Muslim cultural center near 9/11 site causes distress

[GeoffP]

So it's only acceptable to turn the other cheek when it's applied to Muslims. They need to turn the other cheek.

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:

They need to turn the other cheek when they are abused and accused of breeding terrorists without proof?

"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. )

Tell me Geoff, when will it be acceptable for Muslims to build a Mosque there?

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.

Oh I read it. I read the sites you link and scratch my head at how you could have turned into such a redneck bigot.

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

 

[GeoffP]

Well, if that is the case, I take it that no Christian Churches or Synagogues should be allowed to open on that site either?

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

So, where can they build? A mile away? Two miles? What is the size of your Islam-exclusion zone? Can Muslims live in that zone, or is it fair for co-op and condo boards to turn them away based on their religion (after all, they may actually practice that religion while there). Assuming (as I hope) you'd allow them to live there, why not let them have a community center? Look at the building...it's a piece of shit and not getting any better. You'd rather it continue to be a broken down craphole, than let them use it for something they'd want to use it for?

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?

Which raises an interesting question. I wonder, if the block was zoned residential and an apartment building was built there. Would Lucy and Geoff, for example, accept if Muslims were denied the right to live there, because they would practice their religion in their house (prayers for example)?

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.

 

[GeoffP]

I would reach a compromise with the financiers: due to the sensitivity of the site, and the intended goal to promote Islam, they can build a cultural center there, but only on condition that a portion of it is dedicated as a memorial to the victims of 9/11, and that the center place a strong and highly visible emphasis on condemning Islamic radicalism.

Hmm. This would be an acceptable alternative, I think.

 

[pjdude1219]

Hmm. This would be an acceptable alternative, I think.

whats acceptable about having different standards for different people acting in the same manner?

 

[GeoffP]

Nothing at all. Which is why this thread - and my argument - exists.

 

[GeoffP]

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.

 

[pjdude1219]

Nothing at all. Which is why this thread - and my argument - exists.

You've been arguing for differing standards.

 

[GeoffP]

Actually, no.

See you soon.

 

[pjdude1219]

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.

 

[Bells]

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

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.

"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.

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?

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.

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.

Regrettably, that is another insult.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[superluminal]

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?

 

[iceaura]

When they are different Muslims, financed in a different manner, with a different agenda, and recognizing a local population of Muslims who would appreciate a mosque in their neighborhood.
”
Well, if that is the case, I take it that no Christian Churches or Synagogues should be allowed to open on that site either?

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.

 

[Cowboy]

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.

 

[Bells]

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.

So which "brand of Muslim" would be acceptable?

 

[(Q)]

So which "brand of Muslim" would be acceptable?

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?

 

[GeoffP]

Where did I say the Jews were responsible?

Well, if that is the case, I take it that no Christian Churches or Synagogues should be allowed to open on that site either?

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.

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.

That has not been your position throughout this debate.

I believe I was quite clear.

Regrettably so.

So you can wring those hands some more.

Ad hom.

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?

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

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

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

You and the media (all of which are right wing

Er, yes, I, the consummate conservative capitalist.

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)

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??

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?

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.

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

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

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?

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

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.

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.

No. I actually mean it in all honesty..... 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.

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.

 

[Pandaemoni]

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

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.

 

[iceaura]

So which "brand of Muslim" would be acceptable?

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?

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.

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.

 

[GeoffP]

What no one has done is provide a reasonable basis for saying "NO" to Islamic worship and yet "yes" to Muslim occupants.

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.

So, if there is hyperbole in there, then I do not see that you have distinguished your actual position from the hyperbole.

Understood: I apologize if my dissertations appear confusing.

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?

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.

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".

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.

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.

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.

Why isn't the denial of the right to have an official place of worship in southern Manhattan insulting to those Muslim victims?

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. 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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

Also not really my point. Why do you think this distinction characterizes my argument? I presume it isn't presumption.

 

[(Q)]

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.

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.