. Reid my lips: the Downtown mosque

krowonhill

MHA wrote:
I think the Islamic Center placement is an act of power.

Yes, that's right - Muslims have the power! After all, we create quotas that restrict their immigration to ensure that we'll have enough of them (but no more!) to get what we need: a mass of poor people to drive us around in taxis, and an elite group of technically-trained workers to take jobs that Americans refuse to study for (engineering, medicine, etc). Of course, when they get here, the strength of the American dollar will mean that even Muslims who are middle-class in their own countries will arrive with next to no material wealth in ours. And, besides that, most won't speak the dominant language, and all will be required to assimilate into a culture which is radically different than their own and sometimes hostile to them. (I'm not even going to address whether African American Muslims have the power, since that's been covered thoroughly in other threads.)

So, yes, Glenn Beck and the American Muslim community have the power!!! And, in the case of the Muslims, they're using it to piss off their fellow Americans by building a community center four NYC blocks away from the former World Trade Center site. Because what else would you do with all that power?

mha

Krowonhill, I don't disagree with you here. All of what you said is truth, but that neither justifies nor invalidates the argument -- even of those who live in Alaska -- that it's in poor taste to have this Islamic center so close to the World Center Site.

I think that instead of all of us taking dichotomous positions we can all agree that we are all correct:

Muslims who live and work in the area have a right to an Masjid/Islamic center
People have the right to be affronted by that -- given the history of the area

To say that those who take issue with it being there are automaticaly bigoted because of it is akin to being called an anti-semite because you don't like Israeli foreign policy, or even believe in the idea of Israel in the first place; or to be called a homophobe because one is critical of gay culture; or to be called a racist or an Uncle Tom because one is critical of affirmative action; or to be called a racist because one is critical of whitefolks.

And yes, Krownonhill, I do believe that there is a faction of the Muslim community who are just as rabid as those right wing zealots who see the controversy over this center's existence as opportunity to piss off their fellow Americans. I don't buy the benign smiles and the call for peace.

cool the kid

Jimmy wrote: [quote=Cool The Kid]Rather than go in circles & make personal attacks, why not just answer the simple question?

What logical reasons are there to not build this mosque/community center?

Bite me.

How dare you come in here, jump into the middle of a thread, insult me (blatantly ignoring the repeated personal attacks directed at me by others) and demand I answer a loaded question from a poster who has repeatedly stated that he cannot possibly fathom any reason, beyond ignorant bigotry, for anyone, anywhere to hold my opinion?

Frankly, I'd be more inclined to explain myself to the next raving lunatic who comes shuffling through my subway car.

Whatever reasons I give, you and/or Boygabriel will label them as bigoted or ignorant or racist or Islamophobic or illogical, thereby immediately ending the discussion.

I have zero desire to try to convince you or him of anything, and couldn't really care less about either of your opinions.For all your displays of indignance and going back and forth you could have answered the question 100x over. By deflecting you continue to marginalize your own stance.

On this incredibly almost nauseatingly liberal board, an intelligent POV from "the other side" would make for worthwhile discourse. However apparently it's more important to you to get the last word or w/e. It's your world.

krowonhill

MHA wrote:
And yes, Krownonhill, I do believe that there is a faction of the Muslim community who are just as rabid as those right wing zealots who see the controversy over this center's existence as opportunity to piss off their fellow Americans. I don't buy the benign smiles and the call for peace.

I'm ok with that.

whynot_31

I hope no one gives them the stage.

...they may literally or figuratively burn the flag.

boygabriel

MHA wrote: To say that those who take issue with it being there are automaticaly bigoted because of it is akin to being called an anti-semite because you don't like Israeli foreign policy, or even believe in the idea of Israel in the first place; or to be called a homophobe because one is critical of gay culture; or to be called a racist or an Uncle Tom because one is critical of affirmative action; or to be called a racist because one is critical of whitefolks.

I don't see how these analogies prove your point that "People have the right to be affronted by [this]."

If you don't like Israel's foreign policy, you're not inherently holding jewish people responsible. You're criticizing a specific actor and set of policies. If you did hold all jewish people responsible for israel's policies, then that would be bigoted.

It's the same difference between associating muslims with 9/11, or al qaeda or hateful religious extremists with 9/11.

Also a side note: note the difference between holding a bigoted view and being "a bigot". It's a distinction I'm personally willing to make.

whynot_31

I think lots of people hold bigoted views and don't even realize it.

i.e. They not only don't realize that they have made a generalization, but they also genuinely don't realize how it could be harmful to themselves or the group in question.

...this is a big part of why I have a hard time blaming them for their views.

However, if their view (and it's implications) have been pointed out to them consistently, and they STILL refuse to change it, then I view them in a less positive light.

boygabriel

Ignorance of your own views is only legitimate up to a point. That point is well short of when you start influencing or forcing changes on other people - such as telling them where they can't build a community center.

boygabriel

whynot_31 wrote: To make a long story short: If someone is ignorant and they claim to be a "thinking adult", I am fascinated by them. I wonder whether they are really isolated, confused, delusional, or actually -in fact- a child.

I have high standards.

lol. I'm with ya

whatchuwant

Ok- THIS, is just sick . Sick sick sick. I want to relinquish my role as an American.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/akdobbins/the-ground-zero-missile

whynot_31

When (and if) this community center opens, I think everyone expects it to have ongoing security "concerns" as a result of its high profile.

....perhaps no more than the various Jewish Museums around the country, or other places that seem to attract people who are really angry. (ok, "bigoted").
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/10/AR2009061001768.html

carnivore

So the people behind the community center are "insensitive" because they didn't anticipate that bigots would hold all Muslims responsible for 9/11?

I'm still having trouble understanding how this is a legitimate complaint. Barring some other connection between 9/11 and the people behind this community center that no one in this thread has yet elucidated.

mha

Boygabriel, I am confident that there is a faction of people (who are against the building of this center) which holds all Muslims suspect for what happened at the WTC site. These folks likely see Islam as antithetical to everything American. No doubt this group is whom we would both agree is bigoted...

Then there is a faction of people (who are against the building of this center) which hold the Muslims and non-Muslims who want this center built as insensitive because of the proximity to the WTC site. I think that it is very easy to mistakenly classify this group as bigoted -- because they hold this view. But I don't think this faction is necessarily bigoted.

I think that the bigots amongst US (i.e. the U.S.) have louder voices, and it's easy to confuse the uproar of those who shout foul, as in 'that's rude', with those who shout foul, as in 'that stinks'.

What makes the situation worse is that Muslims who want this site built -- moderate muslims -- could then say: 'it's unethical to be against the building of this islamic center'. Really?

So now, moderate Muslims believe there is no room for discontent here by people who don't see themselves as bigots. In fact, they have spun the whole discord here creating two dichotomous sides: Those for the site are ethical and good people; those against it are unethical, and bigoted people.

I don't think that dichotomy is correct here. I think people can be against the building of this site, yet understand we live in America, and that the laws that protect us guarantee that this site has the RIGHT to exist. We may not like each other, but the sacred laws of THIS country gurantee a DUE PROCESS that neither Islam, nor Christianity nor any other faith-based, feel-good system has ever provided. I hope when the site is built, the Muslims who go there will remember this.

boygabriel

MHA wrote: Then there is a faction of people (who are against the building of this center) which hold the Muslims and non-Muslims who want this center built as insensitive because of the proximity to the WTC site. I think that it is very easy to mistakenly classify this group as bigoted -- because they hold this view. But I don't think this faction is necessarily bigoted.

But it can only be considered insensitive if one sees any association whatsoever between any and all Muslims and 9/11.

Such people, or those who claim to be looking out for such people such as the half-term Governor Sarah Palin, may not be bigoted, but they are holding an ignorant and/or bigoted view.

They may not be ignorant, they may not be bigoted, but I sure don't see any legitimacy in their position...

...unless as Whynot said, they think downtown is just too crowded already, which I assume is a statistically insignificant number of people as any such people would never have need to utter 9/11, Islam, 'muslim' or 'sensitive to the victim families' such as is done by Millionaire Retiree Palin or Serial Adulterer Rush Limbaugh.

homeowner

Idiots mistake Puerto Rican NYer for Muslim at Ground Zero

mha

Boygabriel,
If I understand what you are saying, you believe that all of those who state that the center should not be built so close to the WTC site are bigots. I do not hold that view.

I don't think it is an accurate statement to say that taking affront to those who want to build this Islamic center (and I assume that group consists of Muslims and non-Muslims -- 'Kaffirs' is the correct term by the way) is a bigoted view.

Calling ALL against the site bigots undeservedly puts many in the same camp as the Sarah Palins and the Rush Limbaughs, people who are truly bigots.

I think the reason why many don't want the center built so close to the WTC site is -- yes -- because of the tragedy of September 11, and the role that Islam -- a skewed Islam -- played. To repeat myself, think if there was a Japanese Shintoist Shrine built in close proximity to Pearl Harbor, barring the obvious racism of the U.S.'s actions against its own Japanese descendant citizenry, wouldn't that action by the Japanese government be deemed an affront to the lives of Americans who died in 1942?

What strikes many who are against this site as ironic is that moderate Islam is asking tolerant people to be even MORE tolerant. Yet the irony is moderate Islam couldn't likely build this center in Afghanistan, or Pakistan, or Saudi Arabia for that matter, where the message of a kinder-gentler Islam would have more resonance.

And here is where my own bias leaks out. Islam is marketed to be a 'universal' religion, but it's as 'universal' as Judaism, or Shintoism, or Confucianism, or Buddhism, or any other cultural-specific religious system. What deems cultural-specific religious systems as valid tends to be the CULTURE from whence it was birthed. I think what troubles many people is that they don't see enough political difference between the Islam that many moderate Muslims claim to expound, and the fundamentalist Islam of, say the Wahabaism practiced in Saudi Arabia -- in Mecca. So without a convincing display of ideological distancing, it's hard to take moderate Islam seriously.

Would we be having this conversation if a mild-mannered, people-friendly rabbi wanted to build a temple in Gaza Strip? Would we have this conversation if a wealthy Hutu wanted to build a Hutu Cultural center in genocide-ravaged Rwanda? Would we have this conversation if a moderate Imam wanted to build a cultural center in the center of a non-Muslim Hindu Indian neighborhood near the border of India and Pakistan? Would we have this conversation if a moderate Imam wanted to build a cultural center in Christian DARFUR?? No, we wouldn't, as we would understand that the context in which these prospective centers are to be built are potential tinderboxes for conflict. All cries of racism and bigotry aside, the wound is still quite raw.


No doubt there are bigots on both sides, but bigotry alone isn't the catalyst for THIS conflict.

boygabriel

I think the reason why many don't want the center built so close to the WTC site is -- yes -- because of the tragedy of September 11, and the role that Islam -- a skewed Islam -- played.

I do not believe this is legitimate justification for applying pressure towards a religious group, strictly on the basis of their religion, to stay out of a neighborhood.

I'm open to discussion but I haven't read one decent defense, here or elsewhere, of the moral right to associate all of Islam with 9/11.

If I understand what you are saying, you believe that all of those who state that the center should not be built so close to the WTC site are bigots.

Is this a joke? I've repeatedly and specifically stated that I do not think these people are bigoted. You apparently don't understand at all.

mha

BoyGabriel,
I don't think simple opinion is reason enough to bar Muslims from building anything they might want to. The laws of this country forbid it, thankfully. At the same time, I think that there will be people who take exception to the prospect of a Islamic cultural center so close to the WTC site; people who are not bigots; people who think that it's in poor taste to have such a center.

I apologize if I misread. I was under the assumption that there was no room in your argument for people who disagree with the founding of an Islamic center who you did not see as bigots. I don't recall an explicit stating of that by you. I will look again for it.

cool the kid

I too am still looking for some clear + concise reasoning as to why this center shouldn't be built where it will be built.

The xenophobia and anger displayed by people I've talked to on other message boards and around the country seems to increase with the person's distance to the 9/11 site. There's definitely a distinction between people who feel the site is offensive, and people who are just downright ignorant and scared of Islam, but regardless of the level of moral legitimacy of either side, neither side has put forth any solid reasoning for this thing not to be built...

EXCEPT

for the shady & undisclosed source of funding, which is weak as I'm sure no other mosques or religious institutions face such scrutiny, among other things.

Shame that the one person who is outright against the mosque in this thread only sought to defend the legitimacy of his views, and not discuss the actual logical merit of them....

mha

CTK, are you referring to Hamilton? He did a piss-poor job of making an argument against the mosque. He seemed to think that public policy should disallow it. He shot himself in the foot when he went that route. My own issue is that I think just as it is anti intellectual to blame all Muslims for 9/11, and to say that 'they' should not be allowed to build the mosque, it is also anti-intellectual in tone to say those against the building of the mosque are bigots. I would like it very much if we can see merit on BOTH sides on this issue. My opinion: I think it's in poor taste to build the mosque so close to the WTC site. At the same time, I also think that anyone has a right to build anythuing they want to provided the laws of the land are followed. In this case, they are; sometimes you gotta fart in a crowded elevator, and good manners be damned.

mha

Hamilton! Where are you man?! Practically punk'd you here.... No response? None?
No cross-eyed witticisms? No mothership jokes? Nyet? Nada? Zilch?

boygabriel

MHA wrote: At the same time, I think that there will be people who take exception to the prospect of a Islamic cultural center so close to the WTC site; people who are not bigots; people who think that it's in poor taste to have such a center.

I agree there will be such people. But I've yet to see anyone, anywhere, morally justify the underlying logic.

carnivore

MHA wrote: My opinion: I think it's in poor taste to build the mosque so close to the WTC site.

Leaving aside the fact that the planned cultural center is NOT a mosque, why do you think that though? I haven't heard anyone elucidate this in a non-bigoted way. Would it be in poor taste to build a Catholic church there? What makes building a mosque there "in poor taste?"

mha

Inelson, "..less freighted spot." Love that.

Carnivore, instead of mosque, I should have said 'Islamic Cultural Center with a mosque on the top floor.'

I believe it's in poor taste, because as Inelson made clear, they ought to have picked a ''...less freighted spot.'' That whole area is heavy with controversy. I have the right -- when I am in on the sidewalk that abuts the WTC site -- to talk about all of the ills that this country has done, all in the name of 'freedom' and 'democracy', and say, as Malcom did, 'The chickens have come home to roost,' but I ain't gonna do it for fear of being overheard by an aggrieved individual who might overhear. [Do you recall the professor from Stony Brook(I think) who did just that, and how he was treated? He had the RIGHT to voice his opinions, but jeepers -- poor taste!]

C'mon, poor taste ought not to be legislated, but, to say that there isn't any on exhibit by the proponents of this Islamic center strikes me as so disingenuous. And to devalue the 'poor taste' arguments simply as bigotry or racist is too easy... All I'm saying is that we need to be aware of the poor taste argument....

whynot_31

Don't discount those who just hate controversy of all kinds.

....they exist, there are a lot of them, and they are against the cultural center because it upsets others. They hate to see people upset, and hate arguing. This is their only reason for being against the location ...the reactions of others and the loud tense voices.

My friend would prefer to be able to read People, Cosmopolitian, Vogue and Us magazines undisturbed.

....although I am not like her, she has friends like her. They see the world differently than me.

whynot_31

MHA wrote: Hamilton! Where are you man?! Practically punk'd you here.... No response? None?
No cross-eyed witticisms? No mothership jokes? Nyet? Nada? Zilch?

He's stated he was going out of town.

boygabriel

Mod note: this thread now includes the community center sub-discussion from this thread.

mha

Saw something on the news about the Imam's written response to the demonstrations against the Islamic center. He apparenlty described the protests against the Islamic center as reactionary, and I think he used the word 'vitriol', which I think is present, but he shot himself in the foot with such a response. The newscaster then showed a clip of a green-shirt wearing guy whose surname was something like O'Malley and lives in 'Long-guyland'...

That Imam's rhetoric was nothing as nuanced as anything we have all said here. Actually, I jump the gun.... MAYBE it is... Apparently he has written an op-ed piece that will be in today's edition of the New York Times. It's possible the parts quoted by the newscasters were just the parts that would be construed as controversial. I will have buy the times and see what he has written. Tune in later for MHA's Wonderful (West?)African-Colored Analysis!!!! WACA WACA WACA!!

mha

There is a hill-billy reverend who plans to burn copies of the Holy Quran in a church on September the 11th. He has the absolute right to do this, and I don't think he ought to be stopped. The not-for-profit status of his churchi ought not to be investigated to see if he gets monies from any domestic terrorist groups for doing this, but if you ask me, it's in poor taste.

I don't think it's anti christian to say he ought not to do that, and just because other christians are not saying it's the wrong thing to do, I don't think it's bigoted of me to say, 'where are all the christian organizations coming down on this hill-billy preacher? It's poor taste, and it's disingenuous to think that those people would not take offense...'

carnivore

MHA wrote: There is a hill-billy reverend who plans to burn copies of the Holy Quran in a church on September the 11th. He has the absolute right to do this, and I don't think he ought to be stopped. The not-for-profit status of his churchi ought not to be investigated to see if he gets monies from any domestic terrorist groups for doing this, but if you ask me, it's in poor taste.

I don't think it's anti christian to say he ought not to do that, and just because other christians are not saying it's the wrong thing to do, I don't think it's bigoted of me to say, 'where are all the christian organizations coming down on this hill-billy preacher? It's poor taste, and it's disingenuous to think that those people would not take offense...'

Wait, are you honestly comparing someone burning the holy text of another faith and a group trying to build a cultural center for their own use? How is this in any way analagous? And I still haven't heard anyone articulate how building the cultural center is insensitive in any way other than that it might offend people who think Muslim=9/11. Please connect the dots for me, don't just say "9/11, 9/11, 9/11." We had enough of that bullshit during the Bush years and it didn't get us anywhere.