posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 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.
And this. This is textbook bad. With friends like this, no wonder the center is struggling. It can't get much worse.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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."
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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."
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
You've been given them. That you've discounted them is a reflection on you, but not on the reasons.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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...
Posts: 571 | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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."
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
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!"
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
@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.
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| 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.
Your sequitur is non.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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)?
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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
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?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| 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?
*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.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
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."
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
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.
