Unf**king Believable, A mosque to be built at Ground Zero

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by pavlosmarcos, Jun 8, 2010.

  1. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Muslims are free to open up a hot dog stand there if they want and export their shit too.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Ja'far at-Tahir Grand Ayatollah of SciForums Registered Senior Member

    And I'm right, it's an Islamic Centre. In case you're wondering, we're done at this point.

    One of many functions of the entire Centre. Come on.

    In case you're wondering, this is hilarious.

    I don't believe in the official adminstration's account of what happened.

    Not a valid argument. Done.

    Sure they were.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Yeah and what about them?

    It's implied by all of your posts on Muslims and Islam even if not explicitly stated. Do we really have to do this or can you cut the shit?

    I really don't know how to make it clearer to every fuckwit here, me cursing doesn't mean I'm the least bit emotional or care in any real sense about what's being said. I'm an adult and cursing doesn't suggest that I'm the least bit upset about some Western bigot on some internet forum, let's not be silly here. Maybe you get emotionally invested in your participation in internet forums but I most certainly do not. This constant attempt at trying to portray me as angry or whatever is just silly and absurd.

    Geoff, keep kidding yourself.

    You can "deal with me," here too? Please.


    I didn't and am not dodging shit, sorry.

    I don't rage out nor do I give a flying fuck about anything that said here, sorry, that's a fact, trying to portray me this way isn't going to work.

    Nice try with the link but again, I never said it, dumbass.
    Last edited: Jul 27, 2010
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Gustav Banned Banned


    please indulge with linkage
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Well, keeping it casual (I am lazy):
    compared with the more or less typically unfocused:
    Last edited: Jul 28, 2010
  8. Gustav Banned Banned

    fuck me charlie

    Lazio and King are right, and Cuomo and Bloomberg are wrong. Aside from the matter of sensitivity to the families of the 9/11 victims and other Manhattanites who live near Ground Zero, if the friends and fans of Feisal Abdul Rauf believe his mosque plan is entirely above board, they should be the first to encourage full public disclosure of its backing and finances.

    come clean fellas and even if you do we shall plant a zillion bugs in your edifice.
    just in case
  9. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Nothing like a good Fisking

    Correct: because it is a mosque. Let's stop with the deception, ok?

    Foolish, but not unexpected.

    But it is. Done.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    You should probably talk to al Jazeera about that.

    "Make them to feel oppressed" doesn't ring any bells?

    Look, enough bullshit, Ja'far: for you, any criticism is an attack, any disagreement evidence of whatever the the fuck you choose to make it. No one is really considering you as an objective observer at this point, and no one is fooled.

    Then my usage of the term was perfect. Thanks.

    First off, careful with the insults. Second: you did. You lumped me in with a statement about generalization; then said you didn't, and then are back on it again above. So which is it? Make up your mind, for fuck's sake.
  10. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Clifford May at NRO makes a modest proposal regarding the proposed 9/11 mosque/Islamic center/kosher deli. He makes some interesting points. I wonder what ol' Rauf would say to them. Andrew McCarthy follows that up with some curious connections curious connections regarding our hero.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Oh: and gustav - whyever not? The above also seems quite reasonable.
  11. Pandaemoni Valued Senior Member


    Extremism, religious conservatism and totalitarianism are also indeed a poor friend to liberty, but only when actually exercised in a way that denies someone liberty. They are often exercised that way, but in America we limit their power to enforce their prescriptions.

    In this particular fight, however, even assuming that this Islamic center would be extremist, religiously conservative and disposed to totalitarianism, only one side is currently argung that other people should be denied liberty. Your side is overtly anti-liberty, possibly on the grounds that their side *might* be anti-liberty.

    There is simply no way that your side can defend liberty without embracing hypocrisy.
  12. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    I'm sorry, Panda, but that just isn't so.

    It is entirely possible for extremism to be promulgated where there is no due observation. I have already stipulated that it would seem reasonable in some respects to allow a mosque on the site if it were carefully monitored, which you proposed, I believe. We cannot back away from that stance now.

    And if you believe that a ban on such a building would be a denial of liberty: liberty is not absolute anywhere. There are laws against the expression of hate. If I, in liberty, allow the construction of an edifice by which the dissemination of speech against liberty, then I have not served its cause. I could similarly claim that your side is anti-liberty, because you would allow the dissemination of speech against liberty in the name of liberty.

    Moreover: How is a request for the further investigation of Mr. Rauf, and the demand for a more realistic interpretation of his connections and history, possibly indicative of hypocrisy? You cannot continue to phrase the argument in this way, Panda: you know perfectly well of the questions surrounding Rauf (the post preceding yours will suggest some) and it is unethical to avoid them.
  13. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    In other news, no less than the ADL has come out against the mosque.

    The ADL does seem to have touched on all the important points of this issue.

    Oh, and:

    Fox demands: take down fences!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    As if anyone should cede to the opinion of a known gaggle of bigots like CAIR.
  14. Pandaemoni Valued Senior Member

    I would not concede that their rights are contingent on our monitoring their speech. All I has said before was that I have no problem with (and would encourage) taking action against them for inciting violence or terrorist action. I'd also have no problem if individuals decided to monitor their speech, in their own free time, but I think it is very clear that the government should not systematically target Muslims speech.

    Absolutely true, but (A) building a mosque is *not* an expression of hate and (B) even if it were, this is America, and not *all* expressions of hate are actionable. Again, we do have to let the KKK march if they want to, even though their organization clearly does express hate. We even had to let them march in neighborhoods filled with Holocaust survivors.

    Building is a mosque is not in and of itself an expression against liberty. You presume that there will be such expressions there, but to deny free speech on that basis is obviously a silly proposition if the goal is to defend liberty. On that sort of reasoning, the government should have the right to shut down these fora and ban the printing of all books, because some of them might contain speech that calls for the restriction of liberty.

    Moreover, respecting liberty *does* mean allowing people to speak who want to restrict liberty. There is no contradiction there. Your fear is, what? That a mood will sweep the nation agreeing with those restrictions, and they will be passed into law, and liberty will be thus harmed? As you yourself note, there are limits to liberty, and finding the right limits under the constitution requires that we listen to people who want the limits to be different than they presently are. The marketplace of ideas will decide the winner, and there is no need to fear that. The only speech that should be censored is speech that could lead to imminent and irreparable harm...and no one's potential speech does that.

    You could, but only if you either failed to understand what liberty is, or were consciously avoiding your understanding of it for the sake of debate.

    There is nothing wrong with asking questions, however even if the answers are ones you dislike, that is not sufficient to prevent him from building his mosque. As for what requirements can be placed upon him that do restrict his right to build, the answer is "the same restrictions you would place on any other citizen." You can ask questions, but you cannot substantively restrict his actions because you fear Muslims and he is one.

    The hypocrisy is not in asking questions, it is--in the name of liberty--both: (i) forcing him to take on special burdens not applicable to the people generally or (ii) prohibiting him from taking actions of the sort that other people would be permitted to take based, in each case, of the mere suspicion that you disagree with what he may say.

    Actually, I clearly can continue to phrase the argument this way, but you cannot truly believe yourself to be anything but on the side of those who oppose liberty. You have no proof that Rauf intends to do anything wrong, yet in the name of mere suspicion, you propose to limit his freedom. To claim that you are defending liberty is very strange indeed.

    Ask all the questions you care to. He should not be compelled to answer, but you have every right to ask and investigate. In the meantime, he should be permitted to start his building. Perhaps you will find something and be able to prove he has committed a crime beyond a reasonable doubt, at that time you can stop his building (though others not proven guilty of anything may then complete the structure).

    The truly sad thing is that, when built, this community center will be the focus of triumphalism amongst our real enemies, and that is entirely your side's fault. If it had gone up without all the anti-Islamic hysteria, no one would have noticed it. Now you have turned it into an ideological battle over Muslims' hatred of the west (though only perceived hatred, rather than anything real and provable). When the Muslims win and build this thing (as I expect they will...as we are still a nation of laws, not prejudices), the worst elements of their community will take it not as the victory of liberty that it will truly be, but as a moment to say "Ha ha, you could not stop us." Worse still, as they celebrate, your side will watch and say "See, we told you" and then celebrate your perceived correctness in tandem with them.

    Is that a odd parallel or evidence of fundamental similarity?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  15. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Well, how else is it to be known? Surely you're not advocating vigilantism?

    To the latter two statements: whatever for? As you say in the first two sentences of this statement, not all statements of hate are actionable; but then, some certainly are.

    All right, all right: enough of that. That isn't the issue here, and you well know it.

    I disagree on the first part - but I am, again, a Communist. I also disagree that the marketplace is the best decider of universal sociality; it fails, sir, in numerous instances. The 'marketplace' might decide that homosexuals were somehow objectionable, or that every decent American was a Protestant. No, sirrah! I shall not subject my notions of fairness to the mob.

    No, and no, if the object of this center is the promulgation of anti-liberty.

    Actually, if Rauf were demonstrated to have unsavory contacts or connections that were suggestively anti-liberty, for example, it would be quite sufficient to prevent such an edifice being built by such a group, IMHO. I would certainly put the same conditions on him that I would on anyone else, Panda: I'm not sure why you continue to bring up this farcical "fear" angle. Do you suppose I would somehow condone different forms of the same rule for different religions? Let us be sensible, here.

    Ah - but your conditions fail. I would certainly apply the same to any other group with questionable sources of funding and philosophies. Let's put your comment in context: in what other scenario including a group with possibly questionable funding and philosophies would I not apply the same benchmarks? Let's have an answer to this one, yes?

    You take a very strange tack yourself here regarding freedom: such a man would be free to make the public arguments that no one should be free? How could opposition to such a position - if indeed this is the case - possibly be considered anti-liberty? It would be more aptly characterized as anti-illiberty.

    Not in the slightest: you forget, sir, its inherent location.

    I have, personally? "Ach, it knows, preciouusss, it knows our minds!" Let us be serious again here: reasonable requests for further investigation are somehow causing more radicalisation? And if something truly disturbing came to light, would Mr. Rauf have similarly no obligation to make explanation? This is a weaselly tack, sir. Is no one is under any obligation to answer questions? Or are you using selective criteria yourself to decide this?

    Rather, it is the drawing of false parallels. In that sense, it is indeed odd.
  16. Kernl Sandrs Registered Senior Member

    Ignorance at its finest...
  17. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    That is not reasonable - the triumphalism of this project is inherent in its name, its backing, its location, its public justifications by its proponents (read the quote from its central organizer, posted above), and even its declared purposes carefully evaluated.

    The people organizing and celebrating it and choosing its location, the people backing it with many millions of dollars and following its progress and making plans for its grand opening as a world destination for Muslims, were on board long before any hysteria kicked in. They, and their political bodies, aren't "no one".

    I don't get any warm feeling by noticing that the ADL has joined hands with the Palin Party, and there should be no legal prohibiting of such buildings regardless, but that's not because this building is something US people should welcome. It's a provocation, and I think that is deliberate.
  18. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Show me on the dollie where the bad man touched you. Show me on the dollie.
  19. Pandaemoni Valued Senior Member

    Surely not.

    Monitoring what others say, as a private citizen, is not vigilantism. I certainly agree that these people doing the monitoring can only do such monitoring as is allowed by law, so no to private wiretapping and the like. That said, if you attend events at the center or have an interested Muslim who reports back to you on what was said there, that is just fine.

    If you feel something actionable was said, the response is then to go to the authorities who, on the basis of your report of *actual* (not merely conjectural) actionable speech can begin a more formal inquiry. At the point, government involvement is warranted.

    The reason we have to let them march is that a world where the KKK has a voice is better than a world where the government (or any powerful group) decides who may and who may not speak. Not only do we have to hypothetically let the hate mongers speak, we in fact do so...we even let the neo-Nazi party march in a predominantly Jewish neighborhood where many Holocaust survivors lived: National Socialist Party of America v. Skokie Illinois

    Again, the principle is: You cannot deny your neighbor's rights without striking a dangerous blow at your own.

    And you well know that building a mosque is not an attack on America, nor detrimental to liberty, nor intended as an an insult to people who lost loved ones, so you are to stop suggesting otherwise.

    The marketplace of ideas is efficient, and so even if (and it is a big "if") as a starting point some unfairness existed in, it would be corrected in the fullness of time. What is the alternative to allowing it to be decided thusly? To leave it to a committee to decide who may speak and who may not? Some other minority group should make the call? Such a group is also prone (and I'd say, more prone) to mistakes. They may well decide that homosexuals are objectionable or, even more inanely, that no one can build a mosque in downtown Manhattan.

    Better a marketplace of all interested individuals than a small group of even smaller-minded bigots.

    An assertion you have failed to prove. Also, even if it were to suggest limits, that is important in a system that, as you say, does impose limits. How could our system ever limit hate speech if no one is permitted to even suggest such a limitastion? How could we limit hate speech without running afoul of your rule prohibiting anti-liberty speech?

    The answer, I suspect is that you do not want to limit speech that is anti-liberty, but rather you want to limit speech that is opposed to liberties you wish to preserve. In short, your rule is really just to silence those who disagree with you about what the limits on liberty should be. But those who do agree with you...like your fellow protestors in this debate,...you are happy to let them speak out against others' freedom.

    I would agree only if two qualifications were met. First the "anti-liberty" group would need to have views so extreme as to be a terrorist group, or other equally illegal group. (Note that mere speech is not enough unless they incite people to commit acts of imminent violence.) Second, if there is an identity of interest between Rauf and that group.

    The latter qualification is important, since I have no doubt that some of the money Rauf has raised will have come from someone with ties to unsavory sorts. In the Islamic world that is inevitable. What really matters though is whether Rauf will be using the site for an illegal purpose.

    Merely advocating the adoption of Sharia law in the U.S. or something similar, if nowhere near enough.

    When you start demanding that every church and temple in southern Manhattan produce financials, verify its supporters, and explain its financing, and when you oppose construction of their new religious centers in a major city district as substantial as "lower Manhattan"—then you will be treating them in the same way. (Actually, not even then, as there already are synagogues and churches near Ground Zero, plenty of them, and no mosques whatsoever a mile or more.)

    And note that your "suspicions" are not grounds to treat this project any differently. Everyone has suspicions about something, and suspicions alone are never grounds to deny others liberty. I am suspicious of communists (and after this thread, of bigotry of those on your side of the debate), and yet I doubt you feel I should have the authority to prevent you from being heard. Do you feel I should be able to demand your financials? Get lists of your supporters? Are you now, or have you ever been of the Communist Party?

    Right now, only Muslim-related public buildings have to get the special "GeoffP Approved" label before having the right to exist. Only Muslims are subject to this latter-day inquiry in to their supposed "Unamerican Activities"—so you are in fact treating them very differently than other houses of worship.

    As for the fear angle, if you are not apprehensive, then let them build their mosque. If not fear, then what emotion is it that leads you to your opposition (an opposition which denies them several key liberties--the right of assembly, the right to speak, the right to free exercise of religion and the right to use their property as they see fit)? If not fear, then why do you seem so apprehensive of what they might say when they build the mosque? Is it, what? Anger? Is that anger not sourced in some anxiety (i.e. apprehension/fear) about the future?

    Far from farcical, only fear of something that they may (not "will") do in the future explains your position. If not that, at least, then you have not explained your position well enough to suggest any other answer.

    "Questionable philosophies" according to you. Face the truth, that is just the words you use to feel less like a hypocrite about denying them fundamental liberties. If those like me found your philosophies to be "questionable"—and clearly I do—you would not be happy with our denying you liberty as a result, nor should be. You have not yet demonstrated that the Luslims who use the site would do anything wrong while there, you have only demonstrated that you are concerned (i.e. fearful) that they might, and you demand that they assuage your fears.

    Here's the truth you do not want to face: Your concerns are your problem, not theirs. If you want them assuaged, it is your job to find answers. If you want to impinge on their liberty based on your apprehensions, then you need those concerns to reach a level where we as a society have agreed they are actionable. Unfortunately, from your perspective, that is a high standard because the alternative is that people must often allay the concerns of various reactionary, if powerful, minorities to do anything vaguely controversial, and that is a world far more bleak than one in which there is a mosque in southern Manhattan.

    In that bleak world, "liberty" is what exists when no one powerful objects to what you want to do. In that system, freedom would be stunted terribly. Luckily, I am satisfied that the Constitution will save the world from that--from you (i.e. "your side)--as even if the mosque is not built. Even in that worst case scenario, your side's preferred rule of "pacify us now or else stop what you are doing" will be limited to this specific case.

    Arguing for a limitation on liberty is not itself an abridgment of liberty. A speech about a thing is not the thing itself. Such a speech *might* lead to an abridgement of liberty if enough other people agree with the argument and *actions* were taken to change the law in a way that limits liberty. I would oppose those actions for the most part, but not the mere speech that led to them.

    Free and open debate are not my enemies, and the only time they are actionable is when they may create a risk of imminent violence. If they incite in people a desire to change the political system in a way that limits liberty, then my job is to find a better argument that changes people's minds. I am confident that such an argument exists and so I can defend liberty without preemptively silencing my opposition. Perhaps you are not as confident and so prefer to silence people with whom you disagree (in the great tradition of many Commonuists), but my feeling is that an argument chased into the shadows still gets heard, it is merely harder to refute.

    Further, that one has chased an argument into the shadows at all means that one lacks authority to speak in favor of liberty. "I am so in favor of freedom, that I wanted it expanded to everyone (who agrees with me)!"

    I do not forget, but rather I see no evidence that terrorists in Afghanistan or elsewhere were involved in a plot to build this mosque. The only reason anyone knows about it is that your side has made in your cause célèbre. You (i.e. "your side") have turned the building of a house of worship into a clash of civilizations, and developed the absurd notion that Muslim worship should be zoned out of certain parts of Manhattan.

    This would have been a non-event but for your side's effort to deny Muslims their rights under the First Amendment. When those Muslims win (as I feel they will) that victory will now be co-opted by Muslim radicals as a victory for their radicalized culture, rather than the application of the law and the freedoms they oppose.

    A real victory here would have been showing Muslims that we welcome them into the community. Instead they get the accusations that the effort to worship at that location (one with a ridiculously large population and numerous religious centers of every faith but Islam) is somehow tantamount to condoning terrorism.

    "You" is a personal pronoun that *can* refer to you personally, and can also refer to "you" as a group. Please keep that in mind in the future when reading English. In this case, "you" meant "your side of the debate". As evidence, note how I referred to "your side" in the sentence—the very clause—that immediately preceded this sentence you quote. So, your/* hilarious/** sarcasm would be more effective had your reading comprehension been stronger. As for how I know what your side's position is, I read the papers.

    /* As in "your personal", not "your side's".

    /**No, really, I am holding my sides for fear that they may burst.

    Actually, I did not say you (i.e. to be clear for your benefit, "your side") were causing more radicalization. I said that existing radicals would take this as a moral victory now, and then your side would point at that and pretend that this "victory" was the tragedy you tried to avert, when in reality you are the "but for" cause of it.

    In fact, I doubt any additional radicalization will occur on either side (and yes, your side seems filled with radicals, albeit anti-Muslim radicals).

    As for the reasonableness, it is not unreasonable for your side to ask certain questions. What is unreasonable, and unconscionable, is that you demand answers as a condition to Rauf's getting to exercise his rights. As if his rights are contingent on your being happy with him. They are not.

    Last edited: Aug 3, 2010
  20. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Sure, if you were to be believed. Just what role would the common man play in such a case? If there's a lot of sentiment that the group being surveilled is already suffering from undue legal attention, who would want to pursue such a case?

    Disagreed: one can delimit hate without impacting on the rights of others.

    Again, you are deliberately canalizing the debate: argue honestly, and we can continue. If you frame it in such a manner, it comes down to yes you did versus no I didn't. You don't mention the personages involved, or their connections, or the valid questions surrounding the proposed mosque, so I guess the debate can stop here. Let me know if you want to pick it up again. I deleted the remainder of your response - I've been down this road with others, and it bears no fruit that I would consider edible. Excepting this:

    And do you honestly think that any other church, temple or mosque in southern Manhattan would refuse to do so, in a similar case? Would you support them if they did refuse? Of course not. Not to mention that same, eggshell-careful avoidance of the issues around Rauf. I've never understood why blank-eyed mouthing of the common is considered an acceptable strategy in a debate.
    Last edited: Aug 3, 2010
  21. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Speaking as we are of alternate standards of communication:

    It's never a good outlook: the funds either come from abroad (which isn't necessarily bad, but which might be, depending on the source), or don't - in which case why say they are? If the place is really a "multifaith outreach centre" (I'm sure I've heard that bandied around), why not set up a temple, a church and an atheist reading-room in the same spot? Sounds like there's lots of room.
  22. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    its not a provocation. if you honestly feels this is a provocation perhaps you need to reevaluate your feelings toward the Islamic faith and check your motives. if you have a problem with this the problem isn't with them its with you. also you do know most new yorkers support it.
  23. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Actually, most New Yorkers oppose it.


Share This Page