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.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
"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.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"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).
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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"
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3486 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
My brother just moved into an apartment on the southwest portion of the island with a roommate, and they are paying $2200 a month.
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?"
Posts: 1894 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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).
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
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."
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
