Masjids in Manhattan II cookies to Raidne

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

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.

I'm heavily outnumbered on most threads, but try to respond fairly to people as best I can. You deliberately misrepresented what I said, forcing me to come back and quote myself to disprove your accusation. So yes, I don't have a lot of interest in doing that.

What I mean is

What you said. The rest is a completely different point.

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 Mulims that don't hate the United States already.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with the statement you made that I don't think there are any moslem-Americans. Nothing.

As to the completely different point you're now making, I've repeatedly said in this thread that I think the vast majority of American moslems are moderate, and that we don't have a problem with home-grown radicals.

You're arguing with what you think I believe rather than what I'm actually saying. Which again, points to the futility of continuing to say things.

[Guest Raidne]

I almost can't bear the irony, but you're actually misrepresenting what I'm trying to say. Someone once explained it as "You're arguing with what you think I believe rather than what I'm actually saying."

What I am saying is that we, as the United States, have committed to religious tolerance, and that we, the United States have Muslim citizens. We are violating both of those commitments by pitching a fit on this issue, and it underminds are credibility on both of those points.

We should indeed care about not looking like hypocrits - it undermines our credibility around the world.

If, OTOH, Iran wants to offer Muslims greater religious freedoms than Christians, this undermines their credibility not at all, because they have never purported to do otherwise.

So, in summary, I think your argument that Muslims outside of the United States have no right whatsoever to care about what we do in the United States such that we should not give any lip service to caring what they think (1) discounts the opinions of Muslims living in the United States, as citizens, who are also part of that Muslim world, (2) denies the way we have represented ourselves to the world as a bastion of religious tolerance, and (3) is totally impractical as a point in a war that is supposedly partly being fought by "winning hearts and minds."

[Spastic Plastic]

Former Lord of Winterfell, please address Raidne's points.

You don't sound like a bigoted racist yourself, but you constantly defend the bigots' rights and talk as if they're more important than the victims of their bigotry. The Rosa Parks comparison is a good one. Also, it seems like you want to hold America to Iran's standards. Sorry, but this is a democracy with freedom of religion, not a single-religion theocracy.

I really hope you don't talk like this to Muslims you meet in real life.

[Guest Raidne]

Also, from the UK government guide for journalists:

Is it correct to write Muslim or

Moslem?

Muslim is preferred. People refer to

themselves as Muslims. Many regard

Moslem as a term of abuse, like

people of African descent dislike

being called negroes. Also avoid

Mohammedan and Musselman.

And...

Is jihad a holy war?

No. Literally it means striving or

struggle, not holy war. There are two

main types of jihad: the greater jihad

and the lesser jihad. The greater is the

struggle against sin and temptation;

the lesser involves missionary

activities and the conflict against evil.

Jihad can be the collective defence of

the Muslim community. Only recently

has it become synonymous with

armed struggle.

[alguien]

Ah, The Onion...

[Trebla]

Ah, The Onion...

"All Muslims are at war with America, and I will resist any attempt to challenge that assertion with potentially illuminating facts," said Gentries, who threatened to leave the room if presented with the number of Muslims who live peacefully in the United States, serve in the country's armed forces, or were victims themselves of the 9/11 attacks. "Period."

"If you don't believe me, wait until they put your wife in a burka," Gentries continued in reference to the face-and-body-covering worn by a small minority of Muslim women and banned in the universities of Turkey, Tunisia, and Syria. "Or worse, a rape camp. That's right: For reasons I am content being totally unable to articulate, I am choosing to associate Muslims with rape camps."

:lmao:

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I almost can't bear the irony, but you're actually misrepresenting what I'm trying to say. Someone once explained it as "You're arguing with what you think I believe rather than what I'm actually saying."

I'm discussing what you actually said. What you're "trying to say" may be something else entirely, but to the extent what you're "trying to say" doesn't match what you actually say, the error is yours, not mine. To recap, what you actually said was:

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

And after I expressly stated on a number of occasions that Americans moslems generally are not radical, and specifically referred to this imam as "an American".

So, in summary, I think your argument that Muslims outside of the United States have no right whatsoever to care about what we do in the United States such that we should not give any lip service to caring what they think (1) discounts the opinions of Muslims living in the United States, as citizens, who are also part of that Muslim world,

So I suppose we're part of the "Christian world", right? Didn't you just blast that concept not that long ago?

But now, you're saying that moslems here should care about what moslems think overseas because they are part of the "moslem world", and that it's offensive to moslems here if we ignore the opinions of overseas moslems. IF that is true, which I don't think it is, then I'd have no problem with a hearty "FO" to American moslems who think we have a duty to value the opinions of what moslems overseas think about our country. I don't care what Christians overseas think about how we treat Christianity -- why should I have a more deferential standard for moslem opinions?

(2) denies the way we have represented ourselves to the world as a bastion of religious tolerance, and

The "hypocrisy" argument, right? Well, I don't see the appeal at all. So it would be someone in Saudi Arabia saying "sure, we don't give jackshit in the way of religious freedom, but you guys really ought to do better because you say you are tolerant." Sorry, but I don't see the appeal of that.

(3) is totally impracta point in a war that is supposedly partly being fought by "winning hearts and minds."

We've been told here that the problem between the U.S. and islam is based on U.S. conduct overseas. If hearts and minds are going to be won (which I don't think is quite accurate, but whatever), it's going to be based on what we do overseas, not on what we choose to build here. I argued that for pages and pages previously in the thread, including running down the litany of alleged U.S. sins against moslems, and how moving the mosque a few blocks wouldn't even register on that scale.

[Elrostar]

Seriously, can this argument please be about the issue at hand rather than being about "well you said this precise statement and clearly the obvious way to interpret that is A", along with "You're missing my point completely because I said B, and you're interpreting it as if I said C" followed by "no, that's not what you said, you said C".

If we're going to have a pedantic discussion about how to parse statements and interpret them, I'm all for that. But if we're trying to debate issues of substance, I suggest we try to draw up the lines a little more clearly, rather than just continuing to say that people are misrepresenting our views.

How about we pretend we're trying to articulate our positions from the beginning, and see where that takes us? Because this whole tit for tat of "I said in post X, and you said in post Y" is getting really really really really tired. A meta-argument isn't really that interesting (at least to me).

[Guest Raidne]

See post #248. I hate point by point tit for tat style posts also, and generally as a rule try not to write them or respond to them as such. \

I'm not sure what to do with that last post of FLOW's there, though. No I don't think Muslims living in the U.S. should care about what Muslims think overseas, and I really don't know anything about that. I think people living in the United States should respect the beliefs of Muslim citizens, and I think we forget that the so-called "Muslim world" would include Muslim citizens, when I think people often commit the mistake of acting like any reference to the "Muslim world" refers to foreigners only.

As for the latter two, what can I say? If it matters nothing to you if our country actually respects freedom of religion instead of just saying we do, what can I say? If you don't think being blatantly ignorant about Islam and acting like we're against all Muslims loses hearts and minds, what can I say? Don't believe it, be my guest.

ETA: Dan, to boil it down, I think that protesting a mosque being built by a Sufi who sells books on religious tolerance, gave a euology for Daniel Pearl at a synogogue, and has a wife who sits on the Board of the 9/11 Memorial and Museum because that "mosque" will supposedly represent a trophy for Al Qaeda reveals us a nation of such idiocy that I can understand how people might come around on the idea of regularly bombing us out of sheer frustration.

That's about it.

[peterbound]

I'm heavily outnumbered on most threads, but try to respond fairly to people as best I can. You deliberately misrepresented what I said, forcing me to come back and quote myself to disprove your accusation. So yes, I don't have a lot of interest in doing that.

It's funny, i brought this up in our Colorado BWB get together last saturday. I feel kinda bad for you. Most of the time you aren't saying anything /that/ crazy. But some of these guys jump all over your ass.

i don't know why you (or anyone on here for that matter) do it.

Both sides are so entrenched in their political leanings no-one here is going to change them. It's nice to talk about the issues in a civil manner, but some of these cats are just down right mean (on both sides). Nothing get accomplished.

[Guest Raidne]

Sometimes he does do a really good job, and other times he devolves into cheap tricks (i.e. acting like he's the only person ever misunderstood on the Board, etc.) and quotes like that above reading "What the fuck is wrong with you???" etc. He's sort of to the Board like Richard Nixon was to the Presidency. ;)

I had high hopes initially.

[peterbound]

Sometimes he does do a really good job, and other times he devolves into cheap tricks (i.e. acting like he's the only person ever misunderstood on the Board, etc.) and quotes like that above reading "What the fuck is wrong with you???" etc. He's sort of to the Board like Richard Nixon was to the Presidency. ;)

I had high hopes initially.

In his defense, not he needs me to help, nor am i taking his side, but i'm sure that very statement (leap of faith here, don't want to review the whole thread) had been directed at him at least once (if not dozens of times) in this very conversation.

Again, i'm sure all you guys have a lot more history than i'm privy too. But it just seems like you argue to argue. No one is going to sway the other side. People just want some one on the other side to yell at. Maybe that's the point.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Peterbound,

I've been where FLOW is. It's not fun but if he thinks he's right and wants to keep arguing that's his call. I've got pet issues too.

[peterbound]

I don't know what 'pet issues' i have, i hate all things small and furry.

If it was just FLOW wanting to argue this thread wouldn't be 259 posts long. I think the other side wants to be seen as right as well, and in some sick way getting off on beating their head against the 'conservative' wall that he represents.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Peterbound,

I'm hardly liber" or leftist. FLOW is usually quite rational. I've argied with him and you because I want you to see how you are incorrect on this issue.

[peterbound]

I've said it should be built, but don't think it is in good taste (thereby making me a bigot). Nor do i think it /will/ be built, so i see not point in this conversation.

I can start a 'don't pick on FLOW' thread if this isn't the right place for it, i just think you guys are pretty fucking mean to the guy. And as i've stated before, i'm sure it has something to do with the history of the board/posters.

I'll stop now, and let you get back to beating each other up.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

and I think we forget that the so-called "Muslim world" would include Muslim citizens, when I think people often commit the mistake of acting like any reference to the "Muslim world" refers to foreigners only.

I think we should respect the opinions of Americans on this, whether they are moslem, hindu, Christian, or worshippers of Cthulhu. It's the opinions of countries that offer far less tolerance that I don't care to hear.

As for the latter two, what can I say? If it matters nothing to you if our country actually respects freedom of religion instead of just saying we do, what can I say?

No, that's not the point. The point is that in terms of the validity of criticisms from overseas, the "hypocrisy" card doesn't play well.

If you don't think being blatantly ignorant about Islam and acting like we're against all Muslims loses hearts and minds, what can I say? Don't believe it, be my guest.

Well, I didn't say that either, nor did I imply it. But if you think opposing this particular mosque in this particular location itself constitutes "acting like we're against all moslems", then fine. But then, I don't think that leaves anything to discuss.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I've said it should be built, but don't think it is in good taste (thereby making me a bigot). Nor do i think it /will/ be built, so i see not point in this conversation.

I can start a 'don't pick on FLOW' thread if this isn't the right place for it, i just think you guys are pretty fucking mean to the guy. And as i've stated before, i'm sure it has something to do with the history of the board/posters.

I'll stop now, and let you get back to beating each other up.

Heh, thanks, but don't worry about me. I posted here, or rather, on various predecessors of this particular board a long time ago, so I know the set of the sails. I didn't start posting here again until around the first of the year or so, so I haven't been here all that much longer than you. A few of the folks I've met personally, like Neil, about whom I can't say enough nice things. And Sword of the Morning, who I don't ever agree with but who I think is a really great guy. Other folks here I haven't met. If I couldn't take the heat, I wouldn't post.

ETA: I should point out that the ignore feature means that I never see the comments of some people, so my tender feelings don't get hurt by them.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Peterbound,

I'm hardly liber" or leftist. FLOW is usually quite rational. I've argued with him and you because I want you to see how you are incorrect on this issue.

I think islam in the U.S. is pretty well assimilated. If it was practiced that same way in the rest of the world, this topic wouldn't exist. It's the latter part that is the problem.

[The Progressive]

Listen peter,

If you can't stand the heat, then get the fuck out of the kitchen.

Thus if you can't stand the criticism, then don't spread/regurgitate rightwing extremist bullshit on this board or people will call you out.

It's really not that complicated.