Machjo

There is a difference here. When the stabber was arrested, he was found in possession of his diary which contained explicitly Homophobic content. He'd also asked the cab driver just before stabbing him what his religion was. There was very clear proof that this had to do with Islamophobia. Was there similar proof at the Fort Hood shootings? I don't know. It has nothing to do with who is responsible. It has to do with the evidence at hand. It's not like the guy stabbed a Muslim and the police just decided to charge him with a hate-motivated crime. FYI, US police still need evidence, and evidence was aplenty in this case. Of course he had a screw loose. It's still reasonable though to speculate, based on the evidence that Geller has managed to turn supporters of the mosque into opponents by putting on the right spin, on whether the stabber may have been influenced by the anti-mosque protests too.

I thought many Americans always hoped to see Islam 'Americanized'. Aren't people supposed to integrate into their communities? I will agree that people standing in the streets of NYC promoting anti-Americanism can certainly contribute to anti-Muslim sentiment. And more people, Muslim or otherwise, should call them out on it. As for the mosque controversy, it's pretty telling when even Fox News was supportive, or at worst neutral towards the mosque until Pamella Geller came onto the scene with Jihad Watch funding. Only after she turned it from reaching out to the community to Muslim conquest and associating all Muslims with 9/11 did Fox News make a 180 degree turn. So clearly if the protesters have been able to turn Fox News around, they've proven themselves capable of turning support or neutrality into opposition. Seeing that there is already proof of that, it is reasonable to question whether others may have been similarly influenced, and to what degree.

It would be same thing, just more extreme.

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/world/Myreligion+behind+attack+Muslim+driver+says/3449223/story.html Though there is no evidence that the protests emboldened him, it seems speculation about has been rampant. The mayor of NYC was asked about a possible connection last night, and refused to speculate. The cab driver himself was asked about it and also refused to speculate but did mention the mosque was never mentioned. It think it is reasonable though to ask whether the protests have gone to far and may in fact have emboldened this man and may embolden others in future. In fact in a previous post in this forum I had already mentioned the possibility that this protest could potentially embolden Islamophobes, and it seems my concern was justified. Considering that the Imam had first consulted with City Council, the local Jewish community, and other religious communities, got the blessings of all of them even though he had no obligation to, and even got the blessings of Fox News initially for cryin' out loud, I think it's safe to conclude that he had taken all measures necessary to ensure public support. Little did he know that he'd have to contend with Jihad Watch and that Fox News would turn on him as soon as the right spin were presented. It would seem he'd gone out of his way before building the centre to be sure of wide-ranging public support. How else could he possibly have predicted this opposition. As for the opposition, though it may have a legal right to protest, should it not have the maturity to recognize that its protests, especially when funded by groups such as Jihad Watch, are likely to embolden some to launch such attacks?

BS. I've read the Qur'an from cover to cover, and some Ahadith too. Muhammad was quite defensive of Bilal, one of his Ethiopian followers, against racial prejudice. You obviously have no clue what you're talking about. Just more tripe.

Saddam was also a secularist, as the Ba'ath Party generally is. He only really invoked Islam during the Iran Iraq war as a kind of rallying cry, kind of like when Bush called the US-Iraq war a Crusade (though he did retract those words later, so I guess he did have a few active brain cells left).

In another forum on a related topic, one poster said this: One might even be able to draw a comparison to the Japanese wanting to build a memorial at Pearl Harbor." I responded: "I think this would depend. What about a memorial to the Japanese internment victims: Japanese American internment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia or to Japanese servicemen whose contribution to the US war effort was crucial: Japanese American service in World War II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Certainly you're not lumping them all together with the Japanese Imperial Army now are you? What would be wrong with a memorial near Pearl harbor of how the attack on Pearl Harbor led, indirectly, to the internment camps? Or a memorial to the Japanese-American servicemen who'd helped to ensure another Pearl Harbor did not occur again? Do we not appreciate the efforts of those servicemen because they are Japanese? I think it's the same issue here. Just as we can't lump the Japanese Imperial Army and Japanese-American servicemen of the time together, so we can't lump Al-Qa'ida and American Muslims together either. Do we not recognize that innocent Muslims also died on 9/11 and that some American Muslims also helped fight the war on terror? Do we not appreciate the efforts of those compatriots? It would seem to me that a memorial to the Japanese resistance to the Japanese Imperial Army, such as Japanese-American servicemen, would be more than appropriate, no? Would a memorial to the 100th Infantry Battalion be inappropriate because it was a Japanese-American force in WWII? 100th Infantry Battalion (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Some of its members were part of the internment detainees, caused by the attack on Pearl Harbor. Many of them were of Hawaiian descent. And most joined the US Army voluntarily. And many gave their lives to defend the US. So, it would be inappropriate to have a memorial for them near Pearl Harbor because it was an all-Japanese infantry battalion? Would a museum near Pearl Harbor with this photo in it be inappropriate: 100th Infantry Battalion (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia So what if all those soldiers are Japanese. They're American too, damn it. And here's their crest, with the slogan: Remember Pearl Harbor File:100th infantry battalion.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia And if we consider that over 6,000 Japanese Americans served in the Military Intelligence Service, we can't deny that they were the eyes and ears of the US military in the Pacific. Without them, the military wouldn't have had a clue half the time of what the Japanese were up to. So, would it be inappropriate to have a memorial to them near Pearl Harbor? Do we associate them with the Japanese Imperial Army?"

...out of context, an True Metis pointed out.

For Islam, the horse's mouth is the Qur'an and the Ahadith, not some Mufti. Didn't you know? Just as for the Christian Faith, the horse's mouth is the Gospel, not some KKK leader foaming at the mouth.

Neither is keeping me company since I'm neither a protester nor a supporter of building the mosque. My 'camp', if you will, is the one standing up not necessarily for building the mosque but rather for the right to build the mosque (yeah, I know I know, so do you), and the right for the local congregation to build it without harassment. Now as for Saudi and Iranian funding, prove it.

From past experience, I've generally found that if your cause is not for something, it's usually a shallow cause without foundation. When a cause is for something rather than against something, that's where it usually has a real foundation to stand on.

True enough, and that's where their true colours come out. If the issue was really just about preserving the building, they'd be happy with that. But, when they have to protest against the mosque, suddenly their true colours come out. It's not about preserving the building, but rather doing the bidding of such financial contributers as Jihad Watch, which on its home page takes all kinds of Quranic quotes totally out of context. I've read the Koran and the quotes about Jews opposing Islam, etc. is a reference to the Jews of the time having disbelieved in the Prophet. It's not referring to violence against Jews, but rather making a spiritual claim parallel to quotes in the New Testament about Jews rejecting Jesus, or in the Old testament about people turning from God, etc. When you're funding comes from such groups as Jihad Watch, you know you're not in good company.

Again, if the issue was about protesting in favour of designating that building a heritage building, maybe via a petition or a leter-writing campaign, and did not invoke Islam in any way, then it would make it clear that even if they were to build a church or a Walmart there, the protesters would be equally angry since the intent is o preserve that building, then maybe I could go for it. But when they are protesting not for making it a heritage building, but the building of a mosque, and when the funding comes from Jihad Watch, that's a whole different story.

The video above is pretty revealing too when the money collected for the protests comes from groups like Jihad Watch.

The way I see it is that if the issue is about making that building a heritage building, that is not an issue for the local Muslim community to decide, but rather for the local government. If that's the case, then rather than protest against the mosque, why not protest the government for designating that building a heritage site. This way, rather than making it into an ani-Muslim rant, the protesters would be making it a unifying issue of preserving the building. Rather than pit non-Muslim against Muslim over whether or not to build a mosque on that site, it could actually unite non-Muslims and Muslims into making that building a heritage site. Since it would not be about opposing a mosque, it would not be offensive to Muslims. Instead, it would be about preserving a building. It would be about being for something rather than against something. The local Muslim community has no say in local bi-laws and so it's totally irresponsible and irrational to hold them responsible for government legislation over that site.

Now this is an interesting video of the history fo the debate: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQ9g4WDIy4o&feature=player_embedded#! As it turns out, even Fox News saw no problem with the mosque until Pamella Geller managed to put her own hateful spin on it in a blog, fanning the flames until finally some news media got a hold of it and naturally Fox News, seeing no problem with the mosque originally (either because it had not thought of the appropriate rhetoric to fan the flames or alternatively because it generally saw no problem until it was put into a new rhetorical context attractive to many Fox-News viewers), then gradually began to turn against it too, thus providing media coverage of the new rhetoric. It would seem the whole thing was just a clever way to start a storm in a tea cup. Heck, how else do we explain that even Fox News had positive things to say about it initially until the flames of hate arose?

Well, there ya go. Let them build the mosque and prove themselves rather than preventing them from even having a chance to prove themselves. My guess is these guys aren't stupid. They realize there are idiots on both sides and have likely planned for various contingencies. For instance, they may have built separate pools for men and women altogether so as to avoid the issue of appropriate clothing, making an exception for children so they can go in whatever pool they want. Or maybe they are a more liberal community. I don't know. That said, they'd obviously misjudged the opposition. They probably assumed that with encouragement from the previous administration, with explicit approval from city council, and with a thumbs up from various other religious groups such as the local Jewish community, that they had the whole community behind them, perhaps having overestimated the influence of the feds, the local government, and the local leadership of the other religious communities, not expecting so may to break ranks with their various religious leadership. I can certainly understand such a miscalculation, but perhaps upon realizing it, they should have backed out of the plan, assuming they haven't put money towards it already, or at least offer to be bought out to get their money back. If they'd misinterpreted the situation there, they may have misinterpreted the situation elsewhere too. For instance, what happens if someone decides on bringing his own beer and porkchops to the centre, or disagrees with the separate swimming pools, etc, and thinks that he runs the place. I can guarantee Faux News would have a field day over it. While it would be fine for the Jewish centre to have stringent rules on porkchops in its cafeteria, or for the Christian community centre to not allow homosexual behaviour on premises, such as men kissing in public,etc. I can guarantee this centre would be held to a much, much higher standard. I do hope that if this community decides to go ahead, that it knows what it's doing and has prepared for any unexpected turn of events.

I just looked it up and it seems it had been misattributed to Stalin: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin But looking into it further, there is no evidence that it comes from Churchill either. I may stand corrected.

Hate feeds off itself in all directions. Let's not forget too that Islamophobia had been around long before 9/11. In fact, after McVeighs attack, revenge attacks against Muslims occurred before it was discovered this was not done by a Muslim. There were the general scapegoat whenever we did not know who the terrorist was.

You're not protesting? So you do not associate the local Muslim community with the events of 9/11 in any way beyond the fact that thy'd lost members like many others on that fateful day and have no problem with a religious community centre being built on that site regardless of tis religious affiliation any more than the other religious centres in that area?

That's fine. Then let them decide it among themselves. And again, those Muslims who oppose it likely oppose it simply because of they want to appease the protesters and are angry that the Mosque does not move away to silence them. That could be a legitimate reason, and as I've mentioned before, I too feel that that could be a good reason to move the mosque, simply to put an end to this debate. That said, at the end of the day, that is an internal matter for the local Muslim community to decide for itself. I have no more right to tell Muslims where to build their Mosque as I do Christians where to build their church. To do so would be to stick my nose where it doesn't belong. Sure they're angry, not at Muslims but at the terrorists. What does the centre have o do with terrorism beyond the association having been imposed on it. Now that that association has been imposed, yes there may be a valid reason to move the mosque. But who imposed that association in the first place? The protesters. I can pretty well guarantee that those Muslims who oppose building the mosque there do so for the same reason I have reservations now about building the mosque there, and that is that the protester have made it an issue, and have chosen to mix church and state. You yourself might not want to ban the building of the mosque there, but if you've been following the news, the protesters in NYC are in fact pushing the local government to intervene against the building in some way via legislation of some kind. They also said that more Muslims would be speaking out against it, but it's against Islam to ever protest a Mosque, so they feel as if they are stuck between a rock and a hard place. Oh give me a break. So when someone proposes building a mosque at point X, another should not propose at point B since that implies opposing building it at point A. How would they ever consult on where to build a mosque if that's the case? Quote please. You keep saying the same thing, that you don't blame all Muslims but some Americans feel hurt by building a mosque there (how they'd feel hurt if they see no association between the mosque and the terrorists it beyond me mind you). You also say you don't feel that we should ban the building of the mosque there yet remain quite silent about those protesters in NYC who are in fact courting politicians to try to do just that. Then you mention that some Muslims oppose the building of the mosque, yet fail to recognize that their opposition is likely based exclusively on the fact that it's caused by protests (i.e. the protesters caused the opposition among Muslims who just want to be left alone from the harassment). Am I missing something? So I guess if you could clearly explain to me how a person can feel offended by the building of that mosque while at the same time not associating that mosque with the terrorists in any way shape or form, I'd certainly be open to that. Now the ball's in your court. So you oppose the building of a Church on Indian lands? That's the whole continent right there.

Of course. The whole debate is about them sharing a common religion, at lest in name, with those who flew the planes into the buildings. As pointed out earlier, there are a few churches even closer to ground zero right now and we hear not a peep about them. Why is this Islamic centre targeted? Because it's community happens to call itself by the same name as those who flew the planes. Guilt by association. Simple as that. I can guarantee that if they move that mosque, some will pounce on that as proof that Muslims accept responsibility for 911.

It would seem it's against Muslims who share a common Faith with the terrorists. So, which Muslims are they? Well, if by common Faith you mean those who think like and believe the same terrorist ideology as the guys who flew the planes into the buildings, then you should be protesting Al-Qaeda, not the Islamic centre. If, however, by Faith you mean the label 'Muslim', then I guess that would be all who call themselves Muslim. But I just don't see how those Muslims can be offensive in the least if they had nothing to do with 911 unless you associate them with 911 on some level or other in your mind. And if you do, and considering that they themselves lost loved ones, then that's offensive, a double-whammy for a local NYC Muslim who'd lost a loved on on 011 and now faces disrespectful protests in front of her community. But hey, who says free speech must be self-censored by tact and wisdom, leave alone respect.

I don't profess the Christian Faith myself, but from my readings of the Gospel, it would seem out of character

I wonder what Jesus would do if he were living in NYC today? Would he be out there protesting the building of the mosque or ministering to his own flock instead?