[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Gee-Man 

It's not naive nonsense, it's simply a fact. There are over 1.5 BILLION Muslims in the world. It is the world's second largest religion. if it were even remotely true that the vast majority of them are directly or indirectly involved with terrorism, or that the basic tenants of Islam are about mandating all-out war with other religions, then we'd basically all be dead. The human race could simply not survive that paranoid vision of a true clash of civilizations.

Any such movement, society etc. is always composed of masses of so-called "moderates" who are content to sit by and let the minority do the dirty work while issuing quiet nods of approval. Again, where is the great split over terrorism in the name of islam? Where is the outcry and outrage? The muslim opposition to terrorism is composed of a tiny outspoken minority and those who find it politically expedient.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Necessary? Maybe. Proper? That's a more subjective evaluation. In other words, "made-up" based on what seems appropriate at the time, whether for political or moral reasons. Kind of like religion.

If you can't tell the different between rational evaluation and "made-up", there is not point in continuing discussing this with you.

(I'm not going to argue over my choice of the word "proper")

For lack of a better word, you should respect it on the basis of politeness. Because I don't think you'd appreciate it if some religious sect started protesting some secular aspect of your life that they found abstractly objectionable but didn't practically affect them at all.

Reminds me of a great quote:

"in any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win."

I'll continue to denounce and oppose any ideology which is antithetical to human rights, whether it be Islam or the socio-fascism hybrid of Obama (cue the ad homonyms!).

Also, my beliefs are among the most disrespected of any in this country. It's not a problem. I am not owed any such thing.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

If you can't tell the different between rational evaluation and "made-up", there is not point in continuing discussing this with you.

(I'm not going to argue over my choice of the word "proper")

What I'm saying is that I question whether you appreciate in your argument here that the application of "rational" philosophies is subject to a lot of cultural bias (the "made-up" part). I don't understand how you can honestly denounce governance by "made-up beliefs" without living in a cave. Since you're not, I assume you are acquiescing for reasons of practicality, like the rest of us. I'd love to live in a world where I didn't have to deal with other people's "made up beliefs," but I'd probably go stir-crazy.

I'll continue to denounce and oppose any ideology which is antithetical to human rights, whether it be Islam or the socio-fascism hybrid of Obama (cue the ad homonyms!).

Fair enough. I agree that you should. I just don't see how the philosophies of this person qualify as that, since he seems to articulate a vision of Islam that specifically incorporates modern sensibilities on human rights. I admit I haven't read very much on him, just the piece I linked to. Have you?

Even if his beliefs are antithetical to human rights, I also believe that opposing the ideology is distinct from opposing the action. I oppose many parts of the Republican Party's platform (their "ideology"), some even you might say on moral grounds (a woman's right to choose, capital punishment, etc). I don't protest their actions, that is, their ability to execute their various offices, campaigns, etc. As I said, it seems quite petty. There certainly doesn't seem to be any "moral" justification for doing so, as these actions in themselves don't carry any actual moral significance.

Just as I don't see how anyone has a "moral" justification to oppose the construction of the mosque/community center, because it's existence doesn't have any moral significance by itself. You're better off sticking to the ideology.

Also, my beliefs are among the most disrespected of any in this country. It's not a problem. I am not owed any such thing.

Ah, so you have a bunker mentality. That explains a lot.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

you can certainly claim that they're being insensitive, and you might be right. but, I wouldn't expect the government to ignore the rights and freedoms of some Americans because other Americans feel they're being insensitive.

Nor would I.

[subego]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

I think the issue is more like, insensitive to whom? Should they be "called out" for not being sensitive enough to people who don't live in New York but think a radius of some arbitrary number of blocks around Ground Zero should be "hallowed ground"? Or is it enough to just be sensitive to the people who actually live and work in this now apparently sanctified area of the city? I come down on the latter. I fully believe that people should be sensitive to reasonable complaints. None of the complaints I've heard about this sound reasonable.

While I have already stated the distance issue is fuzzy, it's not exactly arbitrary either. The developers have touted its proximity to Ground Zero as a feature.

Similarly, this isn't necessarily a zero sum game of balancing legitimate needs and desires. The governor put an offer on the table and the developers went on the record saying "we're not moving" without even listening to it. I have to say that seems a lot more like "**** you" than a display of sensitivity to the other parties involved.

[The Final Dakar]

Haven't seen this mentioned in the thread yet, but is the proposed opening date of 9-11-11 true or a made up talking point? Because I would seriously consider reversing my position if its the former.

[subego]

Not that I'm going out on a limb here, but I call bogus.

[The Final Dakar]

I'll let someone else dig up a source, if they feel inclined to play it.

[jokell82]

Originally Posted by subego 

While I have already stated the distance issue is fuzzy, it's not exactly arbitrary either. The developers have touted its proximity to Ground Zero as a feature.

Similarly, this isn't necessarily a zero sum game of balancing legitimate needs and desires. The governor put an offer on the table and the developers went on the record saying "we're not moving" without even listening to it. I have to say that seems a lot more like "**** you" than a display of sensitivity to the other parties involved.

What the governor actually offered could be unconstitutional - as he offered state land instead of the private land they want to use now. Regardless, why should they have to entertain ANY offers? It's private land and they have permission to build on it. If I was in their position I wouldn't listen to any offers either.

[subego]

Originally Posted by jokell82 

If I was in their position I wouldn't listen to any offers either.

As would be your right.

My point was that the behavior isn't displaying sensitivity to the complaints.

You don't seem sensitive to the complaints either.

You would behave the way they're behaving.

Q.E.D.

[hyteckit]

No Mosque in Tennessee either. Doesn't promote domestic tranquility.

In Murfreesboro, Tenn.: Church 'Yes,' Mosque 'No' - TIME

While insisting he isn't anti-Islam, Fisher says he does question how construction of the mosque "promotes the general welfare" of the people, as outlined in the Bill of Rights. "I respect their rights to worhip as they see fit, but I'm not certain this promotes domestic tranquility."

[Demonhood]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Haven't seen this mentioned in the thread yet, but is the proposed opening date of 9-11-11 true or a made up talking point? Because I would seriously consider reversing my position if its the former.

Looks like BS, according to the official site and their twitter account.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by subego 

As would be your right.

My point was that the behavior isn't displaying sensitivity to the complaints.

You don't seem sensitive to the complaints either.

You would behave the way they're behaving.

Q.E.D.

How are threy being insensitive?

[subego]

They rejected the offer without hearing it first.

[Wiskedjak]

How is that insensitive? Someone offered to purchase my house that I wasn't selling, and I rejected it without hearing the offer. Was I being insensitive as well?

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

How is that insensitive? Someone offered to purchase my house that I wasn't selling, and I rejected it without hearing the offer. Was I being insensitive as well?

If I understand the point of the thread, you would only be insensitive if you were Muslim.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

How is that insensitive? Someone offered to purchase my house that I wasn't selling, and I rejected it without hearing the offer. Was I being insensitive as well?

If you're asking "are these situations comparable when stripped of all context", the answer is no.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

If I understand the point of the thread, you would only be insensitive if you were Muslim.

Though my comment on context from above still applies, which is a notion your response ignores entirely, I've already stated flat-out I take issue with Muslims. I won't shy away from accusations of the same.

If you're going to make the choice to swing with a violent, theocratic, mysogynist, medeval religion, I'm going to assume that choice says something about you.

As for the moderates, I'm waiting for the schism, which other religions seem to manage over things far less material than whether lighting women on fire is acceptable. If they want to build that mosque there... hell, I'll donate.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by subego 

If you're going to make the choice to swing with a violent, theocratic, mysogynist, medeval religion, I'm going to assume that choice says something about you.

OK, now I'm confused ... which religion are you talking about? They're *all* violent, theocratic (or would prefer to be), misogynist and medieval. The fact that you choose to swing with one over another says something about *you*.

Still, though, I'm wondering why it's insensitive to not listen to an offer? Rude, perhaps, but I'm not convinced about "insensitive".

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by subego 

As for the moderates, I'm waiting for the schism, which other religions seem to manage over things far less material than whether lighting women on fire is acceptable. If they want to build that mosque there... hell, I'll donate.

My understanding is that there have already been a number of "schisms", and as a result there are several "schools" of Islamic thought. They consider themselves to have more in common with each other than, say, the different Christian demoninations do. But they are separate enough to like to fight each other, and there are lots of examples of this throughout history.

So what are you waiting for, exactly?

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Ah, so you have a bunker mentality. That explains a lot.

That's insulting and untrue.

I am constantly trying to take in new information and revising or refining my opinions. It's the main reason I argue with people here in the first place. It helps me understand my own positions and even at times gives me reason to question them. In my spare time I study philosophy, not as a merely academic pursuit but as a way to make sense of the world and try to avoid basing my opinions on emotion, whim, or "made-up" ideologies. Furthermore, I didn't say that I felt attacked or oppressed, only that people who believe like I do are highly disrespected. Which is certainly true.

And with that, I bid you good day…









I SAID GOOD DAY! /fez

[hyteckit]

I say ban the Arabic language from being spoken and written anywhere near ground zero.

It insensitive to speak the Arabic language near ground zero because those terrorist from 9/11 spoke Arabic.

Besides, the Arabs might be planning another terrorist attack near ground zero and us Americans won't be able to understand a single word they say.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

OK, now I'm confused ... which religion are you talking about? They're *all* violent, theocratic (or would prefer to be), misogynist and medieval. The fact that you choose to swing with one over another says something about *you*.

My silly answer is I know some Buddhists who would kick your ass at the implication.

My more serious answer is if you compare how the modern day three biggest monotheistic religions conduct themselves in terms of violence, misogyny and medeval attitude, there is no comparison. One beats out the other two by an order of magnitude.

So, yes. The fact I swing with one over another does say something about me.

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Still, though, I'm wondering why it's insensitive to not listen to an offer? Rude, perhaps, but I'm not convinced about "insensitive".

I'm looking at the Venn diagram here for "rude" and "insensitive", and it sure seems like there's a whole mess of overlap.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

My understanding is that there have already been a number of "schisms", and as a result there are several "schools" of Islamic thought. They consider themselves to have more in common with each other than, say, the different Christian demoninations do. But they are separate enough to like to fight each other, and there are lots of examples of this throughout history.

So what are you waiting for, exactly?

You answer your own question. Other religions have bigger schisms and don't have to kill each other over it.

That's what I'm waiting for.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by subego 

My silly answer is I know some Buddhists who would kick your ass at the implication.

Most of them would tell you that Buddhism is a philosophy rather than a religion.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'm looking at the Venn diagram here for "rude" and "insensitive", and it sure seems like there's a whole mess of overlap.

But *why*???

You keep saying that it's insensitive, but you have yet to say *why* it's insensitive, even though I've asked you several times now.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Most of them would tell you that Buddhism is a philosophy rather than a religion.

The Buddhists I've encountered would have just went with the joke.

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

But *why*???

You keep saying that it's insensitive, but you have yet to say *why* it's insensitive, even though I've asked you several times now.

For the most part, you've been asking "how", which I've been answering.

Now that the question is "why", my answer is that whether one is willing to listen is one of the metrics by which we gauge sensitivity (or lack thereof).

I'm pretty convinced that's not the answer you were looking for, so you're going to have to pretend I'm stupid (or not pretend, as the case may be) and rephrase or be more specific for me.

I don't know what you're looking for so I'm having trouble providing it.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by subego 

You answer your own question. Other religions have bigger schisms and don't have to kill each other over it.

That's what I'm waiting for.

Really? You seem to be ignoring a lot of the history of Christianity. Wars were fought in Eurpoe over whether or not to follow the Pope, after all.

[OldManMac]

Here's exactly why people who are adamantly opposed to this project don't get it, on any number of levels. Those levels include claims of insensitivity.

Mosque near ground zero? Constitution says yes | detnews.com | The Detroit News

[Wiskedjak]

ok, so they're being insensitive simply because they don't want to consider offers to have them move their location. Even if they did listen to the offer, would they still be insensitive if they *then* turned down the offer?

Will it also be considered insensitive for Muslims to go shopping in the mall at the base of the Freedom tower, or to hold jobs in the tower itself? Perhaps a 3 block radius of Ground Zero should be declared a Muslim free zone?

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Will it also be considered insensitive for Muslims to go shopping in the mall at the base of the Freedom tower, or to hold jobs in the tower itself? Perhaps a 3 block radius of Ground Zero should be declared a Muslim free zone?

Should we let them mourn there or not? That's a tough one.

Maybe mourners can get up to 1 block away. And only one day a year.

Muslim Victims of Terrorist Attack, September 11, 2001

[Doofy]

Barry getting involved in a city planning issue?
Must be an election coming soon.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

ok, so they're being insensitive simply because they don't want to consider offers to have them move their location. Even if they did listen to the offer, would they still be insensitive if they *then* turned down the offer?

That would depend on the quality of offer, and the way in which it was rejected.

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Will it also be considered insensitive for Muslims to go shopping in the mall at the base of the Freedom tower, or to hold jobs in the tower itself? Perhaps a 3 block radius of Ground Zero should be declared a Muslim free zone?

No, and no.

I think there's a big difference between being in an area and building an institution there.

Edit: I've rethought the above answer and say that it too is context dependent (the insensitive part, not the Muslim-free part)

Edit2: There's a key attitude component to all of this. For example, if the center was also a memorial, I'd feel very differently about it, as I believe many would.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

Really? You seem to be ignoring a lot of the history of Christianity. Wars were fought in Eurpoe over whether or not to follow the Pope, after all.

Am I ignoring it, or are how the way things were handled in the 17th century just not relevant in the 21st?

[subego]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Here's exactly why people who are adamantly opposed to this project don't get it, on any number of levels. Those levels include claims of insensitivity.

Mosque near ground zero? Constitution says yes | detnews.com | The Detroit News

Or not, as the case may be.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Barry getting involved in a city planning issue?
Must be an election coming soon.

Well then he's cutting off his nose to spite his face. Evidenced by how much distance the Dems are trying to keep between him and their campaigns this fall.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Well then he's cutting off his nose to spite his face.

Nobody ever accused any Dem of being the sharpest tool in the shed.

[ebuddy]

I don't think anyone has challenged the constitutionality of this move. I think what folks are saying from the President-down is... it's a stupid thing to do. How stupid? KKK marching down the streets of Harlem stupid. Of course, not all white supremacists have killed black people, but how many of them would apologize on behalf of a fellow clownsman who did?

The flake who's heading this project is another one of those "OBL made in USA" nutcakes who will accept money from Iran or anyone else actively involved in killing US soldiers to get this thing built. What's funny is they'll have the plans drafted, pieced together, and the building completed in a 10th the amount of time it has taken NYC officials to decide exactly what they want to do with the "hallowed, sacred ground zero".

They'll build it and they have every right to build it there, and others have every right to dislike the move. It's as much a terrorist recruiting tool if they build it as it is if it were denied and the constant protesting there once it's built isn't going to help produce any kind of peace among men or decrease terrorist recruiting.

Nonetheless, I will not assume a hostile intent unless they show the audacity to open this thing on 9/11. Of course, they'd have the right to do that too.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Nobody ever accused any Dem of being the sharpest tool in the shed.

true 'dat!

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by subego 

... if the center was also a memorial, I'd feel very differently about it, as I believe many would.

Are you suggesting that every new development within 2 blocks of Ground Zero should be a memorial?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The flake who's heading this project is another one of those "OBL made in USA" nutcakes who will accept money from Iran or anyone else actively involved in killing US soldiers to get this thing built.

Are you referring to the same flake who accepted money from George W. Bush to travel to the Mid East on his behalf?

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Are you referring to the same flake who accepted money from George W. Bush to travel to the Mid East on his behalf?

That's only because Pres. George W. Bush had a headache that week and got tired of holding the Saudi King's hands.

Or at least that was Pres. Bush's excuse.

Hmm... accepting money for escort services?

Sounds like Pres. Bush was the flake. Haha.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I don't think anyone has challenged the constitutionality of this move. I think what folks are saying from the President-down is... it's a stupid thing to do.

...

They'll build it and they have every right to build it there, and others have every right to dislike the move.

Right. So, what's the point of politicians debating it? The 'official' federal government position on this pretty much has to be 'They have the right to do what they want. We're not going to get involved, so y'all can debate amongst yourselves as to whether you like it or not.' Which is pretty much what a key government official (the POTUS) said.

So - explain to me why this should affect my vote for someone for a government position one way or another, if said government really doesn't have anything to say about it. The only way it would impact my vote would be if some candidate took a position of trying to overstep the government's bounds by getting involved. I really don't give a rip whether some politician thinks it's 'insensitive' or not - I just care about how they would execute the office for which they are running (which, again, this has absolutely no bearing on).

[subego]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Are you suggesting that every new development within 2 blocks of Ground Zero should be a memorial?

No.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by subego 

No.

Then why should *this* one be a memorial? Simply because the developers happen to be of the same religion as the 9/11 hijackers?

[Wiskedjak]

Is it not also insensitive when Christians protest abortion clinics while Christian priests are raping young children?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

Right. So, what's the point of politicians debating it? The 'official' federal government position on this pretty much has to be 'They have the right to do what they want. We're not going to get involved, so y'all can debate amongst yourselves as to whether you like it or not.' Which is pretty much what a key government official (the POTUS) said.

So - explain to me why this should affect my vote for someone for a government position one way or another, if said government really doesn't have anything to say about it. The only way it would impact my vote would be if some candidate took a position of trying to overstep the government's bounds by getting involved. I really don't give a rip whether some politician thinks it's 'insensitive' or not - I just care about how they would execute the office for which they are running (which, again, this has absolutely no bearing on).

Were you interested in discussing whether or not politicians are executing their offices effectively? Otherwise, this thread is opening debate on the Mosque in question.

Politicians may debate an issue for any reason up to and including getting the subject into the public discourse. The folks interested in building the mosque may have heard the overwhelming sentiment of the American people and decided that a better show of solidarity would be to build elsewhere. Of course, they don't have to be concerned about any of this nor do they have to build elsewhere, but a decision to build the mosque elsewhere would be constitutionally acceptable as well.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Politicians may debate an issue for any reason up to and including getting the subject into the public discourse.

They may also try to choose a topic for debate with the intent of polarizing undecided voters.

The folks interested in building the mosque may have heard the overwhelming sentiment of the American people and decided that a better show of solidarity would be to build elsewhere.

Or, they might have become solidified in their intent by not wanting to appear to be influenced by the fringe/radical elements of American society.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The folks interested in building the mosque may have heard the overwhelming sentiment of the American people and decided that a better show of solidarity would be to build elsewhere.

And that's a frightening thought, as it points out the tremendous insecurities of a large number of people, and the nationalism that is accompanying that. This country is headed for a troubled future.

Of course, they don't have to be concerned about any of this nor do they have to build elsewhere, but a decision to build the mosque elsewhere would be constitutionally acceptable as well.

Which would amount to a win for those opposing, except that it isn't just in NYC that Islam is under attack in America.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

And that's a frightening thought, as it points out the tremendous insecurities of a large number of people, and the nationalism that is accompanying that. This country is headed for a troubled future.

Which would amount to a win for those opposing, except that it isn't just in NYC that Islam is under attack in America.

Yeah, but could you at least try to make insecurities and nationalism sound less appealing than hopelessly antagonistic?