Mosque going up in NYC building

[dizzy]

A mind reader are you? Good thing it isn't the 1600s...burnt @ yon stake for vvitchcraft!

Like you, I'm free to interpret intent based on behaviour or expressed attitude...

[Sir Bandelot]

So the "tendency ... to tease or provoke certain American members, usually just for fun," is your idea of being "as civil as possible?" Perhaps that is as civil as is possible for you, but you'll have to pardon me if that's not my idea of civil.

That's because purposely provoking American members just for fun is stupid. If you don't see it that way, you're the one with the problem.

There is a lot of fun and provocation going on around here. But generally it's taken in stride without too much concern from most of the members. Are you saying we should take care not do this to Americans? I do get the impression they are rather sensitive. Maybe we should not say anything too provocative to them, lest we offend...

[Sir Bandelot]

And you did not explain how your views are not biased towards muslims. I suggest your position on this is bigotted, but you won't admit it or explain it in any clear way otherwise. Please try. If not for my benefit, then for the other members here who have asked you the same question, and are waiting for your explanation.

[WIP]

As mentioned, only you and MH insist that everything be 100% one way or another. I already stated there are many Tim McVeighs out there waiting.

As for the mosque...as AW mentioned...what's the assurance that only "moderates" will pray at the site where Muslim warriors commited Jihad against the Great Satan. Seems like it'd be the ideal place to gloat a tad.

How is it possible to know what sort of Muslims will go to a mosque near the WTC? But, isn't banning them from the area a blanket condemnation and an attack on freedom of speech? By the time the War On Terror is over, there will be no such thing as personal rights and freedoms.

Now ERic Holder says the requirement to read a suspect the Miranda Rights should be removed if someone is accused of terrorism: Holder: Miranda may need changes for terrorists I think you're getting pretty close to the point where you may as well take your Constitution and Bill Of Rights, and throw them in the fireplace -- since both Democratic and Republican lawmakers agree that there should be exceptions to every constitutional rights because of the War On Terror and the War On Drugs. As Benjamin Franklin said:"Those who would sacrifice Freedom for Security deserve neither."

[DogOnPorch]

AW is now bigotted?

Thank goodness we have paragons like Sir B to play judge and jury for the unwashed masses.

Did I mention Islam sucks and until the Mullahs run the show can continue to say so? Oh well...now I have. Free speech and what...

What do you call a western woman that turns to Islam and converts?

Ugly.

[Sir Bandelot]

AW is now bigotted?

Thank goodness we have paragons like Sir B to play judge and jury for the unwashed masses.

Why don't you let her answer for herself. If I had you defending me, I know I'd be embarrased.

[DogOnPorch]

AW is and shall continue to be my friend. Piss off, worm.

[Sir Bandelot]

AW is and shall continue to be my friend. Piss off, worm.

You can do that.

[DogOnPorch]

I will and you can do the latter. Peace in the valley.

[Sir Bandelot]

I will and you can do the latter. Peace in the valley.

Pissing wars are for children.

[DogOnPorch]

Pissing wars are for children.

Yes judge...

[Sir Bandelot]

LOL

[Guest TrueMetis]

Uh, no, they do not accept christian theology, they believe in several wives and follow the Book of Mormon, written by Joseph Smith. Something about them being the Christ believing Israelites of the Americas. Christian theology differs in all of these and more issues.

Why don't you look up Mormons in wikipedia, Metis? You obviously don't understand the differences.

How about the looking up the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

From the Wiki

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (abbreviated as the LDS Church, commonly referred to as the Mormon Church) is a restorationist Christian church, and the largest denomination originating from the Latter Day Saint movement founded by Joseph Smith, Jr...

Adherents view faith in Jesus Christ as the central tenet of their religion.[4] LDS Church theology includes the Christian doctrine of salvation only through Jesus Christ.[5] The church has an open canon which includes four scriptural texts:[6] the Bible (both Old and New Testaments), the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. Other than the Bible, the majority of the LDS canon constitutes revelation dictated by Joseph Smith and includes commentary and exegesis about the Bible, texts described as lost parts of the Bible, and other works believed to be written by ancient prophets.

My link

But hey lets look at the Wiki on Mormans to.

The book is believed by Mormons to be a literal record of God's dealings with pre-Columbian civilizations in the Americas from approximately 2600 BC through AD 420, written by prophets and followers of Jesus Christ. The book records the teachings of Jesus Christ to the people in the Americas as well as Christ's personal ministry among the people of Nephi after his resurrection.[1] Mormons believe the Book of Mormon is another witness of Jesus Christ, "holy scripture comparable to the Bible".[2]

My link

Also not all denominations accept polygamy.

[ToadBrother]

I won't repeat what I just wrote in my response to Bob, but it's not the same thing at all. I'm in no way blaming all Muslims for 9-11 nor do I expect them to take responsibility. I've made that quite clear.

How can it not be the same thing. If not all Muslims bear responsibility for the 9-11 attacks then how can building a mosque near the 9-11 site possibly be hurtful?

[Guest American Woman]

AW is now bigotted?

Evidently I am. I'm bigoted even though, as I've said repeatedly, I hold Muslims to the same standards that I hold myself or any other religion/group/organization. I guess we have to give Muslims, and only Muslims, a free pass for anything and everything. Then one isn't bigoted.

AW is and shall continue to be my friend.

Yep, tis true. We are proof that people can disagree, listen to what the other has to say, and respond with respect.

American Woman, on 10 May 2010 - 04:38 PM, said: I won't repeat what I just wrote in my response to Bob, but it's not the same thing at all. I'm in no way blaming all Muslims for 9-11 nor do I expect them to take responsibility. I've made that quite clear.

How can it not be the same thing. If not all Muslims bear responsibility for the 9-11 attacks then how can building a mosque near the 9-11 site possibly be hurtful?

Because some Muslims bear responsibility, and as I've pointed out several times now, not all Muslims are moderates, and it's highly likely that some Muslims who attend that Mosque will be extremists. Furthermore, but for the actions of some Muslims, the building would not have even been available for other Muslims to build a Mosque. But for the actions of some Muslims, the Mosque would have to be built elsewhere. The destructive, murderous actions of some Muslims cleared the way for other Muslims to be able to build a Mosque there (a Mosque that extremists will be free to attend); "there" being the area of the WTC Memorial.

I see that as insensitive.

As a side note, not all Americans voted for Bush or agreed with going to war in Iraq, but the world at large sure has no problem holding all Americans accountable. I know I, as an American, have apologized for actions I've had nothing to do with out of sensitivity and understanding as to where others are coming from. And of course that's accepted. Expected, really. At least by the type of people accusing me of being a bigot and blaming all Muslims for 9-11. Others are more open minded.

Yet have the same expectations for Muslims, and all hell breaks loose. I'm a bigot, I believe all Muslims are evil, I expect all Muslims to bear responsibility for 9-11, I don't think Muslims should be allowed near Ground Zero (evidently if they don't have a Mosque, they can't be there, which makes no sense to me), and on and on it goes.

Ridiculous.

Edited May 12, 2010 by American Woman

[Sir Bandelot]

Evidently I am. I'm bigoted even though, as I've said repeatedly, I hold Muslims to the same standards that I hold myself or any other religion/group/organization. I guess we have to give Muslims, and only Muslims, a free pass for anything and everything. Then one isn't bigoted.

All bullshit.

These are extremely difficult issues to address. I wouldn't expect anyone to have a simple solution to this sort of problem, so don't expect you to. Yes, some muslims attacked the WTC, and they did it in the name of their God, misguided though it was. And yes, many people whose family members were killed will be very upset that muslims are now planning to build a mosque there. I do not doubt that some a-hole type muslims will go to that mosque and use it to celebrate the attack on America. Maybe not publicly or openly, but they still might. There are such types.

Political correctness breaks down here. The only solution is to BE BIASED, to make a distinction between one or the other, and in this case to identify the whole group of muslims as persona non-grata, in terms of building a mosque at the WTC. Let's cut with the doublespeak and soft excuses.

I'm not saying that I like this, but thats the way it simply is, as far as I see. Human nature. You made a choice. And I understand that choice. If it were my family died, I'd probably do the same thing.

The only thing is, you can't come to terms with the reality of what your choice is.

[Bob]

Except she hasn't extrapolated the guilty parties to include most, much less all, Muslims. She has said that she knows that all Muslims are not terrorists. I know that all Muslims are not terrorists, yet I can understand her feelings about this Mosque. As I pointed out, not all Muslims are moderate Muslims, and there's a very real possibility that some extremists will be visiting/attending that Mosque. I can understand why that prospect would be upsetting, and there's nothing bigoted about it.

I can't be any clearer about this - this Rosemary lady's objection to the idea of a mosque being built on part of ground zero is absolutely rooted in her association of Islam (and by extension: mosques) with Islamic terrorism. While I know there is overlap between Islamic terrorism and Islam (and by extension: Muslims), she's unfairly connecting the future patrons of this potential mosque with the terrorists responsible for the murder of her son. If I was a Muslim, I would hate to be connected with such a sick group of people as the executors and supporters of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. I definitely understand where she's coming from, but I only understand where she's coming from if I take a prejudiced mindset against Muslims. Perhaps some of these future patrons will hold despicable political perspectives and religious ideologies, but that's life. Opposing the construction plans of this mosque doesn't do away with these undesirables.

I'm doing no such thing. I'm outright saying exactly what I think. I do not think that Muslims should be apologizing for the acts of terrorists by not building a mosque at Ground Zero; 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. I'm not expecting any more of Muslims than I would myself or any other group/religion/nation/whatever under the circumstances. Just because they themselves aren't guilty doesn't mean they can't understand where the victims' families/friends/survivors are coming from.

You're asking Muslims to apologize (or "show sensitivity", as you put it) for the crimes of others who identify themselves as Muslims. I don't see how there's some competition of "meaning" between Muslims who want to build a mosque and those who lost loved ones in the 9/11 terrorist attacks. If this Rosemary lady and other affected parties want this particular property for some other reason, such as a memorial, then I'd understand. As far as I can see, this lady is simply opposed to the construction plans as they relate to the construction of a mosque rooted in her own anti-Muslim prejudice.

When you say, "where.... they're coming from" - I say to you that they're coming from a prejudiced perspective. Look, I understand that this Rosemary lady is more than likely not some inherently bigoted and prejudiced individual, I know that her prejudice is the result of having her son murdered in such a horrifying way. Let's not pretend that one of the consequences of the horror of her son's murder isn't the development of an anti-Muslim prejudice, though. As an objective outsider, I am not afraid to call it like I see it - prejudice.

I'll add on more thing, let's consider a hypothetical scenario where a girl is victimized by sexual assault several times in several different circumstances by young black males. We can then understand that she develops a fear and/or resentment of young black males. We cannot pretend that she isn't prejudiced, however. Back to the Rosemary lady, I can understand why she is prejudiced against Muslims, but I cann't deny that the prejudice exists.

Not the same thing at all. If a group of extremist Jews wiped out a neighborhood of Muslims with bombs, do you think it would be perfectly ok for other Jews to then build a synagogue on land that became available to them because of the mass murders/destruction at the hands of the extremist Jews? Or would you, as a Jew, see that as a bit insensitive?

From my perspective, I would understand why the anti-Jewish sentiment would exist among the Muslims of this neighbourhood, but that doesn't mean that this sentiment isn't prejudiced. I'm also unsure that "showing sensitivity" by avoiding the area and not building any Jewish structure sends the right message. To me, following your advice would feel like an admission of guilt-by-association with these hypothetical Jewish extremists.

I think you're on the wrong track. I'm not saying the Muslims wanting to build there are guilty by association. It's not about them. It's about the people who lost loved ones, and the Muslims wanting to build the mosque understanding where they are coming from.

It seems to me that you're unwilling to concede that it is anti-Muslim prejudice that is motivating this Rosemary lady's objection to the construction of this mosque. Yes, I can understand where she's coming from - from a prejudiced perspective. I can also understand why she's developed this prejudice. Still, she remains prejudiced. I can't pretend to understand the horror and loss that she experienced and continues to deal with, I can only hope that if I am ever a victim of such a horror that has a distinct ethnic/cultural/religious component that I do not allow it to unfairly bias me against groups of people.

Edited May 13, 2010 by Bob

[Bob]

I won't repeat what I just wrote in my response to Bob, but it's not the same thing at all. I'm in no way blaming all Muslims for 9-11 nor do I expect them to take responsibility. I've made that quite clear.

I don't think you're prejudiced, but you're asking us to sympathize with those who are prejudiced because they've been victimized. We can understand what brought them to their prejudiced perspectives against Muslims, but we don't have to condone their unfair conclusions about the broader Muslim community. I can understand why Rosemary became anti-Muslim, but I will not agree with her or condone her position.

[Sir Bandelot]

It seems to me that you're unwilling to concede that it is anti-Muslim prejudice that is motivating this Rosemary lady's objection to the construction of this mosque. Yes, I can understand where she's coming from - from a prejudiced perspective. I can also understand why she's developed this prejudice. Still, she remains prejudiced. I can't pretend to understand the horror and loss that she experienced and continues to deal with, I can only hope that if I am ever a victim of such a horror that has a distinct ethnic/cultural/religious component that I do not allow it to unfairly bias me against groups of people.

You said exactly what I just said Bob. Her position is understandable given the circumstances, but let's not sugar-coat what it is. Lets at least face what it is. Look it right in the face. Human nature- bigotry.

Kinda ugly, aint it

[Bob]

Co-sign.

I was in Egypt recently and many folks there were able to distinguish between Judaism and the actions of the state of Israel.

If they're sophisticated enough to make that distinction I don't really think folks in the US or Canada have any excuse to not recognize that Al-Qaeda and Islam are not one in the same.

On the other hand, I'll distinguish between the actions of virtually every Muslim country and Islam. Fair enough?

[Bob]

As a side note, not all Americans voted for Bush or agreed with going to war in Iraq, but the world at large sure has no problem holding all Americans accountable. I know I, as an American, have apologized for actions I've had nothing to do with out of sensitivity and understanding as to where others are coming from. And of course that's accepted. Expected, really. At least by the type of people accusing me of being a bigot and blaming all Muslims for 9-11. Others are more open minded.

That's an interesting point. I'm kinda on the fence on this issue, now.

EDIT - fixed.

Edited May 13, 2010 by Bob

[sharkman]

You said exactly what I just said Bob. Her position is understandable given the circumstances, but let's not sugar-coat what it is. Lets at least face what it is. Look it right in the face. Human nature- bigotry.

Kinda ugly, aint it

Good grief.

Tell you what,sport, you're bigoted. Everyone's bigoted in one way or another. Some poor people are bigoted at the rich, white collar workers are bigoted at trade workers, the sexes are bigoted at each other and races at each other too. So what. It didn't start with 9/11 and it will never end.

Some people may hate muslims and look for any excuse to keep the mosque from being built, but in this case it's just putting Americans' interests ahead of others, and they have a right to do that, just as Saudi Arabia has the right to demand that American service women cover up their bodies and refrain from talking to men when they leave the military bases.

I'm a little tired of people willing to bend over backwards to avoid the appearance of prejudiced attitudes to a religion that preaches bigotry to Jews. Anyone know what punishments homosexuals face in the Muslim faith? How about a girl in a mini skirt? How about if I drew a picture of Muhammed? Are you really willing to look it right in the face? Really analyze it and call it what it is? Liar.

A little give and take and understanding. 9/11 will always be a gaping wound in many American minds, and a mosque can be built anywhere else.

[Guest American Woman]

That's an interesting point. I'm kinda on the fence on this issue, now.

??

You didn't quote anything that I said (maybe the quote feature didn't work right?). Not sure what you're getting at ....

Edited May 13, 2010 by American Woman

[WIP]

I can't be any clearer about this - this Rosemary lady's objection to the idea of a mosque being built on part of ground zero is absolutely rooted in her association of Islam (and by extension: mosques) with Islamic terrorism. While I know there is overlap between Islamic terrorism and Islam (and by extension: Muslims), she's unfairly connecting the future patrons of this potential mosque with the terrorists responsible for the murder of her son. If I was a Muslim, I would hate to be connected with such a sick group of people as the executors and supporters of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. I definitely understand where she's coming from, but I only understand where she's coming from if I take a prejudiced mindset against Muslims. Perhaps some of these future patrons will hold despicable political perspectives and religious ideologies, but that's life. Opposing the construction plans of this mosque doesn't do away with these undesirables.

I'm wondering every time I read about another laser-guided drone missile going astray in Afghanistan or Waziristan, how many Rosemary's over there are feeling like taking revenge on America. The problem with the way the Neocons are presenting this Muslim problem is that the motivations for terrorist attacks and suicide bombings are not based on religion. Religion can provide the sanctification for carrying out terrorist attacks, but the incentive for terrorist attacks is revenge. Declaring that 9 -11 is caused by reading the Quran is a claim made by people who don't want to factor in real-world issues, like resentment of the American Empire: military bases in the Middle East, along with carrier fleets controlling the shipping channels, supporting Western-friendly puppet dictators...are a few things to factor in to the discussion.

Another point that needs to be made about this fingerpointing at Muslims, is that the rhetoric from Christian nationalists in the U.S. is getting more aggressive and creating Christian extremist militias planning terrorist attacks of their own. There is a flimsy superficial historical narrative advanced by Islam-watching groups like Robert Spencer's Jihadwatch, which goes something like Christianity used to do bad things a few centuries ago, but we had a reformation, and the Muslim World hasn't. The first problem is that Christianity and Islam are not singular entities; there are thousands of different sects within Christendom and competing sects and schools of thought within Islam.

Spencer states that Christianity is now compatible with the modern, multicultural secular world, but Islam can never be. There are liberal and progressive movements within Islam, as well as cultural Muslims, especially in the West, who identify as Muslim and follow the customs and traditions, but say they don't believe all the supernatural claims...some even being atheist or agnostic. Spencer says these westernized unorthodox Muslims can't be trusted or relied on because the fundamentalists speak with scriptural authority. Well, the same thing can be said about Christianity! What it boils down to is that people will shape and shift their religions when necessary, regardless of dogma. The uncompromising approach towards moderates, along with the continued military ventures in the Muslim World do not help any groups attempting reform. All we'll get is endless war, which is unfortunately what believers in the "Clash of Civilizations" expect anyway. Anyone who's getting tired of wars on terror dragging on endlessly should start wondering if it would be better to pull the troops out and make a serious effort to end dependence on MidEast oil which makes military bases and puppet dictators necessary.

[Sir Bandelot]

Good grief.

Tell you what,sport, you're bigoted. Everyone's bigoted in one way or another. Some poor people are bigoted at the rich, white collar workers are bigoted at trade workers, the sexes are bigoted at each other and races at each other too. So what. It didn't start with 9/11 and it will never end.

It's unfortunately true. What I said was, instead of denying or making excuses lets realize it for what it is. That may help us to understand it better.

But in retrospect we must remember these are extreme circumstances. Wars and terror attacks, murders etc. take away from our human dignity, reduce people to emotionally reactive animals. In a sense the terrorists want to bring us down to their level, and by methods of violence it's not difficult to do that.