Mosque going up in NYC building

[Michael Hardner]

That guys a white westerner not a muslim... almost for sure one of the people that was already involved in that thread.

Most obvious sock puppet in history.

I agree, dre.

His style of writing sounds like dialogue from an 1940s Ali Baba and the 40 Thieves adventure.

Fake.

[Michael Hardner]

I can't help but notice that this mosque is segregated...men allowed inside...women not allowed. Who here wants to chime in a few words of support for this practice? Anyone?

You know that none of the big 3 religions treats men and women as equals.

[Sir Bandelot]

That's my take on it so you can my point of view all you want.

Your point of view makes a lot more sense to me, than people like Pat Robertson's point of view.

But on the intolerant side of this argument, there's always going to be people who either hate all muslims, or sympathize with those who hate them. And some muslims are scared now, they don't want too much attention brought upon them. If the mosque gets built, it's going to be trouble for everyone.

There should be signs put up in the area around the WTC site, wherever the was debris that fell. The sign should say, "no muslim places of worship in this area." That's what these people want, but not because they're bigots.

Edited August 8, 2010 by Sir Bandelot

[Machjo]

So you're saying Muslims who agree that the mosque shouldn't be built on that property are bigots and blame all Muslims too.

Okaaay, then.

Consider though that those Muslims who oppose the construction of that mosque likely do so because they fear a backlash from the general population. While they do have a point, and in an earlier post in this thread even I'd entertained that point, consider that this does not say much for those who lead us to consider that, for safety reasons, it might be wise for Muslims not to build that mosque. After all, look at what happened to some mosques, Muslims, and even people who just looked Middle-Eastern after 9/11. A couple of them were even beaten to death.

[Machjo]

Now if the argument is that that mosque should not be built owing to possible repercussions on the Muslim community, yes, that is indeed a valid point, and when that point is brought up, I do have to consider then whether that mosque should be built there or not, and the wisdom of doing so. That said, that would still be a decision for the members of that congregation to make, as long as they are aware that this will likely attract more aggression against Muslims and their property across not just NYC, but across the English-speaking world that will read all the articles inciting such hatred against Muslims.

[DogOnPorch]

You know that none of the big 3 religions treats men and women as equals.

The mosque in my city does not allow women to pray with men. They are completely segregated. Since you seem to be a churchy expert-type can you give the practice few tidbits of support? Or...are you like me and see men and women as equals? If you are like me...women and men being equal...why don't you condemn the inequality? Thanks.

[Machjo]

No, I'm saying it stems from the same flawed bigoted reasoning that you and Bonham and others here have shown.

That is, you are unable to remove your emotions from this issue and are unable to distinguish between callous individuals committing crimes in the name of Islam and regular folks who just want to build a mosque so they can pray to their particular brand of sky fairy.

The prejudice here is that I dislike Islamic extremists - a reasonable prejudice, imv. I don't really like any extremists who blow people and buildings up so I don't have much sympathy for any group that does this.

Unfortunately, my dislike for them at the individual level is only known after they have blown themselves up and killed yet another Canadian or American.

I do not then extend that dislike to all Muslims and say that they can't pray here or there because some extremists, who happen to be men and Muslim, flew airplanes into buildings.

Since Islamic extremists are Muslim men, and it is 19 of these directly responsible for 9/11, then all Muslims are responsible for 9/11, is the emotional response of those who don't want the mosque built near ground zero (well, of some of those, since some people don't want a mosque built at all either because they dislike Muslims period or they dislike organized religion period).

Yes, even Muslims can sympathize with this "logic" but it is fundamentally unsound logic in the first place since it is based on prejudice.

If one were to then go back and read the Paul Krugman blog post that I put up back on page 57 (or so) then at least one can get a sense for the reasoning behind what I have posted - i.e. it is no different to say Jews can't build a synagogue here because an I live here and I don't like Jews so, in order to not cause me pain, they should not build it here - as to argue against the mosque like has been done in this thread. [Note, I have no problem with Jews so for the crass posters here, not AW but others, don't go down that road of taking what I write out of context]

That's my take on it so you can my point of view all you want.

I think you're wrong here. I doubt very much that those Muslims who oppose building a mosque near Ground Zero do so owing to their own bigotry, but rather owing to their taking into account the potential repercussions against Muslims by the hateful should this be built.

Looking at it that way, they do have a point. The danger though is that it's also a slippery slope. Once the hateful see that they can intimidate Muslims into a retreat, that will merely bolden them even more, eventually expanding the circle around the 9/11 site and saying there should be no mosque for at least 2 miles around the site. And if they win that, then that no Muslim should be allowed to travel within that distance of the site and should move away, etc. etc. etc. And as long as Muslims give in, the hateful will ask for more.

Looking at it that way, I guess it does make sense tobuild the mosque as a way of taking a stand and saying that the family, friends and congregation of victims of 9/11 all have a right to freedom of religion, even those who are Muslim. After all, a Muslim who lost a family member to 9/11 suffered just as much as a non-Muslim who had. Attacking them now is adding insult to injury, especially when the attacks come from those who have not lost any close relative to 9/11, seeing that that congregation has more right than most to build there seeing that they themselves were victims.

[Machjo]

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?

[Shady]

For all I know the George Bush is funding it. Or Jesus himself but I know the government isn't giving any money to this religious organization

As a charitable organization, the mosque has to release who their donors are. They so far have refused to do so. Why would that be punked?

[Michael Hardner]

The mosque in my city does not allow women to pray with men. They are completely segregated. Since you seem to be a churchy expert-type can you give the practice few tidbits of support? Or...are you like me and see men and women as equals? If you are like me...women and men being equal...why don't you condemn the inequality? Thanks.

Why are you looking for gender equality in a religion ? And why aren't you starting a thread about how all the religions promote inquality of gender ?

These are really obvious questions, so I don't know why you're bothering with this line of discussion in a thread about the NYC mosque.

[Shady]

Why are you looking for gender equality in a religion ? And why aren't you starting a thread about how all the religions promote inquality of gender ?

These are really obvious questions, so I don't know why you're bothering with this line of discussion in a thread about the NYC mosque.

I think it stems from the supporters claims that this Islmaic center is going to be a community type center, where everyone can come and participate. And that it's also going to be a symbol of tolerance and understanding.

[msj]

I think you're wrong here. I doubt very much that those Muslims who oppose building a mosque near Ground Zero do so owing to their own bigotry, but rather owing to their taking into account the potential repercussions against Muslims by the hateful should this be built.

I agree that some Muslims may not want it built for these reasons.

I also think that some Muslims take on the same faulty logic of AW, Bonham and others here.

[kimmy]

Why are you looking for gender equality in a religion ? And why aren't you starting a thread about how all the religions promote inquality of gender ?

It seems to me that there was considerable debate over the subjective claim that "Islam sucks". I think the gender issue in Islam has been pointed out as support for that subjective view.

Whether Islam sucks worse than other religions is beside the point. Whether people are free to leave Islam if they don't care for it is (aside from being somewhat debatable) also completely beside the point. People are free to buy (or not buy) dealcoholized beer and Jonas Brothers records as they wish, but that doesn't change my subjective view that those things suck, not one iota.

-k

[msj]

As a charitable organization, the mosque has to release who their donors are. They so far have refused to do so. Why would that be punked?

Maybe because the filing deadline has not passed yet?

I don't know about the US, but are you sure that they have to release the donors to the media or even the government?

In Canada charities file a charity return where they put the total dollar amount of donations for which the charity issued a charitable receipt. That's it. No identification of the individual donors is included. Just $X.

If the Canadian government came in and did an audit then the government would be able to determine who individually received a donation receipt.

So, can anyone confirm what the US system is like? Are they legally compelled to disclose this or, like Canada, is it only done if the government audits the charity? (There's another step in Canada - the charity could get a review request from the government requesting information about charitable donation receipts but for simplicity I left this option out).

Also want to point out that when individuals in Canada file tax returns the government rarely knows what charities that person gives to. Whenever I file tax returns for my clients I never put the name down on the tax return. Don't need to and since it is being e-filed, all that counts is the dollar amount.

Yes, the government will contact me and will request to look at a dozen or so clients charitable donations for that year to make sure that I'm being honest and not fudging anything.

Not sure if they do this in the US, either.

[kimmy]

You can be sure that like many other Muslim institutions built in North America, this project would be funded in large measure by Saudi generosity.

-k

[DogOnPorch]

Why are you looking for gender equality in a religion ? And why aren't you starting a thread about how all the religions promote inquality of gender ?

These are really obvious questions, so I don't know why you're bothering with this line of discussion in a thread about the NYC mosque.

Why aren't you? Why won't come out in support of the equality of men and women? Is it the duality of you position? That is...you'd like to say you support the equality of men and women but you also support the freedom Islam to do as it pleases (freedom of religion et al). The two don't exactly mesh, now...do they?

Obvious questions that nobody wants to answer...ah, isn't our PC world just boffo?

[DogOnPorch]

You can be sure that like many other Muslim institutions built in North America, this project would be funded in large measure by Saudi generosity.

-k

Like the mosque in my city. Only a few here asked the question 'how can such a small number of Muslims, many on government support, afford such a huge building?'

Ours didn't quite cost $100 million...lol...but she's pretty big, alright.

Edited August 8, 2010 by DogOnPorch

[Michael Hardner]

Why aren't you? Why won't come out in support of the equality of men and women? Is it the duality of you position? That is...you'd like to say you support the equality of men and women but you also support the freedom Islam to do as it pleases (freedom of religion et al). The two don't exactly mesh, now...do they?

Obvious questions that nobody wants to answer...ah, isn't our PC world just boffo?

This thread isn't about my position on the equality of men and women, as much as it would help distract from your flawed criticism. I'm pretty sure you understand the concept of freedom of religion, and - no - they don't mesh.

I suppose we'll have to just let your original criticism on this thread die like a dud firecracker then, if you won't respond.

[Guest American Woman]

I agree that some Muslims may not want it built for these reasons.

I also think that some Muslims take on the same faulty logic of AW, Bonham and others here.

This is sooo telling. We have a different point of view from what you think; that no more makes it "faulty" than your point of view is "faulty" because it's different from ours.

The ignorance in this thread is astounding:

I don't really think what I have clearly stated I believe because others who oppose my point of view have declared that I don't. Some even go so far as to criticize me for not "admitting" what I don't think/believe.

Apparently Muslims who oppose the Mosque being built on that property don't really think what they say they do, either. They are either saying what they are because they feel threatened, or because they've been cowed into their opinion by the likes of non-Muslims who don't think they should build there.

And of course even though it's been made clear that people don't feel the mosque should be built there the reasons they stated, they obviously agree with everyone who doesn't think the Mosque should be built there, regardless of their reasons. Even though they've clearly stated they don't agree with said people.

And let's not forget that we think they should not be allowed to build there, even though we've clearly stated we agree with their right to build there.

And even though the project leaders say it's going to be a mosque for moderate Muslims, when the fact that women will be segregated from the men in this mosque is brought up, it's dismissed as having nothing to do with the issue; or best of all, it's been suggested that women, who believe in Islam, could simply choose not to be Muslim if they don't like the segregation.

And last of all, let's not forget that anyone who questions even ONE action by Muslims is a BIGOT. Oh, and anyone who thinks Muslims should be empathetic regarding this ONE mosque blames ALL Muslims for 9-11, even if they don't. They do. It's been declared. Therefore it is.

x infinity

Edited August 8, 2010 by American Woman

[Guest American Woman]

I think it stems from the supporters claims that this Islmaic center is going to be a community type center, where everyone can come and participate. And that it's also going to be a symbol of tolerance and understanding.

Exactly. Way to reach out to the world and show how tolerant Islam is ... by forcing segregation on the women.

[Machjo]

Exactly. Way to reach out to the world and show how tolerant Islam is ... by forcing segregation on the women.

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?

[Machjo]

And what about boy scouts and girl guides?

[Guest American Woman]

And what about boy scouts and girl guides?

OMG. And what about men's restrooms and women's restrooms, eh? Makes one wonder why our countries even bothered with equal rights in the first place.

No wonder it took women so long to get equal rights; with the mentality I'm seeing here, in this thread, I'm beginning to think it was a miracle that we did.

[Machjo]

OMG. And what about men's restrooms and women's restrooms, eh? Makes one wonder why our countries even bothered with equal rights in the first place.

No wonder it took women so long to get equal rights; with the mentality I'm seeing here, in this thread, I'm beginning to think it was a miracle that we did.

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?

[Guest American Woman]

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?

I certainly do agree with his wife's freedom to choose such a lifestyle. The key word there, however, is CHOOSE. Islamic women have no choice. You do understand that, don't you? And no, leaving their faith is not having a choice. In order for a choice to exist, it has to exist within Islam. And as I've pointed out over and over, and linked to examples, many Islamic women don't like the segregation. They are fighting against it. Some have received death threats as a result. Some choice, eh?