PDA

View Full Version : Good news plus a topic for debate


Goldeneyes
07-22-2010, 02:13 PM
Hey peoples. I'm back for another drive-by posting. I know, I do this every few months. But this time I have some good news. I'm going to be a dad! My wife and I have been very busy over the last few months doing assorted baby preparation like trying to figure out what we need to buy, realizing we bought stuff that isn't actually useful (e.g. bottle sterilizers), returning said items and learning more never-heard-of-that-before stuff at lamaze class. 4 weeks left till delivery. And that's if the kid's not early. Eeek. :)


But I didn't come back just to share that. I wanted to suggest a topic for debate. Some of you may have already heard in the news about what many in the media are calling the "Ground Zero Mosque." Basically an interfaith group that has been in NYC since before 9/11 wants to create an interfaith center near ground zero. The group is Mulim-led. The center will indeed have a prayer space for Muslims but mostly is set up as a community center, complete with basketball courts, swimming pool and so on. Not so different from the Jewish-led 92nd Street Y (http://www.92y.org/). People against this project are focusing on the Muslim-led part, as well as the Muslim prayer space. Even Sarah Palin jumped in to oppose it. On the other hand, NY gov't officials and various faith leaders expressed support.

I wanted to see what people on this forum think. I'll jump in with my opinion soon, but for now I'll say I find it disturbing but not so surprising that a lot of people with hatred in their hearts are coming out of the woodworks. If you read the comments in Palin's facebook entry for example, you'll find people that want to kill Bloomberg among other things. Many seem to think that all Muslims are evil because of the actions of the extremists.

For those who are new to this, below are some links. An amusing part of this whole thing was, of course, Palin's creation of whole new words.


Basic idea of what this Islamic Center is about:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128544392

Local Borough president vs. Republican
http://www.clicker.com/tv/hardball/WTC-mosque-plan-sparks-fierce-debate-1008236/

Palin's Initial Tweets + Counter-refudiations:
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/sarah-palin-riles-nyc-mayor-michael-bloomberg-mosque/story?id=11203590

Palin FB entry + comments
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=411073718434

More Bloomberg on Palin and his staffer:
http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local-beat/Bloomberg-Weighs-In-On-Palins-Racist-Mosque-Tweets-98829709.html

WinespringBrother
07-22-2010, 02:30 PM
Congratulations!

Re: the downtown Mosque, I have no problem with it due to my immunity to Fox Fear Mongering.

Sarevok
07-22-2010, 02:34 PM
Congrats!

About what to build: I'll leave that to you Americans. :)

Basel Gill
07-22-2010, 02:44 PM
Denying equal rights to citizens even if it grates against your sensibilities is thoroughly un-American. I may not agree with the idea to build this center there (and make no mistake, I think people would be a little blind to not think that a statement is being made by that choice of location), however, there is no legal standing to deny it either.

If the price is right, then sell them the land and let them build their center. What could be more American than that?

If I am not mistaken, it is on the general property, but not actually ON the spot where the towers were, correct? So, there would still be room for a memorial or something?

Another take, there were talks of new towers for years and no one ever moved forward on it, I guess it could just be a matter of "shit or get off the pot".

Ivhon
07-22-2010, 03:02 PM
First and foremost...Congratulations!

As for the NYC thing, I guess the problem that I have is that the spiritual center is denominational in the first place. It should be interfaith - a place for all to remember, mourn and commune regardless of creed or of no creed.

Secondarily, I can understand how it might be taken as an affront when the worship center at ground zero is dedicated to the faith in whose name the atrocity was committed. Don't have to be a hater to see the point of view. Of course, those that are haters - such as Palin and her ilk - will seize upon the worst of it and take it to illogical extremes. But then, lies, gross exagerrations and misrepresentations are nothing new when it comes to the Palins of the world.

Terez
07-22-2010, 03:27 PM
I think people would be a little blind to not think that a statement is being made by that choice of location.
What statement is that, though?

Davian93
07-22-2010, 03:47 PM
But but but all Muslims are terrists!!!

fdsaf3
07-22-2010, 03:52 PM
The building is already used by Muslims to worship every Friday, and ostensibly community members have no problem with that. Their problem is what, exactly: that Muslims would build a permanent house of worship? To me, this espouses some kind of weird similarity to "don't ask don't tell". I don't understand the commonly held view in this country that as long as we're not talking about something, it's not a problem.

Ivhon
07-22-2010, 03:56 PM
The building is already used by Muslims to worship every Friday, and ostensibly community members have no problem with that. Their problem is what, exactly: that Muslims would build a permanent house of worship? To me, this espouses some kind of weird similarity to "don't ask don't tell". I don't understand the commonly held view in this country that as long as we're not talking about something, it's not a problem.

Well isn't it obvious? If you don't say you are gay, don't act like you are gay, and in all other ways don't let anyone know you are gay, then of course you are not a problem. Keep your gayness to yourself and be just like all the other good drones and you are fine. Its the cheeky bastards that have to go shout it from the rooftops that upset the natural order of things and cause all kinds of problems like hurricanes and earthquakes.

fdsaf3
07-22-2010, 04:01 PM
Well isn't it obvious? If you don't say you are gay, don't act like you are gay, and in all other ways don't let anyone know you are gay, then of course you are not a problem. Keep your gayness to yourself and be just like all the other good drones and you are fine. Its the cheeky bastards that have to go shout it from the rooftops that upset the natural order of things and cause all kinds of problems like hurricanes and earthquakes.

I know this is sarcasm, but I can't tell if you are mocking me or American society at large with this post.

Ivhon
07-22-2010, 04:02 PM
I know this is sarcasm, but I can't tell if you are mocking me or American society at large with this post.

American Society at Large.

Goldeneyes
07-22-2010, 04:15 PM
The building is already used by Muslims to worship every Friday, and ostensibly community members have no problem with that. Their problem is what, exactly: that Muslims would build a permanent house of worship? To me, this espouses some kind of weird similarity to "don't ask don't tell". I don't understand the commonly held view in this country that as long as we're not talking about something, it's not a problem.

That's kind of like a funny point that a NY Times article made: The Imam behind this latest project has led prayers at a mosque 12 blocks from Ground Zero for the last few years at least. That apparently hasn't caused any issues to date. But to create a Mosque (which this new project isn't, really) 2 blocks away from Ground Zero is a big no-no. So then, the level of tolerance for mosques near ground zero is somewhere between 2 and 12 blocks. :|

Ivhon
07-22-2010, 04:22 PM
That's kind of like a funny point that a NY Times article made: The Imam behind this latest project has led prayers at a mosque 12 blocks from Ground Zero for the last few years at least. That apparently hasn't caused any issues to date. But to create a Mosque (which this new project isn't, really) 2 blocks away from Ground Zero is a big no-no. So then, the level of tolerance for mosques near ground zero is somewhere between 2 and 12 blocks. :|

The funny thing is that there are probably more Muslims living in Manhattan than there are tea-party conservatives.

EDIT: Of course, there is always the chance that Palin will pull a Hillary and move to Manhattan now that she no longer can take tax-payer financed shopping excursions with her daughters

Sinistrum
07-22-2010, 04:52 PM
I say poll the survivors of 9-11 and the families of the victims and use that to determine whether something like this should be built on the former WTC grounds. If they're ok with it, then so am I. If not, then I think its pretty much a slap in the face to them.

fdsaf3
07-22-2010, 05:41 PM
I say poll the survivors of 9-11 and the families of the victims and use that to determine whether something like this should be built on the former WTC grounds. If they're ok with it, then so am I. If not, then I think its pretty much a slap in the face to them.

I don't know about this. Personally, I don't see their opinions being the only deciding factor. No disrespect, but despite the fact that I wasn't personally affected by the tragedy of 9/11 by losing someone close to me or being involved in the catastrophe, it was still a horrific event for me. I'm not trying to compare tragic events or anything like that, and I really hope this post isn't taken in that way.

On an unrelated note, I find it intriguing that the construction of a community center would never be national news save for this center's location relative to the site of the WTC. Maybe this shouldn't be a national issue and people like Sarah Palin shouldn't interject their irrelevant opinions. Just saying.

edited for clarity.

Zaela Sedai
07-22-2010, 10:08 PM
JEEBUS! Our raptor pack is getting LARGE!!!!

Congrats! I'm about a month behind you ;)

Neilbert
07-23-2010, 02:24 AM
I say poll the survivors of 9-11 and the families of the victims and use that to determine whether something like this should be built on the former WTC grounds. If they're ok with it, then so am I. If not, then I think its pretty much a slap in the face to them.

It's not so much on the grounds as a couple blocks away. This discussion came and went for me a while ago, so I'm not clear on the details, but it wasn't next to ground zero, and it certainly wasn't on the former WTC grounds.

But hey, congratulations on being an idiot who falls for bad reporting instead of doing a tiny bit of research. But hey, let's throw out freedom of speech and all those other personal liberties you claim to love because of... why exactly?

On an unrelated note, I find it intriguing that the construction of a community center would never be national news save for this center's location relative to the site of the WTC. Maybe this shouldn't be a national issue and people like Sarah Palin shouldn't interject their irrelevant opinions. Just saying.

IIRC it was a Muslim place of worship before 9-11, and is really just being expanded and renovated. This is really just something to get reactionary idiots riled up and thinking Muslims are building a shrine on the former WTC grounds. Because people will actually jump to that conclusion instead of thinking about it for two seconds and realizing how idiotic that is.

yks 6nnetu hing
07-23-2010, 02:53 AM
yay! congrats!

I don't rally have much to add on the discussion topic.

GonzoTheGreat
07-23-2010, 03:23 AM
The center will indeed have a prayer space for Muslims but mostly is set up as a community center, complete with basketball courts, swimming pool and so on.A basketball court? That is really un-American, isn't it? If those ragheads want to have that kind of thing, can't they go to their own countries?

A bit more seriously: does the USA really need any more places of worship?

PS It might be intuitively obvious to the casual reader that there's some sarcasm in this post. Then again, being obvious may be overrated.

Davian93
07-23-2010, 07:00 AM
I say poll the survivors of 9-11 and the families of the victims and use that to determine whether something like this should be built on the former WTC grounds. If they're ok with it, then so am I. If not, then I think its pretty much a slap in the face to them.

This is pretty much the dumbest statement you've ever posted here.


Equivalent: Timothy McVeigh was a "Christian". Therefore, before any new churches are built in Oklahoma City, a vote of all the victims of his bombing should take place to see whether they approve of it.

GonzoTheGreat
07-23-2010, 07:19 AM
Equivalent: Timothy McVeigh was a "Christian". Therefore, before any new churches are built in Oklahoma City, a vote of all the victims of his bombing should take place to see whether they approve of it.Why is that dumb? Sounds like a good idea to me. Would need a pretty explicit explanation of why this vote was taken, of course.

Basel Gill
07-23-2010, 07:57 AM
What statement is that, though?

Not quite sure what you're asking here.

My personal opinion is that the choice of location was WELL considered by the parties interested in building this center. Whether the goal is to have everyone join hands and come together in Utopia or whether it is a statement saying "f-you" to the victims of the WTC is up to everyone else to decide. I would speculate that there are plenty of places to have such a center other than THIS specific location, but I also understand that land in Manhattan is a premium and maybe there aren't that many suitable locations on Manhattan Island proper...never been to NYC...I don't know.

Unfortuanately, the first parallel I drew was something like us bombing the an iconic place in Afghanistan (if there is one), killing a bunch of their citizens and then trying to build a church or a US Embassy or something there. I think common sense would tell us that this may be taken to be in bad taste. I also believe that the reverse is true.

Again, that being said, there is no legal reason to interfere with their building. Apparently the elected officials of NYC have no problem with it and its their city, not mine.

Sei'taer
07-23-2010, 08:14 AM
A basketball court? That is really un-American, isn't it? If those ragheads want to have that kind of thing, can't they go to their own countries?




Towelhead...just sayin'. I would also assume that the basketball courts are for the black muslims, because we all know that regular muslims don't play basketball unless they are really tall and slow and only good at standing around with their hands in the air. Also, the pool must be for men only, unless women swim in burka suits (personally, I like burka suits...seeexxxxyyy!). I hear the shooting range and bomb making plaza are awesome!

(Is that good enough to be Gonzo in the anti-PCness?)

I don't care where they build it personally. If they paid for it, then it's theirs to do what they want.


ETA: Congrats on the crumb cruncher, btw!

GonzoTheGreat
07-23-2010, 08:18 AM
Towelhead...just sayin'.Thanks for that. I have trouble keeping up with fashion, here on the wrong side of the pond and all.

(Is that good enough to be Gonzo in the anti-PCness?)Well, you might have mentioned the flight school (take off and landing taught only in the advanced courses).

Sei'taer
07-23-2010, 08:26 AM
Well, you might have mentioned the flight school (take off and landing taught only in the advanced courses).


~Slaps head~ Dammit!

Ivhon
07-23-2010, 08:39 AM
LOLz

Goldeneyes
07-23-2010, 09:58 AM
Equivalent: Timothy McVeigh was a "Christian". Therefore, before any new churches are built in Oklahoma City, a vote of all the victims of his bombing should take place to see whether they approve of it.

Thanks everyone for the congratulations!! And congrats right back at Zaela Sedai.

I was going to make that same type of arguement. One of the things at the root of the fierce opposition here is that people seem to think that Islam itself = evil. I'm not Muslim mind you, but I'm familiar enough with the religion to know that it preaches peace just like other major religions revealed by messengers of God. Nobody really cares to learn about these things, which they could easily do by visiting a Mosque that has an english-speaking Imam. Such as it is, people are more than happy to just label all muslims as the enemy and decide that all gathering grounds for them are problematic.

If you think Islam = evil, then it's easy to be gravely offended by any members of "the enemy" building something next to the site of a terrorist attack that was carried out in the name of Islam (which is what bin laden and co. did, despite that it went completely against the tenets of Islam).

IMO, that's one of the key issues at the heart of the opposition. Willful ignorance is a problem here. If people strove to learn about other religions and cultures, they might find that their current opinions aren't correct. That said, for anyone that lost a loved one in the 9/11 attacks, I can understand that this is an extremely touchy location for them. Would I have built this right next to Ground Zero? Probably not. But now that the planners have decided to build here, it does bring to the forefront anti-Muslim sentiment in other locales that may not have come out before. Just saw an article about protests in 2-3 locations around the country against the building of mosques cuz they'll increase the chances of terrorist attacks.

As for Sinistrum's suggestion, that's not so different from what was started at the community board meeting. The planners of this Islamic center went to the local community board to get their thoughts on this thing. I'm not sure if they started asking 9/11 victim families. Since the planners started soliciting opinions from the public, that could have included 9/11 victims' families. But again, I'd refer back to my main arguement that willful ignorance is a root problem that I see as a greater issue in the long run, regardless of whether this one building is built or not.

Ishara
07-23-2010, 10:00 AM
Denying equal rights to citizens even if it grates against your sensibilities is thoroughly un-American.

Not being an American, I can't speak to that, but it seems that those sentiments are at least being said elsewhere on the interwbs on other blogs I read.

I may not agree with the idea to build this center there (and make no mistake, I think people would be a little blind to not think that a statement is being made by that choice of location), however, there is no legal standing to deny it either.

Okay, this has already been said, but the actual fact is that there are a LOT of Muslim people in lower Manhattan, and they need a place to worship, and the actual area also needs a community centre - it doesn't always have to be political.

If I am not mistaken, it is on the general property, but not actually ON the spot where the towers were, correct? So, there would still be room for a memorial or something?

Another take, there were talks of new towers for years and no one ever moved forward on it, I guess it could just be a matter of "shit or get off the pot".

Trust me when I say the following: first, there is more than enough room on the site for the planned memorial. Second, they are actually undergoing HUGE contruction right now in that area. If you google earth lower Manhattan, all you'll see is scaffolding, I swear. We were shocked at how much was underway when we were there in June. Now, yes. Given the fact that it's been NINE years, could you reasonably expect that construction would have happened sooner? Sure, but it's happening now!

My personal opinion is that the choice of location was WELL considered by the parties interested in building this center. Whether the goal is to have everyone join hands and come together in Utopia or whether it is a statement saying "f-you" to the victims of the WTC is up to everyone else to decide. I would speculate that there are plenty of places to have such a center other than THIS specific location, but I also understand that land in Manhattan is a premium and maybe there aren't that many suitable locations on Manhattan Island proper...never been to NYC...I don't know. This.

Look, the fact of the matter is that manhattan proper is NOT a big place. Lower Manhattan is even smaller - much smaller, in fact. If the community centre and place of worship is meant to serve the Muslim community (and others) in LOWER Manhatten, where would be an apporpraiet place to put it that's not to close to Ground Zero? Someone mentioned that the area seems to be >2 block, <12, given the current scenario? A mile? 2? Cause that puts it into mid-town, and not Lower Manhattan.

ETA: CONGRATULATIONS Goldeneyes!!! How exciting for you!!

Davian93
07-23-2010, 10:02 AM
The anger and fear against this mosque show that the terrorists have won. They've accomplished their goal of sowing hatred. We are losing or have lost the war on terror.


Wars fought against nouns are never easy to win...like the war on drugs, the war on poverty, etc etc.

Sinistrum
07-23-2010, 10:50 AM
So do you have an actual argument to explain my suggestion or can all any of you do throw insults around? I'm not surprised by Neilbert being that big of a retard about it, but I've come to expect better of you Davian. The fact that I'm not getting is a reflection of your own stupidity, not mine.

Gosh, I want to show sensitivity to the feelings of people who's family members have been murdered or who have been put through trauma akin to a war zone and I'm somehow the bad guy? What a crock of politically correct panty twisting bullshit the lot of you a peddling here.

As for the argument "oh its only two blocks away" even the organizers themselves admit that proximity to ground zero was the reason they wanted to build there.

The location was precisely a key selling point for the group of Muslims who bought the building in July. A presence so close to the World Trade Center, “where a piece of the wreckage fell,” said Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the cleric leading the project, “sends the opposite statement to what happened on 9/11.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/09/nyregion/09mosque.html

Given the latter part of the quote, I can understand their intentions are good in wanting to do this, but I still think the victims of the 9-11 attacks should at least have their voices heard on the matter before we honor even good intentions. Or would you rather they be silenced Neil, oh self-appointed champion of free speech?

GonzoTheGreat
07-23-2010, 10:59 AM
The victims of 9/11 are dead. That's what makes them victims, you know.

What you are saying is that a bunch of people who somehow can claim a connection to those victims would get a deciding vote over whether or not a Jewish* house of prayer would be allowed to build in a place that you think is "close enough to Ground Zero to warrant this".

Tell me, if someone had used my "they are all Jews" argument to try to block the building of a synagogue there, would you also have supported that?

* As I've said before, they're all Jews in the sense that they worship the god of Abraham. None of them agree that they are all Jews, thus proving my point, as Jews never agree on anything.

Crispin's Crispian
07-23-2010, 11:06 AM
Hey peoples. I'm back for another drive-by posting. I know, I do this every few months. But this time I have some good news. I'm going to be a dad! My wife and I have been very busy over the last few months doing assorted baby preparation like trying to figure out what we need to buy, realizing we bought stuff that isn't actually useful (e.g. bottle sterilizers), returning said items and learning more never-heard-of-that-before stuff at lamaze class. 4 weeks left till delivery. And that's if the kid's not early. Eeek. :)

Wow! Congrats, GE! Best wishes, and I hope you find time to post some pics. :)

I have no time to debate the "mosque"...sorry.

Sinistrum
07-23-2010, 11:08 AM
What you are saying is that a bunch of people who somehow can claim a connection to those victims would get a deciding vote over whether or not a Jewish* house of prayer would be allowed to build in a place that you think is "close enough to Ground Zero to warrant this".

I believe Dr. Cox sums up your characterization of my argument best.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrjwaqZfjIY

First off, if you think the only victims of atrocities such as this are the people who died, you're a bigger fool than I thought. Survivors and family members of the dead are just as much victims as those actually killed. The fact that you don't seem to recognize this confirms to me that your just as emotionally stunted as I originally suspected.

Second off, I never said "deciding vote." I want their voices to be heard and indicating my willingness to agree with whatever the majority of them want in my original post. My agreement does not translate into veto power, because hey, guess what. I don't live in NYC and I'm not on its building commission! Its sweet that you think my opinion holds that much sway all the way across the country, but even I can't claim that kind of power.

Thirdly, as I've already pointed out, the organizers of this building specifically wanted it close to ground zero because of their religious slant. The events of 9-11 and their own religion are explicitly tied to this construction project. I didn't make this about Islam and 9-11. They did with their stated intent.

Davian93
07-23-2010, 11:15 AM
So do you have an actual argument to explain my suggestion or can all any of you do throw insults around? I'm not surprised by Neilbert being that big of a retard about it, but I've come to expect better of you Davian. The fact that I'm not getting is a reflection of your own stupidity, not mine.

Gosh, I want to show sensitivity to the feelings of people who's family members have been murdered or who have been put through trauma akin to a war zone and I'm somehow the bad guy? What a crock of politically correct panty twisting bullshit the lot of you a peddling here.

As for the argument "oh its only two blocks away" even the organizers themselves admit that proximity to ground zero was the reason they wanted to build there.



http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/09/nyregion/09mosque.html

Given the latter part of the quote, I can understand their intentions are good in wanting to do this, but I still think the victims of the 9-11 attacks should at least have their voices heard on the matter before we honor even good intentions. Or would you rather they be silenced Neil, oh self-appointed champion of free speech?


Muslims didn't murder their family members...terrorists who called themselves "muslims" did. The Oklahoma City analogy is a good one. Take your scenario one step further: Muslims shouldn't be allowed to own any property in Lower Manhattan as it could be offensive to the families of the victims.

Davian93
07-23-2010, 11:25 AM
Besides which, its clear that strip clubs are okay on "Sacred Ground" but a Community Center isn't.

http://www.forbes.com/2010/07/22/ground-zero-mosque-religion-terrorism-opinions-columnists-conor-friedersdorf.html

Odd set of values that.

Sinistrum
07-23-2010, 11:25 AM
Muslims didn't murder their family members...terrorists who called themselves "muslims" did. The Oklahoma City analogy is a good one. Take your scenario one step further: Muslims shouldn't be allowed to own any property in Lower Manhattan as it could be offensive to the families of the victims.

A. Yeah sorry, but until Islam starts cleaning up its own house and quits relying on us to do it for them, this distinction you are attempting to make is useless in real world terms. People like Al Queda will remain a part of Islam up until the point that Islam itself kicks them out. They have yet to do so. I believe many of you took a similar approach to Catholicism and pedophile priests without any problem, but I guess thats probably because you were talking about white christian men instead of somebody who you can slap with the label of minority and thereby justify turning your brains off while discussing.

B. The Oklahoma City bombing is a crap analogy and you know it. Tim McVeigh didn't kill for Christianity. He killed because he was an anti-government nut job. A more applicable analogy would be OKC attempting to bar the building of meeting sights for violent anti-government radicals.

C. Furthermore, please point out where the fuck I've said they should be barred from building through government action. I've said it would be a POTENTIAL slap in the face to 9-11 victims and I've said that if it was that I, personally, wouldn't support it. I've never said that the government should step in and stop them from doing it though. If you can't show me where I have then get the hell off your high horse and shut the goddamn fuck up.

Davian93
07-23-2010, 11:31 AM
A. Yeah sorry, but until Islam starts cleaning up its own house and quits relying on us to do it for them, this distinction you are attempting to make is useless in real world terms. People like Al Queda will remain a part of Islam up until the point that Islam itself kicks them out. They have yet to do so. I believe many of you took a similar approach to Catholicism and pedophile priests without any problem, but I guess thats probably because you were talking about white christian men instead of somebody who you can slap with the label of minority and thereby justify turning your brains off while discussing.

B. The Oklahoma City bombing is a crap analogy and you know it. Tim McVeigh didn't kill for Christianity. He killed because he was an anti-government nut job. A more applicable analogy would be OKC attempting to bar the building of meeting sights for violent anti-government radicals.

C. Furthermore, please point out where the fuck I've said they should be barred from building through government action. I've said it would be a POTENTIAL slap in the face to 9-11 victims and I've said that if it was that I, personally, wouldn't support it. I've never said that the government should step in and stop them from doing it though. If you can't show me where I have then get the hell off your high horse and shut the goddamn fuck up.

Sini, as a lawyer, how are you okay with restricting the right of free speech of Muslim Americans to build a Community Center? These are mainly American Citizens who happen to be Muslim...men and women that live and work in Lower Manhattan. How is it okay for their rights to be trampled on like this?

What's the point of Winning a war if we destroy our own rights and government?

Davian93
07-23-2010, 11:36 AM
A. Yeah sorry, but until Islam starts cleaning up its own house and quits relying on us to do it for them, this distinction you are attempting to make is useless in real world terms. People like Al Queda will remain a part of Islam up until the point that Islam itself kicks them out. They have yet to do so. I believe many of you took a similar approach to Catholicism and pedophile priests without any problem, but I guess thats probably because you were talking about white christian men instead of somebody who you can slap with the label of minority and thereby justify turning your brains off while discussing.

****Huge difference between Islam and Catholicism. One is an organized religion with a governing body (one that even rules its own country). Another is a religion whose authority stops at the Pastor (Imam) level in most cases. We weren't attacked by American Muslims. We were attacked by foreign extremists that hate the U.S. Imperial policies. Huge difference. I dont agree with their cause anymore than you do but these are separate groups of people.****

B. The Oklahoma City bombing is a crap analogy and you know it. Tim McVeigh didn't kill for Christianity. He killed because he was an anti-government nut job. A more applicable analogy would be OKC attempting to bar the building of meeting sights for violent anti-government radicals.

****The "Muslims" that attacked us didn't do it for Islam either...they paid lip service to their "Faith" while attacking a country they saw as oppressing their nation with troops (Saudi Arabia and our US Bases, etc).****


C. Furthermore, please point out where the fuck I've said they should be barred from building through government action. I've said it would be a POTENTIAL slap in the face to 9-11 victims and I've said that if it was that I, personally, wouldn't support it. I've never said that the government should step in and stop them from doing it though. If you can't show me where I have then get the hell off your high horse and shut the goddamn fuck up.

****Dude...you are way too sensitive to me calling your comment dumb. I know you're a smart guy so I was surprised you'd come out with such an odd statement...especially given your legal background.****

Zaela Sedai
07-23-2010, 11:43 AM
RAPTORS! YAY! Wait till all the shiny teeth come in!! They will fix all world issues...


~MAYBE we can derail this?~

GonzoTheGreat
07-23-2010, 12:00 PM
What you need, Zae, are Oklahoma City Raptors. I'm not sure there are any available, at the moment.

Frenzy
07-23-2010, 01:08 PM
i have nothing to add that hasn't been said, so i'll just belabor the point of saying AWOOOOO!!!! Congrats Goldy! Stock up on sleep now, cuz you're not going to get enough for a loooooooooong time. :D

Sinistrum
07-23-2010, 01:09 PM
Sini, as a lawyer, how are you okay with restricting the right of free speech of Muslim Americans to build a Community Center? These are mainly American Citizens who happen to be Muslim...men and women that live and work in Lower Manhattan. How is it okay for their rights to be trampled on like this?

Let me put in as clear of terms as humanly possible. I AM NOT ADVOCATING THAT THE BUILDING BE STOPPED YOU GODDAMN MORON! Not once have I ever said something to the affect of "the government should step in and prevent it from being built." Never, nada, zero, zilch, zip. So for the love of all that is sacred STOP ARGUING AS IF I WERE!!!!!!!

All I've said is that I would like it if the 9-11 victims gave some personal input into, that I would support what ever majority concensus that input produced, and that if that majority decided against the building that the builders involved would come off as assholes for being insensitive to those wishes. None of that involves government or bans, or restrictions on free speech in any way shape or form. There are myriad forms of free speech and free religious expression that I do not personally support. Most the of the contents of this board are a prime example of that. However, just because I don't personally support it doesn't automatically turn that expression of disapproval into ZOMG WE MUST BAN IT!!!!!!!!! The fact that you are attempting to turn my arguments into just that and paint me as a bigot in the process is intellectually dishonest, incredibly insulting, and the primary source of my ire.

Davian93
07-23-2010, 01:35 PM
Let me put in as clear of terms as humanly possible. I AM NOT ADVOCATING THAT THE BUILDING BE STOPPED YOU GODDAMN MORON! Not once have I ever said something to the affect of "the government should step in and prevent it from being built." Never, nada, zero, zilch, zip. So for the love of all that is sacred STOP ARGUING AS IF I WERE!!!!!!!

All I've said is that I would like it if the 9-11 victims gave some personal input into, that I would support what ever majority concensus that input produced, and that if that majority decided against the building that the builders involved would come off as assholes for being insensitive to those wishes. None of that involves government or bans, or restrictions on free speech in any way shape or form. There are myriad forms of free speech and free religious expression that I do not personally support. Most the of the contents of this board are a prime example of that. However, just because I don't personally support it doesn't automatically turn that expression of disapproval into ZOMG WE MUST BAN IT!!!!!!!!! The fact that you are attempting to turn my arguments into just that and paint me as a bigot in the process is intellectually dishonest, incredibly insulting, and the primary source of my ire.


No, you commented (see below) that if the victim's families were against it, then they shouldn't build it. Because a small group of "victims families" have more rights than anyone else due to a trauma in their history.

I say poll the survivors of 9-11 and the families of the victims and use that to determine whether something like this should be built on the former WTC grounds. If they're ok with it, then so am I. If not, then I think its pretty much a slap in the face to them.

And then you flipped out for some odd reason instead of having a rational conversation.

Its a conversation on the internets...no reason to flip. I'm not personally attacking you or calling you any names. You made a dumb comment and I said it was dumb. You're not dumb, the comment was dumb.

Basel Gill
07-23-2010, 02:19 PM
I've stated my position earlier, but just to throw it out there for the next time it comes up, if I'm not supposed to equate and entire religion (Islam) to the actions of a few extremists that DO NOT represent their ideals, then please remember that when some panty-waste "reporter" digs up an obscure tea partier extremist with a shitty sign. Understanding cuts both ways. Just sayin'.

Like Sini, I'm not against the building of the center. I think it's in bad taste, but whatever, so many things are anymore. No one is willing to exercise personal restraint out of respect when there is a point to be made. I'd seriously love to see how this scenario would go over in reverse and see the "media" crawl all over Christians asses if they tried to build a Christian building of some sort on the top of a former Iraqi building that we had blown up. In the context of the world as a whole, they are a minority, I mean doesn't that give them a free pass to act like asswipes in our modern culture? (That was sarcasm by the way).

HOWEVER...Dav is dead on on one thing for sure. If we abdicate our national ideals out of fear, then the terrorists win. Whether it sits well or not, there is nothing wrong with citizens exercising their right to acquire property and use it to pursue happiness. The local, state or federal governments should have no say other than any zoning issues. Any opposition needs to be handled privately between the parties, non-violent of course.

Zaela Sedai
07-23-2010, 04:10 PM
Whats even better is when his pup starts to want the regurgitated raw meat!!

Sinistrum
07-23-2010, 07:58 PM
My opinions are a part of who I am Dav. You calling my opinions IS calling me dumb. And thank you for telling me what I meant by what I said. Cuz lord knows I certainly don't know what I meant myself even though I just told you that what I meant isn't what you are saying I meant. :rolleyes: Seriously, stop putting words in my mouth. Just because I said "should be built" once again doesn't automatically equate to MUST HAVE FORCE OF LAW behind it. There are plenty of things that I think people should or shouldn't do that I don't want the government mandating or barring. Refraining from calling people dumb for no good reason ranks among them.

nameless
07-24-2010, 01:48 AM
Unfortuanately, the first parallel I drew was something like us bombing the an iconic place in Afghanistan (if there is one), killing a bunch of their citizens and then trying to build a church or a US Embassy or something there. I think common sense would tell us that this may be taken to be in bad taste. I also believe that the reverse is true.



The Afghanistan "parallel" is a clear case of US vs. another country in which the party building the monument is directly affiliated with the party responsible for the destruction that took place at the building site. It's not at all appropriate to apply the same kind of us/them mentality to Muslims who are your fellow American citizens and want to build a place of worship in their own community.

No one is willing to exercise personal restraint out of respect when there is a point to be made. I'd seriously love to see how this scenario would go over in reverse and see the "media" crawl all over Christians asses if they tried to build a Christian building of some sort on the top of a former Iraqi building that we had blown up.

Again with the us/them bit. The "them" trying to build a mosque are a group of American citizens. "They" are "us." If Iraqi Christians wanted to build a Christian church in Iraq I'm sure they'd be allowed to with minimal fuss. I think it's really sad that so many people confronted with the existence of Muslim Americans think "Muslim" is the more important of the two descriptors.

GonzoTheGreat
07-24-2010, 04:23 AM
And thank you for telling me what I meant by what I said. Cuz lord knows I certainly don't know what I meant myself even though I just told you that what I meant isn't what you are saying I meant. :rolleyes: Seriously, stop putting words in my mouth.For some peculiar reason, my irony meter just exploded. Probably a cosmic ray particle or something.

Sinistrum
07-24-2010, 08:51 AM
If Iraqi Christians wanted to build a Christian church in Iraq I'm sure they'd be allowed to with minimal fuss.

Yeah, you pretty much have no idea what is going on over there if you think that.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/7550048/Iraqi-Christians-under-fire.html

GonzoTheGreat
07-24-2010, 09:15 AM
Yeah, you pretty much have no idea what is going on over there if you think that.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/7550048/Iraqi-Christians-under-fire.htmlSo, what you want is for the USA to be just as bad the Iraqi Muslims, whom the US Marines are supposed to fight in order to defend your freedom to be better than they are?

Methinks there is some sort of discrepancy in your view. Now if only I could put my finger on it.

Kimon
07-24-2010, 09:26 AM
So, what you want is for the USA to be just as bad the Iraqi Muslims, whom the US Marines are supposed to fight in order to defend your freedom to be better than they are?

Methinks there is some sort of discrepancy in your view. Now if only I could put my finger on it.

Actually the Iraqi Muslims that we were sent there to displace weren't the problem in this particular case. Metro Detroit has seen a great diaspora of Chaldean families since Saddam's overthrow. Life under Saddam was relatively tolerant for Chaldeans, and for all secularists. The problem is the more radical crowd, the Shia, that we have replaced him with. That is not to say that Saddam was a great guy, and an exemplar of the philospher king, but sometimes the devil you know is better than spending about a trillion dollars to get an unstable, and less secular alternative...

Davian93
07-24-2010, 10:10 AM
Yeah, you pretty much have no idea what is going on over there if you think that.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/7550048/Iraqi-Christians-under-fire.html

Shouldn't it be our goal to be BETTER than the Iraqi's?

GonzoTheGreat
07-24-2010, 10:32 AM
Davian, as Kimon explains, we used to be better than the Iraqis, when Saddam was still enforcing religious tolerance and such liberal hogwash. Fortunately, those days are over now.

Davian93
07-24-2010, 10:35 AM
Per his prison guards, Saddam could finish off an extra-large bag of Nacho Doritos in under 10 minutes. Sorry, but that's impressive no matter who you are.

Basel Gill
07-24-2010, 07:05 PM
The Afghanistan "parallel" is a clear case of US vs. another country in which the party building the monument is directly affiliated with the party responsible for the destruction that took place at the building site. It's not at all appropriate to apply the same kind of us/them mentality to Muslims who are your fellow American citizens and want to build a place of worship in their own community.



Again with the us/them bit. The "them" trying to build a mosque are a group of American citizens. "They" are "us." If Iraqi Christians wanted to build a Christian church in Iraq I'm sure they'd be allowed to with minimal fuss. I think it's really sad that so many people confronted with the existence of Muslim Americans think "Muslim" is the more important of the two descriptors.

I am well aware of that if you read my entire post. Admitting that I am as susceptible to human failing as anyone else is just me trying to be honest, not advocating the position as correct.