magicalfreddiemercury
Beautifully said, Yara.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
Amazon
Yara wrote: "I think the New Yorkers' demand is fair. Really fair."
Why? Why is it fair? There is a Mosque at the Pentagon, there already are mosques near Ground Zero, why is this demand fair?
Anyway, this Islamic centre will not be at Ground Zero. It will be near it, but near is not the same thing as on it.
"People are demanding whether it could be built elsewhere - well, I guess it's a fair demand which could be very well met."
Three comments. One, there are quite a few people who would prefer that a Mosque not be built anywhere.
Two, in a secular liberal democracy, people have the right to build places of worship on land that they own, whereever they want.
Three, this is actually an Islamic centre, although whether it's a mosque or not des not IMO alter the justness of the organisers' position.
"Being entitled to something doesn't mean that you HAVE TO DO IT. Sometimes it's not prudent nor desirable to exercise a certain right, and people can always try to exercise it in a more responsible, peaceful and less contentious way."
True, but isn't it interesting how it only became an issue after the Islamophobes at Faux 'news' took hold of it? They haven't acted in a 'responsible, peaceful and less contentious way' at all.
"After all, the muslim community has to think about international responsibility as well: how many Muslim theocracies are willing to let churches to be built next to their most sacred sites?"
How is that relevent? The Muslim theocracies you speak of are non-liberal dictatorships and non-democracies. America is a liberal democracy and it is not a Christian country, no matter what some Americans might think. It is just as Muslim as it is Christian and Muslims have as much right to build places of worship in the US as Jews and Christians. What happems in Saudi Arabia is irrelevent. Unless you think that America should be judged by the standards of Saudi Arabia?
Furthermore, American Muslims are not Saudi Muslims. What goes on in Saudi Arabia is not their responsibility. To say that the muslim community 'has to think about international responsibility' is nonsence; not just because we are talking about America here (a secular liberal democracy) and not Saudi Arabia (a non-secular non-liberal non-democracy) but also because Muslims do not have to answer for or take responsibility for every misdeed in their name. Unless of course you are willing to take responsibility for all misdeeds in the name of Christianity?
"Even so, the U.S, albeit all its wrongdoing, is enough of a democracy to be willing to accept this community instead of going after each and every Muslim, as it'd have happened in a good deal of countries."
And Muslims should be grateful for this? Wow, thanks, for not 'going after each and every Muslim.' To think that Muslims should be grateful for this is absurd and incredibly offensive.
I can not believe that you would think that Muslims should be grateful that the US has not 'gone after each and every Muslim'. This is extraordinary. My American Muslim friends would be horrified if they learned about this.
'If one can build it elsewhere, do it: people outside the islamic community will respect this mosque even more for the willingness of its supporters to avoid upsetting and offending the rest of the population.'
What makes you think that 'the rest of the population' are upset and offended by it? Many non-Muslims are not upset or offended by it. Furthermore, after many of the comments that have been uttered, I don't think it's the 'the rest of the population' which have been offended and upset. The Islamophobia has been horrifying.
'New Yorkers know these people are not to blame for 9/11. They know they have the right to build the mosque wherever they want. They just ask themselves why, for the sake of the memory of the victims, the building cannot be erected elsewhere to better accommodate the wishes of all people involved in this.'
Read the link I provided above. I wil simply end by saying that this IMO is not a good reason.
Considering that there already are mosques in the neighbourhood, there is a mosque at the pentagon, the Islamic centre is not on Ground Zero (not that it matters IMO but that is beside the point), that this is in a neighbourhood where the Imam and his followers live and work, that some of the victims were Muslim and that the terrorists were a preversion of Islam, and that feelings aren't enough of a reason (just because you feel offended does not automatically mean that your feelings should taken into account); well, I think that the organisers have every right to build the Islamic centre, and I hope they do.
Why? Why is it fair? There is a Mosque at the Pentagon, there already are mosques near Ground Zero, why is this demand fair?
Anyway, this Islamic centre will not be at Ground Zero. It will be near it, but near is not the same thing as on it.
"People are demanding whether it could be built elsewhere - well, I guess it's a fair demand which could be very well met."
Three comments. One, there are quite a few people who would prefer that a Mosque not be built anywhere.
Two, in a secular liberal democracy, people have the right to build places of worship on land that they own, whereever they want.
Three, this is actually an Islamic centre, although whether it's a mosque or not des not IMO alter the justness of the organisers' position.
"Being entitled to something doesn't mean that you HAVE TO DO IT. Sometimes it's not prudent nor desirable to exercise a certain right, and people can always try to exercise it in a more responsible, peaceful and less contentious way."
True, but isn't it interesting how it only became an issue after the Islamophobes at Faux 'news' took hold of it? They haven't acted in a 'responsible, peaceful and less contentious way' at all.
"After all, the muslim community has to think about international responsibility as well: how many Muslim theocracies are willing to let churches to be built next to their most sacred sites?"
How is that relevent? The Muslim theocracies you speak of are non-liberal dictatorships and non-democracies. America is a liberal democracy and it is not a Christian country, no matter what some Americans might think. It is just as Muslim as it is Christian and Muslims have as much right to build places of worship in the US as Jews and Christians. What happems in Saudi Arabia is irrelevent. Unless you think that America should be judged by the standards of Saudi Arabia?
Furthermore, American Muslims are not Saudi Muslims. What goes on in Saudi Arabia is not their responsibility. To say that the muslim community 'has to think about international responsibility' is nonsence; not just because we are talking about America here (a secular liberal democracy) and not Saudi Arabia (a non-secular non-liberal non-democracy) but also because Muslims do not have to answer for or take responsibility for every misdeed in their name. Unless of course you are willing to take responsibility for all misdeeds in the name of Christianity?
"Even so, the U.S, albeit all its wrongdoing, is enough of a democracy to be willing to accept this community instead of going after each and every Muslim, as it'd have happened in a good deal of countries."
And Muslims should be grateful for this? Wow, thanks, for not 'going after each and every Muslim.' To think that Muslims should be grateful for this is absurd and incredibly offensive.
I can not believe that you would think that Muslims should be grateful that the US has not 'gone after each and every Muslim'. This is extraordinary. My American Muslim friends would be horrified if they learned about this.
'If one can build it elsewhere, do it: people outside the islamic community will respect this mosque even more for the willingness of its supporters to avoid upsetting and offending the rest of the population.'
What makes you think that 'the rest of the population' are upset and offended by it? Many non-Muslims are not upset or offended by it. Furthermore, after many of the comments that have been uttered, I don't think it's the 'the rest of the population' which have been offended and upset. The Islamophobia has been horrifying.
'New Yorkers know these people are not to blame for 9/11. They know they have the right to build the mosque wherever they want. They just ask themselves why, for the sake of the memory of the victims, the building cannot be erected elsewhere to better accommodate the wishes of all people involved in this.'
Read the link I provided above. I wil simply end by saying that this IMO is not a good reason.
Considering that there already are mosques in the neighbourhood, there is a mosque at the pentagon, the Islamic centre is not on Ground Zero (not that it matters IMO but that is beside the point), that this is in a neighbourhood where the Imam and his followers live and work, that some of the victims were Muslim and that the terrorists were a preversion of Islam, and that feelings aren't enough of a reason (just because you feel offended does not automatically mean that your feelings should taken into account); well, I think that the organisers have every right to build the Islamic centre, and I hope they do.
*goodco*
Ever notice that when the topic comes up on various 'news' outlets, they show a picture of a traditional mosque? Not the proposed square, ugly, ten story, nondescript, 'looks like everything else in the neighborhood ' building.
There can be discussion on this. And disagreements. The pandering of the hate mongers to their base is appalling. They are no different than those whose actions led to the bombing of the black Birmingham church that killed the young black girls in the '60's.
Sen. Orin Hatch (R-Utah) finally came out in support of the 'constitutionality' of this building. I would appreciate it if Bush 43 would come out on video and make a comment, as he did after 9/11, about tolerance for our fellow Muslim Americans.
Just like Jimmy Carter has done, he could change his legacy of being a bumbling president into something good as an emeritus.
There can be discussion on this. And disagreements. The pandering of the hate mongers to their base is appalling. They are no different than those whose actions led to the bombing of the black Birmingham church that killed the young black girls in the '60's.
Sen. Orin Hatch (R-Utah) finally came out in support of the 'constitutionality' of this building. I would appreciate it if Bush 43 would come out on video and make a comment, as he did after 9/11, about tolerance for our fellow Muslim Americans.
Just like Jimmy Carter has done, he could change his legacy of being a bumbling president into something good as an emeritus.
magicalfreddiemercury
Well, this thread certainly covers the views from all sides.
.
It's interesting to read the comments and see which points are chosen to respond to and in what manner. Not that any opinions are wrong, but the way some statements are interpreted often appears at odds with how they were intended. That an offense is taken by parts of comments while the main point of the entire comment is missed shows, I think, why there should have been dialogue earlier. At this point, emotions are so tightly wound that regardless of the intent - of either side - negative assumptions will be made. It's a shame, really, because this could have been a wonderful thing. It could have opened doors to understanding... not just 'tolerance'. When you like someone, you want to know more about them. The developers haven't made themselves very likable and the opposition has taken off on peculiar tangents. Maybe the governor's offer to hold talks will be accepted. Maybe the location won't change because of those talks, but the willingness of both sides to at least discuss it might help to quell (some of) the emotions.
.
Just one other point... I know the opinion from those in favor of this project is that the opposition being offended isn't reason enough to change the location. However, I think the organizers - in order to hold true to their claim of building bridges and improving relations - have to show a desire to understand what is causing the offense and validate it. That's not to say they have to bow down to it, but, like an irate customer in a department store, if you take the time to actually hear their complaint, you might be surprised at how easy it can be to appease them while still maintaining personal integrity.
.
It's interesting to read the comments and see which points are chosen to respond to and in what manner. Not that any opinions are wrong, but the way some statements are interpreted often appears at odds with how they were intended. That an offense is taken by parts of comments while the main point of the entire comment is missed shows, I think, why there should have been dialogue earlier. At this point, emotions are so tightly wound that regardless of the intent - of either side - negative assumptions will be made. It's a shame, really, because this could have been a wonderful thing. It could have opened doors to understanding... not just 'tolerance'. When you like someone, you want to know more about them. The developers haven't made themselves very likable and the opposition has taken off on peculiar tangents. Maybe the governor's offer to hold talks will be accepted. Maybe the location won't change because of those talks, but the willingness of both sides to at least discuss it might help to quell (some of) the emotions.
.
Just one other point... I know the opinion from those in favor of this project is that the opposition being offended isn't reason enough to change the location. However, I think the organizers - in order to hold true to their claim of building bridges and improving relations - have to show a desire to understand what is causing the offense and validate it. That's not to say they have to bow down to it, but, like an irate customer in a department store, if you take the time to actually hear their complaint, you might be surprised at how easy it can be to appease them while still maintaining personal integrity.
Amazon
*goodco* wrote: "Ever notice that when the topic comes up on various 'news' outlets, they show a picture of a traditional mosque? Not the proposed square, ugly, ten story, nondescript, 'looks like everything else in the neighborhood ' building."
It doesn't surprise me at all. Just like how people constantly refer it to a mosque, the fact that the news outlets show what you describe is something I don't find at all to be suprising. Ignorance, fear-mongering and Islamophobia is what it is.
"There can be discussion on this. And disagreements. The pandering of the hate mongers to their base is appalling. They are no different than those whose actions led to the bombing of the black Birmingham church that killed the young black girls in the '60's."
Exactly. It is horrifying. Add to it the suspicion that Obama is Muslim (oh my god!) and the statements that by being one, he is disloyal and anti/un-American, and I just think that the hate mongers and the far right (one and the same really) are absolutely disgusting.
"Sen. Orin Hatch (R-Utah) finally came out in support of the 'constitutionality' of this building. I would appreciate it if Bush 43 would come out on video and make a comment, as he did after 9/11, about tolerance for our fellow Muslim Americans."
He never would. While I'm not entirely certain of his religious affiliation, I do know that many members of the far right belive in an evengelical apocalyptic christianity which dislikes Islam. But also when he did make the comment after 9/11, he was attacked by fellow republicans.
"Just like Jimmy Carter has done, he could change his legacy of being a bumbling president into something good as an emeritus."
Except that I think that Carter is many times the human being that Bush ever would be (I think that Bush is much more than a bumbling president but that is a discussion for another time.)
magicalfreddiemercury wrote: "The developers haven't made themselves very likable and the opposition has taken off on peculiar tangents."
I guess this is one thing we will never agree on, as I don't think it's the developers who have failed to make themselves likable. On the contrary, I think that the opposition has done everything in its power to make themselves as unlikable as possible.
"That's not to say they have to bow down to it, but, like an irate customer in a department store, if you take the time to actually hear their complaint, you might be surprised at how easy it can be to appease them while still maintaining personal integrity."
When you say 'appease' do you mean not build the centre there? Why is it whenever the opposition mentions dialogue, I get the suspicion that what is actually meant is 'do what we want you to do.'
It doesn't surprise me at all. Just like how people constantly refer it to a mosque, the fact that the news outlets show what you describe is something I don't find at all to be suprising. Ignorance, fear-mongering and Islamophobia is what it is.
"There can be discussion on this. And disagreements. The pandering of the hate mongers to their base is appalling. They are no different than those whose actions led to the bombing of the black Birmingham church that killed the young black girls in the '60's."
Exactly. It is horrifying. Add to it the suspicion that Obama is Muslim (oh my god!) and the statements that by being one, he is disloyal and anti/un-American, and I just think that the hate mongers and the far right (one and the same really) are absolutely disgusting.
"Sen. Orin Hatch (R-Utah) finally came out in support of the 'constitutionality' of this building. I would appreciate it if Bush 43 would come out on video and make a comment, as he did after 9/11, about tolerance for our fellow Muslim Americans."
He never would. While I'm not entirely certain of his religious affiliation, I do know that many members of the far right belive in an evengelical apocalyptic christianity which dislikes Islam. But also when he did make the comment after 9/11, he was attacked by fellow republicans.
"Just like Jimmy Carter has done, he could change his legacy of being a bumbling president into something good as an emeritus."
Except that I think that Carter is many times the human being that Bush ever would be (I think that Bush is much more than a bumbling president but that is a discussion for another time.)
magicalfreddiemercury wrote: "The developers haven't made themselves very likable and the opposition has taken off on peculiar tangents."
I guess this is one thing we will never agree on, as I don't think it's the developers who have failed to make themselves likable. On the contrary, I think that the opposition has done everything in its power to make themselves as unlikable as possible.
"That's not to say they have to bow down to it, but, like an irate customer in a department store, if you take the time to actually hear their complaint, you might be surprised at how easy it can be to appease them while still maintaining personal integrity."
When you say 'appease' do you mean not build the centre there? Why is it whenever the opposition mentions dialogue, I get the suspicion that what is actually meant is 'do what we want you to do.'
magicalfreddiemercury
>>> Amazon wrote: magicalfreddiemercury wrote: "The developers haven't made themselves very likable and the opposition has taken off on peculiar tangents."
I guess this is one thing we will never agree on, as I don't think it's the developers who have failed to make themselves likable. On the contrary, I think that the opposition has done everything in its power to make themselves as unlikable as possible. <<<
.
Which means each side needs to step back and start over. Neither will hear the other while each believes the other to be unyielding.
.
>>> When you say 'appease' do you mean not build the centre there? <<<
No, not at all. I think when each side in an argument takes time to really listen to the other, they usually find, not only a new perspective, but also some common ground. What that common ground might be in this situation… I couldn’t say. I would just hope those who might hold that dialogue – again, both sides - would be willing to discover and reach it.
.
>>> Why is it whenever the opposition mentions dialogue, I get the suspicion that what is actually meant is 'do what we want you to do.' <<<
I think this goes back to what I mentioned in the earlier part of my last post - At this point, emotions are so tightly wound that regardless of the intent - of either side - negative assumptions will be made.
magicalfreddiemercury
I’m going out on a limb by making an assumption, but I think it’s a safe one… all of us here are against the intended quran burning in Florida. With that said, I found a quote by the organizer of that ‘event’ to be much the same as statements made by the organizers and supporters of the Ground Zero community center.
.
In the article I read, discussion with this pastor turned to the effect of his congregation’s intended actions on muslims around the world.
.
This was his response:
"We realize that this action would indeed offend people, offend the Muslims. I am offended when they burn the flag. I am offended when they burn the Bible. But we feel that the message that we are trying to send is much more important than people being offended."
.
So, it seems they intend to go ahead with their plans despite the emotional impact it will have on the world. Apparently, because being ‘offended’ isn’t reason enough for them to reconsider. It’s much like, in my opinion, the center’s organizers intention to push forward despite the emotional impact it will have – has had – on the community.
.
So… I’m not seeing this center as doing much good in the way of building bridges. If the organizers would work on this center with leaders/people of various faiths and non-faith, it could lay the groundwork for the bridges they say they want to build. And it could help make a community center that truly represents and serves the community. That method could then be modeled and applauded rather than mocked or used as a flashpoint.
.
Just sayin’.
.
In the article I read, discussion with this pastor turned to the effect of his congregation’s intended actions on muslims around the world.
.
This was his response:
"We realize that this action would indeed offend people, offend the Muslims. I am offended when they burn the flag. I am offended when they burn the Bible. But we feel that the message that we are trying to send is much more important than people being offended."
.
So, it seems they intend to go ahead with their plans despite the emotional impact it will have on the world. Apparently, because being ‘offended’ isn’t reason enough for them to reconsider. It’s much like, in my opinion, the center’s organizers intention to push forward despite the emotional impact it will have – has had – on the community.
.
So… I’m not seeing this center as doing much good in the way of building bridges. If the organizers would work on this center with leaders/people of various faiths and non-faith, it could lay the groundwork for the bridges they say they want to build. And it could help make a community center that truly represents and serves the community. That method could then be modeled and applauded rather than mocked or used as a flashpoint.
.
Just sayin’.
GratefulFan
magicalfreddiemercury wrote: I’m going out on a limb by making an assumption, but I think it’s a safe one… all of us here are against the intended quran burning in Florida. With that said, I found a quote by the organizer of that ‘event’ to be much the same as statements made by the organizers and supporters of the Ground Zero community center.
.
In the article I read, discussion with this pastor turned to the effect of his congregation’s intended actions on muslims around the world.
.
This was his response:
"We realize that this action would indeed offend people, offend the Muslims. I am offended when they burn the flag. I am offended when they burn the Bible. But we feel that the message that we are trying to send is much more important than people being offended."
.
So, it seems they intend to go ahead with their plans despite the emotional impact it will have on the world. Apparently, because being ‘offended’ isn’t reason enough for them to reconsider. It’s much like, in my opinion, the center’s organizers intention to push forward despite the emotional impact it will have – has had – on the community.
.
So… I’m not seeing this center as doing much good in the way of building bridges. If the organizers would work on this center with leaders/people of various faiths and non-faith, it could lay the groundwork for the bridges they say they want to build. And it could help make a community center that truly represents and serves the community. That method could then be modeled and applauded rather than mocked or used as a flashpoint.
.
Just sayin’.
===================================
Their whole thing even predating this project has been interfaith cooperation. By the rules of their own corporate bylaw the Board of Directors of the Cordoba Initiative may not have any more than 50% of it's members of one faith. It's currently 50% Muslim and 50% non Muslim, according to their website. Decisions were always going to be guided by an interfaith community. What is that they should be doing that they're not already?
Edited to add that I don't care if they burn Qurans all day and all night long, because I just think it makes them look like complete idiots. Hell, burn them for a week so you look *really* stupid and have to spend a whole bunch of your Jesus money on books. I'm sure the Muslim popluation may have a different view, particularly given the arson in Tennessee. The fire link between the two is a bit creepy.
.
In the article I read, discussion with this pastor turned to the effect of his congregation’s intended actions on muslims around the world.
.
This was his response:
"We realize that this action would indeed offend people, offend the Muslims. I am offended when they burn the flag. I am offended when they burn the Bible. But we feel that the message that we are trying to send is much more important than people being offended."
.
So, it seems they intend to go ahead with their plans despite the emotional impact it will have on the world. Apparently, because being ‘offended’ isn’t reason enough for them to reconsider. It’s much like, in my opinion, the center’s organizers intention to push forward despite the emotional impact it will have – has had – on the community.
.
So… I’m not seeing this center as doing much good in the way of building bridges. If the organizers would work on this center with leaders/people of various faiths and non-faith, it could lay the groundwork for the bridges they say they want to build. And it could help make a community center that truly represents and serves the community. That method could then be modeled and applauded rather than mocked or used as a flashpoint.
.
Just sayin’.
===================================
Their whole thing even predating this project has been interfaith cooperation. By the rules of their own corporate bylaw the Board of Directors of the Cordoba Initiative may not have any more than 50% of it's members of one faith. It's currently 50% Muslim and 50% non Muslim, according to their website. Decisions were always going to be guided by an interfaith community. What is that they should be doing that they're not already?
Edited to add that I don't care if they burn Qurans all day and all night long, because I just think it makes them look like complete idiots. Hell, burn them for a week so you look *really* stupid and have to spend a whole bunch of your Jesus money on books. I'm sure the Muslim popluation may have a different view, particularly given the arson in Tennessee. The fire link between the two is a bit creepy.
GratefulFan
This topic makes me feel like Brian May on foxes. I simply can't get my head around the opposing opinion in anything but the most superficial way. I don't understand. It makes me want to call people pathetic, arrogant, jumped-up, snivelling little dweebs and threaten to have their guts for garters. Well maybe not quite, but you know, almost. LOL It fascinates me in a way, because this doesn't happen to me often at all. I'm usually pretty good at seeing alternate views, and being genuinely interested in them and in understanding them more fully.
Not so here. In this case they make me crazy. When I get like this, I generally perceive that something has gone wrong and has swamped my rationality, and I have a number of tricks I employ to try and get back on track. I try to talk myself down. I play devil's advocate with myself and build a whole argument in opposition to what my real view is to try and get in touch with the views and sensibilities of the opposition. I walk away for a few days and come back calm and rational with fresh eyes. I read opinion pieces from the 'other side' extensively. I try to indentify what my Achilles' heels are in the argument and guard against them. In this case I've identified a general idealism that may not match reality and a general tendency to the minority opinion and to the defense of people who I perceive to be more in need of a 'voice' that happens so often and so consistently that I have to think it's some kind of 'thing' with me. Even still, NOTHING IS WORKING. I get back on this thread and I just want to stomp all over again. It's strange, but interesting. Pollsters are reporting similar emotional knots and confusion. They'll ask mutually exclusive questions in slightly different ways and get a majority agreeing to answers that essentially cancel each other out.
All this to day that if I seem to get slightly ranty please see it as a reflection of me on this issue, for whatever reason, and not of you, or my opinion of you. All you yous. :)
GratefulFan
Double post.
magicalfreddiemercury
>>> GratefulFan wrote: Their whole thing even predating this project has been interfaith cooperation. <<<
.
Interfaith cooperation, on their terms, sounds like Amazon said the opposition's desire for 'dialogue' sounds... like a way to insist things are done their way. Especially when they say things like this, from their website - "We look forward to actively engaging with leaders of the victims of 9/11 to respond to their concerns and obtain their support for our efforts." They say "respond to their concerns" then follow up with "obtain their support for our efforts'. They didn't say, "hear their ideas and work on an agreeable solution". It's the same as saying the Florida pastor 'looks forward to actively engaging with leaders of moderate muslims' and obtain their support for his actions.
.
.
>>> By the rules of their own corporate bylaw the Board of Directors of the Cordoba Initiative may not have any more than 50% of it's members of one faith. It's currently 50% Muslim and 50% non Muslim, according to their website. Decisions were always .
going to be guided by an interfaith community. <<<
.
With the board of directors being 50% muslim, those decisions can hardly be made with equality in mind.
.
.
>>> What is that they should be doing that they're not already? <<<
.
In keeping with the 'interfaith cooperation' they declare, they should make it a space that celebrates all faiths as well as no faith. One that doesn't put one belief above another. That shows acceptance and camaraderie. If, to celebrate Islam, they need prayer space, then prayer space should be represented for all. And, they should clearly show sensitivity to the 'offended' opposition by acknowledging the reasons for the offense. For example... they saw how the original name "Cordoba House" was interpreted. Instead of acknowledging that interpretation, they respond with (also from their website): "Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf originally proposed calling the new center the “Cordoba House.” That name created the impression that the Cordoba Initiative was sponsoring the proposed community center, but this was not the case." THAT was not the impression.
.
I know I've repeated myself in many of my posts and suppose I should finally keep quiet since the conversation goes in circles because of that. I just felt the actual message was not being heard. Which is why, I should add, I posted what I did about the quran-burning organizers where they say the offense made by their actions is not as important as their message. That argument was used here and by the organizers of this center as a way to denounce, ignore and/or dismiss the legitimate concerns of many (clearly not all) those in opposition. That argument does not work for that Florida pastor, nor does it work for the center on Park Place.
*goodco*
If this were a Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Lutheran, Methodist, Mormon etc building.......no one would care. It's a center with a Muslim prayer area. Once again.........big deal. It's all politics. And hate mongering. If this center were one of the afore-mentioned 'religions'........would we insist that they also have a prayer area of another faith?
I don't think so.
I've read all the posts here on various 'feelings'.......I understand, and they were well said, intelligent, ......something that the wingnut media lacks.
As facts continually get out (the building backing TERRORIST owns 22% stock of FOX noise).....the stupider the messanger becomes.
The Florida minister...........probably burnt Beatle albums after the 'we're bigger than Jesus' BS.
I don't think so.
I've read all the posts here on various 'feelings'.......I understand, and they were well said, intelligent, ......something that the wingnut media lacks.
As facts continually get out (the building backing TERRORIST owns 22% stock of FOX noise).....the stupider the messanger becomes.
The Florida minister...........probably burnt Beatle albums after the 'we're bigger than Jesus' BS.
magicalfreddiemercury
>>> *goodco* wrote: If this were a Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Lutheran, Methodist, Mormon etc building.......no one would care. It's a center with a Muslim prayer area. Once again.........big deal. It's all politics. And hate mongering. If this center were one of the afore-mentioned 'religions'........would we insist that they also have a prayer area of another faith?
I don't think so. <<<
.
I don't think so either. Why? Because those centers wouldn't be built in the name of improving relations.
.
.
>>> The Florida minister...........probably burnt Beatle albums after the 'we're bigger than Jesus' BS.<<<
.
Agreed. Though that action wouldn't empower extremists or endanger soldiers' lives.
magicalfreddiemercury
>>> GratefulFan wrote: All this to day that if I seem to get slightly ranty please see it as a reflection of me on this issue, for whatever reason, and not of you, or my opinion of you. All you yous. :) <<<
.
It's an emotional issue that's grown from an already tense relationship between muslims and non-muslims. The stated intent of this center was to quell those tensions, but it's done the opposite. So, it's natural, I think, for all of us to become over-zealous in defense of our positions.
.
Personally, I found you to be challenging while honestly seeking to understand. I don't think you've been ranty, just solid in your opinion. I happen to disagree with that opinion and do not see the same fairness that you exhibit, or that you seem to see exhibited, by the organizers. However, I, for one, respect your opinion because of the way in which you presented it. And I thank you for getting me to think more about why I feel as I do.
.
So on that note, I promise to (try to) resist posting more about this... did I hear someone say, "finally!"??? :-)
.
It's an emotional issue that's grown from an already tense relationship between muslims and non-muslims. The stated intent of this center was to quell those tensions, but it's done the opposite. So, it's natural, I think, for all of us to become over-zealous in defense of our positions.
.
Personally, I found you to be challenging while honestly seeking to understand. I don't think you've been ranty, just solid in your opinion. I happen to disagree with that opinion and do not see the same fairness that you exhibit, or that you seem to see exhibited, by the organizers. However, I, for one, respect your opinion because of the way in which you presented it. And I thank you for getting me to think more about why I feel as I do.
.
So on that note, I promise to (try to) resist posting more about this... did I hear someone say, "finally!"??? :-)
GratefulFan
Thanks so much for those thoughts magicalfm. I know I sure feel ranty on this sometimes, so I'm happy it hasn't seemed that way. I haven't stayed away because I was uninterested in the discussion, I was just trying to get some greater perspective. I still very much want to figure out what the pounding hell all you mistaken people are talking about. ;)
I'm trying to feel more guilty about feeling pretty flip about the Quran burning. I shouldn't be so glib, but I can't get over how collectively stupid it seems to me our culture can be. Is there a world statesperson that hasn't yet weighed in on this 50 congregant fucknut from Alligator, Florida or wherever? He should have been ignored to oblivion in the first place. I should be more concerned about the images of burning holy books inciting radical Muslim agression, but I've thought for weeks that ship sailed anyway. However, pictures are potent things. Bah. He's still a great big idiot.
I'm trying to feel more guilty about feeling pretty flip about the Quran burning. I shouldn't be so glib, but I can't get over how collectively stupid it seems to me our culture can be. Is there a world statesperson that hasn't yet weighed in on this 50 congregant fucknut from Alligator, Florida or wherever? He should have been ignored to oblivion in the first place. I should be more concerned about the images of burning holy books inciting radical Muslim agression, but I've thought for weeks that ship sailed anyway. However, pictures are potent things. Bah. He's still a great big idiot.