Grönd zero musque ox

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
thc
Posts: 643
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 6:01 am UTC

Grönd zero musque ox

Postby thc » Thu Aug 19, 2010 5:00 am UTC

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art ... QD9HM4IP81

Spoiler:
FACT CHECK: Islam already lives near ground zero

By CALVIN WOODWARD (AP) – 8 hours ago

WASHINGTON — A New York imam and his proposed mosque near ground zero are being demonized by political candidates — mostly Republicans — despite the fact that Islam is already very much a part of the World Trade Center neighborhood. And that Muslims pray inside the Pentagon, too, less than 80 feet from where terrorists attacked.

And that the imam who's being branded an extremist has been valued by both Republican and Democratic administrations as a moderate face of the faith.

Even so, the project stirs complicated emotions, and Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf is a complex figure who defies easy categorization in the American Muslim world.

He's devoted much of his career to working closely with Christians, Jews and secular leaders to advance interfaith understanding. He's scolded his own religion for being in some ways in the "Dark Ages." Yet he's also accused the U.S. of spilling more innocent blood than al-Qaida, the terrorist network that turned the World Trade Center, part of the Pentagon and four hijacked airplanes to apocalyptic rubble.

Many Republicans and some Democrats say the proposed $100 million Islamic cultural center and mosque should be built elsewhere, where there is no possible association with New York's ground zero. Far more than a local zoning issue, the matter has seized congressional campaigns, put President Barack Obama and his party on the spot — he says Muslims have the right to build the mosque — divided families of the Sept. 11, 2001, victims, caught the attention of Muslims abroad and threatened to blur distinctions between mainstream Islam in the U.S. and its radical elements.

A look at some of the claims and how they compare with the known facts:

_"The folks who want to build this mosque — who are really radical Islamists who want to triumphally prove that they can build a mosque right next to a place where 3,000 Americans were killed by radical Islamists — those folks don't have any interest in reaching out to the community. They're trying to make a case about supremacy." — Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, a potential 2012 presidential candidate.

_Some of the Muslim leaders associated with the mosque "are clearly terrorist sympathizers." — Kevin Calvey, a Republican running for Congress in Oklahoma.

_"This radical is a terrible choice to be one of the faces of our country overseas." — Statement by GOP Reps. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida and Peter King of New York.

THE FACTS:

No one has established a link between the cleric and radicals. New York Police Department spokesman Paul Browne said: "We've identified no law enforcement issues related to the proposed mosque."

Ros-Lehtinen and King were referring to the State Department's plan, predating the mosque debate, to send Rauf on another religious outreach trip to the Middle East as part of his "long-term relationship" with U.S. officials in the Bush and Obama administrations. The State Department said Wednesday it will pay him $3,000 for a trip costing the government $16,000.

Rauf counts former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright from the Clinton administration as a friend and appeared at events overseas or meetings in Washington with former President George W. Bush's secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, and Bush adviser Karen Hughes.

He has denounced the terrorist attacks and suicide bombing as anti-Islamic and has criticized Muslim nationalism. But he's made provocative statements about America, too, calling it an "accessory" to the 9/11 attacks and attributing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children to the U.S.-led sanctions in the years before the invasion.

In a July 2005 speech at the Bob Hawke Prime Ministerial Center in Adelaide, Australia, Rauf said, according to the center's transcript:

"We tend to forget, in the West, that the United States has more Muslim blood on its hands than al-Qaida has on its hands of innocent non-Muslims."

While calling terrorism unjustified, he said the U.S. has supported authoritarian regimes with heinous human rights records and, faced with that, "how else do people get attention?"

In the same address, he spoke of prospects for peace between Palestinians and the Israelis — who he said "have moved beyond Zionism" — and of a love-your-neighbor ethic uniting all religions.

___

_"Mr. President, ground zero is the wrong place for a mosque." — Rick Scott, Republican candidate for Florida governor.

_"Nazis don't have the right to put up a sign next to the Holocaust Museum in Washington. We would never accept the Japanese putting up a site next to Pearl Harbor. There's no reason for us to accept a mosque next to the World Trade Center." — Gingrich.

_"Just a block or two away from 9/11." — Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, another 2012 GOP presidential prospect.

THE FACTS:

No mosque is going up at ground zero. The center would be established at 45-51 Park Place, just over two blocks from the northern edge of the sprawling, 16-acre World Trade Center site. Its location is roughly half a dozen normal Lower Manhattan blocks from the site of the North Tower, the nearest of the two destroyed in the attacks.

The center's location, in a former Burlington Coat Factory store, is already used by the cleric for worship, drawing a spillover from the imam's former main place for prayers, the al-Farah mosque. That mosque, at 245 West Broadway, is about a dozen blocks north of the World Trade Center grounds.

Another, the Manhattan Mosque, stands five blocks from the northeast corner of the World Trade Center site.

To be sure, the center's association with 9/11 is intentional and its location is no geographic coincidence. The building was damaged in the Sept. 11 attacks and the center's planners say they want the center to stand as a statement against terrorism.

___

_"There should be no mosque near ground zero in New York so long as there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia. ... America is experiencing an Islamist cultural-political offensive designed to undermine and destroy our civilization." Gingrich.

THE FACTS:

Gingrich's opinion is shared by some Americans, while others are more reluctant to paint the religion with a broad brush and more welcoming of the faith in this country. Bush himself, while criticized at the time for stirring suspicions about American Muslims, traveled to a Washington mosque less than a week after the attacks to declare that terrorism is "not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace."

In any event, the U.S. armed forces field Muslim troops and make accommodations for them. The Pentagon opened an interfaith chapel in November 2002 close to the area where hijacked American Airlines flight 77 slammed into the building, killing 184 people.

Muslims gather there for a daily prayer service Monday through Thursday and hold a weekly worship service on Fridays, drawing no complaints. Similar but separate services are provided for other faiths.


I searched the forum, and I'm surprised no one has posted this yet. It seems like the perfect opportunity to bitch about republicans which is definitely a treasured pastime here. Maybe it is just that you people are too sick about hearing this constantly?... But, anyway:

What's the big freaking deal? Is this REALLY a grassroots movement, because I have trouble believing that people would collectively arrive at the conclusion to be THIS blatantly racist without some big force pushing them from behind. Who stands to benefit from this outcry?

letterX
Posts: 535
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2008 4:00 am UTC
Location: Ithaca, NY

Re: Ground zero "mosque"

Postby letterX » Thu Aug 19, 2010 5:17 am UTC

thc wrote:Who stands to benefit from this outcry?


Amurkia.

Also, you may be onto something with the: "Maybe it is just that you people are too sick about hearing this constantly?" but I think that it's been about recently that I've changed from 'oh, those darn Republicans, they're soooo crazy: let's make fun of them' to 'Oh me yarm Oh, an entire half of this country is homicidally crazy and out to get everyone who is the least bit different (including me!): run and hide'.

Also, there are apparently still cheesegraters going on on this forum. Who knew?

User avatar
Krong
Posts: 288
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 12:49 am UTC
Location: Charleston, South Cackalacky

Re: Ground zero "mosque"

Postby Krong » Thu Aug 19, 2010 5:30 am UTC

thc wrote:What's the big freaking deal? Is this REALLY a grassroots movement, because I have trouble believing that people would collectively arrive at the conclusion to be THIS blatantly racist without some big force pushing them from behind. Who stands to benefit from this outcry?

First of all, "racist"? You're already way off track on understanding this if you're using that word instead of, say, "religiously bigoted."

As for the explanation:

Terrorists attacked the World Trade Center with the claim that doing so was a strike for Islam in a holy war. Now there's a well-publicized Muslim center being built/opened very close to the site.

The thinking is that allowing this to happen seems very much like giving the terrorists a victory, like allowing a flag for their cause to be planted victoriously at an extremely symbolic place. Some people believe that this shouldn't be allowed to happen. And that's pretty much the story here, combined with often-exaggerated worries about just what kind of group is establishing this center.

Now the counter is that that's discrimination, pure and simple, and our society should not look kindly on such things. But this at Ground Zero, so the emotional baggage against allowing the center is very heavy indeed. A center intended for religious reconciliation, like this one, is a great idea, but a large number of people just aren't ready to forgive.

(And of course the idea of an entire nation (with many Muslim citizens) reconciling with the religion of Islam is just a heap of generalizations that would generally make little sense, but there's so much symbolism in the location that it is being taken quite seriously by both sides of the issue.)
The answer to the question "What’s wrong with the world?" is just two words: "I am." -- G. K. Chesterton (attributed)

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Ground zero "mosque"

Postby Izawwlgood » Thu Aug 19, 2010 5:34 am UTC

I actually think it's an interesting issue for the Right; on the one hand they want religious freedom and less big government, on the other, I've heard a few Republicans crying for government intervention to stop this from being built.

Personally, I find it a little weird that the State Department is spending >0$ sending this imam anywhere.
Article wrote:Gingrich's opinion is shared by some Americans, while others are more reluctant to paint the religion with a broad brush and more welcoming of the faith in this country. Bush himself, while criticized at the time for stirring suspicions about American Muslims, traveled to a Washington mosque less than a week after the attacks to declare that terrorism is "not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace."

I find such quote sniping to be pretty irritating personally; putting Bush down as some moderate in regards to Islam is simply misleading.
The op ed piece is boring, the situations kind of laughable.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
mmmcannibalism
Posts: 2150
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 6:16 am UTC

Re: Ground zero "mosque"

Postby mmmcannibalism » Thu Aug 19, 2010 6:24 am UTC

A center intended for religious reconciliation, like this one, is a great idea, but a large number of people just aren't ready to forgive.


I think this is the main body of the problem; if this is intended for reconciliation why is it being built as close as possible(meaning so close it was bound to anger a good bit of people) to the site of the attacks? There wouldn't be anywhere near the concern/outrage if the mosque was being built a notable distance away(barring of course the people who would just oppose a mosque existing in america).

That being said, its perfectly legal but ethically quite disgusting.
Izawwlgood wrote:I for one would happily live on an island as a fuzzy seal-human.

Oregonaut wrote:Damn fetuses and their terroist plots.

Arrian
Posts: 464
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 10:15 am UTC
Location: Minnesota

Re: Ground zero "mosque"

Postby Arrian » Thu Aug 19, 2010 6:34 am UTC

thc wrote:What's the big freaking deal? Is this REALLY a grassroots movement, because I have trouble believing that people would collectively arrive at the conclusion to be THIS blatantly racist without some big force pushing them from behind. Who stands to benefit from this outcry?


You might want to remind yourself that your friends are self selected and very likely have similar values and opinions to yours. Just because you don't know anybody who thinks a mosque intentionally and conspicuously associated with ground zero is a bad idea doesn't mean that's the predominant opinion in the nation. Quite a few of my acquaintances from conservative rural areas, for example, are truly upset over the concept.

The article you posted is biased for failing to acknowledge that emotional resistance to a prominent new mosque very close to the site of the largest Islamic terrorist attack in history is certainly reasonable. While the intention to build a mosque as a celebration of freedom and in hope of reconciliation is respectable and honorable, it's also treading in very sensitive territory. Resistance is natural.

It's a free country, they have a right to build their mosque wherever zoning allows, and I think that if it goes to court they'll win. We have the freedoms of speech and assembly even when what you plan on saying might not exactly be the best idea. Freedom means you're allowed to do it. On the other hand, it doesn't mean people have to like what you do, and in fact it also means that they can express that dislike as vociferously as they please. People seem to forget that latter part awfully often.

Will political pressure convince them to cancel the project? Maybe, but that's part of the same system that President Obama used to strong arm lenders into giving up their claims to GM and hand it over to the unions. Political power exists and will be used, and politicians will use demagoguery whenever it appears to benefit them. That's not even limited to democracies, it's universal.

One fact that your article forgot to check: ARE there any churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia?

[edit: grammar]
Last edited by Arrian on Thu Aug 19, 2010 6:38 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7590
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: Ground zero "mosque"

Postby Zamfir » Thu Aug 19, 2010 6:37 am UTC

I am a bit confused about this "forgive" part. What have these people done that should be forgiven? If you start counting "being a muslim" as something that needs forgiving, there is little hope left.

Nordic Einar
Posts: 783
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 7:21 am UTC

Re: Ground zero "mosque"

Postby Nordic Einar » Thu Aug 19, 2010 6:41 am UTC

Arrian wrote:One fact that your article forgot to check: ARE there any churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia?


I'll be sure to look up the answer to that question the moment Newt lets me know how it's even remotely fucking relevent

Kyrn
Posts: 937
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 3:55 pm UTC
Location: The Internet

Re: Ground zero "mosque"

Postby Kyrn » Thu Aug 19, 2010 6:42 am UTC

Arrian wrote:One fact that your article forgot to check: ARE there any churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia?


Google "churches Saudi Arabia" first link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Cath ... udi_Arabia
I am NOT a snake.

Opinions discussed are not necessarily the opinions of the people discussing them.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7590
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: Ground zero "mosque"

Postby Zamfir » Thu Aug 19, 2010 7:00 am UTC

Yeah, Saudi-Arabia is clearly the example to follow.

User avatar
Maurog
Posts: 842
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2007 7:58 am UTC

Re: Ground zero "mosque"

Postby Maurog » Thu Aug 19, 2010 7:01 am UTC

Since the attacks were carried by religious extremists, I think it is emotionally justified to remove all religious buildings from the area around ground zero. There are at least three churches there, and they all should be converted into bars or something.
Last edited by Maurog on Thu Aug 19, 2010 9:56 am UTC, edited 2 times in total.
Slay the living! Raise the dead! Paint the sky in crimson red!

Eowiel
Posts: 166
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2010 5:57 pm UTC

Re: Ground zero "mosque"

Postby Eowiel » Thu Aug 19, 2010 7:08 am UTC

Arrian wrote:

It's a free country, they have a right to build their mosque wherever zoning allows, and I think that if it goes to court they'll win. We have the freedoms of speech and assembly even when what you plan on saying might not exactly be the best idea. Freedom means you're allowed to do it. On the other hand, it doesn't mean people have to like what you do, and in fact it also means that they can express that dislike as vociferously as they please. People seem to forget that latter part awfully often.


Nobody says that the law should intervene to silence the ones protesting the mosque. From what I understand from the US I think this demand is in general almost never or even never made. So saying that people seem to forget that other people "can express that dislike as vociferously as they please" is quite a blank statement.

What people do often forget is that the right to express your opinion does not necessarily make your opinion hold any value. Expressing a bigoted opinion can make you a bigot, regardless of whether you have the right to express it or not.

User avatar
mmmcannibalism
Posts: 2150
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 6:16 am UTC

Re: Ground zero "mosque"

Postby mmmcannibalism » Thu Aug 19, 2010 7:30 am UTC

Maurog wrote:Since the attacks were carried by religious extremists, I think it is emotionally justified to remove all religious buildings from the area around ground zero. There are at least three churches there, and they all should be converted into bars or something.


Except noone is claiming they need to move muslims away from ground zero, only that it is disrespectful/violates the "sacredness" of the site to build a mosque there.
Izawwlgood wrote:I for one would happily live on an island as a fuzzy seal-human.

Oregonaut wrote:Damn fetuses and their terroist plots.

PeterCai
Posts: 865
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 1:09 pm UTC

Re: Ground zero "mosque"

Postby PeterCai » Thu Aug 19, 2010 8:24 am UTC

mmmcannibalism wrote:
Maurog wrote:Since the attacks were carried by religious extremists, I think it is emotionally justified to remove all religious buildings from the area around ground zero. There are at least three churches there, and they all should be converted into bars or something.


Except noone is claiming they need to move muslims away from ground zero, only that it is disrespectful/violates the "sacredness" of the site to build a mosque there.


those churches of extremists clearly violate and disrespect the sacredness of ground zero, how dare they stay there.

JoeKhol
Posts: 164
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 9:43 pm UTC
Location: London, UK

Re: Ground zero "mosque"

Postby JoeKhol » Thu Aug 19, 2010 8:52 am UTC

mmmcannibalism wrote:I think this is the main body of the problem; if this is intended for reconciliation why is it being built as close as possible(meaning so close it was bound to anger a good bit of people) to the site of the attacks? There wouldn't be anywhere near the concern/outrage if the mosque was being built a notable distance away(barring of course the people who would just oppose a mosque existing in america).
I've seen nothing to suggest this site was deliberately chosen because of it's proximity to Ground Zero. The Islamic organisation involved already has a centre not much further away which is too small for their needs. This site meets their requirements for a new centre. When the opposition to the location was fired up, they then made the not unreasonable argument that far from being a problem, it could be reconciliatory. This is only an issue for people who have absolutely no intention of reconciling with anything or anyone Muslim.

mmmcannibalism wrote:That being said, its perfectly legal but ethically quite disgusting.
"Ethically disgusting", really? I understand why many people instinctively object but the basis of their objection is irrational (and fed by gross ignorance and some pretty hateful bigots). I seem absolutely no real ethical issue with this centre being built where it is proposed. I actually see more of an ethical problem with it being refused.

Remember that the organisation proposing this centre have as much in common with the terrorists as your average Quaker has in common with Fred Phelps.
Therefore, I think I am.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6797
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Ground zero "mosque"

Postby sardia » Thu Aug 19, 2010 9:38 am UTC

JoeKhol wrote:
mmmcannibalism wrote:I think this is the main body of the problem; if this is intended for reconciliation why is it being built as close as possible(meaning so close it was bound to anger a good bit of people) to the site of the attacks? There wouldn't be anywhere near the concern/outrage if the mosque was being built a notable distance away(barring of course the people who would just oppose a mosque existing in america).
I've seen nothing to suggest this site was deliberately chosen because of it's proximity to Ground Zero. The Islamic organisation involved already has a centre not much further away which is too small for their needs. This site meets their requirements for a new centre. When the opposition to the location was fired up, they then made the not unreasonable argument that far from being a problem, it could be reconciliatory. This is only an issue for people who have absolutely no intention of reconciling with anything or anyone Muslim.

mmmcannibalism wrote:That being said, its perfectly legal but ethically quite disgusting.
"Ethically disgusting", really? I understand why many people instinctively object but the basis of their objection is irrational (and fed by gross ignorance and some pretty hateful bigots). I seem absolutely no real ethical issue with this centre being built where it is proposed. I actually see more of an ethical problem with it being refused.

Remember that the organisation proposing this centre have as much in common with the terrorists as your average Quaker has in common with Fred Phelps.

I always thought this was similar to the flag burning protesters. It's perfectly legal to burn a flag in protest but people will complain about it being offensive. This is similar, except with discrimination added to the mix.

Maybe mmmcannibalism is saying that the protesters against the mosque have a right to protest but are ethically disgusting? That makes his statement more in line with our current precedents regarding offensive actions and freedom of speech/assembly/religion.
Last edited by sardia on Thu Aug 19, 2010 9:43 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
bentheimmigrant
Dotcor Good Poster
Posts: 1366
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2008 9:01 pm UTC
Location: UK

Re: Ground zero "mosque"

Postby bentheimmigrant » Thu Aug 19, 2010 9:43 am UTC

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/08/ ... osque.html

A good article by someone who actually bothered to go look for themselves... Basically, it doesn't seem like the mosque will be at all visible from the site - even from the top of Freedom Tower. So then it simply comes down to the boundaries of the "sacredness." How far away from Ground Zero does it have to be? The distance will certainly be arbitrary. So then, the criteria would probably come down to visibility from the site, and the possibility that people travelling to the site will pass the centre. Both of these appear to be low, so what's the problem? Bigoted Americans. That's the problem.
"Comment is free, but facts are sacred" - C.P. Scott

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: Ground zero "mosque"

Postby Lucrece » Thu Aug 19, 2010 9:48 am UTC

What I find absolutely perverse is how the media has even given consideration to the argument that Muslims should be sensitive to 9/11 victim's feelings.

They basically legitimize the bullshit notion --that nobody wants to come outright and say-- where 9/11 was a Muslim funded and thoroughly supported effort.

Most importantly, the media has completely erased 9/11 Muslim victims. Muslim families were also destroyed by the terror attack.

That the polls show ~70% national opposition to the mosque displays exactly why it was wise of the founding fathers to take this the Republic route with checks and balances that cover against populist spite.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

User avatar
thc
Posts: 643
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 6:01 am UTC

Re: Ground zero "mosque"

Postby thc » Thu Aug 19, 2010 10:02 am UTC

mmmcannibalism wrote:
Maurog wrote:Since the attacks were carried by religious extremists, I think it is emotionally justified to remove all religious buildings from the area around ground zero. There are at least three churches there, and they all should be converted into bars or something.


Except noone is claiming they need to move muslims away from ground zero, only that it is disrespectful/violates the "sacredness" of the site to build a mosque there.


First, I'm not sure if you're aware, but the "mosque" is not actually a mosque. It's more like a community center. Does that make a difference?

But regardless, why do you believe that the simple act of building a building next to another building has any sort of intrinsic meaning? I get that it COULD be built with the intention of pissing people off. But it could also be built as a gesture of peace... a reminder to muslims of the pitfalls of extremism... and a reminder to non-muslims that their are muslims who can live peacefully side by side christians and other westerners. (Insert other flowery prose, etc, etc.)

Given what the Imam behind the center has said to the press, and given his "moderate" political stance in the past, I think it's more than clear that the intention is the latter. I honestly have an extremely hard time fathoming why people think otherwise. It is not a gesture of aggression or antagonism. It is a gesture of peace and moving forward.

User avatar
iop
Posts: 930
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2007 11:26 am UTC
Location: The ivory tower

Re: Ground zero "mosque"

Postby iop » Thu Aug 19, 2010 1:15 pm UTC

mmmcannibalism wrote:That being said, its perfectly legal but ethically quite disgusting.

The community center would be two blocks away from Ground Zero. How many blocks away would it have to be to make it ok?

Does it help that there is a memorial to the victims of Ground Zero to be built in one of the rooms? Or would you think it ethically disgusting as well, since the muslims might make happy dances around it when no one's watching?

More generally: What could muslims do in order to be not associated with the 9/11 terrorists, the way christians are not automatically associated with the Westboro Baptist Church?
Last edited by iop on Thu Aug 19, 2010 2:28 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Godskalken
Posts: 159
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 3:29 pm UTC

Re: Ground zero "mosque"

Postby Godskalken » Thu Aug 19, 2010 2:18 pm UTC

All the 9/11 attackers were men, and yet we keep allowing all that male activity around ground zero.
Send all these damn men back to where they came from already!

User avatar
iop
Posts: 930
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2007 11:26 am UTC
Location: The ivory tower

Re: Ground zero "mosque"

Postby iop » Thu Aug 19, 2010 2:29 pm UTC

Godskalken wrote:All the 9/11 attackers were men, and yet we keep allowing all that male activity around ground zero.
Send all these damn men back to where they came from already!

To be fair, the 9/11 attacks were not conducted in the name of men, but in the name of Islam.

User avatar
SlyReaper
inflatable
Posts: 8015
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 11:09 pm UTC
Location: Bristol, Old Blighty

Re: Ground zero "mosque"

Postby SlyReaper » Thu Aug 19, 2010 2:35 pm UTC

iop wrote:
Godskalken wrote:All the 9/11 attackers were men, and yet we keep allowing all that male activity around ground zero.
Send all these damn men back to where they came from already!

To be fair, the 9/11 attacks were not conducted in the name of men, but in the name of Islam.

If it was conducted in the name of puppies, would we ban puppies from doing anything near the site?

Put another way, if person X commits a crime and claims it was in the name of external entity Y, would we punish Y?
Image
What would Baron Harkonnen do?

User avatar
Dream
WINNING
Posts: 4338
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 7:20 pm UTC
Location: The Hollow Scene Epic

Re: Ground zero "mosque"

Postby Dream » Thu Aug 19, 2010 2:45 pm UTC

Depends. Does "Y" have brown skin? Are they sitting on the biggest oil reserves known to man?
I knew a woman once, but she died soon after.

User avatar
Quantum Potatoid
Posts: 141
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 1:15 am UTC
Location: May only be known if velocity isn't. Same rules apply with taste and texture.

Re: Ground zero "mosque"

Postby Quantum Potatoid » Thu Aug 19, 2010 2:48 pm UTC

You also have to remember that many innocent Muslims also died in the attacks (Source: http://islam.about.com/blvictims.htm), and Muslims were also some of the people saving lives and spoke against the attacks.

If mosques are not allowed near Ground-Zero, then Christian churches should not be allowed near synagogues. These attacks killed 3000 people, while Christianity has killed and displaced millions of Jews across Europe. (Also, anything Spanish related shouldn't be allowed to be built near either, not that anyone expects it.)
I don't actually think churches should be banned, but I'm trying to make a point of example.
"There's nothing wrong with having voices in your head, it's when they leave you out of the conversation you have to worry"
Spoiler:
iThis Cheese is Burning Me!

User avatar
Garm
Posts: 2241
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 5:29 pm UTC
Location: Usually at work. Otherwise, Longmont, CO.

Re: Ground zero "mosque"

Postby Garm » Thu Aug 19, 2010 2:48 pm UTC

Look as though it may not matter who says what in the end:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/41238.html

At this point I hope they do get funding. I think that those forces of bigotry and intolerance would take lack of funding as a victory against the "mooslems." This whole episode just reinforces my belief that there is a certain, significant portion of the population of the United States who believe that discrimination is alright.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
- JFK

User avatar
Endless Mike
Posts: 3204
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2007 3:04 pm UTC

Re: Ground zero "mosque"

Postby Endless Mike » Thu Aug 19, 2010 2:51 pm UTC

iop wrote:
mmmcannibalism wrote:That being said, its perfectly legal but ethically quite disgusting.

The community center would be two blocks away from Ground Zero. How many blocks away would it have to be to make it ok?

The acceptable distance is somewhere between two and four blocks since that is where a mosque currently exists and has existed for years without issue.

User avatar
Godskalken
Posts: 159
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 3:29 pm UTC

Re: Ground zero "mosque"

Postby Godskalken » Thu Aug 19, 2010 2:54 pm UTC

iop wrote:
Godskalken wrote:All the 9/11 attackers were men, and yet we keep allowing all that male activity around ground zero.
Send all these damn men back to where they came from already!

To be fair, the 9/11 attacks were not conducted in the name of men, but in the name of Islam.


Maybe the hijackers would agree to that, maybe not, we don't really know. Anyway, what does it mean that something is done "in the name of islam" when hardly any muslims support the action? Imagine a situation where a few men performed a terrorist attack and claimed it was "in the name of men". Would this then allow us to treat men in general differently from other people?

User avatar
Oregonaut
Posts: 6511
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2010 9:58 pm UTC
Location: Oregon

Re: Ground zero "mosque"

Postby Oregonaut » Thu Aug 19, 2010 3:25 pm UTC

You mean we don't already?
- Ochigo the Earth-Stomper

The EGE wrote:
Mumpy wrote:And to this day, librarians revile Oregonaut as the Antichrist.

False! We sacrifice our card catalogues to him in the name of Job Security!

Levelheaded
Posts: 185
Joined: Thu May 27, 2010 3:42 pm UTC

Re: Ground zero "mosque"

Postby Levelheaded » Thu Aug 19, 2010 3:29 pm UTC

I don't see why this is about reconciliation or forgiveness. Islam didn't attack the United States on 9/11, Al Qaeda did. If we set a precedent that Islam (as a whole) is responsible for 9/11, then we also have to acknowldege that Christianity is responsible for the OKC bombing, the Centennial Park bombing, etc.

I have no more opposition to this opening than if a YMCA (Young Men's Christian Association) was going to open in the same site. I don't see how anyone could be opposed for any reasonable reason. If this group supports Al Qaeda materially or monetarily, that's a whole different situation.

Arrian wrote:The article you posted is biased for failing to acknowledge that emotional resistance to a prominent new mosque very close to the site of the largest Islamic terrorist attack in history is certainly reasonable.


By definition this wouldn't be 'reasonable'. Maybe unsurprising or expected, but not reasonable. Large groups of people can have unreasonable opinions.

Either way, we can just remember how quick the right was to throw out this:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


Next time they mention this:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The Reaper
Posts: 4008
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: San Antonio, Tx
Contact:

Re: Ground zero "mosque"

Postby The Reaper » Thu Aug 19, 2010 3:31 pm UTC

Levelheaded wrote:Either way, we can just remember how quick the right was to throw out this:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


Next time they mention this:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

With 70% republicans +50% democrats +50% others of america against this action, you best be trolling with your political shenanigans. Its not just the right thats against it.

protip: you can pry my gun from my cold dead hands. And I'm fine with a community center.
Last edited by The Reaper on Thu Aug 19, 2010 3:47 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

Re: Ground zero "mosque"

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Thu Aug 19, 2010 3:40 pm UTC

iop wrote:
Godskalken wrote:All the 9/11 attackers were men, and yet we keep allowing all that male activity around ground zero.
Send all these damn men back to where they came from already!

To be fair, the 9/11 attacks were not conducted in the name of men, but in the name of Islam.

Really?
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

H2SO4
NOCTUNICUS, LORD OF SLEEP
Posts: 931
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 6:36 am UTC

Re: Ground zero "mosque"

Postby H2SO4 » Thu Aug 19, 2010 3:43 pm UTC

I just find it funny that Nancy Pelosi wants to find out where the money for the opposition is coming from, but not where the money for the mosque is coming from.

What I find absolutely perverse is how the media has even given consideration to the argument that Muslims should be sensitive to 9/11 victim's feelings.

...You mean like how white people are supposed to be sensitive to black people over something fewer and fewer people were a part of? (Slavery, Jim Crow laws, etc.)
Ooh! Ooh! Or EVERYONE to Jews over something only one country (and even then, not everyone in that country) did almost 70 years ago?
Man, this game is fun.
But I, being poor, have only my dreams. I have spread my dreams under your feet; tread softly, because you tread on my dreams.

Levelheaded
Posts: 185
Joined: Thu May 27, 2010 3:42 pm UTC

Re: Ground zero "mosque"

Postby Levelheaded » Thu Aug 19, 2010 3:44 pm UTC

The Reaper wrote:With 70% of america against this action, you best be trolling with your political shenanigans. Its not just the right thats against it.

protip: you can pry my gun from my cold dead hands. And I'm fine with a community center.


Seventy-six percent (76%) of Republicans and 50% of adults not affiliated with either major party oppose building the mosque near the World Trace Center site. Democrats are evenly divided on the question.

Source: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/july_2010/20_favor_mosque_near_ground_zero_54_oppose

You are right that it's not just the Right that is opposed to this mosque, but according to this poll there is significantly more opposition from the right. I haven't seen anything about prominent Republicans / right-wing pundits supporting (or at least not opposing) the mosque. On the other hand, quite a few Democrats / left-wing pundits support the mosque (or at very least are implicitly supporting it based on the applicable 1st Amendment).

yedidyak
Posts: 954
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 10:24 pm UTC
Location: Israel

Re: Ground zero "mosque"

Postby yedidyak » Thu Aug 19, 2010 3:44 pm UTC

I can't find the article now, but I saw that the polls used in this argument are quite misleading. while ~65% of Americans opposed the building, ~60% also supported their right to build.

You dont have to think its a good idea to support the right to build it.

The Reaper
Posts: 4008
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: San Antonio, Tx
Contact:

Re: Ground zero "mosque"

Postby The Reaper » Thu Aug 19, 2010 3:53 pm UTC

Levelheaded wrote:
The Reaper wrote:With 70% of america against this action, you best be trolling with your political shenanigans. Its not just the right thats against it.

protip: you can pry my gun from my cold dead hands. And I'm fine with a community center.


Seventy-six percent (76%) of Republicans and 50% of adults not affiliated with either major party oppose building the mosque near the World Trace Center site. Democrats are evenly divided on the question.

Source: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/july_2010/20_favor_mosque_near_ground_zero_54_oppose

You are right that it's not just the Right that is opposed to this mosque, but according to this poll there is significantly more opposition from the right. I haven't seen anything about prominent Republicans / right-wing pundits supporting (or at least not opposing) the mosque. On the other hand, quite a few Democrats / left-wing pundits support the mosque (or at very least are implicitly supporting it based on the applicable 1st Amendment).

My point is that supporting the second amendment has nothing to do with the support of the first. It was fairly uncalled for to bring your political views towards that particular subject in this thread.
Also: according to wiki, its about the same number of people on both the republican side and democrat side that are against it. (55*.76 vs 72*.5) [41 mil vs 36 mil]

User avatar
iop
Posts: 930
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2007 11:26 am UTC
Location: The ivory tower

Re: Ground zero "mosque"

Postby iop » Thu Aug 19, 2010 4:10 pm UTC

Godskalken wrote:Anyway, what does it mean that something is done "in the name of islam" when hardly any muslims support the action? Imagine a situation where a few men performed a terrorist attack and claimed it was "in the name of men". Would this then allow us to treat men in general differently from other people?
SlyReaper wrote:
iop wrote:
Godskalken wrote:All the 9/11 attackers were men, and yet we keep allowing all that male activity around ground zero.
Send all these damn men back to where they came from already!

To be fair, the 9/11 attacks were not conducted in the name of men, but in the name of Islam.

If it was conducted in the name of puppies, would we ban puppies from doing anything near the site?

Should we? No, of course not.

Would, say, PETA get a bad reputation, if 'green terrorists' burnt down Saks to protest about all the puppies harmed in making cosmetics, coats and handbags? Most likely.

TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:Really?

Apparently not. Though it looks like I have the same wrong ideas as lots of Americans. At least I'm not wrong alone.

The Reaper
Posts: 4008
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: San Antonio, Tx
Contact:

Re: Ground zero "mosque"

Postby The Reaper » Thu Aug 19, 2010 4:16 pm UTC

iop wrote:
Godskalken wrote:Anyway, what does it mean that something is done "in the name of islam" when hardly any muslims support the action? Imagine a situation where a few men performed a terrorist attack and claimed it was "in the name of men". Would this then allow us to treat men in general differently from other people?
SlyReaper wrote:
iop wrote:
Godskalken wrote:All the 9/11 attackers were men, and yet we keep allowing all that male activity around ground zero.
Send all these damn men back to where they came from already!

To be fair, the 9/11 attacks were not conducted in the name of men, but in the name of Islam.

If it was conducted in the name of puppies, would we ban puppies from doing anything near the site?
Should we? No, of course not.

Actually, given the "dangerous breeds" bullshit that goes on, and the actually dangerous breeds not being on the dangerous breeds list, I think we already ban certain puppy breeds from entire areas just on the actions of a few dogs. Why they don't ban chihuahuas, dachshunds, and terriers? No clue. Yipping and biting little monstrosities.

Levelheaded
Posts: 185
Joined: Thu May 27, 2010 3:42 pm UTC

Re: Ground zero "mosque"

Postby Levelheaded » Thu Aug 19, 2010 4:23 pm UTC

The Reaper wrote:My point is that supporting the second amendment has nothing to do with the support of the first. It was fairly uncalled for to bring your political views towards that particular subject in this thread.
Also: according to wiki, its about the same number of people on both the republican side and democrat side that are against it. (55*.70 vs 72*.5) [32 mil vs 36 mil]


Pardon the snark previously, but I think I made a legitimate argument.

The most common defense of the Second Amendment is a literal interpretation, possibly with certain restrictions (registering machine guns, banning felons from owning, etc) for public safety are acceptable. I've regularly seen it said (and agree myself) that clear public safety reasons are the only acceptable reasons to restrict gun ownership.

This defense of the Second Amendment does not reconcile with a position that First Amendment rights can be violated simply because Ground Zero is 'sacred' or some people's sensibilities have been offended.

There are some defenses of the Second Amendment that are independent of support of the First Amendment, but explicit unambiguous language in the Consitution and court precedent supersedes any secondary defenses.


Also, I don't understand what relevance a difference in the size of political parties has to do with this argument. Half of Democrats are opposed to the mosque, three out of four Republicans are opposed to the mosque. It's pretty straightforward for the discussion at hand.

User avatar
EsotericWombat
Colorful Orator
Posts: 2567
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2007 4:36 pm UTC
Location: Boston, MA
Contact:

Re: Ground zero "mosque"

Postby EsotericWombat » Thu Aug 19, 2010 4:24 pm UTC

I can tell you why I didn't make a thread about the two-blocks-away-from-and-without-any-clear-line-of-sight-to-ground-zero Islamic Cultural Center. Because I knew that even here there would be some fucking idiots who think that Islam attacked America, or that people who behave as if Islam attacked America are worthy of any respect.

I wish this didn't need to be said, but the most effective way to thwart Islamic extremism is to dismantle the notion that America is anti-Muslim and in so doing discredit the narrative that they're using to get people to join their pseudo-Islamic death cult. The people making political hay out of this are being unpatriotic, both in terms of respect for our Constitutional freedoms and in terms of our national security.
Image


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 26 guests