Mosques No Where Near Ground Zero Meet Stiff Resistance

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

A lot of fuss has been made about the funding for the proposed Islamic center. And as stated earlier, as long as the funding is legal, I could care less. But some people do not want it funded by the Saudi's.

For some reason it matters to them if the Saudi's fund this project. These same people don't seem to have a problem with the Saudi's funding their news sources (e.g. Fox News) and they don't have a problem with Saudi's funding their poitical candidates (e.g. Republican Party & george II). So why is it Saudi funding of an Islamic Center is such a big deal?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

No.

Er...because you think I'm trolling? Or not? Were you trolling when you accused me of trolling? Let me know.

Sorry: what are you referring to here? Would it be different from just ignoring what I write and deriving your own skewed interpretation?

Actually, that's false as I described it. My admission concerned ignoring what I thought was an irrelevant argument, not "[cutting] out a chunk of what [you] wrote so that [you] read as want it to read".

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Oh, I'm sure. Bells, it's just a little disingenous to bring this issue up in a thread where at least half your argument has been composed of calling me dishonest, and/or accusing me of editing your comments, among other things.

I believe I've addressed this several times. It's quite a simple answer, really. But this raises a wider question: would you accept it, mischaracterize it or ignore it?

I acknowledge your point about minorities in society. At the same time, it does not behoove us to permit the dissemination of radicalism; it is a road we have been down before - and since we're discussing societal outcomes, it leads to this. Minority opinon can become majority opinion over relatively short time frames. I leave it to your own humanitarianism to evaluate the relative risks at each stage and in each area of this engagement.

You'll note I said "radical" strippers. I think I also pointed out that I'd have to be sure that the stripper club wouldn't contain similar radicals, and so forth, in parallel of our discussion. If not, then let's be frank here: it should be implicit, and there's little excuse for making such an argument.

Then I am sorry that you are so disturbed.

Not really, no.

Then I'm sorry you and they are so confused. I have attempted to be as plain as possible.

If it is against the forum rules, then report me. I have nothing to hide or be ashamed of. My posts are as they were posted.

"Kept demanding" implies it happened more than once. And you'll forgive me for not taking you at your word in this debate, since you do not do likewise. It's one thing to be briefly offended at my assumption, Bells: it does not follow that this becomes some major point of argument for you. As I said - report away.

Simple: insurance. I believed you might have a similar go at me here and wished to assure the reader that I knew what one of the possible outcomes was.

In the other thread, you jumped out at me without warning, and engaged in personal attacks and trolling my arguments. So I can't say that I believe you about this either.

I should have thought this was clear: I condemn them in the strongest possible way. Meanwhile, you brush off misogyny for a mysterious reason that one can only assume depends on the source.

Tsk tsk. You seem to have worked yourself up into a lather here: we cannot now agree? I agreed with your general perspective in that paragraph. But I now cannot?

This is like the pot calling the plate black.

 

You'll forgive me if I mention again that both are disturbing.

 

Are you OK - completely - with ruling class Saudis funding both the Republican Party and Fox News?

 

NO I am not.

 

I have watched both Saudi TV and Fox.
Both are weird, but would anyone say that they have a common ethos?

 

.

do you know that saudi arabia is the n°2 or 10,[ or between, (anyway i forgot it, i readed it somewhere, about, top 10 things you didint know)] in fighting terrorism funding.

 

.

how exactly? well, just asking, never watched a saudi channel.

 

How can Saudi TV be weird.

I'll give you an example.
I once watched an old Western film on Saudi TV. I worked there for a while.
I'd seen the film before, so I knew what it was about, but if you had not seen the film it would have been completely unintelligible due to censorship.

The subject of the film was that a city slicker had inherited a whore house in a Western town.

During that film, it was never explained what was inherited.
and they never showed any woman.

 

Sounds like Fox...heavily edited. But of course Fox does have a penchant for petite young blonde women.

 

Look carefully at the protest sign, which reads "You can build a mosque at Ground Zero when we can build a synagogue in Mecca."

Seems to me some minority is capitalizing on this issue for their own agenda.

 

Rather, it's a reasonable tradeoff.

This rapprochement and understanding thing works two ways, not one way.

 

But they have porn on cable.

 

Details

Take it up with Rich Brooks. I would agree that, in the larger scheme, this isn't so great a detail.

But more to the point, the hullaballoo over the "Ground Zero Mosque" is nothing more than cynical electioneering, a cheap but apparently effective attempt to exploit American xenophobia. Steven Brust once wrote, "Just because they really are out to get you doesn't mean you aren't paranoid, and though his context was far removed from American wars and turbaned terrorists, I think there remains some fair application to the present situation.

But, as you chose this particular focus, we can certainly consider it:

As Matthew Dennis, a history professor at University of Oregon, wrote earlier this week for The Register-Guard:

Americans who aggressively oppose a proposed Islamic cultural center in New York City two blocks from ground zero seem determined to confirm Dr. Johnson's dictionary definition: "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty has said, for example, "I think it's inappropriate. ... From a patriotic standpoint, it's hallowed ground, it's sacred ground, and we should respect that. We shouldn't ... degrade or disrespect that in any way."

How might a 13-story community center that will include a conference hall, a culinary school, a basketball court, a swimming pool, and, yes, a place of worship that caters to the Muslim community (but is open to all), constitute a degradation? ....

.... We should reject guilt by association — especially the imaginary (and bigoted) association of American Muslims with the likes of al Qaeda. The Department of Defense certainly recognizes the difference, having scheduled Muslim prayer services in the Pentagon's memorial chapel that was built near where 184 died in 2001.​

One thing that strikes me about this whole issue is that for all the cynicism Americans show both politicians and the press, we're still willing to allow those groups to establish the boundaries of debate; perhaps it is simply more entertaining than actually attending reality.
____________________

Notes:

Brust, Steven. Issola. New York: Tor, 2001.

Dennis, Matthew. "Fear and ignorance fuel opposition to New York mosque". The Register Guard. August 25, 2010. Registerguard.com. August 28, 2010. http://www.registerguard.com/csp/cm...t-guestviewpointhead-viewpoint-writername.csp

 

Sorry, my statement was completely accurate.

A lie: or demonstrate such a chain of events. "Sometimes" is a good word also - is it occurring here, or are you referring to some imagined event in the long-ago past.

I have already described this: my suspicion is that if the mosque is Saudi-funded, there is a very good chance that it will be radical. I would like Rauf to disclose completely and unreservedly his funding sources. It isn't a big request, really. It's strange that it generates so much controversy. As it is, however, we already have $300K being donated by a Saudi prince, so I think the issue is looking worse and worse for your "side".

"Hallowed and sacred"? Where, exactly, have I said that?

As for its "spiritual locale": http://bigpeace.com/mtodd/2010/08/24/the-mosque-is-at-ground-zero/

Or -

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

- disagreeing with you. Which is worse?

I've never understood your latter line of argument here: but they bet and strip near Ground Zero, Geoff! Surely we could have a Saudi-funded mosque there! Well, when radical jockey or radical strippers attack the World Trade Center, then by all means we should avoid giving them the opportunity to express radical opinions on jockeism or nudity near the site of their attack. As it is, we're concerned with possible radical Islamism. Still, I'm sure these others will have their day also. If it turns out that they are indeed radical Islamists, then I would support any legal means to block their construction, obviously. But let's read that again, so that it sinks in: legal means. Merely waving the Constitution of a nation of which you are not a member in front of the forum is not a valid counter-argument: it is not as universal as made out. It has limits.

This is a fine idea, but not my point.

LMAO - that entire line was accidentally left in from your post, above. Sorry - who's playing the martyr again?

Misrepresentation.

Ha - miscomprehension. I put that statement in as a form of insurance. I'd noticed you'd already posted in that thread, and I wanted to be sure I held the higher ground in case this happened. And it has.

The latter I have apologized repeatedly for. I expect you bring it up presumably because you still feel victimized, and not to score points in this debate. As for the former, this is his first invocation and since I don't find you a particularly honest poster, I doubt at your statements. I suppose I should just take you at your word.

In that you consider the report of the President of the Muslim Canadian Congress to be fallaciously reporting a threat.

Wrong again, unless you can demonstrate where I have been arguing for demonization, vigilante justice, persecution or mob rule.

Good luck with that next project.

By contrast, should I assume that your attitudes are perfectly in line with those who verbally threaten and abuse women? Or are your attitudes more in line with religious leaders seeking to impose arbitrary punitive restrictions on women? You might condemn such actions as much as you want...or else brush them off, I guess. But what leads these people to restrict, oppress and even kill women is what you have been arguing for on this forum.

You do raise a curious idea, however: should we oppose nothing? Opposing anything does sound like an attitude that would breed fear and suspicion. I suppose the context and basis isn't important. All hail the new era of complete credulity!

 

A Must-See

Jon Stewart on the Mosque-rade

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-august-16-2010/mosque-erade

 

Oh: some other interesting factoids on Sharif El-Gamal, the builder who is reported as having threatened the head of the MCC for asking too many questions about the mosque (which Bells doesn't quite believe):

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local...ory_of_runins_with_the_law.html#ixzz0xvR2Z7ie

Sounds quite the gentleman.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!