'Ground Zero mosque'

Tools    





Despite the fact that a mosque put near Ground Zero might be a positive change for America... it seems really... evil... to construct a mosque at this site where all these people died.
I get that that's your opinion. But my question has been, and remains: WHAT IS EVIL ABOUT A MOSQUE? Why is it more evil to build a mosque at this site than it is to build a mini-mart? Or a deli? Or even another 9/11 monument? Mosque-building is not an evil practice, no matter where it takes place.

9/11 was a HUGE, HUGE thing in America -- I hear even other parts of the world even took notice. As for me, I certainly noticed, but I still tune things out -- I was watching Golden Girls reruns the evening of 9/11. I clearly remember Lifetime TV's message about 9/11 popping up every commercial break. That was 9/11 for me. I guess that's how I deal.
"Oh, terrorists are bringing down the country? Tell me about it later - Dorothy is dating a clown tonight."
Ha. I had three different TVs going on three different news networks simultaneously for the next week. But my brothers just played video games in the basement. I totally understand this way of coping. Sometimes I felt so helpless in the situation that I thought, man I can't do anything to change this, so I'm tired of hearing about this nonstop.

So, something that major happens in America, we still haven't built our own monument to it yet, we still call it "Ground Zero"... yet there's this old Burlington Coat Factory building which, according to Caitlyn, may have contained some body parts from victims of 9/11... and they wanna convert it into a mosque.
I don't think someone wanting to build anything in that area should feel they need to wait an entire decade for Americans to put up a monument. We have had more than enough time, and not building it yet sends a pretty strong, and depressing, message in itself. The fact that there were body parts found there should not deter someone from building a mosque there any more than it should deter us from allowing any other building to be built there. I agree this is pretty morbid, but this is an argument against building anything there, not a mosque.

A MOSQUE... like the ones the 9/11 killers went to.
So it's evil for parents to let their kids watch The Matrix. THE MATRIX... like the movie the Columbine killers watched incessantly.

I know this may seem like an oversimplification, but a lot of people with lost souls and a completely misguided ideology prayed in a mosque, and used the religion of that mosque incorrectly as motivation for the attacks, then killed themselves, and did it with the belief that they'd be rewarded for it. Similarly, two boys with lost souls and a completely misguided perception of life and adolescent social interactions watched many movies, we're inspired by a misinterpretation of those films, and shot and killed 13 people and injured scores more, then killed themselves, and believed their actions were righteous.

It just seems really, really evil. I don't care if mosques are religious places... there is something dark and disturbing, at least on a subconscious level, about bringing a mosque to Ground Zero. People will see it as a victory mosque, no matter what kind of excuses they give for putting the mosque up.
I sometimes believe in good luck charms. Irrational, maybe, but sometimes we need the irrational to help us. A mosque at Ground Zero is not a good luck charm. It will produce nothing but negative energy. There will probably be a river of slime running underneath of it, like in Ghostbusters 2. Sigourney Weaver's baby will probably get kidnapped by a crossdressed Muslim nanny in an airplane and taken to the mosque to have his body incarnated with one of the spirits of the 9/11 attackers. (Okay, maybe that's in really poor taste to say, but my point is -- NEGATIVE ENERGY!!!)
Well, I don't know about all that good luck charm stuff, but man, that's some pretty freakin' bad negative energy you're talking 'bout there.

I can't speak for those people and I can't speak for the survivors of the victims. I can't speak for all of America. I can't speak for Muslims everywhere. But it does seem like a disrespectful slap in the face to me. I think it's even rather arrogant.
This is fair enough. And though I'm not sure how I feel about this--I'm still processing the whole thing and trying to consider all the components--I definitely agree that it is arrogant. Whether it's done in good faith or not, building a mosque so close to Ground Zero is bold to the point of being disrespectful. The fact that it was even proposed kind of pisses me off. But now that it has been, our response to it will say a lot about the state of our country.
__________________
"I want a film I watch to express either the joy of making cinema or the anguish of making cinema" -Francois Truffaut



i don't care where they put their stupid mosque. They may not broadcast it, but that place is going to be bugged and heavily monitored if it gets built. Half the Muslim worshippers are going to be government agents.
.

SO SO SO SO SO SO true. No matter what. Say the thing gets built and all is honky-dory. 007's are gonna be all over that frikin' place.



I get that that's your opinion. But my question has been, and remains: WHAT IS EVIL ABOUT A MOSQUE? Why is it more evil to build a mosque at this site than it is to build a mini-mart? Or a deli? Or even another 9/11 monument? Mosque-building is not an evil practice, no matter where it takes place.
I'm still tired, but I'm back for this. Mosques are not evil. I am not even against them putting up a mosque several blocks away from Ground Zero. What's insane is putting a mosque up in this old Burlington Coat Factory building where body parts were found.

And the man doing it is, I believe, very arrogant and very attention seeking. He may be trying to provoke discussion -- fair enough. But if he is serious about going through with it... I think he just wants a name for himself. To go down in history as being bold and ballsy.

We don't need anymore bold and ballsy acts done at Ground Zero for a long, long time. What kind of peace message is that? If you want peace so bad, GIVE IT A REST, and let the country - THE COUNTRY! - heal from this mess.



I was gonna take the photo you posted and photoshop some limbs in there, like an arm on the roof, or a leg in front of the sign, but then I realized that would be extremely tasteless and likely get me banned from the site.



I was gonna take the photo you posted and photoshop some limbs in there, like an arm on the roof, or a leg in front of the sign, but then I realized that would be extremely tasteless and likely get me banned from the site.
I had an extremely tasteless thought about something else, as well. I didn't even say it for the same reasons. I think it's probably normal to think such things -- after all, it's been 9 years, and not much else in this world is ever sacred enough to not make fun of it.



that may well be, however am i alone in my disapointment that the NY skyline hasn't been restored?
Nope. If you read my post like twenty down, I agree that this is something that needs to be amended immediately. I'm staying out of the argument of semantics that seems to finds its way into every thread, so I won't comment on the use of Ground Zero. But whatever we choose to call it, and whether changing that name will represent a healing of sorts or be seen as a bad way of forgetting about the events, the memorial needs to go up ASAP.

Out of curiosity, are either of you aware that there are still over 1,000 people missing from 9/11... and that they recovered approximately 72 bodies earlier this year (yes, 2010) from ground zero debris?
__________________
You never know what is enough, until you know what is more than enough.
~William Blake ~

AiSv Nv wa do hi ya do...
(Walk in Peace)




an article to explain the landlord of proposed mosque


Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the Muslim cleric who wants to build a $100 million mosque and community center near Ground Zero in New York City, has received a lot of attention relating to his religious beliefs, but there is another aspect of his life that is worth noting: as a longtime landlord, he has a history of operating poorly maintained housing complexes in New Jersey.

A review of city health documents by the Bergen Record uncovered “page after page” of complaints from tenants of Rauf’s. The problems ranged from failure “to pick up garbage, to rat and bedbug infestations and no heat and hot water.”

Rauf began acquiring and developing apartment buildings in the late 1970s. Since then he has been threatened with multiple foreclosure actions, all of which were settled before foreclosure. In October 2008, Rauf and his wife were sued for alleged fraud when they transferred ownership of an apartment building without telling the holder of their mortgage and then obtained a second mortgage from a bank using the new entity. The case was settled out of court before it went to trial.



Out of curiosity, are either of you aware that there are still over 1,000 people missing from 9/11... and that they recovered approximately 72 bodies earlier this year (yes, 2010) from ground zero debris?
Yes, I knew that. Not all have been positively identified as 9/11 victims, but many have. (And probably most of them will be in time). I don't know what this really has to do with building a memorial though. The developers didn't say, we will wait until we have accounted for every lost victim of the attack before construction. If this were the case, then I would understand their trepidation. But the initial plans were, and still are, to erect the building as quickly after the attack as possible without being hasty. A primary reason for a speedy construction was the fact that the new building would represent America getting back on its feet after taking a huge blow.

They haven't postponed building it at all because they're still trying to find bodies or they feel it's too soon after the attacks or they want the structure to be absolutely perfect. They postponed it for bureaucratic and financial reasons (which I won't repeat because I listed them below). If now they are saying that the reason it has taken so long is because they want to find more bodies or something, that is a completely revisionist lie. That is simply not why they have taken nine years to build the memorial. The conflict of getting the building started has been highly publicized--and criticized--for many years. That is a fact, not an opinion or theory meant to attack the memorial planners.

I won't go into too much more detail, because I think I made these points clear in three or four previous posts. But the point is, the building needs to be erected as soon as possible. Otherwise, basically what's happened is, they will have gone from saying, "this building will represent America's strength in the face of adversity," to, "America will get right back up after this attack, but we just gotta work out exactly how much everyone's paying," to, "making a building takes time to get through the multiple stages of development," to, "the whole reason we're waiting so long is because we're still finding bodies and we don't want to build until we're sure we won't find anymore."



What does everyone think about rebuilding the World Trade Center to look almost like the way it did before?

I could imagine little, subtle differences, but the basic look would be the same as this:



On one hand, I think it would make a lot of people sad to see them again and would not be good for people with post traumatic stress disorder. On the other hand... who cares? This is why waiting a long time to do something can be good. We could wait 25-50-75-100 years before reconstructing the World Trade Center. I think it would be bold and cool to bring the Twin Towers back to the way it was before.

'Cause let me tell you... I hate this:



According to Wikipedia, though:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_World_Trade_Center

This design is apparently on its way. *sigh*

I hate the idea of going from two buildings to one building. To me, it's a profound loss, like losing a testicle or a breast (We should send Nebbit to try to reason with the builders.)

The way things are going, if they ever do decide to build a second new building, it will probably be a mosque!



planet news's Avatar
Registered User
Save the post-modern discussion for the Shoutbox, where it belongs. The discussion here is a mosque. Contribute to the conversation or leave. Also, "pho?" Haha.

You're right, it doesn't exist. America's total population only goes up to 98.4-99.4%.
This really doesn't address my point whatsoever. I guess I have to speak 100% literally with you then: this is an insignificant percentage. Get it? They have essentially no political power or any kind of power within a collective. Their votes are always incidental to the internal conflict raged between the major Christians in office or the citizens of the country itself. And yet they are or have been properly represented in Congress by the 1 or 2 guys ever in history to be elected while atheists certainly do not have the 15-20% of Congress that they deserve. The same goes for women. Their existence in the United States is highly overestimated. Even though they have no real influence, their meaningless presence in Congress and their relationship to the Taliban inflates their perceived numbers. I just want to make sure this is recognized. It is an important part of my stance that you somehow decided to shake off.
Atheists aren't an inherently violent religious group
Implying Muslims are??? Even if you don't admit to it, it's strange that this kind of syntax is used only in relation with Muslims. If we were talking about a Synagogue then maybe you would have said something along the lines of "Atheists aren't an inherently greedy religious group" or some other inherently racist negation. You liberal democrats need to take your own multiculturalist medicine sometimes. Prejudice much???? Sorry, but it's more than just a slip of terms here. You specifically chose to excuse the Atheists by bringing up a tenet of "inherent violence" that I did not bring up.
Originally Posted by planet news
This is a de facto Christian nation. Nothing is ever going to change that. I don't pretend. Any more pretending is a self-deception.
Can't we be Christians who accept all world religions? I don't think being a Christian requires a practitioner to have zero tolerance for other religions. What does that have anything to do with anything?
This is a classic hyperbolic misconstrual of anything I said, which was quite specific. I don't believe I ever said anywhere close to the converse of what you retort my statement with "zero tolerance for other religions" or even that Christianity shouldn't "accept all world religions", whatever this really means, which I don't think you yourself even know. If you don't get what I am saying, then I will explain it to you. It is essentially the same as my other point which you shook off. The problem is that you shook both off for the same reason: what you would like versus what is. Sorry, but if Muslims were exiled from America, almost nothing about it would change. Sorry, but there is no politics or government with Christian influence that exists to any substantial degree in America. I'm sorry if neither of these facts are things you want to come to terms with, but they are important here.
In that sense, building any sort of monument for 9/11 would be forcing the issue.
I'm not sure where this comes from. I never suggested that this kind of property communicates both ways. Again, you have this falsely "pho"-egalitarian fantasy surrounding everything, which is not really idealism, since I don't think you really believe it. Ground zero is in one of the United States proudest cities. It's also the ground zero at which WE were attacked by THEM. It's not some sort of mediating battleground where both sides had equal losses and the generals shake hands. I'm actually quite disturbed by your equating the construction of a memorial to the construction of a Mosque, which is either completely unrelated to (doubtful) or a deliberate insult to the site.

Actually, let me rephrase the latter. It's more a kind of Muslim blackmail of yunz guyz n at's liberal democratic multiculturalist sensibilities.
It need not be done because nothing could ever make up for the events. But I don't think memorials are constructed to heal the wounds or to even out terrible events with a pretty building. They're not trying to force the issue of, "see how bad WWII was?"
The first two sentences are a self-contradiction, but I'll go with the sentiment you ended on. I agree with you there, but a memorial on the site of ground zero constructed by the United States is not the same as a random Mosque placed near the site. I don't know how you go it in your mind that these are somehow equal. I think you want so much for Muslims to be "properly" represented that you are willing to go to this pho-egalitarian stance that even monuments that WE BUILD should somehow be questioned with the same logic as that of a Mosque. No. This is the country that WAS ATTACKED.
The only question becomes whether it being built there is like terrorists putting a flag next to a victory site, or Muslims poking at old, unhealed wounds, or a group building it because it can encourage brotherhood and understanding.
In other words, you mean that these are three mutually exclusive options:

1) The terrorists are putting a flag next to a victory site.
2) Muslims poking at old, unhealed wounds.
3) A group is building it to encourage brotherhood and understanding.


However, the reality is much more like this:

Muslims or pseudo-multiculturalists as yourself are poking at old, "unhealed wounds", in order to force a public, pho/pseudo(whatever you want)-egalitarian confirmation of "brotherhood" and "understanding".

Here my first two points come back. Muslims are not equal with Christians in America. They are nearly non-existent. Civil rights does not mean an absolute equalization of all groups. Egalitarianism does not mean equality for all groups but proportional representation. Multiculturalism stresses "brotherhood" and "understanding", but it's clear now that it's this myth of a common ground of understanding that's mutually exclusive. That's why I love the term "ground zero Mosque". It's trying to force the existence of a zero-level co-existence between Muslims and Christians in order to resolve the divide between them caused by 9/11 for the so-perceived "good, virtuousness" of creating an open society free from hatreds and prejudices.

Sorry, but even if 9/11 didn't happen, prejudices and hatreds would still exist. Sorry, but even if we ignore all the Christian v. Muslim history, hatreds would still exist. Sorry, but this is CULTURE. You're not going to resolve it EVER. Unless you want to destroy culture altogether, which multiculturalists also don't want to do.

Essentially you want to have your Muslim cake and eat it too. Sorry, but they will always taste bad to you because you are a Christian. Unless you want to sprinkle Christian flavoring on it, at which point they are no longer Muslim.

In other words, the multiculturalist cause of "brotherhood" is an ideological lie.

Hell yes, it's making most people feel uncomfortable; it even makes me feel uncomfortable and I don't live in NY. But I think it can serve a purpose other than making us feel uncomfortable.
I just argued that it can't and that this "purpose" is a self-deception that you and other liberal democrats as yourself tell yourself at night to convince yourself that you are good, understanding people. What you don't get is how there will always now be something inherently uncomfortable about a Muslim in America. That's PART OF our cultural relations now. Denying it is denying your own internal dialogue every time you get on a plane with a bunch of Muslims.

Let's be real with ourselves, please.

It's called an apostrophe. Unless this was supposed to be some kind of defusing joke.
__________________
"Loves them? They need them, like they need the air."



Keep on Rockin in the Free World

The way things are going, if they ever do decide to build a second new building, it will probably be a mosque!
Well if the 2nd building was indeed a Mosque, you wouldn't have to worry about muslim extremists attacking that area again is one way too look at it.
__________________
"The greatest danger for most of us is not that our aim is too high and we miss it, but that it is too low and we reach it." - Michelangelo.





This really doesn't address my point whatsoever. I guess I have to speak 100% literally with you then: this is an insignificant percentage. Get it? They have essentially no political power or any kind of power within a collective. Their votes are always incidental to the internal conflict raged between the major Christians in office or the citizens of the country itself. And yet they are or have been properly represented in Congress by the 1 or 2 guys ever in history to be elected while atheists certainly do not have the 15-20% of Congress that they deserve. The same goes for women. Their existence in the United States is highly overestimated. Even though they have no real influence, their meaningless presence in Congress and their relationship to the Taliban inflates their perceived numbers. I just want to make sure this is recognized. It is an important part of my stance that you somehow decided to shake off.
How did I shake this off in any way? I addressed literally every sentence of the section I quoted and was responding to. You said something that I thought was meant to be facetious because it is absurd and completely illogical when taken literally. I therefore responded in kind. If .6-1.6% of the population 'didn't exist' then it wouldn't be represented in a fraction at all. If you have $300 million, 1.6% is almost $5 million. 5 million of anything in comparison with 300 million is pretty small. But that doesn't mean that 5 million doesn't exist. See, cuz if it didn't, there wouldn't be 300 million total anymore. 100% becomes $295 million.

Since I guess I wasn't supposed to take you 100% literally, as you say, I'll try to read deeper into that extremely vague statement that did not directly address the part of my post that you quoted. They represent a small fraction of the American population, yes, but how do you go from that fact to saying they therefore don't deserve recognition, which is what you are clearly saying? A person doesn't get fewer civil liberties or rights because his group is fewer in number than the majority. America in particular is founded on the importance of equality and has many rules and laws enacted specifically to protect a minority group from being ignored or mistreated. My point is, saying Muslims comprise a small part of our country has nothing to do with whether or not one of them should be able to build a mosque. In the same sense, saying that America is mainly comprised of Christians doesn't mean Christians should have first dibs on a plot of land to build a church regardless of ownership.

Let me know if I’m not directly responding to your statement here again. You say the mosque absolutely should not be built. The first reason you cite is the fact that the Muslim presence in America is tiny. You then say Atheists represent a larger fraction of the country than Muslims. I respond by saying the percentage makes no difference in whether or not Muslims have the right to build a mosque or Atheists have the right to build an atheist center. You say Muslims have been proportionately represented in Congress, but Atheists have not been. I say it’s sad atheists have not been better spoken for, (I genuinely feel this way, by the way) but that doesn’t have anything to do with whether or not they should get to build a center. You say my acceptance of an atheist center is me shrugging that idea off.

Then I responded to your atheist statement, I thought, fairly clearly. I wouldn't mind an atheist center. Period. You said they should build an atheist center, I said, okay, they should build an atheist center. But that's irrelevant to the argument we're having because the question isn't which religion should get to stake a claim somewhere because of its popularity, the question is whether or not a Muslim should get to stake a claim in a specific spot. I wasn't trying to shrug it off, I directly responded to your statement. It would take some amazing reading between the lines on my part to know that you actually meant they shouldn't build a mosque because it's not fair that Muslims are proportionally represented in Congress while Atheists are all but ignored. I get what you're saying I think. You're expressing frustration at the amount of attention and significance Muslims are given, when in reality they represent a smaller portion of America than atheists. But why does that mean atheists should therefore get to build a center first?

The woman thing, however, makes no sense to me. Women's presence in America is not overestimated. And their presence in Congress is not inconsequential. And they carry a tremendous amount of influence. Unjustly, not as much as men, but still an amount of influence that can't be completely dismissed. Then the relationship to the Taliban thing completely lost me. How are women in Congress related to the Taliban, and how does this inflate their perceived numbers? Or were you back to Muslims, because that's not really what your phrasing and structure of sentences implies. Not trying to be a stickler for grammar if that's what you meant, but I really don't know how to respond to this because I don't know who exactly you're referring to. Whichever party this statement was in reference to, it still doesn't make sense to me because the Taliban does nothing to inflate the Muslim presence in Congress any more than it does for the female presence in Congress.

Implying Muslims are??? Even if you don't admit to it, it's strange that this kind of syntax is used only in relation with Muslims. If we were talking about a Synagogue then maybe you would have said something along the lines of "Atheists aren't an inherently greedy religious group" or some other inherently racist negation. You liberal democrats need to take your own multiculturalist medicine sometimes. Prejudice much???? Sorry, but it's more than just a slip of terms here.
First of all, that 'syntax' is not used only in relation with Muslims. I can think of literally dozens of social groups that have been given that very label. Apparently, I need to be 100% literal with you as well: my use of the phrase "inherently violent" was completely, (and I mistakenly thought obviously) sarcastic. If you have read any of my previous, I don't know, five posts, you will have seen that I do not in any way equate Islam or Muslims with violence. Quite the contrary. I believe I have actually attacked that precise phraseology several times; this wasn't a "slip of terms" as you say. I was using a rhetorical device in which the incongruity of my words and sentiment were meant to illustrate there is no logical connection between the terminology (inherently violent) and the group being defined (Muslims/Atheists/Canadians/Aliens). But I’ll be clear and literal now: Muslims are NOT inherently violent people; Islam is NOT an inherently violent religion. I don’t condone the building of an atheism center because they aren’t an inherently violent group, but because they are a completely violence-neutral group whose only threat of danger lies in how others perceive them and react to their presence. Kind of like Islam.

You specifically chose to excuse the Atheists by bringing up a tenet of "inherent violence" that I did not bring up.
I specifically chose to excuse the Atheists by bringing up a tenet of "inherent violence" that many people who oppose the mosque's construction have brought up numerous times. I was (apparently unsuccessfully) being ironic.

And for someone who thinks it’s ‘strange’ that I bring up a tenet of inherent violence without you even mentioning it, you didn't seem to have a problem with bringing up synagogues and greed without me mentioning Judaism at all.

Also, I'm not a liberal Democrat and I therefore require no multiculturalist medicines.

This is a classic hyperbolic misconstrual of anything I said, which was quite specific. I don't believe I ever said anywhere close to the converse of what you retort my statement with "zero tolerance for other religions" or even that Christianity shouldn't "accept all world religions", whatever this really means, which I don't think you yourself even know. If you don't get what I am saying, then I will explain it to you. It is essentially the same as my other point which you shook off. The problem is that you shook both off for the same reason: what you would like versus what is. Sorry, but if Muslims were exiled from America, almost nothing about it would change. Sorry, but there is no politics or government with Christian influence that exists to any substantial degree in America. I'm sorry if neither of these facts are things you want to come to terms with, but they are important here.
This is what you said: This is a de facto Christian nation. Nothing is ever going to change that. I don't pretend. Any more pretending is a self-deception. You say this in support of why a mosque shouldn’t be built. “If you don’t get what I am saying, then I will explain it to you--” I made some assumptions here, but not very fantastic ones, in connecting these concepts: First, I linked the notion that we are a de facto Christian nation with the idea of having a mosque. Why would us being Christians in any way logically lead to opposing a mosque? I guess because Christianity holds that you don’t support the construction of religious structures for other religions. Next, I thought of what this opinion implies. I came up with, Christianity opposes the construction of a mosque because they do not tolerate the religion of that mosque. I guess I could have jumped first to saying Christians aren’t comfortable with a mosque and therefore it isn’t a good idea to build it. But this represents an opinion and would be a really weak argument coming from you in particular. That’s saying, well, we don’t really get along too well, so that is clear evidence of why we absolutely shouldn’t allow this guy to build a mosque. And maybe I could have specified Islam in general instead of all world religions. But if that’s what you mean, then you’re basically arguing that, no, I never said we shouldn’t tolerate all world religions, just Islam. But neither of those interpretations would offer definitive proof in itself of why a mosque should not be built, as I think you’re attempting to do. Now, saying that America is Christian-and Christianity is opposed to Islam-and Christians should have say as to what goes where since they comprise a majority-and since they oppose Islam a mosque shouldn’t be built, is logic I can trail and follows a pragmatism more akin to your argument style. The only problem is, that logic is flawed.

But to address your words directly… First of all, if you want to nitpick every single sentence to point out its contradictions or explain why it technically doesn't apply to the statement it's responding to--and it seems you do--then this sentence is almost diametrically opposed to your statement about the nonexistence of politics or government with Christian influence in America. We are the government. If we are in fact a de facto Christian nation, and we, as you imply, measure our actions in accordance with this label, then aren't the actions we take as a country influenced by our Christianity?

But we’re not the government, you will skeptically say (even though we really are), the people we elect are. Fine, but I know of zero members of Congress who will deny consulting with a higher power of some sort, and this higher power is usually God as Christians see him. I say I know of none, not there are none. Now’s a good time to clarify this to save you the trouble of Wiki’ing which Congressmen believe in God so you can attack my stance with more misreadings and broad, largely inaccurate assumptions about me. And a vast majority of Americans value some form of religious adherence in their leaders. Whenever one politician seems to subscribe to fringe beliefs, or doesn’t seem fervent enough in his faith, his opponent will undoubtedly attack his character as if this ignorance of religion would impair his abilities as a leader. But why would this hurt a candidate if Americans don’t want a Christian influence in their government and politics? In yearly polls conducted for decades, an alarming percentage of Americans routinely say their president does not rely enough on his religious beliefs when considering decisions he makes for the country. The point here isn’t that presidents aren’t relying on religion so there’s no Christian influence in government, as I’m sure you’re itching to point out, but that Americans think they should consult their religious beliefs for political guidance in the first place.

Maybe I need to also clarify my definition of "world religions." I thought this was a rather obvious expression that required no deeper examination, but I guess I need to waste more space and explain what these world religions are and prove to you that I know them and am thus worthy of debating with you. I refer to all major world religions. Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Taoism, Confucianism, Gnosticism, Atheism, and all the other religions generally accepted and practiced in large portions of a population in any given country. This does not mean a religion in which the higher power is blood and members kill people to be rewarded in the afterlife. This does not mean a religion in which the primary goal of the movement is to harm others. I need to say that before you make more assumptions about me and say I think Americans should support an obscure religion that rapes babies ceremoniously.

I’m dying to know, what, in your opinion, is what "I would like," and what is "what is?" How do you know what I would like to be the case and how do I know that you actually know what the reality is? And if Muslims left America, nothing would change? What the hell does that matter in this conversation?! How does this in any way support your opinion that a Muslim who does live in America should not build a mosque? If every other Muslim in America left besides him, and he owned the property and wanted to build a mosque, then he should still be able to build a mosque, assuming he follows the regulations any developer must in building a public structure.

I'm not sure where this comes from. I never suggested that this kind of property communicates both ways. Again, you have this falsely "pho"-egalitarian fantasy surrounding everything, which is not really idealism, since I don't think you really believe it. Ground zero is in one of the United States proudest cities. It's also the ground zero at which WE were attacked by THEM.

This is what you said: The price of equalizing that area was the price of those buildings and the people in it. Nothing more needs to be done. We do not need to force the issue. You are only deceiving yourself that it's doing anything but making people uncomfortable. How am I wrong for assuming this applies to building a mosque, but not to building a memorial? So building a mosque purportedly meant to encourage acceptance (and we really have no reason to presume there’s an ulterior motive) forces the issue and could never equal the price of those buildings and the people in it, but building another building (even one dedicated to the memory of the victims) can? I think a memorial can work positively in the community and our country, but I think a mosque might also. But following your rule that the only way to make up for the damage and avoid forcing the issue is to equal the lives of the victims and the buildings themselves, then even a memorial falls short here. And what are the “both ways” that are being communicated? Is one way a mosque-and that can’t work, and the opposite way is a memorial-and that can work? Why is a mosque bad in the same way that a memorial is good?

Ground zero is where WE were attacked by TERRORISTS. Not Muslims as a group. If the ‘them’ refers to the former, then it should have nothing to do with building a mosque, because THEY aren't the ones behind it; if it refers to the latter, then you should probably look in the mirror before you accuse me of being prejudiced.

And you do not know what I do or don’t believe in.

It's not some sort of mediating battleground where both sides had equal losses and the generals shake hands. I'm actually quite disturbed by your equating the construction of a memorial to the construction of a Mosque, which is either completely unrelated to (doubtful) or a deliberate insult to the site.
So the man building the mosque is either oblivious the same way Glenn Beck was in choosing the anniversaries of MLK's I Have a Dream speech and 9/11 for holding major rallies, OR he is deliberately insulting the site? That's it? There can't be more to it--it's one or the other? There are several options you completely overlook here. Like, maybe it is directly related to its location and is in no way a deliberate insult to the site. In fact, why would you assume it's a deliberate insult in the first place?

Don’t be disturbed. I’m not saying the mosque should be built in the footstep of WTC and should be America’s sole representation of rebuilding after the attacks. That would be equating it to the memorial being built at ground zero. It’s one mosque outside of ground zero, and we already have multiple projects underway on the actual ground zero. I’m saying we shouldn’t dismiss the mosque when it could be a fine demonstration of renewal after the attacks. Freedom Tower is nice and all, and it does illustrate our country’s resolve in a way, ignoring the red tape nightmare that was getting the project off the ground. But we erect buildings every day, many of which are far more ambitious than the projects going on in New York. The building is so important because it is a message. Wouldn’t building a mosque in New York send an even stronger message? That we are willing to understand and accept Islam, and to avoid falling into the trap of attacking people who look like the perpetrators but in fact are not them? The only thing I’m equating is the construction of one symbol to the construction of another, in another place, while still giving more attention to the primary symbol--the memorial.

I’m not sure if you’re saying I’m deliberately insulting the site, or the man building it is. But let me be clear: I’m not. The battleground thing only proves that we shouldn’t let terrorists build near ground zero. But we aren’t; the only thing the terrorists and the people who hope to pray in the mosque share in common is their religion, and they have radically and fundamentally different interpretations of it. And the entire landscape of Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan were not some sort of mediating battleground where both sides had equal losses and the generals shake hands either. And none of those places are on American soil (until we claimed it), and no American rightfully owns the land; so I would say the guy has more of a right to build a mosque in America than an American does to build an oil well in Iraq. I’m not trying to start s___ here with the whole ‘blood for oil’ diatribe, but you made the connection to battleground as if that had something to do with proprietary ownership and such.

Actually, let me rephrase the latter. It's more a kind of Muslim blackmail of yunz guyz n at's liberal democratic multiculturalist sensibilities.
I'm not trying to be funny or dismissive here, but I have no idea what this means.

The first two sentences are a self-contradiction, but I'll go with the sentiment you ended on. I agree with you there, but a memorial on the site of ground zero constructed by the United States is not the same as a random Mosque placed near the site. I don't know how you go it in your mind that these are somehow equal. I think you want so much for Muslims to be "properly" represented that you are willing to go to this pho-egalitarian stance that even monuments that WE BUILD should somehow be questioned with the same logic as that of a Mosque. No. This is the country that WAS ATTACKED.

Yes. The first two sentences you quoted were meant to contradict. That’s why the second sentence began with ‘but.’ Here’s the entirety of what I said: In that sense, building any sort of monument for 9/11 would be forcing the issue. It need not be done because nothing could ever make up for the events. But I don't think memorials are constructed to heal the wounds or to even out terrible events with a pretty building. That was in response to the whole bit I addressed above. I’ll break down the paragraph for you. I was following the logic of what it would take to ‘not be forcing the issue’. If a mosque that could potentially foster peace and symbolize a bold new direction in American-Islamic relations isn’t enough, neither is a building that says how sad the events were. But I don’t actually adhere to your rule. So my first sentence is saying what I thought your statement implied (and I addressed it above so I’m not going to defend it here and you don’t have to retort here), then my second sentence is a continuation of the first one. That’s why it begins with the word ‘it’ instead of ‘building.’ I was already referring to the building, I just don’t want to repeat it in consecutive sentences. Then the third sentence is my opinion, which stands in opposition to what I thought your statement implied. Hence, the ‘but,’ and a return to the noun (‘building/memorial’). It is an entirely new statement that takes the paragraph in a different direction.

Moving past this grammar lesson that I realize now comes across as a little condescending, they’re not building a ‘random mosque.’ The mosque and cultural center serves a very specific purpose and its location helps to vocalize that purpose. I don’t think the guy is expecting anyone to believe he randomly chose the spot, or that he disregarded the fact that an attack that literally changed our nation—the world—forever less than a decade ago was carried out by people whom everyone instinctively connects with his religion. You “don’t know how [i] got in my mind that these are somehow equal?” I don’t know how you got into your mind the notion that I’m in favor of a mosque instead of a memorial because they’re equal or would represent the same thing for NY and the country. They are building a memorial; it’s already several stories above ground. They are planning on building an entire complex, which amounts to a memorial; these structures are already underway. In addition to all this—not in place of it, it would not be a bad thing to build a mosque near-not at--the site, not even a close enough distance to be seen from ground zero, as this could also be a positive addition to the city.


Who is WE exactly? Americans greatly affected by the attacks? The Imam masterminding the project is an Arab American. As in an American citizen. On top of that, he is the head of a mosque in New York. Plus, he deals every day with people who think he hates America and wants to kill everyone as a direct result of the attacks. He too was greatly affected by the tragedy. He probably even knew people who died that day. If the WE who were ATTACKED are all Americans, then he should be included in this. And this isn’t some pho-egalitarian stance. The people who will worship in the mosque are American. You have fallen into this us and them trap when in reality, it's just us vs. us. Any structure built should be given as much examination as a mosque. Why is a mosque different than any other building? An American will be building it, to serve his purposes and the purposes of the community as a whole. I assume that's pretty much the intent of everyone who seeks to construct a building.

In other words, you mean that these are three mutually exclusive options:

1) The terrorists are putting a flag next to a victory site.
2) Muslims poking at old, unhealed wounds.
3) A group is building it to encourage brotherhood and understanding.


However, the reality is much more like this:

Muslims or pseudo-multiculturalists as yourself are poking at old, "unhealed wounds", in order to force a public, pho/pseudo(whatever you want)-egalitarian confirmation of "brotherhood" and "understanding".

Yes, I see these as mutually exclusive options. I highly doubt the Imam t is a terrorist putting a flag next to a victory site and simultaneously trying to encourage brotherhood and understanding with his eternal enemy. I highly doubt he is a non-terrorist Muslim poking at old unhealed wounds to garner attention and instigate Americans while at the same time trying to encourage brotherhood and understanding. And I highly doubt he is both a terrorist putting a flag next to a victory site and a non-terrorist Muslim poking an old, unhealed wound for attention.

Again, not a multiculturalist, nor a Muslim, and I’m not trying to force some chiefly superficial image of brotherhood to affirm my feelings that this can be a peaceful country. The wounds won’t heal until we address them. I think the mosque and cultural center is a tasteful proposition. It is not meant as a slap in the face to Americans. How do you come to that conclusion? That would only be the case if the Imam were a terrorist—which he is not—trying to display his daring with little care for how it will reflect on his religion and people—which he is not.

Here my first two points come back. Muslims are not equal with Christians in America. They are nearly non-existent. Civil rights does not mean an absolute equalization of all groups. Egalitarianism does not mean equality for all groups but proportional representation. Multiculturalism stresses "brotherhood" and "understanding", but it's clear now that it's this myth of a common ground of understanding that's mutually exclusive.
So, basically, you’re labeling me a civil rights activist, an egalitarian, and a multiculturalist, and then saying why my opinions on this matter don’t run parallel to the tenets of those belief systems. Shouldn’t that tell you something? Like maybe I’m not the things you assume I am? But that’s besides the point. Here’s your basic logic: Muslims are not as strongly represented in the population as Christians. This is why a mosque shouldn’t be built near ground zero. Ad hominem? [shoutbox] More like ignoratio elenchi. The number of Muslims in the country has literally, absolutely, unequivocally nothing to do with this conversation. You say I’m choosing to ignore that fact. But throughout your argument you have refused to ignore the fact that much of the hate directed at the mosque proposal is fueled by hate and racism (Not by you or anyone on this thread that I know of. Really, I know you’re not a racist, as you have done nothing to announce yourself as such). You know why I don’t care though? Because that’s completely irrelevant. Your saying that the mosque shouldn’t be built because there are so few, completely inconsequential Muslims in America is just as valid as my saying the mosque should be built because opponents of it are just racists. That is, not valid at all. So let’s both ignore both of those facts.

That's why I love the term "ground zero Mosque". It's trying to force the existence of a zero-level co-existence between Muslims and Christians in order to resolve the divide between them caused by 9/11 for the so-perceived "good, virtuousness" of creating an open society free from hatreds and prejudices.
Skeptical much? With this statement, you are basically coming across as so skeptical that you question the very virtue of a society free from hatred and prejudice. ‘So-perceived’ goodness? This seems like tangible, corporeal goodness. Why would you attack someone for striving for a peaceful co-existence between Muslims and Christians? This just makes it seem like you don’t want that to occur. Co-existence between blacks and whites for most of this country’s history wasn’t too great either, until that problem was addressed head on with legislation and an entire movement. Same with the Irish and the rest of America, and Asians for a while, and Hispanic people right now, and many other groups that are slowly but surely being accepted equally with the majority.

Sorry, but even if 9/11 didn't happen, prejudices and hatreds would still exist. Sorry, but even if we ignore all the Christian v. Muslim history, hatreds would still exist. Sorry, but this is CULTURE. You're not going to resolve it EVER. Unless you want to destroy culture altogether, which multiculturalists also don't want to do.

Hatred existing is another fact that does nothing to support your argument of why a mosque shouldn’t be built. That could possibly work in the “it could lead to violence” stance, but we’ve agreed this is not the argument we’re trying to prove. It doesn’t need proof; it’s obvious. But let’s take that thought for a moment. Hatred will always exist, so there is no need to try to break that cycle of hate. Racism and sexism will always exist as well, but that never stopped people from trying to combat those societal ills. CULTURE changes. It doesn’t remain the same forEVER, and you know this. And hatred is a facet of culture that can be addressed. To say that it is culture and culture is static and therefore we can’t ever stop hatred and should not try is defeatist.

Or maybe I just want to destroy culture. Hmm. I guess that means I’m not a multiculturalist. Funny, I was so sure I was.

Essentially you want to have your Muslim cake and eat it too. Sorry, but they will always taste bad to you because you are a Christian. Unless you want to sprinkle Christian flavoring on it, at which point they are no longer Muslim.
I'm not a Christian. I have never said I'm a Christian. I have never insinuated that I'm a Christian. Our country, as you have pointed out, is largely Christian, and in identifying the country I have often used the collective we. But that’s because I’m a citizen of this country, not because I hold fast to all its values and mores. You’re an American citizen who supports Communism, right? When you make the factual statement, “We are a democratic republic,” does that mean you support this form of government? No, it means the country in which you reside practices that form of government. And if you’re referring to other Christians, not me, then this is another defeatist statement. Just because someone is a Christian doesn’t automatically mean he is magically at odds with Islam. The two don’t have to have any overlap. I know many, many Christians who could care less about other people and how they practice their faith. I know many more who do care about how other people practice their faith but are not repulsed by it.

In other words, the multiculturalist cause of "brotherhood" is an ideological lie.
Umm. No.

I just argued that it can't and that this "purpose" is a self-deception that you and other liberal democrats as yourself tell yourself at night to convince yourself that you are good, understanding people. What you don't get is how there will always now be something inherently uncomfortable about a Muslim in America. That's PART OF our cultural relations now. Denying it is denying your own internal dialogue every time you get on a plane with a bunch of Muslims. Let's be real with ourselves, please.
You argued this? I must have missed the part where you clearly explained why it is utterly impossible for a mosque to in any way serve a purpose other than making people feel uncomfortable. I am not a liberal democrat; I’m not a good person; and I’m hardly understanding. I don’t delude myself at night with hippie yearnings and idealistic thoughts to try to hide these facts. My opinions on this issue are in no way motivated by a need to make myself feel better. I’m not directly or even indirectly affected by the outcome of this entire situation. You don’t know me, stop trying to label me and speculate reasons behind my opinions based on five paragraphs written by me that you misinterpreted.

“Let’s be real with ourselves?” Okay. You accused me earlier of being prejudiced, which I am clearly not. Then you go on in that same paragraph to use a stereotype that I never even mentioned to illustrate a point that was hollow in the first place. Then you say you’d be uncomfortable flying with “a bunch of Muslims.” Now you’re saying there will always be something inherently uncomfortable about a Muslim in America. A, you know you are speaking about this idea with more authority than you actually have. And B, this speaks volumes more about any prejudices you may have than a sarcastic comment that I clearly made in jest says about my prejudices. Don’t speak for the entire country. If you feel there will always be something inherently uncomfortable with a Muslim in America, you need to ask yourself why you feel that way. Don’t try to justify these feelings by saying the rest of the country now and always will share in that discomfort. If you don’t feel this way, then don’t assume the rest of the country does and always will. Social dynamics are always changing—they are dynamic. We can look to the past for clues to the future, but we can’t predict the future. And the overwhelming message America’s past tells us is we’ve gone through a lot of stages of hate and overcome them with due time, a little uneasiness, and a lot of effort.

I fly internationally several times a year, and take multiple plane rides each trip, each way. I have been on several flights with Muslims (or at least people I think were Muslim, though you can’t tell by looking at anyone what their religion is). I’m pretty sure I shared an armrest with one when I went to Paris earlier this year. Never, and I mean never, have I ever given any thought to what their reasons were for being on that plane. Never, ever was I apprehensive about my safety on the flight. Never, ever did I look at them any differently than anyone else on the plane. I’ll save you the typing and respond to the skepticism you will inevitably answer with. I’m not lying to myself or denying my true feelings, there really are people who don’t see color or do and don’t allow it to affect their interactions with others, and I’m not the only person in the world who feels this way.

It's called an apostrophe. Unless this was supposed to be some kind of defusing joke.
What’s supposed to be an apostrophe? I’m not playing dumb, I really don’t know what the apostrophe is referring to. But yes, it was supposed to be an off-hand, not-meant-to-be-analyzed joke. I didn’t know you were gonna be so serious face about your response to a post that was pretty clearly casual and light-hearted. But here, I hope I sufficiently addressed each of your queries with equal seriousness and maturity.



planet news's Avatar
Registered User
@C&W: Cool story, bro!

Originally Posted by planet news
Originally Posted by Cries&Whispers
Originally Posted by planet news
.......typical post-modern pho-multiculturalist attitude of tolerance.
Save the post-modern discussion for the Shoutbox, where it belongs. The discussion here is a mosque. Contribute to the conversation or leave. Also, "pho?" Haha.


===

Before I begin, I just wanted to remind you that we are here men and women of letters, so to speak, and that, fortunately, none of this business is directly in our hands.

Also, if you sense that I’m attempting to overwhelm you by going into particulars ad nauseum, I only want to remind you that by creating multi-paragraph responses to single paragraphs, it was actually you who initiated the exponentiation of this discussion. Keep in mind that I clearly do not mind this kind of thing; I merely wanted to assure you that this is not some sort of satire. I would’ve considered it disrespecting of your efforts to not have done this.

===

LET THE OMNISLASH COMMENCE . . .

If you have $300 million, 1.6% is almost $5 million. 5 million of anything in comparison with 300 million is pretty small. But that doesn't mean that 5 million doesn't exist. See, cuz if it didn't, there wouldn't be 300 million total anymore. 100% becomes $295 million.
I’d like to begin here by stating a simple observation in order to more precisely explain what I meant. The observation is this: doesn’t a house always seem bigger on the inside than the outside? Isn’t the sheer fact that you are within a house---and thus inevitably closer to the interior of the walls---hard, empirical proof of this phenomenon? And yet, as we all know, the house cannot and does not change size. Still, can we ever avoid this sense of spatial distention? In other words, there are some empirical facts that we may never properly relate to because of the limited stance of perception we are always forced to observe these facts from. To bring it back to your retort, there is simply no way to relate to the 300 million or 5 million that you are referring to in any meaningful way. Contrary to your suggestion, it is not at all appropriate to group together the 5 million (and the proportion may be far less as the range actually extends to less than 3 million) for the purpose of suggesting mass when those five million are about as diffuse as electrons in the grasp of an atom. When put in relatable terms, the massiveness of the 5 million is shown to be deceptive; you actually meet about 1 Muslim in 100. To go even further, the distributions are not, and have no reason to be, “proper” enough to where the 1.6%-0.6% should ever be expected in the first place. Whole towns of thousands can be host to no Muslims at all or, for that matter, blacks or any other minority of your choice. To say the Muslim does not exist is an empirically absurd notion, but so is the idea that the house you are in is bigger on the inside than the outside. Yet, in subjective reality, such a small proportion can in fact disappear. This is a rather fine point of distinction that is often ignored in discussions about religious tolerance, because it makes it easier to interpret politics under a pluralist agenda. Unfortunately, society is not as naturally homogenous as our monadic political playing field might suggest.

Thus, when a culturally diverse city like New York appears---and “appears” is the key word here---to have a good proportion of Muslims, the reality of the existence of Muslim-Americans as a whole remains a really very different matter for the reasons I developed above.

While effectively Muslims “should be”---and I mean this in a purely sociological way, not in the active, antagonistic stance that you often accuse me of taking---perceived as barely existent, as a rare oddity in our largely Christian society, they are instead mostly judged by their 5 million number, as you have just so pointed out to me in your initial explication.

They represent a small fraction of the American population, yes, but how do you go from that fact to saying they therefore don't deserve recognition, which is what you are clearly saying?
Actually, this is what I said:
Originally Posted by planet news
They are or have been properly represented in Congress by the 1 or 2 guys ever in history to be elected while atheists certainly do not have the 15-20% of Congress that they deserve. The same goes for women. Their existence in the United States is highly overestimated. Even though they have no real influence, their meaningless presence in Congress and their relationship to the Taliban inflates their perceived numbers. I just want to make sure this is recognized.
You’ll notice that I never questioned their deservedness, but rather, I touted the greater deservedness of other underrepresented groups. If anything, they are exactly represented, but they are certainly not overrepresented. Jews are a classic example of an overrepresented group, as their population is not that much higher than Muslims.

A person doesn't get fewer civil liberties or rights because his group is fewer in number than the majority.
I’m not sure where this comes from either. Notice that I never once mentioned civil liberties or rights in my previous reply. Furthermore, this debate is clearly not about civil liberties at all. It would be if I had ever claimed that the Mosque should not be allowed to be built. Whether the decision to build it makes sense or has any positive justification is what I am questioning. Civil liberties are a given in this playing field, as they should be in any discussion worth having. I am in full support of allowing Nazi gatherings in towns with Jewish citizens, but I am not in support of the gatherings themselves. I don’t believe I obfuscated this distinction, and, again, it worries me that you are trying to bring in nonrelated issues in order to point out an ethical ambiguity. If I were to call for a restriction of civil liberties (as, let’s say, the Patriot Act does), I would have surely chosen a more hot-button issue than the building of a Mosque. Perhaps I would have rather imprisoned Lady Gaga without a trial or banned AMC for claiming to be a channel devoted to film while showing commercial during films. Why not execute the Nazi sympathizers before the architects of the Mosque? Your claim that I called for a reduction of Muslim civil liberties based solely on their overrepresentation in Congress is incorrect as I have just shown. I merely wanted to draw attention to the true underrepresentations and the true reductions of civil rights (whether it be evolution vs. intelligent design in school textbooks or the enforcement of equal wages for both sexes) that result from it. I do not believe I am being revisionist here. If you reread what I wrote before, I think it is quite clear that I was merely pointing out the rather large positive influence that Muslims wield in America. In other words, they are not by any means a persecuted group, either socially or politically. I do not think this is a radical attitude but a fair one.

America in particular is founded on the importance of equality and has many rules and laws enacted specifically to protect a minority group from being ignored or mistreated.
It’s interesting that you perceive it this way, since there are many documents---namely The Federalist Papers---that explicitly show how minority rights were fought for much more in relation to elitist, oligarchical rule than simply the democratic preservation of a minority. It was the elite minority that the founding fathers were referring to here, which, conveniently, are comprised of the founding fathers themselves. The rather hated and obsolete Electoral College is today a fond remnant of their desire to preserve an elite minority and their fear of plebian “mob rule”.

My point is, saying Muslims comprise a small part of our country has nothing to do with whether or not one of them should be able to build a mosque. In the same sense, saying that America is mainly comprised of Christians doesn't mean Christians should have first dibs on a plot of land to build a church regardless of ownership.
Just to reiterate what was written before: saying something is not allowed and disapproving of the motives are two different things. Also, I in no way suggested a demeriting or degrading of Muslim influence in America. I only wanted to make it clear that their influence is either proportional to their numbers or even overrepresented---I tend to feel the latter, since, as I pointed out, their population renders them effectively nonexistent---and that there are major groups such as women and Atheists that are severely underrepresented.

Let me know if I’m not directly responding to your statement here again. You say the mosque absolutely should not be built. The first reason you cite is the fact that the Muslim presence in America is tiny. You then say Atheists represent a larger fraction of the country than Muslims. I respond by saying the percentage makes no difference in whether or not Muslims have the right to build a mosque or Atheists have the right to build an atheist center. You say Muslims have been proportionately represented in Congress, but Atheists have not been. I say it’s sad atheists have not been better spoken for, (I genuinely feel this way, by the way) but that doesn’t have anything to do with whether or not they should get to build a center. You say my acceptance of an atheist center is me shrugging that idea off.
I think by now you can understand your own misreading, or rather, extreme simplification of my statements.
1. “You say the mosque absolutely should not be built.” No. I say that the builders of the Mosque are doing bad by building the Mosque, and that it will be a destructive move that will yield nothing. This is not the same as saying that I want policemen to shoot the construction workers of the Mosque.

2. “You then say Atheists represent a larger fraction of the country than Muslims. I respond by saying the percentage makes no difference in whether or not Muslims have the right to build a mosque or Atheists have the right to build an atheist center.” You’re right, it shouldn’t matter. Again, I did not speak about “rights”. This is a gross mystification of my rhetorical position that renders any criticism to the extreme. This is as if our disapproval of Fight Club is the same as disapproving of the right of David Fincher to have adapted Fight Club.

3. “You say my acceptance of an atheist center is me shrugging that idea off.” Yes, I do, because an Atheist center is not the same as a Muslim Mosque, because of the nature of the Mosque in relation to the Ground Zero site as well as the much greater stigma against Atheism as opposed to Islam despite the extremely large proportion of Atheists in relation to Muslims.
This entire debate is, in the end, about the Mosque and Ground Zero. I have done nothing but address this issue specifically.

Then I responded to your atheist statement, I thought, fairly clearly. I wouldn't mind an atheist center. Period. You said they should build an atheist center, I said, okay, they should build an atheist center. But that's irrelevant to the argument we're having because the question isn't which religion should get to stake a claim somewhere because of its popularity, the question is whether or not a Muslim should get to stake a claim in a specific spot. I wasn't trying to shrug it off, I directly responded to your statement. It would take some amazing reading between the lines on my part to know that you actually meant they shouldn't build a mosque because it's not fair that Muslims are proportionally represented in Congress while Atheists are all but ignored. I get what you're saying I think. You're expressing frustration at the amount of attention and significance Muslims are given, when in reality they represent a smaller portion of America than atheists. But why does that mean atheists should therefore get to build a center first?
At this point my retorts are becoming monotonous, but your reiteration of your civil liberties stance is very revealing. Indeed, what you are calling for is the practice of tolerance. You want to tolerate the building of the Mosque. Not surprisingly, as a sane human being and an American, so do I. But, where you want to stop and claim that merely tolerating the construction of the Mosque will actually improve cultural relations, I say that they will damage them or at least have no effect whatsoever. Also, the physical opposition to the Mosque is a reality and if the effect of a Mosque near Ground Zero is going to be an overall destructive exercise, I am severely disappointed in anyone who wants to deliberately cause strife. As to the building of the Mosque, I would never stop it even if I had the police power of Stalin himself. Nothing can stop me from criticizing its construction though, which is what I am doing now.

The woman thing, however, makes no sense to me. Women's presence in America is not overestimated. And their presence in Congress is not inconsequential. And they carry a tremendous amount of influence. Unjustly, not as much as men, but still an amount of influence that can't be completely dismissed. Then the relationship to the Taliban thing completely lost me. How are women in Congress related to the Taliban, and how does this inflate their perceived numbers? Or were you back to Muslims, because that's not really what your phrasing and structure of sentences implies. Not trying to be a stickler for grammar if that's what you meant, but I really don't know how to respond to this because I don't know who exactly you're referring to. Whichever party this statement was in reference to, it still doesn't make sense to me because the Taliban does nothing to inflate the Muslim presence in Congress any more than it does for the female presence in Congress.
It seems you are unable to think in terms of perception. You are still rigidly set in purely empirical terms. As if I believe that the Taliban somehow increase Muslim presence! Your confusion is justified on the level that you cannot accept the reality of appearance over fact. Tell me, do you truly believe that politics is a mechanistically operated set of procedures involving clear-cut facts? I would tend to think that most people have already come to accept politics---at least with something so superficial as our political playing field is---on the grounds of it being a game of appearances.

So, to get to this issue, it is my claim that the post-9/11 role of the Taliban as our (i.e. the United States’) chief enemy has in fact caused a hypersensitive focus on Muslims in our country, and thus, inflates their perceived numbers by sheer effect of their media exposure. In other words, we think there are more Muslims in the U.S. than there actually are, and, as I have shown, there are really very few.

But, as you know, I have already said this.

Originally Posted by planet news
Implying Muslims are??? Even if you don't admit to it, it's strange that this kind of syntax is used only in relation with Muslims. If we were talking about a Synagogue then maybe you would have said something along the lines of "Atheists aren't an inherently greedy religious group" or some other inherently racist negation. You liberal democrats need to take your own multiculturalist medicine sometimes. Prejudice much???? Sorry, but it's more than just a slip of terms here.
If you have read any of my previous, I don't know, five posts, you will have seen that I do not in any way equate Islam or Muslims with violence. Quite the contrary. I believe I have actually attacked that precise phraseology several times; this wasn't a "slip of terms" as you say. I was using a rhetorical device in which the incongruity of my words and sentiment were meant to illustrate there is no logical connection between the terminology (inherently violent) and the group being defined (Muslims/Atheists/Canadians/Aliens). But I’ll be clear and literal now: Muslims are NOT inherently violent people; Islam is NOT an inherently violent religion. I don’t condone the building of an atheism center because they aren’t an inherently violent group, but because they are a completely violence-neutral group whose only threat of danger lies in how others perceive them and react to their presence. Kind of like Islam.
You’ve missed the point of my critique then, if this is how you respond. Of course these are the things you say in order to appear (again, the power of appearances) unprejudiced when, in actuality, whether consciously or subconsciously, there does exist a clear association of Muslims with violence, at least in your mind.

I specifically chose to excuse the Atheists by bringing up a tenet of "inherent violence" that many people who oppose the mosque's construction have brought up numerous times. I was (apparently unsuccessfully) being ironic.
This is possible, and I accept it fully.

And for someone who thinks it’s ‘strange’ that I bring up a tenet of inherent violence without you even mentioning it, you didn't seem to have a problem with bringing up synagogues and greed without me mentioning Judaism at all.
Precisely my point. It is a common stereotype of Jews that is well-known enough to be common conversational currency, no pun intended (or was this a “slip of terms”?). Do I associate Jews with greediness myself? I’d like not to think so, but you can never be sure of yourself. Prejudice and racism is not the same thing, mind you. Almost everyone is prejudiced, but few are still racist. Racism is when an active attempt at increasing inequality has been incorporated into some internal fantasy. Prejudice is looking twice at a Muslim at an airport. To deny prejudice is to deny human nature. I do not think this view is unpopular or esoteric in any way.

With all the news coverage of the Iraq war and 9/11 itself, the stereotype that all Muslims are inherently prone to violence is not much of a stretch.

Also, I'm not a liberal Democrat and I therefore require no multiculturalist medicines.
What is your claimed political party then, and if you don’t actively associate with a party, what is your rating of your personal political views?

Originally Posted by planet news
This is a classic hyperbolic misconstrual of anything I said, which was quite specific. I don't believe I ever said anywhere close to the converse of what you retort my statement with "zero tolerance for other religions" or even that Christianity shouldn't "accept all world religions", whatever this really means, which I don't think you yourself even know. If you don't get what I am saying, then I will explain it to you. It is essentially the same as my other point which you shook off. The problem is that you shook both off for the same reason: what you would like versus what is. Sorry, but if Muslims were exiled from America, almost nothing about it would change. Sorry, but there is no politics or government with Christian influence that exists to any substantial degree in America. I'm sorry if neither of these facts are things you want to come to terms with, but they are important here.
Why would us being Christians in any way logically lead to opposing a mosque? I guess because Christianity holds that you don’t support the construction of religious structures for other religions. Next, I thought of what this opinion implies. I came up with, Christianity opposes the construction of a mosque because they do not tolerate the religion of that mosque. I guess I could have jumped first to saying Christians aren’t comfortable with a mosque and therefore it isn’t a good idea to build it.
Tolerance is not a solution for intolerance. The solution goes much deeper. Christianity is not just a religion; it’s a culture. For that matter, so is Islam. Both represent unique collective identity that is not just personal and individual but also part of an overlapping whole. These monikers for these wholes are Christianity and Islam. What I am saying is that Christians would in fact tolerate the construction of a Mosque, but that it would never go beyond this. You may ask “why?”, and the answer is relatively simple if you can understand the view of culture as universal identity and tolerance as a personal gesture. Your view reverses this notion in that culture then becomes a personal, private gesture, and tolerance is then subsequently universal. It is this idea that sheer tolerance will create social harmony that makes you a multiculturalist and a liberal democrat in your social ideology. I for one do not believe in the concept of a universal tolerance. In other words, there is no such thing as being cultureless.

That’s saying, well, we don’t really get along too well, so that is clear evidence of why we absolutely shouldn’t allow this guy to build a mosque. And maybe I could have specified Islam in general instead of all world religions. But if that’s what you mean, then you’re basically arguing that, no, I never said we shouldn’t tolerate all world religions, just Islam.
”Get along” is not the same as tolerance, which is what you suggested. You believe that tolerance will cause “getting along” when I say that it will only breed more problems, because people are fundamentally incapable of tolerating in the theoretically pure sense of the concept. There was a reason for my calling you out of your specific prejudice. I wanted to show you how tolerance fails. No matter how much you show on the outside that you are “getting along” there is no internal melding of culture, because there is only tolerance. Would Christian then actively go into the Mosque and experiment with Islam? Of course not! The whole idea of the Mosque being there is already offensive to people. However, in your stance, merely tolerating the Mosque will improve the situation. In other words, tolerating is “getting along”. Unfortunately, there is no way that Christianity as a culture and Islam as a culture can ever “be friends” in a personified sense. They are simply too different. The internal horizon of culture will never merge with other cultures unless culture itself disappears. I don’t think anyone wants this to happen, nor do I think this could ever happen. Cultures emerge on their own too easily. Just look at internet culture. Culture must be met on the external horizon. It must clash out in the open. It can’t be smoothed over by tolerance and repressed into personal life. Repressing personal culture is precisely the route of prejudice and racism. Did you ever notice how friends often insult each other with their differences? Did you ever notice how racial slurs can also be exchanged among friends? This is how culture interacts in the external horizon positively. It does not always have to be war. However, if two friends never discuss their differences at all and merely pretend (in the mode of tolerance) that they are the same and part of some universal civilization, they will never truly understand each other, and these hidden aspects are where speculation and prejudice appear.

Now, saying that America is Christian-and Christianity is opposed to Islam-and Christians should have say as to what goes where since they comprise a majority-and since they oppose Islam a mosque shouldn’t be built, is logic I can trail and follows a pragmatism more akin to your argument style. The only problem is, that logic is flawed.
Unfortunately, that’s not my logic. I’m not really arguing from the mode of syllogism here either, and I don’t think I really ever have. I am more or less criticizing the motives of the Mosque-builders and the virtues of the tolerance you’re proposing. It just so happens that Christianity and Islam are two cultures that are both historically and ideologically at odds in startlingly irrevocable ways---chiefly, in either’s unique ways of interpreting divinity.

If we are in fact a de facto Christian nation, and we, as you imply, measure our actions in accordance with this label, then aren't the actions we take as a country influenced by our Christianity?
It’s 4:30 in the morning, so I’m not going to repeat what I said about.

But we’re not the government, you will skeptically say (even though we really are), the people we elect are. Fine, but I know of zero members of Congress who will deny consulting with a higher power of some sort, and this higher power is usually God as Christians see him. I say I know of none, not there are none. Now’s a good time to clarify this to save you the trouble of Wiki’ing which Congressmen believe in God so you can attack my stance with more misreadings and broad, largely inaccurate assumptions about me.
I’ve nothing to add. I said we were a de facto Christian nation.

And a vast majority of Americans value some form of religious adherence in their leaders. Whenever one politician seems to subscribe to fringe beliefs, or doesn’t seem fervent enough in his faith, his opponent will undoubtedly attack his character as if this ignorance of religion would impair his abilities as a leader. But why would this hurt a candidate if Americans don’t want a Christian influence in their government and politics? In yearly polls conducted for decades, an alarming percentage of Americans routinely say their president does not rely enough on his religious beliefs when considering decisions he makes for the country. The point here isn’t that presidents aren’t relying on religion so there’s no Christian influence in government, as I’m sure you’re itching to point out, but that Americans think they should consult their religious beliefs for political guidance in the first place.
I am baffled as to what this is in response to. I said we were a de facto Christian nation. This is my whole point. Why do you keep thinking that I’m arguing that we’re a secular state?

Maybe I need to also clarify my definition of "world religions." I thought this was a rather obvious expression that required no deeper examination, but I guess I need to waste more space and explain what these world religions are and prove to you that I know them and am thus worthy of debating with you. I refer to all major world religions. Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Taoism, Confucianism, Gnosticism, Atheism, and all the other religions generally accepted and practiced in large portions of a population in any given country. This does not mean a religion in which the higher power is blood and members kill people to be rewarded in the afterlife. This does not mean a religion in which the primary goal of the movement is to harm others. I need to say that before you make more assumptions about me and say I think Americans should support an obscure religion that rapes babies ceremoniously.
HOLY CRAP I GET IT NOW!!!

I mistyped “without” as “with”. If you substitute the “without”, that whole paragraph makes sense. OMFG, I am so sorry for that. Either way, you argue like a pro, so if that was in fact what I meant, you would have crushed me.

I hope you don’t think I’m backpedaling, because the whole paragraph makes sense when you substitute “without” for “with”. Plus, I said that this was de facto Christian nation.

Holy crap, I’m basically depressed, but I feel like this renders a lot of your rebuttal thesis inert.

I am so sorry.

I’m dying to know, what, in your opinion, is what "I would like," and what is "what is?" And if Muslims left America, nothing would change? What the hell does that matter in this conversation?! How does this in any way support your opinion that a Muslim who does live in America should not build a mosque? If every other Muslim in America left besides him, and he owned the property and wanted to build a mosque, then he should be able to build a mosque, assuming he follows the regulations any developer must in building a public structure.
See my very first response in this post for an answer to why the idea that if Muslims left America nothing would change. They have no real influence but are perceived as having influence. Thus, we are obliged to tolerate them. First of all, the need for cultural tolerance is not so vital that we need to start interfering the Ground Zero site. As I tried to say, Ground Zero is precisely the kind of cultural site we need. It speaks for itself. Second of all, tolerance itself is a failed endeavor, so the construction of the Mosque will create nothing but strife. Lastly, arguing against the value of the Mosque is not arguing in favor of disallowing the Mosque’s construction.

GOOD NEWS: I THINK WE ARE BACK IN FIRM TERRITORY! AGAIN, I AM SORRY ABOUT THE TYPO.



Originally Posted by planet news
I'm not sure where this comes from. I never suggested that this kind of property communicates both ways. Again, you have this falsely "pho"-egalitarian fantasy surrounding everything, which is not really idealism, since I don't think you really believe it. Ground zero is in one of the United States proudest cities. It's also the ground zero at which WE were attacked by THEM.
This is what you said: The price of equalizing that area was the price of those buildings and the people in it. Nothing more needs to be done. We do not need to force the issue. You are only deceiving yourself that it's doing anything but making people uncomfortable. How am I wrong for assuming this applies to building a mosque, but not to building a memorial? So building a mosque purportedly meant to encourage acceptance (and we really have no reason to presume there’s an ulterior motive) forces the issue and could never equal the price of those buildings and the people in it, but building another building (even one dedicated to the memory of the victims) can?
Nothing can equal the price of those buildings and the people as I said. Didn’t I say this? Didn’t I say IN YOUR QUOTE that “nothing more needs to be done”. A reconstructed building is a reconstructed building, but it won’t make up for it, and the Mosque certainly won’t make up for it! Take a look at mark f’s last post for why this is the case. Suggesting that we can or even should “get over” 9/11 is quite obscene. I completely agree with mark’s reasons for this, so take a look if need be.

I think a memorial can work positively in the community and our country, but I think a mosque might also. But following your rule that the only way to make up for the damage and avoid forcing the issue is to equal the lives of the victims and the buildings themselves, then even a memorial falls short here.
I never said this or suggested it. You did. I think anything attempting to “get over” 9/11 is forcing the issue for, once again, mark f’s reasons about its almost unbelievably major consequences.

And what are the “both ways” that are being communicated? Is one way a mosque-and that can’t work, and the opposite way is a memorial-and that can work?
I never said a memorial was necessary, but it is not “uncalled for” like the Mosque. A memorial is perfectly natural thing. A Mosque is unnatural for the sole reason that it is facing opposition as being obscene.

Why is a mosque bad in the same way that a memorial is good?
You said this here, not me. Keep this in mind! A lot of thing I specifically contradict you then accuse me of saying. There’re no typos here! I specifically denied that a Mosque was the opposite of a memorial. I said that a memorial is natural because memorials exist to commemorate things and because THEY attacked US and THEY attacked us HERE, while a Mosque is especially unnatural because a Mosque can be anywhere but it for some reason MUST be near the place where THEY attacked US. In other words, a Mosque is bad in a much more serious way than an innocent memorial does superficial good.

Ground zero is where WE were attacked by TERRORISTS. Not Muslims as a group. If the ‘them’ refers to the former, then it should have nothing to do with building a mosque; if it refers to the latter, then you should probably look in the mirror before you accuse me of being prejudiced.
Obviously. I am merely explaining how a Mosque is considered to be obscene in a way that is much worse than a memorial is considered to be appropriate.

I’ve already laid out all my arguments for why the Mosque shouldn’t be there, and none of them involve calling the Mosque obscene because the terrorists were Muslim.

And you do not know what I do or don’t believe in.
I must assume things in place of my ignorance in order to advance a conversation. Otherwise, I couldn’t write anything until I knew everything about you. Still, you haven’t disproved any notions I previously held. People are generally very similar, especially politically.

Originally Posted by planet news
It's not some sort of mediating battleground where both sides had equal losses and the generals shake hands. I'm actually quite disturbed by your equating the construction of a memorial to the construction of a Mosque, which is either completely unrelated to (doubtful) or a deliberate insult to the site.
Don’t be disturbed. I’m not saying the mosque should be built in the footstep of WTC and should be America’s sole representation of rebuilding after the attacks. That would be equating it to the memorial being built at ground zero.
Precisely. But the argument you make suggests that a Mosque will actually have a greater effect than a mere memorial because it bring about tolerance and acceptance of Muslims. As I already proposed, this is a major fallacy of thought, because tolerance is not perfect.

It’s one mosque outside of ground zero, and we already have multiple projects underway on the actual ground zero. I’m saying we shouldn’t dismiss the mosque when it could be a fine demonstration of renewal after the attacks.
People are protesting it. Nothing is renewed. The negative sentiments are there. Tolerance is required, and, as I pointed out, tolerance is not a solution for intolerance.

Wouldn’t building a mosque in New York send an even stronger message? That we are willing to understand Islam, and to avoid falling into the trap of attacking people who look like the perpetrators but in fact are not them?
We are obviously not willing as evidenced by the opposition. Because of this, I oppose the Mosque. If there were no problems with culture, none of it would matter. However, there are major, major problems and building a Mosque does nothing. A memorial is all we need, because it will remind us forever of 9/11 and the conflict between Islam and Christianity that caused it. This conflict is what culture created (not just religion but class repression and anti-communist coercion in the 80s), but culture is also the thing that makes us who we are. Capitalism is as much a part of our culture as Christianity, and it plays just as big a role in the creation of the Taliban. The obvious example here is that film Charlie Wilson’s War. Tolerance only glosses over this web of complexity and obfuscates the meaning of 9/11 as a turning point in cultural relations between the Middle East and the West. If you think a Mosque will repair thirty plus years of cultural rift between Afghanistan and America, you are more idealist than any die-hard Marxist.

The only thing I’m equating is the construction of one symbol to the construction of another, in another place, while still giving more attention to the primary memorial.
It’s a symbol of nothing. It’s a symbol of the liberal democratic notion of tolerance, which is a fallacy as a pointed out earlier. Broken record much????

I’m not sure if you’re saying I’m deliberately insulting the site, or the man building it is. But let me be clear: I’m not. The battleground thing only proves that we shouldn’t let terrorists build near ground zero. But we aren’t; the terrorists and the people who hope to pray in the mosque just happen to share the same religion, albeit radically different interpretations of it. And the entire landscape of Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan were not some sort of mediating battleground where both sides had equal losses and the generals shake hands either. And none of those places are on American soil (until we claimed it), and no American rightfully owns the land; so I would say the guy has more of a right to build a mosque in America than an American does to build an oil well in Iraq. I’m not trying to start s___ here with the whole ‘blood for oil’ diatribe, but you made the connection to battleground as if that had something to do with proprietary ownership and such.
You’re being very literal with battleground. Or, at least you hadn’t heard what I meant by proper cultural relations in the exterior horizon that’s NOT TOLERANCE. This was the example I used with the friends who playfully insulted each other as a way of mediating their differences.

Originally Posted by planet news
Actually, let me rephrase the latter. It's more a kind of Muslim blackmail of yunz guyz n at's liberal democratic multiculturalist sensibilities.
I'm not trying to be funny or dismissive here, but I have no idea what this means.
What I mean is that the Muslims trying to build the Mosque are blackmailing you liberal democratic multiculturalists into trying for tolerance because both you and them think that it will result in better “brotherhood” or “unity” or whatever emotionally-loaded term you want.

Originally Posted by planet news
The first two sentences are a self-contradiction, but I'll go with the sentiment you ended on. I agree with you there, but a memorial on the site of ground zero constructed by the United States is not the same as a random Mosque placed near the site. I don't know how you go it in your mind that these are somehow equal. I think you want so much for Muslims to be "properly" represented that you are willing to go to this pho-egalitarian stance that even monuments that WE BUILD should somehow be questioned with the same logic as that of a Mosque. No. This is the country that WAS ATTACKED.
Yes. The first two sentences you quoted were meant to contradict. That’s why the second sentence began with ‘but.’ Here’s the entirety of what I said: In that sense, building any sort of monument for 9/11 would be forcing the issue. It need not be done because nothing could ever make up for the events. But I don't think memorials are constructed to heal the wounds or to even out terrible events with a pretty building. That was in response to the whole bit I addressed above. I’ll break down the paragraph for you. I was following the logic of what it would take to ‘not be forcing the issue’. If a mosque that could potentially foster peace and symbolize a bold new direction in American-Islamic relations isn’t enough, neither is a building that says how sad the events were. But I don’t actually adhere to your rule. So my first sentence is saying what I thought your statement implied (and I addressed it above so I’m not going to defend it here and you don’t have to retort here), then my second sentence is a continuation of the first one. That’s why it begins with the word ‘it’ instead of ‘building.’ I was already referring to the building, I just don’t want to repeat it in consecutive sentences. Then the third sentence is my opinion, which stands in opposition to what I thought your statement implied. Hence, the ‘but,’ and a return to the noun (‘building/memorial’). It is an entirely new statement that takes the paragraph in a different direction.
It’s funny because you keep stressing how building a memorial will force the issue when you’re the one who wants to “heal the wounds”. I don’t want to heal the wounds. I think the preservation of the wound is one of the most important cultural sites in history because of how it captures the relationship between Islam and Christianity, or, even broader, Afghanistan and the United States. The culture war was fought on 9/11. Neither side won, because both cultures still exist. I think maybe the terrorist were hoping to destroy American on that day and thus extinguish our culture. Fortunately, they failed. Now the culture war is that of tolerance. Instead of the terrorists, it’s the multiculturalists who praise the building of the Mosque because it forces people to repress the culture war inside themselves while putting on a happy face externally. This is the failure of this ideology when you realize that repressed culture only leads more prejudice.

Who is WE exactly? Americans greatly affected by the attacks? The Imam masterminding the project is an Arab American. As in an American citizen. On top of that, he deals every day with people who think he hates America and wants to kill everyone. If the WE who were ATTACKED are Americans, then he is included in this. It isn’t some pho-egalitarian stance. Any structure built should be given as much examination as a mosque. Why is a mosque different than any other building?
Because there are not that many Muslims in America. It’s as if Christianity and Islam coexist in some kind of pluralist debate every day. No. Christianity is nearly ubiquitous while Islam exists on the farthest fringes of known society. It is “weird” in America. This is not racism or some radical subjective assertion. It is true. If you are Muslim in America, you will be singled out, because it is rare. The same goes if you’re a celebrity who, until the 9th grade, had been homeschooled. You will be noticed, because you are rare. People want to deny this however and claim that Muslims are as much a part of the culture of America as Christians. “They are Americans too” is what these people will say. Yes, this is true, but they are not Christians, and that is the important bit of the pie! Tolerance focuses on what we have in common (such as being American [no duh!]), and ignores, or forces underground, our inherent differences. One of the cultural differences between a Christian-American and a Muslim-American is that a Muslim-American is very rare. I say it’s pho-egalitarian, because you want to claim that Muslims are equal with Christians in terms of influence. You use the terms “given as much examination” to play it safe, but “examination” is not what we’re talking about. We’re talking about the physical construction of a Mosque. Why is a Mosque different than any other building? Because it is very “weird”. I don’t see how you can deny that a Mosque is a unique structure in America.

Originally Posted by planet news
In other words, you mean that these are three mutually exclusive options:

1) The terrorists are putting a flag next to a victory site.
2) Muslims poking at old, unhealed wounds.
3) A group is building it to encourage brotherhood and understanding.


However, the reality is much more like this:

Muslims or pseudo-multiculturalists as yourself are poking at old, "unhealed wounds", in order to force a public, pho/pseudo(whatever you want)-egalitarian confirmation of "brotherhood" and "understanding".
Yes, I see these as mutually exclusive options. I highly doubt the Imam t is a terrorist putting a flag next to a victory site and simultaneously trying to encourage brotherhood and understanding with his eternal enemy. I highly doubt he is a non-terrorist Muslim poking at old unhealed wounds to garner attention and instigate Americans while at the same time trying to encourage brotherhood and understanding. And I highly doubt he is both a terrorist putting a flag next to a victory site and a non-terrorist Muslim poking an old, unhealed wound for attention.
In my mediation of the two statements I never included the first postulate. Why are you doing so now? I believe you’re doing so to make me sound ridiculous when I didn’t include that postulate because it was ridiculous.

Again, not a multiculturalist, nor a Muslim, and I’m not trying to force some chiefly superficial image of brotherhood to affirm my feelings that this can be a peaceful country. The wounds won’t heal until we address them. I think the mosque and cultural center is a tasteful proposition. It is not meant as a slap in the face to Americans. How do you come to that conclusion? That would only be the case if the Imam were a terrorist---which he is not---trying to display his daring with little care for how it will reflect on his religion and people---which he is not.
Again, I don’t want the wounds to heal and they won’t, because history doesn’t really work that way. I think a Mosque is a ridiculous ploy for tolerance when it will do nothing but repress differences and not bring them out into the open. I think Ground Zero brings out all those differences in their most truthful light. Just by being different, 9/11 was inevitable.

Did you know that Afghanistan was a Communist regime before the U.S. helped the Afghans overthrow the U.S.S.R. presence? Did you know that the Taliban fighting force is a direct result of the weapons that the U.S. provided to overthrow Communism? Did you know that the U.S. wanted to overthrow Communism because the U.S. is traditionally and culturally inseparable from Capitalism? Did you know that the Taliban also hate the U.S. because they think that our Capitalist culture is extremely decadent in addition, of course, to the U.S. being seen as a nation of Christian infidels?

All these factors are a result of culture and 9/11 was their immediate product.

Originally Posted by planet news
Here my first two points come back. Muslims are not equal with Christians in America. They are nearly non-existent. Civil rights does not mean an absolute equalization of all groups. Egalitarianism does not mean equality for all groups but proportional representation. Multiculturalism stresses "brotherhood" and "understanding", but it's clear now that it's this myth of a common ground of understanding that's mutually exclusive.
So, basically, you’re labeling me a civil rights activist, an egalitarian, and a multiculturalist, and then saying why my opinions on this matter don’t run parallel to the tenets of those belief systems. Shouldn’t that tell you something? Like maybe I’m not the things you assume I am? But that’s besides the point. Here’s your basic logic: Muslims are not as strongly represented in the population as Christians. This is why a mosque shouldn’t be built near ground zero. Ad hominem? [shoutbox] More like ignoratio elenchi. The number of Muslims in the country has literally, absolutely, unequivocally nothing to do with this conversation. You say I’m choosing to ignore that fact. But throughout your argument you have refused to ignore the fact that much of the hate directed at the mosque proposal is fueled by hate and racism (Not by you or anyone on this thread that I know of. Really, I know you’re not a racist, as you have done nothing to announce yourself as such). You know why I don’t care though? Because that’s completely irrelevant. Your saying that the mosque shouldn’t be built because there are so few, completely inconsequential Muslims in America is just as valid as my saying the mosque should be built because opponents of it are just racists. That is, not valid at all. So let’s both ignore both of those facts.
So utterly wrong I can’t even

Here is a summary of my argument that incorporates everything you mentioned. Keep in mind this is not meant to be some kind of rigorous logical proof, just a summary.
1. Muslims are few in number in the United States.

2. However, Muslims are perceived as holding a larger position in the public discourse than they actually do.

3. Muslims are even perceived as near equals in the public discourse to Christians in the Mosque debate.

4. It is a fallacy that the cultural confrontation caused by the building of the Mosque adequately represents the extent of the culture problem in the United States, since their numbers are in reality very low.

5. This fallacy is partly a natural development caused by the disproportionate coverage of Muslims due to the Iraq war.

6. This fallacy is perpetuated directly by the Mosque-builders in order to force the issue of increased tolerance.

7. Tolerance is a failed ideology, because it is a paradox in that it attempts to universalize precisely what is particular and particularize precisely what should be universal.

8. The Mosque-builders are using the Mosque in order to artificially inflate the U.S. Muslim-Christian culture war in order to force an increase of tolerance that will only increase the severity of the Muslim-Christian culture war, which, due to their limited numbers, is not an especially large problem in the first place.

9. The U.S. Muslim-Christian culture war is not a large problem because of Ground Zero.

10. Ground Zero’s existence mediates the antagonism, because it embodies the release of cultural tension that began after the U.S.S.R. left Afghanistan.

Originally Posted by planet news
That's why I love the term "ground zero Mosque". It's trying to force the existence of a zero-level co-existence between Muslims and Christians in order to resolve the divide between them caused by 9/11 for the so-perceived "good, virtuousness" of creating an open society free from hatreds and prejudices.
Skeptical much? With this statement, you are basically coming across as so skeptical that you question the very virtue of a society free from hatred and prejudice. ‘So-perceived’ goodness? This seems like tangible, corporeal goodness. Why would you attack someone for striving for a peaceful co-existence between Muslims and Christians? This just makes it seem like you don’t want that to occur. Co-existence between blacks and whites for most of this country’s history wasn’t too great either, until that problem was addressed head on with legislation and an entire movement. Same with the Irish and the rest of America, and Asians for a while, and Hispanic people right now, and many other groups that are slowly but surely being accepted equally with the majority.
I don’t think you get what co-existence is, because your tactic is tolerance. Right now we’re not on joking terms with the Muslims. Take a look at those Danish cartoons of Mohammed that the Muslims find so offensive. This is precisely the kind of thing that makes culture so difficult when dealing with something as dogmatic as Islam. Christianity embraces the ridicule of Christ, which is a good thing---the entire concept of crucifixion is a massive, public ridicule is it not? I don’t think Islam ever will, which is a bad thing for the only kind of peace co-existence I imagine is possible.

Originally Posted by planet news
Sorry, but even if 9/11 didn't happen, prejudices and hatreds would still exist. Sorry, but even if we ignore all the Christian v. Muslim history, hatreds would still exist. Sorry, but this is CULTURE. You're not going to resolve it EVER. Unless you want to destroy culture altogether, which multiculturalists also don't want to do.
Hatred existing is another fact that does nothing to support your argument of why a mosque shouldn’t be built. That could possibly work in the “it could lead to violence” stance, but we’ve agreed this is not the argument we’re trying to prove. It doesn’t need proof; it’s obvious. But let’s take that thought for a moment. Hatred will always exist, so there is no need to try to break that cycle of hate. Racism and sexism will always exist as well, but that never stopped people from trying to combat those societal ills. CULTURE changes. It doesn’t remain the same forEVER, and you know this. And hatred is a facet of culture that can be addressed. To say that it is culture and culture is static and therefore we can’t ever stop hatred and should not try is defeatist.
We’re not talking about the future. We’re talking about now. And right now, we are not ready for the Mosque in question.

Originally Posted by planet news
Essentially you want to have your Muslim cake and eat it too. Sorry, but they will always taste bad to you because you are a Christian. Unless you want to sprinkle Christian flavoring on it, at which point they are no longer Muslim.
Or maybe I just want to destroy culture. Hmm. I guess that means I’m not a multiculturalist. Funny, I was so sure I was.
Multiculturalists want to destroy culture. They say they want to embrace it, but embracing it means creating a universal space of tolerance in order to embrace all the multiple cultures that’ve gained them their namesake. Thus, by universalizing humanity, they destroy the particularity of culture. Nuff said.

I'm not a Christian. I have never said I'm a Christian. I have never insinuated that I'm a Christian. Our country, as you have pointed out, is largely Christian, and in identifying the country I have often used the collective we. But that’s because I’m a citizen of this country, not because I hold fast to all its values and mores. You’re an American citizen who supports Communism, right? When you make the factual statement, “We are a democratic republic,” does that mean you support this form of government? No, it means the country in which you reside practices that form of government. And if you’re referring to other Christians, not me, then this is another defeatist statement. Just because someone is a Christian doesn’t automatically mean he is magically at odds with Islam. The two don’t have to have any overlap. I know many, many Christians who could care less about other people and how they practice their faith. I know many more who do care about how other people practice their faith but are not repulsed by it.
This is how my Communism works. You and others have fun chiding me about it in a playful but also serious manner. We don’t pretend that Communists and Capitalists are brothers. We are not. We are bitter enemies. However, we need to address these differences in the external horizon. Tolerance pushes it down into the subconscious where prejudice takes root. I’ve said this probably fifty times now, I think.

Originally Posted by planet news
In other words, the multiculturalist cause of "brotherhood" is an ideological lie.
Umm. No.
Umm. Yes. I made a ton of arguments why above as well as some below.

Originally Posted by planet news
I just argued that it can't and that this "purpose" is a self-deception that you and other liberal democrats as yourself tell yourself at night to convince yourself that you are good, understanding people. What you don't get is how there will always now be something inherently uncomfortable about a Muslim in America. That's PART OF our cultural relations now. Denying it is denying your own internal dialogue every time you get on a plane with a bunch of Muslims. Let's be real with ourselves, please.
You argued this? I must have missed the part where you clearly explained why it is utterly impossible for a mosque to in any way serve a purpose other than making people feel uncomfortable. I am not a liberal democrat; I’m not a good person; and I’m hardly understanding. I don’t delude myself at night with hippie yearnings and idealistic thoughts to try to hide these facts. My opinions on this issue are in no way motivated by a need to make myself feel better. I’m not directly or even indirectly affected by the outcome of this entire situation. You don’t know me, stop trying to label me and speculate reasons behind my opinions based on five paragraphs written by me that you misinterpreted.
I explained it earlier in this post.

“Let’s be real with ourselves?” Okay. You accused me earlier of being prejudiced, which I am clearly not. Then you go on in that same paragraph to use a stereotype that I never even mentioned to illustrate a point that was hollow in the first place. Then you say you’d be uncomfortable flying with “a bunch of Muslims.” Now you’re saying there will always be something inherently uncomfortable about a Muslim in America. A, you know you are speaking about this idea with more authority than you actually have. And B, this speaks volumes more about any prejudices you may have than a sarcastic comment that I clearly made in jest says about my prejudices. Don’t speak for the entire country. If you feel there will always be something inherently uncomfortable with a Muslim in America, you need to ask yourself why you feel that way. Don’t try to justify these feelings by saying the rest of the country now and always will share in that discomfort. If you don’t feel this way, then don’t assume the rest of the country does and always will. Social dynamics are always changing---they are dynamic. We can look to the past for clues to the future, but we can’t predict the future. And the overwhelming message America’s past tells us is we’ve gone through a lot of stages of hate and overcome them with due time, a little uneasiness, and a lot of effort.
Tolerance is the cause of the discomfort that will follow. This is what I am saying.

I fly internationally several times a year, and take multiple plane rides each trip, each way. I have been on several flights with Muslims (or at least people I think were Muslim, though you can’t tell by looking at anyone what their religion is). I’m pretty sure I shared an armrest with one when I went to Paris earlier this year. Never, and I mean never, have I ever given any thought to what their reasons were for being on that plane. Never, ever was I apprehensive about my safety on the flight. Never, ever did I look at them any differently than anyone else on the plane. I’ll save you the typing and respond to the skepticism you will inevitably answer with. I’m not lying to myself or denying my true feelings, there really are people who don’t see color or do and don’t allow it to affect their interactions with others, and I’m not the only person in the world who feels this way.
I trust you, but you simply don’t know this, because prejudice is subconscious. There’ve been plenty of studies to show how even black people think twice about trusting other black people because they’re black. That’s how strong the prejudicial media influence is. I highly, highly doubt you’re not affected. You simply can’t make just definitive judgments about yourself about something like that.

At least yours would be a harmless prejudice. Let’s be honest, if anyone is going to have a bomb, it’s going to be a Muslim. However, prejudice does lead to racism and hatred when it’s not out in the open, because there is no mediation of it in any way. We can’t even make jokes to people about it, so it’s taken way too seriously. Racial jokes are ridiculous and everyone knows it. They’re merely a harmless way of diffusing prejudice.






~ Planet News



I consider myself far from being a racist against any group and feel that any group should have just as much freedom as any other group living on this earth. This issue with the Ground Zero Mosque in my opinion is not about whether or not it is a good a place or even a holy place, but about the taste of location as to which it is located. If the only issue that the Muslims have is they want a place to worship then why not please all groups and have the Mosque in another general area that is not in view of Ground Zero. Ground Zero to all Americans is looked upon as a place of rest to many Americans who died that horrible day. If the Mosque is moved to a location other than in eyes view of Ground Zero then the Muslims would still have their Holy place of worship and they would be respecting the others as well.



will.15's Avatar
Semper Fooey
Are you guys trying to go for the Guinness world record for longest post ever?

Cries & Whispers gave it a good shot, but Planet News is now in the lead.



planet news's Avatar
Registered User
Cries & Whispers gave it a good shot, but Planet News is now in the lead.
Original (non quoted) word-count for the last two major posts:

C&W: 4,990
PN: 4,985



28 days...6 hours...42 minutes...12 seconds
Or copied and pasted it in Microsoft word and then selected word count.
__________________
"A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life, it's the only weapon we have."

Suspect's Reviews