Guest Raidne Posted August 22, 2010 Share Posted August 22, 2010 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.Hmmm...to me it would be analogous if we were talking about some kind of apology or recognition of Abu Ghraib being built at Abu Ghraib, since the point of this group is to bridge the perceived divide between Islam and the west and to fight extremism. Look up the guy's book for sale on Amazon. He does not think in terms of "victory mosque."I really feel pretty humiliated as a country that there's the Islamic group that is basically like a big bow-tied gift to a secular western country, and we're slapping them in the face. Leave no idiocy unturned and no Muslims unoffended and all that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelli Fury Posted August 22, 2010 Share Posted August 22, 2010 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?You seem to prove better the point of others with this than your own. There is still the same creepy "support our troops" zeal as there was before that. And the US military is a single entity, Islam is not. Islam is dozens, at least, of different sects and philosophies, as varied a group as Christianity or "americans" or "white people" or "short people." Abu Ghraib was a government sanctioned facility supported by the military. Muslims as a whole are not required to abide by the decisions of Osama Bin Laden or any terrorist group as the military is required by law to abide by the decisions of the us government and military leadership. Yet god forbid someone in the US say something against the military, then they hate freedom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IheartTesla Posted August 22, 2010 Share Posted August 22, 2010 It would be analogous to say a southern state incorporating some form of the Confederate flag into their state flag design when there are significant African American populations within state boundaries. How lucky we are none of that actually happens, even if it did it would be a local or states rights issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Altherion Posted August 22, 2010 Share Posted August 22, 2010 He does not think in terms of "victory mosque."I really feel pretty humiliated as a country that there's the Islamic group that is basically like a big bow-tied gift to a secular western country, and we're slapping them in the face.No, they are slapping me (and probably many others) in the face (figuratively, of course). Personally, I regard what they are doing as adding insult to injury. This is rather weird as the imam is indeed among the most pro-Western ones out there, even to the point where many of the Muslims think its too much. The New York Times has an interesting article on him. I just can't understand why he would do something like this -- he's usually rather good at avoiding making people angry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Sparrow Posted August 22, 2010 Share Posted August 22, 2010 Well, if they disapprove so much then they can attend a different mosque and not use any of the other amenities at the community center, can't they?LOL, I like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jack-be-lucky Posted August 22, 2010 Share Posted August 22, 2010 I have to congratulate the right-wing for making this an issue in a Senate race here in the Heartland, a thousand miles away from NYC. And I can't help but find it amusing that people who couldn't find NYC on a map, who hate everything they've ever heard about NYC, and wouldn't go to NYC if you paid them, are now convinced they have the right to decide on what happens in NYC.And these are the same people who would rant and rave that the EPA has no right to tell them what they can or cannot do on their own property. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S John Posted August 22, 2010 Share Posted August 22, 2010 Hmmm...to me it would be analogous if we were talking about some kind of apology or recognition of Abu Ghraib being built at Abu Ghraib, since the point of this group is to bridge the perceived divide between Islam and the west and to fight extremism. Look up the guy's book for sale on Amazon. He does not think in terms of "victory mosque."I really feel pretty humiliated as a country that there's the Islamic group that is basically like a big bow-tied gift to a secular western country, and we're slapping them in the face. Leave no idiocy unturned and no Muslims unoffended and all that.My final conclusion is this: the mosque is allowed under the first amendment and as long as all their ducks are in a row they are allowed to build there. Which, I suspect is the final conclusion of most people on this issue. Even those who are opposed to the site.The only reason I commented in this thread is because I have a hard time understanding how other people cannot understand why this might be upsetting to some people. I'm just not having a hard time wrapping my head around it. And hopefully, knowing me personally and all, you know that I've spent enough time in the middle east to know damn well that not all Muslims are evil people who are out to get us. I'd be dead many times over if that were the case. And even armed with those personal experiences, I can still at least see why there are many reasonable people who think that the location of the mosque is not appropriate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Week Posted August 22, 2010 Share Posted August 22, 2010 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.And that is a greater percentage than the percent of Americans that will ever be affected by this community center. The community center will be built and everyone will forget about it in 6 months because it is nobody's fucking business what gets built where. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Errant Bard Posted August 22, 2010 Share Posted August 22, 2010 So the Mosque is supposed to be 150m away from hallowed ground and not visible. What would be the distance for it not to be a "slap in the face"? 500m, 1km, outside the country? It would be analogous to say a southern state incorporating some form of the Confederate flag into their state flag design when there are significant African American populations within state boundaries.I would rather think it is like using the flag General Custer used while there are significant Native American population within state boundaries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tempra Posted August 22, 2010 Share Posted August 22, 2010 And that is a greater percentage than the percent of Americans that will ever be affected by this community center. The community center will be built and everyone will forget about it in 6 months because it is nobody's fucking business what gets built where.I agree in this case, but your last statement is a wee bit broad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IheartTesla Posted August 22, 2010 Share Posted August 22, 2010 I would rather think it is like using the flag General Custer used while there are significant Native American population within state boundaries.Oh, we already have the 20 dollar bill for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerraPrime Posted August 22, 2010 Share Posted August 22, 2010 The only reason I commented in this thread is because I have a hard time understanding how other people cannot understand why this might be upsetting to some people. I'm just not having a hard time wrapping my head around it. Speaking for myself, I think I understand why some people are genuinely upset at the proposal. However, I also find the reasoning (such as it is) behind their emotional response to be something that I cannot condone. You cannot have a negative emotion response to the community center without some degree of casting blame for the 9/11 attack on all moslems. I just don't see how that's possible. If, indeed, people are truthful and honest in saying that they don't blame all moslems for the 9/11 attack, then on what ground is their emotional distress founded? Plus, I think you should acknowledge that mixed in with the genuine response are plenty of outright bigotry against Islam and against moslems. And that's part of what those of us who support the proposal are responding to, as well. Re: AltherionReally? You are resorting to "but I bet bin Laden would support this proposal!" as an argument? How... repulsive. Let me remind you that Hitler wore socks, too. I bet everyone who wears socks, like Hitler did, are as evil and despicable as he was. :nods:If bin Laden did support the center, it would be because he would see his support as a means to deepen the division in our country. His strain of Islam is as much against the westernization as it is about against the U.S., and I would be stunned if he or his followers find the type of Islam practiced by the moslems who support this community center to be acceptable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Errant Bard Posted August 22, 2010 Share Posted August 22, 2010 Oh, we already have the 20 dollar bill for that.there's Harisson on it or something? There's surely a difference between celebrating and or officially endorsing a specific murderer's actions and celebrating/supporting a group he happened to be a fringe element of. Except if that group actually condones his actions... but the guys building the Mosque don't support neother terrorism nor the 9/11 bombing, or do they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mormont Posted August 22, 2010 Share Posted August 22, 2010 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.I'm quite sure that politicians facing election believe there is no percentage at this time in doing anything other than opposing the building. That, however, is irrelevant to the issue I'm discussing, which is the way Tempra is attempting to use these poll findings. Speaking of which:What is your justification for believing that the timing of the polls has in anyway (let alone significantly) affected the results of the poll?I've explained that above, repeatedly. These polls are based on what people have seen in the media about the issue. The respondents to the first poll, at least, openly admit they are not otherwise well informed about the substance of the question at issue. In other words, it's a poll about what they think of what they've heard in the news about it. (And even then, 38% think that both sides have good points.) Which is fine, as an understanding of the impact of the coverage of the issue, as I've said (with the caveats about the first poll's methodology, mind you). But you are attempting to use the result to prove a point about people who opposed the building from the first, who are actively campaigning against it, and who instigated and participated in the media coverage that helped to shape the latter group's opinions. These are two disparate groups, who arrived at their opinions by different routes. There is absolutely no reason why the former group can't be guilty of being bigots while the latter group are not. Yet this is exactly what you're claiming. Also, the reputability of the polling organisation isn't at issue. It's how you report poll results that matters - and there is no polling organisation on Earth that has ever said to a newspaper or TV channel who commissioned a poll, 'OK, but you can't report our results in a sensationalist way'. That's not their job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Raidne Posted August 22, 2010 Share Posted August 22, 2010 My final conclusion is this: the mosque is allowed under the first amendment and as long as all their ducks are in a row they are allowed to build there. Which, I suspect is the final conclusion of most people on this issue. Even those who are opposed to the site.Polling complexities aside, the data provided is enough for me to agree with you on this one. And it's the line Palin and others are taking also - there's one cartoon that talks about their right to build there are riffs on two rights making a wrong, etc. But that's not what I think. I don't think they just have a right to build there. I think building a moderate, tolerant, pro-secularism Muslim community center with an imam who writes books on the importance of a secular government for meaningful faith close to Ground Zero is, like, the best idea ever. It is, for me, more than anything else could be, a perfect representation of everything religious extremists are against.There was this story on NPR about stereotypes and about this soldier who came back from Iraq and found that he had become prejudice toward Muslims. He worked at a recruiting center down the street from the Mosque and was like, "hey, guys maybe we should take some license plates on these vehicles going to this mosque over here...." That I understand. The guy was in a war zone, doing precisely that. But even he decided that was wrong, and joined his college's Muslim student association to fight this impulse of his. Sarah Palin and 61% of New Yorkers have never faced down a Muslim suicide bomber, or an IED, or any of that. They have no excuse for the stereotyping. So no, I really don't understand. Even for people with family members killed in the attacks, or survivors of the attacks, I don't understand. I can see why they would be afraid of planes, or skyscrapers, but there is no Islamic stimuli tied in with the attack in the way that would cause PTSD feuled avoidance symptoms, like there would be for soldiers serving in Iraq. We heard about all that afterward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watcher Posted August 22, 2010 Share Posted August 22, 2010 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.What you saying is that once you cut though Newt, Palins, Rush and other right wing bigots lies you were more comfortable with it existing? I also like how you did the Glenn Beck trick of "I'm just asking questions" with your implying that the Imam secretly believes that it really is a "victory mosque" when that nauseous lie was only brought up and charged by the same right wing bigots and lairs that claim it was being built on ground zero.This is only a nation wide discussion because the right wing decided it was going to fight it by distorting facts and outfight lies. And it's not just this mosque people are protesting:Tennessee: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-07-03-mosque-protest-tennessee_N.htmCalifornia: http://beforeitsnews.com/story/135/262/California_Mosque_Protest:_Protesters_Call_for_No_More_Mosques_in_America.htmlA different mosque in New York: http://www.unitedliberty.org/articles/6065-another-new-york-mosque-protest-reveals-anti-muslim-biasAnd the effects of those people bullshit, as you research discovered, is having far reaching effectshttp://www.kansascity.com/2010/08/18/2160086_miles-from-ground-zero-storm-builds.html?storylink=omni_popular Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centrist Simon Steele Posted August 22, 2010 Share Posted August 22, 2010 Honestly, I just don't understand this argument at all and I think it's, frankly, embarassing.And more embarrassing to me is the fact that people are acting like a mosque has anything to do with terrorism. Because some muslims were terrorists, the religion has to shame itself and hide? What about Christian terrorists? We've had plenty. What about white guys who commit crimes on Wall Street? I just don't want any white people working around Wall Street. It's insensitive to those who lost so much money.This whole thing burns me up. It makes me really question the intelligence, tolerance, and overall morality of this country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liadin Posted August 22, 2010 Share Posted August 22, 2010 It would be analogous to say a southern state incorporating some form of the Confederate flag into their state flag design when there are significant African American populations within state boundaries. How lucky we are none of that actually happens, even if it did it would be a local or states rights issue.Have you ever seen the flag of Mississippi? They're over 1/3 black.Georgia had it too until 2001. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centrist Simon Steele Posted August 22, 2010 Share Posted August 22, 2010 That may be, but the majority of New Yorkers (and most likely Americans) disapprove of the project. This controversy is hardly limited to right wing bigots. And it is totally understandable, even if it is not reasonable.You're right. It's not limited to right wing bigots--just plain old bigots in general. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted August 22, 2010 Share Posted August 22, 2010 Steele,Well said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.