Jump to content

Masjids in Manhattan II cookies to Raidne


Bellis

Recommended Posts

Swordfish,

It seems relevant to once again point out that there are a lot of democrats who also oppose the mosque.

Yup, but whose media is whipping up this opposition?

(And for the record, biggotry knows no party affiliation, so I'm not sure what your point is in the first place. Has anyone been defending Democratic biggots in this thread?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems relevant to once again point out that there are a lot of democrats who also oppose the mosque.

Carry on......

How many Democrats were speaking against the project before it became a big media issue? Say, before Sarah Palin's "refudiate" tweet of several weeks ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Raidne

The problem is I don't think that is the conflict, and I guess this isn't how Raidne sees it, becuase to go back all the way to the original OP, to her a mosque dosen't seem like a compromise or uncomfortable but necessary adherence to principles of freedom of religeon or whathaveyou, but it really is a victory mosque: If the real conflict is between the people who want to end the war, and people who want it continued - probably becuase it creates circumstances that give them wealth and authority.

Could you rephrase? I can't tell what position you are wrongly ascribing to me here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Raidne

Also, I thought I'd throw in a quote from Imam Rauf's eulogy for Daniel Pearl:

We are here to assert the Islamic conviction of the moral equivalency of our Abrahamic faiths. If to be a Jew means to say with all one's heart, mind and soul Shma` Yisrael, Adonai Elohenu Adonai Ahad; hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One, not only today I am a Jew, I have always been one, Mr. Pearl.

If to be a Christian is to love the Lord our God with all of my heart, mind and soul, and to love for my fellow human being what I love for myself, then not only am I a Christian, but I have always been one Mr. Pearl.

And I am here to inform you, with the full authority of the Quranic texts and the practice of the Prophet Muhammad, that to say La ilaha illallah Muhammadun rasulullah is no different.

It expresses the same theological and ethical principles and values

Wow, what an extremist asshole. Note how he did not say that Hamas is a terrorist organization!!! :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How many Democrats were speaking against the project before it became a big media issue? Say, before Sarah Palin's "refudiate" tweet of several weeks ago.

That hardly paints them in a better light. It merely shows they would do anything to court public opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could you rephrase? I can't tell what position you are wrongly ascribing to me here.

You've become paranoid...Probably a good strategy.

I meant your original point that to you a hippyish interfaith dailogue, prayer room-not-a-mosque so they can keep out radical fundamentalists community center is the best thing you can imagine at ground zero. I hope i'm not wrongly ascribing that.

(which makes perfect sense to me becuase I think the roots of this conflict have absolutely nothing to do with Islamic vs. western ideology of any imaginable stripe or anything of the sort. Its to do with who's making money of it, and they're always going to find excuses to continue it, thus putting them on the same side, and opposite the rest of us who think the war should end.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't entirely see the relevance...

The relevance is that the Democrats are by and large craven ass-coverers, and the ones who denounced the mosque did so after it became nationally publicized. None of them bothered to have a public opinion on it until it became a wedge issue. I'm assuming Swordfish is trying to argue with TFJ's contention that Republicans turned this into a big deal. Well, TFJ ain't wrong. This wouldn't have been a big deal, but the Republicans made it one.

That hardly paints them in a better light. It merely shows they would do anything to court public opinion.

No, the Democrats who spoke against the project are cowards. But at least they're just cowards reacting to someone else's actions, and not people who orchestrated a hate campaign to scare up some votes in an election year. So no, they wouldn't "do anything" to court public opinion -- they didn't manufacture this mess for their own purposes.

Let's make no mistake here. The Republicans organized this dance. The Democrats who joined in are just craven dumb-asses who danced to their tune.

And finally, here's a list of Democrats (and one former Republican) who actually took a principled stand and spoke in defense of the Cordoba project.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/08/the-dems-who-have-spoken-for-cordoba-house.php?ref=fpblg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Raidne

You've become paranoid...Probably a good strategy.

I meant your original point that to you a hippyish interfaith dailogue, prayer room-not-a-mosque so they can keep out radical fundamentalists community center is the best thing you can imagine at ground zero. I hope i'm not wrongly ascribing that.

(which makes perfect sense to me becuase I think the roots of this conflict have absolutely nothing to do with Islamic vs. western ideology of any imaginable stripe or anything of the sort. Its to do with who's making money of it, and they're always going to find excuses to continue it, thus putting them on the same side, and opposite the rest of us who think the war should end.)

Well, there is a theory that this is really all about the private school that they'll be operating and you know how fierce competition between private schools in NYC gets...

But, yep, you're right, I'm okay with that. :) I get you now. Yeah, I'd just assume that they guy who wrote that eulogy build an interfaith center right on Ground Zero. That would, indeed, be a victory mosque of the best kind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Swordfish,

Yup, but whose media is whipping up this opposition?

Ours.

But the media does not act completely independently of what people outside the media are saying/feeling/thinking.

(And for the record, biggotry knows no party affiliation, so I'm not sure what your point is in the first place. Has anyone been defending Democratic biggots in this thread?)

No. A specific poster made a reference to this being solely a republican issue.

Which is demonstrably false.

That hardly paints them in a better light. It merely shows they would do anything to court public opinion.

yep.

And of course, there weren't any republicans really speaking out against it before then either, so it's a silly question on it's face but..... you know...... Par for the course i guess. Essentially, the question amounts to 'Well, you didn't see any democrats talking about it before anyone was talking about it!'

Which I think we can all agree would be a pretty stupid argument for..... Well.... Anything really. Apologists are gonna apologize.... What can you do?

I won't even bother to go into the difference between constituents and politicians, and why conflating them in this discussion is a mistake, because I think it would be a waste of time.

As has been mentioned already ad nauseum, there's plenty of unwarranted hysteria to go around here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. A specific poster made a reference to this being solely a republican issue.

Which is demonstrably false.

Actually TFJ said Republicans turned this into an Us vs. Them issue. He didn't say it was solely a Republican issue, just that Republicans turned it into an issue.

And of course, there weren't any republicans really speaking out against it before then either, so it's a silly question on it's face but..... you know...... Par for the course i guess. Essentially, the question amounts to 'Well, you didn't see any democrats talking about it before anyone was talking about it!'

What fucking planet do you live on? This became an issue all on its own? It just sprang, full-formed, as a wedge issue from Zeus's head? This shit became a national media issue because Republicans publicized it, including Sarah Palin's infamous "refudiate" post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

aeu,

There is no formal priesthood in Islam. Who determines something is "heresy"?

Scholarly consensus. For example, certain things in Islam definitely get you labelled a heretic. 1. Shirk - polytheism 2. Accepting prophets post-Muhammad. Islamic Scholars of various Schools and Sects will disagree on who is a heretic (Sunni/Shia, some Sunni scholars accept Shias, some don't) in some cases, while in others, they are all mostly in agreement (Ahmadiyya as heretics - agreed on by both Shia and Sunni scholars).

There is no formal priesthood in that, there is no church apparatus similar to Catholicism. But, the idea behind no priesthood is supposed to be that one can pray privately to god and does not need a priest to intervene/accept confessions/bless shit. That's what the idea behind the no priesthood is. Islamic scholars definitely do exist, and consensus on heresy does exist.

Also, Shia Islam does sort of have a formal priesthood.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And of course, there weren't any republicans really speaking out against it before then either, so it's a silly question on it's face but..... you know...... Par for the course i guess. Essentially, the question amounts to 'Well, you didn't see any democrats talking about it before anyone was talking about it!'

Huh? So you think that the controversy arise a priori because your average NY citizen woke up one day and go "holy shit Al-Queda is building a freaking mosque on top of the hallowed ground zero"?

Get a grip on reality, swordfish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, Jurble, but any individual Imam can decide to say fuck you to scholarly consensus assuming that s/he is sufficiently learned and can find doctrinal support for his/her views/exegesis and find people willing to support. Especially in this age of easy worldwide communication, pretty much every view - you can bet there's someone who's managed to find Quranic support for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, Jurble, but any individual Imam can decide to say fuck you to scholarly consensus assuming that s/he is sufficiently learned and can find doctrinal support for his/her views/exegesis and find people willing to support. Especially in this age of easy worldwide communication, pretty much every view - you can bet there's someone who's managed to find Quranic support for it.

Well yeah, like that dude who said we ought to let women breastfeed their co-workers in order for them to be able to work together. But still, people tend to listen to scholars from Al Azhar. During Ramadan every year, we bring an Imam from Al Azhar to our masjid, dude's awesome. He's like the head of dawah at Al Azhar. The level of knowledge possessed by a dude like him vs. some self-taught guy is massive.

Someone like that is going to pull respect/have people listen to his opinions more than a dude who claims the prophet is reincarnated as a goat or something. (Absurd example because I couldn't think of anything).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well yeah, like that dude who said we ought to let women breastfeed their co-workers in order for them to be able to work together. But still, people tend to listen to scholars from Al Azhar. During Ramadan every year, we bring an Imam from Al Azhar to our masjid, dude's awesome. He's like the head of dawah at Al Azhar. The level of knowledge possessed by a dude like him vs. some self-taught guy is massive.

Someone like that is going to pull respect/have people listen to his opinions more than a dude who claims the prophet is reincarnated as a goat or something. (Absurd example because I couldn't think of anything).

I'm not talking about some self-taught guy. I'm talking about some American Islamic scholar like Abou El Fadl or Amina Wadud, or Scott Kugle, or Faisal Rauf for that matter.

I'd also like to point out that if you were a lesbian women, I bet the guy from Al Azhar would start looking a lot less "awesome" and you'd be thinking of either leaving the faith or seeking out someone else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd also like to point out that if you were a lesbian women, I bet the guy from Al Azhar would start looking a lot less "awesome" and you'd be thinking of either leaving the faith or seeking out someone else.

Almost certainly, but I've always viewed religion as a series of rules/set beliefs. Jumping from one religion or sect to another just because it fits your own personal views better never jived with my mind. If I were wanted my faith to reflect my own views, then I'd start my own, not follow another that just marginally fits me better than the one I'm currently in.

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...