. Reid my lips: the Downtown mosque

I wish I could find a herd, or even a hero.

I've found that sometimes people march behind a banner because they truly believe in what it says. Other times, they march unaware that there is a banner in front of them, or without an understanding of what the banner says or truly means.

Hamilton, for example, appears to believe that telling Park51 "you can build it, but not there" to outweigh the potential negatives. If one feels a strong affiliation with the "unhealed victims" of 9/11, it is a completely understandable position.

...civil rights are tough.

For example, presumably for maximum effect, when the Klan wants to march in a city, it often chooses "Martin Luther King Blvd". It takes a real commitment to civil rights to let them do it. In such instances, the Klan clearly wishes to provoke the local populace as it exercises its 1st Amendment rights.

In this instance, the protesters of the community center are not (for the most part) comparing the organizers to the Klan. However, they are claiming that their main objection is its location [to use the prior example WTC = MLK].

Are they actually against religious freedom and/or muslims as a whole?
The answer isn't clear to me. ....I'd like to give them the benefit of the doubt.

However, are those who are strongly in favor of the community center, and/or those who perceive religious freedom to be at-risk, going to "paint" those opposed to the community center as if they are against religious freedom, muslims, and the entire fate of the country hinges upon this issue? Absolutely.

...everyone takes polar positions, and somebody gets to walk home with that beautiful flag.

The show goes on.

My bias is clear. I hope that the justices charged with enforcing the Bill of Rights see the issue as I do: I see those opposed to the project as having no standing in a court case that would attempt to stop the project. I hope the case is never even heard.

But let's get back to that article posted by WCW....

To me, it was constrained by the number of words it was allotted. Instead of simply alluding to "capitalism makes minds lazy", I wish the author would have explained what he meant by that.

Did he mean that by providing an explanation for people's fiscal security and success, capitalism causes people to believe that they have no responsibility for those who are unable to compete?

BTW, My reading of this website is that it pursues a different standard than "freedom of speech". It pursues "decorum" ...a value latent word that has no fixed definition.

The mods seem to argue that "decorum" allows any opinion to be expressed; it merely puts limits on the manner in which it is to be expressed. You should talk to a mod if you feel this "decorum" isn't being observed, or doesn't allow all opinions to be expressed.

In my view, they really don't like to have such debates aired publicly. You should probably PM them. If its any consolation, I perceive that some of the mods view a "lack of decorum" with the same seriousness that I view burning the flag: i.e. They can think of almost no circumstance that such an action is appropriate. When and if I "go there", I expect them to call me on it, and would be disappointed in them if they didn't.

...we should move on. In the real world, there might be religious freedom to defend and/or hate crimes to stop! ....the far left has long been accused of having an over-developed sense of justice, and is always looking for "victims" to defend.

Has it found some?

Does the far left finally have a reason to use its superhero cape and claim moral superiority over the lazy, unthinking, emotion driven, masses?

Can it successfully use a broad brush to paint all of those opposed to the project, and perhaps even all of the right in this manner?

I'm with Jimmy, and hope the answer will continue to be "no".

...please pass the valium.

krowonhill wrote: I couldn't help but think of my experience on The Brooklynian when I read these words:

We have confirmation bias; we pick out evidence that supports our views. We are cognitive misers; we try to think as little as possible. We are herd thinkers and conform our perceptions to fit in with the group.

In this case though I'm with the herd, so that makes today easier for me.

1. There is no "the" in Brooklynian, since Brooklynian is an adjective, not a noun. People from Brooklyn are Brooklynites, not Brooklynians.
2. Believe it or not, there are plenty of people here who are as educated as you and whose opinions are as well thought out. It is lazy thinking to dismiss the opinions of those who disagree with you as "herd thinking" just because you are in the minority. If you hang around long enough, you'll see that the opinions of people here are far from a monolith, and most people don't hesitate to speak out when they disagree with the general consensus.

BoyGabriel wrote: Just b/c there are significantly more anti-Semitic attacks doesn't render attacks against Muslims as 'statistically irrelevant' as I believe you stated earlier.

In 2008 (the most recent year for which statistics are available) hate crimes against Muslims accounted for 1% of all reported hate crimes. That's pretty statistically irrelevant.

BoyGabriel wrote: There was an increase in anti-Muslim attacks after 9/11, and it continued to rise in the years afterward and as far as I know, did not abate.

The rate has steadily and dramatically abated since then. Now you know.

BoyGabriel wrote: So whether you agree or disagree, it's not fair to pretend like concern is completely out of left field.

Fine, the concern isn't "completely" out of left field. Just completely blown out of all proportion to actual anti-Muslim violence, especially when compared to violence by Muslims against other groups.

BoyGabriel wrote: How many mosques have to be vandalized or publicly opposed for no reason other than being Muslim before you admit that there is in fact cause for concern about how Muslim Americans are being treated in our country just because they're Muslim?

One mosque being vandalized is one too many. But for you to use a handful of acts of vandalism over a decade to assume that there is some sort of nationwide bigotry against Muslims is ludicrous. And for you to automatically ascribe anti-Muslim bigotry to opposition to the GZM - and expect me to go along with it - is insane. There are a variety of legitimate reasons to oppose the construction of the mosque, and 71% of New Yorkers do so. Are they all anti-Muslim bigots?

Assuming that 71% is an accurate number, I will again state that I am glad we have a Bill of Rights.

One can be opposed to the community center, and not a bigot.

I am opposed to newspapers and news channels showing grieving mothers crying over the corpse of their just-murdered 17 year old sons. ...but I am not for censorship. In fact, I believe the media has the right to show such photos, and that our society would be worse off if they did not have these rights.

GZM --> DMCC

DMCC = Downtown Muslim Communitiy Center

Boygabriel wrote: [quote=Jimmy]
So just to be clear, you refuse to admit that anyone (including 71% of New Yorkers) can be opposed to the GZM for any reason other than illogical, ignorant and bigoted fear of Muslims?

Meet me in the Reid/DMCC post and I'll be happy to clarify.

No thanks, I'm pretty sure I've got it.

BoyGabriel wrote: My concern for Muslim Americans (or any minority) is not limited solely to violence. That was your choice to focus on it.

No, it was the OP's choice. You made the choice to broaden the scope to include non-violent protest to try to justify your prejudice.

Jimmy wrote: [quote=whynot_31]GZM --> DMCC

DMCC = Downtown Muslim Communitiy Center

Wait, I thought it was the "Cordoba House?" Or "Park51?" It's so hard to keep up, I'll just stick with the shortest. Thanks though.

I think I'm the only one who calls it the Downtown Muslim Community Center.

To me, "Park51" and "Cordoba House" sound like something created by real estate agents.

I think those most opposed (i.e. those likely to show up at a rally and make a statement to the media) are mostly likely to make such associations.

....I don't believe the entire 71% (assuming this is an accurate number) opposed make this association.

In my view, Hamilton seemed to make the association, but I'd be willing to change my opinion if he came on here again and said he didn't.

There are a lot of shades of gray between someone who "wishes someplace else could be found to build the muslim community center" and someone who wishes vengence on all muslims as a result of the terrorist acts.....

Boygabriel wrote: [quote=Jimmy]No thanks, I'm pretty sure I've got it.

No, you don't, not even a little bit. And the pathetic part is you're refusing to even discuss it.

You wrote this: "the starting point for any opposition to the downtown community center is based on a complete absence of logic and justice by associating moderate muslims with 9/11 or any other terrorist activity."

I fail to see much wiggle room in there.

You believe that "any opposition" to the GMZ is based on "a complete absence of logic and justice." That's pretty straightforward, thanks. I'm not going to waste time trying to grasp the supposed nuance of that position. I get that you think you're the enlightened one, trying to bring understanding to the great unwashed masses, but calling us illogical and pathetic and assuming we're bigots on the verge of violence right out of the gate is not the way to do it.

re-read my newspaper "grieving mom over dead teenage son" analogy.

Are the folks who are offended by such photos against the freedom of the press?

....or do they believe that the newspaper is failing to use a degree of tact, that they should be able to expect?

While I view the organizers of Park51 as NOT lacking this tact ....there are a lot of people out there who feel there is absolutely no way that the newspaper published that photo (organizers who propose that site.....) without knowing the impact it would have on the still healing victims.

I edited my post to make it clearer.

....also, there are Muslims who wish it would be elsewhere. Are they anti-muslim?

I think it's a very interesting analogy for a lot of reasons, but with regards to my specific concern, the starting point of aversion to the community center being built is the association, right or wrong, of all muslims with 9/11.

The association in your newspaper analogy is far more direct and legitimate. They ARE pictures of someone's dead relative. If, however, someone tried to argue that the newspaper should never run photos of any car crash b/c one of their readers suffered through such an experience, then I would strongly disagree with them.

I am troubled, to say the least, by a very specific opinion held by a lot of New Yorkers and Americans, and it's something I'm open to discussing. But if you're going to be defensive and assume that I think you are a bigot (rather than someone who appears to be supporting a single bigoted/misguided belief), then enjoy your strawman of persecution.

Jimmy wrote: If, by your own admission, you don't understand the "other side," where do you get off just assuming that we're illogical and bigoted and perched on the verge of violence?

There's far more to it than that, which I helpfully explain in the actual post on this topic.

I am trying to show you that people have different motivations for the same decisions.

i.e. Lots of newspaper readers might be offended by the picture, and ask them to use more discretion. Some might start creating petitions, or getting folks to boycott the paper.

i.e. Some people don't like conflict, or grieving. They wish the news media would spend its time covering the types of stories covered in People and Us Magazines. [these folks might be opposed to both the greiving mother photo AND the location of the community center].

i.e. Some people who live and work in lower Manhattan think it is crowded enough as it is. They may buy onto to my view that this center will be a a place of "peace and reconciliation", and believe that "these muslims" are unrelated to the "9/11 ones", yet simply be exhausted from dodging tourists. In their mind, this will bring more tourists and people ...which is bad.

i.e. Lots of people might want the community center to be somewhere else for strange reasons. For example, I may think that the coverage of this community center is taking away from the media's coverage of world hunger. If only that Imam wouldn't be building it there, I could get my story to run and get the donations I need. (um, to feed the starving flood victims in Pakistan)

Long winded point: Lots of folks are opposed to this who do not associate all muslims with 9/11, and have no ill will toward muslims what -so-ever.

I think that the majority of the "infamous 71%" fall into some category OTHER THAN the "I think all muslims are the same" catergory.

....but that could be debated all day.

I predict the poll just asked them whether they were opposed or not, and did not give them a chance to say WHY they were opposed.

....some have drawn the conclusion that "most of the 71% are bigoted"
.....others have not.

I'll say it again: I don't care why individuals or groups reached their decision regarding why it should not be built there, and I sincerely hope that those who are charged with enforcing the Bill of Rights take a similar view. Instances like these are why the bill of rights is important.

....but, as noted on the other thread: The Imam is right, this far more of an election battle than a civil rights one. He is well aware that there is NO QUESTION that he has the right to build it where it is presently proposed, and is aware that all of this hoopla has everything to do with the upcoming elections....