Machjo

Who's them? The Muslims in the Middle East? All Muslims? This particular congregation? Certain other Muslims? certain self-professed Muslims who may or may not be Muslim? A NYC congregation should not be held responsible for what's going on in the Middle East.

I know self-professed Christians who are anti-semitic and racist too, and have even heard such comments as a kid. So, do we hold Christians accountable for this? If a Christian does not engage in racism and anti-semitism himself then he's done all he could. What more are we to expect from him? So the same for Muslims? We can't blame all Muslims because of a problem in the Muslim community. In a video above, Rauf mentions holding talks with the local Jewish community which approved the centre, so clearly he wants to work with the local Jewish community. And again, not all Muslims are Pakistanis. Some are even Swedish, First Nations, for all I know some might even be Inuit.

So you expect individual Muslims living in North America to be able to overthrow foreign regimes?! Even a whole congregation could not do that. Add to that that should religion really mix with politics?

And if that's not enough, there is also this: http://nswas.org/ A joint Muslim-Jewish endeavour in Israel. And this: So it would seem that teacher is happy with what she's doing. So what more do you want her to do? As you can see, there are various persons and groups doing what they can. The Odawa Muslim I'd met was working at the Odawa Community Centre, so obviously she still maintains good relations with the local First Nations. Honestly, what more do you expect from them?

And an example of Muslim attempts to build bridges come from the building of the centre itself, as it will be open to the general community.

I'm not necessarily agreeing with Rauf. But from what I've read, tht congregation is intent on building bridges, so they are making efforts. What more do we expect from them? THey only have 24 hours in a day and many of them, born in the US, are in no position to really do much about the Middle East. They are not politicians after all. And yes I agree that a religious leader ought to bow out of political commentary.

Just to take an example, I remember meeting an Odawa Muslim a last year. So would you hold her accountable for what's going on in the Middle East even though her family roots go back to pre-European North America? Remember, Islam is not an ethnic group, but a religious community. And even if it were an ethnic group, how can you blame an entire ethnic group for the actions of some of tis members? Certainly we're not now going to say that a Canadian First Nations' member who adopts Islam is only allowed to do so if he accepts the blame for all Muslims are you?

Yes, the Muslim world does indeed need to do that, but how can it do that when it must fight a two-front war between fanatics murdering in the name of Islam on the one hand, and Islamophobes persecuting them on the other. Instead of fighting them, how about helping them in their fight? The same would apply with the KKK for example. Should we start persecuting Christians because of that or stand by them in their fight against racism? The same applies. It's hard to win a war when fighting on two fronts simultaneously. And again, there is only so much one congregation can do, and they are doing all that they can. What more can we expect from them? They've already spoken publicly about their opposition to terrorism. They've already announced that this community centre would be open to all and serve to educated both Muslims and non-Muslims about Islam (and since they renounce terrorism, it's reasonable to suppose that they'd be teaching Muslims about peace). Remember that they also work five days a week, have kids to raise, might even be converts themselves and so know little to nothing about Middle Eastern politics, etc. What more can they reasonably do?

You're right to a degree. Perhaps allowing the mosque to go ahead but not the entire 13-story Islamic centre would be reasonable, as the mosque itself comprises only one story of the building and so would be easier to defend, and this would in no way infringe on their freedom of religion. Sometimes we have to determine how significant an event is. If they were prohibited from even building a mosque there, then it might be time to stand up and fight for freedom of religion. As for the centre though, though in principle they should be allowed to build it, in reality is it really worth putting people at risk over a simple activity centre? I don't know the answer, but certainly that would have to be answered before we determine whether it would be worth hiring more police to patrol it more frequently. But as mentioned above, it may be that City council had already conducted a study and determined that the threat was negligible, in which case this would be a non-issue and the entire centre should go on anyway.

I'm not saying that because such acts occurred after 9/11 (and it was a traumatic event) that they will necessarily happen again to this mosque a decade later when sentiments have cooled down somewhat. I'm just saying it's something to consider. And you may be right that this particular group is just loud and obnoxious and not actually violent and that the Mosque, the NYPD, or the local city council have already run a risk assessment and concluded that there is no danger. If that's the case, then perhaps they should exercise their freedom of religion and go ahead and build the mosque anyway.

After seeing those videos though, I do believe that public safety comes before freedom of religion, and so I do think it would be appropriate for City Council to deny the congregation the right to build near the 9/11 site, let's say 1 mile away or something of the sort, on safety concerns for the Muslim children going there owing to the Islamophobic sentiment in the city, but with a clear explanation on the part of City Council that it's decision has nothing to do with Islamophobia but rather with concern for the safety of the people who would attend that centre.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/reac_ter1.htm Muslims have been victims of Islamophobia before, some paying with their lives, and even some non-Muslims looking too dark:

My mistake. It was Lebanon: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14029827/

Yes, I think those videos have certainly changed my mind. I'm starting to have my doubts about how well the NYPD could ensure the safety of that congregation and on that front, I think it would be wise for the local government to request that the mosque not be built there out of concern for the safety of the congregation, especially seeing that it would be a YMCA-style facility, thus potentially putting the safety of Muslim children at risk too, perhaps on the argument that the city has a duty to ensure children's safety and that the building of the mosque there is just too dangerous, as a safety issue. In fact, citing safety concerns, the local government could likely legitimately deny permission to build the mosque.

Of course they can never guarantee that. After all, remember that case of the Christian walking into a church and putting a bullet into an abortion doctor's head? Do you blame the congregation for that? Certainly he was a Christian in name only, just as those terrorists were Muslim in name only. And why is it when we talk of 'loved one's', we insist on excluding Muslim victims as an inconvenient statistic? Again, first off the centre is not being built on ground Zero. Hell, even on the video above it's mentioned that the local Jewish community approved the mosque. And no one is stopping Jews from building a synagogue there, or Christians from building a mosque there. And consider a few years ago when Canadian soldiers were killed in an Israeli attack in Gaza that bombed the local UN headquarters. No one blamed Jews for that, or at least I didn't and certainly heard no one else do so anyway. Would it have been right to say that no more synagogues could be built near military bases after that since it would have been an affront to the Canadian army? Fine. Perhaps you are right. After watching those videos, I'd come to realize just how much hate there is there. And certainly if the feelings are that intense, it'd likely not to be very safe for the Muslim community. Looking at it that way, I could see NYC arguing on the financial front that the NYCP does not have sufficient resources to protect the Mosque in the event of vandalism, etc. and to request that for the safety of the Muslim community that it not build the Mosque there, especially after what we'd observed for three weeks or so after 9/11. As I think more on this you might be right and I'm slowly changing my mind. Perhaps it would be too dangerous for them to build a mosque there for the safety of the congregation.

I watched both videos. And I must say I saw no jihad in the first, but the second was a jihad. The basic premise I see in the second video is a wide brush, nay a mob. Just because hatred is taught at one mosque, it doesn't mean it's taught in all mosques. The same applies to Christian churches.

But as mentioned earlier, this whole thread is about asking that they be sensitive to the feelings of some who place collective blame on all Muslims, which is offensive in itself.

The mosque is not about Imam Rauf himself. I agree he's said things I disagree with. But as I'd posted above, those who think he's so important in all of this are confounding his role with that of a typical priest or reverend in the Christian Faith. In Is;am, the Imam plays a much smaller role overall, with some Muslims showing up on Sundays just to pray and don't stay for the sermon at all. So really, Rauf's views play an infinitesimally small role in all of this, especially when we consider that funding from the mosque comes from many sources, Rauf being but one. According to the logic here, it would be like opposing the building of a church because one of its members is a bigot.

Double post.

In Nunavut, 6% speak neither according to Stats Can. I doubt it has to do with immigration.

Then why does it have to be Nunavut? Don't we have the NWT and Yukon too?

We have to be careful with this though. Canada has become very much in favour of small government and balanced budgets. As a result, any increase in government spending would have to go hand in hand with tax increases so as to satisfy the budget-conscious voter, and would have to be temporary in order to attract the big-government-conscious voter. And remember too that a tax increase would discourage more births unless it's countered somehow. To take education as an example. A policy extending the nine years of education between the ages of five and fifteen to cover the summer months, winter holidays, etc. would certainly cost more money in the short-term and would certainly mean a tax increase. The tax increase might be compensated for to a minor degree at lest by the reduced need on the part of parents to have to hire babysitters. Also, since such an expansion in the number of school days per year could allow children to get their high school diploma at an earlier age, the tax increase would also be temporary since though it would cost more per year to educate a child, the child would graduate earlier, thus involving fewer years of education. On that front, his overall education is likely to be similar in cost to what it is now. And since these children would graduate earlier, it would also mean that they could work earlier and so become independent earlier, thus relieving their parents of the financial burden earlier too. As a result, this tax increase would be temporary, lasting at more fifteen years during the transition phase, after which taxes would go back down again since the new younger workforce would help to expand the tax base How would parental leave and tax benefits respond to the more budget-conscious and big-government-conscious voters? Budget-conscious voters would have to wonder how the government would balance its budget by giving more tax breaks and growing government via parental leave benefits, unless you're suggesting raising taxes on others to compensate? If you do that though, then fewer people are likely to marry in the first place since many want to save money before getting married. Sure they might be attracted to the post-marriage benefits, but still some might want to save money before even getting into a relationship and that could postpone marriage and children. So it really is a double-edged sword. And for those who want smaller government, how would you ensure parental leave benefits be a temporary measure? From what I can see, what you're describing is as a permanent measure with no end in sight. I don't think the issue is too much immigration, but rather integration of immigrants. As mentioned above, we must make it a requirement for immigrants to know the local language so as to ensure integration and an increased chance of intermarriage, etc. With our current birth rates, immigration really is not an elective. The British Empire was very much about big government, involving a military foce to enforce mercantilism across the colonies. Canada has since become ever more in favour of small governemnt. Sure there is a strong socialist element still, but in the last few years, the direction is clear. The idea of raising taxes to provide financial incentives for people to move north would not go well with many Canadians who'd view this as just more government bureaucracy, bigger government, and another welfare handout for the less educated who can't find work. And again, such a tax increase would be a permanent solution from what I can see unless I missed something? Very different times. Back then, knowing how to build a house, gardening or even farming were widespread, not to mention the amenities of such houses were much simpler and that land was still relatively South of the Arctic, where foods could be grown of at lest part of the year. Now you're talking about land that's far North, a population living in an era where house building and agriculture are specialized skills often involving many modern technologies with regards to wiring, etc., and a climate not conducive to agriculture. Also, seeing that modern weaponry is much more expensive than the muskets of the past, giving so many people a tax break would require raising taxes on those who stay South so as to pay for such weaponry, and that is likely to create Southern resentment of the Northerners if the government just not only give them land tax free and free of charge, but also either teach them how to build their houses and other skills to keep themselves alive, or create work for them (ah make-work jobs), which might also involve teaching them the job, if we consider that those most likely to accept such an offer to be among the less educated who have fewer options. I doubt the population has the stomach for such long-term tax increases and big government.

Nunavut already has Inuit-medium schools. Children born there would go to the nearest school available and so integrate soon enough.

If they learn so little prior to post-compulsory education, then more people must spend more time in post-compulsory education to succeed. If you ensure all have a trade or profession under their belt, at least at an entry level, before the age of 15, then more of them will be ready for the workforce at an earlier age, be able to earn money sooner, and save sooner, and so have more children. Also, it would be imperative to rid ourselves of LINC: http://www.servicecanada.gc.ca/eng/goc/linc.shtml And CLIC: http://www.servicecanada.gc.ca/fra/gdc/clic.shtml Knowing the local language must be an obligation before coming to Canada. After all, immigrants are not likely to integrate if they don't know the local language, and so are also less likely to intermarry and so have more integrated children, thus discouraging a ghettoization of our society. If we want a united country then we also need a common language too. And if we want people to have a wide range of marriageable options, then clearly a more integrated community will help with that and so increase the birth rate.

The problem here is with the kind of education. Why not require all children to learn a martial art for instance. Sure most martial arts are difficult to learn, but there would always be the option of offering simplified tai chi chuan as an option among others, which would still be better than nothing in terms of developing physical fitness and fighting ability at an early age. Gardening, construction and other skills too could count as part of education, some of which involve physical labour too. I'm talking about redefining education to not be limited to academic pursuits only, though still gearing it to children's abilities.