Anti-Mosque Hysteria Elsewhere, Too

[bloodyminded]

Why can't you people ever discuss this situation without having to include Alberta, or conservatives, or Christians?

What you're saying--unequivocally--is that you didn't understand my post. Why not be more forthright in the matter of your misunderstanding, and give me room to clarify?

(funny though, I never hear Jews mentioned)

I don't even know what you're trying to get at here. That I'm an anti-semite? That you are?

[dre]

I'd be careful labeling me a racist or a xenophobe...

I always make a point of seperating Muslims from Islamofascists...The reason being is that I think the Fascist part is more important than the Islamic part for folks who think that way....

I havent labeled you ANYTHING Jack. I would definately label the opposition to this project as mostly being rooted in xenophobia. If this was really about ground zero then why are there similar protests in Tennesee and California? SIMPLE... Islam and Muslims are not popular in the US, and its gotten a lot worse in the last couple of years. THATS why anti mosque hysteria is growing.

[DogOnPorch]

At least did'nt gratuitously swear this time...That's a plus,is'nt it?

Todd Flanders: Owww! My freakin' ears...

Edited August 25, 2010 by DogOnPorch

[dre]

At least did'nt gratuitously swear this time...That's a plus,is'nt it?

Nope. He finally complained to the mods enough for them to ask me not to swear.

[ToadBrother]

Hitler might have been baptised a Catholic...

His actions,including the following of Madame Helena Blavatsky,prove he was not Catholic at all...

You should read up on Herr Schickelgruber and the Thule Society...

This looks suspiciously like a No True Scotsman argument.

Are we going to declare that Ferdinand and Isabella weren't Catholics? How about Edward I?

Where do you draw the line here? I'm willing to entertain the notion that Hitler had abandoned Christianity, though he often invoked it, and certainly had allies in both the Lutheran and Catholic churches in Germany.

[Jack Weber]

Nope. He finally complained to the mods enough for them to ask me not to swear.

Well...That's just eff'n bull$#!+!!!!!

[DogOnPorch]

Well...That's just eff'n bull$#!+!!!!!

I have never complained to the mods. Greg can back me up on that one if needed.

[Jack Weber]

I have never complained to the mods. Greg can back me up on that one if needed.

I'm just effin' with ya'...

[DogOnPorch]

I'm just effin' with ya'...

No worries. I didn't think your comment was aimed in my direction.

[Guest American Woman]

No....your understanding of my reductio ad absurdum fails. I was not making a logical comparison, nor stating my actual opinion of Albertan conservatives; I was pointing out the fallacy of the "guilty till proven innocent" charge (a charge made more fallacious in that any evidence of innocence is itself also cast aside derisively).

Nope. My understanding doesn't fail at all. It's your example that failed. Mostly because we aren't saying that they are "guilty until proven innocent." The claim, and it's a correct claim, was that just because someone/something hasn't been found guilty doesn't mean they are innocent. It's merely recognizing that just because we haven't heard anything doesn't mean nothing is going on.

That's the only point that was made.

Just as one cannot assume that there are no priests molesting children in every church that we haven't heard about. That there is no child abuse going on in every home we haven't heard about. That no rapes have occurred that we haven't heard about.

Fact is, we assume that there is more of all of this going on than we are aware of, which is all that (I believe it was kimmy) said in regards to mosques. Yet you turned it into her/us believing that "they are guilty unless proven innocent," and it's not what was being said at all. It's perfectly ok to recognize that there is more abuse, rape, child molestation going on than we are aware of, but when she pointed out the same thing in regards to mosques, that was unacceptable, evidently. Again, one mustn't say anything about Islam/Muslims, even though it's ok to say it about everything/everyone else.

So you turned what she said, and what others have subsequently said, into something else.

[Guest TrueMetis]

This looks suspiciously like a No True Scotsman argument.

Are we going to declare that Ferdinand and Isabella weren't Catholics? How about Edward I?

Where do you draw the line here? I'm willing to entertain the notion that Hitler had abandoned Christianity, though he often invoked it, and certainly had allies in both the Lutheran and Catholic churches in Germany.

Plus the little swastika god with us belts the Nazi party had made for German troops.

[bloodyminded]

Nope. My understanding doesn't fail at all. It's your example that failed. Mostly because we aren't saying that they are "guilty until proven innocent." The claim, and it's a correct claim, was that just because someone/something hasn't been found guilty doesn't mean they are innocent. It's merely recognizing that just because we haven't heard anything doesn't mean nothing is going on.

Then you DO agree with my reductio. Why are you saying you don't?

And no, you decidedly did not understand my point...because (as is the very nature of the type of argument I was using) I do NOT think the reductio about albertan conservatives is correct. That is, the nature of my argument demands it be seen as absurd.

And your response, that I "don't have to vote for them" and so on, exposes that you took the analogy seriously.

But again: it wasn't an analogy between the two groups; it was an analogy between the two arguments.

Just as one cannot assume that there are no priests molesting children in every church that we haven't heard about. That there is no child abuse going on in every home we haven't heard about. That no rapes have occurred that we haven't heard about.

Just so. but I don't say "I'm concerned about all these homes I see, because I presuppose there is likely child abuse going on inside so many of them...and nothing can convince me otherwise."

Fact is, we assume that there is more of all of this going on than we are aware of, which is all that (I believe it was kimmy) said in regards to mosques. Yet you turned it into her/us believing that "they are guilty unless proven innocent," and it's not what was being said at all. It's perfectly ok to recognize that there is more abuse, rape, child molestation going on than we are aware of, but when she pointed out the same thing in regards to mosques, that was unacceptable, evidently. Again, one mustn't say anything about Islam/Muslims, even though it's ok to say it about everything/everyone else.

Uh, no. I, bloodyminded, personally think Muslims are superstitious, and that there is a disproportiuonate amount of radicalization within its ranks, and that they're behind the curve on basic matters of rights and social philosophy that I hold very dear.

See? That's easy. I don't know if you think such "politically incorrect" remarks take some sort of courage, but I find it totally and absolutely easy to say such things. Perhaps I"m exceptionally brave, facing down the "relativists" and the "left" who are so scary that they are suppressing free speech, through...some force, which unaccountably hasn't touched me.

The point is this (which has been all but lost here): I started this thread about thoroughly uncontroversial mosques receiving controversy, including remarks about people "being afraid for the children" and other such insights. This includes areas where the local muslims are integrated, holding interfaith Thanksgiving dinners and other such nefarious Islamist fronts for their terrorist designs.

At bottom, I'm only saying that I find it objectionable when the worst is automatically thought of people, even in total contradiction to their own actions.

Considering your objections to being called a "bigot" (and very understandable objections they are, too), I should think you might feel some...well, empathy for the victims of this ignorance....not to mention the blowhards here who call me a "terrorist supporter" and other vile nonsense.

Edited August 25, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Guest American Woman]

Then you DO agree with my reductio. Why are you saying you don't?

I'm saying I don't agree with it as you are applying it here; I don't think it applies to what's been said. As I said, you've changed what's been said and are arguing something no one has said. No one has claimed they are "guilty until proven innocent." They've said just because we haven't heard anything about any other mosques doesn't mean there's nothing going on in any of them. You, on the other hand, seem to be using the fact that no one's heard anything as proof that nothing is going on in any of them. Like I said, it's crazy to assume that because we don't hear of everything that it means everything is A-ok, and that's the only point that was being made. And I gave examples of that: we accept that there is more abuse, child molestation, rapes, etc. than we hear about. Same applies here. That's the only point that was being made.

And no, you decidedly did not understand my point...because (as is the very nature of the type of argument I was using) I do NOT think the reductio about albertan conservatives is correct. That is, the nature of my argument demands it be seen as absurd.

I'm saying my understanding or lack thereof isn't what fails in regards to whether or not you are making a relevant point; I'm saying your example has nothing to do with what was actually said. It proves nothing in regards to what was actually said. Which was not "they are guilty until proven innocent."

And your response, that I "don't have to vote for them" and so on, exposes that you took the analogy seriously.

But again: it wasn't an analogy between the two groups; it was an analogy between the two arguments.

I did take the analogy seriously, but as I since pointed out, the analogy doesn't work as an analogy between the two arguments, either, because you changed the argument to something it's not.

Just so. but I don't say "I'm concerned about all these homes I see, because I presuppose there is likely child abuse going on inside so many of them...and nothing can convince me otherwise."

Whether you're concerned or not doesn't change the reality. But if you believe there's no abuse going on in any of them, I'd say you are naive. Of course there's abuse going on that we are unaware of. But perhaps it's easier not to concern oneself with something that doesn't have any bearing on them. Now you may not feel that what goes on in a growing number of mosques affects you, but others do feel as if we should be aware of the situation, as ultimately, it could start to affect us/our nations. That doesn't mean people are living in fear or stupid to have concerns.

Uh, no. I, bloodyminded, personally think Muslims are superstitious, and that there is a disproportiuonate amount of radicalization within its ranks, and that they're behind the curve on basic matters of rights and social philosophy that I hold very dear.

See? That's easy. I don't know if you think such "politically incorrect" remarks take some sort of courage, but I find it totally and absolutely easy to say such things. Perhaps I"m exceptionally brave, facing down the "relativists" and the "left" who are so scary that they are suppressing free speech, through...some force, which unaccountably hasn't touched me.

What I'm saying is the intolerant PC crowd has decreed that one must not ever have anything negative to say about anything Muslims do. To do so is to blame all Muslims, to hate all Muslims, to be anti-Mosque, to be a bigot. And it's ludicrous, to say the least.

And for the record, I am "the left." This idiocy isn't a symptom of "the left," it's a symptom of the intolerant PC crowd, which is in no way synonymous with "the left.

The point is this (which has been all but lost here): I started this thread about thoroughly uncontroversial mosques receiving controversy, including remarks about people "being afraid for the children" and other such insights. This includes areas where the local muslims are integrated, holding interfaith Thanksgiving dinners and other such nefarious Islamist fronts for their terrorist designs.

There's the same type of negativity regarding westerners coming from Muslims living within our nations, too. So some ignorant people have made some ignorant comments and have some ignorant views. In a nation of 300 million with hundreds of mosques, I doubt the stupid people/three or four mosques you mentioned are indication of anything as nefarious as you'd like to make it out to be.

At bottom, I'm only saying that I find it objectionable when the worst is automatically thought of people, even in total contradiction to their own actions.

Who's thinking the worst and of who?

Considering your objections to being called a "bigot" (and very understandable objections they are, too), I should think you might feel some...well, empathy for the victims of this ignorance....not to mention the blowhards here who call me a "terrorist supporter" and other vile nonsense.

What victims should I be having empathy for that I'm not?

Furthermore, notice that in spite of all the accusations I've been subjected to, I've never once resorted to calling those who are calling me a bigot a "terrorist" or "a terrorist sympathizer," so I'm not sure why you're bringing that up.

Edited August 25, 2010 by American Woman

[Shady]

not to mention the blowhards here who call me a "terrorist supporter" and other vile nonsense.

You reap what you sow.

[dre]

So some ignorant people have made some ignorant comments and have some ignorant views. In a nation of 300 million with hundreds of mosques, I doubt the stupid people/three or four mosques you mentioned are indication of anything as nefarious as you'd like to make it out to be.

Most of those mosques were built before the increase in Islamophobia thats taken place over the last couple of years. My guess is this is just taken off. I found three different mosques in about 1 minute on google being protested by the same type of folks that are protested the community center a few blocks from the WTC site. Theres probably more, and its catching on. My guess is that you will see a lot of this stuff from now on. This sort of xenophobia spreads like wildfire.

[kimmy]

Uh, no. I, bloodyminded, personally think Muslims are superstitious, and that there is a disproportiuonate amount of radicalization within its ranks, and that they're behind the curve on basic matters of rights and social philosophy that I hold very dear.

b-b-but... Priests molest children! Women can't be priests! .. Spanish Inquisition ... witch burnings... residential schools... Timothy McVeigh ... David Koresh!

As an avid supporter of the super non-mosque near but not at Ground Zero, you get to criticize Islam to point out how even-handed and objective you are.

If those who disapprove of the super non-mosque near but not at Ground Zero say the same thing, they get countless examples of bad behavior by Christians... even those who couldn't care less about Christians.

At any rate, your "overwhelming evidence" for the innocence of Western mosques consists of nothing more than the fact that few have been caught red-handed.

To restate the objection, again...

Many western mosques are built with Saudi generosity.

Saudi generosity most likely includes a library full of books by stone-age Saudi "scholars".

It likely also includes a Saudi cleric to teach stone-age Saudi ideology to westerners.

I don't see any reason at all to be happy about stone-age ideology being exported from Saudi Arabia into our country. I personally find it pretty damned disappointing.

I'd be much more supportive of mosques in general if I knew that they were staffed by western-raised clerics who understand liberal democracy, as opposed to third-world scumbags who regard anything that has happened since the 7th century as "inventions" that the Prophet never approved.

-k

[Jack Weber]

b-b-but... Priests molest children! Women can't be priests! .. Spanish Inquisition ... witch burnings... residential schools... Timothy McVeigh ... David Koresh!

As an avid supporter of the super non-mosque near but not at Ground Zero, you get to criticize Islam to point out how even-handed and objective you are.

If those who disapprove of the super non-mosque near but not at Ground Zero say the same thing, they get countless examples of bad behavior by Christians... even those who couldn't care less about Christians.

At any rate, your "overwhelming evidence" for the innocence of Western mosques consists of nothing more than the fact that few have been caught red-handed.

To restate the objection, again...

Many western mosques are built with Saudi generosity.

Saudi generosity most likely includes a library full of books by stone-age Saudi "scholars".

It likely also includes a Saudi cleric to teach stone-age Saudi ideology to westerners.

I don't see any reason at all to be happy about stone-age ideology being exported from Saudi Arabia into our country. I personally find it pretty damned disappointing.

I'd be much more supportive of mosques in general if I knew that they were staffed by western-raised clerics who understand liberal democracy, as opposed to third-world scumbags who regard anything that has happened since the 7th century as "inventions" that the Prophet never approved.

-k

Can't disagree with any of that...

Speaking of 7th century thinking...

What is your opinion on the Catholic sect Opus Dei,based New York City???

Mine is that kooks are kooks,no matter what book the believe in,but...That's just me.

Edited August 26, 2010 by Jack Weber

[kimmy]

Not just me... and not just once. Throughout this entire argument you and a couple of others have presented so many fallacious arguments, and so much transparently weak logic it would make a student in grade 2 blush. And yet here you are a hundred plus pages in still making the same destroyed arguments.

I honestly take no pleasure in seeing this kind of curb stomping. People should just leave you guys alone, and let you have your little anti-mosque circle jerk.

I think it's quite funny that you guys are patting yourselves on the back for your great cleverness.

As far as I can tell all you've accomplished is ducking arguments you can't address and knocking down straw-men.

...b-b-but Christians do bad things too!

...b-b-but Muslims have been victims of hate crimes!

...b-b-but it's not a mosque!

...b-b-but fine Corinthian leather!

...b-b-but Saudis invest in Fox News too!

...b-b-but ... well, if you're not down with the super non-mosque, you're just a bigot!

-k

[kimmy]

Can't disagree with any of that...

Speaking of 7th century thinking...

What is your opinion on the Catholic sect Opus Dei,based New York City???

Mine is that kooks are kooks,no matter what book the believe in,but...That's just me.

I feel the exact same way, Jack, and if Opus Dei ever turns into a significant threat to western democracy I'll be concerned about them too.

-k

[Guest TrueMetis]

As far as I can tell all you've accomplished is ducking arguments you can't address and knocking down straw-men.

As far as I can tell the arguments for not having the mosque there come done to it doesn't feel right and the terrorists will see it as a victory.

[Jack Weber]

I feel the exact same way, Jack, and if Opus Dei ever turns into a significant threat to western democracy I'll be concerned about them too.

-k

I'm not certain Islam itself is a threat to Western democracy...I think the problem with certain sects within Islam is that they've embraced a form of everyones best friend,namely Fascism.I think it's that ideology that's the biggest threat to any of the freedoms we fought for in the West.However,in that sense,I could say the same about the crypto-Fascist Chinese and their growing global dominance.

[BubberMiley]

I find people who consider islam a threat to western democracy to be hilarious.

[Guest TrueMetis]

I find people who consider islam a threat to western democracy to be hilarious.

Well some of those people are willing to make concessions based on what the radical Muslims think so if it is a threat it's because people allow it to be.

[Jack Weber]

I find people who consider islam a threat to western democracy to be hilarious.

Islam???

Probably not...

Islamofascism???

I think so...

But that threat of Islamofascism is actually easier to confront than the threat to Western democracy the Fascist Chinese pose...

[Bonam]

But that threat of Islamofascism is actually easier to confront than the threat to Western democracy the Fascist Chinese pose...

What threat do the Chinese pose to us? Besides swarming us with Chinese immigrants, I don't see much of a threat from them. We trade with China to our substantial mutual benefit, and China is very unlikely to undertake military adventurism against established Western nations.