[BartSimpson]

Psudo, that's a good point. CNN had an Ironworkers Union boss on who said that it was going to be a cold day in hell that his union members who had rushed to the scene to try to rescue people from the WTC would work on building the Cordoba mosque.
So Rauf has the right to get his building approved and other people have the right to refuse to do the work.

[desertdude]

Just to add another dimesion to this debate. Today a google search for something totally unrealted to this landed me on a pakistani forum ( Didnt knwo they had one ) And this was one of thr topics there.

Now to be totally honest I clicked that linked thinking its going to be all horseshit. But I was pleasntly surprised majority I'd say 99% they would prefer rather to move it rather to stir up all this shit even stating it would un islamic to build a mosque if it hurts the sentiments of many people even if for the wrong reason.

I'll post a few excepts

Quote:

I think they could build the mosque somewhere else to avoid any provocation. We are living in very difficult times, the trust deficit between east(muslims only) and west is very deep and any sort of provocation can lead to even further unpleasant circumstances. Somewhere i saw that the mosque will be built/opened on 11 of sep 2011, which is again not a good move.

Quote:

I agree to many of the participants above. Mosque is a place where we muslims worship Allah. It should not be made a symbol of threat or irritation to others esp in a country which is not a muslim country. We should enjoy our religious freedom but we must also make sure that our freedom does not disturb other people's comfort zone. If they feel hurt by presence of a muslim worship place on a site where they think their loved ones are burried, we muslims should respect that. Everyone has a right to swing his stick in the air, however, everyone should know that where his stick ends someone elses nose starts!

They can suggest the US administration of that area to give them another place for mosque site. They should however make it clear that they are doing it in good spirit and not because of some lunatic pastor's threats.

Quote:

Fanatics are every where, if we blame americans as a whole for the acts/intentions of the preist and other things, then it is wrong. We should also keep firmly in mind that it is not a one way relation, we have our insane people and they have theirs. Statue of Buda was destroyed by the Taliban, those statues have the same importance to the budhists as much as the Quran has for us, but yet it was destroyed by the muslim TALIBAN, and there is not shortages of people among us to be praising the taliban for this act. If relocating the mosque can reduce the tension then why not? and thanks to alex for giving us a few more details as i personally didnt know much. I wonder if there is another location somewhere that fulfill the needs of muslim worshipers and at the same time consider the feelings of those people who object it as it is close to ground zero?

Here is someone who has obviously been or stayed in NY. ( I pasted two of his posts toghter )

Quote:

Its an issue coz effing Fox news made it an issue. People are not being able to see the reality on the ground amongst all the crap spread by Fox news and Far right politicians, even some lefties too. Anyone who works in downtown manhattan or even been there even once or twice would know that people there need a mosque to pray. Lower manhattan, you can still find 3, 4 places to pray but downtown is a different story. Its not a question of they just want something there..its a fact that they need a bigger place there. I have been there n i have talked to people who pray there...they have a small place right now which gets filled up rather quickly and gets over crowded even at afternoon prayer...so they need a bigger place. Finding real estate in downtown is sooo very hard..only reason they found this coz it was a damaged building. I hear Dumbass politicians say "dont make a mosque so close to ground zero, make it some place else in manhattan" Well my answer would be " you morons, have you even been to downtown manhattan? A mosque anywhere in downtown would still be a stone's throw distance from ground zero!!"

2nd post

As i said before fox news and far right politicians have made a bigger issue out of it and by that i mean if you talk to local New yorkers or local government and you would know that most people are fine with it. People who are making most noise are from dumb red states who are far away from New york and who like to think that they are the "real" americans. It happens with every Mosque in USA..everything goes fine from purchasing of property to agreements until they have zonal boards hearings..then you see ton of people are sent from states like texas to go protest at these meetings which is pathetic. Most of the times they lose coz local people and local churches always support these mosques. It would have been the same here but fox news jumped in and made it a national issue.
When i was saying they need a bigger place in downtown...i meant exactly that. Take a look at the pics and see for yourself..People who work around downtown..where are they suppose to go pray?? Americans pride themselves on religious tolerance and most locals are showing just that. Anyways take a look...

And ofcurse no forum is complete without the obligatory loon/s

Quote:

Now it has become very important to built the Masjid at proposed site, because the oponents of mosque are linking the Quran burning episode with it ( Rev. Jones claiming that he was promised by the Florida Imam to help him change the proposed mosque site in New York). If muslims agree to move the mosque site because of this, in future muslims will be always thretend and blackmailed by burning the Quran. I fully respect and agree with Mr. Qazi on his views, but not for this particular masjid.

Quote:

Thanx! kimas21!!Your argument make sense.What I need to say is that they have proposed Mosque to be built there.There4 we should leave a ball in their court.Yes We Muslims should allow any1 to take us for ride.To provoke us on any issue to exploit the situation against us.In the same manner we shouldn't allow any1 to extort or black mail us on any issue.The only reason I asked my fellow Muslims to restrain is that we shouldn't fall a prey to their trap.Even if that "MALHOON" Rev.Jones tried to burn a copy of the Holly Quran will know & face the consequences of it.Like any other Muslim I M myself boiling from inside but when come to save the face of Islam,defend Islam & to counter the vicious intentions of its enemies.We need to use"HIKMAT" as ordered by Islam.By no vertue we should be opologetic or passive in our approach but only to prevail sense.

The same loons 2nd post

[Alex!Thanx for your calculated & balanced views.We need to prove ourselves as Muslims that Islam is more tollerant a religion rather a"DEEN"(Complete way of life) than others.They are constantly provoking us with their filthy actions Eg.Book written by "Malhoon"Rushdy,Models wearing clothes with Quranic Verses,Cartoons,alleged burning of Quran etc.It does hurt the feelings of every single Muslim.Give a birth to the Hatred between different Religions.Ignite the fire to give a reason to all sort of extreamists & fanatics to justify their ongoing war.Most of them don't even know that we Muslims aren't allowed to say anything wrong about Torah,Bible,MOSES (MOUSA(AS),JESUS(ISSA (AS),MARIA(MARIAM AS),Bcoz it is part of our Faith.Whereas all these people here & there try to Blaspheme against Islam.In our Muslim countries & societies everything must be systamised or organised but respect for the Churches,Synagogues even Temples etc is always there.

Just thought I'd share

[BartSimpson]

Thank you for sharing that perspective.

[DerbyX]

Psudo wrote:

I never said we were. I'm quite sure you are not.

Are you looking for common ground? Feel free to tell me what you think common ground in this case would be. Would it be considered common ground if the organizers of Park51 said "OK, we'll move the mosque to an abandoned lot a few klicks away but instead of a generic structure we'll build a replica of the Dome on the Rock and call it the "Martyr's Mosque""?

How about if the organizers said they'd call it off entirely on the condition the US removes all of its troops from all muslim lands? That sounds kinda fair. If people are going to link them (and all muslims) then they should show solidarity right?

Psudo wrote:

I'll assume for the rest of your arguments that you're referring to the hypothetical case wherein the Park51 project looks like a symbol of Muslim dominance to the extremists (the only situation that triggers my disapproval).

The problem here is that the protesters seem to be the ones saying its a symbol of muslim dominance and no doubt a bunch of unconnected muslim extremists will echo that comment just to tweak people. None of the people involved in the project are saying this and the main guy is exactly the type of moderate the islamophobes claim doesn't exist on the ones the west keep looking for.

Psudo wrote:

No, but it would be rude for folks to drag elements that trigger flashbacks of the event into her store and dump them under her nose; a little shrine to a murdered boy that happened to share some of the same gang symbols, for example, should not be placed right outside her shop.

And if its the appearance of black men with a certain hairstyle should she be allowed to protest the opening of a barbershop that caters to black people next to her shop? Should she be allowed to prevent a shrine to a murdered little boy if it were on someone elses private property that happened to be close by her shop because that is the analogy. Park51 isn't at ground zero. Using your example they have to demand she erected the shrine in her shop window.

Psudo wrote:

It wouldn't suggest a moral equivalency between the dead boy and the robber, but it would be insensitive (perhaps a symbol of oppression or intimidation) to the shop owner.

Wouldn't it also be insensitive to the pain of the murdered little boy who was perhaps murdered on the sidewalk right outside (sorta like the traffic accident shrines I see erected at crash sites up here)? Again my previous point holds sway. She doesn't have the right to dictate such things in other peoples stores any more then they would have against her. What if she were Jewish and displayed cultural and religious symbols in her store front? Should someone who's family was Palestinian and murdered by Israeli forces be allowed to demand she removed such symbols because they offended their sensibilities even though she was born and raised in NYC and has never been there? (due to the connection of Israeli forces being Jewish)?

In the news the other day we had Bikini-clad strippers protesting in response to the religious protesters that had been plaguing them for years. Should they be forced out of business so as to not offend the sensibilities of the church people? BTW, I'd like you to mark this story for reference because it'll play a role future debates. On a side note I can bet the islamophobic crowd would be going ballistic if it were muslims protesting outside a pealers club.

Psudo wrote:

A pattern of such insensitivity with intent to cause emotional distress would probably be criminal harassment, but one case would just be a rude social faux pas.

Criminal harassment? Like my reference above? None of my examples above would constitute harassment nor was the shrine example you presented. A rude social faux pas would be culturally biased. Our society does not place the insulting and social stigma of say, showing the soles of ones shoes as does their society. You might think that Park51 is in contrast to our (western) values but I'd say the opposite is true.

Psudo wrote:

That's what a symbol of Muslim political authority at Park51 would be: a rude social faux pas. Not illegal, just wrong.

I disagree. Blaming them or holding them accountable for the actions of others like this is what I find morally repulsive. Lets say for example though I find your argument to hold water, in that because its a muslim structure and muslims committed 9/11 that they should be held accountable.

All muslims are therefore lumped together. That plays right into the hands of the muslims who want to foster that feeling among them. Us Vs them, muslims and non-muslims. Why should muslims work with us in Iraq/Astan? The crimes we have committed against some muslims mean every single one of us is guilty and they should all be fighting against us (and if you want an example I refer yo to the accounts of physical, psychological, and sexual abuse, including torture, rape, sodomy, and homicide of prisoners held in the Abu Ghraib prison). All US forces are to be held equally accountable.

That seems to be what you propose or at the least your argument can be expanded to fit that nicely.

Psudo wrote:

This particular principle is unaffected by scale.

I'll hold you to that.

Psudo wrote:

I'm Mormon. I don't think they're close, but it's pretty subjective.

I'll remember this and I'll try and see what the differences are because quite frankly I thought they were almost identical.

Psudo wrote:

No one should be able to pass a law banning Kingdom Halls (or LDS temples) from their neighborhood (or regulating it into infeasibility). That would be religious discrimination; immoral and properly illegal.

That's right. Not illegal - just wrong! That is entirely what the argument against Park51 is about. Recall my argument. What if I (or anyone really) had reasons to hate those people because (insert reason). Should they be allowed to block construction?

It is the exact same thing. Should people who are offended by or have a reason to not want kingdom Halls (or LDS temples which I assume is the mormon equivalent) be allowed to block construction of something that has a legal right to be based on the "it would be insensitive" argument.

That is entirely what you are saying the Park51 people should do and entirely what nobody should be allowed to do to kingdom halls/LDS temples.

Psudo wrote:

However, there's no legal or moral obligation on non-members to help with the project. If you own the property they want, you are not legally nor morally obligated to sell it to them. If you're a construction worker or contractor, you're not legally nor morally obligated to work for them. Your disapproval of them does not obligate you to them.

Nobody is saying anybody is legally obligated to do that. You can't be forced to do your job can you? Nothing stopping you from quitting today. Nothing stopping me either. You might have job requirements that you must follow to keep your job though. SO far I haven't seen anybody demand workers construct this for them. In fact they might have already lined up their own construction crew. Its not as if building construction is one big NYC company.

Now, if there is a union angle there are caveats. If unionized workers do not want to do the job then fine but they have no right to stop anybody else and they will have no standing to claim scab labour or no crossing the picket lines as they have so often done in the past to companies that do not use union workers. That would be illegal on their part.

[Psudo]

DerbyX wrote:

Psudo wrote:

I'm listening to you right now, looking for common ground.

Are you looking for common ground? Feel free to tell me what you think common ground in this case would be.

Things we agree about:
1) Regardless of what it looks like, there is no legal basis for the Park51 project to be prevented. The project is not illegal nor should it be.
2) If the Park51 project does not look like a symbol of Muslim power, then we agree that there is no objectionable taste in the project.
3) The artist's rendition of the proposed Park51 project does not look like a symbol of Muslim power.
4) Scale does not affect the "bad taste" principle behind my opposition to a hypothetical Muslim symbol near the WTC site.
5) We are not both looking for common ground.
6) Most Muslims are not extremists.
7) Muslims rightly possess freedom of worship.
8) Park51 isn't at ground zero, it is nearby on separately-owned private property.

That is our common ground, the mutually shared basis from which we can reasonably debate. If you argued from these points as givens rather than from the opinions of Ground Zero Mosque protesters with whom I disagree, I wouldn't have to repeat myself nearly so often.

DerbyX wrote:

Wouldn't it also be insensitive to the pain of the murdered little boy who was perhaps murdered on the sidewalk right outside (sorta like the traffic accident shrines I see erected at crash sites up here)?

I don't understand what you're saying here. Are you suggesting a shrine to the murdered boy would be insensitive to the murdered boy? I can't imagine how that would be true.

Or are you suggesting it would be insensitive to the murdered boy for the woman to prevent the shrine from being erected? If she used force, that could very well be the case. If she merely persuaded the shrine's erectors to remove it to another location, or to remove the parts offensive to her, that would be consensual by both parties and sensitive to all concerned.

DerbyX wrote:

She doesn't have the right to dictate such things in other peoples stores

Correct.

For clarification, here's my harassment comment in context:

Psudo wrote:

DerbyX wrote:

Should a store owner, one who suffered a traumatic assault & robbery by a black person be allowed to bar blacks from her store because she no longer felt safe around any of them?

No, but it would be rude for folks to drag elements that trigger flashbacks of the event into her store and dump them under her nose[...]. A pattern of such insensitivity with intent to cause emotional distress would probably be criminal harassment, but one case would just be a rude social faux pas.

To intentionally trigger repeated flashbacks of a distressing memory with the intent to cause emotional distress would be criminal harassment. That is not the case with the Park51 project, as there is only one and there is no intent to cause emotional distress. My point, then as now, is that the Park51 project by it's nature can only potentially be discourteous; it cannot possibly be criminal.

DerbyX wrote:

Blaming them or holding them accountable for the actions of others like this is what I find morally repulsive. Lets say for example though I find your argument to hold water, in that because its a muslim structure and muslims committed 9/11 that they should be held accountable.

All muslims are therefore lumped together. That plays right into the hands of the muslims who want to foster that feeling among them.

Your logic is true, but your characterization of the reasoning you dispute as mine is false. I do not hold my views "because it's a Muslim structure and Muslims committed 9/11." My opposition, which is conditional on the structure looking like Muslim domination over the WTC site to the extremists, holds that such apparent domination in the extremists' view is immorally discourteous to American sovereignty and it's supporters even if it is accidental for the Park51 project's backers to send that message. Freedom of speech allows them to say it (even intentionally), but it is a denouncement of the American system that seeks to protect that freedom of speech. It is stupid and wrong, but perfectly legal, to exercise freedom of speech in opposition to the sovereignty that ensures that freedom. If the Park51 project took a form that gratified and motivated extremists, they would unintentionally be doing just that.

No part of that logic requires the Park51 project's backers to be Muslim extremists, or to have any contact with them. There is no generalization or prejudice. The only contempt or fear is directed to the extremist groups who actually killed thousands, a very narrow subset of atypical Muslims who, I am convinced, are not connected to the Park51 backers. But I do have contempt for those extremists and I want their will to dominate thwarted, even in the realm of symbolism. I do not want the extremists to be able to hold up pictures of the 9/11 site from 2000 and 2015 and say "See? We bombed them in 2001, and now we have a golden dome in the same part of the same city. We are conquering them, bit by bit. Join us, and be part of the great work of bringing the Great Satan of America to it's knees!"

But the Park51 backers seem to recognize this possibility would be wrong and actively seek to avoid it. Their artist's rendition of the site suggests a standard New York high-rise, a symbol of Muslims joining a pluralist city rather than dominating and purifying it. If I had any reason to believe they were connected with extremist groups, the architecture they have chosen would calm those suspicions.

I guess that's another point of common ground between us: we agree that we should not play into the hands of the Muslims who want to foster an us vs. them mentality between Muslims and non-Muslims.

DerbyX wrote:

I'll remember this and I'll try and see what the differences are [between Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons] because quite frankly I thought they were almost identical.

For starters, Jehovah's Witnesses are not supposed to donate blood and organs, take DNA tests, celebrate Christmas or other holidays, fight in wars (or ever use violence for any reason, including self-defense), or recite the Pledge of Allegiance (it is considered a prayer to an idol). There is no Mormon theology preventing any of those things. Also, Mormons believe in scripture in addition to the Bible, including continuing revelation from God to prophets in modern times as there was in Biblical times; Jehovah's Witnesses hold the more mainstream Christian belief that scripture is complete with the Bible, and no other scripture exists or is necessary.

If you want to pursue that topic further, I suggest you start a new thread. It could be an interesting discussion.

DerbyX wrote:

kingdom Halls (or LDS temples which I assume is the mormon equivalent)

I'm making the same assumption. I don't know specifics of the use of Kingdom Halls, but I assumed it was a structure for which attendance was limited to adherents to their faith. I know LDS temple attendance is. I assume Muslim Mosques are as well. All such religious buildings deserve the same protections under the law.

DerbyX wrote:

If unionized workers do not want to do the job then fine but they have no right to stop anybody else and they will have no standing to claim scab labour or no crossing the picket lines as they have so often done in the past to companies that do not use union workers.

I generally oppose unions as organizations established for a specific purpose but which long outlive that purpose. That personal view disclosed, I agree with you. It is not anti-union to do work unions refuse to do at all.

[Murray_Smith]

DerbyX wrote:

Shrill seemed a pretty good word to me. A lot of people on here would use that word as well. We've had many a thread about her based on the things she has said about Canada.

That doesn't tell me anything relevant.

DerbyX wrote:

I challenge you to find conservative universities and colleges that don't. IN fact any of the religious minded ones in fact are the opposite of what I'd consider free both in speech and in behaviour.

You're not contradicting me.

DerbyX wrote:

Liberal universities aren't in the habit of making their instructors sign papers making them "behave appropriately" then firing when they do things like get pregnant out of wedlock.

First of all, what's so bad about signing a contract concerning "appropriate behavior"? Sure, the social code may be more conservative, but I'd like to see something that goes beyond simply being respectful.
Second, many conservative universities are privately operated, and have a right to, within reason, run their business as they please.

DerbyX wrote:

Feel free to illustrate how conservatives tolerate free speech more the liberals though because watching the recent US news I don't see it. I certainly didn't see it during the run up to Iraq whereby any deviation from the established dogma was labeled unpatriotic and traitorous. I didn't see liberals attacking the Indigo Girls for daring to speak out.

That's my exact point. I think it is hypocritical of either conservatives or liberals to state or imply that their side is somehow "more" tolerant of free speech. Conservatives call speech they don't like unpatriotic and treasonous, and liberals call speech they don't like hateful or bigoted.
You traitorous bigot.

DerbyX wrote:

So its a matter of degrees is it? Its OK to dismiss out of hand if they meet your criteria? In other words you have in fact agreed with me, you just have a different set of criteria.

It is not a matter of degrees, but intent. Mr. Ahmadinejad probably believes a lot of the stuff he says, whereas it's quite likely that Ms. Coulter is merely exaggerating her beliefs to (successfully) get attention.

DerbyX wrote:

I say she is a batshit crazy bitch and I base it on what she has said in the past.

I say she is a troll, and a damn good troll at that. I base that on the fact that liberals love to publicize and discuss the outrageous crap she says.

DerbyX wrote:

You think idreamofjihad (a prejudicial statement btw) is batshit crazy based on what he has said. I'm sure we could keep listing names to establish a scale whereby a person about the BSC level is dismissed while somebody below it isn't.

That would require a multivariable equation, and we all know that those are a pain.

DerbyX wrote:

BTW, please see my above argument to Psudo about Michael Moore. Are you going to take the other posters to task because they are dismissing what he is saying about Park51 out of hand based on their personal BSC criteria?

I have much sympathy for Mr. Moore's causes, but the man himself is like Oogie Boogie: An over-dramatic fat burlap sack who bugs people and cheats his way to the conclusion he wants.

[Psudo]

Murray_Smith wrote:

DerbyX wrote:

You think idreamofjihad (a prejudicial statement btw) is batshit crazy based on what he has said. I'm sure we could keep listing names to establish a scale whereby a person about the BSC level is dismissed while somebody below it isn't.

That would require a multivariable equation, and we all know that those are a pain.

No one's identity ever discredits their statements. If Hitler and the Devil agree that 2+2=4, it's still true. Someone's statements can discredit themselves, but the identity of the speaker cannot.

"I give the Devil benefit of law for my own safety's sake." -- Sir Thomas More

[Zipperfish]

Murray_Smith wrote:

I have much sympathy for Mr. Moore's causes, but the man himself is like Oogie Boogie: An over-dramatic fat burlap sack who bugs people and cheats his way to the conclusion he wants.

As does Ms Coulter. They both have done extremely well for themselves by being outrageous.