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.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't understand the Catholic church thing. Who would possibly object to a Catholic church going up next to a grade school?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
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 Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| 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.
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.
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
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?
Posts: 1087 | Registered: Jul 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1087 | Registered: Jul 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 1087 | Registered: Jul 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
*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?
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
It feels to me that you're trying to score points, rather than actually have a discussion. Is that the case?
Posts: 1087 | Registered: Jul 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.)
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?”
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.
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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™"
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
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.
IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
*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
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
