Machjo

Seeing that in these Canadian forums it's mostly a debate over how we non-Muslims should deal with it, it puts me squarely in the non-Muslim category. After all, Mapleleafweb is a Canadian forum. Looking at it that way, then I guess as a Canadian I should say that what goes on in the US is the business of Amercians alone, in which case these two threads ought to discontinue.

I agree. If I look at myself and just plain human, then all sides are part of my group, and I should be equally critical of all sides. That's how I usually like to look at the situation. But then I'd risk being accused of being some kind of Globalist or something of the sort. I do believe in holding all to the same standards, but then those standards must be neutral standards, like international law for instance. What I tend to find though is that many will defend injustice on our part on the grounds that 'their side' is worse. Or insist that while 'their side' must live up to international laws, 'our side' is subject to no laws but our own. Too many double standards there. But yes, in the end, I do tend to be more outspoken about injustices on our side since it's pretty hard for us to legitimize force against others when we are not following the rules ourselves. Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo come to mind.

Sorry I meant B-29.

What flip-flopping position. If the intent was to showcase the B52 that had dropped the bomb on Nagasaki, there is no denying that it is a part of their history, and if it were presented in such a way as to promote nuclear non-proliferation, then maybe I could support it. If on the other hand it was presented to glorify nuclear technology, that would be a whole different issue.

Damn rights I'd be disappointed and ashamed. However, when our troops should violate any rules (overall I'd say they've done a odd job except for the odd infraction), then because I'm a Canadian, that affects me more. If I were an Afghan, I'd be much more critical of how the Taliban behaves, but since I'm a Canadian I'm more critical of how Canadians behave. I'm not the one who'll defend an injustice on our part because 'they're worse'. And so the same applies here. As a non-Muslim, I'm therefore more critical of the behaviour of non-Muslims towards Muslims. If I were a Muslim, I'd likely be more critical of our lack of response to the opposition to the building of the mosque.

Yup. But clearly there are some Americans who do associate the attacks with the mosque, obviously. Can I understand the difference? Well, you tell me. What I understand is that a local Muslim community wants to build a Muslim community centre but some oppose its construction because other people flew aplanes into buildings near where the centre is to be built. Am I missing something?

Then I guess it would depend on how it's being presented. If it were being presented in good taste and after consultation with the local community, I'd have no issue with it.

There is that point too, granted. But would you go out to Iran in a bikini trying to promote women's rights? I'm sure you'd get a few lashes over that. The government would certainly be wrong in giving such a punishment, but it still wouldn't change the fact that you'd have to promote it gradually. Many Americans are incapable of understanding the difference between a Muslim and a terrorist. Looking at it that way, it would probably be wiser of the Muslim community to try to educate Americans first before building such a mosque in that location. All in due time. Americans just might not be ready for such freedom for Muslims yet.

I agree. But to take an extreme example, would it be wise to build a synagogue across the street from the local KKK chapter? If that synagogue got firebombed, sure the KKK would be primarily to blame, and sure the local Jewish community would not have done anything wrong morally speaking. However, common sense would suggest building the synagogue at least out of site of the local KKK branch.

In this context, seeing that it's mainly a conflict between the members of that congregation and non-members, and I'm a non-member, I therefore fall into the category of those who are not members of that congregation, which is where most of the resistance is coming from. Hell no. And I think it's pretty obvious that that would be intended to provoke. As for the Islamic centre, it's intended as a place of worship (or at least the mosque portion of it is) and community solidarity, to try to bring Muslims and non-Muslims together. A B29 museum in Nagasaki would be for what purpose?

Now of course there is also the issue of the slippery slope. If Muslims don't build there, then where can they build without provocation? I know the Imam of that mosque had consulted with the leaders of the local Jewish and other religious communities before making his decision and did get their blessings. He'd also consulted with the local government and got their approval too, none of which he was obligated to do. And he'd made the mistake of assuming that because all of those groups had no issue with it, that there was therefore no issue with it. Had I been the Imam of that congregation, I admit I'd likely have made the same mistake of assuming that if the leaders of the various local religious communities had given me their blessings, that their flock would have given me their blessings too. But mistakes do occur, and so had I been the Imam of that mosque, and assuming that after having made the announcement I'd then witnessed how provocative the issue may have been among the grassroots of the community regardless of the official approval of their different religious organizations, I'd likely have pulled the plug on the idea and go back to the drawing board. Had the leaders of the different communities stood shoulder to shoulder to show solidarity on this, and that proved sufficient to calm the flock, then I'd have gone ahead with it. But seeing that that is not the case, I'd likely have gone back to consulting not with the heads of the religious communities this time, but rather with the leadership of the very groups resisting this the most vocally and ask them where they think the mosque should be built and see if their recommendation is reasonable. Again, I can certainly understand how the Imam could have made such an error, but perhaps he should reconsider now that he's seen the response, assuming again that there is no legal commitment yet to building the mosque.

I will agree that it is likely a bad idea on the part of the Muslims to build a mosque there owing to its provocative nature. If I were a Muslim, I might have liked the idea at first, perhaps not realizing how provocative it would have been. Once realizing how provocative it is though, assuming no money'd been spent on it yet and no legal commitment had yet been made to buy the place, I'd likely have backed out. On the one hand, I honestly can't understand why this would be provocative, but that's beside the point. It is clearly provocative, and while I can understand why that congregation would not have realized how provocative it would have been in the beginning, should back out of it if no plans are yet finalized, or alternatively offer to any other organization the chance to take over any legal obligation that it might have made. Generally speaking, I tend to be harsher on my own group than on others. So, if I were a Muslim, I think I'd likely be campaigning, albeit diplomatically behind closed doors within the Muslim community, to back out of the project if possible. Since I don't profess Islam however, I therefore find myself more outspoken against those who do take offense at it for reasons I cannot fully understand (not their fault that I can't understand it, but that's beside the point), and so defend the Muslims' right to build the mosque there without harassment. I guess it's just in the nature of my character to be harsher on my own group than on the other, regardless of where I stand on a topic.

People in the US do not have no freedom of religion? That's new.

So, would the same apply to a homosexual Christian?

How magnanimous of you.

Yup. The US Bill of Rights is highly overrated, ain't it. Likewise with the UDHR. What we need is another inquisition. You don't believe what we believe, off with your head. Ah the Crusaders.

Oh come on. If I choose to adopt the Catholic Faith, I also accept that women do not have the freedom to become priests, though they do have the freedom to leave the Catholic Faith. The same applies to homosexual marriage in the Anglican communion. At one point, there was a fierce debate within the Anglican church over gay marriage within its community. From what I understand, they did not accept it. And so while a homosexual certainly has the choice of participating in the Anglican communion or engaging in homosexual activities openly, he cannot have both. So will you now say he has no freedom? Freedom of religion means accepting it as a package or rejecting it as a package. It's not something you can just rewrite. Now to the best of my knowledge, there is nothing in the Qur'an that says men and women must be segregated during prayer and so must take it as a cultural issue. Any Muslim who does not like this practice is free to leave his congregation and join or found a new one, just as any homosexual is free to leave the Anglican communion and join a congregation that does accept homosexual marriage. This does not give him a right to rewrite the rules of his community though.

If you want to define it that way then their Is;am was clearly different from that of the community building the mosque. But again, I do agree that depending on the group that community ought to empathize with, building the mosque there could range from being a beautiful symbol of peace and justice for one segment of the population, to an insult to another segments of the population. The question then is which group should they empathize with, and that will answer the question of whether the mosque ought to be built there or not. It's a question of whether in our minds the builders of that mosque stand for peace and justice, or whether they stand for terror. But again, both answers are valid depending on how we perceive the local congregation that is building that mosque.

There's a difference. I'm a man and am all for equal rights for women in the law. That said, if a woman should choose of her own volition to become a housewife, far be it from me to suggest the government ban such a choice. I'd even met one man whose wife was a housewife and he told me, in her presence, that society could solve the unemployment problem if women stayed at home once married. I was surprised. I don't know his religion to this day, but I do know he looked white, fair-skinned, spoke with a perfect Canadian English accent (and did not know any other language as far as I could tell), and would pass as your stereotypical Canadian when it came to all appearances. Same with his wife. And he was an RCMP officer to boot. Now I don't agree with his views, but I still would respect his wife's freedom to coose such a lifestyle if it is of her own volition. And you?

Those murderers were Muslim in name only. They had nothing to do with Islam beyond that, except in the figment of their imagination. For whom precisely should that congregation feel empathy? For the members of that congregation who'd lost family members on 9/11? For those non-Muslim victims who don't care where the mosque is built? For those non-Muslims, victims or otherwise, who do associate the building of that mosque with the perpetrators of the attacks on 9/11 in their minds? Depending on the answer to that, then the answer as to whether the mosque ought to be built there or not will vary too. If it's about empathy for the members of that congregation who did lose family members, or to show other non-Muslim victims that they stand for peace and justice, then building the mosque there is a very fitting symbolic gesture. If, however, empathy must be given to those who associate that community and the mosque with the attackers on 9/11, then yes I agree with you. But as you can see, the answer will vary depending on the angle. It can be anything ranging from a very fitting tribute to victims of 9/11 all the way to an insult, depending n the group to be empathized with.

And what about boy scouts and girl guides?

Some non-Muslims choose to segregate too. Women generally can't become Freemasons or Catholic priests. Some strict communities might impose the Gospel teaching of women having to cover their heads at Church. Some evangelical Christians insist the man is the highest authority in the household. Different cultures have differing views with regards to what men and women can't do. If such impositions are voluntary, then what's the issue?

Seeing that some think building the mosque 2 blocks away from ground Zero is too close, I'd like to know how far away we think the mosque should be built so as to avoid offense. Feel free to comment.

Just a note on the treatment of women in Islam. If the law grants a woman freedom of religion, and she chooses to be a Muslim and impose restrictions on herself, then who are we to condemn her for this? We all impose restrictions on ourselves. For instance, there is no law against adultery, but that does not mean I'll go out and sleep with as many as possible just because there is no law against it. Do I not have a right to impose rules on myself? Do you not impose rules on yourselves? I don't smoke and am a teetotaller, yet the law does not prohibit smoking and drinking. The law allows me to own a gun, to hunt, to eat meat, yet I choose not to own a gun, not to hunt, and to eat vegetarian, or even vegan. Does a person not have a right to impose rules on himself without being accused of oppresing himself?