Masjids in Manhattan II cookies to Raidne

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

FLoW,

I'm not clear what you're saying here.

Are you suggesting that liberals would not care to have more Sufi mosques in Riyadh and Kabul? Or are you saying that liberal principles, such as they are, do not permit a reasonable strategy where that is the outcome? Further, are you saying that nations have the responsibility to change their neighbors?

None of the above.

As I have been saying, I think there needs to be more focus on tolerance and behaviors in moslem countries. The mosque in NYC is being trumpeted as something that will improve relations between moslems and Americans, and bring people together. My point is that U.S. moslems and other Americans generally have gotten along pretty well. An expansion of Sufism here in the U.S. is nice, but where it really is needed is in moslem countries where radicals are a much higher percentage of the population. And again, please remember the context in which I raised this point, and to which I keep referring. A boarder commented that moslems might be right to assume that the opposition to this facility indicates a U.S. crusade against islam. My point is that if we apply that same standard to the treatment of Christianity and other religions in moslem countries, there's been a crusade (or jihad) going on for a lot longer than that.

it's simply a matter of accepting the truth that failures of religious tolerance in our own country marks us as hypocrites when we insist on it abroad, both in perception and in absolute terms.

ONly if you accept the validity of an incredible double standard regarding what constitutes "tolerance". But then, we're back to the retard curve.

[The Progressive]

FLOW's point (which seemed clear enough, though I can't say I agreed with it) was that AQ and their ilk would rather have a Sufi mosque than no mosque at all: both for propaganda purposes and because it could be infiltrated with radical ideology.

The problem with the first point is the problem with all the 'propaganda' arguments: if you look hard enough at pretty much anything, you can find a way in which AQ could turn it into propaganda. That applies equally to the US military and the US government as it does to US muslims. In the end, as Terra has eloquently explained, you just can't let that dictate what any of those groups do or how we react to it.

The second point is slight, to say the least, and vulnerable to the 'slippery slope' argument - should we ban all mosques in Manhattan on those grounds? If we start down that road, as I said in the previous thread, we'll be acting as if we're at war with all Muslims rather than just trying to deal with a handful of terrorists: and that, history shows us, is exactly what radical terrorist groups want. The IRA were never stronger than when the British government treated all Irish Catholics as potential terrorists.

To be fair, I wouldn't call that "addressing the issues" given Flow's utter lack of rebuttals after the logical inconsistencies of his claim were exposed by various posters. Hence I can see why Raidne and Thor would express confusion about his claim of having "addressed the issue" given the understanding of what the term actually means in normal discourse.

[MinDonner]

My point is that U.S. moslems and other Americans generally have gotten along pretty well.

You mean, apart from all the ones currently getting beaten up and stabbed, or the way that "Muslim" is used as a slur (see, eg, "Obama is a Muslim!" scaremongering), or the way certain people in this very thread have been conflating "Muslim" with "terrorist"... :unsure:

Yes, I'm sure the US could do more to encourage religious tolerance among its many Middle Eastern allies with currently dubious positions thereupon, though frankly I'd rather see them encourage a bit of feminism first, if we're exporting values and all that. BUT we're not talking about that now. We're talking about US citizens, of an already-despised minority, being discriminated against, because of some dogwhistle bullshit bigotry.

[BLU-RAY]

None of the above.

As I have been saying, I think there needs to be more focus on tolerance and behaviors in moslem countries. The mosque in NYC is being trumpeted as something that will improve relations between moslems and Americans, and bring people together. My point is that U.S. moslems and other Americans generally have gotten along pretty well. An expansion of Sufism here in the U.S. is nice, but where it really is needed is in moslem countries where radicals are a much higher percentage of the population. And again, please remember the context in which I raised this point, and to which I keep referring. A boarder commented that moslems might be right to assume that the opposition to this facility indicates a U.S. crusade against islam. My point is that if we apply that same standard to the treatment of Christianity and other religions in moslem countries, there's been a crusade (or jihad) going on for a lot longer than that.

Isn't part of the point here that we don't (or shouldn't) consider ourselves a "Christian" country the way many middle-eastern countries consider themselves Islamic states? I.e. we're supposed to be a secular country. And isn't another part of the point that we do (or should) hold ourselves to a higher standard?

[Lord Mord]

FLoW,

As I have been saying, I think there needs to be more focus on tolerance and behaviors in moslem countries. The mosque in NYC is being trumpeted as something that will improve relations between moslems and Americans, and bring people together. My point is that U.S. moslems and other Americans generally have gotten along pretty well. An expansion of Sufism here in the U.S. is nice, but where it really is needed is in moslem countries where radicals are a much higher percentage of the population. And again, please remember the context in which I raised this point, and to which I keep referring. A boarder commented that moslems might be right to assume that the opposition to this facility indicates a U.S. crusade against islam. My point is that if we apply that same standard to the treatment of Christianity and other religions in moslem countries, there's been a crusade (or jihad) going on for a lot longer than that.

I'm not clear what the connection is between your observations of the liberal mindset and your conclusion that it's a problem. Why is it a problem, and what are the connections between the mindset and the problems caused?

ONly if you accept the validity of an incredible double standard regarding what constitutes "tolerance". But then, we're back to the retard curve.

Suppose:

1) You and I are neighbors;

2) somewhere I've written that it's morally wrong for anyone to kidnap and ransom somebody; and

3) you kidnap my son and threaten to kill him unless I forego adding that sun room to the back of my house.

It sounds like you're saying that it would not hypocrisy for me then to kidnap your daughter and propose an exchange of prisoners. I disagree, and believe that your actions have no bearing on the hypocrisy of mine.

On the international stage, that does not make my kidnap of your daughter Absolutely Wrong, only Definitely Hypocritical, and not entirely without cause for moral scorn.

[Guest Raidne]

Why on earth do I care in the slightest how Christians are treated in Muslim countries, or anywhere else for that matter?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Raidne,

Well said. We should hold ourselves to a higher standard of tolerance than those of Muslim nations, to say the least.

[Guest Raidne]

I care how everyone is treated in my own country, Christian, Muslim, atheist, hell, even Scientologist, but (1) what other countries do short of genocide or its ilk is not the business of my government and (2) I do not look at all global Christians as a diaspora of expatriated brothers and sisters from the Homeland with whom I will one day reside with again in heaven, hallelujah.

Do other people? Seriously? Gods help us.

[Galactus]

I've always found that argument odd. So, you're being SLIGHTLY LESS of a jerk than Jerkass McJerkwad, what do you want, a cookie?

Come back when you're nt being a jerk at all.

[Guest Raidne]

To my mind, that is about the least disturbing thing about it.

It's the "you be nicer to our people and we'll care about yours" thing, when, in fact, Muslim Americans are just as much Americans as anyone else, and Christians living in Muslim countries are not honorary American citizens.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Isn't part of the point here that we don't (or shouldn't) consider ourselves a "Christian" country the way many middle-eastern countries consider themselves Islamic states?

That has nothing to do with the point I made. It may have something to do with a different point you'd like to make, but it's not relevant to my quote.

And isn't another part of the point that we do (or should) hold ourselves to a higher standard?

No. That is even further from being part of the point I made.

[Guest Raidne]

I think we all think that the point you made was:

A boarder commented that moslems might be right to assume that the opposition to this facility indicates a U.S. crusade against islam. My point is that if we apply that same standard to the treatment of Christianity and other religions in moslem countries, there's been a crusade (or jihad) going on for a lot longer than that.

Okay, at it's most basic level, you said a person could reasonably think there was a crusade against Christianity going on in Muslim countries.

I'm not sure I would apply the term "crusade" to Muslim aggression toward anyone, but setting that aside, what is your point?

Lets say, for sake argument, that there is an extremist Muslim country where they are currently lining up all self-professed Christians and summarily executing them. What bearing does this have on mosque-building in the United States?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Why on earth do I care in the slightest how Christians are treated in Muslim countries, or anywhere else for that matter?

I care how everyone is treated in my own country, Christian, Muslim, atheist, hell, even Scientologist, but (1) what other countries do short of genocide or its ilk is not the business of my government and (2) I do not look at all global Christians as a diaspora of expatriated brothers and sisters from the Homeland with whom I will one day reside with again in heaven, hallelujah.

Do other people? Seriously? Gods help us.

And presumably, you'd agree that people overseas should have the same approach towards what happens here in the U.S.. Right?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

FLOW,

Why should we not hold ourselves to a higher standard of tolerance, particularly, when you consider the free exercise clause enshrined in our Constitution?

[Guest Raidne]

And presumably, you'd agree that people overseas should have the same approach towards what happens here in the U.S.. Right?

No. I care what goes on in other countries. I just don't care what goes on with Christians in other countries, or any other particular religion, short of genocide or some other human rights atrocity. I care about women not having driver's licenses in Saudi Arabia (and I'm impressed by the number of female PhDs in Saudi Arabia, as well).

Anyway, to get at your point, if an officially Muslim country wants to care how Muslims are treated in other countries, more power to them.

I live in a secular democracy, so for me it's not about Christians and Muslims and all that (to my mind, apologies) fantastical mumbo-jumbo.

[awesome possum]

As I have been saying, I think there needs to be more focus on tolerance and behaviors in moslem countries.

Yes, and until they're as tolerant as we say they should be, we can continue to be intolerant to Muslims here. It's only fair to them.

The mosque in NYC is being trumpeted as something that will improve relations between moslems and Americans, and bring people together. My point is that U.S. moslems and other Americans generally have gotten along pretty well.

You know, except for when the "real" Americans are performing hate-crimes on those Muslims who think they're American. Because as well all know, Muslims are all exactly the same and they all hate America and want to kill us so we might as well get a head start on them.

Seriously, do you even read half of what you're writing? Do you not see how... absurd some of your views are?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I think we all think that the point you made was:

Okay, at it's most basic level, you said a person could reasonably think there was a crusade against Christianity going on in Muslim countries.

I'm not sure I would apply the term "crusade" to Muslim aggression toward anyone,

?

Gee, and I thought including the parenthetical "jihad" would be enough to show I know the difference. Guess not.

but setting that aside, what is your point?

I made two points, neither of which is relevant to the question of whether or not the mosque should be built. But both go to issues related in some way to that subject. The first point I made was relevant to criticism/comments from overseas. I addressed that "point" pretty clearly in response to an almost identical question from TerraPrime in post #207 I reiterated the same point in post #213.

The second point is on the broader issue of U.S./moslem rapprochement in general, not just in the U.S., and not simply with respect to this mosque. What struck me about the debates and discussions we seem to have here is that such discussions seem to focus almost exclusively on our need to "better understand" the moslem world. When in fact, I think the real problem is the current state of islam, and it's need to reform itself. One illustration of that is that some of the folks defending the mosque project have said that this guy is a Sufi, and we need to support Sufis as moderate moslems. I don't have a quarrel with that point, but it occurs to me that where Sufi moderates really are needed most is in the moslem world that breeds terrorism. I don't think we have very many homegrown radical U.S. moslems who require moderation by a Sufi. That's not an argument against this mosque, nor is it a suggestion that this imam should be building his mosque overseas rather than here. He's an American, so obviously this is where he builds. But in terms of the broader international problem, that's not really much of a solution or help. Which is why I commented that more Sufi mosques overseas is what we really need to improve those larger international relations.

Now, in the abstract, I don't care how people choose to worship in their own countries. That's their business. However, if a significant radical strain has arisen in a major religion, and the result is an aggressive targeting of Americans for murder, then it becomes a legitimate concern of ours.

Lets say, for sake argument, that there is an extremist Muslim country where they are currently lining up all self-professed Christians and summarily executing them. What bearing does this have on mosque-building in the United States?

None whatsoever. It may have something to do with how we respond to repressive foreign countries who decide to question our level of religious tolerance, though.

[Guest Raidne]

You don't actually think there are any Muslim-Americans, do you?

ETA: Also, maybe this Sufi mosque-building thing would be going better if Al Qaeda would stop blowing them up all the time.

Hey, maybe we should have sent more Jews over to Germany during WWII to spur them toward tolerance?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

You don't actually think there are any Muslim-Americans, do you?

What the fuck is wrong with you??? This is a direct quote from the post I just made:

"That's not an argument against this mosque, nor is it a suggestion that this imam should be building his mosque overseas rather than here. He's an American, so obviously this is where he builds."

How the hell do you derive "you don't actually think there are any Muslem-Americans" from that?

Eh, I was going to respond to the rest of your post, but I've lost interest.

[Guest Raidne]

I'd be looking for any reason to wave the white flag if I were you at this point also. Pitching a fit and storming off in a huff is a tried and true choice.

What I mean is that when people say that we look like idiots to the Muslim world for being unable to distinguish between totally disparate communities in Islam and group them all together as they other, we are actually including US Muslims in addition to those living in foreign governments. Basically, it's the whole class of Muslims that don't hate the United States already.

Pragmatically, it's always a plus if we can do anything that results in less people wanting to blow us up, and ideologically, we owe it to our own citizens and our very public commitment to religious freedom to not discriminate either de jure, or in a popular de facto sense due to calls from a loud chorus of idiots complaining about the insensitivity of group adverse to Muslim extremism building anywhere near the site of extremist Muslim violence.

I think you should consider auditing a course in Islam or attending some meetings like the soldier interviewed on NPR - it would probably be a real eye-opener. At the very least, you'd stop referring to "jihad" as synonymous with "war" and wouldn't render the term into English as "moslem."