By the way, where's all the libs yelling about separation of church and state? Should we be paying him to travel for funds to build a mosque?
By the way, where's all the libs yelling about separation of church and state? Should we be paying him to travel for funds to build a mosque?
Tuck, I guess what I'mg saying....and perhaps this makes me a namby pampby liberal hippy in some books ...is that emotional harm is a legitimate thing. Much like I find it extremely distasteful for the Fred Phelps people to protest at funerals because of the emotional harm it causes, I find building a Islamic community center that is essentially piggy backing off 9/11 to push its message on people that generally don't want to hear it at that point and more than that don't want to have the emotions that trigger (Reasonably in my mind) when you specifically combine the thoughts of "Islam" and "9/11" together.
I do not think "emotional harm" is in any way shape or form something that should rise to the level that the government should intervene. However, I do think it is a worth while reason to push for change from a societal and individual level.
You ask what's the harm? To me, there's a fair bit. The emotional harm that now, even acknowledging the fact all the bitching people have done about it has increased the likelihood of this, is going to happen for some as they visit Ground Zero and remember the notion of the mosque and instantly having feelings flood in from the triggers of 9/11 and Islam. I think it does harm as it further irritates, annoys, pisses off, insults, or offends individuals who are not simply hugely hateful of Islam but many who were indifferent, somewhat neutral, slightly positive/negative, etc. I think the location, and their steadfast refusal to empathize, will burn or destroy far more bridges then it will build and I think that's a harmful thing for America because I think the purpose of the mosque IS a needed one. Which is further reason why I think this harms, because the owners of this have gotten a plethora of opportunities to actually DO what they're suggesting they want to do...build bridges...through various actions that would empathize with the multitude that find this offensive but have no issue with Mosque's in general. They continually seem to however to go the opposite direction which leads many to question their true intents and motives and simply then gives rise to the more extreme arguments going against it concerning his supposed "radical" views or backgrounds because it makes him appear dishonest and that's a step in the wrong direction.
I see that as far more harm then moving it if they do so with even a hint of decent PR ability. While moving it could potentially send the message that its "okay to discriminate" as some have suggested, I think it could quite easily be protrayed as sending a message that the community center is empathetic to peoples feelings about the issues and as a sign that they are true to their desire to build bridges, mend fences, and show a moderated Islam that is in step with the western world.
Unless one is suggesting that all those that oppose it are going to oppose the mosque regardless of where its built, to me THAT would buy them FAR more bridges being built then sticking their foot in the ground. By doing what they're doing the only people to build to are the ones that already have a bridge, while all the rest have the chasm growing wider and wider.
I don't think emotion is a typically a reasonable reason for legislation. However I have far less of an issue with it on a social level. Its why that even though I think its ridiculous that Dr. Laura or that old radio guy offended people, you're not going to see me condemn the people who appear honestly bothered by it that wish to go about social means of expressing their displeasure with it.
"I am appalled that somebody who is the nominee...would take that kind of position"
"A court took away a presidency"
"...the brother of a man running for president was the governor of the state..."
It's horrifying because Trump is blunt instead of making overt implications.
Actually, the death of a close relative can sneaks up on you randomly at any given time. You might here a song on the radio that reminds you of the person and you end up having a moment where the loss is fresh in your mind. It might be a joke. It might be a phrase they often used. That's a significant affect, IMO. Most people do not have that with 9/11.The death of a father can be a non-issue in the day to day going ons of a persons life 10 years after the fact. That doesn't mean it still isn't a significant emotional moment that continues to have an affect on you and can instantly be recalled to your mind by random stimuli far easier than less affecting events.
In our ountry, there is a distraction method of politics. It works because of a combination of time and a steady stream of inane bull**** being tossed at us.And seriously, don't give me this bull**** that if people pay attention to one issue it excludes them from possibly worrying about another one. OMG tuck, you're talking about the Mosque, that must mean you don't give a **** about any other issue at all!
It's the only way your logical argumetn can follow. Otherwise it's a fallacy.How is me saying that terrorists did actions in the name of Islam equaling me saying THIS Mosque represents terrorist values. Is there some kind of strange English translation I"m not hearing?
you are saying since
If A is B
and C is B
then A should be treated as though it was C.
You may not be saying they are identical, but you are essentially saying they should be treated identically. It's a guilt by association argument.This mosque and its leaders follow Islam and use it to guide many of their actions.
The Islamic terrorists of 9/11 followed Islam and use it to guide many of their actions.
The fact that I state things that are facts doesn't dictate that because its advantageous for your argument that I am saying that since both follow in name the same religion for their inspiration that those two things must be identical.
But if someone uses a hammer to murder someone, you also aren't going to say that building a house should be treated differently due to that murder.And once again, well and good that its your opinion. I have a different opinion. I'm sure yours is based on what the people have said, mine is based on that too. Whether or not we take them for their word or not. Personally, I think it is a mixture between individuals seeking power and having a tool and also individuals who are truly zealotous. Regardless, the fact the religion is manipulated as a tool doesn't magically remove it from the equation. A hammer is a tool, however I'm not going to say I nailed an entire house together and when you asked me what allowed for me to be able to let myself do that I'm going to shrug my shoulders because suddenly something that is used as a tool can't be named.
But that doesn't mean that the beliefs themselves should be blamed for the actions of the people.Yes, Islam was used as a leverage point for getting people angry and justifying their anger towards the rest. The fact it was a tool doesn't make their hatred and anger any less rooted or tied to their religious beliefs.
None to the degree that islam is being held to right now. I don't think you are on that boat, but I know for a fact that a few people in the same camp openly hate Islam and have said as much.I think we have too, and I think the location of this mosque simply furthers that damage not helps it. And spare me if I give a **** about "open distaste" being shown about a religion. I know of not a SINGLE solitary major religion in this country that is not routinely and regularly shown "open distaste".
No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that this feeds into their propeganda.Also, are you seriously suggesting that its only because of us pointing out that Islam played a hand in 9/11 that they have propoganda? That somehow if we never made mention of Islam the terrorists would magically be distraught and confused, unable to figure out how to use our words or actions in any way to spin it. That they wouldn't instead say "See! They are to afraid of the might of Islam to even mention our holy cause, trying to belittle it as simply an endeavor of man rather than a holy duty!"
Yes.Such as suggesting anyone that dares thinks the mosque shouldn't be here is a bigoted hatemonger xenophobe that despises Islam?
True. But the hyperbole involved on one side involves outright lies, the other is at least partially based on people's perceptions of that side, because of the arguments presented by some people on that side.Yes, hyperbole doesn't help the situation...however its hardly at play on a single side.
While you have not presented "bigoted hatemonger xenophobe that despises Islam" arguments, there have been quite a few who have presented these arguments. It doesn't make it right that people stereotype all of those who oppose the mosque as such, but it makes it understandable.
Calling it the mosque at ground zero, though, is just a lie.
Plus (and I admit that I'm in this camp) many people think that this side is making a big deal about nothing.
I'm thinking fairly literally.Depends how you wish to define real damage.
I'm not sure about that. I think that it harms our national principles to treat a minority group as inferior or unworthy of being able to put up a mosque in a place where a christian church would be considered perfectly acceptable.That said, guessing what your definition might be, it'd likely be equally plausible to say there'd be no real damage done from the mosque existing elsewhere in the city.
I think that the emotional harm is entirely self-inflicted. I think blaming the mosque for that is disingenuous.However, personally, I think the fact this many people are upset about it to the point that the mayor is offering land to the individuals to build it elsewhere speaks a bit to the emotional harm its doing. That's fine if you don't truly think it matters, or is of a level that is worth while, but then similarly the only "harm" you could find in moving it is its them doing something they don't have to do which is frankly not much "harm" either.
True enough. But I don't think that should be held against christianity. I would lay the real blame on the crusaders.Actually, I think its very comparable to the Crusades.
Christianity wasn't to blame for the Crusades.
Christianity was definitely unquestionably tied up in the motivation, justification, methodology, and promotion of the Crusades and is unquestionably identifiable with it.
And I lay the blame on the terrorists.Indeed. Doesn't change the fact that Islam is directly tied to 9/11.
But a mosque isnt actively preaching terrorism.Then all the more that it is irrelevant of a comparison. A mosque is actively preaching Islam. A McDonalds isn't actively preaching democracy.
But the mosque isn't saying "everyone should fly an airplane into a building".Except for McDonalds doesn't actively, themselves, advocate Democracy. You even said, it was the PEOPLE proclaiming the "taste of freedom", not McDonalds employees going out and going "Everyone should have a right to vote! The people should have the power!"
A mosque/community center however is directly proclaiming and promoting Islam.
Yeah. My bad on the analogy. It's awkward.I was trying to work in line with your analogy, which was "democracy" for "Islam" but has been completely and utterly disjointed and backwards (backwards by your own admission) this entire time so was difficult to really grab a decent parallel. Perhaps giving it a bit more thought a better scenario would be...
Good choice. Much better.If the majority of people in that area had had some kind of horrible disaster occur to them in the "name of Democracy" (lets say a U.S. missile hit a building and killing thousands in the process) and as such the majority of people in that area did not want this "sign of democracy" near by due to the memories and emotions it causes, then I'd say its tactless as well to shove it down their throats while proclaiming its being built to "build bridges to democracy" and to teach people to be tolerant to Democracy despite what's Democracy helped inspire people to do just down the road at the place you may well be heading to.
Let's use the US missile analogy and make the "bridge builder" Canada. Should Canada be treated as though it was their missile, not the US's missile after they condemed the US for that missile?
Tucker Case - Tard magnet.
If this mosque were actually at ground zero, I'd be on board in saying it's absolutley tactless. But it's far enough away that I truly believe it is much ado about nothing.
I also think that a large portion of the opponents of this mosque have a true despisal for Islam. This is what it seems like to me when I look at the comments here at DP.
Now, since I mentioned it to apdst earlier, its only fair that I apply it to myself as well. This could very well be a case of confirmation bias on my part.
I may simply be noticing the people I feel are anti-Islamic more than the other people like you, zyph, because it confirms my preconceptions of the opponents as a whole. (We can't use the fac tthat I'm discussing the topic with you as evdiecne that I'm not engagin in confirmation bias because I tend to read your posts regardless of the topic due to the fact that you usually offer a different perspective than most, whether I agree with oyu or disagree with you on the topic. So even though I'm discussing it with you, I could easily be passsing over a bunch of similar posts by others wihtout really being aware of it)
Tucker Case - Tard magnet.
It's not the face, it's not to blame, but somehow it is "directly involved", "tied to" and "committed in the name of". If it's not to blame, quit trying to make it an albatross hanging around Ground Zero's neck. You can't say it's not to blame, and then pretend that it has some culpability. That's what is being done here.
Or is the enabling people's ignorance because some people don't understand reality only apply when it suits your needs?
Save the attitude about clearing things with me and me having some ulterior agenda here. The terrorists were not official representatives of Islam. Pretending they were by saying Official Islam is tied to 9/11 is unfair and unreasonable. That's the rub on this controversy. Failing to use qualifiers makes these unfair generalizations possible.
Originally Posted by Jerry
Let us take a moment to think of our founding fathers George Washington, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and John Hancock. These great men helped make the glorious county that we live in today. These men courageously defended our freedoms, those inaliable rights, which we shall not relinquish to anyone. Not from the oppressive colonial empire of England, not from a foreign regime, not from within, and not to the terrorists aiming to destroy this country. These men helped create the glorious country which we live in today. These men created the United State of America - one nation, under God with liberty and justice for all. These men secured our right to a speedy trial under the sixth amendment. These men secured our right to bear arms under the second amendment. These men secured our right against cruel and unusual punishment under the eight amendment. Let us not forget, our most basic, important, and human right of them all - freedom of speech, protected under the first amendment. It is because of this amendment that we are able to peaceably assemble to protest - to protest, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances including the building of this mosque near ground zero. However, let us not forget that, under this very same amendment, freedom to practice religion is upheld. And I quote from the United States Constitution:
If our founding fathers saw way American citizens are condemning Muslims' freedom of religion, condemning the first amendment, they would be absolutely ashamed. To be a Muslim is not to be a terrorist. To be a Muslim is not to be evil. To be a Muslim is beside the point. The question is, what does it mean to be American? They always say that if we allowed the 9/11 attacks to change us, that the terrorists won. Our core beliefs of religious freedom, and tolerance have been compromised. If we continue to compromise our freedoms as American citizens, the terrorists have won. Join me in support of the building of this mosque. Join me, and join our founding fathers in support of religious freedom, and in support of our rights as citizens of the United States of America."Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
"All mankind is of one author, and is one volume; when one man dies, one chapter is not torn out of the book, but translated into a better language...No man is an island, entire of itself...any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee." - John Donne
Islamaphobes confront black construction worker who looks Muslim.
These ignorant pigs make me sick.
What year is this?
What frickin' country is this?
You compose a post, tirading about freedom and the Cnstitution and how the Founders would be ashamed, yet endorse a post that calls American, who are excercising their constitutional rights, "ignorant pigs".
Your hypocrisy is shining through, sir.