A Mosque at Ground Zero?

The question is... why did the media choose to publicize the pending Koran burning if they knew how damaging such information would be?  It's not like the media high-rollers don't choose exactly what news the public gets to hear..

The media choose to publicize it to make sales.  The people who choose to create the issues - build the mosque, burn the koran - all have political agendas and the media helps to publicize their agendas.

tcc wrote: "The media choose to publicize it to make sales. The people who choose to create the issues - build the mosque, burn the koran - all have political agendas and the media helps to publicize their agendas."


It's not a mosque, and there is a massive difference between building a mosque and burning a holy book. To compare the two is absurd.

The pastor has the legal right to carry out his project but that does not mean he is right to do so.
.
What I would love to see with this idiotic, irresponsible burning event is a group of regular citizens of all faiths showing up to take part, then at the last moment, forming a unified, human, interfaith shield around the books.
.
Anyone feel like heading to Florida?

Well, let's say that this pastor did burn Beatles records when John Lennon said that the Beatles were more popular than Jesus.  What if he had?  Would the Beatles fans then have declared that they should kill all non-Beatles fans because of this protest?  I don't think so.  I think the fact that an American cannot burn any book if they feel like it for fear of antagonizing somebody into murdering others is proof that we really have bent over backwards too much.  Why should we as Americans give up our freedom of speech?  Will the next step be to tell the people writing opinion columns that they cannot say anything negative about religion at any time?  Will the government ask newspapers to stop printing anything that might be taken as offensive to any religion?

There is nothing wrong with denouncing somebody's religion or aspects of their religion.  It is when the denouncing moves on to violence and trying to prevent a person from practicing that religion that it has gone too far.  But there is nothing wrong with saying you don't like the Islamic religion and there is nothing wrong in burning a book of any sort.  It is a standard form of protest around the world to burn things.  Ha.  Usually it looks pretty silly, and barbaric, but it is a form of expression.  People are burning American flags all the time.  When I worked in DC, there was some sort of protest every week.

People who say they do not like the Catholic church do not have death threats put upon them.  A person could go out and burn Bibles and it wouldn't even make the news.

So, I say, let any American or any non-American protest if they want to.  They can't legally stop Muslims or any other faith from being in this country or practicing their faith or trying to change American laws, but they can protest all they want.  It is their right. 

Unless a constitutional amendment changes freedom of speech, the government officials should not be trying to use their influence in this way.  If General Patraeus is so worried about this sort of thing, maybe they should pull the troops out of there.

So, bottom line of what I think is:  let the pastor burn the books; let this group build their community center anywhere they have the legal right to do so.  Government officials and political candidates should stay out of it.

People are always in such a rush to exercise their freedom of speech that they really forget to do a great deal of thinking beforehand.  "Burn a Koran" might be very marketable but it gives far too convenient an outlet to the wrong kind of people.  For every terrorist hiding in a cave that might get upset about this Koran burning, there would be dozens of ordinary Muslims who are probably thinking "WTF" and feeling rather put upon.  I don't for one minute deny that these people have the legal right to burn some books, but what has that ever achieved?  Ever?  

They're too thick in the head to think of something better and it is laughable.

Donna13 wrote: "Well, let's say that this pastor did burn Beatles records when John Lennon said that the Beatles were more popular than Jesus. What if he had? Would the Beatles fans then have declared that they should kill all non-Beatles fans because of this protest?"


I don't see it as an issue about whether radical Muslims will kill non-radical Muslims, but rather one of a religious extremist proving he is just as disgusting as those he claims to hate.

"I don't think so. I think the fact that an American cannot burn any book if they feel like it for fear of antagonizing somebody into murdering others is proof that we really have bent over backwards too much."

Are you serious? The reason most reasonable people don't burn books is not because they fear murder, but because, well, it's a terrible thing to do. It's not about bending over backwards; it's about tolerance.

"Why should we as Americans give up our freedom of speech?"

Oh please. I swear to god, if I hear one more person use the freedom of speech argument, I'm going to scream.

This has nothing to do with freedom of speech. This is about religious freedom, tolerance and being a decent human being. To claim that it's about freedom of speech is not only ridiculous but is also an insult to REAL freedom of speech, which is generally political in nature; e.g. I think that the president is doing a crap job.

The other thing is that freedom of speech has limits. You can not yell fire in a crowded theatre; you can not stand up in public and announce that you think that Obama should be given a lynching; you can not expect any Jew to give you the time of day if you publicly deny The Holocaust; you can not expect the New York Times to publish a letter in which you celebrated 9/11. There are limits to freedom of speech; whether they be imposed legally, culturally or simply for moral reasons, and a failure to recognise such limits not only threatens the very basis of freedom of speech, but is a great indicator that you are not a decent person.

"Will the next step be to tell the people writing opinion columns that they cannot say anything negative about religion at any time?"

Do you really think that burning the Koran, or any other holy book, is the same as criticising religion. This isn't criticism; it's hatred. Pure and simple.

"Will the government ask newspapers to stop printing anything that might be taken as offensive to any religion?"

The government may ask, but it does not mean that they will be listened to. Quite honestly, I don't see such a scenario ever taking place. I can assure you though that your precious right to desecrate holy books is not being threatened.

"There is nothing wrong with denouncing somebody's religion or aspects of their religion. It is when the denouncing moves on to violence and trying to prevent a person from practicing that religion that it has gone too far."

Except here is the thing. It DOES lead to violence. During The Holocaust, one of the first things that the Nazies did was burn Jewish books. Now, I'm not suggesting that there is going to be another Holocaust or that American Muslims will be massacred. From a personal perspective, however, the idea of burning holy books terrifies me. Violence doesn't just appear out of nowhere.

You may think it's merely criticism; well, I can assure you it's much more than that.

"But there is nothing wrong with saying you don't like the Islamic religion and there is nothing wrong in burning a book of any sort."

I guess we have a different idea of what's wrong. I thought that writing a letter was the appropiate way to express one's dislike, rather than burning a holy book.

I dislike the evengelical Christianity practiced in many parts of the US (as well as in Australia). However I would never burn a Christian bible.

"People who say they do not like the Catholic church do not have death threats put upon them. A person could go out and burn Bibles and it wouldn't even make the news."

Perhaps, perhaps not, but it still doesn't make it right. I'm not particularly fond of the Catholic Church, but if people burned bibles, I would be horrified.

"So, I say, let any American or any non-American protest if they want to.... It is their right."

Putting aside the fact that he wants to burn holy books, this isn't merely a protest. People aren't demonstrating and burning Korans in anger. This is a man who has calmly announced that he intends to do so in a public and systematic fashion. But also, you mention rights, again there is a limit. You have the right to use the N word as much as you want to; would you ring up a black radio station and use it?

"Unless a constitutional amendment changes freedom of speech, the government officials should not be trying to use their influence in this way. If General Patraeus is so worried about this sort of thing, maybe they should pull the troops out of there."

I was actually disappointed about the Patraeus thing. IMO it distracted from the key issue, which is the hatred and extremism. Hillary Clinton's response in which she called it disgraceful was IMO on the money, however I felt that other governmental responses should also have focused on the act itself.

One last comment about 'freedom of speech.' The reality is that there is an ant-Muslim backlash. Several hate crimes ahve taken place recently; such as attempted murder, a pipe-bomb incident at a Florida mosque and arson; and these acts have (or are planned to take place) in several cities outside NY including Florida. Add that to the Islamophobia, and this Koran burning, which creates fear and paranoia as well as hatred, is incredibly reckless to say the least.

"So, bottom line of what I think is: let the pastor burn the books; let this group build their community center anywhere they have the legal right to do so. Government officials and political candidates should stay out of it."

I think that every Government official and political candidate, who cares about such issues, should condemn this Florida extremist for what he is.

tcc wrote:

>The media choose to publicize it to make sales.

Exactly.  And why wasn't the president on TV a week ago condemning the media for making this an issue in the first place?  Because he is not who's in charge here.  Very few people notice this.

Furthermore, who actually believes this is the the first Koran burning vigil since 9/11 ?  Anyone?

The reason why this is coming out now is because it's convenient.  Mid-term elections are coming up.  Right wing superpowers run the media, and it will be the same old Bush-style scare tactics all over again.  Watch over the next few months as Republicans running for the house and senate come out saying how they'll keep us safe from the terrorists.

>>>Sir GH wrote: Watchover the next few months as Republicans running for the house and senate come out saying how they'll keep us safe from the terrorists. <<<
.
Interesting that you would say this now because just yesterday there was yet another new poll out asking who was better at National Security, Democrats or Republicans. So, forget about a few months from now. It's already started.

Burning books is as stupid as burning the sofa on which your mate cheated on you instead of telling him off or kicking him out: it's a kind of regressive, metonymic and tometic way of thinking about things.

Which gets me back to my point: the fact that people are entitled to rights doesn't mean that it's always desirable or convenient to exercise such rights. Suppose I accidentally ran over someone's kid and killed him. Understandably, even if I'm not to blame in this case, the parents will be angry at me. So I decide to have my new house built. What do I do? I can build it wherever I want, but I chose to built it just next to the parents' house, and I say I'm doing so in order to improve our relation.

Is it going to be helpful in any possible way? I'd be likely generating more sorrow, angry and bringing back dreadful memories. So if I do want to both exercise my rights and foster peace, I'd better have it built elsewhere.  

On a different and much more gruesome (burning books is far worse than building any kind of religious center) note, I think we have come to a point where book burning is hardly justifiable anymore. I would have supported, no doubt, the people burning "Mein Kampf" back in the 60s and 70s, but that's because I don't think that thing is a book in the same way that the Coran, we may like it or not, is. That thing is the hateful product of a sick mind devoid of any feelings of humanity and compassion.

Muslims are killing muslims - in Palestine (Fatah vs Hamas), in Iraq and many other parts of the world. Muslims are killing non-muslims - Islamic extremism is an actual, serious problem which has to be dealt with: it is not true that this kind of extremim is something "on the fringe". It is not. It's been shown over and over again that way too many Muslims are either supportive of, or condescending to, acts of hatred. 

In order to build bridges it is important to accept the facts, as bitter as they might be: Islam is today probably the most violent religion in the world. These people do enjoy a lot of support - and they wouldn't thrive if they didn't - and they have been killing in the name of Allah for all too long. 

The people who blew up the World Trade Center were Muslims and they did so in the name of their god. Extremist muslims have carried out terrorist attacks in Europe as well and continue to do so in the Middle East and Africa. Even moderate Muslims have been over and over again on record saying that the attack was barbaric and all, but that the U.S had it coming - even such intellectuals as Tariq Ali have done so, apparently forgetting that the terrorists didn't attack a thing called "U.S", but innocent people. 

So if this is about improving the relations between Muslims and people from other creeds, one has to acknowledge that there's a spill over effect: even if you're as a Muslim is not to blame, the terrorist attacks carried out in the name of your god have been so many that you can't expect people not to be defensive in some way or another, PRETTY MUCH AS I CAN'T EXPECT, AS A JEWISH PERSON, TO BE GREETED WITH JOY BY PALESTINIANS OR MUSLIMS IN GENERAL. It'd be naive, it'd be irresponsible, it'd be stupid. I should be prepared for a lot of defensiveness and work hard to build a common ground between us.   

The opposition to the building of the centre is not based on fox-news brainwashing - it is serious and legitimate, and it comes even from most of New Yorkers who are fairly liberal in their political views. 

Of course the people behind this project are entitled to build the center wherever they want. They have substantial political and financial support, including from a billionaire Mayor who happens to be Jewish.

It's not as if it were a fight between the underdogs and the all-powerful right wing media. It's not, and it's never been.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11255366?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

the burning has been cancelled

Linda McCartney burnt the quorn and now she's dead. Coincidence? I think not?

fatty
misunderstanding the issues at hand since 1999.

>>>JoxerTheDeityPirate wrote: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11255366?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter the burning has been cancelled <<< 

.
I heard this just now on CNN, but apparently, it's on the condition that the community center is either relocated or reconsidered. So... it's anyone's guess.
.
More 'news' is that Donald Trump has offered to buy the building where the community center is supposed to go. It's getting interesting. Almost comedic.

Great post, Yara, I could not agree more.

On CNN you can watch a video interview with the Imam Feisal Rauf. If this is bridge building, I'd rather not cross his bridges. Basically, he tells the interviewer that Americans should fear retaliation from the "radicals" who might think "Islam is under attack" if the Cordoba House is not built as planned.

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/US/09/09/new.york.islamic.center.imam/index.html#fbid=yY0qa8Bnm6U&wom=false

magicalfreddiemercury wrote: The pastor has the legal right to carry out his project but that does not mean he is right to do so.

=========================

For me this entire argument structure is such a non starter that I can't even apply it to Pastor Whats-his-name.  Probably largely because to me it's not an argument. It's a statement that needs a whole bunch more sentences to make it anything at all.  It's like me saying 'Just because 71% of Americans want the community centre moved doesn't mean moving it is the right thing to do'.  True, but so what?  People say it like they've just said something profound and binding when they've literally said absolutely nothing at all.   Worst of all, it appears to shift the burden to the organizers.  That really couldn't be more unreasonable and disingenuous, unintended or not. The people making that claim have the burden to support it, not the other way around! Exercising their rights as Americans is not the right thing to do?  Prove it then. Make your case. Anybody else who would like to limit or remove the rights of fellow Americans takes on the burden of evidence and understands the need for a process. Emotion and rhetoric are not evidence and they're not a process.  Perhaps there is a case to be made on security grounds, or on principles of sanctions designed to force a change in the larger Muslim community.  I don't think so myself, but at least that would be an argument, and any actual argument would be a welcome 10 steps up from 'it's offensive'.

Yara in a previous post said the group should move so they could 'get even more respect'.  To which I said 'ha!' at the time.  More respect up from zero respect? Up from negative respect?  Too many people don't even respect this group enough to acknowledge that asking them to move for what in many ways are arbitrary, even selfish reasons might be a really big thing.  That asking them to voluntarily accept less freedom and diminished constitutional rights just might be a really big thing. That to accept they are to retreat somewhere more palatable to people who are in many cases thousands of miles away, retreat in their own neighbourhood, might be a really big thing.  

People don't even respect this group enough to acknowledge that this is a freedom of religion issue, claiming they fully support freedom of religion, and then retreating behind 'not the right thing to do'. By definition and by default all of those first amendment rights end with a firm period, not a 'but'. Indeed that is their very essence. If you truly support both the letter and the spirit of freedom of religion in any given situation, you just walk away.  You don't have to walk away happy, but you do have to walk away. If however you feel there are extraordinary circumstances which mean an accommodation or exception is warranted, you are completely within your rights to express that opinion or make that argument by any and all peaceful and lawful means.  For example,  Americans sometimes employ free speech to try and limit the right to bear arms in certain circumstances. But they don't do so while claiming to support the right in that specific circumstance, because in that given instance they don't, or they wouldn't be trying to limit it! It's like holding a placard in your left hand that says "I SUPPORT THE THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS" and a placard in your right hand that says "GUNS NOT THE RIGHT THING TO DO IN DC!" It's muddled, incoherent and intentionally or not, it's completely disingenuous in spirit.  No reasonable person  would ever conclude anything other than while you may generally support the right to bear arms, you don't support the right to bear arms in DC. And you don't have to.  But you need to take basic responsibility for the position in the interest of truth and fairness.