The Glade 4.0

Blinded by the dark side, Yoda is.


You assume they are being offensive. That assumption presumes that all Islam = Al Qaeda on some level. It's basic bigotry, Micheal. It's no different than saying "all blacks are likely to riot" or "All Christians hate gay people".

Our way of life is either greater than places like Saudi Arabia, or not. Our way of life says "you are free to worship as you choose". Our way of life does not have an exception for Islam. Or at least, I hope it hasn't been so damaged by irrational hatred and ignorance to have developed such an exception.

If this Muslim congregation stands in opposition to terror, then not only is it not insulting for it to build there, it's actually a giant middle finger to extremism.

Honestly, I understand why someone might be angry about this out of ignorance born of pain. But it's still ignorance. And to me, that ignorance is not grounds to attack these people - New Yorkers who were *also* attacked on 9-11.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

No, I just understand the need to learn how to lift little pebbles before you lift large spacecraft. The path to acceptance and unity does not begin with stubbornness on either side. Both sides need to learn to work together.

I still see your position as stubborn and unforgiving as the worst of the haters. You cannot see your own bias and fear.

In my opinion it is still way too early for this mosque in this place. However, as I've said before, we must allow it to be built. I fear that in the end it will harden hearts rather than freeing them.

_________________
The U. S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself. B. Franklin

"A mind needs books like a sword needs a whetstone." -- Tyrion Lannister, A Game of Thrones

It's been 10 years. How long do Muslim New Yorkers, who were no less victims of this attack than any other American , have to wait before they can go on with their lives and present a brazen alternative to the hate that fueled our attackers?

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

They are already living their lives peacefully among people who could easily have killed them or expelled them in the days following the attacks. While some of the hatred you preach against was shown in those days, for the most part New Yorkers on both sides, as well as the rest of the country have moved on and accepted that most Muslins are not rabid extremists. There is some fear left that mainstream Muslims will still support the extremists or turn a blind eye to them rather than try to stop them.

Why does this mosque have to be so brazen and so near the scene of the WTC attack? That is the unanswered question, the offensiveness that so many see. No one has answered that question, just said they are going to do it. It is in no way shape or form a collaborative agenda, a mission to ease hearts and minds. Whether they intend it to or not many people throughout the world, both Muslim and not, will see it as a monument to the terrorists and their victory over America, changing so much about our culture and striking fear into our hearts.

They want it to be a cultural center, a mission of peace, fine, let them run it as such. They will still have erected a bleeding cancer prolonging the hatred rather than curing it. This action is counter-intuitive to what they say they want to do. I guess they don't understand our culture either.

_________________
The U. S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself. B. Franklin

"A mind needs books like a sword needs a whetstone." -- Tyrion Lannister, A Game of Thrones

There is no unanswered question. It's an ethics dissonance.

Monty is currently arguing from an absolute moral perspective: not being offended by this is "correct" and all others "must" agree because that is the "correct ethical perspective." Any other perspective is worthy of disappointment and scorn.

In any thread on, say, abstract rights, we'll see Monty arguing a relative moral perspective: individuals may alter their morality over time and thereby change rights, because there is no "god," and there is therefore no "inherent" morality, rights, or "correct" way to do things. In those discussions, anyone who argues for absolute morality is "wrong" and worthy of disappointment and scorn.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

That's not true, either. I simply think the premise for their offense is irrational and based on ignorance and/or hatred. I don't doubt that the pain is sincere, I simply don't think the motivation behind that pain is fair to the people that want to build this mosque. They were victims of the same attack.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

Blue

_________________
The U. S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself. B. Franklin

"A mind needs books like a sword needs a whetstone." -- Tyrion Lannister, A Game of Thrones

How about Ali Al-Ahmed, a native of Saudi Arabia and the founder of the Institute for Gulf Affairs? According to the Boston Globe, he says: "A mosque should be a good thing," he tells me. But he worries about the number of Americans who may be "hurt and upset" by the project, and wonders whether a mosque is really the best thing for Muslims to build so close to Ground Zero. Why not something less emotionally charged, he asks -- a social-service agency, perhaps, or an assisted living center for the elderly?

Or, Stephen Suleyman Schwartz, a devout Muslim and director of the Center for Islamic Pluralism? He says the Cordoba house comes across as "grossly insensitive".

I guess Dr. Jasser, practicing Muslim and president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, must believe all Muslims are terrorists, and Ali Al-Ahmed must have irrational prejudices against them? Does Stephen Suleyman Schwartz show up on the irrational fear and bigotry radar for his thoughts on the matter? Do these folks display ignorance of Islam? I'd wager they know a damn sight more than most. But hey, they're only practicing Muslims and heads of Islamic centers in their own right. What do they know? Damn, ignorant bigots. Right?

Read more at the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, the Center for Islamic Pluralism and the Institute for Gulf Affairs.[/quote]

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

Vind, those quotes suggest the speakers are worried that other people will be offended, not that the speakers themselves are bothered by the thought of a mosque near the WTC. That said, if they actually do think it's inherently wrong to build a mosque there because the 9/11 attackers were motivated by violent Islamic fundamentalism, then yes, they would be exhibiting an irrational prejudice against Muslims (not hatred, but certainly bias) by wrongly holding the entire religious group accountable for the actions of a few individuals. It's actually pretty common for minority people to think about their own minority group in more collective terms than the majority does and to be more aware of, and harsher in their reactions toward, anything that might reflect or reinforce a negative stereotype.

It does not follow that if someone thinks that it's wrong to build a mosque there because of the attackers' motivation was Islamic fundamentalism that one is necessarily exhibiting an irrational predjudice against muslims of all types. It is not holding the entire religious group accountable for a few individuals. Holding the entire religious group accountable would be something like saying "You can't build a mosque anywhere in NYC/NY state/the U.S."

The AQ terrorists didn't attack in the name of "violent Islamic fundamentalism"; they attacked in the name of Islam, as they see it. They do not see that there is any other legitimate form of Islam, and there is no bright convenient line that tells us where "violent fundamentalist" ends and "harsh conservative" begins. Building a mosque at the site they attacked indicates sympathy with them.

You're, of course, going to claim that it only indicates sympthy to people that are predjudiced, but that's simply begging the question. Why, exactly, dot hey want to put it right there if they don't sympathize? It's just a coincidence? Yeah, right. To "bring people to confront their predjudices?" Sorry, but you don't disprove predjudice by acting in a way that confirms it. If these people building this mosque were radicals themselves and DID want it as a victory symbol, they would ALSO want to put it right there, so you cannot argue that opposition to it comes from nothing but predjudice.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Misch ... story.html


Can't wait to see the excuse to dismiss this guy.

_________________
"It is true that democracy undermines freedom when voters believe they can live off of others' productivity, when they modify the commandment: 'Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.' The politics of plunder is no doubt destructive of both morality and the division of labor."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 03006.html

And another. This whole idea that we are just scared of the(doing my best oh so tolerant yet brain dead lib imitation, also known as the "monty) "eeeeeeevil brown skinned different than me terrorists" is being flushed right down the toilet.

_________________
"It is true that democracy undermines freedom when voters believe they can live off of others' productivity, when they modify the commandment: 'Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.' The politics of plunder is no doubt destructive of both morality and the division of labor."

From Nitefox's first link:



If that were the situation, no one would be talking about how only people predjudiced against the Serbians or Eastern Orthodox would possibly object, and that building one would somehow be "lumping" all Christians or all Serbians together unfairly.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

That's just a more extreme example of holding the whole group accountable. If you think Muslims that are completely unrelated to terrorism have a moral obligation to modify their behavior in any way because some other Muslims commit terrorist acts in the name of their religion, then you are, by definition, holding the group accountable for the actions of certain individuals.



Why do you think it's necessarily/obviously an indication of terrorist sympathies? Their stated intent is precisely the opposite - i.e., to make the point that there is no conflict between the United States and Islam/Muslims generally; that the conflict is between decent people of all faiths and nationalities and those fanatics who support terrorism; that in the "us vs. them" narrative of 9/11, ordinary Muslims are part of the "us". Building a mosque near Ground Zero strikes me as an entirely plausible and, in fact, pretty compelling symbol of that idea, a way of showing that Muslims are not stuck on the outside looking in and that the pursuit/expression of Islamic faith is not incompatible with American/western identity.

RD:
How is what they're saying different that what Khross and myself are saying (I use Khross because you've directly addressed him as holding these views)?

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

Except that no one is asking them to modify their behavior. They are modifying their behavior by deciding to put a mosque at that particular location, and everyone else is asking "why are you doing that?" It isn't like this site was selected as sheer coincidence.

More to the point, we aren't asking the whole group to modify their behavior, of the over a billion muslims in the world only a minute faction are involved with this mosque.

This is, again, like a bunch of Serbian Orthodox building a church near the Srebenicia massacre site and then, when Bosnian Muslims get upset asking them "But why are you demanding they change their behavior?"



I didn't say it was an indication of terrorist sympathies per se, but rather sympathy with anti-Western mentalities that are most easily redicalized into terrorists, and who may not approve of terrorism as a method or strategy, but do approve of conflict with "the West."

That said, I believe that they have these sympathies because to beleive that they do not indicates that they are either stupid or ridiculously naive, and I do not think they are stupid people, nor any more naive than anyone else. Regardless of whether its legitimate to resent building a mosque there, there will be people who will resent it, and there are other people who will be suspicious of it. The people building the mosque clearly know that, but again, unless they are almost cartoonishly stupid or naive they cannot possibly think that a mosque will somehow change people's minds. Really, how does a mosque in any way promote healing or understanding? It doesn't.

As for showing that Islam is compatible with American or Western identity, that's a totally separate issue, and really doesn't make them look any better. "We're going to show you that Islam is compatible with Western identity by building a symbol of Islam on the site of the biggest attack ever on Western identity made in the name of Islam". Really, come on. That only works with people who insist on thinking there are a few radical extremists and a whole slew of very moderate or liberal muslims and no one in between. Building a mosque at that place does not symbolize moderates standing against them to the extremists, it symbolizes victory, and the people wishing to build the mosque cannot possibly be unaware of this.

Your entire argument is disingenuous, in fact. We are not lumping muslims" together by opposing this mosque, just the particular muslims who are trying to have it built, and that because they are acting in an offensive manner. Claiming that this somehow extends to all muslims is absurd; no one is objecting to mosques in general anywhere else in America, or even in the city or the state.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

As a society, we cannot be burdened by the past as a matter of policy. At all times, we must focus on best course of action for our society, and not be obstructed by fear and pain. Let them thumb their noses at us by building their mosque, if that is what they intend to do. Show that we cannot be provoked into comproming our principles.

That's exactly what people are doing. They are trying to buy a building in which to start a community center and overflow mosque. Other people are trying to modify their behavior by associating them with terrorists and ginning up fears and irrational hatreds.

It's their money, and they were no less a victim of the attacks on 9-11 than any other New Yorker, let alone any other American.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

No, they are modifying their behavior by suddenly deciding a mosque is needed at a highly sensitive location. As for associating them with terrorists, they are doing that themselves by wanting to build a mosque at that particular location and claiming it's all perfectly coincidentally innocent. The only people engaging in irrationality is people who are trying to claim that cricticism of this particular act by these particular muslims is somehow indictive of hatred of all muslims.



Were they in fact New Yorkers at the time of the attack? Whether it's their money is not the issue; the issue is whether they should choose to spend it in this way. The fact that they have a right to spend their money how they want to does not make their behavior any less offensive.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Greg Gutfeld: Hey, lets build a Muslim Gay bar next to this Muslim outreach center.

http://www.dailygut.com/?i=4696

_________________
“Strong people are harder to kill than weak people, and more useful in general”. - Mark Rippetoe

After much though: They have a right to land and to develop it as they please. It says a lot about their character, but hey what can you do. I'm sure we'll hear more about this guy as the months and years progress.

As for the politicos who had a chance to block his play with historical protection. Hopefully the electorate will speak to them soon.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

No, protecting it with historical status would be just as transparent as what the people wanting to build the mosques are doing; using a thinly veiled justification. That might have been justified if they were building it exactly on top of one of the WTC building sites, but not just for being in the "ground zero" area.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Guess she's illogically prejudiced against Muslims, and conflates all Muslims with terrorists too.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

After reading this thread, I am convinced that DE has the absolute right of it. While these folks certainly have the right to build there, they do not have the right to command public opinion of themselves, and the concequences those opinions will carry with them, assuming that those concequences don't involve rights violations. The court of public opinion will speak, and I fear it will speak out strongly against the Muslim community, for right or wrong. As such, from the Muslim perspective, if their goal is to help to heal as stated, they seem poised for a great failure.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

The only reason they have public attention is the media sees an opportunity for conflict, and Fox News sees an opportunity for more anti-Islamic fear mongering. If this were a Catholic group, no one would have batted an eyelash.

Also, I am *shocked*, **shocked**, that O'RLY managed to find someone who opposes it from the Muslim community. Shocked.

Also, that sort of goes to show that it's not as monolithic as the detractors make it out to be. I'll say it again - these people are New Yorkers, too. Where the **** does anyone get off telling them they are somehow obligated to stay away?

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show