/11 victims and families should be considered. All of them, including the many who have voiced support for the center and including the families of the many Muslims who also died that day. I think the Cordoba House people should have handled the PR better back when they still had public opinion on their side, possibly by involving the victims' families in the planning. I think it's important that Muslim Americans have a place within the new WTC area to help show the world that Americans are, first and foremost, Americans, and all are welcome here if they live by our ideals.
I think the center will still be built, on that site, with a great deal of national anguish and hand wringing. I think, in the abstract, that it should be built there. But I'm starting to think that moving it may be a better idea after all.
Not, I assure you, because I think it's tacky or inconsiderate to be there in the first place. But by the time it's ready to open I think its opponents -- particularly the loudest and most intolerant opponents -- will have shrilly and relentlessly tarnished it so badly in the minds of America that its creation would achieve exactly the opposite effect of the one desired. It will be divisive, and not unifying, a point of eternal public contention and a permanent target for bigots who want to send a message.
And I think that our national hysteria will help convince Muslims everywhere that we are what the insane fringe imams say we are, that our ideals are only there when they convenience us, and that Muslim Americans really aren't quite as good or welcome or accepted as Christian Americans no matter what our Constitution says.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:It is not the people who are opposing the mosque that created the association between Muslims and mass murder.
You know, thinking about this, I'm not at all sure I agree. I think many of the people loudly opposing this mosque are in fact actively trying to associate all of Islam with mass murder.
quote:Wouldn't it be wonderful if no one connected the terrorists who kill in the name of Islam with followers of Islam who don't kill? But they do, and are not crazy for doing so.
They are not crazy for doing so, but they are bigots for doing so.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: ... And I think that our national hysteria will help convince Muslims everywhere that we are what the insane fringe imams say we are, that our ideals are only there when they convenience us, and that Muslim Americans really aren't quite as good or welcome or accepted as Christian Americans no matter what our Constitution says.
Why would they be "insane" fringe imams when they're saying things that essentially are true? Muslims *aren't* as welcome as Christians, polls confirm this. American ideals *are* long gone in the War on Terror.
But let's get to the point, what will this centre accomplish in terms of world Muslim opinion? Very little either way, I'd bet. A comparatively seismic event like Obama being elected only resulted in a one year bump, there's only so much that can be done in light of Israel and Iraq.
quote:In June, a Gallup poll revealed a substantial decline in public opinion in the Muslim world toward both the U.S. and Barack Obama personally, with approval ratings in many key nations collapsing to Bush-era levels. ... In response to being asked which two steps the U.S. could take to improve their view, these were the top three answers: an Israel-Palestine peace agreement (54%), withdrawing from Iraq (45%), and stopping aid to Israel (43%). When asked which two factors were the most important in driving U.S. policy in the Middle East, the answers were: protecting Israel (49%), controlling oil (45%), weakening the Muslim world (33%).
I suspect that how Muslims in the US are treated would be way down that list. I don't think this is particularly unique to Muslims either.
But what will this accomplish in the US? Consider this from 538:
quote:Essentially, public opinion on this issue is divided into thirds. About a third of the country thinks that not only do the developers have a right to build the mosque, but that it's a perfectly appropriate thing to do. Another third think that while the development is in poor taste, the developers nevertheless have a right to build it. And the final third think that not only is the development inappropriate, but the developers have no right to build it -- perhaps they think that the government should intervene to stop it in some fashion.
So a third of Americans are roughly in my camp (or Sam Harris's for that matter) of "they have the right to build it, but thats a poor move." Thats a significant number of people to give a poor impression of Islam, probably far more than any future outreach by the mosque could accomplish (in the other direction).
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:So a third of Americans are roughly in my camp (or Sam Harris's for that matter) of "they have the right to build it, but thats a poor move."
Mucus, from your perspective, why is it a poor move? What is insensitive about it?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:And the final third think that not only is the development inappropriate, but the developers have no right to build it -- perhaps they think that the government should intervene to stop it in some fashion.
quote:That might be true. If it weren't for the fact that Islamic culture views our "supporting them" as "surrendering to them". If that seems counterintuitive to you, that's because you come from a different cultural outlook. And unfortunately, it doesn't look like you're able to look past it to see the way other people look at it. Ironic.
There is no such thing as 'Islamic culture', Lisa. 1.5 billion plus and counting. Unless they're ants, they do not have one culture. The culture of Muslims living in, say, Michigan is not the same as that of Muslims living in Somalia as those in Malaysia as those in France as those in etc. etc. There is no 'Islamic culture' anymore than there is a 'Christian culture' or a 'Jewish culture'.
-------
quote:And yeah, at Ground Zero, in New York, Muslims need to be courting their fellow Americans. It sucks, but blame the people that committed mass murder in the name of Islam, not the people who noticed.
I didn't realize that, as Americans, our respect for the First Amendment hinged on people we don't like properly courting us. I didn't realize people had to or ought to apologize for availing themselves of the Bill of Rights. I wasn't aware that refusing to do so counted as an insult.
quote:"We don't have to" isn't cutting it. It doesn't matter what should be - there is PR work to do, and it is the responsibility of the peaceful followers of Islam to do it.
Here I actually agree. Where you're wrong, though, is in suggesting that other folks don't also have a responsibility to be aware, "Hey, they're peaceful, law-abiding American citizens. End of story."
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I like the idea of someone in a far off culture watching Jesus Camp and deciding that it is "christian culture."
It would be about as silly as, say, being indoctrinated to believe that "Islamic culture" is a monoculture that wholly believes that support and tolerance equals surrender.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:So a third of Americans are roughly in my camp (or Sam Harris's for that matter) of "they have the right to build it, but thats a poor move."
Mucus, from your perspective, why is it a poor move? What is insensitive about it?
I read somewhere what I think is an interesting point about this growing position that "they have the right to build it, but thats a poor move" - namely, that in the case of religious building it's a bit vacuous. For example, as an atheist, if you ever ask me whether a group "should" build a mosque/church/synagogue/etc I will tell you that of course it's their right if they own the land, get planning permission etc but I will also tell you that they "should" spend the money on a school or library or park instead. The vast majority of commenters are of Judeo-Christian POV, or atheist, so their default position is already that the mosque shouldn't be built, so one wonders if much of the noise isn't simply opportunism.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Does no one bother actually reading what I said? I'm not going to explain - again - about the first amendment. If you didn't understand the first time, you won't the fourth time.
-----
Sure, there's enough responsibility to go around. However, name calling is really crappy way to go about encouraging others to live up to theirs. With friends like that, who needs enemies? Public relations - you're doing it very wrong.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:So a third of Americans are roughly in my camp (or Sam Harris's for that matter) of "they have the right to build it, but thats a poor move."
Mucus, from your perspective, why is it a poor move? What is insensitive about it?
I have my theories, but I'm intrested in hearing the reasoning behind this as well.
--j_k
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Things like this:
quote:It seems to me that people have made the decision to deliberately conflate these Muslims with the terrorists who committed and supported the 9/11 attacks, often by dishonest methods, in order to advance their own agendas.
So you accuse those who oppose it of being sneaky, underhanded liars. WOW, you are crappy at public relations. Who did you learn from, Mel Gibson?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:It is not the people who are opposing the mosque that created the association between Muslims and mass murder.
You know, thinking about this, I'm not at all sure I agree. I think many of the people loudly opposing this mosque are in fact actively trying to associate all of Islam with mass murder.
quote:Wouldn't it be wonderful if no one connected the terrorists who kill in the name of Islam with followers of Islam who don't kill? But they do, and are not crazy for doing so.
They are not crazy for doing so, but they are bigots for doing so.
And this. This is textbook bad. With friends like this, no wonder the center is struggling. It can't get much worse.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
OK, what kinder, less in-your-face term would you suggest for someone who blames a large group of people for the disavowed actions of a tiny group of fringe nutjobs?
Still waiting to hear a reason to oppose the center that doesn't, at some level, boil down to "we don't want Muslims there."
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: So you accuse those who oppose it of being sneaky, underhanded liars.
I often call sneaky, underhanded liars sneaky underhanded liars. Or, if I suspect an ulterior motive of using deception to polarize towards a political cause, I certainly mention the appearance of such.
Of course, there's the question of why, when you object so vociferously to these forms of 'bad public relations,' you indulge in them so much, and not without a significant degree of callousness.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
It is not my job to sell the center. I am pointing out that people who are blaming all Muslims everywhere for the actions of a tiny minority of Muslims are engaging in rampant bigotry.
I do not need to approve of their behavior. I do not need to sanction or respect it. I do not help by patting them on the shoulder and saying, "Yes, your ridiculous xenophobia is absolutely understandable."
We're not talking here about people who lost loved ones in some mad bomber's attack, mind you. We're not talking about people with friends who've had arms shot off in combat against Pakistani insurgents. I know those people, too, and I'm perfectly capable of being a little more understanding when I'm talking to them because they're still working through a natural process of shock and grief and reconciliation. (It bears noting, however, that these people, shocked and grieving, are being no more rational than the others we're discussing; they just have a more justifiable excuse for irrationality.)
We're talking here about Joe Plumber, somebody who at best maybe knows somebody in New York, maybe has a cousin in the Army, who is so freakin' scared of the swarthy Arab hordes that he's not conscious of the distinction between Islamic terrorists and Islamic law professors. The thing is, I don't think Joe's that way by accident; I think Joe's made some very bad entertainment choices and has been manipulated into believing some very stupid things by people who find it convenient for him to believe them. I don't want Joe to think that it's even remotely plausible that all Muslims are in fact agents of terror; I don't even want him to think it's socially acceptable to hold that opinion. Because it's not. It's a stupid, destructive, corrosive opinion -- and it's an opinion that's been fed to him, moreover, by people who'll leverage it for their own cynical purposes.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:The vast majority of commenters are of Judeo-Christian POV, or atheist, so their default position is already that the mosque shouldn't be built, so one wonders if much of the noise isn't simply opportunism.
The commenters in this thread, or in the media? I wouldn't necessarily say the default position of a Judeo-Christian POV is to oppose a mosque being built. That's a fairly extreme position, and this is a vocal minority making the noise.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:It is not my job to sell the center.
You are speaking on behalf of it. If you actually believed it would be a good thing, instead of just leaping on the controversy as an opportunity to throw feces, you'd act in ways that would benefit the center. You're not.
You're doing so badly I half wonder if you secretly would love to see it crash and burn. It's a very reasonable explanation for such poor conduct.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Actually he's been speaking more against bigotry than he has for the center, I think.
Still waiting to hear a reason to oppose the center that doesn't, at some level, boil down to "we don't want Muslims there."
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
You've been given them. That you've discounted them is a reflection on you, but not on the reasons.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots:
quote:The vast majority of commenters are of Judeo-Christian POV, or atheist, so their default position is already that the mosque shouldn't be built, so one wonders if much of the noise isn't simply opportunism.
The commenters in this thread, or in the media? I wouldn't necessarily say the default position of a Judeo-Christian POV is to oppose a mosque being built. That's a fairly extreme position, and this is a vocal minority making the noise.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I think Joe's made some very bad entertainment choices and has been manipulated into believing some very stupid things by people who find it convenient for him to believe them.
This country is full of people like this. We elected Obama after all...
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Ooh, burn!
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:You've been given them. That you've discounted them is a reflection on you, but not on the reasons.
No, what you've done is said that the people supporting the center have some responsibility, somehow, to do a better job at PR. You have not actually defended the position that it's understandable to confuse Muslim terrorists with peaceful Muslims, except to state it as though it were a fact.
I can do the same thing, and apparently it will count as reasons: people opposing the mosque have a responsibility to actually learn about what our American ideals are and what they say about whether or not we should oppose something on a purely religious basis, and attempt to use the force of government to back up that opposition. Well, actually, even that's a bit further than you've gone, but I think you get the idea.
There, you've been given 'reasons', and that you reject them serves more as a reflection on you than anything else. With the obvious subtext being 'unfavorable', but when you say it somehow it's not supposed to be unpleasant.
Though it's strange, actually, that I do think that throwing out the word 'bigot' is unhelpful were we actually talking to the people involved here, rather than people commenting on commentators. But that's not what's actually happening here. What's happening here is folks are asking, "What are the reasons?" and there being no good answers given. It's a sacred site: shot down. Doesn't meet code, shot down. The founders are awful secretly terrorist supporting Muslims: shot down. What's left?
That it's 'not unreasonable' to be upset at the sight of a mosque near the WTC? Why? Why isn't it unreasonable to attempt to use government to stop that from happening? "I don't like it" ought not be a sufficient reason to attempt to force someone to stop doing something.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Either things are said to people directly, in which case it is abominably rude, or else people are speaking on behalf of the center and doing an amazingly poor job of it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:This country is full of people like this.
No argument there. Do you think that's a good thing?
-------
I have not been speaking "for" the center because I'm not one of the people going to be using it or walking past it every day. I only know what sort of amenities they plan to offer and who their leadership will be because, after this whole controversy started, I was driven to research them; the simple fact is, the center is as irrelevant to my life as the Burger King down the street from its proposed location.
I don't know much about that Burger King, either. I don't know whether its employees are treated well, or whether they're polite to customers and do a good job providing the neighborhood with the flame-broiled goodness for which the store was ostensibly built. For all I know, the Burger King was put there by somebody out to make a cheap buck, someone who doesn't care about burgers at all. Maybe it's even owned by the mob. Or Rudy Giuliani.
I don't know how many stores in the area are already owned by local Muslims. I do know there are already two functioning mosques, albeit small ones. From what I hear, this center will be considerably nicer, and run by someone both more scholarly and more ambitious.
But that's neither here nor there. It's not whether I think the center will do some good that's the question; it's whether I think it's somehow rude or offensive to open the center just because it's a Muslim service that'll be operated near a site where some Muslims murdered a bunch of people, or even whether I think that people can think it is without being utterly wrong.
The answer: no. They are utterly wrong. If the center also had a research arm that was close to curing cancer and just needed lab space, my answer would not change. If the center were just another place to grab a burger, my answer would not change. If the center were a money-laundering operation for a terrorist organization, even, my answer would not change: because, let's face it, the location of that money-laundering organization isn't really the problem, is it?
It's not the positive value of the center that's the issue, for me; it's the depravity of the people opposed.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:You've been given them. That you've discounted them is a reflection on you, but not on the reasons.
Lisa objected to having mosques in the building where pieces of terrorist plane fell. She then went in to talk about how Muslims establish mosques and shrines atop places they've conquered and how assuming Muslims are terrorists is the safe way to bet. Certainly no reason to ever trust any Muslims there.
docmagik pointed out the insensitivity toward people who lost friends and family. But a) many of the victim's friends and families are on record as supporting or at least not objecting to the center and b) many of those who lost family and friends are themselves Muslim. That leaves the families and friends who apparently blame/fear all Muslims for the actions of the very few, which is (wait for it) bigotry. Understandable, sure. Something that may fade in time? One hopes. The nation's objections, as TomD pointed out, do not even have the excuse of immediate loss to justify them.
daventor also mentioned sensitivity, but to what? Fear of an entire religion?
Mucus links to Sam Harris, who argues (like Lisa) that hating Islam is not bigotry but plain sense because they're all jihadists; the ADL, who also pleaded for sensitivity (and were themselves condemned by several notable rabbis for it); and PZ Myers who's in favor of banning all religious buildings in the area.
katharina declared it irritating and tacky, but if "Muslims" do not equal "terrorists" then why? She also followed with the more defensible argument that the leader may later change his mind or get replaced, but I don't see that requirement on any other religious building, anywhere. Just this one, in this place.
The mention of NYC being a "big city" was brought up but again that's just another way to say "no Muslims here."
A better PR job for the center was suggested, meaning they should have to work harder to overcome the prejudices of others even when those prejudices came about through no fault of their own. I saw one commenter on a news story about this saying, "Like if I move into a white suburban neighborhood I should post a sign on the lawn that says I'm one of the 'good' blacks." Sadly, this is true. People do prejudge. The Catholic Church, to name an easy target, has a long way to go to regain people's trust again even though the majority of its priests are blameless and honorable men.
If you notice, however, every one of those arguments works out to "we don't want Muslims here."
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots:
quote:The vast majority of commenters are of Judeo-Christian POV, or atheist, so their default position is already that the mosque shouldn't be built, so one wonders if much of the noise isn't simply opportunism.
The commenters in this thread, or in the media? I wouldn't necessarily say the default position of a Judeo-Christian POV is to oppose a mosque being built. That's a fairly extreme position, and this is a vocal minority making the noise.
The opposition I was thinking of is passive. If memory serves, AFR is Mormon and kmbboots meta-Catholic (apologies in advance if I'm misremembering). If I were to take either one of you to a vacant lot and said "I will build either a Borders or a mosque here. You get to choose which." Which would you choose? My assumption is that neither of you would choose the mosque as, on some level, you must believe that the Muslim faith is a false doctrine. And I think most non-Muslims, in such an abstract setting, would answer similarly.
--------------------- As I stated at the beginning of my original post, I was largely regurgitating a point I had read elsewhere and found interesting. I agree with it in the sense that in the abstract setting above I would always choose that the Borders be built. However, in the current scenario I do hold to the ideal of freedom of worship (waste of time though it might be), and find this concerted attempt to derail the building of the mosque troubling. The only valid reason I can see against it would be the view that the building of the mosque would somehow incite further attacks. However, I just don't see how one could plausibly defend this claim. The position that some will view this as a victory for Islam is (a) a "don't care" for me, except insofar as it incites further attacks, which I don't think can be proved anyway, and (b) seems a stretch given that, directly corollary to 9/11, two Muslim governments were overthrown at a cost of many, many thousands of Muslim lives.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by natural_mystic: If I were to take either one of you to a vacant lot and said "I will build either a Borders or a mosque here. You get to choose which." Which would you choose? My assumption is that neither of you would choose the mosque as, on some level, you must believe that the Muslim faith is a false doctrine. And I think most non-Muslims, in such an abstract setting, would answer similarly.
Well...if the Borders were right near my house, I would be tempted as it would be more useful to me personally. But that is purely selfish. Given the choice between a Walmart or even an auto-parts store and a mosque, I would choose the mosque.
[ August 17, 2010, 03:33 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
Interesting. I wonder how widespread your POV is.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Except for a few older relatives and people I know from the internet, it is almost universal among those I associate with on a daily basis.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I think it depends on the intent of the mosque. Were it a gathering place for radical terrorists, I'd be against it.
But, and it seems like I may be alone in focusing on this, here it seems like we've got people who are trying to teach that peace, education, and freedom of speech, religion, etc. are good things for Islam and that terrorism and strict theocracy are bad things for Islam. And, in that case, this seems like something that we should definitely be supporting and should obviously prefer over a Borders in the same spot. You know, instead of treating them like enemies worthy of hatred and fear.
Both Judaism and Christianity used to have some pretty strong barbaric aspects to them but, through various means, have developed into something more civilized. Islam used to be the most enlightened religion/civilization in the West.
In the long run, we're either going to need to use force to greatly diminish or even wipe Islam from the planet or we're going to have to find ways to civilize it. Honestly, I can see that the first option may become necessary, but I really, really hope it doesn't come to that.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
mystic: Like Kate, I would choose a mosque over many other types of buildings. I'm not opposed to having one nearby me. I would expect it to be a peaceful place of worship, like the church building that I attend, and an asset rather than a detriment in any way to the community. Because I am of one faith and Muslims are of another, I do not automatically think that the Muslim faith is just false doctrine. That is an outsider's generalization at best (as is calling any worship a waste of time) and does great disservice to the whole debate. For the record, I'm not opposed to this center being built near Ground Zero. I was actually happy to hear about it when they were proposing it, and my first thought was that it was a great gesture of peace and healing. I can see where it rubs against some still-raw sentiments, however, and hence the controversy.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Every instance of this debate I have seen is frustratingly similar. I keep seeing people refuse to acknowledge the error in blaming everyone who belongs to a religion for the actions of a few extremists.
It is not "tacky" to fail to indulge this erroneous prejudice. Even to consciously refuse to indulge it. The PR that would be helpful - which would be to point out the error - is happening (everywhere I look, even). Taking offense at this seems obstinate at best.
To the degree that this sort of prejudiced opposition to the center was anticipated, going ahead was probably quite wise. At least people are being given the opportunity to learn from the error. At least, once it is built, we'll have another victory of pluralism and tolerance over prejudice.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Natural_mystic, did you check out the site I linked?
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
It is safe to say that this is not a legal issue. I think it is in bad taste, but legal.
At this point I think the people that want to build the mosque need to take a step back and assess the situation. If they want to build a mosque that fosters tolerance and healing, that is great. Right now it seems that it is having the opposite effect.
I think fifty years from now there would be a lot less people that have a problem with it. Look at Pearl Harbor. I think there would have been outrage in the second half of the 1940's if a bunch of gift shops and sushi restaurants were built. Seventy years later, you can find them easily.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
One thing I do think is worth noting: so long as words like "bigot" and "racism" have such extreme negative connotations, it's going to be very difficult to address them in actual real live people. It's great that we have reached a point where prejudice is considered such a bad thing. But to address the deeper issues it involves, we need to recognize (both individually and as a society) that prejudice IS something that a lot of people have, and while it's a bad thing, it's not a game breakingly terrible thing that you should be ostracized for. "I locked the car door when the black person came around the corner" should carry the same weight as "I locked the keys in the car." So that the response can become "oh, my bad, I'll try not to do that again," instead of getting all defensive.
We probably need new words that don't carry the baggage of "racist" and "bigot" though.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Were it a gathering place for radical terrorists, I'd be against it.
For my part, while I'm opposed to radical terrorism (and thus gatherings of radical terrorists) on general principles, I would strongly support the creation of a public gathering place intended to be used by radical terrorists. For many reasons.
---------
quote:At this point I think the people that want to build the mosque need to take a step back and assess the situation. If they want to build a mosque that fosters tolerance and healing, that is great. Right now it seems that it is having the opposite effect.
I know it's tiresome to compare any issue of prejudice to the civil rights movement, but consider: what differentiates your argument from "those black people shouldn't go stirring up trouble by sitting at counters; they're just getting people angry." Or "those gay people should stop kissing in public if they want to be accepted. I don't care what goes on in their bedrooms; I just don't want to have to see it. Stop forcing your agenda on me!"
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
@kmbboots: I did; but my brief perusal didn't allow me to distinguish whether they were for the mosque in and of itself, or for it because of being troubled by the implications of such an intrusion on property rights and freedom of worship.
AFR,kmbboots,MrSquick - I think the approach you all have advocated - looking at the effect on the community that the mosque has rather than the specifics of worship - is a good counterpoint to what I was saying.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
In the long run, we're either going to need to use force to greatly diminish or even wipe Islam from the planet or we're going to have to find ways to civilize it. Honestly, I can see that the first option may become necessary, but I really, really hope it doesn't come to that.
Should this statement not make me a little scared? Maybe I'm not reading it right.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
I wasn't advocating just considering the mosque for the effects it has on the surrounding community. The mosque is, like my own church building is, primarily a place of worship according to the Muslim faith. It is, IMO, inextricably tied to the specifics of Muslim worship, and that shouldn't be held at arm's length. Yeah, it's also an asset to the community in terms of aesthetics and peace and quiet, but it is first and foremost an asset because it is a place of worship, from which peace and civility will stem.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots:
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
In the long run, we're either going to need to use force to greatly diminish or even wipe Islam from the planet or we're going to have to find ways to civilize it. Honestly, I can see that the first option may become necessary, but I really, really hope it doesn't come to that.
Should this statement not make me a little scared? Maybe I'm not reading it right.
You're probably reading it correctly. I think there may come a time when non-Muslims are going to have to move in overwhelming force against Muslims world wide in order to diminish or destroy the religion/culture. I really hope that this doesn't come to pass, but I believe that those are the potential stakes that we're playing for in issues with this.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Geraine, I just don't see how building this center is in bad taste, unless you grant the assumption that all Muslims are terrorists. I'm pretty sure you don't believe that, so could you explain why you see it as bad taste?
afr,
quote:it is first and foremost an asset because it is a place of worship, from which peace and civility will stem.
That's an assumption I'm really not on board with. Both historically and at present, many places of worship have been sources of discord and savagery.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges:
quote:If it weren't for the fact that Islamic culture views our "supporting them" as "surrendering to them". If that seems counterintuitive to you, that's because you come from a different cultural outlook.
Probably because I come from a cultural outlook that has, over the last two thousand years, also committed atrocities, tried to take over or destroy other cultures with varying degrees of success, and devoted a great deal of its time proselytizing its mythology while confidently predicting its own eventual triumph. Members of some aspects of that culture are still committing atrocities, and their organization scrambles to hide or defend or ignore them. And yet I defend the creation of churches.
Your sequitur is non.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:It is safe to say that this is not a legal issue. I think it is in bad taste, but legal.
Why is it in bad taste, Geraine?
quote: At this point I think the people that want to build the mosque need to take a step back and assess the situation. If they want to build a mosque that fosters tolerance and healing, that is great. Right now it seems that it is having the opposite effect.
So they need to take a step back and say, "We need to respect the opinions of people conflating terrorist Muslims with us peaceful, law-abiding Muslims and try not to be so publicly Muslim,"?
quote: I think fifty years from now there would be a lot less people that have a problem with it. Look at Pearl Harbor. I think there would have been outrage in the second half of the 1940's if a bunch of gift shops and sushi restaurants were built. Seventy years later, you can find them easily.
How we expected Japanese-Americans to behave in the United States during the 1940s is an excellent example for this current situation, but probably not for the reason you intended.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
How about the actual option- abandoned building or religious community center (I have read that mosque would not be the actual appropriate name considering its function and design)?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Geraine, I just don't see how building this center is in bad taste, unless you grant the assumption that all Muslims are terrorists. I'm pretty sure you don't believe that, so could you explain why you see it as bad taste?
afr,
quote:it is first and foremost an asset because it is a place of worship, from which peace and civility will stem.
That's an assumption I'm really not on board with. Both historically and at present, many places of worship have been sources of discord and savagery.
So...you are saying this mosque will be a source of discord and savagery?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: ... I have read that mosque would not be the actual appropriate name considering its function and design)?
It depends. Specifically, it's a community centre that contains a mosque. This is something that the actual owners of the project don't deny, they put it right on their website
quote:Park51 will grow into a world-class community center, planned to include the following facilities: ... a mosque, intended to be run separately from Park51 but open to and accessible to all members, visitors and our New York community
No scare quotes around mosque.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
It has been so far, but not on the Muslim side...
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina:
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Geraine, I just don't see how building this center is in bad taste, unless you grant the assumption that all Muslims are terrorists. I'm pretty sure you don't believe that, so could you explain why you see it as bad taste?
afr,
quote:it is first and foremost an asset because it is a place of worship, from which peace and civility will stem.
That's an assumption I'm really not on board with. Both historically and at present, many places of worship have been sources of discord and savagery.
So...you are saying this mosque will be a source of discord and savagery?
errr...what? I don't understand the question. Which mosque?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
The proposed Muslim center at Ground Zero, topic of the thread, subject of the last three pages. You're posting on Hatrack, on August 17, 2010.
Discord and savagery from the subject of this thread - according to your last quote. Or does that only apply to places without a basketball court?
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Geraine, I just don't see how building this center is in bad taste, unless you grant the assumption that all Muslims are terrorists. I'm pretty sure you don't believe that, so could you explain why you see it as bad taste?
afr,
quote:it is first and foremost an asset because it is a place of worship, from which peace and civility will stem.
That's an assumption I'm really not on board with. Both historically and at present, many places of worship have been sources of discord and savagery.
What is it? Building the center isn't in bad taste, and not all Muslims are terrorists? Or sometime soon we're going to have to cleanse the world of Muslims, and places of worship (like mosques) are dangerous?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: It is safe to say that this is not a legal issue. I think it is in bad taste, but legal.
Do you intend to acknowledge, at any point, that you made a vast mistake with respect to the radicalness of the imam in charge of this? And if you do so, ought you not to rethink where you're getting your information, and hence your attitudes? When you find that someone has been lying to you, it is very bad epistemics to just discard the single lie you caught them in; you should reconsider-from-scratch all information you got from that source.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I think I misunderstood your statement, afr. I took it to be saying that any place of worship will be a source of peace and worship, but looking at it now, I think you were speaking more specifically.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:So a third of Americans are roughly in my camp (or Sam Harris's for that matter) of "they have the right to build it, but thats a poor move."
Mucus, from your perspective, why is it a poor move? What is insensitive about it?
*shrug* Someone in the other forum brought up a good example. What if someone wanted to put a Catholic Church next to a grade school in light of the child abuse scandal? It's clearly a bad PR move, but they have the right to do it. No one is saying that all Catholics are equally likely to abuse children, we're aware that the abuse is probability-wise localized to male priests, but its still a bad move.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: What is it? Building the center isn't in bad taste, and not all Muslims are terrorists? Or sometime soon we're going to have to cleanse the world of Muslims, and places of worship (like mosques) are dangerous? [/QB]
There is a phrase which is famous in Norwegian politics, which Americans would do well to import: "Det må gå an å ha to tanker i hodet samtidig". It was flung by one politician at another, and translates as "It must be possible for one head to contain two thoughts." In other words, it must be possible to oppose a mosque on the same grounds that one opposes churches, synagogues, druidic groves, and Black Altars of the Elder Gods, without therefore saying that mosques are worse than these other things. It is not inconsistent to say "I'm against mosques in general, but I'm not more against this mosque than any other mosque; given that some mosques are going to be built, I don't care where they are."
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I think I misunderstood your statement, afr. I took it to be saying that any place of worship will be a source of peace and worship, but looking at it now, I think you were speaking more specifically.
Well, I was talking about the hypothetical mosque that I chose over a Borders, but that was a different conversation that kind of bled over.
I still don't know how to reconcile calling for tolerance and acceptance of the center at Ground Zero, and the statement that sooner or later the Muslim faith will have to be eradicated. And that places of worship can be dangerous. It seems like you are contradicting yourself.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: What if someone wanted to put a Catholic Church next to a grade school in light of the child abuse scandal?
What if someone wanted to put a Catholic church two blocks from a grade school?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I don't see it as such. Could you explain the contradiction you see?
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: What is it? Building the center isn't in bad taste, and not all Muslims are terrorists? Or sometime soon we're going to have to cleanse the world of Muslims, and places of worship (like mosques) are dangerous?
There is a phrase which is famous in Norwegian politics, which Americans would do well to import: "Det må gå an å ha to tanker i hodet samtidig". It was flung by one politician at another, and translates as "It must be possible for one head to contain two thoughts." In other words, it must be possible to oppose a mosque on the same grounds that one opposes churches, synagogues, druidic groves, and Black Altars of the Elder Gods, without therefore saying that mosques are worse than these other things. It is not inconsistent to say "I'm against mosques in general, but I'm not more against this mosque than any other mosque; given that some mosques are going to be built, I don't care where they are." [/QB]
All right, but MrSquicky seems to be taking it a bit further.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I don't understand the Catholic church thing. Who would possibly object to a Catholic church going up next to a grade school?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy: What if someone wanted to put a Catholic church two blocks from a grade school?
Depends on how public outrage scales with distance, no?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:What if someone wanted to put a Catholic Church next to a grade school in light of the child abuse scandal?
I think it's more like a Baptist church going up next to that grade school. Two different sects, neither of which considers the other "Christian" despite both claiming the label for themselves.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
AFR, I think you are missing the "either/or" nature of MrSquicky's statement.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:What if someone wanted to put a Catholic Church next to a grade school in light of the child abuse scandal?
I think it's more like a Baptist church going up next to that grade school. Two different sects, neither of which considers the other "Christian" despite both claiming the label for themselves.
I consider Baptists to be Christians. So does the Catholic Church in general.*
*Not a claim I make lightly or often, but I think this one is pretty safe.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP: I think it's more like a Baptist church going up next to that grade school. Two different sects, neither of which considers the other "Christian" despite both claiming the label for themselves.
Thats a fair point. I accept your correction, if people were upset at other churches too, then it would be a bad move for their respective sects to put a church there too.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
OK, OK.
I saw the either/or. I'm still having a hard time reconciling the idea of needing to eradicate OR civilize the Muslim world with being tolerant of this center being built. Maybe I'm doing a classic AFR and still misreading in my haste? The necessity of moving against the Muslims didn't seem to be explained very well.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:I consider Baptists to be Christians. So does the Catholic Church in general.
Don't muddle by analogy with facts!
Fine, pick any two sects of any religion that don't recognize the validity of each other. There are several within Christianity. Certainly there are also some within Islam.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I am baffled by the notion that the "Muslim" world needs to be "civilized" any more so than the Christian world, or the capitalist world, or any given group of 1.5 billion people.
During the riots over the Mohammad cartoons a while back, you may notice that there was no widespread violence among Muslim Americans. This suggests to me that whatever issues we have with the Middle East have less to do with Islam and more to do with some other cultural phenomena in the Middle East.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
afr, I think it is possible, if current trends continue, that the many Muslims that want to bring destruction to non-Muslims, especially in America and the west, will be able to bring about that destruction with relative ease and that it will remain extremely difficult to determine which Muslims are the "good" ones and which are the "bad" ones.
In that case, I anticipate that there will be a world wide movement in force against Muslims as Muslims that will at the very least end in a extremely reduced number of followers and power of the entire religion and could quite possibly end up as an enormous religious and cultural genocide.
I emphatically don't want this to happen, but, as I see it, unless there is a movement away from the barbarism that characterizes significant parts of Islam, I see this as very likely coming to pass.
---
edit: I should add, I don't think that it would be absolutely necessary to basically go on a crusade against Muslims in my hypothetical future. I believe that there might be better, non-genocidal options. But I don't have much hope that we'd take them. That I think that partial genocide is the best case scenario there is at least as much a judgment of the non-Muslim world as it is the Muslim one.
[ August 17, 2010, 05:24 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think that different sects within a particular faith (and different people within a sect) can think that the other is wrong on certain issues while still recognizing that they are part of the same religious group.
Also, children are more likely to be abused at school than even at Catholic Churches. What makes the abuse by priests so much more problematic has been the Church's practice of hiding it and sheltering the abusers. It isn't that priests are vastly more likely to abuse than non-priests. Possibly a little more likely but there are no really good numbers.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
What boots said. It seems like anyone who would get worked up over the Catholic church thing is working off very inaccurate stereotypes. Children are much more likely to be abused by teachers or other people working at the school than they are by parish priests.
The Catholic scandal isn't that the Church is full of child abusers, but that the hierarchy of the Church went to great lengths to hide and defend the abusers that they were made aware of. I mean, I'd be up in arms if the Pope or say Bernard Law were put in charge of a group to oversee child abusers or really any position where they'd be overseeing subordinates whose possible bad behavior would reflect badly on the Catholic Church, but that's because they have actually proven to be terribly immoral people in situations like that, not because I have some prejudice about the Catholic Church.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: I am baffled by the notion that the "Muslim" world needs to be "civilized" ... During the riots over the Mohammad cartoons a while back, you may notice that there was no widespread violence among Muslim Americans.
Look at it the other way, Muslim Americans *are* more assimilated to the American way of life, which some would consider to be more civilized.
One could also note that it was an American Muslim, the so-called "Jihad Jane" and an American conspirator which was arrested in a plot to kill the cartoonist, indicating that this process is ongoing.
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Children are much more likely to be abused by teachers or other people working at the school than they are by parish priests.
*shrug* Maybe, maybe not. I think thats a reasonable debate.
However, teachers are necessary for a school. Priests aren't. So to minimize the risk, it seems reasonable that eliminating priests from the situation would help.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
But the issue is not that we need to "civilize" Islam, it's that we need to civilize unstable violent regions in general. I'm not opposed to that on principle, but I do think that in practice it's a dangerous line of thinking.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: afr, I think it is possible, if current trends continue, that the many Muslims that want to bring destruction to non-Muslims, especially in America and the west, will be able to bring about that destruction with relative ease and that it will remain extremely difficult to determine which Muslims are the "good" ones and which are the "bad" ones.
In that case, I anticipate that there will be a world wide movement in force against Muslims as Muslims that will at the very least end in a extremely reduced number of followers and power of the entire religion and could quite possibly end up as an enormous religious and cultural genocide.
I emphatically don't want this to happen, but, as I see it, unless there is a movement away from the barbarism that characterizes significant parts of Islam, I see this as very likely coming to pass.
That would indeed be horrific.
In the event of a general attack on non-Muslims, it would indeed be difficult to separate notions of barbarism from notions of peace, goodwill, and civility in the religion, and a retaliation "in kind" would in fact go way, way overboard.
I see a lot that I don't agree with in Muslim culture as well, especially when it makes the news. The recent condemnation of the Iranian woman to a stoning takes in many of the aspects I don't agree with at all.
I don't, however, refuse to see any good in worship, even if the style of it is different than my own. That's important, IMO. I know it's not much, but I spent some months living in a French city with a strong concentration of Muslims, and had the opportunity to discuss religious views with many of them, and did not come away feeling like their worship was harmful and corrosive. On the contrary, I felt like more of the barbarian with my American upbringing and habits.
Our perceptions now, and our willingness to trust in the goodness and goodwill of the people (even a devoutly religious people) rather than regard them as potentially dangerous, will make a big difference in avoiding such a catastrophe. IMO.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: But the issue is not that we need to "civilize" Islam, it's that we need to civilize unstable violent regions in general.
Perhaps. For example, IIRC, Jihad Jane came from Philadelphia and I fully agree that that is a violent area that we need to civilize Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
afr, I'm not saying that I don't see any good in worship. I'm saying that worship is not always good or peaceful or whatever. Historically, places of worship were often places to stir up hatred and encourage violence. And I see that continuing into the present. That they can also be places that encourage peace, understanding, and a whole host of other things doesn't take away from this.
I'm saying that a place of worship is not intrinsically good, bad, or otherwise. It's only through the content of the worship that this can be determined.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Mucus, I'm surprised you think there'd be any PR implications to building a Catholic church next to a gradeschool in light of the sexual abuse scandal. It's a stretch, which I'm guessing you are only making because of the analogy to this situation. I don't think it's reasonable to expect proximity-to-children considerations to factor into church construction plans, or public reaction to them, except insofar as they'd (anyway) try to find locations central to their congregation.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: afr, I'm not saying that I don't see any good in worship. I'm saying that worship is not always good or peaceful or whatever. Historically, places of worship were often places to stir up hatred and encourage violence. And I see that continuing into the present. That they can also be places that encourage peace, understanding, and a whole host of other things doesn't take away from this.
I'm saying that a place of worship is not intrinsically good, bad, or otherwise. It's only through the content of the worship that this can be determined.
I agree. I don't think it's the fact of the worship that causes the trouble. It is when that worship, or that forum where people come together to pray, read from holy books, and listen to their version of preachers, is wrested by people with extreme views and used to radicalize and recruit to an extreme cause. The motivation behind this wresting of control, furthermore, is power, not superior religious fervor. All of it is definitely a vulnerability of a place of worship. It isn't the same as the worship itself. Speaking in terms of major world religions, when people are ready to commit atrocities or even oppression in the name of the god they worship, they've gone far, far beyond the spirit of their worship, and, at least from my point of view, are further removed from their religion than if they were not members of it at all.
That it happens in some mosques is terrible for the many millions of people who worship in mosques, and definitely fuel for some of the protest against this center at Ground Zero. A mosque is eventually going to be the epicenter of a radicalization movement, because that's what happens in mosques. Therefore, we don't want a mosque being built on the result of what happened in a mosque.
However, it's not the worship itself that's the problem. It's too easy to do that. In fact, the mistrust of the people because they do worship is in the same family as the mistrust of them because of how they worship.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges:
quote:You've been given them. That you've discounted them is a reflection on you, but not on the reasons.
Lisa objected to having mosques in the building where pieces of terrorist plane fell. She then went in to talk about how Muslims establish mosques and shrines atop places they've conquered and how assuming Muslims are terrorists is the safe way to bet. Certainly no reason to ever trust any Muslims there.
Pretty much. Also, why do you think they're using the name "Cordoba"? It was actually the location of the first mosque they built (on a church, natch) in Spain when they conquered that.
(Shut up, Lisa. That's obviously a complete coincidence.)
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Were it a gathering place for radical terrorists, I'd be against it.
For my part, while I'm opposed to radical terrorism (and thus gatherings of radical terrorists) on general principles, I would strongly support the creation of a public gathering place intended to be used by radical terrorists. For many reasons.
Unfortunately, no one is about to take advantage of that. Not in this country, anyway.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Both Judaism and Christianity used to have some pretty strong barbaric aspects to them but, through various means, have developed into something more civilized. Islam used to be the most enlightened religion/civilization in the West.
In the long run, we're either going to need to use force to greatly diminish or even wipe Islam from the planet or we're going to have to find ways to civilize it. Honestly, I can see that the first option may become necessary, but I really, really hope it doesn't come to that.
They're many centuries behind the curve. While I don't deny that there's a chance of them some day becoming civilized (it would require a massive reform movement which goes over to treating the Qur'an allegorically), I don't see it as possibly happening for centuries. In the mean time, they're toxic and should be quarantined.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Also, why do you think they're using the name "Cordoba"?
Probably because, to liberal Muslims looking to hearken back to an Islamic golden age of tolerance and beauty (and architecture), the city of Cordoba is a very obvious reference.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
quote:Originally posted by daventor: I do wish, though, regardless of when the controversy started and who started it, that the Cordoba project people would reconsider their choice of location. It's been less than ten years since the attacks, and however they wish the mosque/cultural center/what-have-you to be taken, there are a lot of people offended at the idea of it. I've seen several polls showing much more people opposing its construction than favoring it, so if the idea is to help build bridges between Muslims and non-Muslims, this might not be the best way to accomplish that. Sensitivity should not be a one-way street.
Emphasis added, because I'm not sure these two things can be separated. One is largely a result of the other. This is not to say that the center would be overwhelmingly popular without Gellar's postings, but as Chris pointed out this was a non-story until individuals started doing everything in their power to shape public perception against the Cordoba group.
--j_k
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Both Judaism and Christianity used to have some pretty strong barbaric aspects to them but, through various means, have developed into something more civilized. Islam used to be the most enlightened religion/civilization in the West.
In the long run, we're either going to need to use force to greatly diminish or even wipe Islam from the planet or we're going to have to find ways to civilize it. Honestly, I can see that the first option may become necessary, but I really, really hope it doesn't come to that.
Squick, I feel a bit dismayed to hear you say that. You're well enough educated and read that I have a hard time believing that you aren't aware of the fact that the vast, vast majority of the Muslim world is civilized, as you're using the term. The threat here isn't from Islam at large, but from particular fundamentalist groups within the larger body of the faith. Do you not think that this is the case?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: I am baffled by the notion that the "Muslim" world needs to be "civilized" any more so than the Christian world, or the capitalist world, or any given group of 1.5 billion people.
During the riots over the Mohammad cartoons a while back, you may notice that there was no widespread violence among Muslim Americans. This suggests to me that whatever issues we have with the Middle East have less to do with Islam and more to do with some other cultural phenomena in the Middle East.
I remember many, many comments coming from prominent Muslim Americans justifying the violence. And that's what I've been saying. There are the actual perpetrators, their concrete supporters, and their spiritual supporters. And a tiny minority, maybe, who don't fall into any of those categories.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Also, why do you think they're using the name "Cordoba"?
Probably because, to liberal Muslims looking to hearken back to an Islamic golden age of tolerance and beauty (and architecture), the city of Cordoba is a very obvious reference.
See? I knew it was just a coincidence.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jake:
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Both Judaism and Christianity used to have some pretty strong barbaric aspects to them but, through various means, have developed into something more civilized. Islam used to be the most enlightened religion/civilization in the West.
In the long run, we're either going to need to use force to greatly diminish or even wipe Islam from the planet or we're going to have to find ways to civilize it. Honestly, I can see that the first option may become necessary, but I really, really hope it doesn't come to that.
Squick, I feel a bit dismayed to hear you say that. You're well enough educated and read that I have a hard time believing that you aren't aware of the fact that the vast, vast majority of the Muslim world is civilized, as you're using the term. The threat here isn't from Islam at large, but from particular fundamentalist groups within the larger body of the faith. Do you not think that this is the case?
No, I don't agree with that. I definitely agree that there are many Muslims would fit into my kind of loose definition of civilized, but the vast, vast majority? No, I don't see that at all, especially not in most places where Muslims are ascendant. (For the record, I'd see a society that condones the pushing of school girls back into a burning building because they're "not properly covered" as barbarians.)
edit:
If it puts this more into context, I think that the world, especially America, is in danger from a wide spread coalition of Christians losing their veneer of civilization in the wake of major economic problems.
And, if they were much more significant, I'd be concerned about a "Reign of Terror" craziness from a certain sort of our evangelical atheists.
We're only a few missed meals from barbarism ourselves. I just see it that significant parts of Islam are already there.
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I definitely agree that there are many Muslims would fit into my kind of loose definition of civilized, but the vast, vast majority? No, I don't see that at all, especially not in most places where Muslims are ascendant. (For the record, I'd see a society that condones the pushing of school girls back into a burning building because they're "not properly covered" as barbarians.)
The thing is, you don't see that kind of behavior in the vast majority of the Muslim world. Indonesia, Malaysia, virtually all of West Africa--the kind of stuff that you're talking about isn't native to the Islamic cultures that have developed there. Those countries and that region certainly have troubles of their own, but they aren't exacerbated by Islam's being the dominant religion.
Now, it's entirely possible for more mysogynistic, intolerant, xenophobic flavors of Islam to spread to those regions, and we're seeing that beginning to happen. It's important to do everything that we can to curb that spread.
I agree with all but the last sentence of your edit, by the way. If it didn't contain the word "signifiant" (assuming that the word in this context refers to number), I'd agree with that sentence as well.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Erm. Of course Islam exacerbates the situation by being the dominant religion in those regions, watch some Aljazeera actually. For all the bad connotations that it has in the States, I've actually been very impressed by its even-handed approach to stories. I find it less biased than American networks actually.
I have reason to know a bit about Al Jazeera these days as the university where I work is in partnership with them at our campus in Qatar. They are a pretty good source of information.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Also, why do you think they're using the name "Cordoba"?
Probably because, to liberal Muslims looking to hearken back to an Islamic golden age of tolerance and beauty (and architecture), the city of Cordoba is a very obvious reference.
Precisely how the mosque came to be and the church ceased to be is, of course, unknown. However, the view that Muslims marched in and immediately razed the church to erect the mosque seems certainly to be false.
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Erm. Of course Islam exacerbates the situation by being the dominant religion in those regions, watch some Aljazeera actually.
More than any other faith would be likely to?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
*Any* other faith? Well sure. Without pointing fingers, what are the odds that Islam just happens to be the most peaceful of all the hundreds of possible faiths (many of which have very different views on pacifism) out there?
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
It feels to me that you're trying to score points, rather than actually have a discussion. Is that the case?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I'm not sure what you mean really.
Could you elaborate?
If you want me to elaborate, I guess there are a few points bundled together: a) The word "any" makes for a very large statement, I could think of a number more pacifistic religions and I only need one counterexample, which leads into ... b) I don't feel like pointing fingers at this moment, I think even Islam in specific is a bit or a red herring and I've avoided discussing it in isolation much in this thread but ... c) I reject the idea that all religions are equally violent/nonviolent. All things being equal, I would consider a religion that believes that self-defence is warranted to be more dangerous than one that believes that violence is never warranted (which in turn might be less violent than one that believes in non-violence toward not only humans, but animals.) All things being equal, I think iconoclasm is a risker tenet than not, etc. etc.
That said, all things aren't equal, so I freely concede that people can debate in good faith about interpretation errors, what dogma is emphasized or not, how likely a religion is to impose its beliefs on others, etc. when coming up with their relative rankings.
But in brief, I believe that there are faiths out there that are more liable to oppress than others, and that there are specific faiths that are more OR less liable to oppress than Islam when they are dominant.
(However, I would note that this is relatively tangential to the issue of whether "I" would support the creation of a mosque.)
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
What I like the most about this discussion about the aggregate barbarism of muslims or whatever and the whole mosque debate in general is that
1. It makes an excellent cover to keep attention off of the fact that the GOP blocked health coverage for the 9/11 first responders still suffering deleterious health effects for their heroism in aforementioned Acts of Muslim Terror Representing The Muslim World, and
2. It was the GOP that, earlier, got the law passed that patently disallows the government from interfering from the mosque's construction plans as-is.
ALSO, the end result of islamophobia in this media driven loltastrophe is, well,
quote:But just 20 minutes earlier, as Bill Finnegan stood at the microphone, came the meeting’s single moment of hushed silence. Mr. Finnegan said he was a Marine lance corporal, home from Afghanistan, where he had worked as a mediator with warring tribes.
After the sustained standing ovation that followed his introduction, he turned to the Muslims on the panel: “My question to you is, will you work to form a cohesive bond with the people of this community?” The men said yes.
Then he turned to the crowd. “And will you work to form a cohesive bond with these people — your new neighbors?”
The crowd erupted in boos. “No!” someone shouted.
Ahh, America. I'll civilize you yet.
[ August 19, 2010, 04:55 AM: Message edited by: Samprimary ]
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Both Judaism and Christianity used to have some pretty strong barbaric aspects to them but, through various means, have developed into something more civilized. Islam used to be the most enlightened religion/civilization in the West.
In the long run, we're either going to need to use force to greatly diminish or even wipe Islam from the planet or we're going to have to find ways to civilize it. Honestly, I can see that the first option may become necessary, but I really, really hope it doesn't come to that.
They're many centuries behind the curve. While I don't deny that there's a chance of them some day becoming civilized (it would require a massive reform movement which goes over to treating the Qur'an allegorically), I don't see it as possibly happening for centuries. In the mean time, they're toxic and should be quarantined.
Agreed! Perhaps we should start by having them wear yellow crescent moons on their clothes, while we implement the quarantine.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Parkour:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Both Judaism and Christianity used to have some pretty strong barbaric aspects to them but, through various means, have developed into something more civilized. Islam used to be the most enlightened religion/civilization in the West.
In the long run, we're either going to need to use force to greatly diminish or even wipe Islam from the planet or we're going to have to find ways to civilize it. Honestly, I can see that the first option may become necessary, but I really, really hope it doesn't come to that.
They're many centuries behind the curve. While I don't deny that there's a chance of them some day becoming civilized (it would require a massive reform movement which goes over to treating the Qur'an allegorically), I don't see it as possibly happening for centuries. In the mean time, they're toxic and should be quarantined.
Agreed! Perhaps we should start by having them wear yellow crescent moons on their clothes, while we implement the quarantine.
Right. Because, you know, those damned Jews were going around blowing things up. No wonder the Germans were so pissed.
Idiot.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
"Never again," isn't just for the Jews, Lisa.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
I wonder what the crime rate of american muslims is compared to, say, american blacks...
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Ok, so the muslims are going around and blowing things up (actually, a fractional subset, but for the purpose of engaging, we'll just call that wholly representative for justifying the solutions proposed) — so, then, here the social quarantining IS justified? Like, this time, we can call it "Ghetto II — This time, it's okay™"
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: I wonder what the crime rate of american muslims is compared to, say, american blacks...
Isn't there some overlap? Islam is fairly popular among african americans as a better source of structure.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Yep. *shrug* The bigger issue is probably that counter-intuitively, American blacks are *more* religious than American Muslims. For example, 41% of American Muslims attend their place of worship at least once per week while 53% of American blacks do the same.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: I wonder what the crime rate of american muslims is compared to, say, american blacks...
Isn't there some overlap? Islam is fairly popular among african americans as a better source of structure.
For the record: As I understand it, Farrakhan et al's Nation of Islam is in many ways distinct from Islam as it is practiced around the world.
--j_k
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: I wonder what the crime rate of american muslims is compared to, say, american blacks...
Isn't there some overlap? Islam is fairly popular among african americans as a better source of structure.
Define...everything you just said.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
*shrug* "overlap" American Muslims are a diverse group containing many whites, blacks, brown people, etc. Hence they overlap with blacks, something like a quarter of American Muslims are black => "fairly popular" "better source of structure" Gallup polls show that religion builds a sense of community and increases happiness in third world areas torn by social strife. ex: Many African Americans live in crime-ridden inner cities or the American South
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I knew you and Blayne were Canadian, Mucus, but I had no idea that you identified so strongly with him.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Well, I suppose this discussion is more interesting than the discussion that would have resulted had the point I was trying to make in response to Lisa been the subject. On the other hand, it would have been interesting to see the logical contortions Lisa went through. On the third paw, hopefully Lisa has been suspended for her behavior so she can't respond anyways.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:hopefully Lisa has been suspended for her behavior so she can't respond anyways.
Alternatively, hopefully Lisa has learned to interact with this community in an acceptable way.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Scott R: Linguists have postulated that translation of Chinese <=> English can in some ways be considered as difficult as that of Blaynish => English Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Alternatively, hopefully Lisa has learned to interact with this community in an acceptable way. "
Hopefully there's a million dollars in my bank account. I expect this is more likely than Lisa not calling people idiots, or similar, for disagreeing with her about how to treat the Islamic population.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I actually don't think Lisa is being any more harsh or rude in her disagreements than the other people here are being with her, at least in this particular thread. (I have noted elsewhere that I consider declaring that someone should be silenced to be more offensive than calling somebody an idiot).
The difference is not in posting style but in posting content. I am certainly terrified of her declaration that an entire religious population be quarantined (in particular because I know that there are people out there who share the same view with more power than she has). I don't wish that she would stop talking about it though, I just wish she would change her mind.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
I don't wish she'd stop talking about it, either. I wish the mods would do their job. There are theoretical rules about how we're supposed to interact with each other, but they aren't rules unless they are enforced. Calling someone an idiot appears to be way outside the bounds of the rules.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Point being, in this thread I don't think she has done anything that I would consider mod-worthy. (the idiot comment might deserve a warning or possibly a single deleted post, but I think there have been plenty of other comments with similar levels of offensiveness by people other than her).
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: Point being, in this thread I don't think she has done anything that I would consider mod-worthy. (the idiot comment might deserve a warning or possibly a single deleted post, but I think there have been plenty of other comments with similar levels of offensiveness by people other than her).
The post I was responding to was more offensive than the response.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
His point was declaring over a billion people to be untrustworthy scoundrels is pretty offensive in the first place. What percentage of them have to actually want to go around killing people for putting them all in a ghetto to suddenly become okay?
Edit: I am generally interested in the answer. How many Jews would need to be/want-to-be terrorists for quarantine to be an acceptable solution to them?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: Point being, in this thread I don't think she has done anything that I would consider mod-worthy.
Hee. Okay, what about now? Or considering the recent context?
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Out of curiosity, does anyone here think that self-censoring a word (b**** vs. bitch) in this context makes it less offensive?
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Only slightly, insofar as it indicates that you are at least aware that it is offensive and you are making a (slight) effort to pretend you aren't saying it. But again, only slightly.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Juxtapose: Out of curiosity, does anyone here think that self-censoring a word (b**** vs. bitch) in this context makes it less offensive?
Well, let's find out, shall we?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: His point was declaring over a billion people to be untrustworthy scoundrels is pretty offensive in the first place. What percentage of them have to actually want to go around killing people for putting them all in a ghetto to suddenly become okay?
Edit: I am generally interested in the answer. How many Jews would need to be/want-to-be terrorists for quarantine to be an acceptable solution to them?
I would pay you money if you could find a way to send all the Jews to Israel and quarantine us there.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
Maybe "b****" is meant to be "brain"?
..."basil"?
..."bagel"?
Oh I give up.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Offensiveness isn't actually the standard that we are held to, according to the User Agreement. Abusiveness, on the other hand, is.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Oh, and:
quote:Hee. Okay, what about now? Or considering the recent context?
...sigh.... yeah.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: I would pay you money if you could find a way to send all the Jews to Israel and quarantine us there.
ahhh wait, wait, would you actively desire that the jews be stripped of their freedom to live where they choose? You would quarantine them if you could?
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I'm having one of those "is Lisa actually a real person, or a strawwoman parody constructed to make people associate zionism and objectivism with craziness?" moments.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
I'm having one of those lets stop talking about Lisa and change the subject moments. If you'd all be so kind.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I would like to point out that, that is kinda funny sounding, very allitative kind of appeal.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Yeah. Very allitative.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this BB to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law"
Can you please get the user agreement changed if you're not going to moderate according to what it says?
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: I'm having one of those lets stop talking about Lisa and change the subject moments. If you'd all be so kind.
I wouldn't mind if you would show any inclination to uphold rules that this place supposedly has. Or is she just allowed to call people idiots and whiny bitches? I mean it more of as a serious question than as an attack. She seems to know that she can walk all over this place. And you.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
Paul: When I moderate I don't announce for all to read what I'm doing. I take the TOS very seriously. I've already taken steps to deal with today's drama.
I do appreciate those who whistle posts, it makes my job much easier.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Paul: When I moderate I don't announce for all to read what I'm doing. "
Doesn't that defeat about 80% of the point of moderating? You remove the deterrence, and you refrain from making a moral statement to and about the community.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: "Paul: When I moderate I don't announce for all to read what I'm doing. "
Doesn't that defeat about 80% of the point of moderating? You remove the deterrence, and you refrain from making a moral statement to and about the community.
Possibly. When I edit posts I usually state a reason, but when I am discussing with individual posters where we are going from there, I don't do it on the boards, and I don't create a special post where I discuss what I have decided to do in regards to an individual poster. I don't think it's anybody's business.
I could do that as a way to send a message to those who might break rules in the future, but I am not convinced the efficacy outweighs the draw backs.
I'm happy to continue talking to you about the subject if you wish, but not on the boards.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: Can you please get the user agreement changed if you're not going to moderate according to what it says?
Why? This place has never been moderated according to the TOS, but the darling assumption that it ever has been has led to inconsistent and incoherent policy.
BB: Know going ahead that when you use that strategy to keep moderation 'nobody's business,' you moderate without transparency towards your actions, then you end up in situations where people don't see what you are doing, only what hasn't been done in time, and what certain hilariously reliably unstable individuals will always do as long as they are able.
This is exacerbated by the fact that you effectively inherited an environment crippled by nonresponse and wrist-slappery.
It's not an invalid choice, I just advise against it because, well, I've seen where it always seems to go: spite against perceived inaction and confusion over whether or not action has even been taken. Also, I tend to think that moderation is the business of everyone involved, so if it is the response to public posts, the response should be public too so as to set coherent precedent.
Umm where was I
oh right. TOS still sucks. Vishnu is an unwashed juggalo.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
Samp: I get that by not publicly discussing what I'm doing, people perceive that I am being inactive. I could publicly declare that poster X has been banned/suspended/obliterated, (the latter, once I find the correct button) but I feel like all that would do is invite people to discuss whether the particulars of my actions are correct. I can't moderate effectively if every time I do my job, people armchair it. I'd have to not only respond to breaches of protocol, but also explain myself to a hundred judges every single time.
I can just as easily respond to problem posters and say, "I'm taking care of it," on the forum. It is to be hoped that in the long term people will start to notice a change in the general feeling of the forum. I understand that nobody is going to really notice when for example a troll suddenly stops posting, or really think about why a member in the middle of an eruption leaves the thread. I accept that as a hazard of the position. I'm not willing to toot my own horn, or endure the endless nit picking.
So instead, just know that I read the forums personally multiple times a day. That when a post is whistled, I take it very seriously. That sometimes a person breaks a rule, but there is a chance they will stop themselves. If that happens, I pay closer attention to a thread and watch how it progresses from there. When a poster manages to check themselves that is infinitely better than me having to say a word to them. Sometimes posters break rules, get called on it by other posters, and proceed to crash and burn, often managing to take other posters down with them in the process. I try to respond to those situations as quickly and efficiently as possible to minimize damage.
I'm trying to let you as adults police yourself to some degree, and I am pleased that many times that works. I also recognize that unless there are consequences to negative actions, people won't hesitate to break rules. I take a poster's history (both short and long term), nature of the infraction, and their willingness to work with me into account every time I do anything.
I'm not oblivious to Lisa's history either, and she didn't just skirt a line this time. I'm not OK with the things she said, and I'm dealing with it. The specific details of that are being worked out at present.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I could publicly declare that poster X has been banned/suspended/obliterated, (the latter, once I find the correct button) but I feel like all that would do is invite people to discuss whether the particulars of my actions are correct. I can't moderate effectively if every time I do my job, people armchair it
the problem i'm pointing out is that you get armchairing in both cases, but in the case of shadow moderation it is exacerbated through lack of knowledge of what, if anything, is being done or where the consistency lies (see: the response here. Imagine it to be a ready template of the phenom) as well as confusion over what actually was done about what and what precedent is being set. It's attempting to avoid a few problems in a way which creates much more. insofar as i have ever, ever seen, so i'm just throwing it out there.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"I can just as easily respond to problem posters and say, "I'm taking care of it," on the forum."
I would suggest that this goes miles towards establishing discipline, compared to no public action.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
I see threads like this and I get the inevitable sensation of hearing the clak-clak-clak-clak-clak... sound a rollercoaster makes just before it plummets into oblivion.
clak-clak-clak-clak-clak... Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I think that mostly makes sense. I think there might be room for some middle ground, wherein if a situation comes up/is-escalating, you have a generic message you put into the thread "Moderation in progress, please be respectful" or some such, which lets people know something is being done and reminds people to be polite without opening it up for discussion.
I apologize for negativity I contributed to today.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
I've tried to do that at times with, "I'm watching this thread, please refrain from doing X."
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Well, I will try to return a little to the original subject. I watched CNN yesterday, which is not typical (husband had an ER trip and while in the waiting room there isn't much to do but watch the tv). Dang, is there nothing else going on the world besides this? I guess for me, it really is a minor thing, even if I thought that all Muslims were terrorists and the whole purpose of this was to mock the US and all the negatives people have been saying. The economy, jobs, those things affect my life. But this, I just can't see how it deserves that much airtime.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: Dang, is there nothing else going on the world besides this?
a big thing indeed happened, and it was exactly the sort of thing you would definitely want to drub an islamophobic noise cover for.
quote:the GOP blocked health coverage for the 9/11 first responders still suffering deleterious health effects for their heroism in aforementioned Acts of Muslim Terror Representing The Muslim World, and
no! no! pay no attention to that! MUSLIMS!
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
To be fair, they didn't block it because they wanted to block it. They blocked it because they wanted to force the Democrats to vote on an amendment to deny care to any 9/11 heroes who were illegal immigrants and the Democrats tried to use a procedure to ignore the amendment because they lack the balls to actually take that on.
It's a lose-lose issue. The Republicans look like jerks, but the Democrats look like sissies.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:It's a lose-lose issue. The Republicans look like jerks, but the Democrats look like sissies.
Story of our legislature.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: To be fair, they didn't block it because they wanted to block it. They blocked it because they wanted to force the Democrats to vote on an amendment to deny care to any 9/11 heroes who were illegal immigrants and the Democrats tried to use a procedure to ignore the amendment because they lack the balls to actually take that on.
It's a lose-lose issue. The Republicans look like jerks, but the Democrats look like sissies.
quote:to deny care to any 9/11 heroes who were illegal immigrants
How many of these people can possibly exist?
--j_k
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
the threat is enough. the very threat.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I'm looking forward to when my long-term investment in terror babies matures
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Speaking as someone who moderated a newspaper forum for 5 years, I agree with the "don't mention it" school of moderation for two reasons.
First, it's more respectful to the person being moderated. Just as with family, friends, employees and children, dressing them down or calling them out for bad behavior in private allows them to keep their dignity in public. Public humiliation is not the way to get the calmer, reasonable commenter you want to encourage. It's amazing how many people you would assume to be trolls, based on their posting style, will respond to being treated like a person, like a valuable but little-too-harsh part of the community.
Second, other members of the forum who oppose the moderated member often see even casual public moderation as vindication of their own views, even if they've been nearly as obnoxious in their presentation, and they often make their glee public. "Ha! You got yelled at! That proves I'm right!" Any bets whether the person who was moderated will react favorably to that?
I'm all for public moderation of generalities ("Getting a little rude in here, let's calm it down") or public statements of policy that don't target individuals ("Remember, attacking ideas is fine and welcomed, attacking people is not") but when it comes down to singling out people I prefer to keep it private.
There are exceptions for extreme cases but over 5 years of at-times extremely contentious forum posting, including an invasion sent over by a white supremacy website whose stated goal was to overrun our site, respectful moderation had a much higher degree of success in building a comfortable place to talk.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
*shrug* Personally, I think JanitorBlade has said he's doing something about it, and that very few if any of the folks complaining about his moderation are really in much of a position to continue chastising him.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
unpleasable fanbase.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Haaaaaaaa
quote:The justification to ban the mosque is no more rational than banning a soccer field in the same place because all the suicide bombers loved to play soccer.
- ron paul
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Read this, thought of this thread
quote:People are un-ironically arguing that if we let Muslims enjoy religious freedom in America, the terrorists have won.
This may seem bizarre, but that's only because it is. There's a meme floating around among those who are opposed to the Park51 community center (the "Ground Zero Mosque!") that it's tradition to build a mosque after a conquest. The earliest source I can casually find for this in relation to the Park51 thing is this post at The American Thinker (I was sure Glenn Beck made it up or had a guest make it up; clearly I got my right-wing dickbags confused). For whatever reason, probably because it sounds ominous and secretive, this idea has caught on and is now mandatory to bring up whenever someone wants to oppose the mosque/community center without being branded as unreasonable. Of course in theory Muslims should have the right to build mosques anywhere, but THIS, you see, is a coded message that says "WE DID IT NYAH NYAH!" Even though the Imam behind the project is totally anti-extremist, let alone associated in any way with Al-Qaeda. But because it's Islamic, it must be part of that great big homogeneous and alien entity that is ISLAM, the one group that throws airplanes into buildings! We obviously CAN'T let them send this message of gloating that we just made up, so obviously they can't practice their freedom of religion there otherwise the terrorists have won!
it's still boggling. some of the standards I've heard presented for what allows the Muslims to 'win at terrorism' makes it so that its effectively impossible to not have the terr'ists 'win' without, well, engaging in a totalitarian campaign against islam that effectively rusts the first amendment to nothing.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
I can think of at least 2 groups of people who I DON'T want controlling my life--
1. American jingoists 2. extremist Muslims
The ideal world is one in which neither group has much power over my life. IOW, I don't like airport security nonsense...nor do I like Islamic terrorism. I think that, if the mosque doesn't get built, we are definitely tending toward the direction of letting #1 have excessive control of our lives.
Remember, you may not like the Muslim extremists, but airport security is pretty darned annoying, too. Wiretapping is nothing I love, although, as long as we have a truly democratically elected government, it doesn't worry me overly much.
Ask yourselves this...what direct effect would this mosque have on your daily life? Unless you live/work in NYC, then it really won't affect you when you're going to work, taking care of your kids, spending time with friends and family, etc.. Right? 9/11 definitely affected our daily lives for a while, and still does, by taking money to fight the two wars, and making airport security a giant pain.
This mosque isn't going to touch our daily lives, for the most part.
Posted by Mucous (Member # 12331) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: ... if the mosque doesn't get built, we are definitely tending toward the direction of letting #1 have excessive control of our lives.
<teeny nitpick> Your lives </teeny nitpick>
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
Has anyone in this thread mentioned the Zionist angle to this hysteria?
Pamella Gellar, along with the likes of Daniel Pipes, are hard-line right-wing Zionists who have decided that the best way to shore up support for Israel amongst the U.S is to perpetually vilify Muslims. These hardliners think: If Muslims become accepted in the U.S, they will gain political traction, which means they can come to influence policies regarding the Middle East, etc.
When recently a woman of Muslim background won a major beauty pageant, the anger from these people was quite staggering. A Muslim won the pageant! It must've been rigged! It's Affirmative Action! And so on. Why would they think this? It isn't mere bigotry but rather a narrow, zero-sum political consideration: if muslims become mainstream, Zionism is challenged.
This is why Abraham Foxman of the ADL, a staunch Zionist, came out against the mosque. It's a "what's good for the Jews" calculation. But other Jews disagree and think that rousing White Christian anger at a religious minority is playing with fire.
The hate campaign against Muslims coming from right-wing Zionists is very real. Here are two examples:
This guy, who's ethnically Jewish but religiously Christian, is the cousin of novelist Paul Auster. He's also pretty much a white supremacist, but I know that he's read (and sometimes quoted) by the writers of the National Review.
Brietbart featured her on his blogroll for years (not anymore though).
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I just want everyone to remember that this is clive candy. He's still allowed to post for reasons obviously beyond my understanding but keep that in mind before opting to respond to him (hint: don't respond to him)
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Both supporters and opponents of the "Ground Zero" "Mosque"--a proposed community center--held rallies in lower Manhattan today. Can you guess which side started chanting "no mosque here" at a black guy wandering through the crowd?
While you spent your Sunday trying to teach your cat to go to the bathroom on a human toilet, a group of brave, freedom-loving Americans gathered in New York City to express their extreme disapproval with the Park 51 project, an al-Qaeda plot to build a community center featuring a swimming pool and auditorium on the very site where a Burlington Coat Factory once stood.
As you can see in the video above, at some point during the rally, a dark-skinned man wearing an Under Armor skullcap and what looks like a necklace with a Puerto Rican flag walked through the anti-"Mosque" crowd. The crowd, astutely recognizing that he was on his way to build the mosque, began to chant "NO MOSQUE HERE" at him. In the video, someone says, "run away, coward." The man turns around, perturbed. "Y'all motherf-----s don't know my opinion about s---," he says. Au contraire, my friend: You are a black man wearing a skullcap, after all! You are definitely a pro-Mosque, anti-freedom Jihadist! Why, aren't you, in fact... Osama Bin Laden??
quote:But other than the whole "person of color ruins our rally" thing, the protest sounds like a delightful time:
quote:A mannequin wearing a keffiyeh, a traditional Arab headdress, was mounted on one of two mock missiles that were part of an anti-mosque installation. One missile was inscribed with the words: "Again? Freedom Targeted by Religion"; the other with "Obama: With a middle name Hussein. We understand. Bloomberg: What is your excuse?"
They even played "Born in the USA," Bruce Springsteen's famous anthem about how awesome the United States is! Meanwhile, a bunch of hippie losers protested across the way and tried to teach people about "religious tolerance," or whatever. Guess what, hippies? The mosque doesn't have a chance:
quote:If the mosque gets built, "we will bombard it," [anti-Park 51 proestor Kobi] Mor said. He would not elaborate but added that he believes the project "will never happen."
America: If we don't like something, we'll bombard it!
I don't even really need to try anymore. they're going to destroy themselves.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Holy crap, that guy in the blue baseball cap is enormous.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
aaaand more
quote:"Ground Zero mosque" mania reaches exciting new heights. Last night a cabbie picked up a man at 24th and Second. The passenger asked "Are you Muslim?" The driver answered yes, and was promptly stabbed.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Damn. Was the stabber caught? Is the driver going to be okay?
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
quote:"Y'all motherf-----s don't know my opinion about s---"
This feels like a profound criticism of large swaths of today's world.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Damn. Was the stabber caught? Is the driver going to be okay?
Yeah. Sounds a bit weird.
quote:The man who allegedly stabbed a cab driver after learning that the driver was a Muslim is Michael Enright, a 21-year-old filmmaker from upstate New York. Enright -- who shoots video for a New York-based peace group that counts Cordoba Initiative as one of its partners -- has been charged with attempted murder as a hate crime, and police say he was "very, very intoxicated" when he got in the cab at 6 p.m. last night. ... According to this press release, "Enright is attracting national attention as he documents the service of his high school buddy from training through deployment in a combat zone with Bravo Company of the 1st Battalion, 3rd Marines, based out of Hawaii and known as the 'Lava Dogs.'" ... Enright made these videos for Intersections International, "a permanent multi-faith, multi-cultural effort of the Collegiate Churches of New York," dedicated to "justice, reconciliation, and peace." The group supports the so-called "Ground Zero Mosque." (The Intersections International site refers to Enright as "a volunteer for Intersections’ Veteran-Civilian Dialogue program" working on his thesis film project.)
I disagree with anyone that would protest the mosque based on religion. We have freedom of religion, and people and practice their beliefs anyway and anywhere they want. Do they have a right to build the mosque there? Yes they do. Should they? I don't think they should.
There is nothing that can be done legally to stop the mosque from being built, and I don't think there should be. I would hope however that the people building the mosque would be sensitive to the thoughts and feelings of those that were affected by 9/11 and move the mosque a few blocks away.
I really don't think that the majority of the people are against Islam, but against the location. The purpose of the mosque is to unite people, but this caused more division than ever. I think the best thing the builders of the mosque could do would be to say something to the effect of: "We understand the frustration that many feel pertaining to the mosque at ground zero. We are sensitive to the feelings of those that lost their lives on 9/11, and it was not our intention to cause negative feelings. Our intention is for the mosque to be a place of reconciliation and healing. We would like to build a mosque, however we will be moving it a few blocks away from Ground Zero out of respect to those who lost loved ones during the terrorist attack on 9-11-2001. We invite you to visit the mosque once it is completed and join us by participating in dialog that will strengthen relationships between cultures and religions."
I think this would please the majority of the people. I'm sure there will be some wackos out there that will be against it, but I think the majority of Americans would be fine with it.
Some say Park 51 isn't part of Ground Zero. A large portion of the rear wheel structure of one of the planes hit the exact spot. I would consider that part of Ground Zero.
Samprimary, while I agree that some protesters can be violent, I am intruiged as to why you only post information about the anti-mosque crowd. The pro-Mosque crowd participated in anti-semitic rants as well as hit a camera man.
Both sides do things they shouldn't, no matter what the issue. Just because you are on one side doesn't mean people on the other are the only ones with questionable actions.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:I would hope however that the people building the mosque would be sensitive to the thoughts and feelings of those that were affected by 9/11 and move the mosque a few blocks away.
How far exactly is far enough? How many blocks from ground zero must muslims go to practice their religion?
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
quote:There is nothing that can be done legally to stop the mosque from being built, and I don't think there should be. I would hope however that the people building the mosque would be sensitive to the thoughts and feelings of those that were affected by 9/11 and move the mosque a few blocks away.
A friend of mine in NYC told me that the people who live in this neighborhood don't care if the mosque is built there or not. He told me that the people that seemed to care the most were outsiders with proudly displayed "Remember 9/11" bumper stickers.
As I understand it, the area has a fairly high Muslim population already. That sentiment, Geraine, feels hollow to me.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Do they have a right to build the mosque there? Yes they do. Should they? I don't think they should. "
Why shouldn't they? They are building two blocks away, which in downtown Manhattan is basically a different county.
But even if they were building less than a block away, why shouldn't they? Would you say that a YMCA shouldn't be put up near an Elementary school?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
It's already a few blocks away. Why do they need to move it from a few blocks away a few blocks further away? What is the appropriate sensitivity radius?
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
The whole idea of a 'sensitivity radius' is ridiculous.
Are we really concerned about the feelings of people who look at the WTC memorial, walk a few blocks away, see a mosque, and think "damn, those 1.5 billion practicing Muslims sure are insensitive!"?
I think we should be way more concerned about displaying our pride in our practice of freedom of religion.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Originally posted by The White Whale: The whole idea of a 'sensitivity radius' is ridiculous.
Indeed. I hoped to indicate as much by using an expression which was both a) obviously ridiculous and b) accurately descriptive of the position I was responding to.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:I would hope however that the people building the mosque would be sensitive to the thoughts and feelings of those that were affected by 9/11
Including the 62 Muslims who were killed at the WTC?
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Honestly this is all just rehash of discussion that happened earlier in the thread.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Yup. I strongly suspect that if the center were actually being built *at* ground zero (i.e. in a building adjacent to the site of the towers) that all the people striking the faux-reasonable "move it a couple blocks further away" tone would say exactly the same thing. The current position would have been the acceptable compromise - still in the area but not in sight of ground zero. But since that's where it began when the nontroversy was started, now it needs to be a few blocks *further* in order to avoid hurting the sensitivities of the victims' families*, which are apparently reflected most vocally by proxies who don't live anywhere near the area.
* Normal caveats apply - families that support the center or who are neutral, families of Muslim victims, etc.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
And if the Mosque were being built in Tennessee then it should be built even FURTHER away.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by The White Whale: A friend of mine in NYC told me that the people who live in this neighborhood don't care if the mosque is built there or not. He told me that the people that seemed to care the most were outsiders with proudly displayed "Remember 9/11" bumper stickers.
As I understand it, the area has a fairly high Muslim population already. That sentiment, Geraine, feels hollow to me.
From the articles I have read, while New York has a sizeable Muslim population, there are very few that live close to where this Mosque would be built, and that most Muslims that live in the are live closer to other Mosques. (I had no idea, but there are over 300 mosques in the State of New York, the most of any state in the country.)
I have no problem with people practicing their religion. I'm against any sort of religious building being built near Ground Zero, not just a Muslim Mosque. I'd have the same problem if the Catholic, LDS, Baptist, or Church of Scientology wanted to build a church there. It has nothing to do with Islam.
Your interpretation of what constitutes ground zero is different than mine. In myu opinion, If a building was hit by a plane, its ground zero. This building was hit by the rear wheel assembly of one of the planes.
I'm sorry but you asking about what an acceptable "radius" would be is utterly ridiculous. By that same token, should we only consider the 80th floor of the north building and the 60th floor of the south building "Ground Zero?" What would be an acceptable radius to you?
I found this article to be pretty fair, though you have to ignore some of the comments at the end from blog posts:
quote:"The Islamic method of waging war is not to kill innocent civilians. But it was Christians in World War II who bombed civilians in Dresden and Hiroshima, neither of which were military targets."
Right...So Muslims that bombed the WTC cannot be associated with other Muslims, yet it was Christians that bombed Dresden and Hiroshima. Got it.
Posted by FoolishTook (Member # 5358) on :
I agree with Geraine on this.
I think Muslims are as capable of being sensitive to people's feelings as non-Muslims. So I would expect them to be as tentative about building this as any religious institution building near or around such a place.
While some New Yorkers are fine with the Mosque, others are not. Some of those who lost family members on 9/11 are okay with it. Some are not.
Clearly this has caused a division, and any hint of bad feelings should be enough to make those planning the Mosque hesitate and question if what they're doing is more hurtful than helpful.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Clearly this has caused a division,"
About a year after it didn't. Funny how the timing on this division worked out...
"So I would expect them to be as tentative about building this as any religious institution building near or around such a place.":
Are you aware how many religious buildings are in a 2 block radius of the WTC?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Geraine, As I said prior, I see this Islamic center that is pushing the idea that the 9/11 attacks are contrary to Islam and that the freedoms of speech and religion are better for Islam than restrictive theocracies as something that no only should we allow, but something that we should actively support. You seem to disagree with this. Could you tell me why?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Your interpretation of what constitutes ground zero is different than mine. In myu opinion, If a building was hit by a plane, its ground zero. This building was hit by the rear wheel assembly of one of the planes.
I would venture to guess that with something of this magnitude that *hundreds* of buildings were hit by pieces of debris. Ground zero is defined as the center of an explosion, not whatever structures in the area happened to be struck by debris and prior to the mosque issue, "ground zero" had always been understood to mean the towers and their immediately vicinity. If you were in Manhattan and looking to visit ground zero, you wouldn't consider yourself to have arrived when you were still 2 1/2 blocks away. Redefining "ground zero" has been an essential element of the construction of this controversy.
quote:Clearly this has caused a division
The division was deliberately generated. To back down now would be to acquiesce to the motivations and methods that build division for its own sake.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: I have no problem with people practicing their religion. I'm against any sort of religious building being built near Ground Zero, not just a Muslim Mosque. I'd have the same problem if the Catholic, LDS, Baptist, or Church of Scientology wanted to build a church there. It has nothing to do with Islam.
You do know what is also within two blocks of Ground Zero, right? It was already posted in this very thread. Why would a religious building be any more blasphemous than a mcdonalds or a strip club?
Posted by FoolishTook (Member # 5358) on :
quote:Are you aware how many religious buildings are in a 2 block radius of the WTC?
I'm not talking about religious institutions at Ground Zero, I'm talking about building a religious institution such as a Mosque at Ground Zero--or a Convent at Auschwitz.
This opinion piece nails it, although I have nothing in common with the author:
The division started when people across the country learned what was happening. Exposure led to a division, which exposure often does.
It's a stretch to claim it was deliberately generated, that not a single person who's against it knows any of the true facts of the case and have all been led blindly to their opinions via Fox News, et al.
Despite the details (and I'm ignoring everything inflammatory I've heard about the name of the Mosque, the Imam who wants to build it, and what the Mosque supports), the fact still remains that a Mosque is being built at Ground Zero, a place where thousands lost their lives to a perversion of the religion the Mosque represents.
Many people feel uncomfortable about this.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"I'm not talking about religious institutions at Ground Zero, I'm talking about building a religious institution such as a Mosque at Ground Zero--or a Convent at Auschwitz."
So, there should be, as several different types of examples, no YMCA's or Episcopalian churches within the same town as a school, because some Catholic priests raped some children?
YMCA because this is a Islamic community center being built that happens to have a "chapel," in it. Episcopalian church because lumping these muslims with the muslims who carried out the terrorist attacks is about the same as saying that Episcopalians are the same thing as Catholics. Or pick any two christian denominations, that are as far apart as you care to choose. Same town, because 2 1/2 blocks in NYC is usually 1-5 different communities.
"The division started when people across the country learned what was happening."
THis is FALSE. Fox News gave it a pass last year. Didn't object. People learned of this a long time ago. THey got STIRRED up by it this summer.
"the fact still remains that a Mosque is being built at Ground Zero, a place where thousands lost their lives to a perversion of the religion the Mosque represents."
1) It is not ground zero. Not unless most of Manhattan is ground zero. And there are hundreds of thousands of muslims living in Manhattan.
2) The chapel in this community center does not represent the same religion, in the name of which the terrorist attacks on ground zero were carried out. Not unless you are willing to say that the sins of the catholic church, the LDS church, the Church of England, and all the other christian denominations should be all be shared.
3) The fact that many people feel uncomfortable about the building of a mosque 2 1/2 blocks from where the WTC was speaks more to the bigotry of many people than it does to anything else.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: ... Not unless you are willing to say that the sins of the catholic church, the LDS church, the Church of England, and all the other christian denominations should be all be shared.
Gee, thats going to be a toughie Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
quote:Originally posted by FoolishTook: ...the fact still remains that a Mosque is being built at Ground Zero, a place where thousands lost their lives to a perversion of the religion the Mosque represents.
Many people feel uncomfortable about this.
Yes. Many people who cannot, do not, or will not acknowledge the difference between the VAST Islamic majority and the EXTREMIST Islamic terrorists.
It really, truly stinks of racism and bigotry.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
It's a form of cultural blindness, I guess. Here in a majority Christian nation it's almost necessary for the typical citizen to distinguish between the different sects of Christianity. You can't be pissed off at *all* Christians for the behavior of a few Catholic priests because, after all, there'd be very few people left to not hate.
Islam, however, is both "foreign" and a minority so such nuance is lost. It's similar, I think, to the way that the typical American sees China as a enormous homogeneous nation, not a collection several distinct ethnicities.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
Cultural blindness is just a nice way of saying willful ignorance.
And being willfully ignorant doesn't make someone less bigoted.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
I was just going for an angle that someone so afflicted might be able to gracefully exit. "You don't understand" seems a better approach than "you're a bigot" and I do think there is a distinction to be made there.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Has anybody in this thread mentioned that there is already a mosque near Ground Zero?
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
I'm not upset with the people who don't understand but are willing to learn. They tend to have less biting opinions and a sense of humility.
I am upset with the people who have had the opportunity to explore the situation with more than a cursory effort, but they stick with a superficial and twisted viewpoint. The excuse that "Islam is a complicated, foreign, and unfamiliar religion and culture" loses all of its clout when you refuse to explore the complexities and stick with oversimplifications. At some point, this refusal to learn or expand one's understanding stops being simple ignorance and starts to be plain old bigotry.
And, from my point of view, I see a majority of this 9/11 anti-Mosque conflict as the product of the latter group of people. The level of dialogue is banal and jejune.
This...
quote:...the fact still remains that a Mosque is being built at Ground Zero, a place where thousands lost their lives to a perversion of the religion the Mosque represents.
Many people feel uncomfortable about this.
...and this...
quote:There is nothing that can be done legally to stop the mosque from being built, and I don't think there should be. I would hope however that the people building the mosque would be sensitive to the thoughts and feelings of those that were affected by 9/11 and move the mosque a few blocks away.
...are, as I see them, arguments from this willing ignorance camp. The explanations given to not naturally lead to the conclusions being drawn. They are mischaractarizations of one or both points of view, and are a long way away from reality.
Posted by sinflower (Member # 12228) on :
quote: It's similar, I think, to the way that the typical American sees China as a enormous homogeneous nation
*mindboggle* People do this?? But China is 20% of the world's population--that's like seeing all of Europe plus all of North America as one homogeneous population...
Looking beyond my little select circle of friends, though, I have to admit that you're almost certainly right. That's sad.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Geraine,
quote:I disagree with anyone that would protest the mosque based on religion. We have freedom of religion, and people and practice their beliefs anyway and anywhere they want. Do they have a right to build the mosque there? Yes they do. Should they? I don't think they should.
There is nothing that can be done legally to stop the mosque from being built, and I don't think there should be. I would hope however that the people building the mosque would be sensitive to the thoughts and feelings of those that were affected by 9/11 and move the mosque a few blocks away.
How far away is far enough away, for 'people whose feelings were affected by 9/11'? There are people who lost family in 9-11 who don't have a problem with it-ought the feelings of those who did trump theirs? Should Muslims be less Muslim around people some Muslims have affected badly, so as to avoid offense?
Because, and I don't want to be too harsh here, that's what you're effectively advocating. By saying, 'They shouldn't build it there,' you're saying they shouldn't be publicly Muslim around relatives of the victims of 9-11, or even around people whose 'feelings were affected' by it.
quote: I really don't think that the majority of the people are against Islam, but against the location. The purpose of the mosque is to unite people, but this caused more division than ever. I think the best thing the builders of the mosque could do would be to say something to the effect of: "We understand the frustration that many feel pertaining to the mosque at ground zero. We are sensitive to the feelings of those that lost their lives on 9/11, and it was not our intention to cause negative feelings. Our intention is for the mosque to be a place of reconciliation and healing. We would like to build a mosque, however we will be moving it a few blocks away from Ground Zero out of respect to those who lost loved ones during the terrorist attack on 9-11-2001. We invite you to visit the mosque once it is completed and join us by participating in dialog that will strengthen relationships between cultures and religions."
I think the majority of people would say that's what they're against. I don't, however, believe it for a minute for one simple reason: Islam gets singled out. It's not about location, it's about Islam. Saying it's about the location, not the religion is saying that it's about the religion, just putting in a +0. 1+0+1=2 as surely as 1+1=2. We don't say to people wishing to build churches near the site of Christians who murder or were murdered, "Please, that's disrespectful, you ought to move it elsewhere."
quote: I have no problem with people practicing their religion. I'm against any sort of religious building being built near Ground Zero, not just a Muslim Mosque. I'd have the same problem if the Catholic, LDS, Baptist, or Church of Scientology wanted to build a church there. It has nothing to do with Islam.
Well, yes you do, Geraine. It's just that your problem doesn't rise to the level of thinking the government should step in. You say you would oppose any religious building near there, and I'll take you at your word, but I will remark it's one thing to say that now, well after the mosque (community center) is a controversy. I believe you mean it, but I don't know if you would have meant it if the first building were to have been a church.
quote: I'm sorry but you asking about what an acceptable "radius" would be is utterly ridiculous. By that same token, should we only consider the 80th floor of the north building and the 60th floor of the south building "Ground Zero?" What would be an acceptable radius to you?
It's not even remotely ridiculous, Geraine. One of your objections to the mosque is that it is insensitive to the feelings of those affected by 9/11 due to its proximity to Ground Zero. Asking what a sufficient distance is seems a very relevant question to me.
quote:Right...So Muslims that bombed the WTC cannot be associated with other Muslims, yet it was Christians that bombed Dresden and Hiroshima. Got it.
I think the point of that quote is to address the flaw in associating all Muslims with 9/11: if you do that, you invite other unpleasant associations.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Right...So Muslims that bombed the WTC cannot be associated with other Muslims, yet it was Christians that bombed Dresden and Hiroshima. Got it.
I think the point of that quote is to address the flaw in associating all Muslims with 9/11: if you do that, you invite other unpleasant associations.
I don't agree with the people who want to ban the building of the mosque. However, I think this comparison is utterly absurd. The American bombers weren't waging war as Christians, they were waging war as Americans. The terrorists of 9/11 were doing so as Muslims. Certainly, their views do not represent the views of other Muslims, but to say that the jihadists themselves didn't see it as a religious war is patently false.
It's wrong to condemn all Islam for the actions of extremists, but pretending that those extremists aren't motivated in great part because of their warped religious views is also wrong.
A much more reasonable comparison would be, say, claiming that no Christian church could be established near the burnt out shell of an abortion clinic that had been firebombed by a Christian extremist. To paint all Christians with the brush of Hiroshima requires a much bigger leap, to the point of useless absurdity.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Did everyone catch the Daily Show Monday night? If not, go watch this right away to get a good sense of how desperate FOX is that you believe the worst.
Fox and Friends did their usual song and dance to reveal the shadowy source helping fund the 9/11 mosque: the man behind the Kingdom Foundation, a group they explain is known for contributing to madrassas all over the Islamic world and being, basically, evil. What they failed to point out, as Jon noticed with some glee, was the name of that man, which is Saudi prince Al-Waleed bin Talal.
That would be the Al-Waleed bin Talal who is, by the way, a major shareholder behind NewsCorp. Which owns FOX News.
Which means that the man that the people on Fox and Friends just fearmongered out the wazoo as being sinister and anti-American, adding to their never-ending tirade against the Park51 center, is one of their owners. Something they failed to mention at any point.
I understand news shows having a bias. I try to watch a variety of them to get more of a balance in my daily news. But FOX is a news channel with an agenda, and they know that their viewers won't bother checking their facts.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Chris: Are you saying that anything Fox News said about Al-Waleed bin Talal is false (i.e. that he is not actually that bad)?
Or: Are you saying that Fox should not criticize Talal because he is a shareholder?
If you're just saying they perhaps should have mentioned it, then I agree.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: Samprimary, while I agree that some protesters can be violent, I am intruiged as to why you only post information about the anti-mosque crowd. The pro-Mosque crowd participated in anti-semitic rants as well as hit a camera man.
I am intrigued as to why, after the Sherrod thread, you would cite breitbart as a counter-narrative.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I don't agree with the people who want to ban the building of the mosque. However, I think this comparison is utterly absurd. The American bombers weren't waging war as Christians, they were waging war as Americans. The terrorists of 9/11 were doing so as Muslims. Certainly, their views do not represent the views of other Muslims, but to say that the jihadists themselves didn't see it as a religious war is patently false.
Some American soldiers in WWII most certainly thought about the war in at least partially religious terms. Do you grant that, or shall I look up some quotes? Anyway, the comparison isn't absurd because people don't point to these guys and say, "We're against this mosque because they were waging war 'as Muslims'," they point to it and say, "Muslims attacked the WTC." In fact I've heard just that sound bite more times than I can count.
In any event, though, the comparison is absurd precisely because it lends power to the idea that any small group of fanatics can do something in the name of a larger organization and have those actions really taint that larger group. If it can be done to Muslims, it can be done to us Christians.
quote:It's wrong to condemn all Islam for the actions of extremists, but pretending that those extremists aren't motivated in great part because of their warped religious views is also wrong.
Who is making that mistake?
quote: A much more reasonable comparison would be, say, claiming that no Christian church could be established near the burnt out shell of an abortion clinic that had been firebombed by a Christian extremist. To paint all Christians with the brush of Hiroshima requires a much bigger leap, to the point of useless absurdity.
That would be a more reasonable silly comparison. I have just a smidge of suspicion, however, that if such a thing were proposed, many of the same people outraged right now would be outraged that anyone was upset at the idea of a church nearby.
As for what Chris is saying, I think he's pointing out someone else pointing out that Fox and Fox and Friends are a bunch of hacks, charlatans, and in some cases flat-out BSers. As in this case.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I'm saying that they deliberately invoked the specter of evil Islamic funding of the center to get their viewers upset and frightened and angry and emotional, and carefully omitted ever saying the name of the person they were accusing because of their own connection. The person who might be sending funds to the Park51 center is the same man who is definitely putting a great deal of money (and presumably receiving a larger amount of money back from) FOX News. Which means that Jon was right: FOX is benefiting far more from this possible terrorist than the center is.
Or, I'm agreeing with the debate at the end of the clip when John Oliver and Wyatt Cynac argued about whether FOX was evil or stupid.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: Samprimary, while I agree that some protesters can be violent, I am intruiged as to why you only post information about the anti-mosque crowd. The pro-Mosque crowd participated in anti-semitic rants as well as hit a camera man.
I am intrigued as to why, after the Sherrod thread, you would cite breitbart as a counter-narrative.
That sounds pretty ad hominemy.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Not to me. After Sherrod, and a number of other, similar offenses, I cannot accept Breitbart as any sort of unbiased source. If he ever did unearth any actual news he'd need to leak it to someone trustworthy.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Also this!
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: I found this article to be pretty fair, though you have to ignore some of the comments at the end from blog posts:
Anyone else here read that article yet? I'll spare my present knowledge of WorldNetDaily as a known entity; after having read it, how is it supposed to be considered fair? That it stops short of being courageous enough to be honest with its own editorializing? That it uses sleight of speech and hand to say "We aren't saying this, but some OTHER people had this to say about the mosque!"
No.
I'm enthralled by what the state of your media intake must be, since when you link to something, it's usually amazingly skewed agitprop from a right-wing site. Do you also read newsmax?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Wait a second, Dan_Frank...why would calling Breitbart's integrity into question possibly be an ad-hominem attack? The guy is simply not a credible source. Or do you dispute that?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: That sounds pretty ad hominemy.
Then you have a strange and incorrect definition of ad hominem.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
What do you mean by credible source, Rakeesh? I certainly think that Breitbart is not an impartial source.
Ad hominem is attacking an argument by attacking the person making the argument instead. In this case, I'm using "video" in lieu of "argument," the point being that he ought to let the video stand on its own. The video in question is obviously not doctored in any significant way... it begins with a different speaker than the one that makes the anti-semitic comment, and ends with a different one as well, showing the comments in context of an entire tirade.
Of course, how anti-semitic one considers this will depend heavily on how leftist they are, because "Jewish Zionist" as an epithet is perfectly acceptable to a lot of the leftists around here, and considered blatant anti-semitism by many conservatives.
Edit: By "around here" I actually mean the SF Bay Area, where I live in real life, and not Hatrack specifically. If that wasn't clear.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:What do you mean by credible source, Rakeesh? I certainly think that Breitbart is not an impartial source.
I mean he's a deceitful, malicious dude who doesn't care whose lives he screws up by releasing deliberately incomplete, slanderous news.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Ah, then I disagree with that. But genuinely don't want to get into the Sherrod thing again, especially not in this thread. Is that okay with you? Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I don't really see how you could disagree with that, as it seems pretty clear from his behavior, but I can hardly force you to discuss something you don't want to.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Well, you could be a jerk about it and keep pushing me to discuss it. You couldn't force me to respond, but regardless. I appreciate your courtesy. Edit: Crud. This is the top of the new page! How awkward!
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: ... Which means that the man that the people on Fox and Friends just fearmongered out the wazoo as being sinister and anti-American, adding to their never-ending tirade against the Park51 center, is one of their owners.
I'm remarkably comfortable with all of Christianity, Islam, AND FoxNews taking the fall on this one Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Ad hominem is attacking an argument by attacking the person making the argument instead. In this case, I'm using "video" in lieu of "argument," the point being that he ought to let the video stand on its own.
So, I was making an "ad-hominemey" argument, only in this case substitute video 'in lieu' (in the place of?) of argument and criticism of source 'in lieu' of anything even remotely resembling an attack on Geraine's person? Or ..
You don't make any sense. You aren't making any sense. I'm going to actively wonder if you could take it upon yourself to personally review your statement and see that what I said wasn't 'ad-hominemey' at all, because if you can't, you don't understand the concept nearly well enough to start slinging about fallacy names in any fashion.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote: A much more reasonable comparison would be, say, claiming that no Christian church could be established near the burnt out shell of an abortion clinic ...
That would be a more reasonable silly comparison. I have just a smidge of suspicion, however, that if such a thing were proposed, many of the same people outraged right now would be outraged that anyone was upset at the idea of a church nearby.
*waves* Still around
(being a bit glib of course, I'd personally squish outraged to something much more mild)
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I don't really see how you could disagree with that, as it seems pretty clear from his behavior, but I can hardly force you to discuss something
Well, as well as his personal admissions caught on tape and in many people's honest account, which is him basically saying flat out that his goal superseding any desire to uphold any sort of journalistic ethic is that he desires to take down the institutional left via any means available to him.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
hey listen to this about the dude what stabbed the cabbie!
quote:Mr. Enright is a volunteer with Intersections International, a nonprofit that works to promote cross-cultural understanding and has spoken out in favor of the proposed Islamic cultural center near ground zero.
omg taking bets now! Did he snap? Or was this a false flag attack!
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Ad hominem is attacking an argument by attacking the person making the argument instead. In this case, I'm using "video" in lieu of "argument," the point being that he ought to let the video stand on its own.
So, I was making an "ad-hominemey" argument, only in this case substitute video 'in lieu' (in the place of?) of argument and criticism of source 'in lieu' of anything even remotely resembling an attack on Geraine's person? Or ..
You don't make any sense. You aren't making any sense. I'm going to actively wonder if you could take it upon yourself to personally review your statement and see that what I said wasn't 'ad-hominemey' at all, because if you can't, you don't understand the concept nearly well enough to start slinging about fallacy names in any fashion.
Wait, there's been a misunderstanding. I wish, instead of saying I don't make any sense and generally being kind of a jerk, you could ask for a clarification or something.
I wasn't saying you were being "ad hominemy" towards Geraine. Or at least, I wasn't trying to. You didn't attack him at all. The ad hominem was towards Breitbart.
You were attacking the source of the video, instead of the video itself. This is ad hominem. Or at least, would undeniably be so if you replaced "video" with "argument."
PS: The internet has a dictionary. If you're confused by the phrase "in lieu of" you can always look it up.
PPS: You figured it out from context though. Good job! Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: I wasn't saying you were being "ad hominemy" towards Geraine. Or at least, I wasn't trying to. You didn't attack him at all. The ad hominem was towards Breitbart.
You were attacking the source of the video, instead of the video itself. This is ad hominem. Or at least, would undeniably be so if you replaced "video" with "argument."
The question I asked of Geraine was that I was intruigued as to why, after the Sherrod thread and all that was present in it about Breitbart's willful and damaging distortion, that he would cite breitbart as a counter-narrative. If you can learn how that's different from "That source is automatically wrong because it's from Breitbart," you could probably learn how calling this 'ad hominemy' is silly.
It's not even going into calling the use of a source into question in light of referenced and very well documented controversy over their purposeful and demonstrable intent to mislead; ad hominem, again? Or at least 'would undeniably be so' in situations not actually present?
Rakeesh already has this covered. It's fine if you would like to stick to your guns over whether Breitbart is a non-credible, wilfully misleading source, but if as you say you don't want to get into that argument, then don't tiptoe around that and just poke at whether or not I'm 'ad hominemy-ing' him by bringing up issues over his credibility as a source. If you do that, it brings up a direct challenge over whether Breitbart as a source deserves this kind of inquiry.
Posted by sinflower (Member # 12228) on :
Ad hominems are not always fallacious.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
PS
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: PS: The internet has a dictionary. If you're confused by the phrase "in lieu of" you can always look it up.
PPS: You figured it out from context though. Good job!
I appreciate that you feel inclined to counter my presumed jerkiness with straightforward and purposeful jerkiness, but it voids a lot of the grounds you would usually rely upon where you would usually wonder why i get a 'free pass' for acting one way, or double standard, or blah blah blah.
I am amused, though!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by sinflower: Ad hominems are not always fallacious.
And what would the purpose of Dan's comment be if he believed my query to be legitimate and non-fallacious?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: PS
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: PS: The internet has a dictionary. If you're confused by the phrase "in lieu of" you can always look it up.
PPS: You figured it out from context though. Good job!
I appreciate that you feel inclined to counter my presumed jerkiness with straightforward and purposeful jerkiness, but it voids a lot of the grounds you would usually rely upon where you would usually wonder why i get a 'free pass' for acting one way, or double standard, or blah blah blah.
I am amused, though!
You thought that was jerkiness? But I had a smiley and everything. Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Lol. Now, like Parkour before me, I have no idea whether or not I'm getting trolled.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by sinflower: Ad hominems are not always fallacious.
And what would the purpose of Dan's comment be if he believed my query to be legitimate and non-fallacious?
Well, I think this example illustrates precisely why it is fallacious. You dismissed the link out of hand because it went to Breitbart's site. But the video Geraine was linking to had a valid point. Well, arguably valid, but however you feel about the comment I think it's pretty safe to say there is literally no way the guy who made the comment in the video is being misrepresented.
You seemed to dismiss the video out of hand. From what you posted, it seems like you didn't even watch it. Solely because of the source.
You are literally saying "I don't need to address what that video shows, after all, just consider the source!"
So... that's pretty ad hominemy.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Lol. Now, like Parkour before me, I have no idea whether or not I'm getting trolled.
My partner read over my post and she says I'm trollin'. So, perhaps I am.
Only with regards to the jerkiness, though (the PostScripts and my reply to your reply.) I'm absolutely serious about the actual argument re: ad hominem etc. I promise.
Sorry if I trolled, I wasn't exactly trying to. I keep trying to figure out a way to interact with you and not get offended at your constant disrespect and denigration. It seems like, even though we disagree, we ought to be able to do so respectfully, but then you say things like "You're not making sense. You don't make sense." and my feelings get hurt. But if I react with indignation, I'm a martyr. And if I react with anger then I'm just a prick. So this time I tried condescension and snarkiness... which, in hindsight, still sort of makes me a prick. Sorry about that.
Posted by Danlo the Wild (Member # 5378) on :
IF THE MOSQUE HAS A STARBUCKS INSIDE I"M REALLY GOING TO BE HEATED AND HACKED OFF!!!
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
*blink*
Um. Hello?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
You may be too new to know the fellow, Dan_Frank. Used to go by the name of Thor. I suspect you'll get to know his posting style a little bit in the coming days, though.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Well, I think this example illustrates precisely why it is fallacious. You dismissed the link out of hand because it went to Breitbart's site.
So when I queried geraine out of curiosity why he would offer breitbart as a counter-narrative in light of recent events, you saw that as 'dismissing the link out of hand?'
quote:You are literally saying "I don't need to address what that video shows, after all, just consider the source!"
I'm literally saying this, hmm?
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
Samprimary, to be honest the main reason I linked Breitbart is because you linked to websites/articles that I believe have an obvious bias.
I'm not a fan of Breitbart since the Sherrod charade (say that three times fast!), I simply wanted to illustrate that the hate is on both sides of the issue. I really don't believe these people accurately represent the majority of those that are for or against the mosque. For that reason I was puzzled as to what your purpose was when you linked the articles. I simply wanted to provide another perspective.
Also, why not link to Breitbart? Should I dismiss every news program that CBS has because Dan Rather had that mishap concerning Bush's military service in 2004?
*Edited for grammar and to add the bit about CBS
[ August 26, 2010, 12:06 PM: Message edited by: Geraine ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: Also, why not link to Breitbart? Should I dismiss every news program that CBS has because Dan Rather had that mishap concerning Bush's military service in 2004?
See, here is how those things are different.
Dan Rather, after more that half a century of often courageous journalism, several Emmy's and seven Peabody Awards on one occasion did not sufficiently check documents that were given to him. He retracted the story and was soon after fired from CBS. This mistake was a blight on an otherwise stellar career.
The only thing that Breitbart does is gin up conservative propaganda.
Can you see how these things are not equal? Or are. like too many conservatives, not capable of that?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: I'm not a fan of Breitbart since the Sherrod charade (say that three times fast!), I simply wanted to illustrate that the hate is on both sides of the issue.
This is a repeat of what I am starting to consider Hatrack's favorite argument (I really do encounter it here more than anywhere else: the equivalence argument. To wit, we have two sides who are vastly, amazingly unequal when it comes to hate/bigotry/intolerance; one side is, in fact, defined by reflexive intolerance and a campaign that is entirely about intolerance, and it is being spearheaded and organized by some of the most islamophobic and bigoted persons/groups around. The other side is attempting to counter this intolerance and cannot by any of these metrics be considered equal in any of these not-nicey metrics. You can show me plenty of things that show that the pro-mosque side is not flawless, but I don't think anyone here would have argued that they are.
The hate IS on both sides of the issue. One side just happens to have nearly all of it.
quote:I really don't believe these people accurately represent the majority of those that are for or against the mosque. For that reason I was puzzled as to what your purpose was when you linked the articles. I simply wanted to provide another perspective.
I grabbed the TPM muckrakers report as a sampling of response to a very important video. If you want a neutral source describing the video, you can have it too. But either article would illustrate my point: that as long as the anti-mosque crowd represents themselves in this hilariously bad (but not unexpected, given the motivations, mentalities, and proclivities of those inspired enough to demonstrate against the mosque) display of bigotry and (yup) racism, then .. like I said, I don't even have to try. I have my work cut, dried, and done for me. I can be confident that, if this continues like this, their legacy will join the anti-gay-marriage types in the embarrassments-of-our-ignorant-past portfolio of America's historical dustbin (the anti-miscegenationists have warmed up a seat next to them).
You can believe as much as you want that these people should not be representative of their cause, but they will. They, in fact, already have! This is without offering an argument as to whether they should be considered representative. I'm sure very few in the anti-mosque camp would like to think so. Just like 'don't get me wrong, I'm not a racist' and 'don't get me wrong, I'm not a homophobe,' nearly nobody to whom the term legitimately qualifies — and it qualifies for a startling amount of anti-mosque activists — you will get 'don't get me wrong, I'm not an islamophobe' or 'don't get me wrong, this isn't about Islam, per se ...'
Also, you will note that TPM can't even begin to qualify as being an equivalent source to Breitbart because 'they're both biased.' You can't even make that argument of DailyKOS, even though I never cite them. More false equivalencies!
quote:Also, why not link to Breitbart? Should I dismiss every news program that CBS has because Dan Rather had that mishap concerning Bush's military service in 2004?
No, and when you begin to understand the weaknesses of the equivalency arguments, you would be able to tell me why.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: I'm not a fan of Breitbart since the Sherrod charade (say that three times fast!), I simply wanted to illustrate that the hate is on both sides of the issue.
This is a repeat of what I am starting to consider Hatrack's favorite argument (I really do encounter it here more than anywhere else: the equivalence argument. To wit, we have two sides who are vastly, amazingly unequal when it comes to hate/bigotry/intolerance; one side is, in fact, defined by reflexive intolerance and a campaign that is entirely about intolerance
Sounds like the Arab/Israel conflict.
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
So the arguement against the "equivalency" arguement is, in essence, "The side I hate really is worth hating."
I have bad news . . . the other side feels the same way.
I know, I know. "My hate is indignation. Their hate is intolerance."
**********
For the record, I never said that either side's hate made the other side's all right.
My argument was that, as long as both sides feel that the other side's attitudes justify their attitudes, neither side will start trying to find a solution.
But at this point, no one wants to find a solution. Both sides just want to be the good guys.
****************
Just for the record, I'm going to go on record here with what I feel both sides could have done that would have gone a long way towards solving this problem.
The people who were worried about this mosque, instead of trolling through this guy's speeches looking for quotes and soundbites to pile up against him, could have realized that this is a REAL GUY who is STILL ALIVE and more than capable of speaking for himself. And that he likely has people associated with him that are also still alive and capable of speaking for themselves. Instead of worrying about what this mosque COULD mean, and then setting out to pick and choose facts that prove themselves right, they could have let this guy and his associates make their own case.
As for the people building the mosque, they could have realized the sensitivity of what they were doing (If the Mormon Church were to build a temple on the site of the Mountain Meadows Massacre, don't you think that would be seen as a wee bit sensitive on the part of church leaders? Even if one believed they had nothing to do with it?).
Then, they could have attempted outreach programs to the community and those who had questions or concerns regarding the project. Following 9/11, here in Los Angeles, where racial tensions can be high anyway, there were a number of projects regarding building connections between the Islamic communities and other communities. Some were handled poorly--some Muslims came across as having more contempt for the people who blamed Islam for the 9/11 attacks than they did for the people who attacked on 9/11 and gave those people a bad impression of Islam.
But such was not universally the case. Many of these meetings, held in community centers and churches as well as muslim buildings (I'm not sure if they were mosques--I don't know the details of how their houses of worship work, and whether big events like that are held there. I only attended ones held at other denominations), many of these meetings were done in a spirit of respect and understanding. Questions were answered and disscusion was heartfelt.
The key to both of these is letting the other side to become human beings again, whose worries and concerns are as valid as mine, as whose misunderstandings give us an opportunity to enlighten, not an opportunity to villify.
I mean, that's basically the question--which is the more exciting concept: That you have the opportunity to enlighten or the opportunity to villify? If it's one, then your group is seeking peace. If it's the other, then your group is seeking war.
I don't mean that in the literal sense. I mean it in the sense of, "You're either seeking to escalate conflict or resolve conflict," whether that conflict is with words, signs, money, guns, or bombs. Whether it involves nations, religions, communities, families, or a single couple.
While many individuals aren't, in the broad, national sense, both sides of this arguement are handling it in a way that will perpetuate the conflict rather than resolve it.
*************
As for what I think should be made to happen?
Nothing should be made to happen. This is America. If you want somebody to change their mind, you have to talk them into it.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by docmagik: So the arguement against the "equivalency" arguement is, in essence, "The side I hate really is worth hating."
Uh, no.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
This is America. If they're law-abiding, and have done everything about buying the property, building/modifying it etc, legally and properly, then let them build.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: Also, why not link to Breitbart? Should I dismiss every news program that CBS has because Dan Rather had that mishap concerning Bush's military service in 2004?
See, here is how those things are different.
Dan Rather, after more that half a century of often courageous journalism, several Emmy's and seven Peabody Awards on one occasion did not sufficiently check documents that were given to him. He retracted the story and was soon after fired from CBS. This mistake was a blight on an otherwise stellar career.
The only thing that Breitbart does is gin up conservative propaganda.
Can you see how these things are not equal? Or are. like too many conservatives, not capable of that?
Seriously? Maybe you can explain to me why they are different. CBS news had no evidence that the documents were real, and even had evidence to the contrary before the story was even aired. Mary Mapes had even brought up the problem with the "th" superscript. Four document examiners could not verify the authenticity of the documents given to them. They aired the story anyway. Two months before the Presidential election.
Breitbart willing took a speech and played only part of it. It was taken out of context and the White House made a decision to fire her. It was a dishonest thing to do as well.
So how you would you not equate these? They both had evidence that what they were posting was probably not true, but aired it anyways. Both are media outlets, both reported dishonestly. Come on now Kmboots. Whether I am a regular newscaster or a liberal/conservative journalist, dishonest news is still dishonest. Just because Breitbart continues to spin things does not excuse Dan Rather. By the way, Dan Rather did not want to apologize, he was forced to by the studio executives twelve days after he ran the story. Also, he was not fired, he resigned.
I also do not understand why you would talk about the capability of conservatives to equate things. If you just said that to get a rise out of me then fine. But if you honestly believe that, then I don't know what to say. I guess things only equate if it plays into your point of view.
Sam, why do you do this? I am really trying to understand you. People that are part of a Pro-Mosque crowd punches a camera man and spits out anti-semetic comments. A man that works for a Pro-Park 51 organization stabs a cab driver after asking if he is a muslim. Yet... The anti mosque people are the ones that have a monopoly on the hate? Granted the anti-mosque crowd has its own set of problem people, but they exist on both sides.
Samprimary, I feel like you aren't even trying to see things from the other sides point of view. If you hate the other point of view, then by golly you better go out of your way to demean and diminish that point of view. You rush to conclusions too quickly. A Tea Party guy went on a racist rant, so most tea partiers must be racist. Some anti-mosque protestors say some anti-Islamic slurs, so most of the hate must be contained in that camp!
Both sides have loons. I don't know who has more, I'm not going to go out and perform psych tests on everyone to find out. If you have the ability to read minds though and this gives you the insight to know that most of the hate is contained on one side, then PLEASE contact a university so you can be studied. Perhaps you could find out where Bin Laden is, or find out if Elvis is really dead.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Samprimary, I feel like you aren't even trying to see things from the other sides point of view.
I see their point of view just fine, thank you very much. You can proceed from this point under tke knowledge that I have gone to lengths to understand their position, and that from that I'm even more convinced that they're silly.
quote: Yet... The anti mosque people are the ones that have a monopoly on the hate?
You should read my posts! This is not an argument I am now or ever making. You just assumed so when you objected to the notion that I an mot being Fair And Balanced in bringing to attention enough snippets of pro-mosque people being idiots. Nobody's claiming that the anti-mosque people have a monopoly on the hate.
quote:Both sides have loons. I don't know who has more, I'm not going to go out and perform psych tests on everyone to find out. If you have the ability to read minds though and this gives you the insight to know that most of the hate is contained on one side, then PLEASE contact a university so you can be studied. Perhaps you could find out where Bin Laden is, or find out if Elvis is really dead.
1. It's not about which side has more loons; it's about which side is more 'hateful,' if we're talking about a comparison between the two. My own posts, if you haven't picked it up from my repeated declaration, are about 'check out this event where anti-mosque people do all the work for me!' And as for hatefulness comparisons, you wanted to make that comparison, and pull a 'see, they do it too!' — leading to the logical counterpoint and clarification that this is defending yourself against a position not actually taken.
2. If you really believe that there's no way to determine this in situations like these without actively having supernatural powers, it may explain a lot about your own position, and it would lead me to find you actively incurious, but it's not true. This is a situation in which it is actually remarkably easy to figure out which side is more hateful and intolerant. Or which side is coming off worse, all things considered.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:As for the people building the mosque, they could have realized the sensitivity of what they were doing (If the Mormon Church were to build a temple on the site of the Mountain Meadows Massacre, don't you think that would be seen as a wee bit sensitive on the part of church leaders? Even if one believed they had nothing to do with it?).
Except that it's more like the Episcopal church getting protested for building a church at the massacre site. And then, when they explain that they're actually different sects, the protesters ignore them, and continue screaming about how the Christians need to be more sensitive.
Do you see why the insensitivity here is actually the unwillingness of the mosque opponents to differentiate between vastly different groups of people? And why it is inherently bigoted?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Juxtapose: Do you see why the insensitivity here is actually the unwillingness of the mosque opponents to differentiate between vastly different groups of people? And why it is inherently bigoted?
Have you considered that at least for some people, it isn't a matter of being unwilling to make the differentiation, but an actual difference of opinion over whether a differentiation can be made? You don't have to agree with that view, and I'd be shocked if you did, but can you at least recognize that it exists? That there are people who really and truly think that the problem is Islam and not a handful of maniacs? And that they have some evidence for this, even if it doesn't meet your standards of proof?
Posted by shadowland (Member # 12366) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: ...That there are people who really and truly think that the problem is Islam and not a handful of maniacs?
And that's fine as long as they are clear that their problem is with Islam itself instead of claiming that it's the insensitivity of the builders that they are opposed to.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Geraine, being asked for your resignation, at that level, is the equivalent of being fired. Or do you think that Gen. McChrystal's resignation was nothing to do with the Rolling Stone article.
Again, with CBS you are talking about generations of news reporting - Edward R. Murrow, Walter Cronkite - with the occasional mistake. Breitbart is a guy with an admitted agenda who has done nothing else but contrive anti-liberal propaganda.
If you still can't see the difference in credibility, you are not being reasonable.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by shadowland:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: ...That there are people who really and truly think that the problem is Islam and not a handful of maniacs?
And that's fine as long as they are clear that their problem is with Islam itself instead of claiming that it's the insensitivity of the builders that they are opposed to.
It is honest but it isn't "fine".
[ August 26, 2010, 04:57 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Lisa: Are you getting my emails?
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Have you considered that at least for some people, it isn't a matter of being unwilling to make the differentiation, but an actual difference of opinion over whether a differentiation can be made? You don't have to agree with that view, and I'd be shocked if you did, but can you at least recognize that it exists? That there are people who really and truly think that the problem is Islam and not a handful of maniacs? And that they have some evidence for this, even if it doesn't meet your standards of proof?
Yes, I have considered that. There are a few reasons why I addressed my post the way I did.
First is that I suspect that my interpretation is the likelier one for the majority of the Park 51 opponents in the US. I doubt that most Americans are all that aware of differences between sects of Islam, much less aware of what those differences are.
The second reason is that I would guess that my interpretation is likelier for docmagik, specifically. I hope he'll correct me if I'm mistaken on that point.
The third reason is that I consider ignorance on the subject to be the less damning explanation. I hate to put it so baldly, especially since it seems like you took effort to moderate the tone in your post (which I really do appreciate) but there it is. For what it's worth, I do believe that there are those "who really and truly think that the problem is Islam and not a handful of maniacs." I don't doubt that they are being honest about their opinions.
I also believe that the problem is at once bigger, narrower, and more insidious than that, that blaming "Islam" is a simplistic and indulgent answer, and that doing so leads to bigotry.
[ August 26, 2010, 08:18 PM: Message edited by: Juxtapose ]
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
Well said, Juxtapose.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Lol. Now, like Parkour before me, I have no idea whether or not I'm getting trolled.
The circle of life!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:It's a form of cultural blindness, I guess. Here in a majority Christian nation it's almost necessary for the typical citizen to distinguish between the different sects of Christianity. You can't be pissed off at *all* Christians for the behavior of a few Catholic priests because, after all, there'd be very few people left to not hate.
Islam, however, is both "foreign" and a minority so such nuance is lost. It's similar, I think, to the way that the typical American sees China as a enormous homogeneous nation, not a collection several distinct ethnicities.
quote:Redefining "ground zero" has been an essential element of the construction of this controversy.
Emptyquotin' this!
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:You are literally saying "I don't need to address what that video shows, after all, just consider the source!"
I'm literally saying this, hmm?
Man, you totally got me. I hate it when people misuse "literally" like that. Ugh. I'm just disgusted with myself now.
I'm still quite convinced that it was the implied message, but you absolutely did not "literally" say it, and I apologize for claiming you did.
PS: This isn't sarcasm or trolling. I really am sorry that I misused "literally." Not just sorry, ashamed even.
Posted by Danlo the Wild (Member # 5378) on :
I don't think Gay Muslims for Jesus should be allowed to sell hot dogs near straights, hindus or people who give Christ to others through the TV.
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
I find it funny that Beck is holding an Honor rally in DC that coincides with the place and anniversary of King's speech in DC. I have zero problems with it. Seems funny to say though, "But it's so INSENSITIVE to hold a rally in DC on the anniversary and place as King's speech. You have like 300+ other days a year to rally."
Heh.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Samprimary, I feel like you aren't even trying to see things from the other sides point of view.
I see their point of view just fine, thank you very much. You can proceed from this point under tke knowledge that I have gone to lengths to understand their position, and that from that I'm even more convinced that they're silly.
quote: Yet... The anti mosque people are the ones that have a monopoly on the hate?
You should read my posts! This is not an argument I am now or ever making. You just assumed so when you objected to the notion that I an mot being Fair And Balanced in bringing to attention enough snippets of pro-mosque people being idiots. Nobody's claiming that the anti-mosque people have a monopoly on the hate.
quote:Both sides have loons. I don't know who has more, I'm not going to go out and perform psych tests on everyone to find out. If you have the ability to read minds though and this gives you the insight to know that most of the hate is contained on one side, then PLEASE contact a university so you can be studied. Perhaps you could find out where Bin Laden is, or find out if Elvis is really dead.
1. It's not about which side has more loons; it's about which side is more 'hateful,' if we're talking about a comparison between the two. My own posts, if you haven't picked it up from my repeated declaration, are about 'check out this event where anti-mosque people do all the work for me!' And as for hatefulness comparisons, you wanted to make that comparison, and pull a 'see, they do it too!' — leading to the logical counterpoint and clarification that this is defending yourself against a position not actually taken.
2. If you really believe that there's no way to determine this in situations like these without actively having supernatural powers, it may explain a lot about your own position, and it would lead me to find you actively incurious, but it's not true. This is a situation in which it is actually remarkably easy to figure out which side is more hateful and intolerant. Or which side is coming off worse, all things considered.
Fair enough. I appreciate your response. I get where you are coming from a little better now. I don't agree, but I understand.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Dabbler, Beck has said this of the rally: "This is a moment, quite honestly, that I think we reclaim the civil rights movement."
This strongly suggests to me that Beck is sending the message that he and what he has to say is the logical follow-up to King's famous speech. I can understand why some people might find this highly offensive, not least since it strongly implies that (in Beck's opinion) the Civil Rights Movement since that moment has been moving in the wrong direction and needs "reclaiming."
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:You are literally saying "I don't need to address what that video shows, after all, just consider the source!"
I'm literally saying this, hmm?
Man, you totally got me. I hate it when people misuse "literally" like that. Ugh. I'm just disgusted with myself now.
I'm still quite convinced that it was the implied message, but you absolutely did not "literally" say it, and I apologize for claiming you did.
PS: This isn't sarcasm or trolling. I really am sorry that I misused "literally." Not just sorry, ashamed even.
Okay, it's fine, and I appreciate the apologies you've been giving in this thread. But if you are convinced that it is the implied message, that's an incorrect interpretation as well. You can disabuse yourself of the notion.
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
Tom, I may not think highly of what he has to say but I don't have a problem with him saying it there.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I have "a problem" with it only insofar as it can be said to be both a comment on the Civil Rights Movement and an attempt to co-opt/denigrate that movement.
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
The Daily Show has really focused a lot on Glenn Beck. It's all been funny, but I think it's getting too narrow.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Dabbler, Beck has said this of the rally: "This is a moment, quite honestly, that I think we reclaim the civil rights movement."
This strongly suggests to me that Beck is sending the message that he and what he has to say is the logical follow-up to King's famous speech. I can understand why some people might find this highly offensive, not least since it strongly implies that (in Beck's opinion) the Civil Rights Movement since that moment has been moving in the wrong direction and needs "reclaiming."
Or perhaps Beck feels that White Americans think that only minorities ought to be concerned with civil rights, and that in addition to the majority having a responsibility to protect minorities, it must also act to ensure that its own civil rights are not ignored.
Yes, we can all sneer at white Americans having their rights ignored because they have so much of the power, but I think that sort of hypocrisy seriously undermines the integrity of the movement.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by dabbler: The Daily Show has really focused a lot on Glenn Beck. It's all been funny, but I think it's getting too narrow.
I get that, I agree that Jon Stewart has taken a few too many easy shots at Beck.
It is fair to note that he has gone into Obama's hypocrisy on extraordinary rendition, military commissions, etc. thing with some style: here Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by dabbler: The Daily Show has really focused a lot on Glenn Beck. It's all been funny, but I think it's getting too narrow.
I get that, I agree that Jon Stewart has taken a few too many easy shots at Beck.
It is fair to note that he has gone into Obama's hypocrisy on extraordinary rendition, military commissions, etc. thing with some style: here
He also just a few days ago mentioned that when he was younger and protested the NRA holding it's annual conference in Colorado because he felt it was insensitive to the Columbine victims, that he was wrong then. He then tied it to those who are complaining about the Muslim community center being built two blocks from ground zero.
I already liked Stewart a lot, but he still picked up some more points with that episode.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Heh. I agreed with him the first time. Nonetheless, I respect a search for consistency
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Good article -- thanks for the link.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)