Mosque going up in NYC building

[WIP]

Exactly. Disagreeing with my reasons doesn't make my reasons "not logical." My reasons are perfectly logical, and anyone with at least an ounce of intelligence could see the "logic" in them whether they agree with them or not.

So I'm just not smart enough to appreciate your wisdom! That's the ultimate ruse.

By the same token, I could say I gave them all the room to come up with logical reasons why the Muslims involved shouldn't feel empathy towards those who lost loved ones, and choose not to build there considering the property is only available because of the terrorist attacks; and after more than a month and more than 30 pages of arguments, they still provide no underlying reason why a mosque should be built there considering the circumstances. Everyone gets the same reply.

"property is only available because of the terrorist attacks; " Yes, I heard that one before, and it only makes sense if you are applying collective guilt to all Muslims, which you keep insisting you are not...so your arguments make no sense on any reasonable level. There is no logical reason why Muslims should feel collective blame for an Al Qaeda terrorist attack if they do not believe that terrorist attacks are permissible as waging jihad. Once again, I asked if Christians should refrain from building at or near the site of the Federal Building in Oklahoma, because an argument based on collective guilt should apply equally to Christians as well as Muslims.

[Guest American Woman]

If you can't articulate your feelings in logical reasons why others should feel the same way after 10, 15, or 20 posts, then there is no argument based on reason or facts. None of the facts presented a compelling case for trying to stop a Sufi imam from building a mosque two blocks away from the trade center, it was just an endless repetition of this is wrong...this is wrong...this is wrong...which seems to be a compelling argument to you, but it doesn't work for me.

Try to get this straight, as I repeat this yet again. You, yourself, note the fact that I've made many, many posts in response to others, yet you still aren't getting it.

I've never said they should be stopped from building there. I've never said I supported trying to stop them from building there. In fact, I've said outright that I respect their freedom to build there.

What I've said is that I don't think they should do it; I'm critical of their decision to build there. I think they should build elsewhere, at a location not available solely but for the murderous/destructive actions of other Muslims. I don't think that's the way to go about "'improving relations between Muslims and non-Muslims." I think empathy would go much further. Again. I think they should empathize the same way I empathize with Iraqis who object to the US embassy.

And while we're on the topic of the embassy, I can't help but notice that everyone who is in total, complete, support of the Muslims building on the site damaged by other Muslims on 9-11, have danced around the embassy issue.

But here's a fact. Just because you don't feel the same way I do, doesn't mean I haven't articulated my feelings in logical reasons or facts. Because here's another fact. I don't feel the same way you do. According to your criteria for my reasons being illogical and not based on fact, that means your reasons weren't articulated in logical reasons or based on facts.

Edited June 10, 2010 by American Woman

[WIP]

I've never said they should be stopped from building there. I've never said I supported trying to stop them from building there. In fact, I've said outright that I respect their freedom to build there.

And "respecting their freedom" only means that you aren't willing to apply collective guilt to them, but instead expect them to assume collective guilt voluntarily. Considering the threats that have already been made, including from a West Coast radio talk show host, actively inciting someone to burn it down, I would say that the rabble-rousing could very well make the mosque the focus of a terrorist attack.

What I've said is that I don't think they should do it; I'm critical of their decision to build there. I think they should build elsewhere, at a location not available solely but for the murderous/destructive actions of other Muslims.

The building in question, was not destroyed in the 9/11 attacks, and has been in use afterwards. The reasons for tearing it down for a new building are due to its age and structural integrity, so it may have been available anyway.

I don't think that's the way to go about "'improving relations between Muslims and non-Muslims." I think empathy would go much further. Again. I think they should empathize the same way I empathize with Iraqis who object to the US embassy.

And while we're on the topic of the embassy, I can't help but notice that everyone who is in total, complete, support of the Muslims building on the site damaged by other Muslims on 9-11, have danced around the embassy issue.

That's because there's no comparison between the two. The U.S. Embassy in Iraqis a fortress designed for the purposes of a permanent occupation. Iraqis know this because a building that costs 600 million dollars to build, and will be staffed by 4000 people, including the contractors, is proof that the U.S. intends the Green Zone to be a permanent occupation base of operations. Is the mosque part of a foreign occupation base in New York? No, and that's been pointed out by others several times already.

Edited June 10, 2010 by WIP

[Guest American Woman]

And "respecting their freedom" only means that you aren't willing to apply collective guilt to them, but instead expect them to assume collective guilt voluntarily.

I've already explained that I don't expect them to assume collective guilt so many times that I'm not going to waste my time on it again. If you still don't get it, after all that I've said, repeatedly, I have to wonder if you understand the definition of the word "empathy."

[BubberMiley]

I've already explained that I don't expect them to assume collective guilt so many times that I'm not going to waste my time on it again.

Yes, you don't expect them to assume collective guilt, but you think it would be considerate of them to feel it.

[Guest American Woman]

Yes, you don't expect them to assume collective guilt, but you think it would be considerate of them to feel it.

Evidently you don't understand the definition of "empathy" either.

Here's some advice to all of you who are trying to tell me what I feel/expect/think:

Read what I post/say, comprehend what I say, respond to what I actually say/think, or kindly STFU.

Thank you.

Edited June 10, 2010 by American Woman

[naomiglover]

Evidently you don't understand the definition of "empathy" either.

Here's some advice to all of you who are trying to tell me what I feel/expect/think:

Read what I post/say, comprehend what I say, respond to what I actually say/think, or kindly STFU.

Thank you.

You say you don't agree with collective guilt but you want these Muslims to 'feel' collective guilt towards those who wrongly feel that Muslims (as a collective entity) shouldn't build there, and actually not build there.

It's like watching someone claiming to be an anti-racist and then asking black people to feel empathy towards a racist who feels a black person should not buy a house in their neighbourhood because there was a shooting incident involving a black person.

33 pages later and you are still shrugging and screaming "WHAT?! WHAT?!" while sinking deeper into the quicksand you have created for yourself. Maybe you should take your own advice and try to comprehend what you are saying and kindly do something about it.

[Bonam]

Agreed. If they should acquiesce to public pressure, it's like accepting guilt for something they did not do, which is anathema to American tradition.

On the contrary it is an integral part of American culture and policy. Or have you forgotten affirmative action programs?

[WIP]

Yes, you don't expect them to assume collective guilt, but you think it would be considerate of them to feel it.

Apparently, feeling empathy means assuming collective guilt and failure to do so is a lack of empathy!

In other news, I got an email link about the little festival in New York on Sunday, organized by Ayn Rand fanatic Pamela Geller, and Islamic pseudo-scholar Robert Spencer. A funny thing happened when this crowd who claim not to be motivated by racial prejudice, surrounded two Middle-Eastern looking men who were speaking Arabic:

At one point, a portion of the crowd menacingly surrounded two Egyptian men who were speaking Arabic and were thought to be Muslims.

"Go home," several shouted from the crowd.

"Get out," others shouted.

In fact, the two men – Joseph Nassralla and Karam El Masry — were not Muslims at all. They turned out to be Egyptian Coptic Christians who work for a California-based Christian satellite TV station called "The Way." Both said they had come to protest the mosque.

"I'm a Christian," Nassralla shouted to the crowd, his eyes bulging and beads of sweat rolling down his face.

But it was no use. The protesters had become so angry at what they thought were Muslims that New York City police officers had to rush in and pull Nassralla and El Masry to safety.

"I flew nine hours in an airplane to come here," a frustrated Nassralla said afterward.

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/06/07/ground_zero_mosque_hate

[BubberMiley]

It's like watching someone claiming to be an anti-racist and then asking black people to feel empathy towards a racist who feels a black person should not buy a house in their neighbourhood because there was a shooting incident involving a black person.

Excellent analogy.

[Guest American Woman]

You say you don't agree with collective guilt but you want these Muslims to 'feel' collective guilt towards those who wrongly feel that Muslims (as a collective entity) shouldn't build there, and actually not build there.

Wow. Yet another poster telling me what I "want" rather than responding to what I actually said. What a shock!

The fact that no one can respond to what I actually said/think means only one of several things:

1) People who disagree with me don't know what "empathy" means.

2) People who disagree with me can't comprehend what I've actually said.

3) People who disagree with me can't address what I've actually said, so they insist on telling me what I feel/think in spite of the fact that I've said over and over again ad naseum what I actually feel/think. In which case I have to believe I have a point. If not, people would be able to address what I've actually said, what I actually think, which they have not.

4) Some people can't comprehend that someone with a different viewpoint doesn't think/feel what they've concluded they think/feel just because they have a different viewpoint.

At any rate, trying to "discuss" anything with y'all is a complete waste of time, especially since you don't need me to tell you what I think; you decide that all on your own. So here's the deal-- carry on both ends of the discussion without me, since my participation has no effect on your responses.

And have a great holier-than-thou day.

[dre]

Wow. Yet another poster telling me what I "want" rather than responding to what I actually said. What a shock!

The fact that no one can respond to what I actually said/think means only one of several things:

1) People who disagree with me don't know what "empathy" means.

2) People who disagree with me can't comprehend what I've actually said.

3) People who disagree with me can't address what I've actually said, so they insist on telling me what I feel/think in spite of the fact that I've said over and over again ad naseum what I actually feel/think. In which case I have to believe I have a point. If not, people would be able to address what I've actually said, what I actually think, which they have not.

4) Some people can't comprehend that someone with a different viewpoint doesn't think/feel what they've concluded they think/feel just because they have a different viewpoint.

At any rate, trying to "discuss" anything with y'all is a complete waste of time, especially since you don't need me to tell you what I think; you decide that all on your own. So here's the deal-- carry on both ends of the discussion without me, since my participation has no effect on your responses.

And have a great holier-than-thou day.

I dont think your post covers my argument at all.

My argument is simply that emotional appeals should not be the basis of city zoning decision.

If the project is a legal project and doesnt conflict with any zoning bylaws, other city ordinances or the community plan then it should not be stopped on the grounds that its a muslim project, and in fact stopping the project on those grounds would quite likely violate the constitutions establishment clause.

The response to the application should be the EXACT SAME as it would have been if it was a Catholic facility or a buddist temple for that matter.

[Guest American Woman]

I dont think your post covers my argument at all.

My argument is simply that emotional appeals should not be the basis of city zoning decision.

I've covered your argument over and over. Seriously, dre. I've made it quite clear that I don't think it's a matter of a "city zoning decision." In fact, I've clearly said that I don't think it is, since I've said more than once that I respect their "right" to build there, but I believe they should choose not to, out of empathy for those who are upset over it.

If the project is a legal project and doesnt conflict with any zoning bylaws, other city ordinances or the community plan then it should not be stopped on the grounds that its a muslim project, and in fact stopping the project on those grounds would quite likely violate the constitutions establishment clause.

Again, I've never said that it should be "stopped" nor do I believe that it "should be stopped."

The response to the application should be the EXACT SAME as it would have been if it was a Catholic facility or a buddist temple for that matter.

Yes, it should be. I couldn't agree more.

And again, if the terrorist attack were carried out by Catholics or Buddhists instead of Muslims, my feelings would remain the same regarding a Catholic church or a Buddhist temple.

[dre]

I've covered your argument over and over. Seriously, dre. I've made it quite clear that I don't think it's a matter of a "city zoning decision." In fact, I've clearly said that I don't think it is, since I've said more than once that I respect their "right" to build there, but I believe they should choose not to, out of empathy for those who are upset over it.

Again, I've never said that it should be "stopped" nor do I believe that it "should be stopped."

Yes, it should be. I couldn't agree more.

And again, if the terrorist attack were carried out by Catholics or Buddhists instead of Muslims, my feelings would remain the same regarding a Catholic church or a Buddhist temple.

Ok. I apologize if I mis-stated your position.

[Guest American Woman]

Ok. I apologize if I mis-stated your position.

Thank you. I really appreciate that.

[naomiglover]

Just so there is no misunderstanding and we all have the same meaning of empathy:

em·pa·thy (ěm'pə-thē)

n.

1.

Identification with and understanding of another's situation, feelings, and motives.

but I believe they should choose not to, out of empathy for those who are upset over it.

Why should anyone feel empathy towards something that is wrong?

[Bob]

There's at least more than one temple movement such as this one, that want to build the Third Temple. I don't know if they work loosely together or would get into a big fight if the day came when they actually had a chance to build it. And about eight years ago, I came across this fascinating story about some Christian Zionistranchers that are trying to breed a red heifer -- an acceptable unblemished red heifer considered worthy as the first sacrificial offering by the presiding rabbi, would be the catalyst for an attempt to blow up or tear down the mosque and get that third temple built....and WWIII would right around the corner, I suppose.

Where do you find these fringe groups? How does some obscure group of perhaps five people factor into this story about the degree of public opposition to the construction of this mosque in this context? How can you even compare this fringe group website to your alleged mosque destruction of Hindus? I guess now we're equating fringe desires (remember that the Temple mount was built OVER the foundation of the destroyed Jewish Temple) to acts of desecration that allegedly took place. Would you describe the Muslims of the time who built the mosques over the remains of the Jewish Temple as zealots? How about the current Muslims who reside and manage the area barring non-Muslims from entry? When the messiah comes and this handful of people that somehow can afford to pay the ten dollar annual fee to maintain a website actually begin making moves to construct the third Jewish Temple, get back to me...

I can only imagine what sort of trashy websites you frequent that you come upon these ridiculous stories.

Edited June 13, 2010 by Bob

[Bob]

I find it odd that Imam Feisel Abdul Rauf, who said the project is intended to foster better relations between the west and Muslims, also warned that no progress can be made in relations between the West and Islam until the United States acknowledges backing dictators and its president offers an apology to the whole Muslim world. link

According to the article: He sought Westerners’ understanding for the terrorists who killed thousands on 9/11 and scores more in the 2007 bombing in Spain.

I just read that link. It's quite ironic that this Imam (who's a big part of this project) feels that the Muslim world cannot reconcile with the West on principle, until an apology is issues and an acknowledgement of relations with dictators is made. It's great that he sees no responsibility on the shoulders of the Muslim world toward making this reconciliation, rather, the Muslim world needs to attack misconceptions advanced by the media. When a guy with an opinion like that is heavily involved in this development plan, it makes me question my initial position that this mosque should be allowed to be constructed.

[Machjo]

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.

[Machjo]

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.

[Bob]

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.

You're downplaying the Rauf's role. According to the article, he's one of the founders of the "Corboda House" franchise, which is the organization funding this new mosque. Clearly he's important enough in this organization's hierarchy to speak with the media about this and other matters. Certainly Raud is not the be-all-and-end-all of this project, but it's absurd to suggest that he can be equated to an ordinary patron of a church.

An observation on Rauf's comments about Islam teaching brotherhood and sisterhood with "people of the book" (i.e. Christians and Jews). There's quite a massive gap between him telling us that Islam advocates solidarity between Muslims and Christians and Jews, and what is actually understood and practised by many Muslims. It's one thing to talk about how a faith should be, it's another thing altogether to examine how its followers actually behave. The difference being how one may think the world should operate and how the world actually does operate.

Still, I stand by my position that if this organization has the money and the will to build this mosque, they should go ahead and build it. To submit to anti-Muslim sentiment would be similar to an admission of collective Muslim culpability for the 9/11 attacks (which I think at most is only somewhat true) - which is unfair to non-fundamentalist Muslims.

Edited June 13, 2010 by Bob

[Guest American Woman]

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.

No, that's your take on it. YOU insist they/I/we "blame all Muslims," and putting your views on others is offensive; especially when your claims for what I/others believe has been corrected ad naseum. But for some reason, you persist in projecting your views on others. And again, that's truly offensive.

[BubberMiley]

Somebody was stumped by naomiglover's question and is using outrage as a distraction.

[Bob]

Here are some relevant videos regarding this matter:

Here's Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf making a presentation regarding the proposal to build the mosque.

Here's a video illustrating the demonstration against the proposal, the types of messages here are clearly prejudiced against Islam and unacceptable. Although there's no question there are problems with the way Islam is practised by many Muslims (i.e. endless acts of terrorism and terrible political perspective and cultural practices), the people at this demonstration display no nuance and clearly put all Muslims in the same bucket. When listening to the criticisms presented by some of the demonstrators, I'm left wondering if we were to follow their positions, we'd have to oppose every mosque all over the country.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XAF47pA9Rg

I'll update my opinion on this matter as it's changed somewhat... the question here, as I see it, is whether or not the Muslim organization(s) motivated towards building this Muslim community centre feel that this is a battle worth fighting. In my view, this organization should be allowed to build this Muslim community centre, and should be permitted to do so without such adversity. The criticisms against this proposal are largely rooted in prejudice. The Islamic organization(s) behind this proposal, though, may feel that the time simply isn't right to fight this specific battle.

[Bob]

another video of a demonstration against the proposal.