This discussion gets really very deep. It's hard to reply to all the single thoughts since I last posted, so let me try to just explain my point of view with regard of what has been said here:
Of course it's not about the constitution - it's absolutely obvious that the Cordoba initiative have all the right to build that mosque at that spot. To make it an issue of freedom of religion truly misses the point of the whole discussion. It's not about technical legal issues at all. After all, nobody in the USA challenges the right of the Cordoba Initiative to build that house or to execise their religion. Nobody - as far as we know - has threatened to behead Feisal Abdul Rauf if he builds the house and nobody has attacked or murdered American Muslims just to make a point. The people who do not want the mosque in Manhattan exercise their freedom of speech and the right to have an opinion. It's truly laughable that President Obama thinks he has to call for the right of religious freedom which was never an issue.
Yes, it's up to the moderate Muslims to put the fears of other people to rest. While it is absurd to think that all Muslims are terrorists we cannot deny the fact that 99% of all big terrorist acts in the last 10 years were committed by Muslims - in the name of Islam. Of course the Quran can be used as a textbook of violence and terrorism - to deny that is apologetic and does not help fighting against Islamic terror. Fundamental Islam is Islamistic by definition and violence is inherent. It's up to the moderate Muslims to work on this violent tendency, to reform the religion and make it a religion of peace for all Muslims. Apparently, it's not politically correct to name terrorism and hate terrorism and hate but it 's okay to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people in a war of alleged revenge - as GrateFulFan pointed out correctly.
To think that the huge Islamic house in question would not offend the victims of 9/11 is so naive that it is hard to believe that the Cordoba Initiative is in fact so naive. The thought that we are dealing with a provocation rather than a naive misconception of "bridge building" is compelling. The fact that the Hamas already utilises the project as a triumph of Muslim dominance just shows how many problems are associated with this project.
Nobody said it better than this young Muslim woman whose mother was killed on 9/11:
[QUOTE]nobody in the USA challenges the right of the Cordoba Initiative to build that house or to execise their religion.[/QUOTE]
That's just not true. The majority of Americans can't even name five religions, never mind accept their existence.
A fair number of people in the USA have no idea of what the wider world is like... and most people in the wider world don't really know what the USA is like. There are still entire counties of white people in the bible belt who have zero tolerance for anything that isn't white or christian. Some of these southern hicks have never even seen a brown person since they've never left their county, and with the right to bear arms, the sky's the limit.
Excellent article from the Washington Post, btw. Inspiring, actually.
magicalfreddiemercury · Member since
I think this thread shows - in a small way - just how divisive this issue is. Neither side is able to see clearly what the other side sees as obvious. Though there have been attempts here from both viewpoints to see the middle, middle ground still has not been reached. I'm still of the opinion that the developers need to make many more concessions than the opposition due to the nature of the conflict they say spurred them to take this action in the first place. But they will not concede an inch and that makes the opposition stand firmer.
I agree with Your Valentine's post in its entirety, but most especially with her assertion that President Obama's comment that muslims have the right to practice their religion was ridiculous as it is not relevant to this situation. Of course they have a right. And there are already mosques in the city and around the area.
Bottom line is this - the purpose of this community center is to make a statement and the two sides cannot agree on what the statement is.
GratefulFan · Member since
YourValentine wrote:
Of course it's not about the constitution - it's absolutely obvious that the Cordoba initiative have all the right to build that mosque at that spot. To make it an issue of freedom of religion truly misses the point of the whole discussion. It's not about technical legal issues at all. After all, nobody in the USA challenges the right of the Cordoba Initiative to build that house or to execise their religion. Nobody - as far as we know - has threatened to behead Feisal Abdul Rauf if he builds the house and nobody has attacked or murdered American Muslims just to make a point. The people who do not want the mosque in Manhattan exercise their freedom of speech and the right to have an opinion. It's truly laughable that President Obama thinks he has to call for the right of religious freedom which was never an issue.
I couldn't disagree more YV. Survey says about 1/3 of the American public in fact don't acknowledge they have the right. And a good chunk of the other 2/3 don't really think so either - at least not when it's pitted against the rights of New Yorkers to control their own destiny on issues surrounding 9/11 - but that group is leaving it up to the community centre developers to do the sweaty work for them. The argument goes something like 'I acknowledge you have the right, but if you are of good faith and good conscience you will not exercise that right, and if you do I will likely work against you". That's logically and functionally identical to saying 'I don't think you really have the right at all- at least not here and not now'. And if you're part of creating a climate so hostile that it becomes impossible for someone to excercise their right you've effectively denied that right, which takes you well out of free speech and into something else altogether. Some people want to essentially limit or footnote critical, foundational sections of the Constitution as it relates to a few thousand Muslim citizens in New York City (to start - there are lots of protests cooking up in other places regarding other mosques), but they want it done 'voluntarily' and off the books so that nobody has to acknowledge, even to themselves, that this turd of a position is in fact a turd, and a rather large, reeking one at that. If Bloomberg et al seem to be repeating themselves it's because it's clear that this emotional issue has resulted in a great number of everyday people having parsed freedom of religion as a 'technical legal issue', seemingly losing sight in any meaningful way of how very essential it is to what America is.
(On a side note, anybody unhappy with Obama should note that he's the last big decision Americans made on the crest of a wave of emotion.)
Yes, it's up to the moderate Muslims to put the fears of other people to rest. While it is absurd to think that all Muslims are terrorists we cannot deny the fact that 99% of all big terrorist acts in the last 10 years were committed by Muslims - in the name of Islam. Of course the Quran can be used as a textbook of violence and terrorism - to deny that is apologetic and does not help fighting against Islamic terror. Fundamental Islam is Islamistic by definition and violence is inherent. It's up to the moderate Muslims to work on this violent tendency, to reform the religion and make it a religion of peace for all Muslims. Apparently, it's not politically correct to name terrorism and hate terrorism and hate but it 's okay to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people in a war of alleged revenge - as GrateFulFan pointed out correctly.
No one, least the Imam himself, has denied there is a problem within the Muslim world that needs fixing and that moderates must lead, which he's attempting to do in a way that is both so bold and so visible that it would be the moderate shot heard 'round the world. Best then that we shuffle him a few blocks north. Not sure how many - somebody can probably run some calculations through the law of diminishing Islamic offensiveness.
Moderate Muslims are not responsible for other people's fears. That position is simply not supportable. People who don't wish to be ruled by fear would do well to develop some facility with effectively collating and priorizing the facts at hand. It matters little if 99% of terrorist acts are committed by Muslims (producing victims who are also 99% Muslim on a global basis) when 0% of them have been committed by the Muslim community in question, known to it's Manhattan neighbourhood for 27 years. There is a record. We don't need the general and the scary and the diffuse. We have the specific. I don't care about political correctness at all. Logical cohesion? You bet.
To think that the huge Islamic house in question would not offend the victims of 9/11 is so naive that it is hard to believe that the Cordoba Initiative is in fact so naive. The thought that we are dealing with a provocation rather than a naive misconception of "bridge building" is compelling. The fact that the Hamas already utilises the project as a triumph of Muslim dominance just shows how many problems are associated with this project.
It's perfectly predictable that someone would say "Hey Hamas! What do you think of this New York Mosque thing?" And Hamas would say "Blah blah blah Islam blah blah". It's hardly ominous. It's political grandstanding and it's completely mundane. But for a reason to condem this project, nobody in the United States would give a flying fuck if Hamas thought people should build mosques everywhere so Muslims can pray like Christians and Jews, or if they thought anything about anything at all.
The 'provocation' notion is compelling only if you fancy theories almost completey unsupported by the actual facts. For Mosque Sponsors, Early Missteps Fueled StormNobody said it better than this young Muslim woman whose mother was killed on 9/11:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/06/AR2010080603006.html
I read that a few days ago and found the author both articulate and moving. But in the end it's a recursive argument where she herself abstracts the proposed centre into an ideaology, and then condems the proposal based on the fact that it will be a battleground for ideologies. In reality, her thoughts flow entirely from private grief. Private grief is best shared and minstered by caring people, not public policy. You can see more clearly how her arguments really don't hold - she herself ends up acknowleding their basis in emotionalty - in this panel discussion with her and three others. It might be my own confirmation bias, but I find the first speaker whose wife died in 9/11 to have made the best case. In my view it's very hard to sustain an argument in opposition that stands up against the facts:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BG23YxKm3C0
GratefulFan · Member since
I wanted to add one more little bit about the way people feel. I probably come across as a bit of a hardass, disconnected from the essential emotional core of this issue. Nothing could be further from the truth. If you toss out the hard right bigots and the pie eyed liberalism of the hard left, you have a vast middle of people who are entitled without question to every one of their feelings. I understand the special nature of this grief and this anger. I understand the resentment of people who don't want to feel pulled around by the nose by Islam. I can't imagine anybody started their thinking with anything other than 'Mosque at Ground Zero? WTF!" I certainly didn't. That was where I was headed, and then I Google Street Viewed the 'Ground Zero Burlington Coat Factory' (see?) and wasn't so sure any more.
It's grown from there, and I've landed in a place where the situation is actually upsetting me at this point. Must sound so absurd given that I'm not even American! But Canadians, huddled as we are in this massive country down around that southern border, are not indifferent. Most of us have friends there, many of us have family, and even without that there is shared history and a cultural and economic bond. Given that, once you start perceiving this situation as your freedom loving neighbour blindly putting the jackboots to it's freedoms, it's distressing.
As inaccurate and unfair as it is to dismiss all opposition as the rotten fruit of bigotry, so is it to assume that support flows from a too narrow scope and a pedantic and unnuanced reading of the Bill of Rights. When people go on and on again about the freedom of religion it's not finger wagging, it's more like a plea. A plea and a belief that you are handing a really big one to terrorism and to the terrorists, while simultaneously poking yourself in the eye with a stick.
All this to say that if I'm starting to sound pissy, it's only because I care.
YourValentine · Member since
@GrateFulFan - I see that we just cannot agree on two basic issues: how to judge the opponents of this project on the one side and how to evaluate the role of moderate Muslims in a Western country.
As to the opponents: don't you think it's asking a lot to tell them to not view their opinion? I do not believe that they are all indoctrinated, furious rightwing nuts - we have an example right here in this thread: MagicalFreddie is as level-headed and thoughtful as you can ask and she has reservations about that project. Who can tell her she does not have the right to voice her opinion because that opinion would hurt the right of the Cordoba Initiative to build that house? It simply is not true - she does not limit anybody's right to build the mosque only because she (or anyone else) is offended. The Cordoba Initiative have permission by the city of NY to build that Mosque. To ask that the New Yorkers have to shut up and not say that they are offended is really twisting the right of the Muslims to build their Mosque to the extreme. Let us not forget that Muslims can be so touchy that Comedy Central even censors their own programme which was showing Mohammad in a teddybear suit. Muslims are easily offended and non-Muslims all too eager to cater their touchiness. It's really not okay imo to count blocks and meters and to tell the 9/11 victims that they cannot be offended if a Mosque is opened there on 9/11, no matter if it's one or two blocks away. I am not American myself but I can easily understand that people do not want the opening of a Mosque in short distance on the anniversary of that terror attack - which was, after all, an Islamic attack.
Now the role of moderate Muslims. To make you understand my position I want to explain it. I am German, born well after WW2 - even my parents were litte children under the Nazis. My father was traumatized for life after watching the SS shooting his elder brother and jailing his father for supporting a socialist resistance group. My motherly grandfather was put out of job because he did not sentence people according to Nazi laws. He was heavily wounded in Stalingrad and never returned to his normal life. It was the good normal German people who made all the Nazi crimes possible. If more people had resisted the Nazis could not have murdered millions of people. As a German I have the obligation to put other peoples' fear to rest by speaking out against Neo-Nazis whenever they raise their heads. It does not matter that my own family were no Nazis and that I was not even born: it was my country who committed these atrocities and as a country we have the duty to show the other nations that we are no longer a danger to their lives and security. We also have to avoid any insensitive gestures versus the victims, mainly the jews. For example, I would be outraged if a German society had the idea to build any kind of German education or culture center near a holocaust site. No good- will can make up for offending the victims, it's the victims who decide if they are offended or not.
In the same sense I expect that moderate Muslims distance themselves in a clear, unmistaken way from the terror acts commited in the name of their religion. I really miss such clear statements from Muslims in all Western countries. It is never really clear where their loyalty lies. Is the Imam Feisal Rauf an American and if yes - why does he have to reconcile the West and the Islam? It's not his job to play the mediator between countries, that's the job of the elected government. His job is to teach his congregation that violence and hatred against infidels is not okay.
Just last week a mosque in Hamburg was closed by the police and the German-Arab society which ran it was forbidden. It was the same mosque in which Muhammad Atta, alleged 9/11 hijacker, used to pray. The mosque was not closed because Atta used to go there, it was closed because of evidence that in this mosque Al Quaida fighters were routinely recruited and hatred speeches were delivered each Friday. Unfortunately, the moderate muslims in this community did not tip off the police. I criticize that in the same way as I criticize Catholics who do not report a child abuser only because he happens to be a priest. Of course the moderate Muslims have to put the fears of non-Muslims to rest - after all the threatening, flag-burning, murders and terror that has happened in the last ten years. When I see a flag-burning mob I always remember the Nazis who could carry out their crimes protected by a brainwashed 80 million mob who later did not want to have known what happened!
As to my own responsibility: these days it means fighting against German participation in the unjust, criminal war in Afghanistan. 75% of German people are against this war but unfortunately it's almost impossible to make them go to the streets and protest. As a German I cannot be quiet about this. It's my country who kills innocent people in Afghanistan and I cannot say it's not my business because I am against it.
thomasquinn 32989 · Member since
YourValentine wrote: It's not about technical legal issues at all. After all, nobody in the USA challenges the right of the Cordoba Initiative to build that house or to execise their religion. Nobody - as far as we know - has threatened to behead Feisal Abdul Rauf if he builds the house and nobody has attacked or murdered American Muslims just to make a point. The people who do not want the mosque in Manhattan exercise their freedom of speech and the right to have an opinion. It's truly laughable that President Obama thinks he has to call for the right of religious freedom which was never an issue.
==============
You are either very poorly informed or deluding yourself. While a majority of those protesting the mosque may do so well within the limits of law and decency, quran-burnings, hate speech and (Christian) religious extremism have all come into play already. ==============
Yes, it's up to the moderate Muslims to put the fears of other people to rest. While it is absurd to think that all Muslims are terrorists we cannot deny the fact that 99% of all big terrorist acts in the last 10 years were committed by Muslims - in the name of Islam. Of course the Quran can be used as a textbook of violence and terrorism - to deny that is apologetic and does not help fighting against Islamic terror. Fundamental Islam is Islamistic by definition and violence is inherent.
============== Never did I think that you, of all people, would sink this low. 1) "99% of all big terrorist acts in the last 10 years were committed by Muslims" -> this is a good example of the fact that 84% of statistics are made up on the spot. If you haven't noticed, mutual (organized) violence between Hindus, Christians and Muslims is destroying relative stability in Eastern Asia and has been for several years. Christian fundamentalists have been on a rampage in Africa for years - or have you never heard of the "Army of the Lord"? FARC, nominally socialist and anti-religious, is one of the great actors in worldwide terrorism, and if you don't count the Mexican Drug war as terrorism, you are quite simply unqualified to speak on the topic. These are but a few examples.
2) "it's up to the moderate Muslims to put the fears of other people to rest"
Ah. So protestants bear responsibility for the Phelps-family? Catholics for the "Army of the Lord"? It is up to socialists to put the fears among red scare fanatics to rest? Or, an argument you may be sensitive to, it was up to Jews to put fears of Judaïsm to rest in the Europe of the 1930s? The answer to all of the above is "no". In every case, it is the collective responsibility of all the citizenry to remove irrational fears and marginalize fanatics of all denominations.
3) "Of course the Quran can be used as a textbook of violence and terrorism -to deny that is apologetic and does not help fighting against Islamic terror."
Of course the Bhagavat-Gita can be used as a textbook of violence ant terrorism. As can the Bible, not to mention the Malleus Maleficarum. Almost any book can be interpreted that way. Yet that is not the argument the islamophobes make - they state that the quran is *nothing other than* a textbook of terrorism. Implicitly, you are supporting their view. Making a sideways excursion for a moment - most examples cited in practice of violence preached in the quran are incorrect translations or taken out of context. Why is this? Because the real examples of calls for violence aren't as shockingly phrased and indeed sound too much like the Bible.
4) "Fundamental Islam is Islamistic by definition and violence is inherent. "
Oh dear god. FUNDAMENTAL Islam is not necessarily violent. EXTREMIST Islam is. As you are evidently not sufficiently versed in Islam to understand, I will provide an example from Judaïsm and Christianity: Orthodox Jews, who, as you might have noticed, are not particularly violent, are, by definition FUNDAMENTALIST, in that they take what they believe to be the word of god as absolute, unquestionable and literal guide to every part of their lives. Similarly, even if you'd only read the wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist_christianity), you'd find that fundamentalist Christianity goes waaaay beyond violence. Perhaps you haven't noticed, but slowly, you are starting to accept the propaganda of ultra-nationalists as reality.
YourValentine · Member since
Thomas Quinn- you conveniently disregarded my whole second post on this page where I explain my point of view concerning the role and responsibility of moderate Muslims. I never said they are responsible for terrorist acts, I say they have a (moral, not legal) responsibility to stand up and speak out against the use of their religion as a means to terrorize and frighten other people. Of course I never said that socialists, jews or anyone else is responsible for the paranoia of other people or in the case of Jews even responsible for the results of brainwashing a stupid population. I wish you would not twist my words around.
You are right about the planned burning of the Quran in NYC, I did not know that and of course every decent Christian person should stand up against this gross act and make it clear that it is not an attitude that can be excused with Christian values. It's just the same issue: the moderates should not allow the extremists to dominate the discourse.
I find it intellectually dishonest when you switch my words around (when I say that the Quran can be used as a textbook of violence and terrorism) to make them fit into some racial routine. I did not say that the Quran automatically leads to violence or terrorism or that there is no other option for a Muslim. To deny the violent potential of the Islam is just as dishonest and inhumane as claiming that all Muslims are prone to violence or terrorism. I find it intellectually lazy - to say the leasts - to deny the religious roots of Islamistic terror. While we probably agree about the hatred that is instilled into Muslims by injustice, poverty and social deprivation, we have to realize that jihad fighters are not necessarily the poorest of the poor and European Islamistic converts not necessarily socially deprived. If you ignore the power of fundamentalist mullahs you are certainly more gullible than I am Islamophobic.
Micrówave · Member since
[QUOTE]
Sir GH wrote:
That's just not true. The majority of Americans can't even name five religions, never mind accept their existence.
A fair number of people in the USA have no idea of what the wider world is like... and most people in the wider world don't really know what the USA is like. There are still entire counties of white people in the bible belt who have zero tolerance for anything that isn't white or christian. Some of these southern hicks have never even seen a brown person since they've never left their county, and with the right to bear arms, the sky's the limit. [/QUOTE]
Wow, that's quite a perception, even though you've never been there. Where do you get that information from? Oh yeah, newspapers and websites.
You forget, my russian comrade, about how you people treated blacks? No need to dig that up for this thread.
I live in Texas. I know many Christians, Bhuddists, Muslims, Hindus, as well as quite a few Jewish people. There's five. I take classes from a Taoist. Oops that's six.
And for the record, there are many places in the world that don't have tolerance for white people either. There are also probably a few Russians who think Stalin was onto something. Probably a few Germans left that think Hitler was kinda cool (one lives in Denmark! Hi TQ!). I'm sure there's still some Frenchmen around who think they should be ruling the world.
What does all this have to do with the topic anyway? Or are you just doing a TQ impersonation? Throwing out mindless and unresearched information in an effort to cloud the subject at hand.
And to say "some of these southern hicks have never even seen a brown person" shows how niave you are. Hate to break it to you, but the majority of Texans ARE brown. It's about 35% Mexican, 30% White, and 30% Black. Louisiana and Mississippi have a higher percentage of Mexican and Black heritage than White. Only Alambama has the White majority anymore. Been like that for years now.
So where is this magical land where southern hicks have never seen a brown person anyways? (exclude the former Russian provinces like Georgia and Ukraine, please)
Micrówave · Member since
But back to the topic.
Build the mosque. It would be good for all. New jobs, revenue for the city, a few new restaurants, etc. The other ones don't seem to be causing a panic. Slap a McDonald's inside it and nobody will care what it is.
>>> YourValentine wrote: I do not believe that they are all indoctrinated, furious rightwing nuts - we have an example right here in this thread: MagicalFreddie is as level-headed and thoughtful as you can ask.. <<<
Thank you for this, YV. :-)
*goodco* · Member since
As time has gone by, and I've read more, I have zero opposition to this community center.
I still understand the 'raw nerves'. I am speaking now against the hate-mongers and religious and 'Constitutional' zealots who constantly contradict themselves, just to stir sh*t up. I am not condemning those who disagree with my opinion, who oppose without the name calling because, well, that's how they feel. That is their right.
The owners have gone through the process. All the specs have been OK'd by the zoning officials. Just as other Muslim businesses in the area.
Just as the owners of the strip joint one block away from the proposed center.
Many of our Jewish friends in NYC, some who still have not been back to Ground Zero, are supportive of this building. Their reasons: tolerance, the Constitution, an understanding of what this is all about, and in some cases, an outright hatred of the many hypocrites who are against it.
As for me, I am not afraid of Kareem Abdul Jabbar, or Jamaal Wilkes (unless they were playing the Detroit Pistons years ago), or Ahmad Rashad, or.....
I didn't fear driving through or dining in Dearborn, Michigan years ago. I won't when I go back next year.
There are Shinto and Buddhist 'shrines' in Honolulu (sorry, Newt). There are Lutheran churches in DC (sorry, Newt).
There are also Muslim Americans who were first responders or family members of 9/11 victims that still work and live nearby who believe differently than the Post article individual.
There was, and still is, a mosque in The Pentagon. Should we shut this down and move it 'farther away' as well? And what is 'far enough away'?
GratefulFan · Member since
ThomasQuinn wrote:
4) "Fundamental Islam is Islamistic by definition and violence is inherent. "
Oh dear god. FUNDAMENTAL Islam is not necessarily violent. EXTREMIST Islam is. =================================
True enough. A rather flashy example: a self described Islamic fundamentalist named Mubin Shaikh - a guy with a star and crescent tattoo who is overtly Islamic to the point that he would make many non Muslims uncomfortable - contacted Canadian authorities earlier this decade with an offer to assist in the infiltration of Toronto area extremist groups. His history included spiritual travels in radical areas of Pakistan and even briefly considering the idea of going to Bosnia during the conflict there to fight alongside other Muslims. His work as a police mole uncovered and disrupted a plan to stage 9/11 style attacks in Canada that included the purchase of about 4 times the ammonium nitrate used in the OK city bombing (a harmless substance was substituted in delivery) to blow up targets in the Toronto financial district, Toronto's CN tower and other targets in Canada's capital of Ottawa. They also planned to storm Parliament and behead the Prime Minister and take hostages.
