Plan for Mosque III...

Status
Not open for further replies.
No, its not irrational at all. In fact, if I were in the same position, I would see the situation as a distinct opportunity to build bridges and improve relations by being cognizant of non-muslim feelings.

But then again, I am a better peace-maker than most. ;)

If they don't have the mosque they'll have to leave the area and go to another one. Its funny how your idea of building bridges looks a lot like burning them.

Considering that their religion was not the cause of the attack, that they are as much victims as anyone else in the area, and that local muslims suffered horrible hate crimes in the aftermath of the attack, its not really them that needs to be building bridges right now. The rest of the community should be the ones building bridges to them, showing them that they are welcome in the area, and that they don't have to feel guilty for sharing a faith with politically-motivated terrorists.
 
Doesnt sound like a crusade to me...
Gee, what a surprise.

Then why do you do it literally all the time?
So you are insinuating that people who clearly hate Muslims and blame Islam for 9/11 aren't bigoted? Or are you just trying to attack the credibility of the poster instead of addressing the issues again?

So someone who lost a family member on 9/11 but objects to the mosque for any reason is simply a bigot?
That's right. Got any "rational" reason why they would otherwise be opposed to a peaceful place of worship? Wouldn't you say that is being intolerant of their "feelings" to practice their peaceful religion as they see fit?
 
Bigot

: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
— big•ot•ed\-gə-təd\ adjective
— big•ot•ed•ly adverb

So someone who lost a family member on 9/11 but objects to the mosque for any reason is simply a bigot?

If they object to the mosque based only on it being Muslim – yes. The definition is pretty clear if you ask me. Nothing in there about “unless you are emotionally affected by events…”
 
Yes, they said its a mosque. Thanks for confirming that.

*facepalm*

where? I posted a section where it said that it was not a mosque, and you just dismissed it

I'm posting a link to the site so you can look for yourself

Here is the website

I don't have time for this foolishness from you MobBoss, I'm going back to work. You are being intellectually dishonest and foolhardy

Poppycock.
 
I disagree. I live less than 3 miles from the Pentagon and drive 300 feet from where the plane hit the building every day on my way to work. I used to work for American Airlines at the time of the attack, and the plane that hit the Pentagon was one of ours. One of my colleagues closed the door on the flight when it left Dulles Airport.

Then you obviously have a biased opinion. I am basing my opinion on what the rest of the nation saw and felt that day. The iconic image is of the WTC towers being hit, on fire and coming down. Not of the pentagon being slammed into.

And while I am indeed sorry for the loss of your collegue, what I am saying here is just a simple truth. You could make the case that the Pentagon was even a military target and thus a valid target. Not so with the WTC.

Additionally, if it wasn’t for the brave actions of a few passengers on the United Airlines flight 93, who knows what other catastrophe would have happened in my home town.

Absolutely.

Just because it didn’t kill as many people, or have the same level of damage doesn’t lessen the emotional impact of the event.

But what does increase it is the level of imagery and media coverage of the events of that day. You cant argue that the impact of that imagery was anywhere near equal or even similar. You may try, but again, that may just be your personal bias on the issue speaking.
 
Then you obviously have a biased opinion.

The point is that my personal bias has no place in determining if Americans can worship on their own property. Regardless of where it is.

It doesn’t matter one damn bit if Joe in Missouri is emotionally scarred over seeing images of the WTC coming down. It in no way has any say over a peaceful group of Americans praying in their own building.

Quite frankly Joe’s emotional scars are his problem to deal with. Some Americans hundreds of miles away have no business carrying his emotional baggage for him.

(And my colleague wasn’t on the plane. He was one of the crew that saw the plane off. He closed the door though and did have some good friends and colleagues on the plane.)
 
The point is that my personal bias has no place in determining if Americans can worship on their own property. Regardless of where it is.
Indeed.

I consulted at Cantor Fitzgerald for a brief time and knew a number of people who lost their lives on 9/11, both there and elsewhere. If things had turned out a bit differently, I may very well have taken a permanent job there and had been one of the victims myself since none of them made it out alive.
 
Kareem-Rashad-Sultan-Khan6aug07b.jpg
 
Well, there are the myriad zoning and planning laws available that say unless you comply you cant build what you want, even on your own property.
Are they breaking any zoning laws? Nope.

Then there is also eminent domain, which says gov can take your property away for the greater good of the citizenry.
And the owners must be suitable compensated. Plus eminent domain cases, even in relativly clear cut ones like building a road, can take over a decade to settle in court.
Correct me if I am wrong, but in emminent domain cases, whatever is taken over must become property of the government or a governmental agency. Correct?

Heck, here in Washington State, we have laws that even prevent people from cutting down trees on their own property. So yeah, there are tons of examples to pull from for you.
Thats an enviromental law. Is Park51 tearing down any trees or damaging the enviroment? Is it going to destroy whatever vistas are created by an abandoned Burlington Coat Factory store with graffitted windows?

Since Christians didnt perpetrate 9/11 I dont see much objection to that. Do you?
Nope! So your entire opposition comes down to the building of a community center that will have a mosque added at a later date.
Why should a building be offensive, but the act or worship by Muslims not be offensive?

EDIT: MobBoss, in WWII the allies firebombed Dresden, and IIRC, caused more casualties than in the WTC attack. Now, would it be justified for a group of German citizens living in Dresden to stop an American funded church from being built there? After all, the Germans in Dresden would have touchy feels about Americans after getting their city basicaly gutted by said country in a firebombing raid that was not done due to any military signifigance, but rather to see if they could make a firestorm.
 
I disagree. I live less than 3 miles from the Pentagon and drive 300 feet from where the plane hit the building every day on my way to work. I used to work for American Airlines at the time of the attack, and the plane that hit the Pentagon was one of ours. One of my colleagues closed the door on the flight when it left Dulles Airport.

I also live within 3 miles of the Pentagon and I commute past it every single day. There is an Air Force memorial / 9/11 memorial in the flight path of where the plane hit. I recognize it every single day. To say that it isn't as haunting is silly.

Note that there was a recent "terror" incident with a crazy person and guns blaring at the Pentagon Metro station. The memory is still there.
 
EDIT: MobBoss, in WWII the allies firebombed Dresden, and IIRC, caused more casualties than in the WTC attack. Now, would it be justified for a group of German citizens living in Dresden to stop an American funded church from being built there? After all, the Germans in Dresden would have touchy feels about Americans after getting their city basicaly gutted by said country in a firebombing raid that was not done due to any military signifigance, but rather to see if they could make a firestorm.
That's not even an effective analogy, as there Americans-as-individuals are still related to America-as-nation which carried out the fire-bombings, while those building the mosque have no such relationship to Al Qaeda, because Al Qaeda can in no way be understood to represent Islam as a whole. It would be more like building a Protestant church in Manchester near the site of the 1996 IRA bombing, which is to say one group of Christians doing something entirely legitimate near a place where another, unrelated group of Christians belonging to a fringe form of an unrelated Christian sect did something illegitimate, something that killed other Christians of both their own and the other sect, having the support of neither and being vocally condemned by the majority of both. It is, in short, two unrelated things happening with only the most tenuous of links.
 
I thought it sort of worked because people who would be building the church=/=people who flew the bombers who firebombed Dresden. The only thing they had in common was being Americans.
I guess you are sort of right, bad analogy.
 
I think we've passed the point of logical argument, right around thread I, probably in whatever post it was that said the evil islamic terrorists shouldn't build the mosque/terrorist HQ/victory memorial.
 
I thought it sort of worked because people who would be building the church=/=people who flew the bombers who firebombed Dresden. The only thing they had in common was being Americans.
I guess you are sort of right, bad analogy.

It wasn't intended as a criticism, sorry if it came out as such; I was just trying to stress the profound level of distance between the builders of the mosque and Al Qaeda, which I think your analogy, while establishing the basic distinction between the two groups, failed to emphasise. Specifically, it implied that the mosque-builders were complicit in 9/11, as Americans citizens were in the fire-bombing of Dresden, which, although distinct from responsibility, still sends the wrong message.
My tone was intended more along the lines of "it's even worse than that", rather than "you're wrong, here's why". I'm sorry that it sounded like that.
 
The right-wing, blinded by its own hysteria

By Eugene Robinson
Tuesday, August 24, 2010

When did the loudmouths of the American right become such a bunch of fraidy-cats and professional victims? Or is it all just an act?

The hysteria over plans for an innocuous Muslim community center in Lower Manhattan -- two blocks from Ground Zero, amid an urban hodgepodge of office buildings, eateries and strip clubs -- is wildly out of proportion. It would be laughable if it didn't threaten to do great harm to the global campaign against Islamic terrorism.

It is by now firmly established that the project, dubbed Park51, is promoted by a peacenik Muslim cleric whose sermons often sound a bit like the musings of new-age guru Deepak Chopra. It is also undisputed fact that the imam in question, Feisal Abdul Rauf, is such a moderate that the U.S. government regularly sends him as an emissary to Muslim countries to preach peace, coexistence and dialogue.

Yet right-wing commentators and politicians have twisted themselves in knots to portray the Park51 project as a grievous assault -- and "the American people" as victims. Victims of what? Rauf's sinister plot to despoil the city with a fitness center, a swimming pool and -- shudder -- a space for the performing arts?

The whole "controversy" is ridiculous. Yet conservatives who should know better are doing their best to exploit widespread ignorance about Islam by transforming it into fear and anger. They imply, but don't come right out and say, that it was Islam itself that attacked the United States on Sept. 11, 2001, rather than an extremist fringe that espouses what the vast majority of the world's Muslims consider a perversion of the faith. They paint Park51 as a "victory dance" over the hallowed ground where thousands of Americans died -- never mind that there wouldn't even be a sight line between the building and Ground Zero -- and suggest that the project, even though it would be run by an imam who's practically a flower child, could somehow serve as a recruiting center for terrorists.

Message to anyone who will listen: You're a victim. Be very afraid.

In the process, this anti-mosque pitchfork brigade is surely recruiting terrorists left and right. As Ahmad Moussalli, a professor at the American University of Beirut, told the Los Angeles Times: "Rejecting this has become like rejecting Islam itself." All the Islamophobic rhetoric tends to reinforce the jihadists' main argument, which is that the United States and the West seek to destroy the faith held dear by more than 1 billion souls.

The thing is, though, that the manufactured brouhaha over the Park51 project is part of a larger pattern in which the far right embraces victimhood and stokes fear. The faction that likes to portray itself as a bunch of John Waynes and "mama grizzlies," it turns out, spends an awful lot of time cowering in the corner and complaining about how beastly everyone else is being.

Witness the frequent eruptions over instances of reverse racism -- real or imagined. The Shirley Sherrod affair was the most recent example of how eagerly the far right wants to sell the false narrative that African Americans, once they achieve positions of authority, will use their newly acquired power to punish whites for historical discrimination. The facts of the Sherrod case, as they finally emerged, argue persuasively against this fictional tale of longed-for revenge. But it will be back.

And look at the hysteria over illegal immigration. Facts don't matter -- for example, that the flow of undocumented migrants has decreased, or that border enforcement under President Obama is much tougher than under George W. Bush, or that illegal immigrants are not responsible for any kind of crime wave. Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Tex.), has gone so far as to sound the alarm about alleged "terror babies." The idea is that undocumented pregnant women would cross the border so that their children could have U.S. citizenship, then take the babies away to be raised as terrorists -- who would be able to come back in 20 years or so, with legitimate U.S. passports, and presumably wreak untold havoc. No, I did not make that up.

Is the far right really afraid of its own shadow? Do these people really have so little faith in our nation's strength, resilience and values? I hope this is all just cynical political calculation, because there are genuine threats and challenges out there. We'll be better off meeting them with a spine, not a whine.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy.../08/23/AR2010082303743.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Are righties afraid of their own shadow?
 
The guy behind the mosque is on record as saying that America is worse than Al-Qaeda.

Feisal Abdul Rauf said:
..the United States has more Muslim blood on its hands than Al Qaeda has on its hands of innocent non-Muslims

Presumably there is no such thing as an "innocent non-Muslim" in his eyes.
 
The guy behind the mosque is on record as saying that America is worse than Al-Qaeda.

Feisal Abdul Rauf said:
..the United States has more Muslim blood on its hands than Al Qaeda has on its hands of innocent non-Muslims

Presumably there is no such thing as an "innocent non-Muslim" in his eyes.

He is factually correct. Your analysis of his statement – not so much.

EDIT: xpost!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom