Mosque going up in NYC building

[Guest American Woman]

I'm afraid I don't see any space between blocking the construction of the mosque and asking the Muslims there to voluntarily refrain from building it.

I never said they should be asked not to build there, either. My view has been that they themselves should choose, on their own, not to build there, for the reasons I've stated.

To me it is just hair-splitting because you are asking all Muslims to assume collective guilt for 9/11 when you make this sort of request.

For the thousandth time, no, I am not asking them to do that. I'm asking them to have empathy. Simple as that. I have empathy on behalf of what my government has done to others, and I'm not assuming any sort of guilt for it since I had nothing to do with it, but I can understand where others are coming from. I don't, for the life of me, understand how people cannot see the difference. "Feeling empathy" and "assuming guilt" are two very different things.

It's one thing to ask Muslims to condemn terrorism or to work for peace, but to expect all Muslims who have no connection to supporters of violent jihad, to agree to accepting blame is not a reasonable request to make in the first place.

Once again, I am NOT asking Muslims to agree to accept blame. Not anything close to that. Again, empathy and guilt are two very different things.

Should all Americans assume collective guilt for the illegal invasion of Iraq and the subsequent deaths of as many as one million Iraqi citizens and the mass exodus of refugees? I would be willing to bet that a lot of Iraqis see the Green Zone as an abomination!

No, they shouldn't. Because again, I'm not expecting or asking Muslims to assume guilt. I hope if I repeat that often enough, the message will finally get across. But. I DO think Americans should feel empathy towards Iraqis, and I, as an American who didn't support going to war, DO empathize. Furthermore, if a group of American vigilantes were to go to Iraq or Afghanistan, kill hundreds of Iraqis or Afghans, along with a hand full of Americans who happened to be working in the area, and a memorial was constructed in the middle of the destruction, I would think it very insensitive if the U.S. government moved into one of the buildings that was destroyed and created an embassy there. As an American, I would oppose it out of empathy to the Iraqis and Afghans. It wouldn't mean I was assuming guilt and I wouldn't think Iraqis or Afghans who lost loved ones and were upset about it were bigoted towards Americans. I would totally understand where they are coming from. Wouldn't you?

We can't turn back the clock to the way things were before, what happened, happened, and a building that was damaged because it was grazed on approach by one of the planes that targeted WTC still does not make it part of the WTC complex.

I never said it was part of the WTC complex. I said it was part of the destruction caused by 9-11 and that but for 9-11, it would not be available for the Mosque. The Muslims would have to look elsewhere but for the actions of other Muslims.

If you're referring to this Imam Rauf, maybe you linked the wrong article previously, because I didn't find anything extremist about him on that page.

I never said he was extremist. I said only what I said.

Who's going to do a means test of worshipers attending a mosque to see if they are moderate or not...and who defines what a moderate is anyway? The catch 22 is that taking a hard line does not encourage moderation. Some times it's necessary to take a firm stand, but we have to do it when needed, not for phony outrage ginned up by Worldnetdaily.

Of course there's no way to "test" worshipers attending a Mosque, which is why that Mosque will be open to extremists to attend, too. Furthermore, saying that I feel Muslims should have empathy is not "taking a hard line." Far from it. Again. It's not holding them to any different standards than I hold myself.

I don't think you need to apologize for things you have no control over. If you supported a bad government policy and had a change of heart, maybe an apology is in order; but you have no control over leaders you do not support, and the most you can offer is to speak out and advocate against them and their policies.

I feel I can do more than that. I feel I can have empathy and not support things such as the scenario I presented above. I feel I can act in a way that shows I understand how they feel.

I think I just did that as a matter of fact, and I haven't called you any names, and it's something I try to refrain from doing anyway, since we all have our own vantage point to see the world, and good people can draw the wrong conclusions.

And good people can draw perfectly right conclusions, too; they aren't "wrong" just because others disagree. But I've been called a bigot plenty of times in this thread, and that's just laughable and to me proves that a lot of people can't argue an opposing point of view. They have no argument, so they resort to name calling. People have not touched many of the comments I've made, but instead make up views, attribute them to me, and call me a bigot.

What I mean is that I am not seeing a fire behind all of this smoke. I've noticed scanning the search terms that there are a lot of groups using this story to create controversy. I can understand a desire for a memorial on the WTC site, but I think we have to be careful how far we go when attaching sacred value to ground zero.

Because it's important to people, as memorials tend to be, doesn't make it "sacred." One can have respect without making it "sacred." Again, two very different things. And I don't think looking at the immediate area that was damaged on 9-11 when taking peoples' feelings into consideration is "going too far."

Our feelings that objects have sacred or even sentimental value is not based on objective reasoning, but on our intuitive, subjective sense, which can lead us to making the wrong conclusions.

We're talking about lives here. Thousands of lives. Not "objects." And again, what is "wrong" is subjective.

If WTC becomes defiled because people who practice the same religion as the terrorists have established a house of worship nearby, then it's possible that the sacred attachment to this place needs to be reigned in a little.

Who said anything about it being defiled?? Or "sacred?" Why the need to sensationalize what's actually being said into something that's NOT been said??

Edited May 21, 2010 by American Woman

[Sir Bandelot]

I never said they should be asked not to build there, either. My view has been that they themselves should choose, on their own, not to build there, for the reasons I've stated.

That is a complete lie and you are self deluded. I've never seen anybody in such complete denial over what they've said. Allow me to quote you on this thread-

I think they could empathize with those who were killed by extremists acting on their religion and build elsewhere. That spot has no particular meaning for them, while it has great meaning for those who lost loved ones.

At the very least, whether you realize it or not, you're suggesting that ordinary Muslims should show "sensitivity" to those who were murdered by Islamic extremists by not building a mosque at ground zero.

Yes, I am.

The fact that it means Muslim people were responsible is enough; it's why other Muslim people should be sensitive to the feelings of those who lost loved ones on 9-11. As I already pointed out, but for the attack by some Muslims, this land/building wouldn't have even been available to have a Mosque built by other Muslims. In that respect, it is a slap in the face.

I repeat. This spot is important to many people as a memorial, and as such, the Mosque could be built elsewhere.

According to that article you linked earlier, they are planning to build a hotel in the middle of the site, not nearby as in this case, so where's the comparison. How far away from WTC does a mosque have to be before you would consider it acceptable?

Far enough away so as the land/building isn't available due to the attacks; as a direct result of the attacks. Far enough away not to have been part of the destruction caused by the Muslims who carried out 9-11. The building that the Mosque is being built in IS part of the site/area/call-it-what-you-will that was damaged on 9-11. But for the attacks, by Muslims, the Mosque would have had to have been built elsewhere, so I think, out of sensitivity to that fact, the Mosque should be built elsewhere.Do you truly not get that?

[sharkman]

Okay Band, now you are getting obsessed.

Other than that though, your carefully selected AW comments do not contradict her statement saying she never said that they should be asked to build the mosque elsewhere. I don't know how long it took you to comb through this long thread(16 pages, you are dedicated!), but you've come up empty. I think you are the one who's getting deluded.

Nice colors though.

Edited May 21, 2010 by sharkman

[bloodyminded]

Pointing out that but for the act of the terrorists this property wouldn't be available and they'd have to build elsewhere is a fact. A coherent fact, at that. Try as you might to make it about "a mosque two blocks away from the WTC," it's about a Mosque going up in the ruins of 9-11. Another very coherent fact.

I get your point here, but this is actually a critique of capitalism itself. Companies and individuals alike make out like gangbusters in disaster zones generally.

[Guest American Woman]

I get your point here, but this is actually a critique of capitalism itself. Companies and individuals alike make out like gangbusters in disaster zones generally.

So are you saying Islam is the equivalent of a company or individuals? Because if you are, I don't understand how one can be "bigoted" towards them, nor do I understand how one is expected to be tolerant of them, much less tolerant of everything they do. I've never heard anyone criticized for their views regarding GM, for example, nor have I heard the expectation of tolerance for all that GM does.

So no; it's not a critique of capitalism itself. It's very specifically a critique of Muslims building in the ruins of 9-11, a disaster brought about by other Muslims.

[Guest American Woman]

That is a complete lie and you are self deluded. I've never seen anybody in such complete denial over what they've said. Allow me to quote you on this thread-

Ummmmm. I completely stand by what I said, and rather than prove me wrong, you've proven that I've said exactly what I claim to have said. So thank you for that.

[Sir Bandelot]

Ummmmm. I completely stand by what I said, and rather than prove me wrong, you've proven that I've said exactly what I claim to have said. So thank you for that.

You can deny it all you want, but it's right there in black and white.

[Guest American Woman]

You can deny it all you want, but it's right there in black and white.

Yes, what I've actually said IS there in black and white. And I thank you again for pointing it out, and for proving what I've been saying. I don't deny what I'VE said; however, what everyone else has said I've said and think and believe is pure bull crap.

And the amusing thing is that all of you who are so intolerant of anyone who dares to criticize Islam see yourselves as holier-than-thou tolerant.

And now, since I still don't know if you are making an honest attempt at discussion, pitiful though it may be, or simply being provocative to an American poster for fun, I am not going to spend one more minute of my time on what you post on this topic.

Have a great weekend. I know I will.

[Sir Bandelot]

however, what everyone else has said I've said and think and believe is pure bull crap.

Seems like everyone else can't quite figure out what you've said anymore.

And the amusing thing is that all of you who are so intolerant of anyone who dares to criticize Islam see yourselves as holier-than-thou tolerant.

I think we see ourselves as intolerant of your intolerance.

I am not going to spend one more minute of my time on what you post on this topic.

That makes sense, because I've only posted what you've said. That should allow me to clarify for everyone else, who are having difficulty understanding you

Have a great weekend. I know I will.

Ok. Hugz

[Sir Bandelot]

Your carefully selected AW comments do not contradict her statement saying she never said that they should be asked to build the mosque elsewhere. I don't know how long it took you to comb through this long thread(16 pages, you are dedicated!), but you've come up empty. I think you are the one who's getting deluded.

Nice colors though.

It only took about five or ten minutes, during my coffee break. Only reason I did it is, I can't stand it when people try to hide what they really mean behind politically correct doublespeak. If someone is prejudiced against all muslims they should at least have the guts to admit it. Not pretend that they really meant something else.

[sharkman]

It only took about five or ten minutes, during my coffee break. Only reason I did it is, I can't stand it when people try to hide what they really mean behind politically correct doublespeak. If someone is prejudiced against all muslims they should at least have the guts to admit it. Not pretend that they really meant something else.

And so since your search found nothing you make false charges against another forum member? At least have the guts to admit it.

[Sir Bandelot]

And so since your search found nothing you make false charges against another forum member? At least have the guts to admit it.

I could argue more but I think enough has been said and enough damage has been done. Let's just leave it to rest now, sharkman.

See you in the next thread.

[Guest American Woman]

And so since your search found nothing you make false charges against another forum member? At least have the guts to admit it.

The reality that some posters can't address issues I've brought up or answer questions I've asked, but instead keep insisting I feel/think what I don't, just proves that they can't address what I've said. Anyone who accuses someone of being a bigot for holding Muslims to the same standard that they hold them self is either dishonest or incapable of critical thought.

[Sir Bandelot]

The reality that some posters can't address issues I've brought up or answer questions I've asked, but instead keep insisting I feel/think what I don't, just proves that they can't address what I've said. Anyone who accuses someone of being a bigot for holding Muslims to the same standard that they hold them self is either dishonest or incapable of critical thought.

Just because you hold yourself to some "standard" of your own doesn't mean everyone else should, and doesn't absolve you from being a bigot. By your own words it's quite clear that you are one. And I'm not the only one here who called you on this. In fact, looking back at the thread most of the forum members replied against your views and questioned you, but your answer simply doesn't make sense. You chose instead to call them silly names for not getting it. How many times did you have to say that to other posters? Many times. I guess the rest of the world doesn't "get you". THEY must have a problem.

"A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices. The correct use of the term requires the elements of obstinacy, irrationality, and animosity toward those of differing opinion."

Maybe it's time for you to take a long honest look at yourself eh? But that must be real hard for someone like you to do. No, better that you continue the illusion.

Edited May 22, 2010 by Sir Bandelot

[DogOnPorch]

AW: Who said anything about it being defiled?? Or "sacred?" Why the need to sensationalize what's actually being said into something that's NOT been said??

Sir B understands empathy alright. But it is empathy for the mullahs who would put women in their 'proper' place...like in a burqa.

Sir B: I was very pleased to see her win despite being a muslim, which some might factor against her. The backlash coming from american bigots is not at all surprising.

As to the burka, if these chicks all look like that underneath I could almost understand why they'd want to cover that stuff up!

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=16397

There's yer empathy...lol. Note how Sir B and others act like she was crowned by some secret poll of Dearborn Michigan Arabs rather than by Donald Trump's judges.

In this light, I think you'll be waiting a long time before you hear sympathy for 9-11 from fellows like this. Probably cheered on Set 11th...

[GostHacked]

USA land of the free.

Free to build a mosque near the site where some individuals belonging to the religion of said mosque, blew up some buildings.

[Guest American Woman]

USA land of the free.

Free to build a mosque near the site where some individuals belonging to the religion of said mosque, blew up some buildings.

Yep. And free to question those who build a mosque near the site in a building damaged by some individuals belonging to the religion of said mosque, who not only blew up some buildings, but crashed some commercial planes, and caused the death of thousands of people.

[sharkman]

It seems that some PC things are not open to questioning unless you want to be automatically called a bigot. I'm glad there are those here who are able to think outside the PC box and honestly question such things.

[Sir Bandelot]

I already knew the attitude of posters like DogOnPorch, GhostHacked and Sharkman from their previous posts. I just never realized that AW was of like mind to the rest of you. So this thread has been useful in clarifying that point.

[naomiglover]

I doubt American Woman will take the stance and advocate never building a Catholic church near any schools to show sensitivity towards thousands of people who have been raped and abused by Catholic priests.

[Guest American Woman]

It seems that some PC things are not open to questioning unless you want to be automatically called a bigot. I'm glad there are those here who are able to think outside the PC box and honestly question such things.

The far left liberals generally are no more open minded or tolerant than the far right conservatives generally are, in spite of their belief that they are 'holier-than-thou.' They are just the other side of the coin; their prejudice and judgments are simply reserved for a different set of people. That's the only difference. This thread is proof positive of that.

[WIP]

I never said they should be asked not to build there, either. My view has been that they themselves should choose, on their own, not to build there, for the reasons I've stated.

For the thousandth time, no, I am not asking them to do that. I'm asking them to have empathy. Simple as that. I have empathy on behalf of what my government has done to others, and I'm not assuming any sort of guilt for it since I had nothing to do with it, but I can understand where others are coming from. I don't, for the life of me, understand how people cannot see the difference. "Feeling empathy" and "assuming guilt" are two very different things.

Once again, I am NOT asking Muslims to agree to accept blame. Not anything close to that. Again, empathy and guilt are two very different things.

Okay, this is getting a little too repetitive. All I can say is that empathy is something people have in varying degrees. Either they have it, or they don't. But how much empathy are you expecting from this Imam Rauf? Here's a recent statement from him to his people:

The Imam building an Islamic community center near Ground Zero urged congregants Friday to "remain cool, calm and collected" in the face of a recent backlash against them.

"We must be Muslims who go out into the world and show our best selves," Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf said at the future home of the Cordoba House at 45 Park Place.

"There is less room for error," he said. "We must fight those who are against us with peace and our assurance that we have peace in our hearts."

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/05/22/2010-05-22_keep_your_faith_sez_wtc_imam_tells_followers_to_stay_calm.html#ixzz0ogcMa6S6

The overwhelmingly negative comments below the article indicate to me that it's New Yorkers who are lacking in empathy, and attempting to apply collective blame to all Muslims. Unfortunately the corporate-sponsored media that most Americans get their news from, has only presented a one-sided version of history and world events. I wouldn't justify any terrorist attacks, but most Americans remain blissfully unaware of the state-sponsored terrorism that's carried out by this and previous U.S. governments. Thanks to a navel-gazing media, most Americans are unaware of what goes on in the rest of the world, except for wars that directly involve U.S. troops. This lack of awareness has allowed a succession of U.S. administrations to act like dictators on the foreign stage.

From what I've heard from former refugees in Central American countries such as Guatemala, El Salvador and Nicaragua, The Reagan Administration in particular, deliberately gave the go-ahead to their puppet dictators to launch death squads against disenfranchised indigenous majority under the guise of "fighting communism."

The reasons why Arabs, rather than Latinos have fought back with extreme tactics like flying civilian aircraft into buildings, can be partially attributed to religion -- promising great rewards for martyrdom and expanding the definition of jihad. But the reaction against European and then American colonialism is also cultural, because they still haven't come to terms with losing their position of world domination (at least in the Mid East) to Europe, let alone America. What's scary now is that the USA is being overtaken and will not be an empire much longer. But the rhetoric coming out of the extreme right is doubling down on American Exceptionalism rather than preparing itself for loss of empire like England did after WWII.

The political center and the conventional left, as represented by the Obama Administration, is not willing to deal with the problem at any level. They are continuing to try to project military power, increasing the committment to ruinous wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and still trying to use what's left of their ability to intimidate through economic leverage. But if the left is living in denial, the right has completely lost their marbles, and are fomenting conspiracy theories to explain everything that threatens continued U.S. domination today. It appears that the incendiary rhetoric of the religious right and so called libertarians, is starting to bear fruit. The Southern Poverty Law Center has reported a two and half fold surge in the number of "patriot" militias forming in the U.S. during the last two years. Some of their extreme rhetoric is beginning to bear fruit, with the Hutaree Militia in Michigan planning terrorist attacks (why are they out on bail btw?); in Jacksonville Florida on the 12th, a pipe bombing of an Islamic Center is under investigation (why isn't this case given the attention of the Time Square attempted bombing?); and in Little Rock, Arkansas, a father and son who were part of a white nationalist group were gunned down after they shot and killed two policemen at a traffic stop. The threat of domestic terrorism is growing and will easily eclipse whatever wanders in from Saudi Arabia. America is going to become a source of terrorism, rather than a victim of terrorism.

Because it's important to people, as memorials tend to be, doesn't make it "sacred." One can have respect without making it "sacred." Again, two very different things. And I don't think looking at the immediate area that was damaged on 9-11 when taking peoples' feelings into consideration is "going too far."

I'm not condemning people for feeling a site is sacred...that's the reason why we have graveyards for example; but feelings of sacred value attached to objects have to be factored in to the feelings on this issue.

We're talking about lives here. Thousands of lives. Not "objects." And again, what is "wrong" is subjective.

Who said anything about it being defiled?? Or "sacred?" Why the need to sensationalize what's actually being said into something that's NOT been said??

The feeling that WTC should in some manner be a sacred site is part of feelings of essentialism. Lives may have been lost, but those lives are no longer there to scrutinize what the living are doing at the former Trade Center. Many people talk to loved ones when they visit their gravesite; they realize the person has died, and if they believe in immortality, they don't believe that they are in the grave, listening to them, but at some level they still connect the physical remains of the person with a feeling that they are listening to them. No doubt this feeling exists on a large scale at the former Trade Center site.

A feeling that some objects have essential sacred value has a flip side in that others who are viewed negatively are viewed as possessing essential evil qualities. It is the reason why high caste Hindus won't allow Untouchables to touch them or handle objects that they use. A book by psychologist - Bruce Hood, that I read recently, noted that most of the homes of notorious serial killers in the U.S. and England have to be torn down because they can't find buyers even far below market value. The houses are viewed as evil, even if they are completely restored. In this example, there haven't been any logical, rational reasons for contending that a mosque can't be built close to the site. I believe that a lot of people view Muslims as collectively evil and having them in proximity to the WTC contaminates a sacred site. I'm not objecting to sacred attachment to WTC, just the refusal to put these feelings in perspective, and recognize that they should not be part of an unnecessarily aggressive and hostile response to Muslims in New York.

[sharkman]

The far left liberals generally are no more open minded or tolerant than the far right conservatives generally are, in spite of their belief that they are 'holier-than-thou.' They are just the other side of the coin; their prejudice and judgments are simply reserved for a different set of people. That's the only difference. This thread is proof positive of that.

You're right on, and the more holy they get the more name calling they spout. I have been looking forward to the midterm elections, but it may end up getting tedious on this forum, more so if the left loses big.

[Sir Bandelot]

The overwhelmingly negative comments below the article indicate to me that it's New Yorkers who are lacking in empathy, and attempting to apply collective blame to all Muslims. Unfortunately the corporate-sponsored media that most Americans get their news from, has only presented a one-sided version of history and world events. I wouldn't justify any terrorist attacks, but most Americans remain blissfully unaware of the state-sponsored terrorism that's carried out by this and previous U.S. governments. Thanks to a navel-gazing media, most Americans are unaware of what goes on in the rest of the world, except for wars that directly involve U.S. troops. This lack of awareness has allowed a succession of U.S. administrations to act like dictators on the foreign stage.

In this example, there haven't been any logical, rational reasons for contending that a mosque can't be built close to the site. I believe that a lot of people view Muslims as collectively evil and having them in proximity to the WTC contaminates a sacred site. I'm not objecting to sacred attachment to WTC, just the refusal to put these feelings in perspective, and recognize that they should not be part of an unnecessarily aggressive and hostile response to Muslims in New York.

Nicely put. Thank you WIP.

The silence roared

[bush_cheney2004]

.....From what I've heard from former refugees in Central American countries such as Guatemala, El Salvador and Nicaragua, The Reagan Administration in particular, deliberately gave the go-ahead to their puppet dictators to launch death squads against disenfranchised indigenous majority under the guise of "fighting communism."

What you heard is no better and twice removed from American media. Just like Canada and Indonesia against East Timor.