On August 24 2010 06:33 Ecael wrote: 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?
Excuse me?
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 think this is a reasonable characterization of what I've said. I am very interested in understanding the opposing viewpoint here; why else would I come post in a thread about it? I don't understand it, however. The only factual argument I've heard is that the mosque is disrespectful or offensive, and that it's offensive because of connections between Islam and the 9/11 hijackers; there's been plenty of discussion so far about mine and others' opinions on that earlier in this thread, and I just don't see how it is a substantial argument.
It's incomprehensible to me, probably because I have a very different set of values and world view than folks who are making this argument; I don't experience any of the same concerns about terrorism or Islam that seem to be driving this connection, and I can't see how those concerns could be more important than religious freedom and tolerance, which I value very highly.
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.
When someone convincingly points out to me that something I'm doing is harmful, disrespectful, or immoral, I stop doing it. I don't try to argue with people who take emotional positions and sit on them "regardless of their reasons." Your posts seem to keep hammering on: This is not the right way to reach out to people who are angry about this mosque. OK, then what is the right way? I don't know the right way. What would you say to the people protesting this? I think a lot of people would be interested in hearing your answer to that.
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.
I agree, I don't really trust this one too far. I'm unfortunately not aware of any other polls.
On August 24 2010 07:04 Froadac wrote: I don't mind in principle but a couple things.
1) THe mosque is obviously pushing a point. There is not a great reason for it to be there other than make a pont.
If they were building a 15-story statue of Mohammed humping the air, I would agree with you. But a community center with a mosque inside has plenty of fucking use.
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.
+ 1,
Absolutely racist to even link the two events. Radical Islam is so fractured from the rest of the religion, coming from a part of London surrounded by Mosques and full of Muslims I can honestly tell you that just like the Sikhs and Hindus here, they're the nicest people in the world.
Don't let the actions of a few spoil your view on an entire religion, in the same vein one could link the actions of many of Christians of that with the Christian church, but we don't.
pretty much somes up my opinion, i don't see why they cant build it there, or even the issue with it. There shouldnt even be a connection between the Mosque and ground zero.
3 Things: 1) It is not a mosque. 2) It is not at ground zero. 3) You are a dumbass if you believe points 1 and 2 to be false.
I could write further about this, but instead I feel that Charlie Brooker has the same opinion of me and puts down his thoughts in a far better way than I could. So go and read, please.
On August 24 2010 07:20 LaustinSpayce wrote: Guys guys guys.
3 Things: 1) It is not a mosque. 2) It is not at ground zero. 3) You are a dumbass if you believe points 1 and 2 to be false.
I could write further about this, but instead I feel that Charlie Brooker has the same opinion of me and puts down his thoughts in a far better way than I could. So go and read, please.
Exactly
1. It is not a mosque. It is a "center," with shopping stores and areas for sports. Only top two levels are for prayer. 2. Technically it is 2 blocks away from ground zero, however, it is more like 3-4 because it's like corner to corner. Also, there is already an underground (literal) prayer center closer to ground zero, in fact, built BEFORE the WTC than this planned building.
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?
absolutely not, I would allow the mosque be built same as I would allow any other house of prayer to be built, what I was saying was that to forbid this mosque from being built on the grounds that it is an insult to the victims of 9/11 is saying 1. the people that attend the mosque have something to do with 9/11 in the publics mind 2. none of the people that attend the mosque suffered during 9/11 (islam has existed in NY for a long long time, many muslims died on 9/11) 3. their religion is violent and not accepted by society
none of these 3 are true, being insulted by a mosque in NY is a bit like a black man being insulted by seeing a white man, in both instances you are placing guilt by association
On August 24 2010 06:33 Ecael wrote: 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 think this is a reasonable characterization of what I've said. I am very interested in understanding the opposing viewpoint here; why else would I come post in a thread about it? I don't understand it, however. The only factual argument I've heard is that the mosque is disrespectful or offensive, and that it's offensive because of connections between Islam and the 9/11 hijackers; there's been plenty of discussion so far about mine and others' opinions on that earlier in this thread, and I just don't see how it is a substantial argument.
It's incomprehensible to me, probably because I have a very different set of values and world view than folks who are making this argument; I don't experience any of the same concerns about terrorism or Islam that seem to be driving this connection, and I can't see how those concerns could be more important than religious freedom and tolerance, which I value very highly.
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.
When someone convincingly points out to me that something I'm doing is harmful, disrespectful, or immoral, I stop doing it. I don't try to argue with people who take emotional positions and sit on them "regardless of their reasons." Your posts seem to keep hammering on: This is not the right way to reach out to people who are angry about this mosque. OK, then what is the right way? I don't know the right way. What would you say to the people protesting this? I think a lot of people would be interested in hearing your answer to that.
Perhaps I am just reading your statements wrong, but I rather felt like most of the comments in this thread (yours and others) amounted to taking a moral pedestal, start a lecture, and ignoring the other side. You might as well as curse them out, the effects will probably be similar. For example, you elaborated just now about wanting to understand the opposite viewpoint, but you stopped earlier at how alien their thoughts are to you. I hope you aren't expecting me to take the fact that you are posting on a thread to mean that you want to understand the opposing viewpoint, too many arguments happen on the internet because someone is wrong on the internet, not attempts to understand why.
Honestly, I don't know what drives these people myself. What you have said is really the only reason I can see myself. Can these concerns of a vague connection between Islam and those who are behind 9/11 be worthy more than religious freedom and tolerance? Clearly it can to them. If it comes down to that, then it is just a differences in values. Indeed, should we boil down racism, we can simply call that different values placed upon races and other values, but it doesn't really help to point that out and expect people to change.
I wonder what the right way to approach matter is myself, but there seems to be woefully little dialogue between the two sides. Those who are for the construction are quickly to call upon the first amendment, of religious freedom and tolerance, and what can you say against that? Just hypothetically, if I say that what you are saying is in fact against religious freedom and tolerance, are there really anything you can say back? You said that you would change if someone pointed out what you are doing is wrong. These people clearly aren't, as you are more or less just rehashing what others have said about the matter. In Chinese, there is this proverb that says when one gets embarrassed, one gets mad [as a result/to hide the embarrassment]. Putting value on religious freedom and tolerance is certainly not a bad thing, in fact, it is so justified that one can't help but be shamed to have to argue against that. In my opinion, at the very point when we are using these words to counter what they are saying, we have closed the door to future conversation. It creates a situation where some agrees with you and change their ways, the rest harden, and you wondering why this has happened.
What I am saying is that we should step back from using these grand moral points and try to address the individual issues. This can't be something impossible to reconcile, but by making it a larger deal that it is, it makes it that much harder to reach an agreement. I might be able to discuss the relationship of Islam to 9/11 and convince them that in fact, it is not a strong connection. Like many have said, the two are no more related on a macro scale than Christianity is related to killing abortion doctors and bombing clinics. Constant reminding them that such a connection is discriminatory though, imo, is by far more counterproductive to the purpose than it is helpful.
On August 24 2010 07:20 LaustinSpayce wrote: I could write further about this, but instead I feel that Charlie Brooker has the same opinion of me and puts down his thoughts in a far better way than I could. So go and read, please.
yeah, i dont know how you can read that article and still be opposed to it. When i first heard of it, i was opposed, but reading this thread, and getting some more of the facts, like, its not at all what they told me it was, no idea how this can even be a news event.
On August 24 2010 07:20 LaustinSpayce wrote: I could write further about this, but instead I feel that Charlie Brooker has the same opinion of me and puts down his thoughts in a far better way than I could. So go and read, please.
yeah, i dont know how you can read that article and still be opposed to it. When i first heard of it, i was opposed, but reading this thread, and getting some more of the facts, like, its not at all what they told me it was, no idea how this can even be a news event.
Brit humor!
The planned "ultra-mosque" will be a staggering 5,600ft tall – more than five times higher than the tallest building on Earth – and will be capped with an immense dome of highly-polished solid gold, carefully positioned to bounce sunlight directly toward the pavement, where it will blind pedestrians and fry small dogs. The main structure will be delimited by 600 minarets, each shaped like an upraised middle finger, and housing a powerful amplifier: when synchronised, their combined sonic might will be capable of relaying the muezzin's call to prayer at such deafening volume, it will be clearly audible in the Afghan mountains, where thousands of terrorists are poised to celebrate by running around with scarves over their faces, firing AK-47s into the sky and yelling whatever the foreign word for "victory" is.
Sadly, not far off from what people would have you believe. Good article though.
To OP, the reason why there wasn't a thread about this yet was some certain person told me I should practically never post news thread on this forum while anyone else can. If I had the chance, I would have posted this like last Tuesday when I first heard about it...
As for the opinion here, I really don't understand what's with all the big big conflict and talks about this. First off, there has to be a middle point where both parties can agree. Although that seems impossible at most cases, I believe it can be found here. Yet both sides are a little bit extreme and won't give in to the other side. So what do we do now? Honestly, I can't do anything since I have no power or ability to determine direction so I do not have an opinion of this at all. A neutral carefree mind of this matter that has nothing to do with me.
That being said, I do hope the result can be agreed upon both sides that everyone becomes happy in the end (which is nearly impossible).
Read the thread, we have already discussed that at length.
1) I mean they need a mosque in the region, but two blocks from ground zero seems like they knew they were making a point. Even if it wasn't hteir primary purpose, they knew something stupid like this would happen.
2) I'm thinking of another thread on a different forum, I read through and saw the mention, because I"m obviously blind >.>
3) I'm for it going in, but the greek orthodox thing doesn't seem particularly fair, and it doesn't make sense for it to be put there and not a little further out of the way where they are safe from neo nazis bombing the thing out of rage. (A real possibility in my opinion, although I don't think anyone wants to talk about it)
On August 24 2010 07:20 LaustinSpayce wrote: I could write further about this, but instead I feel that Charlie Brooker has the same opinion of me and puts down his thoughts in a far better way than I could. So go and read, please.
yeah, i dont know how you can read that article and still be opposed to it. When i first heard of it, i was opposed, but reading this thread, and getting some more of the facts, like, its not at all what they told me it was, no idea how this can even be a news event.
The planned "ultra-mosque" will be a staggering 5,600ft tall – more than five times higher than the tallest building on Earth – and will be capped with an immense dome of highly-polished solid gold, carefully positioned to bounce sunlight directly toward the pavement, where it will blind pedestrians and fry small dogs. The main structure will be delimited by 600 minarets, each shaped like an upraised middle finger, and housing a powerful amplifier: when synchronised, their combined sonic might will be capable of relaying the muezzin's call to prayer at such deafening volume, it will be clearly audible in the Afghan mountains, where thousands of terrorists are poised to celebrate by running around with scarves over their faces, firing AK-47s into the sky and yelling whatever the foreign word for "victory" is.
Sadly, not far off from what people would have you believe. Good article though.
Haha, great article. My favorite part: "I once had a poo in a pub about two minutes' walk from Buckingham Palace. I was not subsequently arrested and charged with crapping directly onto the Queen's pillow. That's how "distance" works in Britain."
Read the thread, we have already discussed that at length.
1) I mean they need a mosque in the region, but two blocks from ground zero seems like they knew they were making a point. Even if it wasn't their primary purpose, they knew something stupid like this would happen.
Not everyone assumes people are bigoted sacks of shit.
For that matter, they were already using the building for prayer meetings. "Sorry, guys, you can't renovate your home. Somebody who looks like you decided to be a dick two blocks away from here."
On topic: some1 alrdy mentions it above but ya muslims build mosque in the place of victory when they conquer a place, it has been shown through history. america may be tolerance on the religions but there is a limit.
Off topic: to most i will sound racist and all but muslim are suppost to be radical and too the dot with their intentions, if ur not a radical muslim ur not a muslim according to the koran just look at this video b4 replying to me:
EPT
