Plan to Build Mosque Near Ground Zero Riles Families of 9/11 Victims

[quote name='IRHari']Show me the post where I said people who oppose the mosque hate Islam.[/QUOTE]

Let's just be honest and cut to the chase. Ill take your word for it. Do you think people opposing the ground zero mosque hate muslims/islam?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Clak']I'll answer it by saying that I'd hope the victim would understand that not every Catholic is a child molester. However, your comparison isn't really fair. Lets say this theoretical church is built near the site of the molestation, not where the person lives(I'm sure some people in NYC live near the place, but not everyone protesting it), lets also say that there is already a Catholic church nearby, finally we'll say that the "church" portion is but one function of the place. Then you'd have a credible comparison.[/QUOTE]

The mosque at ground zero will be right near where many people who experienced the tragedy work and live every day. There isn't another place in the world that could be closer to those people.

Sure, there can be another church a couple blocks away, but did they build the church because they thought building it next to the victim would improve relations?

Finally, many churches serve as an activity, and community center. They also have schools, playgrounds, baseball fields, etc. so it wouldn't be too far off to say this church would have multiple functions.
 
[quote name='Knoell']The mosque at ground zero will be right near where many people who experienced the tragedy work and live every day. There isn't another place in the world that could be closer to those people.

Not every single person protesting this lived or lives directly around the WTC, simply living in the city isn't what I'm talking about.

Sure, there can be another church a couple blocks away, but did they build the church because they thought building it next to the victim would improve relations?

Maybe they did? The church was your idea, you tell me.

Finally, many churches serve as an activity, and community center. They also have schools, playgrounds, baseball fields, etc. so it wouldn't be too far off to say this church would have multiple functions.

I thought that was basically what I said?

[/QUOTE].
 
[quote name='Clak'].[/QUOTE]

Not everyone protesting anything is directly involved or related to what they are protesting.
 
[quote name='Knoell']Not everyone protesting anything is directly involved or related to what they are protesting.[/QUOTE]

They they shouldn't be protesting.
 
Seriously. If you have absolutely no involvement, why are you protesting?

Those people are saying this, "I wasn't in NYC during the attacks. I know absolutely no one that died or was traumatized by the event. I don't know anyone that died or was mutilated in the subsequent wars. I don't care about First Amendment issues. I just don't like that a mosque is being built so I'm angry as hell and I want everyone to know about it."

Are there people like that? Probably not. What I'm saying is that everyone protesting has some sort of involvement in what they're protesting. Otherwise, they wouldn't be protesting.
 
[quote name='depascal22']Seriously. If you have absolutely no involvement, why are you protesting?

Those people are saying this, "I wasn't in NYC during the attacks. I know absolutely no one that died or was traumatized by the event. I don't know anyone that died or was mutilated in the subsequent wars. I don't care about First Amendment issues. I just don't like that a mosque is being built so I'm angry as hell and I want everyone to know about it."[/QUOTE]

This is what the majority of you guys honestly believe of people against the mosque, and it is crap.
 
I wasn't saying that the majority of the protesters believe that. Just the ones that you say have no direct involvement. Why would you protest something like a mosque if you have ZERO direct involvement in it or 9/11?
 
[quote name='depascal22']I wasn't saying that the majority of the protesters believe that. Just the ones that you say have no direct involvement. Why would you protest something like a mosque if you have ZERO direct involvement in it or 9/11?[/QUOTE]

It is foolish to say a single American was unaffected by the attacks or subsequent results.

My point before was that the majority of the people who protest most things were not at the original event that sparked the protest.
 
[quote name='Knoell']It is foolish to say a single American was unaffected by the attacks or subsequent results.

My point before was that the majority of the people who protest most things were not at the original event that sparked the protest.[/QUOTE]

Direct involvement doesn't mean you had to be at the event.

Also, I can find several Americans that weren't affected by 9/11 to the point where they have to protest a mosque being built at Ground Zero. We're being held hostage by the emotions of several thousand people. If you knew someone that was this emotional ten years later, you'd slap them in the face and tell them to stop acting like a bitch. We've lost our stoicism. We've lost our determination. We'd rather worry about a mosque instead of the huge problems down the road for our country. Later on, historians will wonder why the hell thousands of people were up in arms about a mosque while the rest of the infrastructure crumbled around them.

You want to bring up Pearl Harbor. Did we hold a huge grudge against the Japanese in 1952? No. We became their biggest ally and trading partner. Their economic resurgence of the 80s is directly linked to our patronage. Did we protest every sushi joint that got built in Honolulu? No. We allowed life to go on. Can't you do the same?
 
[quote name='depascal22']Direct involvement doesn't mean you had to be at the event.

Also, I can find several Americans that weren't affected by 9/11 to the point where they have to protest a mosque being built at Ground Zero. We're being held hostage by the emotions of several thousand people. If you knew someone that was this emotional ten years later, you'd slap them in the face and tell them to stop acting like a bitch. We've lost our stoicism. We've lost our determination. We'd rather worry about a mosque instead of the huge problems down the road for our country. Later on, historians will wonder why the hell thousands of people were up in arms about a mosque while the rest of the infrastructure crumbled around them.

You want to bring up Pearl Harbor. Did we hold a huge grudge against the Japanese in 1952? No. We became their biggest ally and trading partner. Their economic resurgence of the 80s is directly linked to our patronage. Did we protest every sushi joint that got built in Honolulu? No. We allowed life to go on. Can't you do the same?[/QUOTE]


See your problem is that you are connecting opposition to the mosque with opposition to muslims and islam. That simply is not true, as long as you keep believing that then you cannot and will not understand why there is opposition to the mosque.
 
[quote name='Knoell']See your problem is that you are connecting opposition to the mosque with opposition to muslims and islam. That simply is not true, as long as you keep believing that then you cannot and will not understand why there is opposition to the mosque.[/QUOTE]

So wait, if it was a different mosque or Muslim-related community center then it would be alright? Or is it just because it has a mosque in it, and if they took that out and just called it the Young Men's Muslim Association it would be cool?
 
[quote name='SpazX']So wait, if it was a different mosque or Muslim-related community center then it would be alright? Or is it just because it has a mosque in it, and if they took that out and just called it the Young Men's Muslim Association it would be cool?[/QUOTE]

Let's ask you this. Did the imam have any interest in the site prior to 9/11?
 
[quote name='Knoell']Let's ask you this. Did the imam have any interest in the site prior to 9/11?[/QUOTE]

Your premise is that any interest in a site that began in the past 9 years and 1 month (or so) indicates insensitivity.

It overlooks issues of real estate (in NYC of all places) cost, real estate availability, capital opportunities to build said mosque, etc. It's the kind of overly simplistic selective thinking that you often bandy about, under the premise that you actually have a well-thought-out rationale for not wanting it build there.

That said, since *time* is now suddenly relevant to your claims of insensitivity, let's reverse the question and hand it back to you: at what point, timewise, after 9/11 would it be acceptable to build a mosque?

Honestly, I can't fucking believe this discussion is still ongoing.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Your premise is that any interest in a site that began in the past 9 years and 1 month (or so) indicates insensitivity.

It overlooks issues of real estate (in NYC of all places) cost, real estate availability, capital opportunities to build said mosque, etc. It's the kind of overly simplistic selective thinking that you often bandy about, under the premise that you actually have a well-thought-out rationale for not wanting it build there.

That said, since *time* is now suddenly relevant to your claims of insensitivity, let's reverse the question and hand it back to you: at what point, timewise, after 9/11 would it be acceptable to build a mosque?

Honestly, I can't fucking believe this discussion is still ongoing.[/QUOTE]

Time has nothing to do with it. The guys sole interest in the site is because 9/11 was there. This isn't a "sudden" development, the guy explains himself that is why he picked the location. Explain to me what that has to do with time.

Before you criticize a premise, make sure you understand it.
 
Find me a quote where he says that. But link to the interview you take it from, because I don't trust you to be anything other than deceptive.
 
[quote name='wiki']In July 2009, the real estate company and developer Soho Properties purchased the building and property at 45–47 Park Place for $4.85 million in cash.

Soho Properties' Chairman and CEO, Sharif El-Gamal, initially planned to build a condominium complex at the site, but was convinced by Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf's idea for a community center with a prayer space.[/QUOTE]

:whistle2:#

- edit Actually this whole article (the source of that wiki quote) is pretty amazing. I suggest everybody gives it a read.

On the evening of July 27, a mild sun shone on the elegant and imposing New York City Hall building in Manhattan. Commuters headed underground to subways departing for outer boroughs and bedroom suburbs. In a dance studio adjacent to City Hall, a Korean-American boy practised physics-defying moves with a Mexican-American girl. A short flight of stairs up, a few hundred people had gathered in an auditorium for a public meeting of the Lower Manhattan Community Board. The meeting was supposed to be one of the city’s regular exercises in local representation, where people can raise with board members issues that concern them. Citizens spoke about walking tours, extending bus routes, hospitals … and then a man from the audience shouted: “What about the mosque!” In an instant the auditorium was charged with angry shouts of “No mosque! No mosque at Ground Zero!”

A shrill debate about religious freedom, limits of tolerance and the meaning of 9/11 has been raging for the past two months in the US around the plans of a New York imam, Feisal Abdul Rauf, and a developer, Sharif Gamal, to build a 13-floor Islamic centre with a prayer space, three blocks from Ground Zero. Supporters say the Cordoba House project will be a venue for reconciliation between Islam and the west, delivering a powerful rebuttal to the al-Qaeda terrorists who attacked the trade towers; opponents call it an offence to the memory of those who died in 2001. New York mayor Michael Bloomberg, a group named 9/11 Families for Peaceful Tomorrows, and several interfaith leaders from New York churches and synagogues are among those who want to see the centre built. Lined up against them are the leaders of Tea Party Express, Republicans such as Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich, rightwing bloggers and some families of 9/11 victims.

At the public meeting, the crowd continued to chant, “No mosque at Ground Zero!” as a speaker, Helen Friedman, took to the podium and held up a card: “Unmask the Mosque!” She described herself as belonging to a group called Americans for a Safe Israel and, to more cheers and claps, said: “This mosque is a Trojan horse. Remember that too came as a gift. We are letting the enemy inside the gates!” Friedman was followed by New York State Senator Daniel Squadron, who concentrated on other local issues. Then someone asked him what he thought about the Islamic centre. “We are an open, diverse community – and no community shall be prohibited from being in lower Manhattan,” he replied. He was jeered.

Pamela Geller, a feisty, 51-year-old rightwing blogger from a group called Stop Islamization of America, spoke next. Geller, who has Tea Party links, is the co-author of a book, Post-American Presidency, which makes a series of unfounded charges against Barack Obama. In her words, the book describes “his socialist internationalism, his ties to America-haters and anti-Semites, his race-baiting, and more. He is betraying Israel; warring against free speech; refusing to take real steps to stop Iran’s nuclear program.”

Geller achieved prominence among American rightwing groups after she posted a video blog from an Israeli beach, in which, wearing a bikini, she denounced Hamas and Hezbollah. She is running a controversial poster campaign on New York City buses that directs Muslims to a website urging them to leave the “falsity of Islam”. The ads pitch these questions directly to Muslims: “Fatwa on your head? Is your community or family threatening you? Leaving Islam?” Geller described 9/11 as an attack on “each one of us” and the Islamic centre as a source of discord. She waved in jubilation after her speech, provoking more cries of “No mosque!”

. . .

Across the room, Sharif Gamal, the developer behind the Islamic centre, stood quietly in a blue suit, typing on his iPhone. “I am not from someplace else. I am American, a New Yorker,” said 38-year-old Gamal, an athletic man with blue eyes and short curly hair, who was born in Brooklyn to an Egyptian-American father and a Polish-American mother. Gamal, who has been in the real estate business for a decade, heads a successful company, Soho Properties, in downtown Manhattan.

A few years after 9/11, Gamal walked into a small mosque in Tribeca for Friday prayers. The imam leading the prayers was Feisal Abdul Rauf, a Columbia University physics graduate, who had moved to New York as a teenager. Rauf had studied religion with his father, a scholar trained in Egypt at al-Azhar University, and had been working in New York with Jewish and Christian religious leaders to promote interfaith relations. He also acted as an adviser to the Muslim community on questions of religion and integration. His small mosque, which had been around for 28 years, was 12 blocks from the towers.

At a time of intense curiosity and scrutiny of Islam and Muslims in the US, Rauf found himself propelled into a world of television studios, think-tank lectures, international conferences, FBI briefings and meetings with American politicians. In the process, he has achieved prominence as a moderate Muslim leader, shaped by and comfortable with both the worlds of Islam and the US. A book deal followed and he published What’s Right with Islam, after which Christian Science Monitor described him as “a bridge builder between Islam and America”, adding that the book could easily be subtitled What’s Right With America. Imam Rauf used the suggested subtitle when the book came out in paperback.

Gamal was impressed by Rauf’s sermons and became a regular at Friday prayers. When Gamal got married, Rauf conducted the ceremony. In 2004, Rauf set up a small tax-exempt foundation, the Cordoba Initiative (the initiative has no connection to the British-based Cordoba Foundation). Its goal was to achieve “a tipping point in Muslim-west relations within the next decade, bringing back the atmosphere of interfaith tolerance and respect that we have longed for since Muslims, Christians, and Jews lived together in harmony and prosperity eight hundred years ago”. The foundation has organised conferences on Muslim-west relations, and commissioned films with a message, such as one on the life of Abdol Hossein Sardari, an Iranian diplomat in Paris who saved several hundred French Jews from the Holocaust by granting them Iranian passports.

Meanwhile, Gamal’s Soho Properties was in the process of acquiring – for $4.85m – a five-storey building on Park Place, three blocks from the trade towers site. The building had housed a Burlington Coat Factory warehouse until it was abandoned after the landing gear of one of the hijacked aircraft tore through its roof. Initially, Gamal had planned to build a condominium complex at the site, but was convinced by Rauf’s idea for a cultural centre with a prayer space, especially as the Muslim community in New York had been growing for some time.

The plans for the centre were ambitious. At a cost of $100m-$150m, its 13 floors were intended to house a cultural centre, a 500-seat performing arts centre, culinary school, exhibition space, swimming pool, gym, basketball court, restaurant, library and art studios. The top two floors would house a domed space for prayers. “We insist on calling it a prayer space and not a mosque, because you can use a prayer space for activities apart from prayer. You can’t stop anyone who is a Muslim despite his religious ideology from entering the mosque and staying there,” said Imam Rauf’s wife and partner, Daisy Khan, who runs the American Society for Muslim Advancement, from an office housed on the Upper West Side’s famed Riverside Church. “With a prayer space, we can control who gets to use it.”

. . .

Imam Rauf is a soft-spoken man, with a trimmed salt and pepper beard, who prefers well-cut suits to traditional clothing. He modelled Cordoba House on a Jewish-run cultural centre, 92nd Street Y, a much-loved New York space for literary readings and public conversations on cultural and global affairs, where writers such as Ian McEwan, Javier Maries and Salman Rushdie have read from their work. Rauf imagined that Cordoba House would play the same kind of role for American Muslims that institutions such as 92Y played in helping the Jewish community become part of mainstream America.

He was conscious, of course, of the significance of the centre’s location: a building damaged in the attacks, three blocks from the trade tower’s site. “I have been part of this community for 30 years. Members of my congregation died on 9/11. That attack was carried out by extremist terrorists in the name of my faith,” Rauf said. “There is a war going on within Islam between a violent, extremist minority and a moderate majority that condemns terrorism. The centre for me is a way to amplify our condemnation of that atrocity and to amplify the moderate voices that reject terrorism and seek mutual understanding and respect with all faiths.”

Before the idea could morph into reality, it had to survive the bureaucratic process of approvals from New York City authorities and the lower Manhattan community boards. On May 5 this year, Rauf and Gamal took the proposal to the Lower Manhattan Community Board’s financial committee, adding that it would create 150 full-time jobs. The submission included an image of the proposed centre’s façade: a blue and green, glass and steel, modernist tower. The committee voted unanimously in support.

As word spread, a debate started about whether it was appropriate. Within a few weeks, the proposed Cordoba House was being talked about across the US as the “Ground Zero Mosque”. On May 25, the community board planned to have a vote on the project, a vote that doesn’t have any legal power but is seen as crucial to gauge whether the local community supports it or not. A week before the vote, Tea Party leader Mark Williams called the planned centre “a monument to 9/11 Muslim hijackers”. The board meeting was charged with emotion. Some opponents shouted down a Muslim teenager who spoke in favour of the project; a supporter called activists opposing the project “brown shirts”. After four hours of testimonies, the 40-member board voted: 10 abstentions, one no, and 29 yeses. New York mayor Bloomberg and Manhattan borough president Scott Stringer came out in support.

What was conceived as a project to foster inter-faith co-operation and improve relations between the west and the Islamic world now threatens to increase polarisation. The debate has moved far beyond what is legal, into the territory of national politics and questions of morality, legitimacy and meanings of 9/11. Sarah Palin tweeted, calling all peaceful Muslims to “refudiate” it. The National Republican Trust, a conservative group that runs ad campaigns to support Republican candidates, released a screen advertisement juxtaposing images of the falling twin towers and gun-toting jihadis. The accompanying narration says: “On 11 September, they declared war against us. And to celebrate that murder of 3,000 Americans, they want to build a monstrous 13-storey mosque at Ground Zero. That mosque is a monument to their victory and an invitation for more.”

The former Republican speaker Newt Gingrich said the very name of the proposed project, Cordoba House, was an insult: “It refers to Córdoba, Spain – the capital of Muslim conquerors who symbolised their victory over the Christian Spaniards by transforming a church there into the world’s third-largest mosque complex. Today, some of the Mosque’s backers insist this term is being used to ‘symbolise interfaith co-operation’ when, in fact, every Islamist in the world recognises Córdoba as a symbol of Islamic conquest.” Gamal dropped the name. “We are calling it Park 51 because of the backlash to the name Cordoba House,” he said. “It will be a place open to all New Yorkers and that is a very New York name.”

Republican Rick Lazio, who is running for the New York governor’s seat, has made the funding of the proposed centre a key campaign issue. He sees it as funded by suspect foreign sources, and has called for an inquiry into where the $100m is coming from. Several others are calling for transparency in the money flow. Imam Rauf insists the $100m has yet to be raised and Gamal owns the property. I asked Gamal about the purchase of the building on Park Place for $4.85m. “I bought it with my own money and with the help of some goodwill investors,” he said.

The most poignant part of this controversy is that it has forced the families who lost sons and daughters to relive their tragedies, to speak again about their wounds, and to take sides. The atrocity has become an argument and the families forced to divide into supporters and opponents of the project. At the community board meeting in the dance studio near City Hall late last month, I watched a girl who had lost her brother in the attacks walk around the auditorium, bearing an American flag and a banner reading: “Show respect to 9/11 families.” Her face carried her pain, unlike the rhetoric and fury of the rightwing activists. Joyce Boland, a woman in her sixties with short white hair, rimless glasses, and wearing a white T-shirt, walked slowly to the podium; her face was sombre as she spoke. Vincent Boland, her son, a 25-year-old investment banker from New Jersey, was working on the 97th floor of the first tower on 9/11 when a hijacked aircraft was flown into it. “We got no more than a few inches of skin and a couple of pieces of bone. Ground Zero is the burial place of my son,” Boland said, her voice choking with emotion. “I don’t want to go there and see an overwhelming mosque looking down at me.”

The feelings of parents such as Boland have raised the questions of memory, trauma and moral authority. The Anti-Defamation League, an influential Jewish organisation that declares its mandate to “fight bigotry, prejudice and racism”, has condemned the attacks on the centre. The ADL, headed by Abraham H. Foxman, a Holocaust survivor, has also conceded the legal right of the backers to build, but urged them not to build so near the trade towers site. “In our judgment, building an Islamic Center in the shadow of the World Trade Center will cause some victims more pain – unnecessarily – and that is not right,” an ADL statement said.

When I spoke to Foxman, he drew a parallel with an older controversy, when Carmelite nuns turned an empty warehouse outside the perimeter of Auschwitz into a convent. “The Jewish community was offended by that and we insisted it was not the right place,” Foxman said. After eight years of debate, Pope John Paul II asked the nuns to move into a building a mile away. “If you want to reach out and heal the wounds, you don’t do it in an in-your-face way, in somebody’s cemetery. Two blocks from Ground Zero is Ground Zero,” said Foxman.

Several Jewish organisations and intellectuals disagree with Foxman and were surprised by the ADL’s stand. It provoked the economics Nobel laureate, Paul Krugman, to write in his New York Times blog, “It causes some people pain to see Jews operating small businesses in non-Jewish neighborhoods; it causes some people pain to see Jews writing for national publications (as I learn from my mailbox most weeks); it causes some people pain to see Jews on the Supreme Court. So would ADL agree that we should ban Jews from these activities, so as to spare these people pain?”

Whose pain counts? Whose pain has a greater moral authority? How many blocks from the trade tower site would an Islamic centre be respectful? There are no easy answers to these questions. But these are questions with which Talat Hamdani, a Pakistani-American woman, is grappling. Her son, Salman Hamdani, a paramedic and a cadet with the New York City police department, was headed to work on the morning of September 11 2001. Salman saw the planes hit the towers and rushed to the trade towers site to help people trapped inside. He lost his life in the process. New York City and NYPD honoured him as one of its heroes.

“I lost my son on that day and I support this centre. The opposition comes from a deep-rooted Islamophobia,” said Hamdani. While her son was rushing towards the trade towers, the daughter of her friend Donna Marsh O’Connor, a Syracuse University writing instructor, was on the 97th floor of the second tower. She couldn’t be saved either. After struggling with their grief for a few years, Hamdani and O’Connor joined the 9/11 Families for Peaceful Tomorrows. “On that day I lost both my daughter and my country. Ideas of revenge led us to war in Iraq. I can’t get my daughter back, but I am not letting go of my country. To be American is to understand that the laws are made for the greater good. We can’t base public policy on emotions,” O’Connor told me. “Building the Islamic centre near the trade towers will be a loud and clear rebuttal to the extremists who attacked America.”

. . .

On a recent Friday afternoon, I visited the trade towers site. Tourists peered through a boundary into Ground Zero. Business executives stood outside office entrances drinking coffee and smoking cigarettes. Hundreds of workers manned cranes, jackhammers and drills under a blazing sun as they continued the decade-long effort to build a memorial to the World Trade Center. Designed by architects Michael Arad and Peter Walker, the memorial will have two massive pools with waterfalls where the towers stood, a plaza with 400 trees; and a museum recording the lives of the victims, whose names will be inscribed on the pool walls.

I walked the three blocks to 45 Park Place where the Islamic centre is planned to be built, and which has been serving as a place for Muslim Friday prayers for the past several months. Faint outlines of the old name, Burlington Coat Factory, remain on the building’s façade. The Italian palazzo architecture, which would have signified the grandeur of the Old World in the 1850s, was now a memorial to chipped paint and rusting iron bars. The congregation of IT consultants, investment bankers, businessmen, and street vendors was led by a doctoral candidate from Columbia University, who published his first novel a few years ago. It seemed to be a reflection of the financial success of American Muslims, a predominantly middle-class community that various estimates put at between three and seven million; 59 per cent of whom have at least an undergraduate degree, according to a 2004 poll by Zogby.

On the sidewalk, I met a young man who had stepped out after the prayers. Tony Bennett, a 26-year-old son of a black father and a Latina mother, is a short man with a prizefighter’s body and a monk’s demeanour. He wore the regulation blue jacket of the construction workers in New York. Bennett, who also uses the Muslim name Yasin Mohammad, is from a working-class area in Queens, New York. Bennett works on Ground Zero, mostly manning a jackhammer. On Friday afternoons, he walks over to Park Place to offer his prayers. “America is my country and we all have to learn to live with respect. That is how it shall be,” he said and headed back to Ground Zero. I watched him walk away and it seemed that his quiet, unpublicised choice was a greater example of reconciliation and hope.

. . .

To be able to move to build the Islamic centre by demolishing the old 1850s warehouse at 45 Park Place, Imam Rauf and his team had to wait for a decision from the city’s Landmarks Preservation Commission, which was deliberating whether the building should be preserved as a historic landmark. A Christian legal rights group, American Center for Law and Justice, had appealed to the commission that the building should be considered a landmark because of the landing gear that fell through its roof.

New York waited for the decision. On the morning of August 3, a few hundred people filled a university auditorium near the trade towers site. Nine members of the Landmarks Commission took turns to speak and unanimously declared that the Italian palazzo building on Park Place did not have a special architectural or aesthetic character and thus did not merit a historic status. Stephan Bryns, the Landmarks Commissioner, argued that being damaged in the 9/11 attacks and being close to Ground Zero didn’t give it historic landmark status, either. To cries of “This is a betrayal!” and “Shame on you!” he said: “One cannot designate hundreds of buildings on that criterion alone.” Supporters cheered.

A very New York moment, high on the symbolism of the city’s freedoms and immigrant nature, followed. Over at the Governor’s island, stood Mayor Bloomberg; behind him the Statue of Liberty, still welcoming the huddled masses, in the backdrop. “Our doors are open to everyone – everyone with a dream and a willingness to work hard and play by the rules,” the Mayor declared. “Let us not forget that Muslims were among those murdered on 9/11 and that our Muslim neighbours grieved with us as New Yorkers and as Americans. We would betray our values – and play into our enemies’ hands – if we were to treat Muslims differently than anyone else. In fact, to cave to popular sentiment would be to hand a victory to the terrorists – and we should not stand for that.” That is New York.
Click to expand...

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/bf1110d8-a5b0-11df-a5b7-00144feabdc0.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Knoell']Let's ask you this. Did the imam have any interest in the site prior to 9/11?[/QUOTE]

So that's it then? It's just this guy that's the problem? This guy who represents the moderate anti-terrorist Muslim leader that everybody constantly says they're looking for?
 
I don't know why there is so much focus on the Imam and his intent. Even if the Imam was Billy Graham and the intent was 'shit I just needed a place to go cause my mosque 2 blocks away is overflowing', Knoell et al. would still be objecting.

The Imam is a sideshow. At the heart of it they believe it's insensitive.
 
I know Knoell thinks it's insensitive, what I want to know is why exactly that is as nobody seems to be able to articulate it. What I'm seeing is that he's saying it's insensitive, but it's not insensitive because there's a problem with Islam or Muslims, but rather because of this Imam because he wants it there because of 9/11 in order to show solidarity between Muslim and Non-Muslim Americans and that Islam is not all about blowing shit up.

So what I see is that it's insensitive precisely because it's trying to be so sensitive, but not to the right group of people.
 
[quote name='SpazX']I know Knoell thinks it's insensitive, what I want to know is why exactly that is as nobody seems to be able to articulate it. What I'm seeing is that he's saying it's insensitive, but it's not insensitive because there's a problem with Islam or Muslims, but rather because of this Imam because he wants it there because of 9/11 in order to show solidarity between Muslim and Non-Muslim Americans and that Islam is not all about blowing shit up.

So what I see is that it's insensitive precisely because it's trying to be so sensitive, but not to the right group of people.[/QUOTE]

I love it how a large and diverse group of peoples constitutional right to build their houses of worship are being held hostage to others "feelings".
 
[quote name='Clak'].[/QUOTE]

You said the mosque has many functions as a point against the church example.

Look at this, like WBC, would you fight for the right for them to do this? Yes, the girl is still alive, but what they're doing to the rest of the family is the same.
http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=275143

[quote name='IRHari']Show me the post where I said people who oppose the mosque hate Islam.[/QUOTE]

That has been the basis of your argument this entire discussion... That people oppose it because they associate all of Islam with the terrorists.

[quote name='IRHari']The only justification for the 'insensitivity' is this:

-Muslims want to build a mosque near 9/11 GZ
-Muslims did 9/11
-QED[/QUOTE]
[quote name='IRHari']The religion was perverted. The form of Islam that the hijackers practiced is completely different from the Islam that the majority of Muslims practice. One practices violent methods to advance their ideology, the other is absolutely peaceful and condemns violence in any form.

It takes like 5 seconds to look at the mosque and think oh this isn't the Islam that the hijackers practiced. This isn't the Islam I'm looking for.

droids.jpg


I'm able to make that distinction, a lot of 9/11 families are able to make that distinction, and other people on this forum are able to make that distinction.[/QUOTE]
[quote name='IRHari']You're not making any kind of distinction because no one disputes that it offends 9/11 families.

It's that the offense that the 9/11 families are feeling isn't rational. There isn't a reason to be offended unless Al Qaeda was building the mosque and Al Qaeda was praying in it. If that were the case I would absolutely agree with you that it's insensitive.

Same source? That doesn't fucking matter. They both practiced Islam, fine. But take like 3 seconds to think about it and it clearly isn't the same kind of Islam.
[/QUOTE]

[quote name='IRHari']
What does it represent? I think you're implying that this mosque represents terrorism. That's Islam = terrorism.
[/QUOTE]


Kirin, what is your objective with your posts when 90% are this:

[quote name='Kirin Lemon']I guess what I'm trying to say is, go the fuck away forever like you promised.[/QUOTE]
[quote name='Kirin Lemon']You're a dirty liar.[/QUOTE]
[quote name='Kirin Lemon']Why did you lie to us?[/QUOTE]
http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7694865&postcount=814
[quote name='Kirin Lemon']:rofl:
Please tell me you realize how dumb you sound.[/QUOTE]
[quote name='Kirin Lemon']Shut up and do this. You're useless.[/QUOTE]
[quote name='Kirin Lemon']Either that or they're criminally stupid, yes.[/QUOTE]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You went a little overboard with quoting me there, some of those quotes don't even apply (the 4th & 5th one).

That has been the basis of your argument this entire discussion... That people oppose it because they associate all of Islam with the terrorists.
Click to expand...
Explain to me that this means they HATE Islam. Hate is a strong word, so explain away.

And besides, that's exactly what YOU'RE doing too (associating Islam with terrorists). You keep talking about 'the source' which will remind them via association. You're not making any kind of distinction between the Islam the terrorists followed (Radical) and the Islam the Park 51 people are going to (or are currently) practice (Moderate).
 
[quote name='irhari'] show me the post where i said people who oppose the mosque hate islam.[/quote]
[quote name='knoell']let's just be honest and cut to the chase. Ill take your word for it. Do you think people opposing the ground zero mosque hate muslims/islam?[/quote]


....
 
[quote name='J7.']That has been the basis of your argument this entire discussion... That people oppose it because they associate all of Islam with the terrorists.[/QUOTE]

I wonder why people would think think that?

[quote name='From the article I posted a few posts ago, the people against it']a speaker, Helen Friedman, took to the podium and held up a card: “Unmask the Mosque!” She described herself as belonging to a group called Americans for a Safe Israel and, to more cheers and claps, said: “This mosque is a Trojan horse. Remember that too came as a gift. We are letting the enemy inside the gates!”

...

Pamela Geller, a feisty, 51-year-old rightwing blogger from a group called Stop Islamization of America, spoke next. Geller, who has Tea Party links, is the co-author of a book, Post-American Presidency, which makes a series of unfounded charges against Barack Obama. In her words, the book describes “his socialist internationalism, his ties to America-haters and anti-Semites, his race-baiting, and more. He is betraying Israel; warring against free speech; refusing to take real steps to stop Iran’s nuclear program.” (...) She is running a controversial poster campaign on New York City buses that directs Muslims to a website urging them to leave the “falsity of Islam”. The ads pitch these questions directly to Muslims: “Fatwa on your head? Is your community or family threatening you? Leaving Islam?” Geller described 9/11 as an attack on “each one of us” and the Islamic centre as a source of discord. She waved in jubilation after her speech, provoking more cries of “No mosque!”

...

The most poignant part of this controversy is that it has forced the families who lost sons and daughters to relive their tragedies, to speak again about their wounds, and to take sides. The atrocity has become an argument and the families forced to divide into supporters and opponents of the project. At the community board meeting in the dance studio near City Hall late last month, I watched a girl who had lost her brother in the attacks walk around the auditorium, bearing an American flag and a banner reading: “Show respect to 9/11 families.” Her face carried her pain, unlike the rhetoric and fury of the rightwing activists. Joyce Boland, a woman in her sixties with short white hair, rimless glasses, and wearing a white T-shirt, walked slowly to the podium; her face was sombre as she spoke. Vincent Boland, her son, a 25-year-old investment banker from New Jersey, was working on the 97th floor of the first tower on 9/11 when a hijacked aircraft was flown into it. “We got no more than a few inches of skin and a couple of pieces of bone. Ground Zero is the burial place of my son,” Boland said, her voice choking with emotion. “I don’t want to go there and see an overwhelming mosque looking down at me.”

(...)

Stephan Bryns, the Landmarks Commissioner, argued that being damaged in the 9/11 attacks and being close to Ground Zero didn’t give it historic landmark status, either. To cries of “This is a betrayal!” and “Shame on you!” he said: “One cannot designate hundreds of buildings on that criterion alone.” Supporters cheered.[/QUOTE]

Let's sum it up. Two people who are against Islam, one kid who doesn't know anybody, one poor lady who lost somebody in the attacks and a crowd screaming out that Landmark Commissioner betrayed America when he said that the original building wasn't a landmark (aka stop them from building their new building)

So, there are two types of people who are against this new building.

People who were affected by or lost family members in the attacks. They are hurting and getting bombarded with misinformation about what this is.

Assholes who are masking their hate of Muslims/Islam with this issue to gain support for their wacked out ideas.
 
[quote name='Knoell']Not everyone protesting anything is directly involved or related to what they are protesting.[/QUOTE]
Then why the fuck should they care? I swear your way of thinking makes less sense with every post you make. You act like I'd have a good reason to protest against them building this, I've never even been near NY for crying out loud.

You want us to believe this isn't about bigotry or hate, yet you want to stretch this thing out to people who weren't even effected by the attacks. At that point, wtf else is there besides hate and bigotry?

"Oh I wasn't there, haven't even been to NY, but I'll be dammed if I want that thing built."

It makes my fucking head hurt how absurd that is.
 
[quote name='J7.']You said the mosque has many functions as a point against the church example.

Look at this, like WBC, would you fight for the right for them to do this? Yes, the girl is still alive, but what they're doing to the rest of the family is the same.
http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=275143



That has been the basis of your argument this entire discussion... That people oppose it because they associate all of Islam with the terrorists.










Kirin, what is your objective with your posts when 90% are this:




http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7694865&postcount=814[/QUOTE]
Just because I don't like what they're saying does not give me the right to tell them they can't say it.That opens the door to censoring anything that somebody has a problem with and I'm not going to be the one to start it.
 
[quote name='IRHari']You went a little overboard with quoting me there, some of those quotes don't even apply (the 4th & 5th one).

Explain to me that this means they HATE Islam. Hate is a strong word, so explain away.

And besides, that's exactly what YOU'RE doing too (associating Islam with terrorists). You keep talking about 'the source' which will remind them via association. You're not making any kind of distinction between the Islam the terrorists followed (Radical) and the Islam the Park 51 people are going to (or are currently) practice (Moderate).[/QUOTE]

You said to show you the post, if I showed you 1 post you wouldn't believe me, so I showed you multiple posts and now I'm wrong for doing what you asked.

Okay, I agree that post 4 may not be applicable, so I'll remove that one. But post 5 is, and so are all the others. In post 5, you're saying what possible reason could you not want a mosque in Quahog other than being an Islamophobe and hating Muslims. You're suggesting those are the only reasons and asking if anyone can "muster" up any other reason.

How many times have you argued against any person in here opposing the mosque doing so because they associate the Islam represented by the people building and who would be using the mosque, with the terrorists? How many times have you tried to tell us that we oppose the mosque because we see it representing the same thing as the terrorists, in our minds? The whole thread.

And now you're saying that's exactly what I'm doing... you've said this all along. Yet it's not true. Without saying this you have no basis to stand on because you have not allowed there to be any other reason plausible for me opposing what's happening. I've made distinction time and time again that the terrorists used Islam improperly while the moderates are using it as a means of peace and wellbeing. Yet you won't concede that someone could oppose something for more than 1 single reason that is the most negative one. That makes no sense. That is like saying the only reason I could be a vegetarian would be because I'm against people killing animals. Or the only reason I play video games is to escape reality. Etc.

How is your perceived notion of people hating Islam because (again your perceived notion->) they associate Islam with terrorists evident? You just said it yourself:

"Explain to me that this means they HATE Islam. Hate is a strong word, so explain away.

And besides, that's exactly what YOU'RE doing too (associating Islam with terrorists)."

You want proof that I made that distinction go back and read my posts without binoculars.

[quote name='Sporadic']I wonder why people would think think that?

Let's sum it up. Two people who are against Islam, one kid who doesn't know anybody, one poor lady who lost somebody in the attacks and a crowd screaming out that Landmark Commissioner betrayed America when he said that the original building wasn't a landmark (aka stop them from building their new building)

So, there are two types of people who are against this new building.

People who were affected by or lost family members in the attacks. They are hurting and getting bombarded with misinformation about what this is.

Assholes who are masking their hate of Muslims/Islam with this issue to gain support for their wacked out ideas.[/QUOTE]

Because you're stereotyping me. You're putting me into the same jar as those who oppose the mosque for the wrong reasons. Go back and read my reasons for opposing it and read my ideas for what should be done. Then you will realize I'm advocating for the people that are hurting here, not being an asshole masking hate of Islam. Go ahead and repost any post I've made within this thread without trying to make it out of context. Please, go ahead and do this. Or do you think that people cannot advocate for others?

[quote name='Clak']Then why the fuck should they care? I swear your way of thinking makes less sense with every post you make. You act like I'd have a good reason to protest against them building this, I've never even been near NY for crying out loud.

You want us to believe this isn't about bigotry or hate, yet you want to stretch this thing out to people who weren't even effected by the attacks. At that point, wtf else is there besides hate and bigotry?

"Oh I wasn't there, haven't even been to NY, but I'll be dammed if I want that thing built."

It makes my fucking head hurt how absurd that is.[/QUOTE]

Why would someone protest against something their not directly involved in? Maybe because they can relate to them. Maybe because they feel some of their pain. Maybe because they care. Could this be conceivable or is there always only 1 negative motivation for doing something?

It makes me depressed that you would not understand this and try to group someone as pure evil for defending someone. You're doing the same thing, you're defending the builders, yet no one is saying you don't give a fuck about the family members or are in it to make America look good. I could resort to calling you names, but I've chosen not to. What good would that do, other than make you angry and try to make you too emotional to properly get your viewpoint across?

[quote name='Clak']Just because I don't like what they're saying does not give me the right to tell them they can't say it.That opens the door to censoring anything that somebody has a problem with and I'm not going to be the one to start it.[/QUOTE]

There is a difference between telling someone whether they can say something or not and actively fighting for their right to say such things when what they're saying is pure hatred.
 
You're putting me into the same jar as those who oppose the mosque for the wrong reasons.
Click to expand...

There is no "right" reason here, even if there was some hypothetical "right" reason it wouldn't matter.

Then you will realize I'm advocating for the people that are hurting here, not being an asshole masking hate of Islam.
Click to expand...

I believe a lot of the people complaining their fee-fees are hurt are either hypersensitive or trying to find a way to be against it because they cannot come out and say they just don't like Muslims.
 
[quote name='Msut77']There is no "right" reason here, even if there was some hypothetical "right" reason it wouldn't matter.



I believe a lot of the people complaining their fee-fees are hurt are either hypersensitive or trying to find a way to be against it because they cannot come out and say they just don't like Muslims.[/QUOTE]

If there is no right reason people should not be compelled to insult people, ignore their points, and group every opposing viewpoint with those who are clearly in the wrong. My position is that the builders should decide what to do, anyone against it can only make their feelings known to them.

I agree a lot of people hold that view. I also believe some do not. There's groups who support for the right reasons and the wrong reasons, just as there are groups who oppose for the right and wrong. Every issue is this way. I believe you believe this too as you say, "a lot of people" not everyone.
 
[quote name='J7.']My position is that the builders should decide what to do[/quote]

That is very magnanimous of you.

anyone against it can only make their feelings known to them.
Click to expand...

Actually the few people that might be genuinely upset can keep their feelings to themselves, their feelings are completely irrational.

It is farcical to pretend as if gently worded letters are the extent of the response anyway.

Every issue is this way.
Click to expand...

Not really.

It isn't even the case in this issue.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Msut77']That is very magnanimous of you.



Actually the few people that might be genuinely upset can keep their feelings to themselves, their feelings are completely irrational.

It is farcical to pretend as if gently worded letters are the extent of the response anyway.



Not really.

It isn't even the case in this issue.[/QUOTE]
They can say your feelings are irrational, or more appropriately your feelings towards them are irrational. How are you to decide whether someone's feelings are rational or not if you are not them. You can only make an educated guess based on what you know and what you've lived, but you will never know for sure.

Based on my life experience I can sincerely feel that some of their feelings for opposing are rational and without malice. But that's my experience, and it comes from the things I have seen and felt, that are not tied to my views about religion. If they kept their feelings to themselves alone what good is that if it would make them worse off and ultimately all of us worse off.

It is also farcical to believe there are not any gently worded "letters" that do not deserve reflection due to others opinions and actions being so negative they drown out the others. It is up to the person receiving the various "letters" to take a proper look at them and determine what they mean, and then make their choice. Rather than dismiss everything or focus only on the negative.

It's either a yes or a no, there is no 'not really' in determining whether each issue in life has people support/oppose it for the right/wrong reasons. If there are gently worded "letters" then there likely are people opposing this for the right reasons. Just as there are people supporting for the right and wrong reasons. I can not say with 100% certainty that it is the case in this issue (nobody can), but I certainly feel it with my heart and mind.

I definitely see why you would think that to not be the case, but I see that view being one where you're not being open to other people's views on this issue. You've made up your mind and you're not going to change it. I don't think anyone wants to consider that the families could oppose it for the right reasons because they've grouped them with the people opposing for the wrong reasons.

Name me an issue where there are not those who support/oppose for right/wrong reasons.
 
[quote name='J7.']But post 5 is, and so are all the others. In post 5, you're saying what possible reason could you not want a mosque in Quahog other than being an Islamophobe and hating Muslims. You're suggesting those are the only reasons and asking if anyone can "muster" up any other reason.[/QUOTE]

Post 5 absolutely does not apply. Let me recap the background of Post 5 since you came in out of nowhere and spouted your opinion on all of this.

People began protesting mosques FAR from ground zero. Staten Island, Tennessee, California, etc. The opposition to the GZ mosque is based on insensitivity. Knoell said there are different reasons to oppose mosques other than insensitivity.

I said okay, name me some reasons. I *think* the only reason why people oppose non-GZ mosques would be because they hate Islam. There is no insensitivity argument to make for non-GZ mosques, so logically they must hate Islam.

He kept refusing to answer, and so I had to pose a hypothetical involving a mosque in Quahog.

Post 5 has to do with a fictional non-GZ mosque and doesn't apply in any way to the conversation we're having.

[quote name='J7.']And now you're saying that's exactly what I'm doing... you've said this all along. Yet it's not true. Without saying this you have no basis to stand on because you have not allowed there to be any other reason plausible for me opposing what's happening. I've made distinction time and time again that the terrorists used Islam improperly while the moderates are using it as a means of peace and wellbeing. Yet you won't concede that someone could oppose something for more than 1 single reason that is the most negative one. That makes no sense.[/QUOTE]

You continue to argue that the source is the same, and even if that source is 'good', since the source is the same that's enough of a reason for you to oppose the mosque. I'm not conceding that the 'insensitive' thing isn't the only reason, but it is the main reason.

Without the 'insensitive' arguement, there are still people opposing the mosque, and I'm not sure why those people would still oppose it. Maybe you can tell me why. Maybe you'd like to answer the Quahog hypothetical.

How is your perceived notion of people hating Islam because (again your perceived notion->) they associate Islam with terrorists evident? You just said it yourself:

"Explain to me that this means they HATE Islam. Hate is a strong word, so explain away.

And besides, that's exactly what YOU'RE doing too (associating Islam with terrorists)."
Click to expand...
Do you think that people who oppose this mosque on 'insensitivity' grounds are associating Islam with terrorism? Just analyze the 'insensitivity' argument for me.
 
[quote name='IRHari']
People began protesting mosques FAR from ground zero. Staten Island, Tennessee, California, etc. The opposition to the GZ mosque is based on insensitivity. Knoell said there are different reasons to oppose mosques other than insensitivity.

I said okay, name me some reasons. I *think* the only reason why people oppose non-GZ mosques would be because they hate Islam. There is no insensitivity argument to make for non-GZ mosques, so logically they must hate Islam.

do you think that people who oppose this mosque on 'insensitivity' grounds are associating Islam with terrorism? Just analyze the 'insensitivity' argument for me.[/QUOTE]

Are we back to claiming that tons of people are protesting mosques all over the country? All 300 of them (put together) that were outnumbered by people protesting the protesters. :roll::roll:

It is hard to believe the millions of people against this mosque can be roped into the actions of 300 people. They shouldnt, but you try your best to.

It really does sound familiar doesn't it?

Oh yeah and does this mean you are brave enough now to admit you think they all hate muslims?
 
[quote name='IRHari']Post 5 absolutely does not apply. Let me recap the background of Post 5 since you came in out of nowhere and spouted your opinion on all of this.

People began protesting mosques FAR from ground zero. Staten Island, Tennessee, California, etc. The opposition to the GZ mosque is based on insensitivity. Knoell said there are different reasons to oppose mosques other than insensitivity.

I said okay, name me some reasons. I *think* the only reason why people oppose non-GZ mosques would be because they hate Islam. There is no insensitivity argument to make for non-GZ mosques, so logically they must hate Islam.

He kept refusing to answer, and so I had to pose a hypothetical involving a mosque in Quahog.

Post 5 has to do with a fictional non-GZ mosque and doesn't apply in any way to the conversation we're having.[/QUOTE]

Fine, I'll take 5 off. That leaves 4 comments you made that illustrate my point.

[quote name='IRHari']You continue to argue that the source is the same, and even if that source is 'good', since the source is the same that's enough of a reason for you to oppose the mosque. I'm not conceding that the 'insensitive' thing isn't the only reason, but it is the main reason.

Without the 'insensitive' arguement, there are still people opposing the mosque, and I'm not sure why those people would still oppose it. Maybe you can tell me why. Maybe you'd like to answer the Quahog hypothetical.[/QUOTE]

I don't oppose because of the source. I oppose because of the effect the source has on the families. If I were opposing because of the source itself, I would have to oppose every mosque. The source is the same source, no matter how it is used, but the way it is used by people has a powerful effect on their victims that is not easily removed if it is removed at all. It's not as simple as overcoming an innate fear of something like snakes, spiders, or needles.

Hard to tell what you're really saying in text form with a double negative. You are saying people opposing the mosque do so mainly because they're insensitive.

I don't think we can say how many oppose the mosque due to it's effect on the families and how many oppose due to being Islamophobic or haters of Islam. Given our society I would agree that more oppose it due to Islamophobia than for any other reason. However, I am not one of those people and I am being treated as if I am one of them because supporters don't want to acknowledge that there are people who oppose it for other reasons, reasons that should not be looked down on. Someone may say they understand my view, but when it comes down to discussing it they use the same points against me that they would use against someone opposing for Islamophobia or hating Islam.

As for your Quahog example, why would someone still oppose it, there could be a number of reasons. Does it impact their commute (would be too selfish in most cases), does it cause an area to become too populated not due to race or religion but due to keeping the town small without mass traffic (like when people oppose a large supermarket), is there a better use for the property, does it affect political views, were they ever hurt by a radical follower, etc. So it's not completely black and white. Some may even have some deranged belief that opposing those mosques is going to raise morale to get people to oppose the mosque near the WTC. Some may have good intentions but not know how to show them in a way that is productive.

However, the main reason people would oppose it would be Islamophobia. Your question is a question meant to have no answer, to support your view that it can only be hating Islam or Islamophobia in those areas. I certainly agree with that sentiment. However, you also apply it to the WTC location. There are other possibilities other than those two, but those are the main ones. What I'm telling you is I am not one of those opposer's.

There are other reasons. Reasons that are for the best interests of everyone. The builders should hear the voices of Americans and be able to see they're not all due to hate/Islamophobia. They will probably not see this if outside supporters themselves are unwilling to let it be seen. Why should they care if American's engage in complete division themselves over this issue. If the builders decide to build at the current site I hope they follow through with building peace with people that are not part of the mosque and those that oppose it.

[quote name='IRHari']Do you think that people who oppose this mosque on 'insensitivity' grounds are associating Islam with terrorism? Just analyze the 'insensitivity' argument for me.[/QUOTE]

I think some are and some are not. Obviously many people view it as insensitive based on associating Islam itself with terrorism and they focus on that rather than accepting that the majority of Islam have nothing to do with terrorism in any way. Some do it out of phobia, some do it out of hatred. Others view it as insensitive because it should/is known what effect this would have on families that lost someone at the WTC. Those families have been conditioned by the terrorists to fear reminders of the attack and Islam is a reminder. Families aren't asking for all mosques to go away or not be built, they're merely asking for some breathing room. Thus, something can be insensitive to different people for different reasons. Not everyone is the same and not everyone has experienced the same things.

It is not surprising that the terrorists are happy that America is opposing the mosque because as sporadic's article shows they're using it as a tool to try and brainwash more people. I am sure the terrorists will also find a way of using the mosque against us, in their own propaganda, after it's been built there, which is also abusing the followers of Islam who will use the mosque for good.

So you have most people opposing it for the wrong reasons and most people supporting it passing over the effect it has on the families. They drown out the people opposing for the right reasons and supporters pass over the effect it has on families because they view it as for the greater good, they don't want to acknowledge the families enough because that would mean the greater good are hurt and they don't see an alternative. Within all this I say, let em build it, but consider an alternative building site at least in the short term. Let them know how it affects the families and let them consider this and make things right, whether they build it there or not.
 
[quote name='J7.']They can say your feelings are irrational, or more appropriately your feelings towards them are irrational.[/quote]

They can say that but they would be wrong.

How are you to decide whether someone's feelings are rational or not
Click to expand...

Through the use of reason.
 
[quote name='J7.']Obviously many people view it as insensitive based on associating Islam itself with terrorism and they focus on that rather than accepting that the majority of Islam have nothing to do with terrorism in any way. Some do it out of phobia, some do it out of hatred. Others view it as insensitive because it should/is known what effect this would have on families that lost someone at the WTC. Those families have been conditioned by the terrorists to fear reminders of the attack and Islam is a reminder.[/QUOTE]

The 1st bolded part and the 2nd bolded part are the same thing. The two possible 'insensitive' arguments you're making are the same argument. You're agreeing with me that by saying it's 'insensitive' at all, you're associating Islam with terrorism. Thank you for agreeing with me.

Those 4 comments illustrate your point? What was your point? You were trying to say that I am constantly saying people who oppose the mosque hate Islam. You couldn't find an example. So you tried to say 'oh but you're saying that they associate Islam with terrorism so you're implying they hate Islam.' That's kind of a stretch and you're going to have to explain why you think that's what I implied.
 
[quote name='IRHari'].[/QUOTE]

Why are you playing games, just answer the damn question. Do you think the people that oppose the mosque simply hate muslims/islam? It is a simple question that you can't seem to answer.

I, or J7 don't need to go find posts that say you do. I can't speak for him, but I am willing to take your word for it if you say you don't believe that they all hate muslims/islam.
 
I don't think all of them do, although some of them do (Pamela Gellar, Robert Spencer followers.) You and I agree on this.

Maybe next time I ask you a question you'll answer it instead of 'playing games'.
 
[quote name='IRHari']I don't think all of them do, although some of them do (Pamela Gellar, Robert Spencer followers.) You and I agree on this.

Maybe next time I ask you a question you'll answer it instead of 'playing games'.[/QUOTE]

Ok, Thank you. People can oppose the mosque without hating muslims. Glad we finally cleared that up.
 
Yeah of course they can. Dipshits like Howard Dean and Harry Reid most likely don't hate Muslims, they still oppose the mosque.

It'd be nice if we knew which was which, and more people repudiated people like Gellar and Spencer.
 
[quote name='IRHari']Yeah of course they can. Dipshits like Howard Dean and Harry Reid most likely don't hate Muslims, they still oppose the mosque.

It'd be nice if we knew which was which, and more people repudiated people like Gellar and Spencer.[/QUOTE]

This. If so called moderate muslims are supposed to constantly speak out against extremists even though they have nothing to do with them, perhaps we should expect the people who don't hate Islam to be vocal in speaking out against that subset of the opposition group. Oh nevermind, then they couldn't be hypocrites!
 
[quote name='Msut77']They can say that but they would be wrong.

Through the use of reason.[/QUOTE]

So whatever you think is rational and whatever anyone else thinks that differs with your view is irrational.

Biased reason.

[quote name='IRHari']The 1st bolded part and the 2nd bolded part are the same thing. The two possible 'insensitive' arguments you're making are the same argument. You're agreeing with me that by saying it's 'insensitive' at all, you're associating Islam with terrorism. Thank you for agreeing with me.

Those 4 comments illustrate your point? What was your point? You were trying to say that I am constantly saying people who oppose the mosque hate Islam. You couldn't find an example. So you tried to say 'oh but you're saying that they associate Islam with terrorism so you're implying they hate Islam.' That's kind of a stretch and you're going to have to explain why you think that's what I implied.[/QUOTE]

They are absolutely not the same thing. You're bias is making them the same thing in your mind. You're being close minded on this issue. Your unwillingness to hear the opposing viewpoint is absurd. Different people have different motivations for their views and actions. You're claiming that person A and person B will always have the same motivation for doing everything they choose to do in their lifetimes and every view they will ever hold.

Anyone can be conditioned to fear, like, cry, laugh at something or someone and feel that way based on completely different reasons. I can say the word "you're nice" and condition you to fear someone or something so that whenever I say nice you fear it. I can say the word "you're mean" and do the same thing. I can condition you to like being slapped in the face and not enjoy receiving a pat on the back.

I can force that conditioning on you (unethical) or I can let you condition yourself. You can be conditioned to be upset by something for legitimate reasons without holding negative views of it or you can choose to be be upset by something similar but different because you hold negative views about it. You can be deconditioned but such deconditioning may not be ethical and you may not be able to afford it.
---
You continually used the same point against me. I proved you did with those quotes of your writing. Now all of a sudden such evidence doesn't illustrate my point, and you're asking me what my point was... Now quotes showing you did that are suddenly not examples even though you did not object to them being examples earlier outside of the ones that I admitted did not apply after hearing their full context. The ones still standing are the one's you used towards me so those most definitely cannot be explained away by context because I know their context, they were in response to my own responses.

You mistakenly said it yourself beyond those 4 quotes.
[quote name='IRHari']
Explain to me that this means they HATE Islam. Hate is a strong word, so explain away.

And besides, that's exactly what YOU'RE doing too (associating Islam with terrorists). [/QUOTE]


If a person is associating Islam with terrorists because they choose to hold down Islam intentionally and they speak evil things about Islam and counter everything people say that is good about Islam and believe all followers are terrorists or hold the same view as terrorists, it's not far fetched to say they hate Islam, particularly when someone like you argues they're doing this and in the same breath accuses people of hating Islam for such reasons, and tries to make them out to be that person.

You claim people oppose the mosque because they can't make a distinction between the terrorists they may hate and other followers of Islam. If a person could not make such a distinction then they are holding the same view of the moderate followers of Islam as they're of the terrorist's view of Islam. You'd rather believe that all people are so full of hate and/or are so dumb that they could not make this distinction. You should reevaluate your view of others particularly those that don't agree with everything you do.

[quote name='IRHari']I don't think all of them do, although some of them do (Pamela Gellar, Robert Spencer followers.) You and I agree on this.
[/QUOTE]

This means that I can oppose the mosque for reasons other than associating moderates with terrorists and without hating Islam, in respect to your prior view towards these.
 
[quote name='J7.']So whatever you think is rational and whatever anyone else thinks that differs with your view is irrational.[/quote]

Not taking the bait.

Biased reason.
Click to expand...

More like biased in favor of reason.
 
And besides, that's exactly what YOU'RE doing too (associating Islam with terrorists).
Click to expand...

I didn't mean to concede anything here, apologies if you think that's what I did. I'm saying, YOU are making the argument that associating all of Islam with terrorism means they hate Islam, which I never said.

You assumed that you were right and associating Islam with terrorism = hatred of Islam. You then took that assumption and said 'look at what IRHari said' to try to prove your point.

Those 4 comments illustrate your point? What was your point? You were trying to say that I am constantly saying people who oppose the mosque hate Islam. You couldn't find an example. So you tried to say 'oh but you're saying that they associate Islam with terrorism so you're implying they hate Islam.' That's kind of a stretch and you're going to have to explain why you think that's what I implied.
Click to expand...

Again, explain why you think those quotes of mine you grabbed mean I imply that those people hate Islam. This is a contention you have repeatedly made and I have refuted that contention because I actually said I don't believe all the people against the mosque hate Islam. Explain away.
 
Good news protesters, Bill O'Reilly agrees with you!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKxjLPKt7fk

Notice that only after being called out on his bullshit does he get specific about which "Muslims killed us".

I also want to remind everyone against this place being built that this is not the government, it doesn't matter who does or doesn't want this place built, you can't say it's against the will of the people. So long as they aren't breaking laws they can build it regardless of who does or doesn't want it built. None of you would bow to pressure from some liberal group about building something so I don't see how any of you can say these people should bow to pressure from protesters.
 
[quote name='Clak']Good news protesters, Bill O'Reilly agrees with you!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKxjLPKt7fk

Notice that only after being called out on his bullshit does he get specific about which "Muslims killed us".

I also want to remind everyone against this place being built that this is not the government, it doesn't matter who does or doesn't want this place built, you can't say it's against the will of the people. So long as they aren't breaking laws they can build it regardless of who does or doesn't want it built. None of you would bow to pressure from some liberal group about building something so I don't see how any of you can say these people should bow to pressure from protesters.[/QUOTE]

The two most annoying people left the stage for a few minutes? That probably made it a helluva alot better to watch.


Im not sure what you want out of your post. You guys have already agreed people have a right to protest, and make their feelings known. There are many times every day that groups put pressure on other groups to do something their way. This does not mean that they have to bow to the pressure, nor does it mean they have to ignore the pressure to make a statement.

It is, was, and always will be up to the guy building the mosque's respobsibility to contemplate his effect on the world and make his own decision, not yours, mine, or the government's. There is nothing wrong with people saying they don't want him to build it, just like there is nothing wrong with you guys urging him to build it
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top