Jump to content

The "Ground Zero Mosque"


Guest Raidne

Recommended Posts

Tempra: I don't have the time or inclination to drill down into those poll numbers the way I did with the first lot. But I'm betting big money you haven't, either. If so, you have no idea whether the same flaws are present. I can guarantee that at least one of them is: these polls were taken after the media furore erupted, so they are not a reflection of what ordinary New Yorkers think of the issue on its own merits, but a reflection of what they've seen in the media.

So, citing more polls doesn't really get you any further forward. You still need something better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I said in the other thread, I personally don't care. I think it could be a good symbol of how religious freedom in America is real. But at the same time I'd be lying if I came in here and joined in on the echo chamber by claiming that I just can't understand why anyone would be opposed to the project.... because I can understand why it would upset people. At the end of the day, I stand by the first amendment and freedom of religion because those are part of what makes America a great place to live... so I got no problems with them building it. Mosque away. But I'm not going to lash out at people asking them to move it either.

I can't find anywhere in your post why exactly those people are "upset", but you claim to understand them, S John. Could you elaborate on that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So they are planning to seek taxpayer funds for the project? That can't be right, right? I mean, that would run straight up against the 1st amendment. The only way they could do that is to divest the mosque and make it a generic secular community center, and even then I'm not sure it would be approved.

Rauf said money to build the mosque would come entirely from Muslim-American sources. He then turned around and told an Arabic-language newspaper that he would seek funding from Arab countries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Raidne

Altherion - I don't get it. He said "We have to build the mosque, as you are allowed to build the church and Israelis are building their holy places."

Okay? :unsure:

This is such a strange issue.

And what on earth is wrong with taking money from Arab countries? Are we at war with all Arab countries and I did not get the memo?

ETA: Also, if I'm reading this article correctly, the best reason to not build this particular mosque there is that, apparently, it would be a target since fundamentalists like to bomb Sufi mosques. But, like I'm always hearing, these colors don't run. Looks like we're on precisely the same side to me, guys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

polls

Do you have any poll that actually was conducted prior to the rightwing hysteria and orchestrated media attacks against the project?

Rauf said money to build the mosque would come entirely from Muslim-American sources. He then turned around and told an Arabic-language newspaper that he would seek funding from Arab countries.

Is there a law preventing him from seeking funding elsewhere if Muslim-Americans aren't able to contribute the entire amount of money needed for the project?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tempra: I don't have the time or inclination to drill down into those poll numbers the way I did with the first lot. But I'm betting big money you haven't, either. If so, you have no idea whether the same flaws are present. I can guarantee that at least one of them is: these polls were taken after the media furore erupted, so they are not a reflection of what ordinary New Yorkers think of the issue on its own merits, but a reflection of what they've seen in the media.

So, citing more polls doesn't really get you any further forward. You still need something better.

I don't have the time, care, or expertise to fully examine whether the polls are flawless. I'd wager that they aren't. However, several different polls all yield the same result. That adds credibility to all of the polls, even if they were all taken after the uproar began. At some point, you have to rely on the experts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you have any poll that actually was conducted prior to the rightwing hysteria and orchestrated media attacks against the project?

Is there a law preventing him from seeking funding elsewhere if Muslim-Americans aren't able to contribute the entire amount of money needed for the project?

Why would I have a poll from before the time this controversy arose? I'd wager that less than 5% of America, IF THAT, was even aware that a mosque was going to be built right near ground zero before this controversy developed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are right, you don't get it at all. Many of the various Muslim sub-groups don't like each other and some (like al-Qaeda) truly hate some of the others, but not to the point where they would oppose a mosque built in a predominantly Christian country. Al-Qaeda may regard the views of this imam as wrong or even heretical, but they're still far closer to their view of Islam than what stood there before (a Burlington Coat Factory). I have not seen anything from the Taliban or al-Qaeda on the subject, but here is what one of the leaders of Hamas (also a violent terrorist group) said on this subject:

You misunderstand. I have nothing against mosques or the Muslims of New York City (so yes, they may keep that one).

Didn't we went over this already when you conceded that we shouldn't give up fundamental liberties just to appease the perceived injury to the sensitivity of religious nutbags?

I would simply prefer that they not build on the sites of the buildings damaged on 9/11.

And I would prefer that Israel gave up the control of Jerusalem to the Palestinians to accommodate their sensitivity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have the time, care, or expertise to fully examine whether the polls are flawless. I'd wager that they aren't. However, several different polls all yield the same result. That adds credibility to all of the polls, even if they were all taken after the uproar began. At some point, you have to rely on the experts.

No. That's not how polls work. They don't get more reliable if they all show the same thing, because they may all share the same methodological problems. In this case, they share at least two. First, that they were taken after the media furore began and so are not a reflection of independent opinion but of which side is winning the media argument: and second, that they are part of that media argument in and of themselves. A poll that showed 38% of New Yorkers saying 'we think both sides have good points' is useless for headlines - which is why your first poll, which got that result, didn't stop there but 'forced' respondents into saying yes or no.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FLOW - I searched "mosque" before starting the thread and nothing came up besides the US Politics and Lockerbee bomber threads. What thread are you talking about?

Raidne and others, you may find it interesting to read the first half of the current US politics thread and the last half pages of the previous one, where we discussed this issue in detail. Just FYI what ground was covered (built on?) (lol).

Obviously, it seems that this is a topic large enough for its own thread, so I encourage everyone to continue here.

You know, if there's something that hasn't been said already.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tempra: I don't have the time or inclination to drill down into those poll numbers the way I did with the first lot. But I'm betting big money you haven't, either. If so, you have no idea whether the same flaws are present. I can guarantee that at least one of them is: these polls were taken after the media furore erupted, so they are not a reflection of what ordinary New Yorkers think of the issue on its own merits, but a reflection of what they've seen in the media.

Mormont, I'm disappointed in your opinion of American politicians. :) Look, if there is one thing the latter have learned to do well, it's conduct polls. The Republicans would not be making this a nationwide issue and Democrats like Harry Reid (the Senate majority leader) and David Paterson (the governor of New York) would not be contradicting Obama if they were not convinced that the overwhelming majority opposes this project. Whether this is before or after the media blitz is irrelevant -- they now have an opinion and changing it is not that simple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FLOW,

So, because they haven't taken extreme actions or followed their bigotry to its logical extremes, they aren't bigots even though they have a bigoted opinion about the Cordoba Center?

You're assuming that bigotry as a proven fact. I'm saying the facts don't fit your assumption, particularly because I've repeatedly offered non-bigoted explanations for those actions. Certainly, there are some people who are motivated by bigotry, and I'd imagine many of those really would want a moslem free zone. But not 68%

Second, you keep claiming that it's holding all moslems responsible for 9/11, and that clearly is not the case given what we've done to the individual moslems who we have actually held responsible. There is a disconnect between your assumption and the facts.

I keep repeating the same points, and you keep refusing to address them. Some of the things that occurred during the Crusades were a stain on Christianity. That is NOT the same as holding all Christians responsible as individuals. That's the same with Japan and Pearl Harbor, Germany and the death camps, mormons and Mountain Meadows. A philosophy or institution can acquire a black mark on its rep due to the actions of individuals even though that black mark isn't transferred to other individuals. Now perhaps you don't agree with that rationale, but people who apply that rationale consistently are not being bigoted. Jesus, think of Abu Ghraib. Didn't that stain the U.S. military even though it's unfair to hold all members of the military responsible?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. That's not how polls work. They don't get more reliable if they all show the same thing, because they may all share the same methodological problems. In this case, they share at least two. First, that they were taken after the media furore began and so are not a reflection of independent opinion but of which side is winning the media argument: and second, that they are part of that media argument in and of themselves. A poll that showed 38% of New Yorkers saying 'we think both sides have good points' is useless for headlines - which is why your first poll, which got that result, didn't stop there but 'forced' respondents into saying yes or no.

What is your justification for believing that the timing of the polls has in anyway (let alone significantly) affected the results of the poll? Do you, like Pax, believe in some mythical right wing puppet masters that tell the sheep-like populace what to think?

Also, CNN, for example, has an outside corporation conduct the polling (Opinion Research Corporation). Even if this were not the case, you have assumed without providing justification that this has affected the poll.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Raidne

Raidne and others, you may find it interesting to read the first half of the current US politics thread and the last half pages of the previous one, where we discussed this issue in detail. Just FYI what ground was covered (built on?) (lol).

Ah, I see. I don't really read those threads because I'm just interested in this one subject, and I think we're less likely to talk about, say, what effect this is going to have on Barack Obama's popularity ratings in this thread. In fact, everyone, please let's not talk about the political implications of supporting or not supporting the mosque in this thread - that probably would be more appropriate for the US politics thread (by which I mean, it's the kind of drivel shown on CNN that is currently providing most of the fodder for the Daily Show).

Back to your regularly scheduled programming. Since I won't be reading the other threads, it doesn't bother me if people repeat themselves or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great. Please explain it to me - that was my main purpose in starting the thread. I really don't get it. All I'm hearing from you or anybody else is "upset" and "uncomfortable," but no specifics as to why, or where those feelings come from.

Well, a group of Islamic extremists killed 3,000 innocent people near that spot, and even while fully recognizing that Islam is far bigger than those fringe psycho's, I can understand why one might struggle to embrace the concept of a Mosque on the site where loved ones were killed in the name of Islam. I think that would be in poor taste less than 10 years removed from the events of 9/11. (ETA: That doesn't mean I think it should be illegal) It'd be like if an American decided to build a museum to the American Soldier at Abu Ghraib. Sure 99% of American soldiers are good people, but uh, maybe that's not the greatest place to celebrate that just yet. I think that would (rightfully) be insensitive and upsetting to Iraqi's.

For me, as I said, my opinion changed quite a bit when I learned that the mosque was indeed not right at ground zero. I actually don't really feel that the current site is that insensitive, now that I know where it is. And after mulling over it a while I decided that the 1st Amendment would trump all in any case. So the new mosque has every right to be there, but I can understand if those who were more personally affected by 9/11 than I was dislike the idea and may view it as a symbol of 9/11. 'Cause I mean if this Imam did view it as a 'victory mosque' he's not going to actually admit that. So I think that the proximity, the publicity, and the digging in, have made some people suspicious of the intentions of the Cordoba Institute and now they're going to fight the location. Not a battle I'm going to fight, but it is a battle where the motivations of both parties make at least some sense to me.

I agree with on this. I can see how someone could be upset by the location without being a bigot. I'll even join you in saying that more than half of the people in opposition don't hate Muslims at all. BUT I'm not willing to accept that those (irrational) feelings of discomfort are either reasonable or a logical basis for making public policy.

However, I'm not willing to extend this to the vocal voices like Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich. I don't think that they're personally bigots either, but they're clearly trying to play on the fears of their base by creating the illusion of some sort of terrorist base camp being built. There doesn't seem to be any evidence that the Cordoba center is going to be the headquarters for Islamic terrorism or that it's leaders will even express sympathy for al Qaeda and other extremist groups. The fact that some people are trying to lump them all together like that is bigotry -- the same kind of bigotry that says that all Christians are pedophiles or that Jews are Christ-killers.

Oh, I'm not advocating any policy adjustments and I agree about Pailin and Gingrich. Their jaw flapping has done 0 good in this whole thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FLOW,

No. If I accept your point as true its just fine to label everyone on the right baces upon the actions of a few because those few have tainted everyone on the right. I don't accept that it is ever okay to label based upon the actions of a few.

What reasons, other that Lmislims are bad, or, "Muslims attacked the US on 9/11 are there for opposing a Muslim Community center or Mosque two blocks from GZ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Raidne

Some of the things that occurred during the Crusades were a stain on Christianity.

Wow, do you really think so? I'd say it's a stain on medieval Catholicism, I guess.

Jesus, think of Abu Ghraib. Didn't that stain the U.S. military even though it's unfair to hold all members of the military responsible?

Oh wait a minute. It is a stain, sure, on the policies of the Bush Administration and the War in Iraq. But I would not say that it was a stain on the American military, particularly as it was quite possibly the CIA giving the orders.

You really think 9/11 is a stain on Islam? Is Jerry Falwell a stain on all Christianity? I think 9/11 is a stain on Islamic Fundamentalism, in the sense that people - reasonable people - will now be suspicious of Muslim fundamentalist groups. I had no idea, however, that we were so intellectually lazy that we'd just lump Sufis with jihaadists, as if Lutherans were in bed with Catholics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surely the importance of polling from an untainted sampling population is justified here?

Look, you know it is not possible to provide this information. You are insisting on this simply as a way to dismiss the issue.

Fine, if you want to argue like that, prove to me that opposition is limited ONLY to "right wing bigots." You did state that this controversy is "just a bunch of rightwing bigots' self-perpetuated and ever-shifting noise and fury."

Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...