Muslim cultural center near 9/11 site causes distress

[GeoffP]

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.

It's annoying that people will continue to pretend I'm arguing A when I'm clearly arguing B. I can point out that I'm saying A - I can even describe the shape of a frigging A - but no one cares. Too many people get their argumentative and logical frameworks from daytime television. It makes me wonder why I'm even here.

But for me the issue of this forum is the ignorance. Or ignoring, if you like. I'll go ahead and cut an argument down to ribbons, and the opposition will just wander along like nothing happened. It's a fundamental fact of the internet that no one's mind is going to be changed by anything said on it, but one could at least acknowledge it.

 

[superluminal]

So which "brand of Muslim" would be acceptable?

Nike, of course. Greek goddess of victory. Since, of course, the muslims will ultimately win the whole enchilada. They are way more badass than the rest of us. Just wait until they move into the 21st century. Our western asses are toast.

 

[Pandaemoni]

Actually, Panda, that isn't the contrast I'm drawing here.

I understand that now, though the issues I am struggling with are twofold:

First, that it seems like there is an ethical inconsistency in the position that Muslims (who are by definition people who follow Islam) are to be welcomed but there is no room for Islam. From your post, I suspect the resolution of the seeming inconsistency is that you are opposed to the mosque because it might contain radical elements, and that you are assuming the Muslim residents of the area are non-radicals (though of course, who is "radical" is often a subjective matter). Not to drag you off your main point, but the question that seems like it would resolve *my* confusion would be: Do you agree that "radical" Muslims can be denied housing in southern manhattan based solely on their ideology? If the answer is "yes, they can be denied housing" then it seems like your positions are logically consistent, though that runs into....

Second, that this issue comes down, clearly, to discriminating against people based on their religious beliefs. (As an aside, I do agree that anyone advocating immediate violence can be silenced and subjected to penalty, but not all radicals are at that stage, and those that do can be dealt with when they make such statements) That is both a legal and moral question, but for me comes down to my quote from Carl Schurz a few pages ago: that when you strike at the liberty of another, you often take a very dangerous swing at your own.

The reason we tolerated the Nazi parade in Skokie was not because the Supreme Court <3 Nazis, but because their offensive rhetoric wasn't close enough to causing imminent harm (i.e., the possibility of their uttering "fighting words" is not good enough) to override the protections of the first amendment or, ultimately, the value of the free exchange of ideas. That is the law, but it is also part of the political philosophy (and the political ethics) of the nation. This is one of those times, when I am glad that the minority has rights that the majority cannot take away.

 

[Michael]

Nike, of course. Greek goddess of victory. Since, of course, the muslims will ultimately win the whole enchilada. They are way more badass than the rest of us. Just wait until they move into the 21st century. Our western asses are toast.

Actually I have to disagree.

Feeling safe and secure is inversely proportional to Religiosity.

As (or if) Muslim societies progress and become more affluent, the less religious Muslims become. The Western world is a result of prosperity that, IMO, isn't uniquely "Western" but only set in this context. If Muslim societies "move into the 21st century" then they will become less religious, AKA: less "Islamic" (as we think of Islam today). Agnosticism and atheism are even now on the rise in so-called Islamic countries. Many "Islamic" ideals are being rejected and are no longer considered "Islamic" by certain segments of the Muslim population. Is this "Westernization" or a simple extension of modernity? Slavery used to be Islamic. Child marriages used to be Islamic. Polygamy used to be Islamic. These are now at best an embarrassment and at worse abhorrent - they are no longer Islamic by large swaths of Muslim populations.

The world is integrating - soon adjectives like "West" will hold little or no meaning at all. Theism's will evolve to survive in this new world. Period. I think they will be softer and more tolerant as that's more than likely the way most modern societies will develop.

 

[GeoffP]

I understand that now, though the issues I am struggling with are twofold:

First, that it seems like there is an ethical inconsistency in the position that Muslims (who are by definition people who follow Islam) are to be welcomed but there is no room for Islam.

Maybe, maybe not. I'm undecided about this one; but again, if it were the site of a massacre by Christians, I sure as hell wouldn't want a church put up there, because it might be seen as supremacist and hugely insulting to the locals.

From your post, I suspect the resolution of the seeming inconsistency is that you are opposed to the mosque because it might contain radical elements, and that you are assuming the Muslim residents of the area are non-radicals (though of course, who is "radical" is often a subjective matter).

Actually, I have no information speaking to the positions of local Muslims - I would expect a reflection of attitudes common to Islam overall, possibly more liberal here than elsewhere - but there's no ethical inconsistency in denying space for the promotion of extremism, if that's what this mosque would be used for.

Not to drag you off your main point, but the question that seems like it would resolve *my* confusion would be: Do you agree that "radical" Muslims can be denied housing in southern manhattan based solely on their ideology?

No. Housing space differs vastly from other space; one can have whatever opinions one wants in their own home. Public dissertation is a different matter.

I don't feel that we endanger our own liberties when we constrain the ability of others to spread hate, if that's what the end product here is. Free speech has limits, for the obvious reason.

 

[superluminal]

Actually I have to disagree.

Feeling safe and secure is inversely proportional to Religiosity.

As (or if) Muslim societies progress and become more affluent, the less religious Muslims become. The Western world is a result of prosperity that, IMO, isn't uniquely "Western" but only set in this context. If Muslim societies "move into the 21st century" then they will become less religious, AKA: less "Islamic" (as we think of Islam today). Agnosticism and atheism are even now on the rise in so-called Islamic countries. Many "Islamic" ideals are being rejected and are no longer considered "Islamic" by certain segments of the Muslim population. Is this "Westernization" or a simple extension of modernity? Slavery used to be Islamic. Child marriages used to be Islamic. Polygamy used to be Islamic. These are now at best an embarrassment and at worse abhorrent - they are no longer Islamic by large swaths of Muslim populations.

The world is integrating - soon adjectives like "West" will hold little or no meaning at all. Theism's will evolve to survive in this new world. Period. I think they will be softer and more tolerant as that's more than likely the way most modern societies will develop.

Here's hoping...:cheers:

 

[Pandaemoni]

No. Housing space differs vastly from other space; one can have whatever opinions one wants in their own home. Public dissertation is a different matter.

That that is public dissertation on private property. The right to practice ones's religion, to associate with those of your choice and to speak one's mind (publically) is sufficiently important that it is enshrined in the Constitution. The right to live where you want isn't technically enshrined anywhere (though the right not to be discriminated against on the vbain housing is...but only under statutory law at the federal level.)

I don't feel that we endanger our own liberties when we constrain the ability of others to spread hate, if that's what the end product here is. Free speech has limits, for the obvious reason.

The problem is that you are not only limiting the radicals who might turn up at that community center, but the non-radicals who might have gone there as well. They all lose that forum.

If it is okay to limit hate speech, and that is the object here, then why not pass a law that forbids hate speech in that area? Then anyone who wants to use the mosque to quietly pray or for other peaceful pusposes has that chance, and those others who turn up can be arrested.

 

[GeoffP]

That that is public dissertation on private property. The right to practice ones's religion, to associate with those of your choice and to speak one's mind (publically) is sufficiently important that it is enshrined in the Constitution.

Yes, but the right to the dissemination of hate speech is not, as several Saudi-funded mosques and schools have found, to their sorrow. It's supposition on my part that this is what will happen there, but I think it reasonably probable supposition; and this is the distinction of importance.

Besides the proposition being a total asshole move, of course.

The right to live where you want isn't technically enshrined anywhere (though the right not to be discriminated against on the vbain housing is...but only under statutory law at the federal level.)

Actually, if you have the right to own property, that's sufficient in the case you're describing, since putatively nothing beyond that is being done.

The problem is that you are not only limiting the radicals who might turn up at that community center, but the non-radicals who might have gone there as well. They all lose that forum.

Then perhaps it would be superior to simply monitor speech at the mosque, and remove those speakers for intolerance and religious hatred. This would be acceptable, I think.

If it is okay to limit hate speech, and that is the object here, then why not pass a law that forbids hate speech in that area? Then anyone who wants to use the mosque to quietly pray or for other peaceful pusposes has that chance, and those others who turn up can be arrested.

This would be a reasonable end-point: the problem is that it is unlikely to be implemented. Any monitoring of the mosque - as I suggest above - would be immediately decried by CAIR et al, and turned into a national tragedy exceeding that of 9/11. This is their modus. But if that organization could be quietly flushed and deported, then I think our suggestions would be effective.

 

[Pandaemoni]

Actually, if you have the right to own property, that's sufficient in the case you're describing, since putatively nothing beyond that is being done.

I don't see how the right to own property plays in, since I presume the Muslims will either own the property on whichg they speak or will come to an agreement with the owner. Locals who don't want the Muslims in the area certainly do have the right to buy up the property, and then tell the Muslims know, but they'd have to, in effect, outbid the Muslims for that.

This would be a reasonable end-point: the problem is that it is unlikely to be implemented. Any monitoring of the mosque - as I suggest above - would be immediately decried by CAIR et al, and turned into a national tragedy exceeding that of 9/11. This is their modus. But if that organization could be quietly flushed and deported, then I think our suggestions would be effective.

I think the reason they would object is that that too would be of questionable legality (because not all hate speech is "fighting words", and only fighting words can be directly regulated based on content), but if such a law would be struck on legal grounds, then surely an even broader law that targets non-violent Muslims in addition to the intended target must breach the same constitutional test, only moreso.

If CAIR challenges the law and loses, then there is no problem implementing that law. If CAIR wins, then that law was too broad. If a law on hate speech is too broad, then a law against mosques the focus of which is on limiting all speech by Muslims so as to catch hate speech as well, is a fortiori overbroad.

The way to save such a law is to assert that it is not about blocking speech at all, but some other neutral factor, like preserving landmark architecture, by requiring that the existing building never be torn down.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Actually I have to disagree.

Feeling safe and secure is inversely proportional to Religiosity.

As (or if) Muslim societies progress and become more affluent, the less religious Muslims become. The Western world is a result of prosperity that, IMO, isn't uniquely "Western" but only set in this context. If Muslim societies "move into the 21st century" then they will become less religious, AKA: less "Islamic" (as we think of Islam today). Agnosticism and atheism are even now on the rise in so-called Islamic countries. Many "Islamic" ideals are being rejected and are no longer considered "Islamic" by certain segments of the Muslim population. Is this "Westernization" or a simple extension of modernity? Slavery used to be Islamic. Child marriages used to be Islamic. Polygamy used to be Islamic. These are now at best an embarrassment and at worse abhorrent - they are no longer Islamic by large swaths of Muslim populations.

The world is integrating - soon adjectives like "West" will hold little or no meaning at all. Theism's will evolve to survive in this new world. Period. I think they will be softer and more tolerant as that's more than likely the way most modern societies will develop.

If what you say is true then why is Islam the world's fastest growing religion...in the West?

"The second-largest religion in the world after Christianity, Islam is also the fastest-growing religion. In the United States, for example, nearly 80 percent of the more than 1,200 mosques have been built in the past 12 years.
Some scholars see an emerging Muslim renaissance as Islam takes root in many traditionally Christian communities."

http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/9704/14/egypt.islam/

Why are muslims in Europe less moderate and more radical than their fathers and grandfathers that first emigrated? Here is a Global Pew Report you may find interesting:

A rare point of agreement between Westerners and Muslims is that both believe that Muslim nations should be more economically prosperous than they are today. But they gauge the problem quite differently. Muslim publics have an aggrieved view of the West – they are much more likely than Americans or Western Europeans to blame Western policies for their own lack of prosperity. For their part, Western publics instead point to government corruption, lack of education and Islamic fundamentalism as the biggest obstacles to Muslim prosperity.

http://pewglobal.org/files/pdf/253.pdf

All these suggestions that resistance towards this damn mosque is racist is bollocks. Islam is thriving very well everywhere.

 

[pjdude1219]

If what you say is true then why is Islam the world's fastest growing religion...in the West?

"The second-largest religion in the world after Christianity, Islam is also the fastest-growing religion. In the United States, for example, nearly 80 percent of the more than 1,200 mosques have been built in the past 12 years.
Some scholars see an emerging Muslim renaissance as Islam takes root in many traditionally Christian communities."

http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/9704/14/egypt.islam/

Why are muslims in Europe less moderate and more radical than their fathers and grandfathers that first emigrated? Here is a Global Pew Report you may find interesting:

A rare point of agreement between Westerners and Muslims is that both believe that Muslim nations should be more economically prosperous than they are today. But they gauge the problem quite differently. Muslim publics have an aggrieved view of the West – they are much more likely than Americans or Western Europeans to blame Western policies for their own lack of prosperity. For their part, Western publics instead point to government corruption, lack of education and Islamic fundamentalism as the biggest obstacles to Muslim prosperity.

http://pewglobal.org/files/pdf/253.pdf

All these suggestions that resistance towards this damn mosque is racist is bollocks. Islam is thriving very well everywhere.

???Islam is not the fastest growing religion in the US

 

[GeoffP]

I don't see how the right to own property plays in

Well...that was your point from before.

, since I presume the Muslims will either own the property on whichg they speak or will come to an agreement with the owner. Locals who don't want the Muslims in the area certainly do have the right to buy up the property, and then tell the Muslims know, but they'd have to, in effect, outbid the Muslims for that.

We're avoiding the issue again here, though: property for housing or a business - or I think any other conceivable role - is clearly humanitarian in nature, and above this issue. Space for a mosque (very likely funded by the Saudis) and by these proponents may constitute space for surpremacist speech and the promulgation of hatred. They are quite different beasts.

I think the reason they would object is that that too would be of questionable legality (because not all hate speech is "fighting words", and only fighting words can be directly regulated based on content), but if such a law would be struck on legal grounds, then surely an even broader law that targets non-violent Muslims in addition to the intended target must breach the same constitutional test, only moreso.

I don't think that's actually so. Is hate speech distinct or no? Or is there an overlap with ordinary speech?

If CAIR challenges the law and loses, then there is no problem implementing that law. If CAIR wins, then that law was too broad. If a law on hate speech is too broad, then a law against mosques the focus of which is on limiting all speech by Muslims so as to catch hate speech as well, is a fortiori overbroad.

Agreed here; although the test of broadness is not whether CAIR wins or loses, since they are not an objective player, and in fact are much, much worse. But I agree with your principle.

The way to save such a law is to assert that it is not about blocking speech at all, but some other neutral factor, like preserving landmark architecture, by requiring that the existing building never be torn down.

???Islam is not the fastest growing religion in the US

Which one is, out of curiosity?

 

[pjdude1219]

Which one is, out of curiosity?

Wicca is.

 

[Pandaemoni]

Space for a mosque (very likely funded by the Saudis) and by these proponents may constitute space for surpremacist speech and the promulgation of hatred.

Any space in the entire world "may" be space for hate speech, so that is irrelevant. What matters is whether you can prohibit all speech of a certain braoiad categoty in the name of prohibiting hate speech. In the U.S., the answer is that you can, but only if your limitation is the narrowest possible rule that could stop the hate speech. Here, there are obviously more narrow restrictions that could lead to the same end.

I don't think that's actually so. Is hate speech distinct or no? Or is there an overlap with ordinary speech?

Of course there is some overlap. Even "hate speech" is only actionable if it amounts to "fighting words" under the law. More to the point, though, any person spouting hate speech is likely to also spout some non-troubling speech as well.

The more relevant issue is, taking it as given that both radical Muslims and non-radicals are likely to use the site, your rule would prohibit the speech, free association and inhibit the free religious practice of people who have no interest in hate speech, because of the concern that others who use the site may engage in hate speech.

It is one thing to prevent a radical speaker of hate speech from making a statement for fear part of it contains his odious message. It is another thing to prevent radicals and non-radicals alike froim speaking, just to stop the radicals.

 

[GeoffP]

Wicca is.

A dubious premise, I think, but as you like.

Any space in the entire world "may" be space for hate speech, so that is irrelevant.

Mmmm not particularly for the purposes of legal protection, I think. You have a known character involved in the building, so it's not a case of "anywhere, anytime".

What matters is whether you can prohibit all speech of a certain braoiad categoty in the name of prohibiting hate speech.

How so? I'm afraid I'm not familiar with lawyer-speak.

Of course there is some overlap. Even "hate speech" is only actionable if it amounts to "fighting words" under the law.

Actually, I'm not sure that's the case. I don't believe that hate speech requires a statement of intent to commit violence; by the same token, hate speech that does promote violence sometimes goes by the wayside.

The more relevant issue is, taking it as given that both radical Muslims and non-radicals are likely to use the site, your rule would prohibit the speech, free association and inhibit the free religious practice of people who have no interest in hate speech, because of the concern that others who use the site may engage in hate speech.

Well, that's unfortunate, but doesn't help: this case is predicated on a fellow with purported ties to extremists. I appreciate that you might see it as inhibiting non-hate speech, but then again that's sort of the fault of the extremist speakers, don't you think? The alternative, which we've discussed, is to monitor speech in the mosque, to which I would agree: but how would this be legally carried out? Banning the building is probably legally easier.

 

[pjdude1219]

A dubious premise, I think, but as you like.

so an increase to 4275% of the intial value in roughly 2 decades is less than the rate of growth of islam?

 

[Michael]

If what you say is true then why is Islam the world's fastest growing religion...in the West?

In Australia Buddhism is the fasted growing religion by conversion. Islam is growing rapidly due to high rates of birth in third world nations. Are large swaths of the US public converting to Islam? No. Could some small minority groups? Perhaps - but not many.

Either way it won't matter. All of the USA could become Islam, it won't be the USA that changes, it would be the USA that then reinterprets Islam and changes that faith - Islam would become Americanized as does everything else that enters the USA. Take the female Imam's in the USA. Soon you'll have openly gay Imam's. Imam's that take a soft line on all things "Islamic".

IMO we're reaching a stage that, maybe in our own lifetimes, there won't be death by aging for large numbers of people - this will have a devastating effect on those religions that use the carrot stick approach and a boon for philosophical ones.


Why are Muslims less moderate in Europe. This is just a guess but probably three fold: 1) the type of Muslim who migrates to Europe (a lot sneak over) and 2) prejudices 3) Traditional Islam isn't compatible with modernity and Europe/England is a modern set of States. Don't worry, most Muslim's are happily integrating and changing the meaning of Islam.

Yeah, Muslim's love to play the blame game. In actuality people in many Muslim countries just aren't productive enough. They simply don't work nearly as hard. You can't expect to live like Japanese unless you're willing to work 14 hours per day 7 days a week. Chinese are willing to do this. Koreans too. So too Taiwanese.

I know Malaysian's who say they are poor because of Singaporeans. Some people are good at making excuses and others are good at working :shrug:


Just as an aside to Islam being a rapidly growing religion. In China Christianity is making huge headway. I know 80 year old Chinese mothers who tell there sons to convert. All things "Western" are equated with modern and better. I have had Chinese tell me they NEED to be Western to catch up. They need Greek philosophy and were tied down by superstitious patriarchal Confucianism (a legacy of the cultural revolution). A lot of Chinese wonder if Christianity is one of the prime driving forces being Western success. Probably only Japan balances this out (kind of seen as the true keeper of true Chinese Traditions). I asks a Chinese what he thought of Islam. He said it's a problem and promotes backwardness. Muslims are seen as irrational and violent. Anyway, China is the one to watch IMO.

 

[GeoffP]

so an increase to 4275% of the intial value in roughly 2 decades is less than the rate of growth of islam?

Like I said: believe as ye will, so long as it harm none. But where is this statistic from?

(I also note that your growth rate is lower than that of Reformed Myuunitarianism.)

 

[Black Jack]

so an increase to 4275% of the intial value in roughly 2 decades is less than the rate of growth of islam?

It depends... if there were as many Wiccans in the United States as there were Muslims when we started tracking the rate, then yes. However, that's not the case.

A: 4275% is a ridiculous number and I'm pretty sure you pulled that straight out of your bum. I'll redact that statement after seeing some proof. (Some initial population figures wouldn't hurt either)

B: Even if the % of Muslim Growth isn't as great as the % of Wiccan growth, that doesn't mean that the actual number of individuals is fewer.

Example:

Group A:
Starting # of individuals: 100
Number of new individuals: 25
% Growth = 25%
Group B:
Starting # of Ind.: 10,000
Number of new Ind: 2,000
% Growth = 20%
Which Group Grew Faster?
Which Group is more likely to maintain it's rate of growth?

Context is important!

 

[pjdude1219]

A: 4275% is a ridiculous number and I'm pretty sure you pulled that straight out of your bum. I'll redact that statement after seeing some proof. (Some initial population figures wouldn't hurt either)

I know its seems hyperbolic but it isn't. its based on 8,000 in 1990 and 342,000 in 2008 I would have liked later numbers but that's the latest i could find. http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_prac2.htm

B: Even if the % of Muslim Growth isn't as great as the % of Wiccan growth, that doesn't mean that the actual number of individuals is fewer.

the response was based on growth so the percentage is what matters. though based on pure numbers Islam is greater.