Mosque at Ground Zero

[Alg]

I'd think it would be more disrespectful to prevent it on the grounds that the extremists were of the same religion, though. It's worse to use the actions of a handful of people from an extreme sect to justify hatred of Islam in general.

 

I need to type faster :unsure:

[Aneron]

guys,

 

I think the internet might be liberal.

 

Not that I disagree, I think liberals are definitely better than conservatives when it comes to not being [developmentally delayed]ed about social issues.

 

Would it be distasteful for the current German government to have an official building of any sort near the location of a former concentration camp? No, because they have nothing to do with what transpired there. In fact, I believe it is the German government that runs the museums inside the camps.

 

Would it be inappropriate for there to be a religious building of any sort in Jerusalem, where Christians, Muslims, and Jews killed each other for centuries? The number of religious buildings there would appear to indicate no.

[Nadril]

It's just my opinion that they shouldn't I understand not all muslims are terrorists, I just think that they should listen to peoples feelings on the subject and find a different place to build this thing.

 

People wouldn't even give a [cabbage] if FOX news and other channels wern't fear-mongering it and making it out to be a big issue.

[Giordano]

guys,

 

I think the internet might be liberal.

 

Congrats.

[Saru Inc]

guys,

 

I think the internet might be liberal.

 

Not that I disagree, I think liberals are definitely better than conservatives when it comes to not being [developmentally delayed]ed about social issues.

 

Would it be distasteful for the current German government to have an official building of any sort near the location of a former concentration camp? No, because they have nothing to do with what transpired there. In fact, I believe it is the German government that runs the museums inside the camps.

 

Would it be inappropriate for there to be a religious building of any sort in Jerusalem, where Christians, Muslims, and Jews killed each other for centuries? The number of religious buildings there would appear to indicate no.

 

Touché

 

 

It's just my opinion that they shouldn't I understand not all muslims are terrorists, I just think that they should listen to peoples feelings on the subject and find a different place to build this thing.

 

People wouldn't even give a [cabbage] if FOX news and other channels wern't fear-mongering it and making it out to be a big issue.

 

 

Yeah I don't watch Fox news, and no conservatives I know watch it. Of course I'm pretty liberal, save economical and immigration policies. (And more, I just use those two, because those are really big topics on here.)

[Sir_Redhead]

I don't think it's right at all. I understand not all Muslims are radical psychopaths, but it's affiliated with the 9/11 hijackers. With that said, it's morally wrong. The family's of those lost in 9/11 have had enough pain to deal with, this is just another slap in the face to them. It's not right.

 

I understand there's Freedom of Religion coming into play here, but to me, it shouldn't be allowed for a comparison with the limitations of Freedom of Speech. (Ex. Shouting "FIRE!!!" in a crowded Movie Theatre, or "BOMB!!!" in an airport)

 

It's just wrong.

[Satenza]

 

Sect of religion destroys a monument (which is what those two buildings effectively were), now different part of religion wants to build something there. This scenario, which I tried to supplement with the Christian part, is not the fact that they are specifically Islam. It's the fact that it's deemed disrespectful to build something *near* a place that the other part of religion destroyed.

 

This is silly though. Lets give the example of IRA bombings in the UK. In Manchester a large part of the city centre was wrecked in an IRA bomb not long before the 2001 attacks. Now we happen to know that those IRA members were Catholic. Do we therefore refuse to build Catholic Churches or any Christian Church anymore near the place where the bomb went off?

 

No, because the religion isn't important but what is important is the humanity behind the attacks in the first place. Manchester was attacked for political reasons, New York was attacked for political reasons. The attackers were Muslim there but they were Catholic here. People are caught on the fact that the people who blew down the towers were Muslim when the real reason for the towers coming down was US interference in the Middle-East in the first place. It wasn't a war on Christianity launched on 9/11 as we all agree, it was a attack on a superpower who had stretched itself too far beyond its limits.

 

It only makes sense to treat building a Mosque as disrespectful if the attacks were primarily motivated by religion which isn't the case.

[Saru Inc]

Umm ok.

[Guthorm]

I don't think it's right at all. I understand not all Muslims are radical psychopaths, but it's affiliated with the 9/11 hijackers. With that said, it's morally wrong. The family's of those lost in 9/11 have had enough pain to deal with, this is just another slap in the face to them. It's not right.

 

I understand there's Freedom of Religion coming into play here, but to me, it shouldn't be allowed for a comparison with the limitations of Freedom of Speech. (Ex. Shouting "FIRE!!!" in a crowded Movie Theatre, or "BOMB!!!" in an airport)

 

It's just wrong.

 

You don't let emotions cloud your judgment.

 

Really though, there is no law preventing them from building this "mosque", why is there a debate in the first place? People in US complain everywhere if a mosque is built anywhere near civilization, just google it and see how many protests are there when Muslims try to build their mosque.

[Nadril]

I don't think it's right at all. I understand not all Muslims are radical psychopaths, but it's affiliated with the 9/11 hijackers. With that said, it's morally wrong. The family's of those lost in 9/11 have had enough pain to deal with, this is just another slap in the face to them. It's not right.

 

I understand there's Freedom of Religion coming into play here, but to me, it shouldn't be allowed for a comparison with the limitations of Freedom of Speech. (Ex. Shouting "FIRE!!!" in a crowded Movie Theatre, or "BOMB!!!" in an airport)

 

It's just wrong.

 

There's already a mosque closer that pre-dates the towers. What's your thought on that?

 

I don't see why this has to be an issue. Like I said before (and others have said) only ignorant people think it was the religion behind the attacks. There is nothing wrong with building a community center in new york, no matter how close it is to ground zero. Oh and don't you think it's a slap in the face to any muslims who died in the attacks (who worked at the WTC before any smart ass replies) to not be able to put a community center there out of respect for the fallen?

 

 

Oh and there is a mosque in the pentagon too. Do you think that's a slap in the face to the people who had loved ones die during those attacks?

 

 

Also your Freedom of Speech example is dumb. Building a community center isn't going to hurt anyone. Shouting FIRE or BOMB very well could hurt people (mass panic). The fact is this entire "debate" should have ended the second Freedom of Religion was brought up. Having an arguement like "Well, it could hurt peoples feelings" is a poor arguement.

 

 

Oh and the reason why I've said people are just using the near-proximity of ground zero as an excuse is because there have been tons of news reports of people getting angry that muslims have wanted to build mosques all over America. Honestly a large amount of these people "protesting" it are just prejudice.

[magekillr]

I wonder what people have to say about this, as this is the real issue:

 

 

In Murfreesboro, Tenn., Republican candidates have denounced plans for a large Muslim center proposed near a subdivision, and hundreds of protesters have turned out for a march and a county meeting.

 

In late June, in Temecula, Calif., members of a local Tea Party group took dogs and picket signs to Friday prayers at a mosque that is seeking to build a new worship center on a vacant lot nearby.

 

In Sheboygan, Wis., a few Christian ministers led a noisy fight against a Muslim group that sought permission to open a mosque in a former health food store bought by a Muslim doctor.

 

Across Nation, Mosque Projects Meet Opposition

 

Lol, and Americans had the conceit to yell at France for their veil ban when France's Muslim population is:

 

a.) Substantially larger

b.) Less moderate

c.) Less educated

d.) Poorer

 

If America opened up its immigration policy, then we'd really see bigotry and racism far worse than what it currently is. "Ground Zero" is a scapegoat for the true nature of this beast that's always been alive in America; being racist, intolerant and bigoted is as American as American Pie. From the Original Sin of slavery to the periodic bouts of nativism, xenophobia, bigotry and overt hatred ("No Irish Allowed," Jim Crow, AZ SB 1070),the American attitude towards the Other has been largely intolerant. It always amuses me when people look to pols to lead us to tolerance. Pols reflect America. And when pols see tolerance as in their electoral interests, then they are for tolerance. And vice versa. (Harry Reid wanted to eliminate birthright citizenship in 1993 and now of course he ridicules anyone who suggests it. This is purely a political calculation.) We get the government and policies that largely reflect who we are.

[OldJoe]

^So if you oppose the building of a mosque, you are racist, xenophobic, bigot or whatever?

Have i understood you correct?

[magekillr]

^So if you oppose the building of a mosque, you are racist, xenophobic, bigot or whatever?

Have i understood you correct?

 

Not necessarily. I don't believe Howard Dean to be a racist even though he's stated his opposition; when pressed for further clarification from Glenn Greenwald, though, he wasn't making any sense. To see those interviews, watch below:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdyV59378tU

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqArhrLH4Cs

 

However, Howard Dean is a pol, and they do what they do. I'd say that opposition to the mosque is most definitely rooted in those things, even if someone isn't necessarily a racist. Which is why all around the country, not just this supposed hallowed ground, mosques are meeting strict opposition.

[Zierro]

being racist, intolerant and bigoted is as American as American Pie.

 

You're either the most boring troll ever (trolling politics???) or you are really that blind to the double standards you constantly create. You always go after a certain type of group, while simultaneously arguing about how bad it is to do that. In this post, it's America. In the rest, it's usually either men or conservatives. I really want to know why it's okay for you to talk so much [cabbage] about these groups, but if any other group under the sun is mentioned in a mildly negative context, you spew out the words "bigot", "intolerant", "____ist", etc.

[magekillr]

being racist, intolerant and bigoted is as American as American Pie.

 

You're either the most boring troll ever (trolling politics???) or you are really that blind to the double standards you constantly create. You always go after a certain type of group, while simultaneously arguing about how bad it is to do that. In this post, it's America. In the rest, it's usually either men or conservatives. I really want to know why it's okay for you to talk so much [cabbage] about these groups, but if any other group under the sun is mentioned in a mildly negative context, you spew out the words "bigot", "intolerant", "____ist", etc.

 

I'm trying to figure out what your point is, Zierro. I'm not creating any double standards whatsoever, nor am I grouping people altogether; 70% oppose this mosque in this country, how much higher do you need that number to go before it's ok to say "Americans?" It's a fact that intolerance has its history in America, and I gave specific examples to explain that. In the late 1800's and early 1900's, it was the Irish. For a while it was the Catholics--especially after JFK was elected president. In the 1980's it was the gays; for a while it was the Mexicans (and it still is largely the case); now it's Muslims.

 

This isn't to say that Americans are alone in this, as even though I just ridiculed our banter about France, their policy is still bigoted (although so is the veil, but banning it is a horrible way at addressing it). Switzerland's recent policies are probably the worst. The United States is in no way unique in this:

 

The enemy is clearly delineated: he is a perfect model of malice, a kind of amoral superman—sinister, ubiquitous, powerful, cruel, sensual, luxury-loving. Unlike the rest of us, the enemy is not caught in the toils of the vast mechanism of history, himself a victim of his past, his desires, his limitations. He wills, indeed he manufactures, the mechanism of history, or tries to deflect the normal course of history in an evil way. He makes crises, starts runs on banks, causes depressions, manufactures disasters, and then enjoys and profits from the misery he has produced. The paranoid’s interpretation of history is distinctly personal: decisive events are not taken as part of the stream of history, but as the consequences of someone’s will. Very often the enemy is held to possess some especially effective source of power: he controls the press; he has unlimited funds; he has a new secret for influencing the mind (brainwashing); he has a special technique for seduction (the Catholic confessional)

~The Paranoid Style in American Politics

 

Even though that essay was about America, it doesn't mean we're alone. However, this particular topic is specific to America, so I will speak of Americans. For we are, as all humans are, basically intolerant. And our politics reflects this. The struggle against intolerance is difficult and unending. But it does not start with the politicians. It ends with them.

[Alg]

being racist, intolerant and bigoted is as American as American Pie.

 

You're either the most boring troll ever (trolling politics???) or you are really that blind to the double standards you constantly create. You always go after a certain type of group, while simultaneously arguing about how bad it is to do that. In this post, it's America. In the rest, it's usually either men or conservatives. I really want to know why it's okay for you to talk so much [cabbage] about these groups, but if any other group under the sun is mentioned in a mildly negative context, you spew out the words "bigot", "intolerant", "____ist", etc.

Acceptable targets perhaps?

Acknowledging that "acceptable" is the most subjective concept ever. The idea that some groups are more deserving of criticism than others may well be the basis of human interaction. It doesn't show progression, intellectualism, and so on, it just shows a different bias.

 

Really no black and white issues in politics (Expecting a race joke? You're a horrible person.), as much as people like to think there are. Even something like this. The fact that people can disagree on it is probably a good thing, it means that there are still people with differing opinions. If everyone had the same opinions we'd never really progress, because progress comes out of questioning an idea and adapting it based on criticism. If someone disagrees, it doesn't necessarily mean they're wrong/evil/uneducated, and as easy as it is to paint them as such, that's what really created the double standard I believe Zierro is talking about.

[Zierro]

70% oppose this mosque in this country, how much higher do you need that number to go before it's ok to say "Americans?"

 

70% of the few who actually voted, and that makes it fair to generalize and claim that bigotry/intolerance is a common American activity? What percentage of women are housekeepers, cooks, cleaners, cry more often than your average man, etc.? I'm guessing a pretty fair amount. Yet it's wrong and degrading and prejudice to label them as "woman activities"? You're doing the same exact thing with Americans and intolerance.

 

You sound like that type of person who is all for black history month and black colleges, but if it were for whites, then we all of a sudden crossed the line of "racism".

 

I'm not creating any double standards whatsoever

 

So I guess I was right about the whole troll thing after all.

[das]

sacred? Interesting counter-article.

 

http://www.openleft.com/diary/19841/the-ground-zero-strip-club-the-great-mosque-hoax

[Orpheus]

I don't think it's going to be the individuals building a mosque nearby that's the main issue, as they themselves were not responsible for 9/11, it's probably the symbolism above anything else. It can signify a proverbial kick in the nuts to those who lost someone on 9/11.

[Alg]

sacred? Interesting counter-article.

 

http://www.openleft.com/diary/19841/the-ground-zero-strip-club-the-great-mosque-hoax

One could argue that it wasn't extremist strippers that destroyed the tower (Think of the public response to that), or that strip clubs aren't religious in any way. Or that it was there before 9/11, or any other explanations I missed.

[magekillr]

70% oppose this mosque in this country, how much higher do you need that number to go before it's ok to say "Americans?"

 

70% of the few who actually voted, and that makes it fair to generalize and claim that bigotry/intolerance is a common American activity?

 

With our history as a country, and the outright demagoguing of The Other that's gone on since the beginning of the founding, sure? It's not just a common American activity, it is present in ALL cultures all around the world. How do you think Hitler was able to rouse up seemingly honest, decent people to commit such atrocities? He brought up a demon and rallied a country that was hurt from war and economic turmoil. It's the human condition, man. It's not specific to America. What is specific to America, though, is a mosque being constructed inside of a community center in NY City and politicians using people's fears and irrationality of The Other to rally against it. The next time Switzerland passes a bigoted law, and they will, I will attack them.

 

I think your problem is that everything is black and white for you, and you see what I'm saying as an attack on you; whether it's with this or the patriarchy that dominates our society, as you so nicely mentioned. You see me saying these things, identify as an American, and then think I'm talking about you. Stop projecting yourself and acting like a victim. I'm an American, too.

 

You know what else is true about American society and culture? Our embrace of ignorance, our hatred of academia, and our uneducated public who doesn't even believe in evolution. Now I'm sure you'd read that and go, "You're lumping Americans together and calling us ignorant rednecks, aren't you?" No, I wouldn't be, but to say that America is an enlightened society would be a farce. You're falling into the same trap as those 70% of Americans: seeing this as an Us vs. Them without any nuance or seeking the need for context.

 

Another thing that would describe our society is obese. No, I didn't call all Americans fat, but to say that we don't have a problem with obesity would be a lie.

 

So, is that better, do you understand now? I hope you do, because I won't be going into back and forths over this supposed point you raised.

 

You sound like that type of person who is all for black history month and black colleges, but if it were for whites, then we all of a sudden crossed the line of "racism".

 

Actually, I would be. Whites haven't had a history of oppression in this country, mate. There's a reason why black colleges exist, and it was because of white people's policies and continued prejudice in the acceptance process (same with black churches). Maybe this is why you have such a problem with what I've said; you don't have a clear understanding of context or our history.

 

I'm not creating any double standards whatsoever

 

So I guess I was right about the whole troll thing after all.

 

This is a false dichotomy in your assumptions that if not a then it must be b.

[Sam]

I don't think it's going to be the individuals building a mosque nearby that's the main issue, as they themselves were not responsible for 9/11, it's probably the symbolism above anything else. It can signify a proverbial kick in the nuts to those who lost someone on 9/11.

 

Pretty much what I think. Though I know the vast, vast majority of Muslims strongly oppose terror it must be horrid if you did lose someone in 9/11.

[Saru Inc]

sacred? Interesting counter-article.

 

http://www.openleft.com/diary/19841/the-ground-zero-strip-club-the-great-mosque-hoax

One could argue that it wasn't extremist strippers that destroyed the tower (Think of the public response to that), or that strip clubs aren't religious in any way. Or that it was there before 9/11, or any other explanations I missed.

 

I made that same joke. It wasn't Destiny and Serenity, who put bombs in their double dees and blew it up.

 

 

It's a simple fact, in my opinion, I have NOTHING against muslims, despite them being a rival religous group. It was muslims who blew up 9/11, no one is denying that. And it is muslims wanting to build it.

 

Now back to my point, would anyone raise their voice if Christians blew up an abortion center and then tried to build a church over it? NO. NO ONE WOULD. It's all damn geo politics. THe majority of europe (well almost majority) are muslim, and for some reason America is trying to up their status. And it's damn foolish. Now, go ahead Magekillr, you can restart your spiel now. Praise god, I mean... sorry. Praise a spiritual figure combination of all religions that you are here, to show us all what awful people we all are.

[Satenza]

The majority of Europe are not Muslim.

[Saru Inc]

Says you.