Muslim cultural center near 9/11 site causes distress

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Mrs.Lucysnow, May 20, 2010.

  1. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    I'm sorry: based on my above - and what you just wrote - I must conclude that you mean exactly what you write: that it's only acceptable to turn the other cheek when it's applied to Muslims; that I turn the other cheek with Sam, who is Muslim, so that I turn the other cheek for her.

    I must conclude that's what you mean, because that's the only way this makes any sense. The second part would seem to belie that, of course:

    "Without proof" as in "reported from several media sources"? Do you comprehend the difference between the general and specific? As in all mosques versus this mosque (which, amusingly, Sam would have us believe is not a mosque...because...uh...singing and dancing will be going on in an adjoining part of the complex.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    )

    On the site of 9/11's Ground Zero? I'm not sure. In an unrelated question, when will it be acceptable for Christians - or, indeed, anyone else - to build a house of worship and prosetylize to the natives in a Muslim country? Any of them. You see, I just don't believe in your assumed moral outrage.

    Regrettably, that is another insult.

    Here's the thing: I generally take a tit-for-tat approach on these things. I insult when insults are directed at me. Sometimes I'm particularly mean, sometimes not. But I've sort of hit my end point. So here's what you're going to do: you will either i) retract your comment immediately with an apology, or ii) cite the sites I link that apparently make me a "redneck bigot". (I'm also going to have to enforce the plural here, too: you said "sites", and sites it must be. We can discuss their content once you have found them.) You should also be prepared to contrast their content with the two Arab/Muslim organizations I mentioned previously: the Islamic American Forum for Democracy, and the Center for Islamic Pluralism (Washington). If you don't, I will be forced to take stronger measures. They may not be successful, but they may. The thing is really that your constant ad homeinem has got a bit out of hand: back up your words, councillor, or withdraw.

    You should also (if your clicking finger hasn't suddenly turned limp) check out this link, too. Because, you know, it comes from another of those redneck sites I'm always referencing.

    http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ed...07/01/10/the_boston_mosques_saudi_connection/

    Happy hunting. I expect your answer quite soon.

    Geoff
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    Strawman of a different colour. Interesting, though: Ze Joos are responsible, Bells? And you call me a bigot.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Panda: this is a bit hyperbolic, don't you think?

    An exclusion zone? Really? Let us be serious, for a moment. The connections of this fellow don't give anyone pause, here? None of you, eh?

    Wow. Staggering straw-man, and farcical ad homeinem. The obvious answer (which, astoundingly, actually seems to need to be stated) is "no". Let's not rest on that, however, but pause for a moment at the extremes to which some posters seem willing to take this debate.

    Wow. Just: wow.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    Hmm. This would be an acceptable alternative, I think.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,479
    whats acceptable about having different standards for different people acting in the same manner?
     
  8. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    Nothing at all. Which is why this thread - and my argument - exists.
     
  9. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    Anyway, busy day today and no time to trade pointless propaganda with pj.

    Ta-ra. I'll be on to examine all your entrails later.
     
  10. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,479
    You've been arguing for differing standards.
     
  11. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    Actually, no.

    See you soon.
     
  12. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,479
    one thing to think about if we replaced islam with any other religion everything else the same would we be having this debate? the honest answer is no we wouldn't.
     
  13. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    Where did I say the Jews were responsible?

    I said no religious houses.. no Mosques, then no Churches or Synagogues. After all, if we are going to base this on what iceaura stated.. depending on who is financing and for what reasons. I believe I was quite clear. Just because you have the need to see anti-semitism everywhere is your problem. Not mine.

    So you can wring those hands some more.

    I am trying to determine how you know this particular building will be used to create or educate radical Islamists when the damn building hasn't even been built yet. Are you claiming to have supernatural powers that can predict the future?

    So the media know that is what will be taught at this site?

    You and the media (all of which are right wing and so full of bigotted stories that I have to wonder how you can even go to such sites without wanting to throw up.. would make st*rmfront proud... hell.. some of them actually advertise on that site and are quoted widely on such sites) seem to have determined that this building will be teachng radical Islam and luring people to becoming radical Islamists.. Do you have sacred stones that you're reading like Joseph Smith?

    It's a few blocks away. Tell me, where does Ground Zero end, exactly?

    What is the Muslim exclusion zone for their houses of worship near ground zero? A mile? 2? How many blocks? What if it was made into an apartment building? Would you protest Muslims living there and holding their prayers in their apartments? I mean you're into denying Muslims a place to worship. Would you go so far as to deny them a place to live as well?

    And this is interesting. You always whine and complain (rightly) about the way that some Islamic countries or regions forbid the spread of Christianity or the building of Christian Churches.. and yet, here you are.. as bad as they are. It is your assumed moral outrage that I find unbelievable and so hypocritical.

    No. I actually mean it in all honesty. That is how I see you now, after clicking on the links you have provided and read the reports and stories of the people you support. Those same people are often cited and quoted and even advertise on what we would deem to be hate sites. I know they are there and have seen them there because I have been helping a friend write a paper on them and their rise and prevalence in today's society by helping him research it during my recovery. The sites you've been linking are not only linked and advertised on such hate sites, but they are also quoted and lauded as heroes. So no, it is not an insult. You do come across as a redneck racist. It's an honest assessment.

    Refer to above.

    The sites you have been quoting to apparently prove that a building that hasn't been built yet will be teaching radical Islam, etc, the articles you have been quoting.. those authors are linked, advertise on hate sites that take the approach of a white US only.. if you know what I mean. Now, there has been a rise in the membership of such sites in the last few years. Which clearly indicates a growth in racist ideology. It could very well be that you visit sites that these hate sites hold near and dear because you are either a racist bigot, or you quite honestly have no idea what kind of ideology you support and who else supports it.

    So you can claim ad hom attacks while you insult me personally, you insult my intelligence, you even insult my capacity as a lawyer. You can do that all you want. That is you. I mean you are the man who attempted to goad me to insult your family, which I have never once done, and then said that it was something I would do, knowing that I have never once mentioned your family in any debate or argument we have had.. not once. When you have not only insulted my family, but repeatedly made light of something that was a horrendous experience for me. So you can claim ad hom attacks all you very well want. It does not hide your dishonest and hypocritical, might I say, vindictive and hateful nature.


    Really? You are arguing that a cultural centre will be used to teach and preach radical Islam or *gasp* encourage terrorism, when A, not only has the building not even been built yet, but, the proof you have shown was mostly from hate sites that stir up fear mongering.. And you say "strawman"?

    Yes. Wow indeed.
     
  14. superluminal I am MalcomR Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,876
    A cultural center. Celebrating what? Which aspects of islamic cultural will we be celebrating there anyway? The good parts(!?!) or the bad parts? Just curious. Will they be carefully pruning their cultural presentations of the, oh let's say, "killing the infidel" parts?
     
  15. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Say what? What is suddenly wrong with your normal powers of reason? It's a not a subtle point.

    I object to the particular brand of Muslim and the specific sources of financing and the long associated media wing of the political agenda that instigated and supported 9/11 being allowed to build a celebration of itself on the grounds of the successful attack. That it is a mosque just sharpens the point.
     
  16. Cowboy My Aim Is True Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,707
    I believe in property rights, so I think the owner(s) of that property has a right to build an Islamic cultural center there.

    That being said; I have a hard time believing that the motivation for this was something other than an attempt to rub the memory of the 9/11 attacks in peoples' faces.
     
  17. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    So which "brand of Muslim" would be acceptable?
     
  18. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,855
    None, of course.

    If this fiasco in any way becomes based on a religious principle, then it always has been a religious act of violence, yes?
     
  19. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087

    Ask and ye shall receive.

    You believe that the wholesale denial of permission constitutes a case of group religious discrimination. You described a parallel using Synagogues. Your implication was therefore clear.

    That has not been your position throughout this debate.

    Regrettably so.

    Ad hom.

    They are every bit as accurate (or more) than the farseeing sages who decided to stock up on "iron sticks" aboard the Mara.

    Haha. That was a funny one. "Does the media really know what Mr. Hitler will be up to in Czechslovakia?"

    Er, yes, I, the consummate conservative capitalist.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    I'm sorry, but your grammar actually slipped up from me there. Which sites is it I am going to? Which of them advertise on that site? And if the former are true, how would the latter be either i) within my knowledge or ii) my doing??

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Impressive. You have finally come round to the point that I've only been making for over half the thread, I think. I've already cited articles on it. Go back and examine them; they're not hard to find.

    Hmm. I'd say, wherever the shrapnel didn't fall. Perhaps I don't have quite your grasp of ethics and personal feelings.

    I have already answered NO to this unbelievably insulting and hyperbolic question.

    Ah...because the Christians crashed planes into buildings nearby. Is that it? And they've done this for the past 1400 years? Not very prudent of them. See, I supposed that it was based on something you claim to an abhorrence for: oppression and suppression of indigenous cultures. Was I incorrect in my assumption? The systematic oppression of other cultures in the ME - and elsewhere - long preceeds the modern era, and it is not restricted to a single place or site.

    Well, actually, you'd have to illustrate i) their racism, ii) that I agree with it, if it exists, iii) that I either am responsible for or support their linking to or being advertised on such hate sites, iv) that even these people - and who they are I'm really not sure any more - support their being "quoted and lauded as heroes". I cited an article by that guy Sam hates, which appears to be the problematic one, but beyond that I haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about, and I don't even recall what site it came from. If they are indeed a racist site (as defined, I think, by an introspective third-party, and specifically not by you at this stage), then I refute their perspectives utterly. I would still ask you to refute the article by what's his name, however.

    I just deleted the rest of your post without really reading it - there were some allegations of something, I think, but it's irrelevant at this point. You have now repeatedly characterised me as linking to hate sites. I have requested you to either back up your assertion, or retract it, as racism is a particularly vicious insult to me. You have done neither.

    In the common field, it would be well to describe your actions thus far on the thread as hateful, spiteful, and ignorant. You haven't engaged in racism on this thread, but - again, if we are to be fair - you've done it elsewhere with your unbelievably myopic dismissal of a hate rally as a "singalong". I cannot say what your motivations might be; I don't think I've speculated in the past, although personal feeling appears to be a large proportion of it, which is regrettable.
     
  20. Pandaemoni Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,634
    What no one has done is provide a reasonable basis for saying "NO" to Islamic worship and yet "yes" to Muslim occupants. Simply saying (as some have) Muslims can have a community center elsewhere, just not near Ground Zero is not qualitatively different than telling Muslims who want to buy homes that they can "live elsewhere" just not near Ground Zero.

    So, if there is hyperbole in there, then I do not see that you have distinguished your actual position from the hyperbole. As I said before, "Islam" never attacked the U.S., though certain Muslims did, so why is the ethical solution to forbid the practice of Islam by Muslims in the area, but embrace Muslims (who will no doubt practice Islam) in the area? Certainly the answer is "because we hate what Muslims do and believe" and not "because we hate certain arrangements of building materials and/or certain kinds of architecture".

    Also, if you welcome the Muslims as residents and workers, then can they have a community center that is not a mosque on that site? If not, then again, what is the ethical distinction? If they can have apartments in the area, then they can invite guests to their apartments, and they can discuss community issues, they can discuss the Koran, they can pray or otherwise hold religious services. Both this and a community center would be on private property. In either case, the religion is being practiced...so how is it that having a mosque nearby would be an "insult" to the people who died (meaning, really, the friends and family of those who died)? Why isn't the denial of the right to have an official place of worship in southern Manhattan insulting to those Muslim victims?

    If allowing Muslims to live in the area, and therefore to practice their religion in the area is not an affront, but allowing them to do it in a larger group in a separate building is an affront, then how many Muslims must be engaged in worship before the State should tell them they no longer have the right to do so?

    If the sole objection is to having a radical mosque in the area, then I see the your position more clearly, but then you set a stark first amendment issue in front of this kerfuffle. You cannot generally ban anyone's speech, right to assembly and right to practice his religion on the basis simply of not liking the content involved unless the restrictions support a compelling State interest and are narrowly tailored to achieve ther aim (the "strict scrutiny" test). Even granting (as I do) that curtailing calls to violence is a "compelling state interest", forbidding the building of a mosque is obviously not the most narrowly tailored way of safeguarding that interest. A more narrowly tailored restriction would be to outlaw incitement to violence (which i suspect is already illegal in NYC), not to prevent the existence of the community center and mosque in the first place.

    On the more philosophical side—and acknowledging the likelihood that you have a different basis which has not occurred to me—I can myself think of a logically consistent explanation for both positions (Muslims individually living and worshipping in the area—yes, but Muslims worshipping in groups in a specific building—no), but it almost seems as if one must concede that either (i) forbidding the mosque is merely a symbolic gesture designed to show that we disapprove of radical Islam and we do not care if the gesture treads on the free speech and religious liberty of other Muslims who may worship there) or (ii) that any Muslim presence in that area is an insult, but that we balance their right to liberty against our right to not be insulted, and if the number of Muslims gets up to "a mosque-full" our injury trumps the harm caused by the denial. (There are actually a few others, like the notion that Muslims in groups are more likely to engage in criminal/terrorist acts, which would be consistent, but sufficiently overtly racist that I dismiss it.)

    Point (i) is clearly an attack on free speech and religious liberty, and given the symbolic nature of the gesture is tough to defend in a tradition that values free speech and the right to ones reglious freedom as highly as ours. Point (ii) is based on a right not to be insulted or disturbed. That is a real right (as there are regulations limiting the amount of noise one can make, for example, even if that noise in speech), but if the Nazis have the right to march through Jewish neighborhoods (which at the time had many Holocaust survivors living there) in Skokie, Illinois, clearly the law favors the first amendment over the right to be free of insults to a very large degree.

    So I assume there is some other philosophical basis for the distinction you would have us make between (i) on the one hand, accepting Muslims, as people, even though they by definition believe in Islam and would practice it while in the area of Ground Zero and (ii) on the ther hand, rejecting Muslims, as people who by definition believe in Islam, who would practice it in a specific building in the area of Ground Zero.
     
  21. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    I wrote down a perfectly clear basic set of criteria above. Read what I post, or don't bother "replying".

    Meanwhile: Not this one, right? This one is a problem and the issue, and your extension into all of religious edifice had no basis in this or any discussion involving me. We clear on that?
    That's backwards: what no one has yet done is provide a reasonable basis for this monument to the triumph of 9/11 in the absence of its ostensible justification - a relevant Muslim community.

    One of the reasons the WTC towers were chosen, after all, is that very circumstance.
     
  22. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Actually, Panda, that isn't the contrast I'm drawing here. The question is, rather, whether the site would be used for extremism. If the money is coming from Saudi Arabia - and, depending on who Rauf speaks to, it is or isn't - then there is a great deal of reason to think that it would be. As such, it would probably be a centre for extremism.

    Understood: I apologize if my dissertations appear confusing.

    Yes and no: before we could make any such judgement, we would have to understand the motivations for the construction of this mosque, and the philosophies of its intended founders. So far, I am unconvinced of their benign intent.

    Actually, no: I think you could also oppose such a structure on basis of the interpretation of Islamic scriptures by some proportion of conservatives, although my position isn't founded on that. It's also an issue of 'good taste and morality': I wouldn't set up a German cultural centre at Dachau, either, as I'm sure you'll appreciate.

    I'm sorry, but this is incorrect. It is quite qualitatively different where someone lives and is allowed to participate in the spreading of hate speech, the latter being likely if the Saudis have their hands in the mosque.

    Well, if the arbiters of the mosque are of the same 'brand' of Islamic thought (to use the phrase Bells hates) as the 9/11 hijackers...then I would like to think that the imposition of this mosque on Ground Zero would be highly insulting. If I were killed by Pat Robertson followers, I'd be pissed off if someone built a 700 Club studio on the site of my death.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    I've made this point several times in the thread already; could you acknowledge that you've seen this point? I hate to have to keep coming back to it.

    Thankyou: this is in fact my point, although I'm not arguing against it on legal grounds, but moral ones. Then again, haven't people been able to entangle the workings of the KKK on legal grounds as well? My saying is: where there's a lawyer, there's a loophole. There's no reason we couldn't employ legalistic means rather than rallies. I agree these might not be immediately to hand - the Nazis marching through Jewish neighborhoods is a depressing example of hatred - but it doesn't mean that a legal lesson from that example need be ubiquitous. First Amendment doesn't give on a right to hand out hate literature, or produce anti-Semitic vitriol. It's never so cut-and-dried, is my point.

    :bugeye: Er...not really my point...

    Also not really my point. Why do you think this distinction characterizes my argument? I presume it isn't presumption.
     
    Last edited: Jun 15, 2010
  23. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,855
    This is the crux of the biscuit, is it not?

    Funny how not long ago many here were waving their arms frantically about these type of events not having religious implications, that they were political or some such other reason. Yet, here we have a religious discussion in Politics, on a subject that is supposed to be political and not religious.

    If the hijackers were also on a bowling team, shouldn't we then also ban wooden lanes and big balls?

    At the very least, we should do something about those with pin shaped heads.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     

Share This Page