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
I'm guessing you haven't actually read the ADL's reasons fro opposing this have you? because they would oppose this too, and for the same reasons.
and those reasons DO make sense. They aren't saying the muslims should be prohibited from doing it. They are asking the muslims to be respectful and not do it. Its just like when there was a group of Nun's who wanted to make a convent at Auschwiez to honor the dead, but the ADL asked them not to out of respect.
- 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...
This, on the other hand, is totally different. Timothy Mcveigh was a bomber who happened to claim christianity. None of his actions were credited to his faith (AFAIK) nor was he driven to them by his faith. The 9/11 attackers weren't attacking the US for some other reason and just happened to be muslim. They attacked the US specifically because of their faith.
I think a Mosque near Ground 0 is REALLY ****ing tasteless and hypocritical tbh.
I'm all for religious tolerance... but if we were to build a Christian church somewhere in the middle east, near a site where lots of Afghans/Iraqis/etc had been killed at the hands of Americans, they'd whine and *****. Either that, or they'd probably stone the people involved in such a church to death!
So **** 'em, I say.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
MTGS: Where criticism of staff is a bannable offense.
Quote from Blinking Spirit »
Quote from TheButt »
My sig is not trolling. And it's not opinion, it's fact.
And I'm not changing it. I'm not gonna be browbeated by a moderator, simply because you don't like the fact that I'm bringing to light that the staff suspends half-decent posters, while allowing trolls to run rampant.
Well, you've still got about fourteen hours before you're infracted for noncompliance. Talk to whomever you want.
There's a difference between saying "they shouldn't have the right to build X" and saying "they should be more thoughtful than to build X." A company may have the right to build a giant building in the shape of a mushroom cloud outside Nagasaki, but that wouldn't be very thoughtful.
There's a difference between saying "they shouldn't have the right to build X" and saying "they should be more thoughtful than to build X." A company may have the right to build a giant building in the shape of a mushroom cloud outside Nagasaki, but that wouldn't be very thoughtful.
They'd encounter that crap wherever they build in this country.
There's a difference between saying "they shouldn't have the right to build X" and saying "they should be more thoughtful than to build X." A company may have the right to build a giant building in the shape of a mushroom cloud outside Nagasaki, but that wouldn't be very thoughtful.
So you're saying a mosque flew into the Twin Towers?
Can we please start realizing that this kind of attitude is lumping all of Islam in with THE TERRORISTS? I would like to suggest that if people get offended by an Islamic building on account of Islamic extremists perhaps it is the people getting offended doing something wrong.
So you're respectfully asking all Muslims to be responsible for 9/11?
Feels kind of like you're saying, "Look, we know you didn't do it, but all the same, we'd feel better if you acted like you did."
Was this addressed at me? I'm asking because I never said anything remotely like what you are suggesting was said, but it appeared immediately subsequent to my post.
Can we please start realizing that this kind of attitude is lumping all of Islam in with THE TERRORISTS? I would like to suggest that if people get offended by an Islamic building on account of Islamic extremists perhaps it is the people getting offended doing something wrong.
It's not a matter of "well you shouldn't be getting offended, so its not my fault you are." It's a matter of claiming to be attempting to build a cultural outreach center in a manner that is explicitly and intentionally antagonistic to the cultural. Its pouring salt in the wound, even if they aren't the ones that caused the wound in the first place.
The thing is: They know that its pouring salt in the wound. Thats why they shouldn't do it.
blatch : I think the idea that everyone seems to be suggesting is that the mere fact it is viewed as antagonistic is a problem.
Also the mosque flew into the twin towers thing was pointing out that mosque is to twin towers is nowhere near the same as mushroom cloud is to nagasaki.
blatch : I think the idea that everyone seems to be suggesting is that the mere fact it is viewed as antagonistic is a problem.
Its not viewed as antagonistic. It is antagonistic. Saying nobody should be offended by the actions does nothing to stop the fact that people are offended by the actions. Whats more, the people erecting the mosque are claiming that they are trying to reach out culturally to the very people they are knowingly offending. That is why they ought not to build it there -- not because there actions are inhernetly offensive to sensible people, but rather because their actions are actually offensive to the actual people they claim to be reaching out to..
Also the mosque flew into the twin towers thing was pointing out that mosque is to twin towers is nowhere near the same as mushroom cloud is to nagasaki.
Ahh I didn't see it from that angle. That makes some sense.
It's a matter of claiming to be attempting to build a cultural outreach center in a manner that is explicitly and intentionally antagonistic to the cultural. Its pouring salt in the wound, even if they aren't the ones that caused the wound in the first place.
The thing is: They know that its pouring salt in the wound. Thats why they shouldn't do it.
Do you, uh, do you have any evidence for this claim? At all? Other than they're brown people so they hate us? Because here's a quote from the first thing I found on Google:
The man spearheading the center, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, is a moderate Muslim clergyman. He has said one or two things about American foreign policy that strike me as overly critical —but it’s stuff you could read on The Huffington Post any day. On Islam, his main subject, Rauf’s views are clear: he routinely denounces all terrorism—as he did again last week, publicly. He speaks of the need for Muslims to live peacefully with all other religions. He emphasizes the commonalities among all faiths. He advocates equal rights for women, and argues against laws that in any way punish non-Muslims. His last book, What’s Right With Islam Is What’s Right With America, argues that the United States is actually the ideal Islamic society because it encourages diversity and promotes freedom for individuals and for all religions. His vision of Islam is bin Laden’s nightmare.
I'm guessing you haven't actually read the ADL's reasons fro opposing this have you? because they would oppose this too, and for the same reasons.
and those reasons DO make sense. They aren't saying the muslims should be prohibited from doing it. They are asking the muslims to be respectful and not do it. Its just like when there was a group of Nun's who wanted to make a convent at Auschwiez to honor the dead, but the ADL asked them not to out of respect.
This, on the other hand, is totally different. Timothy Mcveigh was a bomber who happened to claim christianity. None of his actions were credited to his faith (AFAIK) nor was he driven to them by his faith. The 9/11 attackers weren't attacking the US for some other reason and just happened to be muslim. They attacked the US specifically because of their faith.
But why is it disrespectful? The only reason people seem to be offended by the cultural center is because they have a myopic view of Islam. Why should the building owners indulge them when building the center will do far more to begin the process of healing and mutual understanding(which can often be a painful process to start)? I can't understand why act done by violent extremist in a tradition should mean that a group expousing the opposite beliefs in the same tradition should keep themselves from establishing a center two blocks away from where the incident happened 9 years later. Even in the case of the Nuns, I'm sure no one would of objected if the wanted to make thier covenant two blocks away from Auschwiez instead of at it.
-Christianity was a bad example, but substitute Christianity for any organization holding less extreme versions of his own beliefs such as the NRA or The Tea Party people.
Do you, uh, do you have any evidence for this claim? At all? Other than they're brown people so they hate us? Because here's a quote from the first thing I found on Google:
1) why are you so obsessed with calling me a racist? I haven't said anything racist and yet you are consistently digging in everything I say trying to find something you can twist into me beign racist?
2) Not all arabic people are muslims. If I'm talking about muslims I'm not necessarily talking about arabic people. (Now whos being racist?)
3) If I'm talking about a specific sub-group of muslims (in this case the grou erecting the cultural center) I'm not talking about all muslims, I'm talking about the sub group.
4) Theres no question in my mind that he knew it is an antagonistic move to build an islamic cultural center where he plans on building it. That makes it an intentional action, and therefore he is being "intentionally antagonistic."
In Sum: You're digging through everything I say looking for something you can twist into something else so you can call me a racist and thereby discard my (valid) points without addressing them. In order to do this you are having to apply racist logic yourself. You are not only being a poor debater, you are also being a hypocrite.
1) why are you so obsessed with calling me a racist? I haven't said anything racist and yet you are consistently digging in everything I say trying to find something you can twist into me beign racist?
2) Not all arabic people are muslims. If I'm talking about muslims I'm not necessarily talking about arabic people. (Now whos being racist?)
3) If I'm talking about a specific sub-group of muslims (in this case the grou erecting the cultural center) I'm not talking about all muslims, I'm talking about the sub group.
4) Theres no question in my mind that he knew it is an antagonistic move to build an islamic cultural center where he plans on building it. That makes it an intentional action, and therefore he is being "intentionally antagonistic."
In Sum: You're digging through everything I say looking for something you can twist into something else so you can call me a racist and thereby discard my (valid) points without addressing them. In order to do this you are having to apply racist logic yourself. You are not only being a poor debater, you are also being a hypocrite.
So you're saying building the thing is bad because it is an antagonistic move. But WHY is it an antagonistic move? Because people are getting upset. WHY are those people getting upset? Because the terrorists were Muslim.
I fail to see how anybody can be upset about this unless they associate all Muslims with terrorism, and that is why I am twisting your posts and discarding your points.
But here, let me go through your entire last post and maybe we'll see why I only focus on one or two things normally:
1. I am obsessed with "calling you a racist" because many of the things you're saying seem to be founded on the idea that because the terrorists were Muslim, all Muslims should now act guilty about their religion because their religion is offensive to Americans. I am not merely trying to accuse you of being prejudiced, I am trying to point out where your reasoning seems to be flawed.
2. I think you either mean not all Muslims are Arabic or not all Muslims (or Arabs) have darker skin, otherwise my comment (despite it being jokingly made) still stands.
3. Yes, indeed you are talking about a specific group. However, what you're saying is that that specific group should behave as though their religion was responsible. Ask yourself this: if a Christian suicide bomber blew up an abortion clinic, would you say that a church being built near there would be offensive? Even if the people behind the church, having had no involvement in the event, are building it in an attempt to remove any misplaced anger and resentment people may have? If yes, then at least you are consistent. And before you say that building it will only cause more anger and resentment, please see point 4 below.
4. He knows that it will upset people. However, simply upsetting people and upsetting people as a consequence of trying to make progress are two different things. Gay pride parades upset a lot of people. Martin Luther King upset a lot of people. Gandhi upset a lot of people. I could go on and on. What makes you think that he's doing this purely to upset people?
In summary, yes, please, let's go on calling each other racist and getting in a huff.
4. He knows that it will upset people. However, simply upsetting people and upsetting people as a consequence of trying to make progress are two different things. Gay pride parades upset a lot of people. Martin Luther King upset a lot of people. Gandhi upset a lot of people. I could go on and on. What makes you think that he's doing this purely to upset people?
The big difference is that no one is saying muslims can't build mosques. We're only saying they shouldn't build one near Groud Zero. That's all. It's not about racism or having anythign against Islam. It's just about pointing out this is a very sensitive location to pull a stunt like that.
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.
agreed with darklightz most non radical non anti US islamic leaders are wise enough to understand that many people blame islam and muslims for those events even though it was a select few who committed them, and should realize that putting a "mosque" "community center" whatever you call it, so close to ground zero is going to be viewed in a negative light
on a much smaller scale its like when the US troops landed in the middle east, mainly Afghanistan, there was a outrage that they had defiled the land and all that followed, well now you are in a sense putting yourself on a site of extreme tragedy, just imagine how the family members of those who lost their lives must feel
i do not agree with this at all, however neglecting their right to religious freedom might be as grave of an offense if not more so then this because we would go against the very thing we sought to create in starting this country, i just find this extremely distasteful on the part of whoever decided to put up this building
So you're saying building the thing is bad because it is an antagonistic move. But WHY is it an antagonistic move? Because people are getting upset. WHY are those people getting upset? Because the terrorists were Muslim.
I fail to see how anybody can be upset about this unless they associate all Muslims with terrorism, and that is why I am twisting your posts and discarding your points.
Look you JUST, RIGHT HERE, admitted you are twisting my posts and discarding my points... why should I debate with you? You aren't interested in a rational debate or an exchange of ideas...
1. I am obsessed with "calling you a racist" because many of the things you're saying seem to be founded on the idea that because the terrorists were Muslim, all Muslims should now act guilty about their religion because their religion is offensive to Americans. I am not merely trying to accuse you of being prejudiced, I am trying to point out where your reasoning seems to be flawed.
You aren't pointing out where my reasoning is flawed by twisting what I say and calling me a racist. If you have to use racist logic yourself to twist what I said into some semblance of racism, then you are be a giant hypocrite.
2. I think you either mean not all Muslims are Arabic or not all Muslims (or Arabs) have darker skin, otherwise my comment (despite it being jokingly made) still stands.
No, I meant not all Arabs are Muslims. You took my statements about a specific sub-group of Muslims and tried to claim I was being racist against all Arabs (or in your words, brown people.) I was pointing out that in no way was my comment about a sub group of Muslims a comment on Arab people, and the only way someone could see it in that light would be to be a giant racist.
3. Yes, indeed you are talking about a specific group. However, what you're saying is that that specific group should behave as though their religion was responsible. Ask yourself this: if a Christian suicide bomber blew up an abortion clinic, would you say that a church being built near there would be offensive? Even if the people behind the church, having had no involvement in the event, are building it in an attempt to remove any misplaced anger and resentment people may have? If yes, then at least you are consistent. And before you say that building it will only cause more anger and resentment, please see point 4 below.
Yes, it would be offensive. (I am consistent). I guess I'll address point 4 next, since I pretty much jsut destroyed your point 3.
4. He knows that it will upset people. However, simply upsetting people and upsetting people as a consequence of trying to make progress are two different things. Gay pride parades upset a lot of people. Martin Luther King upset a lot of people. Gandhi upset a lot of people. I could go on and on. What makes you think that he's doing this purely to upset people?
I never said he was doing it purely to upset people. I said he's (supposedly) trying to build a cultural outreach to reach out to the surrounding culture. The surrounding culture that his actions are knowingly offending. He's either monumentally stupid, or he's intentionally antagonizing the very people he claims to be trying to reach out to. by all accounts he's not monumentally stupid.
In summary, yes, please, let's go on calling each other racist and getting in a huff.
? You started out by calling me a racist. I pointed out that you were twisting what I said, and only by the use of that twisting and racist logic could you come to the conclusion that wahat I said was somehow racist. You then agreed with me that that is waht you were doing.
It's worth noting that a huge percentage of Muslims aren't even middle eastern. Huge numbers of them are southeast Asian, black, and white Muslims aren't rare either. By saying that the terrorists were Muslim and therefore the mosque/cultural center is poorly placed is a huge discredit to the billion+ practicers of the religion worldwide.
I wasn't going to continue this, but I can't help it. I just can't. It's too much fun. Gonna spoiler this to avoid clutter.
Look you JUST, RIGHT HERE, admitted you are twisting my posts and discarding my points... why should I debate with you? You aren't interested in a rational debate or an exchange of ideas...
I'm sorry if jokingly quoting your words came across too seriously. Previously I ignored most of your posts in my silly one-liners because if your basic assumption turns out to be false (i.e., that people SHOULD be offended by this) then the rest of the points are irrelevant. But obviously we have a harder task at hand.
You aren't pointing out where my reasoning is flawed by twisting what I say and calling me a racist. If you have to use racist logic yourself to twist what I said into some semblance of racism, then you are be a giant hypocrite.
I'm not sure if it's entirely my fault if you can't pick up the logical flaws when they are pointed out to you.
No, I meant not all Arabs are Muslims. You took my statements about a specific sub-group of Muslims and tried to claim I was being racist against all Arabs (or in your words, brown people.) I was pointing out that in no way was my comment about a sub group of Muslims a comment on Arab people, and the only way someone could see it in that light would be to be a giant racist.
Awkwardo has it correct. The point you should be making is not all Muslims are Arabs, not the other way around. But it's really entirely irrelevant to the "debate", since it was a throwaway comment poking fun at you.
Yes, it would be offensive. (I am consistent). I guess I'll address point 4 next, since I pretty much jsut destroyed your point 3.
Okay, you find it offensive. I guess there's no reason needed to find it offensive, you just can?
I never said he was doing it purely to upset people. I said he's (supposedly) trying to build a cultural outreach to reach out to the surrounding culture. The surrounding culture that his actions are knowingly offending. He's either monumentally stupid, or he's intentionally antagonizing the very people he claims to be trying to reach out to. by all accounts he's not monumentally stupid.
So all those examples I quoted where people knowingly upset the culture around them, all those people were actually in the wrong and should have avoided offending others? Good to know.
? You started out by calling me a racist. I pointed out that you were twisting what I said, and only by the use of that twisting and racist logic could you come to the conclusion that wahat I said was somehow racist. You then agreed with me that that is waht you were doing.
And now you're upset that I pointed it out?
I was going to joke about being incredibly upset and hurt, then realized that wasn't working so hot, so I'll lay it out for you: I don't care whether or not you're prejudiced against Muslims. You personally may not even be. But you ARE supporting the idea that people should feel offended by a building with connections to Islam simply because the terrorists were Islamic. By saying this, you are suggesting that these people are correct to be offended by AN ENTIRE GROUP based on the actions of A FEW INDIVIDUALS, or, being generous, a subgroup. Do you see what that is? This Muslim did something bad, so what that Muslim does offends me. How is that in any way fair? I honestly cannot think of a simpler way to put this.
By the way, look at the above quotes. Out of all of them, only the sixth one actually addresses anything I said in any meaningful (and I use the term loosely, since you're just re-stating things) way. I understand that you are upset over the implication that you are prejudiced, but perhaps the better way to refute that would be to back up the reasoning you are using rather getting upset about it.
Edit: Sorry, I missed this:
The big difference is that no one is saying muslims can't build mosques. We're only saying they shouldn't build one near Groud Zero. That's all. It's not about racism or having anythign against Islam. It's just about pointing out this is a very sensitive location to pull a stunt like that.
Again, I realize it's sensitive. But why is it sensitive? Because people are failing to distinguish between blaming specific individuals and blaming an entire religious group. That's where the problem comes from.
Sorry, I didn't realize you were trolling me. I'll try harder to see it next time, so I can ignore it.
As for your only non-trolling point: I have not anywhere said that the people *should* be offended. I have said that they *are* offended. There is, in fact a difference. I stand by what I said about the Cleric behind this project. "He's either monumentally stupid, or he's intentionally antagonizing the very people he claims to be trying to reach out to. by all accounts he's not monumentally stupid."
If he was intentionally antagonizing group A to reach out to group B, you might have a point. Its just like the idiots on the Internet who think that they can convince someone of their side by making fun of them...
Edit: Sorry, I missed this:
Again, I realize it's sensitive. But why is it sensitive? Because people are failing to distinguish between blaming specific individuals and blaming an entire religious group. That's where the problem comes from.
You are correct, thats why its sensitive. BUT, what you are failing to see is that we (the "shouldn't" group) think the best way to address the situation is to correct the thinking first, and THEN build the cultural center. By doing it the other way around, you are pissing someone off and only making your purported goal harder to accomplish.
BUT, what you are failing to see is that we (the "shouldn't" group) think the best way to address the situation is to correct the thinking first, and THEN build the cultural center. By doing it the other way around, you are pissing someone off and only making your purported goal harder to accomplish.
Ah, now we are getting somewhere. This is a key point that I failed to pick up on in your earlier posts.
Of course, since now we've agreed that people shouldn't be offended by the building, the only question is do we wait until nobody would be offended by it? Personally, I think that the best way to cause change is precisely in this way: this story made some headlines, got some people to think about it and speak out for and against it. It is extremely difficult to get people's attention without causing controversy, and, because people are now paying attention on account of the controversy, hopefully they'll see that the source of it is unreasonable and take steps to remedy that.
You are correct, thats why its sensitive. BUT, what you are failing to see is that we (the "shouldn't" group) think the best way to address the situation is to correct the thinking first, and THEN build the cultural center. By doing it the other way around, you are pissing someone off and only making your purported goal harder to accomplish.
This is where I respectfully disagree.
Psychological research shows that the action may actually induce the feeling. When people are told to smile, it somewhat improves their mood, and when they are instructed to frown, their mood lowers. This is also why when a child does something wrong, the parent should insist on an apology. Even if the child does not feel sorry, the admission will at least guide the child toward remorse. Scientists do not know the exact mechanism by which it occurs, but it has been shown to happen. (Personally I would hypothesize that it's one of the brain's mechanisms for reducing cognitive dissonance.)
MLK certainly antagonized racists in his push for civil rights, eliciting disagreement even from those on his own side (Alabama clergymen). This is the sort of disagreement that seems to mirror "the 'shouldn't' group." Now, to be fair, it is possible MLK's attempts would have failed, and we laud him only in hindsight that it did indeed effect change. So it's clear that our disagreement is primarily a matter of "will it work?" I think it will, in a similar timely way that the civil rights movement was successful, when such things are controversial to a good number of people but has solid support from a large number (perhaps even a majority) of people.
I see Surfpossum's post somewhat covers this (which wasn't there when I started writing this).
...the only question is do we wait until nobody would be offended by it? Personally, I think that the best way to cause change is precisely in this way: this story made some headlines, got some people to think about it and speak out for and against it. It is extremely difficult to get people's attention without causing controversy, and, because people are now paying attention on account of the controversy, hopefully they'll see that the source of it is unreasonable and take steps to remedy that.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'm guessing you haven't actually read the ADL's reasons fro opposing this have you? because they would oppose this too, and for the same reasons.
and those reasons DO make sense. They aren't saying the muslims should be prohibited from doing it. They are asking the muslims to be respectful and not do it. Its just like when there was a group of Nun's who wanted to make a convent at Auschwiez to honor the dead, but the ADL asked them not to out of respect.
This, on the other hand, is totally different. Timothy Mcveigh was a bomber who happened to claim christianity. None of his actions were credited to his faith (AFAIK) nor was he driven to them by his faith. The 9/11 attackers weren't attacking the US for some other reason and just happened to be muslim. They attacked the US specifically because of their faith.
Feels kind of like you're saying, "Look, we know you didn't do it, but all the same, we'd feel better if you acted like you did."
Altered Cards! Crafts and Stuff!
I'm all for religious tolerance... but if we were to build a Christian church somewhere in the middle east, near a site where lots of Afghans/Iraqis/etc had been killed at the hands of Americans, they'd whine and *****. Either that, or they'd probably stone the people involved in such a church to death!
So **** 'em, I say.
[Mafia Stats] Mafia MVP: 1/3 Basic #29,Co-[CCMV]
But freedom of worship also means the freedom to enforce your religion on others!!!!!
Ah, yes. I forgot that we should stoop to the level of extremist, instead of taking the moral high ground.
They'd encounter that crap wherever they build in this country.
So you're saying a mosque flew into the Twin Towers?
Can we please start realizing that this kind of attitude is lumping all of Islam in with THE TERRORISTS? I would like to suggest that if people get offended by an Islamic building on account of Islamic extremists perhaps it is the people getting offended doing something wrong.
Altered Cards! Crafts and Stuff!
Was this addressed at me? I'm asking because I never said anything remotely like what you are suggesting was said, but it appeared immediately subsequent to my post.
Wha...? He didn't say that at all. HOW did you get from his statement to THAT?
It's not a matter of "well you shouldn't be getting offended, so its not my fault you are." It's a matter of claiming to be attempting to build a cultural outreach center in a manner that is explicitly and intentionally antagonistic to the cultural. Its pouring salt in the wound, even if they aren't the ones that caused the wound in the first place.
The thing is: They know that its pouring salt in the wound. Thats why they shouldn't do it.
Also the mosque flew into the twin towers thing was pointing out that mosque is to twin towers is nowhere near the same as mushroom cloud is to nagasaki.
Its not viewed as antagonistic. It is antagonistic. Saying nobody should be offended by the actions does nothing to stop the fact that people are offended by the actions. Whats more, the people erecting the mosque are claiming that they are trying to reach out culturally to the very people they are knowingly offending. That is why they ought not to build it there -- not because there actions are inhernetly offensive to sensible people, but rather because their actions are actually offensive to the actual people they claim to be reaching out to..
Ahh I didn't see it from that angle. That makes some sense.
Do you, uh, do you have any evidence for this claim? At all? Other than they're brown people so they hate us? Because here's a quote from the first thing I found on Google:
Altered Cards! Crafts and Stuff!
But why is it disrespectful? The only reason people seem to be offended by the cultural center is because they have a myopic view of Islam. Why should the building owners indulge them when building the center will do far more to begin the process of healing and mutual understanding(which can often be a painful process to start)? I can't understand why act done by violent extremist in a tradition should mean that a group expousing the opposite beliefs in the same tradition should keep themselves from establishing a center two blocks away from where the incident happened 9 years later. Even in the case of the Nuns, I'm sure no one would of objected if the wanted to make thier covenant two blocks away from Auschwiez instead of at it.
-Christianity was a bad example, but substitute Christianity for any organization holding less extreme versions of his own beliefs such as the NRA or The Tea Party people.
No it isn't.
It's for cases like this that we are not a democracy.
1) why are you so obsessed with calling me a racist? I haven't said anything racist and yet you are consistently digging in everything I say trying to find something you can twist into me beign racist?
2) Not all arabic people are muslims. If I'm talking about muslims I'm not necessarily talking about arabic people. (Now whos being racist?)
3) If I'm talking about a specific sub-group of muslims (in this case the grou erecting the cultural center) I'm not talking about all muslims, I'm talking about the sub group.
4) Theres no question in my mind that he knew it is an antagonistic move to build an islamic cultural center where he plans on building it. That makes it an intentional action, and therefore he is being "intentionally antagonistic."
In Sum: You're digging through everything I say looking for something you can twist into something else so you can call me a racist and thereby discard my (valid) points without addressing them. In order to do this you are having to apply racist logic yourself. You are not only being a poor debater, you are also being a hypocrite.
So you're saying building the thing is bad because it is an antagonistic move. But WHY is it an antagonistic move? Because people are getting upset. WHY are those people getting upset? Because the terrorists were Muslim.
I fail to see how anybody can be upset about this unless they associate all Muslims with terrorism, and that is why I am twisting your posts and discarding your points.
But here, let me go through your entire last post and maybe we'll see why I only focus on one or two things normally:
1. I am obsessed with "calling you a racist" because many of the things you're saying seem to be founded on the idea that because the terrorists were Muslim, all Muslims should now act guilty about their religion because their religion is offensive to Americans. I am not merely trying to accuse you of being prejudiced, I am trying to point out where your reasoning seems to be flawed.
2. I think you either mean not all Muslims are Arabic or not all Muslims (or Arabs) have darker skin, otherwise my comment (despite it being jokingly made) still stands.
3. Yes, indeed you are talking about a specific group. However, what you're saying is that that specific group should behave as though their religion was responsible. Ask yourself this: if a Christian suicide bomber blew up an abortion clinic, would you say that a church being built near there would be offensive? Even if the people behind the church, having had no involvement in the event, are building it in an attempt to remove any misplaced anger and resentment people may have? If yes, then at least you are consistent. And before you say that building it will only cause more anger and resentment, please see point 4 below.
4. He knows that it will upset people. However, simply upsetting people and upsetting people as a consequence of trying to make progress are two different things. Gay pride parades upset a lot of people. Martin Luther King upset a lot of people. Gandhi upset a lot of people. I could go on and on. What makes you think that he's doing this purely to upset people?
In summary, yes, please, let's go on calling each other racist and getting in a huff.
Altered Cards! Crafts and Stuff!
The big difference is that no one is saying muslims can't build mosques. We're only saying they shouldn't build one near Groud Zero. That's all. It's not about racism or having anythign against Islam. It's just about pointing out this is a very sensitive location to pull a stunt like that.
on a much smaller scale its like when the US troops landed in the middle east, mainly Afghanistan, there was a outrage that they had defiled the land and all that followed, well now you are in a sense putting yourself on a site of extreme tragedy, just imagine how the family members of those who lost their lives must feel
i do not agree with this at all, however neglecting their right to religious freedom might be as grave of an offense if not more so then this because we would go against the very thing we sought to create in starting this country, i just find this extremely distasteful on the part of whoever decided to put up this building
For clarity's sake I'd appreciate it if you jsut always do that... it can get a bit jumbled and hard to tell who is responding to who without it
This is correct.
Look you JUST, RIGHT HERE, admitted you are twisting my posts and discarding my points... why should I debate with you? You aren't interested in a rational debate or an exchange of ideas...
or maybe we won't, as is the case here.
You aren't pointing out where my reasoning is flawed by twisting what I say and calling me a racist. If you have to use racist logic yourself to twist what I said into some semblance of racism, then you are be a giant hypocrite.
No, I meant not all Arabs are Muslims. You took my statements about a specific sub-group of Muslims and tried to claim I was being racist against all Arabs (or in your words, brown people.) I was pointing out that in no way was my comment about a sub group of Muslims a comment on Arab people, and the only way someone could see it in that light would be to be a giant racist.
Yes, it would be offensive. (I am consistent). I guess I'll address point 4 next, since I pretty much jsut destroyed your point 3.
I never said he was doing it purely to upset people. I said he's (supposedly) trying to build a cultural outreach to reach out to the surrounding culture. The surrounding culture that his actions are knowingly offending. He's either monumentally stupid, or he's intentionally antagonizing the very people he claims to be trying to reach out to. by all accounts he's not monumentally stupid.
? You started out by calling me a racist. I pointed out that you were twisting what I said, and only by the use of that twisting and racist logic could you come to the conclusion that wahat I said was somehow racist. You then agreed with me that that is waht you were doing.
And now you're upset that I pointed it out?
I'm not sure if it's entirely my fault if you can't pick up the logical flaws when they are pointed out to you.
Awkwardo has it correct. The point you should be making is not all Muslims are Arabs, not the other way around. But it's really entirely irrelevant to the "debate", since it was a throwaway comment poking fun at you.
Okay, you find it offensive. I guess there's no reason needed to find it offensive, you just can?
So all those examples I quoted where people knowingly upset the culture around them, all those people were actually in the wrong and should have avoided offending others? Good to know.
I was going to joke about being incredibly upset and hurt, then realized that wasn't working so hot, so I'll lay it out for you: I don't care whether or not you're prejudiced against Muslims. You personally may not even be. But you ARE supporting the idea that people should feel offended by a building with connections to Islam simply because the terrorists were Islamic. By saying this, you are suggesting that these people are correct to be offended by AN ENTIRE GROUP based on the actions of A FEW INDIVIDUALS, or, being generous, a subgroup. Do you see what that is? This Muslim did something bad, so what that Muslim does offends me. How is that in any way fair? I honestly cannot think of a simpler way to put this.
By the way, look at the above quotes. Out of all of them, only the sixth one actually addresses anything I said in any meaningful (and I use the term loosely, since you're just re-stating things) way. I understand that you are upset over the implication that you are prejudiced, but perhaps the better way to refute that would be to back up the reasoning you are using rather getting upset about it.
Edit: Sorry, I missed this:
Again, I realize it's sensitive. But why is it sensitive? Because people are failing to distinguish between blaming specific individuals and blaming an entire religious group. That's where the problem comes from.
Altered Cards! Crafts and Stuff!
Sorry, I didn't realize you were trolling me. I'll try harder to see it next time, so I can ignore it.
As for your only non-trolling point: I have not anywhere said that the people *should* be offended. I have said that they *are* offended. There is, in fact a difference. I stand by what I said about the Cleric behind this project. "He's either monumentally stupid, or he's intentionally antagonizing the very people he claims to be trying to reach out to. by all accounts he's not monumentally stupid."
If he was intentionally antagonizing group A to reach out to group B, you might have a point. Its just like the idiots on the Internet who think that they can convince someone of their side by making fun of them...
You are correct, thats why its sensitive. BUT, what you are failing to see is that we (the "shouldn't" group) think the best way to address the situation is to correct the thinking first, and THEN build the cultural center. By doing it the other way around, you are pissing someone off and only making your purported goal harder to accomplish.
Of course, since now we've agreed that people shouldn't be offended by the building, the only question is do we wait until nobody would be offended by it? Personally, I think that the best way to cause change is precisely in this way: this story made some headlines, got some people to think about it and speak out for and against it. It is extremely difficult to get people's attention without causing controversy, and, because people are now paying attention on account of the controversy, hopefully they'll see that the source of it is unreasonable and take steps to remedy that.
Altered Cards! Crafts and Stuff!
This is where I respectfully disagree.
Psychological research shows that the action may actually induce the feeling. When people are told to smile, it somewhat improves their mood, and when they are instructed to frown, their mood lowers. This is also why when a child does something wrong, the parent should insist on an apology. Even if the child does not feel sorry, the admission will at least guide the child toward remorse. Scientists do not know the exact mechanism by which it occurs, but it has been shown to happen. (Personally I would hypothesize that it's one of the brain's mechanisms for reducing cognitive dissonance.)
MLK certainly antagonized racists in his push for civil rights, eliciting disagreement even from those on his own side (Alabama clergymen). This is the sort of disagreement that seems to mirror "the 'shouldn't' group." Now, to be fair, it is possible MLK's attempts would have failed, and we laud him only in hindsight that it did indeed effect change. So it's clear that our disagreement is primarily a matter of "will it work?" I think it will, in a similar timely way that the civil rights movement was successful, when such things are controversial to a good number of people but has solid support from a large number (perhaps even a majority) of people.
I see Surfpossum's post somewhat covers this (which wasn't there when I started writing this).