Masjids in Manhattan II cookies to Raidne

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

FLoW,

I don't understand point 1). Insensitivity to what, exactly? You say it's partly dependent on a trophy aspect, but that actually makes it just part of no. 2), doesn't it? Point 1) is that people are having feelings, and that building a mosque there runs contrary to those feelings. Even without point 2), there'd still be hurt feelings.

Right. I don't understand what you don't get.

As far as point 2) -- who the fuck cares what the radicals think?

Maybe you should read some Napoleon.

You cite the Pope as more godly because he changed his mind. Why is giving in to people's feelings necessarily more godly? What if their feelings are not only irrational, but ungodly, and reinforce ugly stereotypes? Why is it necessarily better to aid them by bowing and scraping and placating?

No, I cite him because it looks to me like he subordinated his ego/prestige, whatever you want to call it, out of consideration for the feelings of people who suffered, either personally or via the memories of what happened to other. It's humility. He decided it was a battle that from which all would benefit if it wasn't fought.

[Lord Mord]

FLoW,

Right. I don't understand what you don't get.

Yes. In retrospect, I realize that didn't say what I wanted it to.

Maybe you should read some Napoleon.

I probably will, and it will probably benefit me. Could you please summarize what insight I should be looking for and why?

No, I cite him because it looks to me like he subordinated his ego/prestige, whatever you want to call it, out of consideration for the feelings of people who suffered, either personally or via the memories of what happened to other. It's humility. He decided it was a battle that from which all would benefit if it wasn't fought.

Emphasis mine.

I don't believe this particular challenge qualifies under the bolded phrase. The message sent may include something along the lines of, "Muslims are respectful of people's feelings," but, between people's intractable ignorance on the subject and bloodthirsty media spin, this message will be overwhelmed with the larger themes of:

"This country is plenty angry at Muslims -- enough that if you don't want another mosque in your town, make a big ugly scene and you'll probably get what you want ..."

and

"Muslims acknowledge that Islam itself is to blame for 9/11."

In the main, I like advocating "taking the high road," and winning hearts and minds with patient acceptance, rather than making political statements at the cost of polity. OTOH, I hardly think it's the basic standard of propriety.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I probably will, and it will probably benefit me. Could you please summarize what insight I should be looking for and why?

"Morale is to physical as three is to one." Meaning that wars are often decided on the basis of morale rather than pure physical power. A perfect example of that is Vietnam. The bastards just wore us out mentally. Other notable examples are the flag-raising on Iwo Jima, revitalization of Revolutionary cause after the battles of Trenton and Princeton, etc. In this case, something that can be trumpeted to jihadis as a major victory -- remembering that they're religiously-motivated guys -- can help rededicate them, prevent some from drifting away if times get tough, etc.

I'm not saying it is a war-winning issue, because it's not. But it is something that definitely would fit into the "morale" category, and anything that boosts your enemy's morale is a bad thing.

In the main, I like advocating "taking the high road," and winning hearts and minds with patient acceptance, rather than making political statements at the cost of polity. OTOH, I hardly think it's the basic standard of propriety.

I will certainly agree that some of the people opposing it have taken the low road, and undoubtedly made it worse.

[DanteGabriel]

"Morale is to physical as three is to one." Meaning that wars are often decided on the basis of morale rather than pure physical power. A perfect example of that is Vietnam. The bastards just wore us out mentally. Other notable examples are the flag-raising on Iwo Jima, revitalization of Revolutionary cause after the battles of Trenton and Princeton, etc. In this case, something that can be trumpeted to jihadis as a major victory -- remembering that they're religiously-motivated guys -- can help rededicate them, prevent some from drifting away if times get tough, etc.

I'm not saying it is a war-winning issue, because it's not. But it is something that definitely would fit into the "morale" category, and anything that boosts your enemy's morale is a bad thing.

I hardly think al Qaeda would celebrate the opening of a mosque like Rauf's. Good lord, that's like expecting them to think of all Muslims as the same. You know, like you say you don't, but will defend other's rights to think.

Even if one accepts the highly unlikely premise that al Qaeda would really care that much about the mosque, the point about morale is incredibly weak sauce. It's more grasping at straws in this "throw things at the wall and hope something sticks" method of rationalizing the ridiculous outpouring of hate and misinformation directed at Park51.

[Lord Mord]

FLoW,

"Morale is to physical as three is to one." Meaning that wars are often decided on the basis of morale rather than pure physical power. A perfect example of that is Vietnam. The bastards just wore us out mentally. Other notable examples are the flag-raising on Iwo Jima, revitalization of Revolutionary cause after the battles of Trenton and Princeton, etc. In this case, something that can be trumpeted to jihadis as a major victory -- remembering that they're religiously-motivated guys -- can help rededicate them, prevent some from drifting away if times get tough, etc.

I'm not saying it is a war-winning issue, because it's not. But it is something that definitely would fit into the "morale" category, and anything that boosts your enemy's morale is a bad thing.

Firstly, I want to thank you sincerely for taking the time for that. It's typical of your sophistication, so I probably shouldn't gush, but not everyone here is that generous, and I want you to know I appreciate it.

Secondly, as regards morale ... I guess my point is that in this case, the enemy can spin it either way they want to. Iwo Jima has only one interpretation: we have total control of your most significant island possession. Also, consider what is really lost: their identity was based on honoring their tradition and their ancestors, which meant holding onto that island. Taking it from them injured their identity and their narrative on a fundamental level. What is our narrative? It involves always winning when on our soil, oh, sure, but more than anything else it is the identity of free persons, who value not only their own freedoms but those of their immediate neighbors, and pluralism, above everything.

If regarding the construction of this mosque with anything but civil equanimity is not a blow to that identity and to our narrative, then we are not nearly the foremost argument for democracy we imagine ourselves.

I will certainly agree that some of the people opposing it have taken the low road, and undoubtedly made it worse.

I appreciate that. Thank you. Yet, that is not my point. It's true, as you say, that some of the opposition have taken to very low means for expressing their displeasure, but my point is that the example with the Pope is not particularly on-point. It is instructive of the loftiest aspirations, but does not set the threshold of sensitive behavior.

[alguien]

I hardly think al Qaeda would celebrate the opening of a mosque like Rauf's. Good lord, that's like expecting them to think of all Muslims as the same. You know, like you say you don't, but will defend other's rights to think.

Even if one accepts the highly unlikely premise that al Qaeda would really care that much about the mosque, the point about morale is incredibly weak sauce. It's more grasping at straws in this "throw things at the wall and hope something sticks" method of rationalizing the ridiculous outpouring of hate and misinformation directed at Park51.

You must write for The Daily Show:

Yesterday's Opener

I will again reiterate how much I love the hell out of this show. That COMMUNITY CENTER OF DEATH graphic is priceless.

And that kooky woman in Tennessee? Wow. :stunned:

[slim da reaper]

Errrr why can't people build a mosque near 9/11? Like people say Islam is not unified, look at Christianity it's always splittering. FLoW people who will make any kind of political gain from this would make it from anything they really are that nuts.

[DanteGabriel]

You must write for The Daily Show:

Yesterday's Opener

I will again reiterate how much I love the hell out of this show. That COMMUNITY CENTER OF DEATH graphic is priceless.

And that kooky woman in Tennessee? Wow. :stunned:

Good clip, but what did I say that was similar?

That crazy woman in Tennessee... doesn't surprise me that much any more.

[alguien]

Good clip, but what did I say that was similar?

That crazy woman in Tennessee... doesn't surprise me that much any more.

You indicated that the idea that somehow opening this community center will boost Al Queda's morale is extremely weak, and that it might actually hurt rather than hinder their cause

After that, when you said you doubted they care, I also liked how Stewart built on that point by basically pointing out who the fuck cares how those assholes feel?

Most of AQ will hate us regardless of whether this building it helps or hinders their cause.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

FLoW,

Firstly, I want to thank you sincerely for taking the time for that. It's typical of your sophistication, so I probably shouldn't gush, but not everyone here is that generous, and I want you to know I appreciate it.

You're welcome. The frustrating thing for me is that there is a tendency here -- and it happens the same way on predominantly conservative websites -- to assume everyone on the other side thinks the same way for the same reasons. While the stand you take on a particular issue obviously is important, the reasoning and morality you employ to get there sometimes matters.

Secondly, as regards morale ... I guess my point is that in this case, the enemy can spin it either way they want to. Iwo Jima has only one interpretation: we have total control of your most significant island possession. Also, consider what is really lost: their identity was based on honoring their tradition and their ancestors, which meant holding onto that island. Taking it from them injured their identity and their narrative on a fundamental level. What is our narrative? It involves always winning when on our soil, oh, sure, but more than anything else it is the identity of free persons, who value not only their own freedoms but those of their immediate neighbors, and pluralism, above everything.

I get what you're saying. To me, though, the impact of what happens simply isn't a mirror image. Asking a mosque 8000 miles away to be moved, in a country where you might not have believed there is any religious freedom at all, doesn't strike me as having much of an impact. As I said, the fact that we'd let a mosque get build period might surprise some folks. And again, there are more immediate complaints that have against us. But a a victory 8000 miles away against the strongest country in the world, and a mosque to mark the extent of Allah's reach -- that's something.

As I said above, if that was the only consideration -- morale of the enemy -- I probably wouldn't have had much of an opinion. But if it is viewed that way by the bad guys, and trumpeted on websites, etc., that's additional salt in the wounds of the local folks. That part bothers me.

What can I say, I'm a sensitive guy.... :grouphug:

If regarding the construction of this mosque with anything but civil equanimity is not a blow to that identity and to our narrative, then we are not nearly the foremost argument for democracy we imagine ourselves.

I appreciate that. Thank you. Yet, that is not my point. It's true, as you say, that some of the opposition have taken to verlow means for expressing their displeasure, but my point is that the example with the Pope is not particularly on-point. It is instructive of the loftiest aspirations, but does not set the threshold of sensitive behavior.

Well, okay. I guess I'm applying a rather generic "man of god" standard. I happen to think there are two kinds of religious leaders. Those who honestly view themselves with humility, and those who get a bit confused as to who the fuss is all about. I'm not Catholic, but I attend a local Catholic church with my wife just to hear a particular priest who embodies that to me. Not the smoothest speaker, kind of tall and gangly, with a heavy Minnesota accent that leaves most of his sentences punctuated with an "eh" at the end. "God truly loves us, eh?" Trust me -- it works with the accent. The head priest, far more smooth and traditional, sometimes seems to think it's all about him. So that's how I tend to divide them up mentally.

That being said, the convent seems more tenuous and remote to me than does this mosque/community center, so I still think moving it would have been the more reasonable thing to do. Now, it's a just a giant fuckstain, and no matter what ends up happening, it will have driven a wedge. And at this point, I think it's probably passed the point where backing down is an option, because I agree the rhetoric has gotten too high now. The time to exit was early, before it got ugly. The situation is beyond retrieval now, though.

[TrueMetis]

After that, when you said you doubted they care, I also liked how Stewart built on that point by basically pointing out who the fuck cares how those assholes feel?

Most of AQ will hate us regardless of whether this building it helps or hinders their cause.

I made that point on a different forum. No one seemed to understand it.

[C S]

I get what you're saying. To me, though, the impact of what happens simply isn't a mirror image. Asking a mosque 8000 miles away to be moved, in a country where you might not have believed there is any religious freedom at all, doesn't strike me as having much of an impact. As I said, the fact that we'd let a mosque get build period might surprise some folks. And again, there are more immediate complaints that have against us. But a a victory 8000 miles away against the strongest country in the world, and a mosque to mark the extent of Allah's reach -- that's something.

As I said above, if that was the only consideration -- morale of the enemy -- I probably wouldn't have had much of an opinion. But if it is viewed that way by the bad guys, and trumpeted on websites, etc., that's additional salt in the wounds of the local folks. That part bothers me.

I think you have a reasonable concern here, but I'm not sure you are seeing the entire picture. There are Moslems in two countries fighting and dying along side our soldiers. We are asking them to trust that we have their best interests at heart. If this Community Center is stopped, don't you think that would cause them to doubt our sincerity? Wouldn't that be a pretty big blow to their morale? If we can't keep at least some of the locals on our side in Afghanistan and Iraq, what chance do we have of actually accomplishing anything?

[A wilding]

While I really don't think the situation surrounding the convent near Auschwitz is as relevant to this discussion as you think it is, I'll comment anyway since you really want an answer on this. In this case, I will say that I do not see the convent itself as an affront to the memory of those who perished at Auschwitz. According to what I read, many (some said most, even) victims at Auschwitz were Catholic Poles. So I think memorializing the victims of the holocaust by the RCC is appropriate for this site. Unfortunately, there is an uneasy tension between the RCC and the Jewish communities over the role of the RCC during WWII. I think that, more than the actual convent itself, was why many people objected to the convent. In the end, I think the RCC has a good enough reason to stay, and if they had, I wouldn't have a problem with that. I would hope, in fact, that the convent can be a springboard to enhance the dialogue between Jews and Catholics to resolve the outstanding tension (well, now that Benedict is Pope, there's not much hope for that, but still), much like how the project organizers for Park51 hope to have the project as facilitating point for dialogues about Islam.

A little off topic, but the bolded part is not correct. While there is controversy over the exact numbers, at least 90% of those who died were Jewish.

This was another strand of the objections to the nunnery. The RCC was also accused of spreading the above meme, deliberately or otherwise, and of an ultimate goal of turning Auschwitz into a place of Catholic martyrdom rather than Jewish holocaust.

As far as I am aware, no one has (yet) accused this Imam of the equivalent of that.

[Hereward]

I do not understand this argument that followers of Al Qaeda would gain a morale boost from the construction of a Sufi religious centre. It's not going to be seen as a trophy. Al Qaeda and the Sufis hate one another. They regard each other as heretics. If Al Qaeda is going to be defeated, the West needs to build links with Sufis, who are both relatively tolerant and liberal, and well-organised. The only morale boost Al Qaeda are going to receive is making it easier to portray the USv as being anti-Muslim in general, thereby boosting their recruitment and marginalising their Sufi opponents. The current events in the US are an own goal of potentially monumental proportions.

[MinDonner]

The Pope analogy is also very disingenuous, because at no point have Catholics been a discriminated-against minority in Poland. The Pope withdrawing the convent plan is, in fact, the equivalent of the right-wingers withdrawing their objections to the community centre.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

FLOW,

I do not understand this argument that followers of Al Qaeda would gain a morale boost from the construction of a Sufi religious centre. It's not going to be seen as a trophy. Al Qaeda and the Sufis hate one another. They regard each other as heretics. If Al Qaeda is going to be defeated, the West needs to build links with Sufis, who are both relatively tolerant and liberal, and well-organised. The only morale boost Al Qaeda are going to receive is making it easier to portray the USv as being anti-Muslim in general, thereby boosting their recruitment and marginalising their Sufi opponents. The current events in the US are an own goal of potentially monumental proportions.

What Hereward said. Additionally, how does Al-Queda trumpet a Muslim Community Center open to all that explicitly rejects militancy as a "trophy" and a symbol of militant Islam's victory over American Pluralism? That's really quite a leap.

[Annelise]

FLOW,

Additionally, how does Al-Queda trumpet a Muslim Community Center open to all that explicitly rejects militancy as a "trophy" and a symbol of militant Islam's victory over American Pluralism?

In any case, that ship sailed years ago when the Pentagon held muslim services for the sake of unity. There were few to no complaints then and the symbol, if you will, was far more powerful. There's still no complaints now that I'm aware of, that it's been a hindrance in the WoT. So why the construction of this community center should matter in that context is frankly puzzling. I don't think we should be kowtowing to Al Queda and giving them such power over us anyway, but I don't even understand this particular argument.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

There are Moslems in two countries fighting and dying along side our soldiers. We are asking them to trust that we have their best interests at heart. If this Community Center is stopped, don't you think that would cause them to doubt our sincerity?

No. You are looking at this with the mindset of a person who lives under a U.S. standard of tremendous religious freedom and tolerance. You expect that minority faiths will have complete religious freedom. The people you are talking about live in countries where religious minorities such as Christians and jews do not have the same religious rights as the majority moslem population. I'd expect most of them would be rather surprised to learn that we'd even consider letting a mosque get built there.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

FLOW,

I'm an Orthodox Christian. My church has a mission church in Aiken SC. If radical Serbian Orthodox Christians were to view the constrution of a perminant Orthodox church in Aiken as a "trophy" showing Orthodoxy's victory over the evil secular Americans who took Kosovo away from them should permission for this church to be built be denied?

[awesome possum]

Anyone else get the feeling that FLoW doesn't even really believe in what he's arguing for/against at this point? He's either too stubborn to admit opposition to the community center is a stupid, stupid thing, or has to tow the party line as he seems to do on all things, no matter how ridiculous they may be.