A Mosque at Ground Zero?

In the past when threads have gotten too long, the order of the posts started messing up.  If this is still the case, and if this one gets too long (not that we should worry about this yet), it will be hard to tell who got in the last point.  We might think that Amazon got in the last "Whatever, troll."  But maybe it could be Sir GH's "I never said I was an atheist.".  Or maybe it could be something from Andreas starting with the letter "b".

"Tell me, why is it that one post, your english is terrible; in another post, your english suddenly improves?"

i don't even get to this, holly2003 says the same thing to me ...

>>> Donna13 wrote: In the past when threads have gotten too long, the order of the posts started messing up.  If this is still the case, and if this one gets too long (not that we should worry about this yet), it will be hard to tell who got in the last point.  We might think that Amazon got in the last "Whatever, troll."  But maybe it could be Sir GH's "I never said I was an atheist.".  Or maybe it could be something from Andreas starting with the letter "b". <<<

Amazon wrote:

"you want to deny religious groups their democratic rights"

Assuming your location according to your profile is accurate, religion and politics are inseparable in Israel.  You obviously cannot fathom the reality of a secular state, especially when the leaders of your state are currently imprisoning millions of people in Palestine in an apartheid-like scenario kept alive by the theocratic government's propaganda machine whose core ancient scripture-influenced belief is that Israel is their God's special chosen place for his special people, so you are in no position to judge what separation of church and state is like, never mind condemn it.   Cheerfully awaiting the anti-Semite card to be thrown (considering how you removed my reference to this situation on page 1 of this thread)..

"you have a black-hat view of religious people"

No, I do not.  I discussed only those who subscribe to theism, and outlined the mindset that supports theism.  Theism begins with accepting the existence of a single higher unseen being.  Not a single theistic person exists outside of this limit.  If they did, they wouldn't be theists - they'd be something else.  This reality is not a judgment (positive or negative), nor is it "black-hat."  It simply is.

"anybody who goes after one of your heroes is a Galieo persecuting witch burning monster"

Sam Harris is not a hero of mine - another conclusion you chose to make.  Criticism towards him is obviously not as fervent as it was towards Galileo or witches, but the MINDSET propelling said criticism is the same.

"However, unless you explain that you are not a fan, it is a reasonable assumption."

To you it is.  Not to those whose thinking isn't boolean.  I say, "Dio was a great singer, possibly the best of his kind."  Does acknowledgment of his contribution to music automatically mean I must like early 80s Black Sabbath, or even metal in general?

"you had numerous opportunities to explain what you believe"

Yes, and not doing so worked to my advantage, as you instead chose to rush to conclusions about my beliefs time and time again.

This was fun.  Cheers.

I'm only responding because I want to clear something up.


Sir GH wrote: "Assuming your location according to your profile is accurate, religion and politics are inseparable in Israel."

My location is Australia, not Israel. I have no idea why my location says Israel (although I am Jewish), but considering that I've mentioned Australia in my posts numerous times, you could safely assume that I'm in Australia.

"Cheerfully awaiting the anti-Semite card to be thrown (considering how you removed my reference to this situation on page 1 of this thread)"

I 'removed' your reference to it (wow, what censorship), because I don't agree. Imagine that, I don't agree that Israel can be compared to South Africa. I had no desire then, and now, to get into a discussion about whether Israel can be regarded as an apartheid state. Especially not with someone like you. I guess you will be complaining now about how I removed some of your comments from this post.

The very fact that you complain shows what a hypocrite you are. Afterall you remove comments of mine all the time. Even in your latest post, you removed comments of mine, yet you complain that I do it to you? You are so hypocritical it's incredible!

"Sam Harris is not a hero of mine - another conclusion you chose to make."

I couldn't care less. You obviously operate in a world, where even if you refer to your wife, I can't assume you're married unless you actually say that you're married.

BTW, who choose to make the assumption that I live in Israel? Even though I refer to Australia in quite a few of my posts? You are the very definition of a hypocrite.

"Criticism towards him is obviously not as fervent as it was towards Galileo or witches, but the MINDSET propelling said criticism is the same."

This proves it. You're an extremist and an idiot, and I have no time for people like you.

"Yes, and not doing so worked to my advantage, as you instead chose to rush to conclusions about my beliefs time and time again."

'It worked to your advantage' because you are a manipulative, hypocritical, dishonest, deceitful fool whom I wasted time having a 'discussion' with. All you do is play games, lie and attempt to distract me from the fact that you have no case. It may shock you, but in terms of curtesy, the least you could do is believe what you say and say what you believe!

Also just so you know, I did not 'rush to conclusions' about anything. I made reasonable conclusions. But then, considering that you yourself rush to conclusions in quite a few posts, you should stop throwing stones in glass houses!

"This was fun."

Not for me.

"Cheers."

Whatever.

"You're an extremist and an idiot, and I have no time for people like you"

that is a bit of extreme thing to say ...

A friend sent this video to me and while it's wildly politically incorrect, I wonder if the times don't warrant some political incorrectness.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjS0Novt3X4

btw - SirGH - I'm not sure if you're familiar with Pat Condell, but if you visit his youtube page, I think you'd appreciate more than a few of his commentaries.

And so the vote is in and landmark status will not be granted to the building. I suppose the city should now prepare itself for protests as the organizers of this project go forward despite public opinion.

I read an interesting take on this the other day that approved the legal findings and supported the group's right to build their centre, but condemned their decision to do so.  Sort of like enthusiastically supporting free speech while thinking some people's free speech adds nothing to the common good and reserving the right to think they've exercised poor judgment or irresponsibility in asserting their right.

However, I remember listening to chilling declarations by bin Laden's number two in the weeks following 9/11 that outlined their goal to destroy America, and the degree of patience they were willing to have.  The first pillar of the plan was the attacks, the second was to cripple America financially, and the third was to bring about America's final destruction.  Clearly they aren't planning to cleave her in two and have the two halves fall into the oceans.   I think they mean to destroy America's power, not only of the military and economic kind, but the power bestowed on it by people rather than regimes.  People inside and out who still see America's freedoms and principles and promise as a, if not the, crown jewel of the globe.

I think this mosque is a bit of a crossroads.  I think there's nothing more bin Laden would like than to see this plan torn and shouted  down by Americans.  It's that narrative, that America is out to destroy Islam and hates Muslims, that fuels the rage and the whole ugly, deathly operation. There was a piece on 60 Minutes not last Sunday but the Sunday before about a man who became radicalized in the UK by recruiters who tapped into lingering anger he felt over indirect racism he had experienced in his teen years.  He was eventually imprisoned in Egypt, and over time absorbed the changed attitudes of old terrorist soldiers from the 1970's after trying and failing to rouse them to his radical agenda.  He now travels and speaks to Muslim students in hot spots to smash 'THE NARRATIVE' - you can hear that that's how he thinks of it - in quotes and caps.  He does so by talking about how many Muslims and mosques are in America and the freedom and acceptance and integration people of Islamic faith enjoy.  New Yorkers who are understandably preoccupied by the thought of any blight to the memory of the victims may get their mosque 10 or 20 or 30 blocks away rather than two, but it might prove a hollow, Pyrrhic victory in the end.

There was a NY Times opinion piece a bit ago titled 'A Mosque Maligned' you can search if you want that hit on a couple of those points as well.  He said he naively believed there would be no significant objection to the project because he thought people of any idealogical stripe could agree to figure out 'what bin Laden would want', and then 'do the opposite'.  I think that and 'the narrative are interesting perspectives that deserve some consideration alongside the ideas of people like that fellow you linked to, before thoughts and positions are hardened.

magicalfreddiemercury wrote:

"btw - SirGH - I'm not sure if you're familiar with Pat Condell, but if you visit his youtube page, I think you'd appreciate more than a few of his commentaries."

Excellent stuff.  He's right on the money about his views of where the wider Muslim movement is heading and how dangerous it is.  He chillingly compares this project to the first mosque built in Spain:  "Building mosques on conquered, sacred ground is standard practice.  It's what Islam has always done to assert its supremacy, and that is happening here."

He's also bang on about how America hides behind the false blanket of "diversity."   But I guess Condell is an extremist too because he doesn't accept the "democratic right" of these Islamic nuts to push their agenda through despite their hatred of western values.  Honestly, anyone who thinks the simple act of tolerance is what will fix the world's problems needs a lobotomy.  Blind adherence to dogma is what needs to be eliminated if we're ever going to eliminate extremism.  It all begins with education.  Myself, I think the human race will extinguish itself before that ever happens.

Thanks for posting.  I've watched more of his clips, and he's quite brilliant - and often humourous.

Grateful fan, are you a polysci major?  With your understanding of world issues you should be a scholar writing books.

>>> GratefulFan wrote: I read an interesting take on this the other day that approved the legal findings and supported the group's right to build their centre, but condemned their decision to do so. Sort of like enthusiastically supporting free speech while thinking some people's free speech adds nothing to the common good and reserving the right to think they've exercised poor judgment or irresponsibility in asserting their right.<<< That’s the Anti-Defamation League's response to this. They said (paraphrasing) the organizers are within their rights to build this center but that does not mean they are right to do so. The issue for me, since obviously I cannot speak for others, is the conflict of this project and the organizers’ stated goal. They say they want to improve relations yet seem unconcerned about the controversy or emotional impact it will have/is having. It's like an animal-lover giving the ‘gift’ of a puppy to someone who, for various reasons, doesn’t want a pet, and then insisting they should accept that pet so they can learn to appreciate it. It’s a lack of regard for others involved. In all honesty, I believe that is one of the biggest issues people are having with this. The arrogant attitude of saying the project is going through regardless, overshadows the stated goal of the gesture and makes that stated gesture difficult, if not impossible, to believe. However, now that it's been decided and the project will indeed move forward, I hope the anticipated protests do not take place. I fear they will – in fact, a lawsuit has already been filed against the decision – but hope they do not become the norm. I’d like to see people rise above this and stop making it headline news. >>>  I think there's nothing more bin Laden would like than to see this plan torn and shouted  down by Americans.  <<< Personally, I think either way he “wins”. Let me ask you this… assume people accept it because it might be the opposite of what bin laden would want. How would that serve to better the situation? It wouldn’t make it a true welcome or honest show of acceptance. It would be a façade. The community center will no doubt attract people and thrive. But does mean it will help forge a less contentious relationship between ‘the west’ and ‘islam’?  I doubt it. If anything, I believe it will only stir suspicions of what’s “really going on in there” since the method in which it was forced upon the city was insensitive and arrogant, albeit within their rights. >>> It's that narrative, that America is out to destroy Islam and hates Muslims, that fuels the rage and the whole ugly, deathly operation. <<< And on the other side, I'd say it’s lunatics who follow a madman, that fuels the rage and deadly operation. America would not be so suspicious of islam if not for the islamic followers who killed 3000 people on 9/11. I remember an interview with some pundit about bush’s desire to bring democracy to the Middle East. This pundit said, quite clearly, that the islamic faith and democracy are diametrically opposed. That the basis of democracy is separation of church and state whereas islam is not just a religion but a way of life. That distinction resonates with Americans and while most are quick to accept their Muslim neighbors they are not willing to compromise their values or freedoms. THAT, IMO, is the conflict between the west and islam. THAT is what needs to be addressed, debated and understood. Not the installation of a symbol of the very thing that divides us in the location in which that divide was made (or expanded, depending how you look at it). >>> He now travels and speaks to Muslim students in hot spots to smash 'THE NARRATIVE' - you can hear that that's how he thinks of it - in quotes and caps.  He does so by talking about how many Muslims and mosques are in America andthe freedom and acceptance and integration people of Islamic faith enjoy.  <<< While I understand this – and I wish more people would have seen this and held discussions on it, or that it might have generated some headlines of its own – the outcry against THIS building, in THIS location is legitimate. The organizers have chosen this particular location and opening date – of 9/11/11 – because of the rift between the west and islam. They are using 9/11 as the reason for pushing this project through. Yet when the opposition cites 9/11 as they reason they do not want it, suddenly, there are accusations of hatred toward muslims or the west’s attempts to destroy islam. “The West” is to compromise, to set aside its views, but the same is not to be expected from the other side? I wonder how that translates to the rest of the world. >>> New Yorkers who are understandably preoccupied by the thought of any blight to the memory of the victims may get their mosque 10 or 20 or 30 blocks away rather than two, but it might prove a hollow, Pyrrhic victory in the end. <<< I’m not so sure about that. I think the compromise would have made all the difference – here in NY and around the world. But we’ll never know because no compromise was offered. >>> There was a NY Times opinion piece a bit ago titled 'A Mosque Maligned' you can search if you want that hit on a couple of those points as well.  He said he naively believed there would be no significant objection to the project because he thought people of any idealogical stripe could agree to figure out 'what bin Laden would want', and then 'do the opposite'.  I think that and 'the narrative are interesting perspectives that deserve some consideration alongside the ideas of people like that fellow you linked to, before thoughts and positions are hardened. <<< What I especially like about the commentary in the link I posted is the honesty. He spoke about his feelings without apology. I would love to hear a dialogue such as that between both sides. Maybe if both could/would state what they see as ‘truth’ and why, then a common ground could be found. But then, maybe I’m as naïve as the author of the piece to which you referred. I value your perspective and wish there were more people like you out there equally exposing the credibility and extremes of both sides. >>> Sir GH wrote: Grateful fan, are you a polysci major?  With your understanding of world issues you should be a scholar writing books. <<< Or on the circuit – CNN, FOX news and elsewhere – showing what the two sides refuse to see about each other. >>> Sir GH wrote: But I guess Condell is an extremist too because he doesn't accept the "democratic right" of these Islamic nuts to push their agenda through despite their hatred of western values.  <<< Yes, he is definitely an extremist, but I must admit, I love the lack of apology in his voice. I wish more people were less afraid of being politically correct and more concerned with explaining their ideas. But in a perfect world, people would not just talk but listen, and many of the problems wouldn’t arise in the first place. >>> Honestly, anyone who thinks the simple act of tolerance is what will fix the world's problems needs a lobotomy.  <<< True, but in every instance, I think both sides feel the other needs to show tolerance and yet their idea of “tolerance” is often total acquiescence. >>> Blind adherence to dogma is what needs to be eliminated if we're ever going to eliminate extremism.  It all begins with education.  Myself, I think the human race will extinguish itself before that ever happens. <<< Sadly, I agree with this bleak outlook.

Double post. Meant to edit and quoted myself instead. :-/

Sir GH wrote:

Grateful fan, are you a polysci major?  With your understanding of world issues you should be a scholar writing books.
================================

I read this last night about 2:00 am and I was too tired to figure out if you were making fun of me, so I decided to figure it out today.  I've decided you're not. :)   I'm definitely not a scholar of any sort.  I'm just another bunch of thoughts on the wind.  I read a lot and think a lot, that's all.  Sometimes it works out well, sometimes it doesn't. :)

@magicalfm - I think that the nature of this issue means it's probably  a decision made largely in the gut, with the reasoning following later.   It's probably fair to say that virtually everyone cares about all the issues represented here: honour and fairness for the victims, sensitivity to those affected and left behind, freedom of religion, justness in society, the preservation of American values and culture, the security of society, and other principles I may not have listed here.  Clearly, in this instance some of these are conflicting. The difference between the views of one side and the views of the other is which set of concerns triumphs.   I've been trying to think about where the split off happens, how we make that decision, and it seems to me to perhaps be at a very fundamental level that determines that either there is a relationship  between 9/11 and ordinary Muslims that means they will bear the burdens of those heinous acts, or there isn't such a relationship.  Osama bin Laden would love to have you think that 9/11 was 'a valid expression of Islam', to steal a phrase I read recently.  I thought about Jim Jones, and whether his mass murder was a valid expression of Christianity.  I say no, on both counts.  What say you? :)

>>> GratefulFan wrote: Osama bin Laden would love to have you think that 9/11 was 'a valid expression of Islam', to steal a phrase I read recently.  I thought about Jim Jones, and whether his mass murder was a valid expression of Christianity.  I say no, on both counts.  What say you? :) <<<

Excellent points, and I say no as well. However... :-) ...a point that applies to the fears and concerns of the West is that while Jim Jones contained his followers, bin Laden disperses them.