Masjids in Manhattan II cookies to Raidne

[shadowbinding shoe]

Not only that, there was a real threat of mutually assured destruction via nuclear war during the Cold War. The threat posed by Islamic terrorists is real, but it pales in comparison to the threats that the west has faced in the past. But you wouldn't know that from the tone of the discourse out there.

It absolutely has to be, in my opinion, the combination of Fox paired with the talk radio circuit.

It was already happening during the Vietnam war. Basically human lives in the West became more precious and losses of them more unacceptable. Also, Free Press. It thrived on these sorts of stories. If the State can't censor reports on terrorist attacks (like China did with terror attacks performed by the Islamic minority in it) they have a staunch ally in the press.

Not that I'm saying it's bad. It's wonderful, even if it does make us more vulnerable to these sorts of attacks and pressures.

[Horza]

But I thought Islam was a country!

No, it's a dessert topping... and a floor wax!

[mormont]

Do you have a reading comprehension issue? You claim I'm "unconditionally rejecting anything he says or does", when you quoted me as saying:

I personally think there is an inconsistency between his actions and words, but I wouldn't bet the house on it either way. Maybe he's just pissed off and digging in his heels out of plain old temper. That's entirely possible.

Well, I have just suggested that you are exhibiting prejudice, so I suppose I should expect a slightly rude reply: but no, I don't have a reading comprehension issue. If I did, of course, then so must you: since I said 'that would suggest you're unconditionally rejecting anything he says or does'.

What you said was that you think there's an inconsistency. That's your view, and that's what I was talking about. If you object to the word 'unconditionally' because you did leave open another possibility that's scarcely any better, accusing the man of petulance, I'm happy to withdraw that word: but the point still stands. You only allow for the possibility that the man is acting from bad motives, either insincerity or petulance, and to support these interpretations you simply beg the question. You don't allow for the possibility that he is genuinely acting from good motives, and you personally favour the idea that he's insincere. This is still prejudice, I'm afraid.

I suspect you wouldn't be taking everything he says as absolute truth if he was a conservative politician or less trendy religious leader.

Suspect away. As I say, I've never heard of the guy, so I have no idea how 'trendy' he is. In my view, there's no such thing as a 'trendy' religious leader (I'm very firmly an atheist, after all) and am little influenced by how 'trendy' something is anyway. Nor am I guilty of taking everything he says as absolute truth: I'm just inclined to believe people mean what they say unless I have a reason not to, a reason better than prejudice. If there were any such reason in this case, I'd be open to the idea that he's insincere.

Of course, being sincere doesn't mean that you're right, or that I would agree with you. I'm sure many of the critics of this plan sincerely believe in their arguments, but they're still wrong.

[Annelise]

If it's two block away from "ground zero" why do so many insist on using the phrase "ground zero?" Because it does make a difference to many people.

Another co-worker I talked to yesterday was under the impression it was actually at ground zero, as well.

She's the one who previously told me that she went to public school in the district my son went to until we moved, and she saw some kids rip the turban off a classmate and kick the crap out of him. He was absent for two days and when he came back, he had cut his hair and wore no turban.

[Annelise]

I think he's largely an opportunist

I hope you've also drawn that conclusion about the politicians (elected and not), media personalities and outlets who are driving and using this to their own ends.

[Darkostar]

No, it's a dessert topping... and a floor wax!

Oh, okay.

It would be silly if we went to war with...a group that wasn't affiliated with any country.

Right? Right? Surely, there'd be some kind of quagmire and horrible expense involved. Not that we'd ever do that.

[TerraPrime]

As when the Pope moved the convent at Auschwitz. You don't move it because you have to -- you move it out of consideration of feelings. And when you don't do that, you look like you don't care.

Maybe the weak kids should just be considerate of the feelings of the bullies and hand over the lunch money, too? And maybe I should remove my rainbow flag if my neighbor is having a conniption over it? No, I don't think so. Just like how backing down from bullies only enables the bullying, the moving of the Park51 project would now, at this point, given the type of bigoted comments that have been used against them, just serve to validate the ugly anti-Islamic feelings. If the opposition had been sincere in their request for respect, they would have policed their own barrage of critique to ensure that it does not involve outright bigotry. The opponents escalated the rhetoric and inflamed passions using falsehoods, so now they're reaping the results. If you want to blame someone for the situation, look no further than those amongst your own political spread for spewing forth poisonous bile.

[awesome possum]

Judging by a few reactions here and on television, I can't help but think many on the right know they picked a bad fight. You can see the distaste in some faces that they have to continue to tow the party line on this issue. They know they're going to come out of this situation with mud on their face, but in today's GOP if you move away from towing the party line you're as good as dead.

It's a shame that our political climate has become this. Our economy may go into a double-dip recession, our unemployment figures won't go down no matter what is done, there's a chance that the Obama administration may cave yet again to pressure and extend the Bush tax cuts, and there is real discontent out there on both sides of the political aisle for multiple reasons (immigration, gay marriage, general uneasiness with the direction of the country, etc.

But what are we talking about? What are we arguing and bickering about? One of the most unimportant topics imaginable. The ability for a group to build on property they own and practice their religion. The ability for a group to exercise the rights inherent to people in this country.

Have we really come to this? Are we really all that fucking stupid and pretentious and easily distracted?

The short answer is yes.

[Guest Raidne]

Don't you ever proofread your own stuff?

Obviously not. I probably deserve an award for the most typos and/or edits. It's pretty egregious.

But you're right, I wasn't being fair. I should have said that it's the stupidest thing I've read that you have ever said here. And even then, I should really have acknowledged that there's still some pretty stiff competition.

I said in a post above that a lot of religious leaders are like politicians. Probably comes with the territory to some extent. We all know that many politicians say different things to different audiences on different occasions. And they sometimes say things they don't believe. For example, Harry Reid has said that he thinks the mosque is a bad idea, but folks here think he's only saying that because of the political outcry, and he in fact doesn't feel that way.

Okay, so good for far (and for the record, I think Harry Reid, does, in fact, probably oppose the mosque). For instance, I think Barack Obama voted for, even, the 2005 Energy Bill so he could tout his commitment to clean coal in key southern states that he did, ultimately, successfully turn into battlegrounds in the Presidential election. I'm pretty unconvinced that Barack Obama really cares at all about clean coal, except the extent that he's probably satisfied himself that it's not worse than any other option before deciding to be its biggest supporter to get votes.

This particular imam has made some other statements that are not quite as clearcut, and generally, it seems to be when he is speaking overseas to a different audience. So, unlike you, I do not believe that what he says here in public and what he says on his U.S. website necessarily reflects his actual opinions and beliefs.

Examples? I mean, you don't appear to know very much about Islam. So what might seem unclear to you might be readily explainable by other people around here.

Now, I didn't say that I think he's a secret radical, because I don't. But I do question his motives in the sense of the usual religious leader who sometimes confuses his own public image and ego on the one hand, and his mission on the other. Because I don't think his actions with respect to this mosque are consistent with his stated purpose.

And then...no. See you don't think his desire to build a community center for Muslims who approve of secular government and religious tolerance helps build a moderate version of Islam that approves of a secular government and religious tolerance, and instead think that it would be expedient for him to give that up - that which is in pursuit of his life's work, and settle back into the smaller facility they are using now which doesn't offend Sarah Palin and therefore set back the entire cause of religious tolerance because it is 10 blocks further away.

But, surely, you can agree that reasonable people might differ on that opinion? And if that's true, then no you cannot say that his actions are not consistent with his stated purpose, and therefore, you can stop calling a man who's not even speaking to the media right now and is probably utterly bewildered at this whole turn of events an opportunist.

[IheartTesla]

Attacks on mosques in the US, attacks on Muslim taxi cab drivers, harassing black carpenters for 'looking Muslim'. If I were to lump all opponents of Islam and the Park 51 initiative together....and thats definitely my prerogative. They've definitely caused more trouble in the US than American muslims. At this point they should just slink away and never talk about guilt by asociation ever again.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

You know, on 9/11 nineteen hijackers tested our values, and we have failed with a big, red "F."

Really? Think about our national reaction and governmental reaction after Pearl Harbor, in particular the internment of Nisei. Given that as a history, I don't think the treatment of moslems after 9/11 is in the same universe. Nobody here is defending people who are protesting at other mosques, carrying offensive signs at this site, or stabbing cab drivers, or anything of that sort. Those are minority opinions at best.

We're not perfect, but I think we're a lot better than a big , red F.

Maybe the weak kids should just be considerate of the feelings of the bullies and hand over the lunch money, too? And maybe I should remove my rainbow flag if my neighbor is having a conniption over it? No, I don't think so. Just like how backing down from bullies only enables the bullying, the moving of the Park51 project would now, at this point, given the type of bigoted comments that have been used against them, just serve to validate the ugly anti-Islamic feelings.

That's all you have to say in response to the convent example? A complete dodge. Clearly, those nuns were't responsible for anything. So what's your best guess as to why he directed that it be moved?

If the opposition had been sincere in their request for respect, they would have policed their own barrage of critique to ensure that it does not involve outright bigotry.

There is no opposition hive-mind. There are multiple critiques, not a singular "critique", and lots and lots of different people with different motivations and viewpoints. It impossible to "police" other peoples' free speech. Just because some nimrods don't know where to draw the line does not mean everyone else who is speaking more responsibly has to muzzle himself or herself. It's like the antiwar movement -- just because certain elements of it crossed the line does not mean everyone else has to drop their opposition.

I hope you've also drawn that conclusion about the politicians (elected and not), media personalities and outlets who are driving and using this to their own ends.

Yup. I think there are some principled people on both sides, and a lot of opportunists as well.

You only allow for the possibility that the man is acting from bad motives, either insincerity or petulance, and to support these interpretations you simply beg the question. You don't allow for the possibility that he is genuinely acting from good motives, and you personally favour the idea that he's insincere.

No, that's not true. I can't get inside the guy's head, and of course it's possible that he is acting with sincerity. But I personally think that's less likely because he's getting further from his stated goal of bringing people together every day he refuses to consider compromise. He refused to meet with the mayor even to discuss an alternative position. So if the goal is bringing people together, and this controversy is pushing people further apart, why is he persisting?

This is still prejudice, I'm afraid.

Er....what? Where's the "prejudice" in thinking this guy may not be acting in accordance with his stated motives? He could be a freaking Klingon for all I care. I've explicitly said that many politicians and religious leaders likely do that all the time. For that matter, regular people sometimes do it as well, though its more common with public figures because they are playing to a much broader audience.

[The Progressive]

So if the goal is bringing people together, and this controversy is pushing people further apart, why is he persisting?

Because he doesn't want to let the terrorists win, duh!

Surrender is un-American!

[DanteGabriel]

So we have the drunk bigot in Manhattan who asked a cab driver if he was Muslim, then screamed "This is a checkpoint, motherfucker!" and slashed the cabbie in the arm and throat when he responded yes. Cops found a personal diary on him that said, among other anti-Muslim rants, "killers, ungrateful for the help they were being offered, filthy murderers without a conscience."

Now we have a guy in Queens shouting "terrorists!" and racial slurs in a mosque, then urinating all over the prayer rugs.

I hope the anti-mosque wackos are comfortable with their responsibility in inciting this hatred. Not that they'll ever admit it, of course. And I'm sure the Usual Suspects around here will argue that it's a coincidence, it's unrelated, etc.

[awesome possum]

Really? Think about our national reaction and governmental reaction after Pearl Harbor, in particular the internment of Nisei. Given that as a history, I don't think the treatment of moslems after 9/11 is in the same universe. Nobody here is defending people who are protesting at other mosques, carrying offensive signs at this site, or stabbing cab drivers, or anything of that sort. Those are minority opinions at best.

See, Pearl Harbor was attacked by the Japanese as a nation. Those fighter pilots were representing all of Japan. The 9/11 terrorists were not representing all of Islam.

Why is this so difficult to understand? And how can you consciously continue to contradict your own statements with bogus analogies like this?

[Sariel]

See, Pearl Harbor was attacked by the Japanese as a nation. Those fighter pilots were representing all of Japan. The 9/11 terrorists were not representing all of Islam.

Why is this so difficult to understand? And how can you consciously continue to contradict your own statements with bogus analogies like this?

Give him some credit here. I dare you to try and find rational arguments supportive of his stance.

[mormont]

No, that's not true. I can't get inside the guy's head, and of course it's possible that he is acting with sincerity. But I personally think that's less likely because he's getting further from his stated goal of bringing people together every day he refuses to consider compromise. He refused to meet with the mayor even to discuss an alternative position. So if the goal is bringing people together, and this controversy is pushing people further apart, why is he persisting?

You say you 'can't get inside his head', but clearly you believe you can. You present an interpretation of his behaviour that you've said you consider 'likely', that you criticise him for, and which is not founded on any substantial argument that I can see. Instead, your interpretation of his actions depends on your interpretation of his words, and vice versa: each is dependent on motives assumed from the other. This is literally prejudice: you have pre-judged him. Everything appears to be interpreted to fit that judgment.

(Without repeating what others have said here, BTW, there are plenty of alternative reasons why he might not have agreed to drop the project. For one, giving in to bullying is completely different from 'bringing people together'.)

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Obviously not. I probably deserve an award for the most typos and/or edits. It's pretty egregious.

Examples? I mean, you don't appear to know very much about Islam. So what might seem unclear to you might be readily explainable by other people around here.

I really hate reposting stuff that's been posted in prior threads. But okay, here's some stuff.

First, for those who claim that the site really isn't 9/11 related, here's the imam's own statements:

The building has no sign that hints at its use as a Muslim prayer space, but these modest beginnings point to a far grander vision: an Islamic center near the city’s most hallowed piece of land that would stand as one of ground zero’s more unexpected and striking neighbors.

The location was precisely a key selling point for the group of Muslims who bought the building in July. A presence so close to the World Trade Center, “where a piece of the wreckage fell,” said Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the cleric leading the project, “sends the opposite statement to what happened on 9/11.”

Oh yeah, this is a laudatory NYT article that refers to it as "hallowed" ground, ridicule earlier in the thread notwithstanding. And the quote shows he picked this building precisely because it was damaged on 9/11.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/09/nyregion/09mosque.html?_r=2

Interstingly, the NYT scrubbed from the article the initial full statement, which included the following:

“New York is the capital of the world, and this location close to 9/11 is iconic,” Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, 61, the cleric leading the project, a longtime critic of radical Islamists, said in a series of interviews in which he and his partners outlined their plans for the first time.

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2009/12/giving-thanks.html

Oh, as to whether people knew this could become controversial, from the same 2009 article:

"But though the imam is adamant about what his intentions for the site are, there is anxiety among those involved or familiar with the project that it could very well become a target for anti-Muslim attacks.

Joan Brown Campbell, director of the department of religion at the Chautauqua Institution in upstate New York and former general secretary of the National Council of Churches of Christ U.S.A., who is a supporter of Imam Feisal, acknowledged the possibility of a backlash from those opposed to a Muslim presence at ground zero."

It just gets old getting sidetracked by the "he couldn't have anticipated the reaction" and the "it's not really at ground zero" arguments. The first is plainly false, and the second is technically true at best because the imam himself explicitly considers the site close enough to carry a symbolic meaning. It can't be a symbolic location only if you attach a positive connotation, but not symbolic if you attach a negative one.

As for his quotes that aren't quite as fawning to western audiences as his Pearl remarks, I just googled again and found this article by noted right wing radical Lanny Davis:

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/homeland-security/115737-transparency-by-the-imam-is-needed-

And this one that contains/refers to other statements:

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/ground-zero-imam-i-dont-believe-in-religious-dialogue/

Just wanted to point out that Time's Mark Halperin -- who was previously lauded here for standing up for the building of the mosque, also said this in same article:

"There are a handful of good reasons to oppose allowing the Islamic center to be built so close to Ground Zero, particularly the family opposition and the availability of other, less raw locations...."

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2010923,00.html#ixzz0xjXxanpP

But I guess acknowledging that makes him another bigot.

And then...no. See you don't think his desire to build a community center for Muslims who approve of secular government and religious tolerance helps build a moderate version of Islam that approves of a secular government and religious tolerance, and instead think that it would be expedient for him to give that up

It's not "expedient". It's suggesting he is not being consistent with his stated goal of bringing together Christians and moslems.

that which is in pursuit of his life's work

And that's where the ol ego kicks in....

and settle back into the smaller facility they are using now which doesn't offend Sarah Palin and therefore set back the entire cause of religious tolerance because it is 10 blocks further away.

He expressly selected this exact site as "iconic" because of its relation to 9/11, and has expressed no interest in seeing if any other alternative sites are available. So at this point, yeah, I think it's likely an ego thing with him, and his ego is getting in the way of the goal he says he wants to achieve.

But, surely, you can agree that reasonable people might differ on that opinion? And if that's true, then no you cannot say that his actions are not consistent with his stated purpose,

I'm not following that. I think it rather obvious that his reasons for refusing to discuss moving the facility are not quite the same as his purported reasons for building it in the first place given the outcry. Ego, stubborness, or whatever is now running the show. He's a man of God, and the last man of God I know who was faced with something similar was the Pope, who rather logically reasoned there was nothing to be gained by antagonizing people.

And if that's true, then no you cannot say that his actions are not consistent with his stated purpose, and therefore, you can stop calling a man who's not even speaking to the media right now and is probably utterly bewildered at this whole turn of events an opportunist.

Actually, I can. I still see a rather troubling change in tone between his Daniel Pearl remarks and some of the statements cited above. He's playing to his audience in the U.S. while trying not to antagonize donors -- which may include Iran or Saudi Arabia -- overseas.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

You say you 'can't get inside his head', but clearly you believe you can. You present an interpretation of his behaviour that you've said you consider 'likely', that you criticise him for, and which is not founded on any substantial argument that I can see. Instead, your interpretation of his actions depends on your interpretation of his words, and vice versa: each is dependent on motives assumed from the other. This is literally prejudice: you have pre-judged him. Everything appears to be interpreted to fit that judgment.

Wow -- you really need to look in the mirror. I expressly stated: "of course it's possible that he is acting with sincerity". You, on the other hand, apparently believe that it is impossible that he acted with insincerity. You have reached your final conclusion, and ignore any facts that are inconsistent with that judgment. You are the one who is prejudging.

(Without repeating what others have said here, BTW, there are plenty of alternative reasons why he might not have agreed to drop the project. For one, giving in to bullying is completely different from 'bringing people together'.)

You make my head hurt. It is entirely possible that his primary motivation now is "I'm not giving it to bullies". Of course, the Pope could have said the same thing, but instead decided that maintaining comity and avoiding hurt feelings was the better course. My point is that if that's his mindset, he is now valuing "standing his ground" over bringing people together. It doesn't make him a terrorist or a radical, but in my mind at least, it makes him less a man of God than would be someone who gave ground.

Now, ugly shit has come out all over the place, and does anyone seriously want to claim that this has helped U.S./moslem relations?

[DanteGabriel]

Now, ugly shit has come out all over the place, and does anyone seriously want to claim that this has helped U.S./moslem relations?

The damage has been done, and continues to be done. Let's make no mistake, the damage has been done by the people protesting against the mosque. The damage will be exacerbated if they are intimidated out of their plans by the xenophobic mouthbreathers who have turned this into a circus.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Ser Poss.,

The Niesei were not Japanese. They were Americans. The attack on Pearl Harbor by the Nation of Japan in no way justified the supension of civil rights and interment of Japanese-Americans. FDR's legacy will always be stained with those actions.