Burn a Qu'ran Day.

[Guest TrueMetis]

The book burnings aren't taking place on property where Christians have murdered Muslims. Try. Really TRY to see the difference. No murders were involved. No deaths at all. It's a freakin' book. That's it. That's the extent of the whole deal. For one night. And I don't care if they burn the Bible, either. Or the American flag. There is nothing more than a symbol involved in all of those burnings, while there is a bit more than a symbol involved in the issues surrounding this ONE mosque. In this ONE location. On property damaged by other Muslims during a massacre.

Bullshit, all them are symbols and that's all they are or you wouldn't have people talking about how ground zero is "hallowed ground." Well guess what, people with faith consider their holy books just as hallowed. If it's not symbolism that has you not wanting this mosque there than you have nothing to argue with. Take the symbolism away and all you've got is a pile of dirt and a couple of buildings. That people died there becomes irrelevant.

Edited August 23, 2010 by TrueMetis

[dre]

Bullshit, all them are symbols and that's all they are or you wouldn't have people talking about how ground zero is "hallowed ground." Well guess what, people with faith consider their holy books just as hallowed. If it's not symbolism that has you not wanting this mosque there than you have nothing to argue with. Take the symbolism away and all you've got is a pile of dirt and a couple of buildings. That people died there becomes irrelevant.

Ahhhh but see the beauty of it? AW just gets to arbitrarily decide that the offense muslims feel when people intentionally provoke and insult them by defacing/destroying their holy book ISNT WORTHY OF THE EMPATHY she is expecting muslims who want to build a community center near the WTC site to feel for people offended by their project.

[kimmy]

Bullshit, all them are symbols and that's all they are or you wouldn't have people talking about how ground zero is "hallowed ground." Well guess what, people with faith consider their holy books just as hallowed. If it's not symbolism that has you not wanting this mosque there than you have nothing to argue with. Take the symbolism away and all you've got is a pile of dirt and a couple of buildings. That people died there becomes irrelevant.

Absolutely, it's symbolism. Burning books is a symbolic gesture. It wasn't always (in a time before digital media, and especially in times when books were rare and hard to produce) but nowadays it's purely symbolic.

Park 51 is symbolic too, despite the claims from some that "it's not Ground Zero and it's not a mosque". You, me, Imam Rauf, the average New Yorker, and some rabid Islamist in Saudi Arabia would all agree that this is symbolic. All of us probably disagree on what it actually symbolizes.

A lot of people are not happy about the symbolism of a guy who wrote a book called "A Call to Prayer from the World Trade Center Rubble: Islamic Dawa in the Heart of America Post-9/11" actually building a big monument to Islam on what is as close as he could get to that very rubble.

Ahhhh but see the beauty of it? AW just gets to arbitrarily decide that the offense muslims feel when people intentionally provoke and insult them by defacing/destroying their holy book ISNT WORTHY OF THE EMPATHY she is expecting muslims who want to build a community center near the WTC site to feel for people offended by their project.

It's reasonable to expect people who claim to want to "build bridges" to respect the sensitivities of the people they want to "build bridges" with. If the Park 51 guys want to "build bridges", then you bet they should show empathy.

Why aren't the Florida Christian kooks showing empathy to Muslims? Because the Florida Christian kooks don't give a crap about "building bridges". They *want* to upset Muslims.

-k

[kimmy]

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.

I'm certainly curious to see how this thing plays out.

Personally, my hunch is that in short order some woman is going to be told she can't use the swimming pool dressed like *that* or she needs to cover herself or leave, or the Friendly Atheist Society will be denied use of the nondenominational meeting space, or some Jewish person is going to get into an altercation with patrons of the mosque, and the wheels will come off whole "everybody is welcome!" thing in a hurry.

But that's just my guess. People will be watching like hawks for anything that disagrees with the lofty claims Imam Rauf is making about how the facility will be for everyone.

-k

[Machjo]

I'm certainly curious to see how this thing plays out.

Personally, my hunch is that in short order some woman is going to be told she can't use the swimming pool dressed like *that* or she needs to cover herself or leave, or the Friendly Atheist Society will be denied use of the nondenominational meeting space, or some Jewish person is going to get into an altercation with patrons of the mosque, and the wheels will come off whole "everybody is welcome!" thing in a hurry.

But that's just my guess. People will be watching like hawks for anything that disagrees with the lofty claims Imam Rauf is making about how the facility will be for everyone.

-k

Well, there ya go. Let them build the mosque and prove themselves rather than preventing them from even having a chance to prove themselves.

My guess is these guys aren't stupid. They realize there are idiots on both sides and have likely planned for various contingencies. For instance, they may have built separate pools for men and women altogether so as to avoid the issue of appropriate clothing, making an exception for children so they can go in whatever pool they want. Or maybe they are a more liberal community. I don't know.

That said, they'd obviously misjudged the opposition. They probably assumed that with encouragement from the previous administration, with explicit approval from city council, and with a thumbs up from various other religious groups such as the local Jewish community, that they had the whole community behind them, perhaps having overestimated the influence of the feds, the local government, and the local leadership of the other religious communities, not expecting so may to break ranks with their various religious leadership. I can certainly understand such a miscalculation, but perhaps upon realizing it, they should have backed out of the plan, assuming they haven't put money towards it already, or at least offer to be bought out to get their money back.

If they'd misinterpreted the situation there, they may have misinterpreted the situation elsewhere too. For instance, what happens if someone decides on bringing his own beer and porkchops to the centre, or disagrees with the separate swimming pools, etc, and thinks that he runs the place. I can guarantee Faux News would have a field day over it. While it would be fine for the Jewish centre to have stringent rules on porkchops in its cafeteria, or for the Christian community centre to not allow homosexual behaviour on premises, such as men kissing in public,etc. I can guarantee this centre would be held to a much, much higher standard.

I do hope that if this community decides to go ahead, that it knows what it's doing and has prepared for any unexpected turn of events.

[Machjo]

Now this is an interesting video of the history fo the debate:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQ9g4WDIy4o&feature=player_embedded#!

As it turns out, even Fox News saw no problem with the mosque until Pamella Geller managed to put her own hateful spin on it in a blog, fanning the flames until finally some news media got a hold of it and naturally Fox News, seeing no problem with the mosque originally (either because it had not thought of the appropriate rhetoric to fan the flames or alternatively because it generally saw no problem until it was put into a new rhetorical context attractive to many Fox-News viewers), then gradually began to turn against it too, thus providing media coverage of the new rhetoric.

It would seem the whole thing was just a clever way to start a storm in a tea cup. Heck, how else do we explain that even Fox News had positive things to say about it initially until the flames of hate arose?

[Machjo]

The way I see it is that if the issue is about making that building a heritage building, that is not an issue for the local Muslim community to decide, but rather for the local government. If that's the case, then rather than protest against the mosque, why not protest the government for designating that building a heritage site.

This way, rather than making it into an ani-Muslim rant, the protesters would be making it a unifying issue of preserving the building. Rather than pit non-Muslim against Muslim over whether or not to build a mosque on that site, it could actually unite non-Muslims and Muslims into making that building a heritage site. Since it would not be about opposing a mosque, it would not be offensive to Muslims. Instead, it would be about preserving a building. It would be about being for something rather than against something. The local Muslim community has no say in local bi-laws and so it's totally irresponsible and irrational to hold them responsible for government legislation over that site.

[Machjo]

The video above is pretty revealing too when the money collected for the protests comes from groups like Jihad Watch.

[Machjo]

Again, if the issue was about protesting in favour of designating that building a heritage building, maybe via a petition or a leter-writing campaign, and did not invoke Islam in any way, then it would make it clear that even if they were to build a church or a Walmart there, the protesters would be equally angry since the intent is o preserve that building, then maybe I could go for it. But when they are protesting not for making it a heritage building, but the building of a mosque, and when the funding comes from Jihad Watch, that's a whole different story.

[Sir Bandelot]

Usually a heritage building can still be renovated, it just means they have to preserve the front face of the building or other parts of the architecture, and build around it.

[Machjo]

Usually a heritage building can still be renovated, it just means they have to preserve the front face of the building or other parts of the architecture, and build around it.

True enough, and that's where their true colours come out. If the issue was really just about preserving the building, they'd be happy with that. But, when they have to protest against the mosque, suddenly their true colours come out. It's not about preserving the building, but rather doing the bidding of such financial contributers as Jihad Watch, which on its home page takes all kinds of Quranic quotes totally out of context. I've read the Koran and the quotes about Jews opposing Islam, etc. is a reference to the Jews of the time having disbelieved in the Prophet. It's not referring to violence against Jews, but rather making a spiritual claim parallel to quotes in the New Testament about Jews rejecting Jesus, or in the Old testament about people turning from God, etc.

When you're funding comes from such groups as Jihad Watch, you know you're not in good company.

[Machjo]

From past experience, I've generally found that if your cause is not for something, it's usually a shallow cause without foundation. When a cause is for something rather than against something, that's where it usually has a real foundation to stand on.

[Shady]

When you're funding comes from such groups as Jihad Watch, you know you're not in good company.

What does it say about your company when your funding comes from Saudi Arabia and Iran. Oh well. That's when you suddenly stop caring about funding.

[Jack Weber]

What does it say about your company when your funding comes from Saudi Arabia and Iran. Oh well. That's when you suddenly stop caring about funding.

Unlike Rupert Murdoch,whose other shareholder in Newscorp is a member of the Saudi Royal family...

[DogOnPorch]

Machjo: My guess is these guys aren't stupid. They realize there are idiots on both sides and have likely planned for various contingencies. For instance, they may have built separate pools for men and women altogether so as to avoid the issue of appropriate clothing, making an exception for children so they can go in whatever pool they want. Or maybe they are a more liberal community. I don't know.

That's right. You don't.

But the irony of a pack of relativists calling women Islamophobes for not respecting the cult of Islam as you feel they should is quite funny in itself. Damn infidel harlots. Why won't they just submit? Perhaps a good hard beating with a nice club will smarten them up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWGA8i6scYY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yl8g8S6F3do

Lemme guess...the above isn't the REAL Islam.

[DogOnPorch]

[DogOnPorch]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9OoejF-U9w

[Guest TrueMetis]

Keep it up DOP you not proving anything.

[DogOnPorch]

Keep it up DOP you not proving anything.

Islam sucks. But who's sucking it?

[DogOnPorch]

Koran 4:34 (Not DOP)

Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Koran 4:34 (Not DOP)

Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great.

[3:195] Their Lord responded to them: "I never fail to reward any worker among you for any work you do, be you male or female - you are equal to one another. Thus, those who immigrate, and get evicted from their homes, and are persecuted because of Me, and fight and get killed, I will surely remit their sins and admit them into gardens with flowing streams." Such is the reward from GOD. GOD possesses the ultimate reward.

[16:97] Anyone who works righteousness, male or female, while believing, we will surely grant them a happy life in this world, and we will surely pay them their full recompense (on the Day of Judgment) for their righteous works.

[33:35] The submitting men, the submitting women, the believing men, the believing women, the obedient men, the obedient women, the truthful men, the truthful women, the steadfast men, the steadfast women, the reverent men, the reverent women, the charitable men, the charitable women, the fasting men, the fasting women, the chaste men, the chaste women, and the men who commemorate GOD frequently, and the commemorating women; GOD has prepared for them forgiveness and a great recompense.

[4:124] As for those who lead a righteous life, male or female, while believing, they enter Paradise; without the slightest injustice.

Using quotes from a holy book to prove a point only works if the people in question are literalists. Which is always a very very slight minority.

[DogOnPorch]

[3:195] Their Lord responded to them: "I never fail to reward any worker among you for any work you do, be you male or female - you are equal to one another. Thus, those who immigrate, and get evicted from their homes, and are persecuted because of Me, and fight and get killed, I will surely remit their sins and admit them into gardens with flowing streams." Such is the reward from GOD. GOD possesses the ultimate reward.

[16:97] Anyone who works righteousness, male or female, while believing, we will surely grant them a happy life in this world, and we will surely pay them their full recompense (on the Day of Judgment) for their righteous works.

[33:35] The submitting men, the submitting women, the believing men, the believing women, the obedient men, the obedient women, the truthful men, the truthful women, the steadfast men, the steadfast women, the reverent men, the reverent women, the charitable men, the charitable women, the fasting men, the fasting women, the chaste men, the chaste women, and the men who commemorate GOD frequently, and the commemorating women; GOD has prepared for them forgiveness and a great recompense.

[4:124] As for those who lead a righteous life, male or female, while believing, they enter Paradise; without the slightest injustice.

Using quotes from a holy book to prove a point only works if the people in question are literalists. Which is always a very very slight minority.

Relativism. I'm not a Christian. Just because you fall down and worship The Lord, doesn't mean I've lost my marbles, too.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Relativism. I'm not a Christian. Just because you fall down and worship The Lord, doesn't mean I've lost my marbles, too.

Those are all from the Qu'ran and I'm an atheist. As I said using quote from a holy book to prove a point only works if the people are literalists.

[DogOnPorch]

Those are all from the Qu'ran and I'm an atheist. As I said using quote from a holy book to prove a point only works if the people are literalists.

Meh...I provided 6 examples of Islamic stupidity from the horse's mouth. You're free to post vids of similar religious idiocy. In my opinion, defending the cult of Islam is akin to torturing a cat. Defend it if you will. Don't expect ME to go "Oh Islam is OK because Buddhist's do like-wise." Cat torture is still nasty no matter who is doing it.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Meh...I provided 6 examples of Islamic stupidity from the horse's mouth. You're free to post vids of similar religious idiocy. In my opinion, defending the cult of Islam is akin to torturing a cat. Defend it if you will. Don't expect ME to go "Oh Islam is OK because Buddhist's do like-wise." Cat torture is still nasty no matter who is doing it.

How is a bunch of religious nutjobs the horse's mouth but the book it's all based on isn't? Islam is a very diverse group, what your doing is like posting a video about the pope saying the holocaust was a good thing. Then saying because of that all baptists believe that the holocaust was a good thing, even though what the pope said doesn't go for all Catholics let alone all Christians.

And in my opinion anyone who generalizes a group based on individuals is a bigot.