Burn a Qu'ran Day.

[Machjo]

A what a brave soul the woman in that video is, standing up for the safety of the neighbors. :lol:

[ToadBrother]

Get a grip. Bigotry is being against all of Islam. It's being against all Mosques. It's thinking they don't have a right to build the Mosque. It's thinking they don't have a right to build mosques anywhere in the U.S. or to practice their religion. It's thinking they are all murderers. It's thinking they are all one and the same.

Sort of like how it's not anti-Semitic to be against only rich Jews and it's not racism to be only against uppety Negroes.

What we have here, folks, is a private definition, one that allows American Woman to see herself as a nice non-bigoted person.

[kimmy]

Gotcha... so burning holy books in a deliberate attempt to provoke people is ok... but people who want to build an islamic community center should "be empathic and sensitive", so that they dont upset and offend people.

What a pile of goat feces. Pure simple minded hypocracy and intellectual dishonesty.

The people building the Park 51 project claim that they want to "build bridges" so being "empathetic and sensitive" ought to be pretty important to them or they won't succeed.

I don't think the kooks who want to burn Qurans have any intention of "building bridges", so I don't think they care about being "empathetic and sensitive".

Now, if the people behind Park 51 have some goal other than "building bridges", then I could understand why being "empathetic and sensitive" wouldn't be their concern...

-k

[Machjo]

I wonder what Jesus would do if he were living in NYC today? Would he be out there protesting the building of the mosque or ministering to his own flock instead?

[Guest American Woman]

Whys it always got to be about what YOU have to say?

Not always. Just when you quote my post. When you aren't quoting my post, feel free to post about what whoever's post you are quoting has to say. That's generally the way it works. For most of us. But if you can't resist quoting me in your posts even when it's not about what I have to say, well, you just go ahead and do whatever you have to do.

[ToadBrother]

I wonder what Jesus would do if he were living in NYC today? Would he be out there protesting the building of the mosque or ministering to his own flock instead?

Oh, he'd definitely be out there with big signs reading "SHARIAH" or on MLW explaining how he was not blaming all Muslims for 9-11 while blaming all Muslims for 9-11.

[Guest American Woman]

Sort of like how it's not anti-Semitic to be against only rich Jews and it's not racism to be only against uppety Negroes.

What we have here, folks, is a private definition, one that allows American Woman to see herself as a nice non-bigoted person.

Okaaaay. So who exactly am I bigoted against? The rich Muslims? The uppity ones? It's always nice to know who one is bigoted against when one is bigoted. So perhaps you'd be kind enough to fill me in.

[kimmy]

This debate is between moderate people who want to create a civil society, everywhere, and intolerant ones who are motivated by their hate.

Will building this project at the intended location really help create a civil society or reduce hate?

-k

[ToadBrother]

Okaaaay. So who exactly am I bigoted against? The rich Muslims? The uppity ones? It's always nice to know who one is bigoted against when one is bigoted. So perhaps you'd be kind enough to fill me in.

Clearly against all Muslims.

[ToadBrother]

Will building this project at the intended location really help create a civil society or reduce hate?

-k

I'd say that's irrelevant in a secular society. Since what counts are laws and zoning/land use requirements, this group cannot be treated any differently than any other.

[Guest American Woman]

Clearly against all Muslims.

Well live and learn.

And here I thought I was only bigoted against the Muslims that the Muslims who share my views are bigoted against, but clearly they are bigoted against all Muslims, too, including themselves.

Thanks for clearing that up.

[dre]

Will building this project at the intended location really help create a civil society or reduce hate?

-k

That entirely depends on how the place is run once its open. In the short term its obviously bringing a lot of nuts out of the wood work, and has become a rallying cry for the 50% of Americans that just flat out dont like Islam. But if you ask your question after the center has been open for 10 years the answer will depend on how the community center has been used, and what its message has been.

[Guest American Woman]

I'd say that's irrelevant in a secular society. Since what counts are laws and zoning/land use requirements, this group cannot be treated any differently than any other.

And it's not being treated any differently. They have the right to build there. That's been stressed over and over again.

[Sir Bandelot]

Not always. Just when you quote my post. When you aren't quoting my post, feel free to post about what whoever's post you are quoting has to say. That's generally the way it works. For most of us. But if you can't resist quoting me in your posts even when it's not about what I have to say, well, you just go ahead and do whatever you have to do.

Oh ok, when I'm not quoting your post, I should post about whoevers post I am posting about.

What about when I am quoting your post, and I post about what you posted about. Then it's ok.

So it's all good then.

[kimmy]

I'd say that's irrelevant in a secular society. Since what counts are laws and zoning/land use requirements, this group cannot be treated any differently than any other.

I agree that the developers have the right to build there. I think all of us do.

However, that's not what I was asking. Sir Bandelot posits that this is a battle between those who want to create tolerance (the Park 51 supporters) and those who want to promote hate (everybody who doesn't support the project, apparently.)

So I think it's a legitimate question: will the Park 51 project actually help create tolerance?

-k

[Machjo]

Oh, he'd definitely be out there with big signs reading "SHARIAH" or on MLW explaining how he was not blaming all Muslims for 9-11 while blaming all Muslims for 9-11.

I don't profess the Christian Faith myself, but from my readings of the Gospel, it would seem out of character

[Sir Bandelot]

Will building this project at the intended location really help create a civil society or reduce hate?

-k

Even if that was the original intention, I think it's probably too late for that now.

But I'm guessing the developers are in a difficult situation. They might feel that by moving the mosque at this point, it could be perceived as accepting guilt for 9-11 by all muslims. It's become a real conundrum.

[Machjo]

Okaaaay. So who exactly am I bigoted against? The rich Muslims? The uppity ones? It's always nice to know who one is bigoted against when one is bigoted. So perhaps you'd be kind enough to fill me in.

It would seem it's against Muslims who share a common Faith with the terrorists. So, which Muslims are they? Well, if by common Faith you mean those who think like and believe the same terrorist ideology as the guys who flew the planes into the buildings, then you should be protesting Al-Qaeda, not the Islamic centre. If, however, by Faith you mean the label 'Muslim', then I guess that would be all who call themselves Muslim.

But I just don't see how those Muslims can be offensive in the least if they had nothing to do with 911 unless you associate them with 911 on some level or other in your mind. And if you do, and considering that they themselves lost loved ones, then that's offensive, a double-whammy for a local NYC Muslim who'd lost a loved on on 011 and now faces disrespectful protests in front of her community. But hey, who says free speech must be self-censored by tact and wisdom, leave alone respect.

[Machjo]

Even if that was the original intention, I think it's probably too late for that now.

But I'm guessing the developers are in a difficult situation. They might feel that by moving the mosque at this point, it could be perceived as accepting guilt for 9-11 by all muslims. It's become a real conundrum.

Of course. The whole debate is about them sharing a common religion, at lest in name, with those who flew the planes into the buildings. As pointed out earlier, there are a few churches even closer to ground zero right now and we hear not a peep about them. Why is this Islamic centre targeted? Because it's community happens to call itself by the same name as those who flew the planes. Guilt by association. Simple as that. I can guarantee that if they move that mosque, some will pounce on that as proof that Muslims accept responsibility for 911.

[dre]

Even if that was the original intention, I think it's probably too late for that now.

But I'm guessing the developers are in a difficult situation. They might feel that by moving the mosque at this point, it could be perceived as accepting guilt for 9-11 by all muslims. It's become a real conundrum.

I dont think its necessarily too late for that. Like I said... youll have to ask that question in ten or twenty years. I DO think its an uphill battle not so much because of the location of this community center. Its an uphill battle for the same reason its hard for the US to change peoples minds in the Muslim world. Theres a lot of water under the bridge at this point, and a whole lot of blood has been spilt by both sides.

But its possible that on a micro scale the project could do some good locally over the next few decades. Maybe for no other reason besides muslims and non muslims playing basketball together. Stranger things have happened.

[Guest American Woman]

It would seem it's against Muslims who share a common Faith with the terrorists. So, which Muslims are they? Well, if by common Faith you mean those who think like and believe the same terrorist ideology as the guys who flew the planes into the buildings, then you should be protesting Al-Qaeda, not the Islamic centre. If, however, by Faith you mean the label 'Muslim', then I guess that would be all who call themselves Muslim.

But I just don't see how those Muslims can be offensive in the least if they had nothing to do with 911 unless you associate them with 911 on some level or other in your mind. And if you do, and considering that they themselves lost loved ones, then that's offensive, a double-whammy for a local NYC Muslim who'd lost a loved on on 011 and now faces disrespectful protests in front of her community. But hey, who says free speech must be self-censored by tact and wisdom, leave alone respect.

How many times do I have to point out that there are a lot of Muslims who feel the same way? Muslims who feel Rauf is no more in tune with them, their lives, or their feelings than non-Muslims who protest the property feel?

They are angry at the Muslims who attacked their way of life as Americans, too, and they feel it's wrong, insensitive, and out of touch with the feelings of America to build there. Because "America" does include Muslims.

They also said that more Muslims would be speaking out against it, but it's against Islam to ever protest a Mosque, so they feel as if they are stuck between a rock and a hard place.

We are not all bigots, and if some of you could stop throwing the accusation around for five minutes to actually listen to and respond to what we are saying, perhaps you would even start to recognize that fact.

I've repeated ad naseum that I hold myself to the same standards. I hold Christianity to the same standards. Jews. Buddhists. Atheists. Agnostics. Swedes. Germans. Canadians. And on and on it goes. Apparently I'm bigoted towards myself and the world at large.

[Sir Bandelot]

its possible that on a micro scale the project could do some good locally over the next few decades. Maybe for no other reason besides muslims and non muslims playing basketball together. Stranger things have happened.

I hope so. The original idea was a good one, in my opinion. In fact the Imam has been working with the US government for years now, particularly with the Bush administration and was encouraged to come up with a project of this very nature. But the debate has gone to the level of media frenzy, and gone political. There are big power interests who seek to use it for their political agenda. That could be the poison that kills the project, politics turning a good thing into bad, to serve their self interests. Due to the level of heated debate I fear that the place, if ever built on that site, will be under threat for some time.

[Machjo]

How many times do I have to point out that there are a lot of Muslims who feel the same way? Muslims who feel Rauf is no more in tune with them, their lives, or their feelings than non-Muslims who protest the property feel?

That's fine. Then let them decide it among themselves. And again, those Muslims who oppose it likely oppose it simply because of they want to appease the protesters and are angry that the Mosque does not move away to silence them. That could be a legitimate reason, and as I've mentioned before, I too feel that that could be a good reason to move the mosque, simply to put an end to this debate.

That said, at the end of the day, that is an internal matter for the local Muslim community to decide for itself. I have no more right to tell Muslims where to build their Mosque as I do Christians where to build their church. To do so would be to stick my nose where it doesn't belong.

They are angry at the Muslims who attacked their way of life as Americans, too, and they feel it's wrong, insensitive, and out of touch with the feelings of America to build there. Because "America" does include Muslims.

Sure they're angry, not at Muslims but at the terrorists. What does the centre have o do with terrorism beyond the association having been imposed on it. Now that that association has been imposed, yes there may be a valid reason to move the mosque. But who imposed that association in the first place? The protesters. I can pretty well guarantee that those Muslims who oppose building the mosque there do so for the same reason I have reservations now about building the mosque there, and that is that the protester have made it an issue, and have chosen to mix church and state. You yourself might not want to ban the building of the mosque there, but if you've been following the news, the protesters in NYC are in fact pushing the local government to intervene against the building in some way via legislation of some kind.

They also said that more Muslims would be speaking out against it, but it's against Islam to ever protest a Mosque, so they feel as if they are stuck between a rock and a hard place.

Oh give me a break. So when someone proposes building a mosque at point X, another should not propose at point B since that implies opposing building it at point A. How would they ever consult on where to build a mosque if that's the case? Quote please.

We are not all bigots, and if some of you could stop throwing the accusation around for five minutes to actually listen to and respond to what we are saying, perhaps you would even start to recognize that fact.

You keep saying the same thing, that you don't blame all Muslims but some Americans feel hurt by building a mosque there (how they'd feel hurt if they see no association between the mosque and the terrorists it beyond me mind you). You also say you don't feel that we should ban the building of the mosque there yet remain quite silent about those protesters in NYC who are in fact courting politicians to try to do just that. Then you mention that some Muslims oppose the building of the mosque, yet fail to recognize that their opposition is likely based exclusively on the fact that it's caused by protests (i.e. the protesters caused the opposition among Muslims who just want to be left alone from the harassment). Am I missing something?

So I guess if you could clearly explain to me how a person can feel offended by the building of that mosque while at the same time not associating that mosque with the terrorists in any way shape or form, I'd certainly be open to that. Now the ball's in your court.

I've repeated ad naseum that I hold myself to the same standards. I hold Christianity to the same standards. Jews. Buddhists. Atheists. Agnostics. Swedes. Germans. Canadians. And on and on it goes. Apparently I'm bigoted towards myself and the world at large.

So you oppose the building of a Church on Indian lands? That's the whole continent right there.

[dre]

Experts in terrorism worry that anti mosque bigotry is helping muslim extremists propogate their narrative that the US is anti Islam, and that Muslims in America face persecution and descrimination.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/Anti-mosque-protest-boosts-extremists/articleshow/6389706.cms

Looks like Muslim extremists are just THRILLED with people like AW.

[Machjo]

Experts in terrorism worry that anti mosque bigotry is helping muslim extremists propogate their narrative that the US is anti Islam, and that Muslims in America face persecution and descrimination.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/Anti-mosque-protest-boosts-extremists/articleshow/6389706.cms

Looks like Muslim extremists are just THRILLED with people like AW.

Hate feeds off itself in all directions. Let's not forget too that Islamophobia had been around long before 9/11. In fact, after McVeighs attack, revenge attacks against Muslims occurred before it was discovered this was not done by a Muslim. There were the general scapegoat whenever we did not know who the terrorist was.