One thing, and this isn't meant to be inflammatory/trolling~I heard somewhere that the specific group who runs this Mosque harbors more extremist or anti-West views. I'm sure these are rumors... could someone fill me in on this (if there's any truth to it at all)?
Shalako that seems to be a gross over simplification. Wahhabism is very much a mainstream muslim movement and several countries governments are based on Wahhabist principles (Saudi Arabia for example).
Wahhabism does not represent Islam as a whole. Its like saying Mormans represent Christianity. I have taken Middle Eastern Religious Studies. When I get back home in a week or so. I will copy/paste my work here.
I don't know if it's been mentioned earlier, but the thing doesn't really seem to be a mosque. I guess people will gather there to pray, but there's no minarets or calls to prayer.
A similar thing has been happening near where I live. People there are getting over people building a mosque, albeit a real one.
Akbar Ahmed wisely realized that 9/11 is much more than a past event, it's now part of America's history. He understand that building this place of worship will likely only worsen relations between american-muslims and non-muslims.
He(Akbar) found that the closer you get to New York, the higher the tension is between Muslims and non-Muslims.
"Step back and put (the Cordoba Initiative project to build the New York Islamic center) in the context of American society today and then it will make perfect sense - the anger, and also the failure of the American Muslim leadership, an influential leadership, to explain to Americans that we, too, are Americans. We live here," he said
This is exactly what I've been saying from the beginning. The muslims leader willfully ignored present circumstances and stubbornly insist on building their mosque in the one place in the entire country where it will anger and hurt a lot of people.
I have nothing against Muslims, I know quite a few and I know the true Islam is not the violent hogwash extremists spout on TV. However if you take into account current events, it's easy to see that building that mosque* is a bad idea.
*Yes, it is a mosque. It will also be a community center, but being a dedicated place for prayer makes it a mosque.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
It is always easy to be tolerant and understanding...Until someone presents an opinion completely opposite to your own.
In your statement you assert that our actions, even though peaceful, must be condemned because they precipitate violence. But is this a logical assertion? Isn't this like condemning a robbed man because his possession of money precipitated the evil act of robbery? Isn't this like condemning Socrates because his unswerving commitment to truth and his philosophical inquiries precipitated the act by the misguided populace in which they made him drink hemlock? Isn't this like condemning Jesus because his unique God-consciousness and never-ceasing devotion to God's will precipitated the evil act of crucifixion? We must come to see that, as the federal courts have consistently affirmed, it is wrong to urge an individual to cease his efforts to gain his basic constitutional rights because the quest may precipitate violence. Society must protect the robbed and punish the robber.
Akbar Ahmed wisely realized that 9/11 is much more than a past event, it's now part of America's history. He understand that building this place of worship will likely only worsen relations between american-muslims and non-muslims.
This is exactly what I've been saying from the beginning. The muslims leader willfully ignored present circumstances and stubbornly insist on building their mosque in the one place in the entire country where it will anger and hurt a lot of people.
I have nothing against Muslims, I know quite a few and I know the true Islam is not the violent hogwash extremists spout on TV. However if you take into account current events, it's easy to see that building that mosque* is a bad idea.
*Yes, it is a mosque. It will also be a community center, but being a dedicated place for prayer makes it a mosque.
By that logic, Muslims should be outraged by all the Christian churches in Jerusalem. By all the Christian churches in Israel/Palestine at all, really.
Same with Africa, Spain, and various other things.
You can't say this for one historic event and not another.
Oh, for crying out loud... Why is that hair-helmet wearing, criminally insane mongrel Geert Wilders going over there to shout random profanities at people? It was already bad enough when he did it over here...
Seriously, I still don't understand what the problem is. Yes, it were indeed muslim who brought the twin towers down. However, this is not even in sight of the ground zero. And as Pfisiar said, there are also churches in Jerusalem, and christians didn't play nice there either.
And it's not just that. But also, when you stop the building of this mosque, how will it increase tolerance? Wouldn't it be a much better strategy to let the mosque and the community centre be built there, so people notice that their opinions on these people are plain wrong?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
We have laboured long to build a heaven, only to find it populated with horrors.
Is the group building the mosque a group oriented around violent extremism? Do they have ties to terrorists?
If the answer to those questions are yes, then we have an obvious basis for objecting to them siting their mosque anywhere in our country, nevermind near Ground Zero. The same would be true for a Christian church promoting violence, or an atheistic group promoting violence.
If the group is one which is dedicated to peace, then they have the right to build their place of worship anywhere they can acquire the land to build it. They should not have to be afraid to practice their religion openly and with pride anywhere in this country if the religion they're practicing is a peaceful one. If there's a threat of violence against them because of the location of their place of worship, the people bringing a threat of violence against them are in the wrong and should be dealt with in the legal system.
I disagree, Darklightz. it is wrong to urge an individual to cease his efforts to gain his basic constitutional rights because the quest may precipitate violence
emphasis mine
Oh good. Let's go draw Muhammed, as my freedom of speech entitles me to do.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
It is always easy to be tolerant and understanding...Until someone presents an opinion completely opposite to your own.
They have the right to build that mosque. It is up to them to choose whether to exercise that right, realizing that it will piss off some people who will view it as a "victory mosque", or to decide to maintain a low profile and not build it.
My initial thought when this story first broke was that they should not have chosen to build it, but now I'm beginning to think it may be OK. As this incident is showing, there is a lot of tension between some Non-Muslims and Muslims. This mosque may serve as a catalyst to resolve that tension. On the other hand, it could possibly totally inflame the situation instead.
And it's not just that. But also, when you stop the building of this mosque, how will it increase tolerance? Wouldn't it be a much better strategy to let the mosque and the community centre be built there, so people notice that their opinions on these people are plain wrong?
Stopping building the mosque won't increase tolerance, but it might possibly prevent the intolerance from becoming worse.
Oh good. Let's go draw Muhammed, as my freedom of speech entitles me to do.
Yes, go ahead. Is there anyone stopping from doing so legally? If you are trying to reference the South Park censorship, bear in mind that it was done by a corporation, not the government. Similarly, if the owner of the land decided not to sell it to the people who want to build this mosque because they didn't want a mosque there, they would be able to do that.
EDIT: Does anyone know what the reasoning for building the mosque in this location was in the first place?
Oh good. Let's go draw Muhammed, as my freedom of speech entitles me to do.
You know, there are two arguments at play here.
If you're talking about your legal rights, go ahead, feel free. Draw away. And yes, you will draw violent threats from extremist Muslims. Those people will be wrong. Just like the threat of violence towards the organization building that mosque would be wrong.
Then there's the condemnation (but not threatening) that you would receive from moderate Islam. In this, though, your example of drawing Muhammed is not analogous to their building a mosque. Deliberately performing an action designed to insult the Muslim world is not like building a mosque and community center dedicated to the peaceful integration of Islam into the culture of the United States. Honestly, I find it a little disconcerting that anyone could compare the two. Your comparable here would be if they were burning the American flag or defiling Christian iconography.
If you've got a legitimate, positive reason why you need to draw Muhammed in order to achieve some worthy goal (say, helping to integrate a minority religion into American culture), then it's more comparable to their building the mosque. You might be misguided - and they might be misguided in building their mosque - but we're talking at least plausibly comparable. You don't have a legitimate reason, though, and even if you do come up with a sophist argument for drawing Muhammed, you're going to have a hard time convincing anyone that you actually believe it.
EDIT: Does anyone know what the reasoning for building the mosque in this location was in the first place?
That is what the main focus of the debate is about. The Muslims are saying that it is to promote peace and to bridge the gap between the Muslim community and the rest of New York. Others are argueing that this is a form of flagging conquered territory. Yet others are just ignorant people having a yelling match.
I see absolutely no reason why this Mosque couldn't be built. As I have stated before...I think it would be a much larger gesture to build it elsewhere...but they have every right to build it there.
If you're talking about your legal rights, go ahead, feel free. Draw away. And yes, you will draw violent threats from extremist Muslims. Those people will be wrong. Just like the threat of violence towards the organization building that mosque would be wrong.
Then there's the condemnation (but not threatening) that you would receive from moderate Islam. In this, though, your example of drawing Muhammed is not analogous to their building a mosque. Deliberately performing an action designed to insult the Muslim world is not like building a mosque and community center dedicated to the peaceful integration of Islam into the culture of the United States. Honestly, I find it a little disconcerting that anyone could compare the two. Your comparable here would be if they were burning the American flag or defiling Christian iconography.
If you've got a legitimate, positive reason why you need to draw Muhammed in order to achieve some worthy goal (say, helping to integrate a minority religion into American culture), then it's more comparable to their building the mosque. You might be misguided - and they might be misguided in building their mosque - but we're talking at least plausibly comparable. You don't have a legitimate reason, though, and even if you do come up with a sophist argument for drawing Muhammed, you're going to have a hard time convincing anyone that you actually believe it.
I am well aware the two are slightly different, however for the sake of the argument, they boil down to the same thing; Something that, while perfectly within the rights of the people and completely legal, will still be needlessly hurtful. Should we then, secure in the knowledge that those acts are lawful, permit them?
How about building a strip club next to an elementary school?
How about wearing swastikas (the ancient symbol of kindness and good luck) in a jewish neighbourhood?
There's a lot of things that, while within our rights and sometimes with good intentions, would still upset people. So we don't do those things, it's called respect.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
It is always easy to be tolerant and understanding...Until someone presents an opinion completely opposite to your own.
I don't understand why this is even an issue of contention for people at all. First and foremost, its a CULTURAL CENTER and not a mosque. There will be a place for Muslims to pray inside said cultural center. Hundreds of hospitals, universities, and even some workplaces have a place where Muslims can go to pray during prayer times. This is not any different at all.
There is nothing disrespectful about building a place for Muslims to gather a few blocks from ground zero. As has been said time and time again, it was radical Muslims that brought down the towers.
And Darklightz: There are many places, especially inner cities, where there ARE strip clubs next to an elementary school. More importantly, strip clubs aren't typically built near elementary schools since from a business perspective, its a stupid location. Secondly, find me someone that wears a swastika as a symbol of kindness and not because they share some beliefs with Nazis. Both are terribly poor examples because this "mosque" (I'm going to call it a cultural center since thats what it really is) isn't being sprung up solely to annoy people. Its New York City, space is tight, and ultimately, its an act trying to promote cultural understanding. Its not inciting controversy just for the sake of doing so.
I am well aware the two are slightly different, however for the sake of the argument, they boil down to the same thing; Something that, while perfectly within the rights of the people and completely legal, will still be needlessly hurtful. Should we then, secure in the knowledge that those acts are lawful, permit them?
How about building a strip club next to an elementary school?
How about wearing swastikas (the ancient symbol of kindness and good luck) in a jewish neighbourhood?
There's a lot of things that, while within our rights and sometimes with good intentions, would still upset people. So we don't do those things, it's called respect.
Well there's a couple of different things going on here.
Someone wearing a swastika in a Jewish neighborhood is doing so purely to antagonize them - I can't think of any other reason.
Someone drawing a picture of Mohammed is possibly doing so to offend, but possibly doing so to assert that even if people threaten him with death to take away one of his constitutional rights, he will not give in.
So to me, the question seems to be intentions. If there is a good reason for the action, even if it still may offend then you can go ahead and do it.
Nitpick: You would be hard-pressed to build a strip club near an elementary school as there is all kinds of zoning that will prevent this.
I don't understand why this is even an issue of contention for people at all. First and foremost, its a CULTURAL CENTER and not a mosque. There will be a place for Muslims to pray inside said cultural center. Hundreds of hospitals, universities, and even some workplaces have a place where Muslims can go to pray during prayer times. This is not any different at all.
I don't get why people keep bringing up this point in defense of the center. Are you saying that if it was a mosque you would have a problem with it? It makes no difference whether it's a mosque or a cultural center.
And Darklightz: There are many places, especially inner cities, where there ARE strip clubs next to an elementary school. More importantly, strip clubs aren't typically built near elementary schools since from a business perspective, its a stupid location.
I find this hard to believe as, to the best of my knowledge, strip clubs are classified as SOB's (sexually oriented businesses) and have zoning regulations that they must comply to - I imagine that the zoning would take into consideration elementary schools...
I am well aware the two are slightly different, however for the sake of the argument, they boil down to the same thing; Something that, while perfectly within the rights of the people and completely legal, will still be needlessly hurtful. Should we then, secure in the knowledge that those acts are lawful, permit them?
How about building a strip club next to an elementary school?
How about wearing swastikas (the ancient symbol of kindness and good luck) in a jewish neighbourhood?
There's a lot of things that, while within our rights and sometimes with good intentions, would still upset people. So we don't do those things, it's called respect.
The point isn't about whether it's hurtful, and I'm not saying that your example of drawing muhammed is slightly different. I'm saying that your example is totally different.
The point is that what they are attempting to do is something positive and constructive. They are trying to make their community a better place, and they will succeed if elements of that community don't reject them on the simple basis that they're of the wrong religion.
The drawing-muhammed example is an example where your only purpose is to be hurtful.
Strip clubs are another bad example. You can make a cogent argument that building a strip club anywhere should be prohibited, or if not prohibited under law, certainly frowned upon. You can't make a similar argument about mosques (at least not without identifying yourself as a shameless religious bigot).
The swastika example is an interesting one to me. On the face of it, it seems like a good/comparable example. If I, with only good intentions, were ignorant enough of the Holocaust to have taken the swastika as a personal symbol of kindness and then walked through a Jewish neighborhood, would I be in the wrong?
However, when you look at it deeper, it's still not a comparable to building the mosque. Nobody is going to take the swastika as a personal symbol of kindness; it's so utterly implausible that we (as neutral observers) would be justified in thinking that they are expressing antisemitic views when they walk around wearing a swastika. Since we would be completely justified in condemning antisemitism, and since in the real world anyone wearing a swastika is expressing antisemitic views (or playing off of the assumption that they are expressing antisemitic views in order to make some other point, e.g. about the power of symbols), we are justified in condemning anyone who walks around wearing a swastika.
Mosques are not like swastikas in this sense. You don't build a mosque to express your hatred of a group, or any other such sentiment. You build a mosque to aid members of your community in their religious worship and to provide a focal point for that community (you build a cultural center to help integrate your religious community into the surrounding society, which is more what they're doing here). Wearing a swastika *anywhere* - not just in a Jewish neighborhood - is an act which we would condemn. Building a peaceful mosque is not (again, overt bigots excepted).
None of your examples are comparable. And I'm not saying they're a little bit different. I'm saying they're totally different.
I don't get why people keep bringing up this point in defense of the center. Are you saying that if it was a mosque you would have a problem with it? It makes no difference whether it's a mosque or a cultural center.
I find this hard to believe as, to the best of my knowledge, strip clubs are classified as SOB's (sexually oriented businesses) and have zoning regulations that they must comply to - I imagine that the zoning would take into consideration elementary schools...
I'm a Muslim so no, I don't have any problem at all whether its a mosque or a cultural center. I'm saying that any concern (misguided or otherwise) that there is about "sensitivity" or "respect" should be nonexistant because its purpose extends further than just a place of worship.
As far as strip clubs go, I have seen one in close proximity to a school once when I was in New York. Not like next door or anything so it was probably still adhering to the regulations. Kind of like how this cultural center isn't right on ground zero.
Fun fact: I do believe that there is a strip club a couple blocks from ground zero as well, although I had heard that on an episode of Bill Maher's show so I don't know if its actually a fact.
I don't understand why this is even an issue of contention for people at all. First and foremost, its a CULTURAL CENTER and not a mosque.
It will be called the New York Islamic Center. Are you going to try to convince people it's a religion-neutral community center that just happens to have prayer rooms? Whatever you want to call it, it's a place of muslim worship.
Secondly, find me someone that wears a swastika as a symbol of kindness and not because they share some beliefs with Nazis.
In fact there's a huge debate because they're not allowed to display swastikas in Germany, where the symbol is banned. There are many other groups who have always used the symbol in other parts of the world.
Both are terribly poor examples because this "mosque" (I'm going to call it a cultural center since thats what it really is) isn't being sprung up solely to annoy people. Its New York City, space is tight, and ultimately, its an act trying to promote cultural understanding. Its not inciting controversy just for the sake of doing so.
And it astounds me that amid all the controversy, opposition and dispute it hasn't occured to those muslims leader that the place isn't even built and it's already a channel of hate. It hasn't done a single thing to "promote cultural understanding".
The point is that what they are attempting to do is something positive and constructive.
So far they have failed on those point.
The drawing-muhammed example is an example where your only purpose is to be hurtful.
Why do you say that? Maybe I wanted to paint him in a glorious stance to honor him? Tell me, if one were to depict Muhammed with all the good intention, should we protect his rights of free speech, knowing muslims would be up in arms about it? Or should we instruct him to respect the muslims culture, showing him how his good intentions can still do harm?
The swastika example is an interesting one to me. On the face of it, it seems like a good/comparable example. If I, with only good intentions, were ignorant enough of the Holocaust to have taken the swastika as a personal symbol of kindness and then walked through a Jewish neighborhood, would I be in the wrong?
However, when you look at it deeper, it's still not a comparable to building the mosque. Nobody is going to take the swastika as a personal symbol of kindness; it's so utterly implausible that we (as neutral observers) would be justified in thinking that they are expressing antisemitic views when they walk around wearing a swastika. Since we would be completely justified in condemning antisemitism, and since in the real world anyone wearing a swastika is expressing antisemitic views (or playing off of the assumption that they are expressing antisemitic views in order to make some other point, e.g. about the power of symbols), we are justified in condemning anyone who walks around wearing a swastika.
Hindus, see above. Also Bhuddists
Wearing a swastika *anywhere* - not just in a Jewish neighborhood - is an act which we would condemn.
Don't say that to Hindus, they're fighting very hard to regain the use of their religious symbol.
And it astounds me that amid all the controversy, opposition and dispute it hasn't occured to those muslims leader that the place isn't even built and it's already a channel of hate. It hasn't done a single thing to "promote cultural understanding".
So far they have failed on those point.
To be fair, the kind of people they are reaching out to are not the hatemongers up in arms over this thing. There are plenty of people in this country prepared to hate every single thing a Muslim does just for being associated with Islam, and those are the people driving the "channel of hate" we're seeing. We see this kind of "channel of hate" every time a Muslim ends up in the news for something positive; this one is much larger, but the main reason it's much larger is because the anti-Islam faction in this country sees an opportunity to bring more moderates into the fold.
If they're going to start worrying about the attitudes of those kinds of people, the only options they're left with is hiding their religion or leaving the country. Neither should be considered reasonable to demand of them.
EDIT: And because there's a political party whose politicians and paid news stations see an opportunity to incite the quite nakedly anti-Muslim base to donate money and/or get out and vote. I'd actually bet that far from protesting this because she hates Muslims, Sarah Palin is protesting it as a simple act of political cynicism.
Why do you say that? Maybe I wanted to paint him in a glorious stance to honor him? Tell me, if one were to depict Muhammed with all the good intention, should we protect his rights of free speech, knowing muslims would be up in arms about it? Or should we instruct him to respect the muslims culture, showing him how his good intentions can still do harm?
If someone is so ignorant as to do that, then they've made an error. Their act can't possibly have the effect they intended it to have; they were acting under false beliefs to even bother to try.
Of course, as a practical matter, we can simply discount that example. It is so utterly unlikely that someone would attempt to depict Muhammed as an honest attempt to bridge a cultural barrier that we can safely assume to a first approximation that anyone depicting Muhammed is either intentionally being a jerk or is ignorantly being a jerk. Even if someone does it with good intentions, he's carrying out his intentions in such an utterly stupid way that we can fault him for acting without sufficient information.
Put it this way: the comparable is still flag-burning or defiling a crucifix. Your example is comparable to someone trying to defile a crucifix as an expression of goodwill.
(by the way, to answer your question, yes, in my view he has the right to free speech even when it offends as long as he isn't explicitly inciting violence. You have the legal right to be a complete jerk, you just have the moral responsibility - which you can shirk without fear of prison - not to be a complete jerk. Incidentally, if you are honestly convinced that Muslims are evil and need to be run out of the country, you are justified in some twisted sense of the word to protest them by, for instance, drawing Muhammed. But let's not pretend that's an act of goodwill. And of course most reasonable people would say that the person who is convinced that Muslims are evil is just off his rocker)
Hindus, see above. Also Bhuddists
Don't say that to Hindus, they're fighting very hard to regain the use of their religious symbol.
I'm not sure why you bother with this argument. If I concede the point (which I'd be quite prepared to do if sufficiently persuaded that there are groups which legitimately still use the swastika as a symbol of goodwill), all I'm conceding is that in being up in arms about someone wearing a swastika as part of a Hindu cultural context, I am being ignorant. If anything, it's the same argument as saying that the mosque SHOULD be allowed near Ground Zero. Unless your point is that Jews have the right to demand that Hindus don't bear recognized Hindu symbols because Jews find them offensive, which I don't accept at all, I don't understand how this point is supposed to convince me that a mosque a couple blocks away from Ground Zero is bad.
If someone is so ignorant as to do that, then they've made an error. Their act can't possibly have the effect they intended it to have; they were acting under false beliefs to even bother to try.
Of course, as a practical matter, we can simply discount that example. It is so utterly unlikely that someone would attempt to depict Muhammed as an honest attempt to bridge a cultural barrier that we can safely assume to a first approximation that anyone depicting Muhammed is either intentionally being a jerk or is ignorantly being a jerk. Even if someone does it with good intentions, he's carrying out his intentions in such an utterly stupid way that we can fault him for acting without sufficient information.
Wow, the above is so loaded with preconceived notions as to single-handedly invalidate your entire argument. So muslims building mosque near ground zero is fine, but anyone who depicts Muhammed is a jerk by default?
And yes, I am quite aware that all depiction of Muhammed are taboo, wich was my whole point, an act with the best of intentions can still offend.
Put it this way: the comparable is still flag-burning or defiling a crucifix. Your example is comparable to someone trying to defile a crucifix as an expression of goodwill.
Strawman
(by the way, to answer your question, yes, in my view he has the right to free speech even when it offends as long as he isn't explicitly inciting violence. You have the legal right to be a complete jerk, you just have the moral responsibility - which you can shirk without fear of prison - not to be a complete jerk.
Exactly. And right now, those muslims have the right to be stubborn jerks and ignore the feelings of people around them.
Incidentally, if you are honestly convinced that Muslims are evil and need to be run out of the country, you are justified in some twisted sense of the word to protest them by, for instance, drawing Muhammed. But let's not pretend that's an act of goodwill. And of course most reasonable people would say that the person who is convinced that Muslims are evil is just off his rocker)
Who says Muslims are evil? Your post is so loaded with strawmen I wasn't sure wether to respond or dismiss the whole thing.
I'm not sure why you bother with this argument. If I concede the point (which I'd be quite prepared to do if sufficiently persuaded that there are groups which legitimately still use the swastika as a symbol of goodwill), all I'm conceding is that in being up in arms about someone wearing a swastika as part of a Hindu cultural context, I am being ignorant. If anything, it's the same argument as saying that the mosque SHOULD be allowed near Ground Zero. Unless your point is that Jews have the right to demand that Hindus don't bear recognized Hindu symbols because Jews find them offensive, which I don't accept at all, I don't understand how this point is supposed to convince me that a mosque a couple blocks away from Ground Zero is bad.
Again full of strawman...I"m not even sure who you're arguing against anymore.
As I said, it's a common Hindu symbol that means good fortune and such. Did you bother to click the link?
The point is this, the swastika, though originally a symbol of good, became villified. As a result people really don't want to see it. Now while Hindus are campaigned to regain the full use of the symbol, they at least respect the people, such as the Germans, who really don't want to see it. Respect, it's a beautiful thing when freely given isn't it?
Likewise, new york muslim should respect that a lot of people don't want to see that Mosque there. Anywhere else would be fine, just not there.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
It is always easy to be tolerant and understanding...Until someone presents an opinion completely opposite to your own.
Don't Build it there, build it somewhere else, you have people who had friends and family killed in 9/11 asking you not to. You have firemen and police officers asking you not to. If you haven't already picked up the fact that it is a painful place to put it then you have no remorse. I don't hate muslims @ all so dont get your panties in a bunch and start on some bs about how im a hatemonger. In the end i think they should put it to a vote to the entire population of N.y. This is a democratic country and we vote on ☺☺☺☺ here. K thx.
The Swastika has been tainted forever. The Majority of the Whole world would rather never see that symbol again anywhere. According to your point Hindus should respect that.
Also about New York Islamic Followers respecting that people don't want a Mosque there. Religious freedom FTW
Don't Build it there, build it somewhere else, you have people who had friends and family killed in 9/11 asking you not to. You have firemen and police officers asking you not to. If you haven't already picked up the fact that it is a painful place to put it then you have no remorse. I don't hate muslims @ all so dont get your panties in a bunch and start on some bs about how im a hatemonger. In the end i think they should put it to a vote to the entire population of N.y. This is a democratic country and we vote on ☺☺☺☺ here. K thx.
Oh hell. Someone needs to help us and our godawful NY social studies teachers.
Are we going to start voting on where people can live now, too?
I was not aware that every single Muslim was behind 9/11.
Basically this.
I don't understand how someone thinking reasonably could have any problem with this. If done right, near ground zero is the best place for people to challenge and expand thier views about islam. Just because a bunch of people who are ignorant about Islam are against this does not mean it should not be built. Maybe if the arguments of the opposition were more than: " I make no distinction between violent radical Islam and other forms of it, there fore this mosque is representative of violent Islam", I would have more sympathy. But right now their apprehension makes as much sense as:
-There should be no German heritage festival a few blocks away from "X" holocaust memorial or museum because the Nazis were German.
or
- Why is someone trying to build a Christian Affiliated building near the Oklahoma City National Memorial after only 10 years? Timothy McVeigh was a Christian you know...
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
There isn't. It's made up.
Wahhabism does not represent Islam as a whole. Its like saying Mormans represent Christianity. I have taken Middle Eastern Religious Studies. When I get back home in a week or so. I will copy/paste my work here.
[Mafia Stats] Mafia MVP: 1/3 Basic #29,Co-[CCMV]
A similar thing has been happening near where I live. People there are getting over people building a mosque, albeit a real one.
For all of your Magic art needs, check out my tumblr The Art of Magic.
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/08/05/u-s-muslims-underestimate-911-effect-muslim-thinker-warns/?hpt=C2
Akbar Ahmed wisely realized that 9/11 is much more than a past event, it's now part of America's history. He understand that building this place of worship will likely only worsen relations between american-muslims and non-muslims.
This is exactly what I've been saying from the beginning. The muslims leader willfully ignored present circumstances and stubbornly insist on building their mosque in the one place in the entire country where it will anger and hurt a lot of people.
I have nothing against Muslims, I know quite a few and I know the true Islam is not the violent hogwash extremists spout on TV. However if you take into account current events, it's easy to see that building that mosque* is a bad idea.
*Yes, it is a mosque. It will also be a community center, but being a dedicated place for prayer makes it a mosque.
emphasis mine
By that logic, Muslims should be outraged by all the Christian churches in Jerusalem. By all the Christian churches in Israel/Palestine at all, really.
Same with Africa, Spain, and various other things.
You can't say this for one historic event and not another.
Seriously, I still don't understand what the problem is. Yes, it were indeed muslim who brought the twin towers down. However, this is not even in sight of the ground zero. And as Pfisiar said, there are also churches in Jerusalem, and christians didn't play nice there either.
And it's not just that. But also, when you stop the building of this mosque, how will it increase tolerance? Wouldn't it be a much better strategy to let the mosque and the community centre be built there, so people notice that their opinions on these people are plain wrong?
Is the group building the mosque a group oriented around violent extremism? Do they have ties to terrorists?
If the answer to those questions are yes, then we have an obvious basis for objecting to them siting their mosque anywhere in our country, nevermind near Ground Zero. The same would be true for a Christian church promoting violence, or an atheistic group promoting violence.
If the group is one which is dedicated to peace, then they have the right to build their place of worship anywhere they can acquire the land to build it. They should not have to be afraid to practice their religion openly and with pride anywhere in this country if the religion they're practicing is a peaceful one. If there's a threat of violence against them because of the location of their place of worship, the people bringing a threat of violence against them are in the wrong and should be dealt with in the legal system.
Oh good. Let's go draw Muhammed, as my freedom of speech entitles me to do.
My initial thought when this story first broke was that they should not have chosen to build it, but now I'm beginning to think it may be OK. As this incident is showing, there is a lot of tension between some Non-Muslims and Muslims. This mosque may serve as a catalyst to resolve that tension. On the other hand, it could possibly totally inflame the situation instead.
Stopping building the mosque won't increase tolerance, but it might possibly prevent the intolerance from becoming worse.
Yes, go ahead. Is there anyone stopping from doing so legally? If you are trying to reference the South Park censorship, bear in mind that it was done by a corporation, not the government. Similarly, if the owner of the land decided not to sell it to the people who want to build this mosque because they didn't want a mosque there, they would be able to do that.
EDIT: Does anyone know what the reasoning for building the mosque in this location was in the first place?
You know, there are two arguments at play here.
If you're talking about your legal rights, go ahead, feel free. Draw away. And yes, you will draw violent threats from extremist Muslims. Those people will be wrong. Just like the threat of violence towards the organization building that mosque would be wrong.
Then there's the condemnation (but not threatening) that you would receive from moderate Islam. In this, though, your example of drawing Muhammed is not analogous to their building a mosque. Deliberately performing an action designed to insult the Muslim world is not like building a mosque and community center dedicated to the peaceful integration of Islam into the culture of the United States. Honestly, I find it a little disconcerting that anyone could compare the two. Your comparable here would be if they were burning the American flag or defiling Christian iconography.
If you've got a legitimate, positive reason why you need to draw Muhammed in order to achieve some worthy goal (say, helping to integrate a minority religion into American culture), then it's more comparable to their building the mosque. You might be misguided - and they might be misguided in building their mosque - but we're talking at least plausibly comparable. You don't have a legitimate reason, though, and even if you do come up with a sophist argument for drawing Muhammed, you're going to have a hard time convincing anyone that you actually believe it.
I see absolutely no reason why this Mosque couldn't be built. As I have stated before...I think it would be a much larger gesture to build it elsewhere...but they have every right to build it there.
[EDH] Ob Nixilis the Fallen
I am well aware the two are slightly different, however for the sake of the argument, they boil down to the same thing; Something that, while perfectly within the rights of the people and completely legal, will still be needlessly hurtful. Should we then, secure in the knowledge that those acts are lawful, permit them?
How about building a strip club next to an elementary school?
How about wearing swastikas (the ancient symbol of kindness and good luck) in a jewish neighbourhood?
There's a lot of things that, while within our rights and sometimes with good intentions, would still upset people. So we don't do those things, it's called respect.
There is nothing disrespectful about building a place for Muslims to gather a few blocks from ground zero. As has been said time and time again, it was radical Muslims that brought down the towers.
And Darklightz: There are many places, especially inner cities, where there ARE strip clubs next to an elementary school. More importantly, strip clubs aren't typically built near elementary schools since from a business perspective, its a stupid location. Secondly, find me someone that wears a swastika as a symbol of kindness and not because they share some beliefs with Nazis. Both are terribly poor examples because this "mosque" (I'm going to call it a cultural center since thats what it really is) isn't being sprung up solely to annoy people. Its New York City, space is tight, and ultimately, its an act trying to promote cultural understanding. Its not inciting controversy just for the sake of doing so.
Well there's a couple of different things going on here.
Someone wearing a swastika in a Jewish neighborhood is doing so purely to antagonize them - I can't think of any other reason.
Someone drawing a picture of Mohammed is possibly doing so to offend, but possibly doing so to assert that even if people threaten him with death to take away one of his constitutional rights, he will not give in.
So to me, the question seems to be intentions. If there is a good reason for the action, even if it still may offend then you can go ahead and do it.
Nitpick: You would be hard-pressed to build a strip club near an elementary school as there is all kinds of zoning that will prevent this.
EDIT:
I don't get why people keep bringing up this point in defense of the center. Are you saying that if it was a mosque you would have a problem with it? It makes no difference whether it's a mosque or a cultural center.
I find this hard to believe as, to the best of my knowledge, strip clubs are classified as SOB's (sexually oriented businesses) and have zoning regulations that they must comply to - I imagine that the zoning would take into consideration elementary schools...
The point isn't about whether it's hurtful, and I'm not saying that your example of drawing muhammed is slightly different. I'm saying that your example is totally different.
The point is that what they are attempting to do is something positive and constructive. They are trying to make their community a better place, and they will succeed if elements of that community don't reject them on the simple basis that they're of the wrong religion.
The drawing-muhammed example is an example where your only purpose is to be hurtful.
Strip clubs are another bad example. You can make a cogent argument that building a strip club anywhere should be prohibited, or if not prohibited under law, certainly frowned upon. You can't make a similar argument about mosques (at least not without identifying yourself as a shameless religious bigot).
The swastika example is an interesting one to me. On the face of it, it seems like a good/comparable example. If I, with only good intentions, were ignorant enough of the Holocaust to have taken the swastika as a personal symbol of kindness and then walked through a Jewish neighborhood, would I be in the wrong?
However, when you look at it deeper, it's still not a comparable to building the mosque. Nobody is going to take the swastika as a personal symbol of kindness; it's so utterly implausible that we (as neutral observers) would be justified in thinking that they are expressing antisemitic views when they walk around wearing a swastika. Since we would be completely justified in condemning antisemitism, and since in the real world anyone wearing a swastika is expressing antisemitic views (or playing off of the assumption that they are expressing antisemitic views in order to make some other point, e.g. about the power of symbols), we are justified in condemning anyone who walks around wearing a swastika.
Mosques are not like swastikas in this sense. You don't build a mosque to express your hatred of a group, or any other such sentiment. You build a mosque to aid members of your community in their religious worship and to provide a focal point for that community (you build a cultural center to help integrate your religious community into the surrounding society, which is more what they're doing here). Wearing a swastika *anywhere* - not just in a Jewish neighborhood - is an act which we would condemn. Building a peaceful mosque is not (again, overt bigots excepted).
None of your examples are comparable. And I'm not saying they're a little bit different. I'm saying they're totally different.
I'm a Muslim so no, I don't have any problem at all whether its a mosque or a cultural center. I'm saying that any concern (misguided or otherwise) that there is about "sensitivity" or "respect" should be nonexistant because its purpose extends further than just a place of worship.
As far as strip clubs go, I have seen one in close proximity to a school once when I was in New York. Not like next door or anything so it was probably still adhering to the regulations. Kind of like how this cultural center isn't right on ground zero.
Fun fact: I do believe that there is a strip club a couple blocks from ground zero as well, although I had heard that on an episode of Bill Maher's show so I don't know if its actually a fact.
Hindus use the Swastikas, a lot. http://www.religionfacts.com/hinduism/symbols/swastika.htm
In fact there's a huge debate because they're not allowed to display swastikas in Germany, where the symbol is banned. There are many other groups who have always used the symbol in other parts of the world.
And it astounds me that amid all the controversy, opposition and dispute it hasn't occured to those muslims leader that the place isn't even built and it's already a channel of hate. It hasn't done a single thing to "promote cultural understanding".
So far they have failed on those point.
Why do you say that? Maybe I wanted to paint him in a glorious stance to honor him? Tell me, if one were to depict Muhammed with all the good intention, should we protect his rights of free speech, knowing muslims would be up in arms about it? Or should we instruct him to respect the muslims culture, showing him how his good intentions can still do harm?
Hindus, see above. Also Bhuddists
Don't say that to Hindus, they're fighting very hard to regain the use of their religious symbol.
To be fair, the kind of people they are reaching out to are not the hatemongers up in arms over this thing. There are plenty of people in this country prepared to hate every single thing a Muslim does just for being associated with Islam, and those are the people driving the "channel of hate" we're seeing. We see this kind of "channel of hate" every time a Muslim ends up in the news for something positive; this one is much larger, but the main reason it's much larger is because the anti-Islam faction in this country sees an opportunity to bring more moderates into the fold.
If they're going to start worrying about the attitudes of those kinds of people, the only options they're left with is hiding their religion or leaving the country. Neither should be considered reasonable to demand of them.
EDIT: And because there's a political party whose politicians and paid news stations see an opportunity to incite the quite nakedly anti-Muslim base to donate money and/or get out and vote. I'd actually bet that far from protesting this because she hates Muslims, Sarah Palin is protesting it as a simple act of political cynicism.
If someone is so ignorant as to do that, then they've made an error. Their act can't possibly have the effect they intended it to have; they were acting under false beliefs to even bother to try.
Of course, as a practical matter, we can simply discount that example. It is so utterly unlikely that someone would attempt to depict Muhammed as an honest attempt to bridge a cultural barrier that we can safely assume to a first approximation that anyone depicting Muhammed is either intentionally being a jerk or is ignorantly being a jerk. Even if someone does it with good intentions, he's carrying out his intentions in such an utterly stupid way that we can fault him for acting without sufficient information.
Put it this way: the comparable is still flag-burning or defiling a crucifix. Your example is comparable to someone trying to defile a crucifix as an expression of goodwill.
(by the way, to answer your question, yes, in my view he has the right to free speech even when it offends as long as he isn't explicitly inciting violence. You have the legal right to be a complete jerk, you just have the moral responsibility - which you can shirk without fear of prison - not to be a complete jerk. Incidentally, if you are honestly convinced that Muslims are evil and need to be run out of the country, you are justified in some twisted sense of the word to protest them by, for instance, drawing Muhammed. But let's not pretend that's an act of goodwill. And of course most reasonable people would say that the person who is convinced that Muslims are evil is just off his rocker)
I'm not sure why you bother with this argument. If I concede the point (which I'd be quite prepared to do if sufficiently persuaded that there are groups which legitimately still use the swastika as a symbol of goodwill), all I'm conceding is that in being up in arms about someone wearing a swastika as part of a Hindu cultural context, I am being ignorant. If anything, it's the same argument as saying that the mosque SHOULD be allowed near Ground Zero. Unless your point is that Jews have the right to demand that Hindus don't bear recognized Hindu symbols because Jews find them offensive, which I don't accept at all, I don't understand how this point is supposed to convince me that a mosque a couple blocks away from Ground Zero is bad.
And yes, I am quite aware that all depiction of Muhammed are taboo, wich was my whole point, an act with the best of intentions can still offend.
Strawman
Exactly. And right now, those muslims have the right to be stubborn jerks and ignore the feelings of people around them.
Who says Muslims are evil? Your post is so loaded with strawmen I wasn't sure wether to respond or dismiss the whole thing.
Again full of strawman...I"m not even sure who you're arguing against anymore.
As I said, it's a common Hindu symbol that means good fortune and such. Did you bother to click the link?
The point is this, the swastika, though originally a symbol of good, became villified. As a result people really don't want to see it. Now while Hindus are campaigned to regain the full use of the symbol, they at least respect the people, such as the Germans, who really don't want to see it. Respect, it's a beautiful thing when freely given isn't it?
Likewise, new york muslim should respect that a lot of people don't want to see that Mosque there. Anywhere else would be fine, just not there.
Sales Thread. Great Deals!
Trade Thread Great Stuff!
The Merchant's Guild, The sellers, traders and now buyers guild!
Also about New York Islamic Followers respecting that people don't want a Mosque there. Religious freedom FTW
[Mafia Stats] Mafia MVP: 1/3 Basic #29,Co-[CCMV]
Oh hell. Someone needs to help us and our godawful NY social studies teachers.
Are we going to start voting on where people can live now, too?
We don't actually vote on the 1st amendment.
Altered Cards! Crafts and Stuff!
Basically this.
I don't understand how someone thinking reasonably could have any problem with this. If done right, near ground zero is the best place for people to challenge and expand thier views about islam. Just because a bunch of people who are ignorant about Islam are against this does not mean it should not be built. Maybe if the arguments of the opposition were more than: " I make no distinction between violent radical Islam and other forms of it, there fore this mosque is representative of violent Islam", I would have more sympathy. But right now their apprehension makes as much sense as:
-There should be no German heritage festival a few blocks away from "X" holocaust memorial or museum because the Nazis were German.
or
- Why is someone trying to build a Christian Affiliated building near the Oklahoma City National Memorial after only 10 years? Timothy McVeigh was a Christian you know...