|
The opponents of the Islamic community center who call it a "victory mosque" have it all backwards. At the core of the American way of life is religious freedom and tolerance. When they single out a mosque (not that it's even a mosque), but would be fine with a church or synagogue, they are proclaiming to the world that the terrorists have succeeded in turning them into bigots and changing the American way of life. The small terrorist minority WANT this to turn into an America vs Islam struggle, because it strengthens their position all around the world.
What we have is an irrational, emotionally-driven call for inequality. Fortunately, we are a nation with laws to protect equality from the whims of mob-rule. And unfortunately, it looks like the Muslims are backing down and are reconsidering the location.
I also like what somebody said earlier in the thread. Should we try to block all Christian churches from being built near the sites of bombed abortion clinics just because a tiny minority committed terrorism? Or to steal from the Daily Show--is it inappropriate to build Catholic churches near childrens' playgrounds? Ridiculous.
|
On August 24 2010 03:30 Meta wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2010 03:11 LlamaNamedOsama wrote:On August 24 2010 02:59 Meta wrote:Ryder trucks and video games have shown no evidence of leading directly to violence. So, I don't see what that has to do with anything.
Perhaps Vallicella should learn some statistics. Given that Islam is the second-largest religion in the world, and yet there isn't a 9/11 every day, I'm not convinced that being a terrorist is a "direct consequence" of holding any Islamic beliefs. I suggest that it's a more direct consequence of being a young, reckless nutcase brainwashed by Al-Qaeda.
And the members of Al-Qaeda were brainwashed by Islam. There is a direct correlation here. Just because there isn't "a 9/11 every day" doesn't speak anything about the link between religious beliefs and violent actions, it only speaks volumes about the inherent good nature of all human beings.
I honestly don't understand the connection here. Some insane mass murderers held a particular subset of Islamic religious beliefs. Why does this reflect badly on sane, normal people who hold similar religious beliefs? Maybe as an atheist I missed the big announcement where we decided to compare how sensible people's religions were and start judging them based on what kind of crazy things their holy texts say; I'm not sure that Christians or Jews would come out that well on that metric. I judge people on their actions.
As an atheist I'm astounded that you can't understand that all religious people, especially devout ones, actually believe what they say they believe. Unfortunately every holy text has passages that can be and HAVE BEEN interpreted to promote violence towards outside groups. Even the bible has been used to justify slavery and the crusades, just as the Qur-an has been used to justify the horrific deeds of terrorists. Even though most people are inherently good, and will never commit atrocities such as these, there's no reason why some people, who aren't inherently good for whatever reason, will use the passages from these books, which they believe to be the word of God, to justify horrible cruelty. The issue isn't that Islam is a "bad religion" or any of that nonsense. It's that all religions are equally bad, and have no place in modern society. And it's not that all Muslims are being judged as bad, I'm absolutely positive that a large majority of them are good, ethical human beings, because most human beings are good and ethical. That said, I still support the construction of this Mosque, because in America they have the freedom to do whatever they want with the land that they purchased. Arguing against their right to construct it leads nowhere. Aaaannnnd here's the mandatory anti-religion post  For the 1 about video games, he was using an example of people scape-goating something as a "cause" when really the issue is far more complex. Your same analysis about "Islam brainwashing" falls under this kind of thinking, by claiming "direct correlation." Just because it CAN be interpreted a certain negative way doesn't mean it is causally responsible: in fact by acknowledging the importance of interpretation you're conceding that the crucial distinction is the interpretation which is based on the person's own perspective and individuality. People have also interpreted the ideals of America to justify ethnic cleansing of Native Americans and slavery too. Does that mean America "is equally bad, and has no place in modern society." Plus, there are millions of lurking variables. Poor economic background, lack of access to education, and more all influence both the individual's interpretation, as well as their susceptability to others' interpretations. Also, you're assuming that "most human beings are inherently good." Because of that assumption you're prone to thinking that it therefore is some external corrupting factor that causes bad things to happen, but this crux of that thinking isn't really justified. I'm not necessarily argue the antithesis, but just noting that this is a far deeper philosophical question that can't be reduced to such simple claims. I agree with everything you said, except maybe the interpretation of what happened to Native Americans. The cause of religiously motivated violence, whatever it may be, would simply not exist without religion. It probably is extremely complex, the leaders and decision makers within terrorist organizations may, for all we know, have been subjected to harsh physical or emotional abuse as children. They may just be sociopaths. But the main thing I want to get across with my previous post is that pure faith in any single text that has passages demeaning towards outside people will, by necessity, lead to violence towards those outsiders propagated by only the most brainwashed individuals. It's a really tough problem to pin down because of it's complexity, like you said there are a million lurking variables. I just don't see the problem with eliminating one of them (religion) and seeing where we end up as a species. edit: This is my last post about it (maybe only partially in fear of moderator action). Like I said I agree with almost everything you said, clearly you're of higher intelligence. Also I like this topic because it raises an issue rarely talked about on TL these days. I wish I could watch that Kieth Olbermann video from work just based on the responses on the last page
Well, I still think that the fault lies with the individual distorting religion rather than religion itself; if they aren't given religious scriptures, they use other justifications like nationalism, racism, and so on. Much of Osama's motivations, after all, were less Islamic and more general hatred towards the culture of the West, which is part of why the World Trade Center was the particular target, as a symbol of materialism and wealth. I think we can generally agree that religion is simply used as a tool of those evil intentions, and is not itself "evil" - if this is true, it would be equivalent to the 2x4 block of wood: the fact that a madman hacks someone down with that block of wood doesn't make that piece of wood "evil," it is the man wielding it.
While you may view it as wanting to eliminate one of the millions of variables to try to stop violence, you can't simply forget the immense amount of good that religion has also brought - the millions of charities, NGOs, institutions of education, and so on; people too easily narrow their focus to only the bad and forget the good, but (and this is a favorite phrase of one of my friends, lol) you can't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
|
On August 23 2010 23:25 N.geNuity wrote:
So, the constitution guarantees freedom of religion. It guarantees private property rights. Argument closed. Build it.
As far as the "arguments" against it, I see no reasoning besides associating all muslims with Al Qaeda radicals. And that's ridiculous and nothing but bigotry.
^This
I agree completely. These are Americans seeking to practice their religion in a country founded for one of the main purposes of religious freedom.
|
This is like killing Iraqis in the name of freedom and building a McDonald's on their graves. OH WAIT.
Realistically, there will never be complete peace between the Middle East and America. Building this mosque would be a step in the right direction in a PERFECT world. However, we live in a fucked up, retard-filled, chaotic world. Political leaders are corrupt and good intentions will never get us anywhere. Allowing the mosque to be built will most likely incite unneeded violence.
Everyone keeps throwing around words like "religious tolerance" and "religious freedom." America is turning into a cluster fuck of legal battles over stupid shit, lawsuits for stupid shit, and debates over stupid shit. The same people who helped minorities gain civil rights and religious freedom are FIGHTING AGAINST having the word GOD on American currency? These are also the same people who claim that prayer in school is religious INTOLERANCE? Lolwut? Kids pray to themselves and with each other WILLINGLY but they still get in trouble in school? Dig deeper and you will find a lot of INTOLERANCE for Christianity, Mormonism, and other denominations who claim to worship God. Religious tolerance in a perfect world also means religious equality. Unfortunately for America, this is not the case.
I would love to see true religious tolerance and freedom in America, however that will never happen and people will always be dogmatic and stubborn. In the end, we'll all end up pointing fingers and debating heatedly, keeping our right and left wing blinders firmly fastened, in back and forth political battles. There seems to be a lot of hatred/CONTEMPT (lol) for conservative thinking in this thread, but I would like to see at least a few people think about this situation objectively and forget about partisan stances. This isn't about FOX news, this is about having an opinion. Otherwise, we can all sit here and disagree with each other and throw intelligent debate out the window. 
|
1 block is too far away.
They should build the Mosque RIGHT ON THE TOP
There's no way they'd fly a plane into a Mosque!
|
On August 24 2010 04:55 catamorphist wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2010 04:29 Ecael wrote:On August 24 2010 04:16 catamorphist wrote:On August 24 2010 04:02 Ecael wrote:
Perhaps, in the future, we could actually try to consider these victims' feelings before calling their opinion discriminatory, racist, and downright evil. They should be allowed to express their opinion, and over time, perhaps work out a suitable compromise. They should not be stomped beneath the power of the majority and the name of the greater good, regardless of whether they were in fact guilty of the faults lumped onto them. They are allowed to express their opinion; they've been expressing their opinion all over the media for weeks. Having an opinion doesn't entitle you to respect, especially if your opinion is that everyone of a particular religion should be treated as a second-class citizen. (And that's a damn gracious interpretation of a lot of people's opinions, after watching the rallies against this mosque.) What I am seeing is that at the point when people express an opinion against the construction of the Mosque, they are labeled as such. Even if they are racist, the deserve a certain level of respect. Point out that fact and people will understand. Is the violence of words in using all these ideals and principles not a form of discrimination and refusal to communicate in itself? Perhaps they ought to take a page from the Bible and "Do unto others..." If they want respect, they should start respecting their neighbors. Protesting someone else's place of worship for no reason other than "it makes me angry because 9/11" is the epitome of disrespect.
and you can't back down first and respect them for what reason?
When people can cite the First Amendment without needing to attach stupid conditionals, they have quite a powerful position. What are you trying to do, browbeat these people into thinking that they are wrong? Like Hawk said, you are turning this into a 'Us against Them' scenario. If anything, that attitude has only given them more reason to rally against this cause.
|
I'm pretty sure the First Amendment only applies if you're a WASP or you're fellating the American flag.
|
Hell, I'm okay with them building an islamic community center near ground zero, after all we've been building plenty of ground zeros near islamic community centers in Iraq and Afghanistan.
|
Philadelphia, PA10406 Posts
As a New Yorker, I've yet to see any widespread opposition among actual people from the city to this plan. Any New Yorker can tell you the "Ground Zero Mosque" is (a)A community center, not a mosque, and (b) Two and a half blocks from the actual WTC site. For a comparison, the Manhattan Mosque is just 11 blocks away. The Burlington Coat factory building is already used as a prayer space. It basically feels like a whole host of people from flyover country are intervening for no apparent reason. This is a local non-issue, that's become a political beachball.
Does this Muslim group have the right to own the building?
- Of course.
Does this Muslim group have the right to build whatever they see fit on their property?
- Yes, as long as it complies with zoning.
Does this Muslim group have connections to radical extremists?
- No, they're part of the Sufi branch of Islam, which is the most moderate branch, and our natural allies in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Their leader is considered a legitimate target for assassination by Al Qaeda.
If this Muslim group had passing connections to radical extremists, could they build the community center anyway?
- Probably, as long as they themselves were lawful.
Is Islam responsible for the 9/11 attacks?
- Only as much as Catholicism is responsible for the IRA. The 9/11 hijackers were terrorists who happened to be Muslim, not Muslims who happened to be terrorists. There is nothing inherently violent about Islam, and there is nothing in any way disrespectful about an islamic community center near Ground Zero.Innocent muslims died on 9/11 as well.
Basically, there is no justification for opposition behind this mosque other than an erroneous understanding of NYC building codes, or a woeful misunderstanding of Islam, and the people who practice it. Opposing this mosque is like opposing a church near the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. It's dumb.
|
On August 24 2010 05:42 Ecael wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2010 04:55 catamorphist wrote:On August 24 2010 04:29 Ecael wrote:On August 24 2010 04:16 catamorphist wrote:On August 24 2010 04:02 Ecael wrote:
Perhaps, in the future, we could actually try to consider these victims' feelings before calling their opinion discriminatory, racist, and downright evil. They should be allowed to express their opinion, and over time, perhaps work out a suitable compromise. They should not be stomped beneath the power of the majority and the name of the greater good, regardless of whether they were in fact guilty of the faults lumped onto them. They are allowed to express their opinion; they've been expressing their opinion all over the media for weeks. Having an opinion doesn't entitle you to respect, especially if your opinion is that everyone of a particular religion should be treated as a second-class citizen. (And that's a damn gracious interpretation of a lot of people's opinions, after watching the rallies against this mosque.) What I am seeing is that at the point when people express an opinion against the construction of the Mosque, they are labeled as such. Even if they are racist, the deserve a certain level of respect. Point out that fact and people will understand. Is the violence of words in using all these ideals and principles not a form of discrimination and refusal to communicate in itself? Perhaps they ought to take a page from the Bible and "Do unto others..." If they want respect, they should start respecting their neighbors. Protesting someone else's place of worship for no reason other than "it makes me angry because 9/11" is the epitome of disrespect. and you can't back down first and respect them for what reason? When people can cite the First Amendment without needing to attach stupid conditionals, they have quite a powerful position. What are you trying to do, browbeat these people into thinking that they are wrong? Like Hawk said, you are turning this into a 'Us against Them' scenario. If anything, that attitude has only given them more reason to rally against this cause.
I don't really understand what backing down has to do with it, and I'm not browbeating anyone; I honestly have no idea how to change anyone's mind on the topic, because I don't even understand the opposing perspective. It's based on emotion and fear that seems incomprehensible to me.
The word "respect" is totally meaningless if I respect everyone and everything. I don't like people who beat their wives, I don't like people who toss cigarette butts out the window of their car, and I don't like people who insist on trying to control where other people hang out and pray. I feel no need to meditate on the respectful brotherhood of all mankind before I say that those are all lousy things to do, and I see no reason to feel guilty about saying so. Nobody should feel respected for freely choosing to hurt other people.
@tree hugger: The only poll I've seen of New Yorkers indicates that the majority oppose the building. I'd be interested in seeing something more recent if anyone can find some data.
|
Its not like Muslims are outraged or something, but there are muslim citizens in US its growing and there were Muslim victims at ground zero. If it really hurts the peoples feelings, like the project holders did they wont build it there not a big problem. A simple apartment can be a mosque if people wanted to use it that way. But considering it a victory and stuff like that is riddiculous, the real victory here is showing the world that the "Free World" cannot even stand a mosque or cultural center close to ground zero. I know most US citizens might think they are at the center of the world or consider New York as Mecca of christianity (from some comments I really think some people belaives that :D) Building a church or synagoge in Mecca or Medina is not against Islam tough throughout history in Ottoman rule and before there were places like that since ALL the religions coming from that area. Saudi regimes desicions are politic using the religion. Anyways its not a big deal for Muslims again I am saying from a Muslim country no one even cared what happened there since no one thought it as a victory or something. Its NY managements decision to decide where to or what to build.
One more thing, good people of US, dont worry most of Muslims (not the uneducated ones or the ones who didint suffer from US bombs in their country) can separate between US people. Most of the people in Turkey for example realizes the media there have a huge impact on these kinda things and we dont blame directly te people most of the time. When you open your TV and it talks about "Islamic Terrorism" at least a few times a day people will ofcourse think badly. Anyways since Chrisitianity is the most humanitarian religion throught the history that caused no one to lose their life or to be tortured we can understand some motives they have in the media
|
I say it's insulting to consider it insulting to construct this mosque; you are associating these people with radical extremists that killed thousands of people
what's more of an insult? praying to a god or putting the burden of a massacre on innocent people because they happen to come from a certain part of the world?
edit: I should add that I hate religion so my bias would be on the side of not building a mosque, if anything. but forbidding this mosque on these grounds I say would be prejudiced and borderline criminal
|
Bottom line is, if the planners are forced to move elsewhere, it'd be a huge propaganda victory for Al Qaeda. What better way to show the Muslim youth that Americans are waging a war against Islam than showing cherry-picked videos of these demonstrations?
At this point in time, any move would have to be done EXTREMELY carefully.
I also think lumping all Muslims into the same group with Al Qaeda is ridiculous. Americans did the same thing with the Japanese and we all know what happened to those law-abiding citizens.
|
On August 24 2010 06:11 catamorphist wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2010 05:42 Ecael wrote:On August 24 2010 04:55 catamorphist wrote:On August 24 2010 04:29 Ecael wrote:On August 24 2010 04:16 catamorphist wrote:On August 24 2010 04:02 Ecael wrote:
Perhaps, in the future, we could actually try to consider these victims' feelings before calling their opinion discriminatory, racist, and downright evil. They should be allowed to express their opinion, and over time, perhaps work out a suitable compromise. They should not be stomped beneath the power of the majority and the name of the greater good, regardless of whether they were in fact guilty of the faults lumped onto them. They are allowed to express their opinion; they've been expressing their opinion all over the media for weeks. Having an opinion doesn't entitle you to respect, especially if your opinion is that everyone of a particular religion should be treated as a second-class citizen. (And that's a damn gracious interpretation of a lot of people's opinions, after watching the rallies against this mosque.) What I am seeing is that at the point when people express an opinion against the construction of the Mosque, they are labeled as such. Even if they are racist, the deserve a certain level of respect. Point out that fact and people will understand. Is the violence of words in using all these ideals and principles not a form of discrimination and refusal to communicate in itself? Perhaps they ought to take a page from the Bible and "Do unto others..." If they want respect, they should start respecting their neighbors. Protesting someone else's place of worship for no reason other than "it makes me angry because 9/11" is the epitome of disrespect. and you can't back down first and respect them for what reason? When people can cite the First Amendment without needing to attach stupid conditionals, they have quite a powerful position. What are you trying to do, browbeat these people into thinking that they are wrong? Like Hawk said, you are turning this into a 'Us against Them' scenario. If anything, that attitude has only given them more reason to rally against this cause. I don't really understand what backing down has to do with it, and I'm not browbeating anyone; I honestly have no idea how to change anyone's mind on the topic, because I don't even understand the opposing perspective. It's based on emotion and fear that seems incomprehensible to me. The word "respect" is totally meaningless if I respect everyone and everything. I don't like people who beat their wives, I don't like people who toss cigarette butts out the window of their car, and I don't like people who insist on trying to control where other people hang out and pray. I feel no need to meditate on the respectful brotherhood of all mankind before I say that those are all lousy things to do, and I see no reason to feel guilty about saying so. Nobody should feel respected for freely choosing to hurt other people. @tree hugger: The only poll I've seen of New Yorkers indicates that the majority oppose the building. I'd be interested in seeing something more recent if anyone can find some data.
Depends on where in NYC you ask lol.
You can not like people who beat their wives, you can not like those who toss out cigarette butts out their car, etc, but imo, you should in fact meditate on that before saying that they are lousy things to do. This issue, even on this forum, has lost the flavor of an individual stating their opinion. The more people try to assert that their own side is right, no matter which side, the worse the divide becomes. If you think that those people are wrong, would that stop you from coolly greeting them instead of going up to them, cursing them out and telling them to stop their wrongful behavior?
If you don't think you are browbeating people, you might want to think again. You have just likened people voicing their opinions to people beating their wives, stated that the the opposing perspective is incomprehensible, and has shown no sign of wanting to understand them. Are some, if not the majority of these opinions in fact hurtful? Yes, probably, but how does that give you a right to summarily dismiss all of these people? What I am seeing here is that people are taking a side that has the greater good and all these ideals attached to it, debasing it by following the standard of a side that they believe to be wrong and making conversation between the two sides impossible as a result. Then they have the gall to remind us that they, in fact, are right morally. I don't know about others, but should I be one of those who are against the mosque. Regardless of my reasons. I'd only harden up my opposition.
|
|
|
On August 24 2010 06:11 catamorphist wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2010 05:42 Ecael wrote:On August 24 2010 04:55 catamorphist wrote:On August 24 2010 04:29 Ecael wrote:On August 24 2010 04:16 catamorphist wrote:On August 24 2010 04:02 Ecael wrote:
Perhaps, in the future, we could actually try to consider these victims' feelings before calling their opinion discriminatory, racist, and downright evil. They should be allowed to express their opinion, and over time, perhaps work out a suitable compromise. They should not be stomped beneath the power of the majority and the name of the greater good, regardless of whether they were in fact guilty of the faults lumped onto them. They are allowed to express their opinion; they've been expressing their opinion all over the media for weeks. Having an opinion doesn't entitle you to respect, especially if your opinion is that everyone of a particular religion should be treated as a second-class citizen. (And that's a damn gracious interpretation of a lot of people's opinions, after watching the rallies against this mosque.) What I am seeing is that at the point when people express an opinion against the construction of the Mosque, they are labeled as such. Even if they are racist, the deserve a certain level of respect. Point out that fact and people will understand. Is the violence of words in using all these ideals and principles not a form of discrimination and refusal to communicate in itself? Perhaps they ought to take a page from the Bible and "Do unto others..." If they want respect, they should start respecting their neighbors. Protesting someone else's place of worship for no reason other than "it makes me angry because 9/11" is the epitome of disrespect. and you can't back down first and respect them for what reason? When people can cite the First Amendment without needing to attach stupid conditionals, they have quite a powerful position. What are you trying to do, browbeat these people into thinking that they are wrong? Like Hawk said, you are turning this into a 'Us against Them' scenario. If anything, that attitude has only given them more reason to rally against this cause. I don't really understand what backing down has to do with it, and I'm not browbeating anyone; I honestly have no idea how to change anyone's mind on the topic, because I don't even understand the opposing perspective. It's based on emotion and fear that seems incomprehensible to me. The word "respect" is totally meaningless if I respect everyone and everything. I don't like people who beat their wives, I don't like people who toss cigarette butts out the window of their car, and I don't like people who insist on trying to control where other people hang out and pray. I feel no need to meditate on the respectful brotherhood of all mankind before I say that those are all lousy things to do, and I see no reason to feel guilty about saying so. Nobody should feel respected for freely choosing to hurt other people. @tree hugger: The only poll I've seen of New Yorkers indicates that the majority oppose the building. I'd be interested in seeing something more recent if anyone can find some data.
I'm really skeptical of most of these types of polls. Not only is it a phone-survey, which introduces volunteer-bias into the sample, the fact that it's titled with "mosque" makes me inclined to believe that the question given in the poll may have been inaccurate, also further tainting the results.
|
On August 24 2010 06:22 Jameser wrote:
I say it's insulting to consider it insulting to construct this mosque; you are associating these people with radical extremists that killed thousands of people
what's more of an insult? praying to a god or putting the burden of a massacre on innocent people because they happen to come from a certain part of the world?
edit: I should add that I hate religion so my bias would be on the side of not building a mosque, if anything. but forbidding this mosque on these grounds I say would be prejudiced and borderline criminal
rofl, so if it were up to you you would forbid the building of the mosque on the grounds that you hate religion?
|
Most national surveys and statistics are specially geared to be biased. They ask certain questions in a certain way in which people are certain to lean in a certain direction, just to avoid seeming like a fool.
For instance, here's a question: "do you like pizza?" And if there is a yes or no answer, fine, that's okay. But if it directly asks you "do you hate, or do you not hate pizza?", orrrrr say "do you hate your pizza with cheese, or do you like it without cheese?" See? I just twisted your opinion into something that I wanted to hear, or the poll makers did anyways.
|
|
|
Honestly im really quite against it and it is more out of respect for the victims than anything else.
Yet i think it should be built in view of religious freedom (as long as it is genuine and not a "terrorist" training centre" which i doubt it would be)
Note, by that last comment i ment jihad extremism being taught.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
