toldailytopic: How do you feel about building a mosque at ground zero?

[Town Heretic]

To Town Heretic....If the Mosque is built, and some fringe Christians blow it up, using Christ's name and some twisted scriptures to support their actions; and thousands are killed, including some Christian visitors to the cultural center, I think we would have a parallel scenario.

Seems like. And my response would be identical.

1.....Would you support a Christian Church being built on the rubble or within two blocks of the rubble, by Christians who denounced the Christian terrorists who blew up the building?

Two very different ideas there, but only one reason to put them in the same sentence.

I'd oppose any building "on the rubble" and propose the sort of memorial that notes the victims and the decency of the larger community. And I wouldn't mention the villains at all. As for the church, of course I'd support it and I'd applaud the idea of making it a center for outreach and a peaceful rejection of violence.

2......Do you think the city, the government and the mayor would be behind the building project, and in fact, support it to the lengths that Bloomberg et.al. have gone, thus far, with the mosque.

I don't know. I'd hope so, but it's hard to imagine a Jew going to bat for Muslims with more vigor than he'd muster for Christians in the same position...just a thought.

These are obvious questions in regards to hypocrisy. The slew of atheists and agnostics on this forum, have shown their hypocrisy, by not denouncing this building, which they would readily do if it were a Christian Church, or Christian symbol, being built there, or anywhere, under similar circumstances.

I don't see it that way. I've rarely met an atheist who would prefer Islam to Christianity, given Islams recent record in relation to their ranks, women, homosexual issues and most socially progressive nods.

But maybe some would; maybe they wouldn't. I try not to get into the mind/heart reading business and I find that when people do that they tend to see exactly what sustains their objection. I'd counsel against it.

I suspect better of you, but the questions have to be be asked, and need to be answered.

No harm in asking a question. Todah. I'll always give you as straight an answer as I can. :e4e:

 

[Todah]

Thanks for answering my questions, and you did answer them as I suspected you would. I of course disagree with the idea of building the mosque, two blocks from ground zero. Just as you are consistent, I am consistent in that I would oppose building a Church two blocks from a mosque demolished in the scenario I presented. It is a question of proving how insensitive and unresponsive you are to the suffering and objections of the true victims.

The mosque builders and their proponents prove it more as each day passes, and diminish their religion and their god and his prophets, in the eyes of others, by continuing to do so.

By saying that they are doing this to promote unity between faiths and show the world true Islam, in the face of mounting opposition and suffering of others, puts the lie to their very own stated purpose and goals. Perhaps you can't see that?



My opinion on atheists and agnostics view of Islam versus Christianity, is in reference to the blatant hypocrites on "this" forum only.

Most of them are here because it is great sport to them to ridicule the Christians, and their beliefs at almost every possible turn.

If we could condense all the posts into one statement each, concerning Christians, versus Muslims, by "non-believers" on this site, I think they would read like this.

'Christians are generally people of low intelligence, who try to cram their hateful, homophobic, anti- choice, creationists crap, down everyone's throat.'

'Most Muslims are not terrorists and are fine, peaceable, human beings.'

If you have been on this site and have not noticed the hypocrisy of the atheists-agnostics toward Christians versus Muslims, then you have not been paying attention. It is blatant, and disgusting, in my eyes.

This topic really brings it out. If this were a Christian Church being proposed, in a similar scenario, their outrage, at the callousness of Christians would be on the Richter scale!

Since you don't like to speculate, you'll just have to trust me on this one........or not!

 

[Town Heretic]

...It is a question of proving how insensitive and unresponsive you are to the suffering and objections of the true victims.

Where to me it is a matter of just compassion and aiding and abetting a sweeping sort of misplaced anger. We see it as we see it, I suppose, and there's nothing else for it.

The mosque builders and their proponents prove it more as each day passes, and diminish their religion and their god and his prophets, in the eyes of others, by continuing to do so.

I think that it depends on how you approach it. I doubt the builders and their supporters feel that way. And while I'm no particular fan of Islam, I don't either.

By saying that they are doing this to promote unity between faiths and show the world true Islam, in the face of mounting opposition and suffering of others, puts the lie to their very own stated purpose and goals. Perhaps you can't see that?

Rather, I disagree with your conclusion/reading of the situation. I don't believe that is the primary function of a mosque of any sort, only a point of emphasis in addition to its primary function as a place of worship. But my argument isn't so much concerned with the use of the mosque. It's about both the right to create it and the nature of the objection to it.

My opinion on atheists and agnostics view of Islam versus Christianity, is in reference to the blatant hypocrites on "this" forum only.

Haven't seen that. I've seen atheists go after the few Muslims that show up almost as hard as they do the Catholics.

Most of them are here because it is great sport to them to ridicule the Christians, and their beliefs at almost every possible turn.

Seems to me that sort mostly burns out in a hurry. I know I've had a hand in showing some to the ill tempered and ill suited exit...but there are a number who I think are here for any number of reasons...entertainment, interaction and spirited debate with people from different walks of life and foundational understanding, that sort of thing. And I've witnessed some among the faithful who seem to mostly enjoy insulting both atheists and others of the Body. So go figure. :idunno:

If we could condense all the posts into one statement each, concerning Christians, versus Muslims, by "non-believers" on this site, I think they would read like this.

'Christians are generally people of low intelligence, who try to cram their hateful, homophobic, anti- choice, creationists crap, down everyone's throat.'

:think: That wouldn't be very rational of them and I'd have a bit of fun with anyone obtuse enough to raise that as a premise. Certainly there have been and will continue to be that sort, but I don't think it describes most of our regular heathens.

'Most Muslims are not terrorists and are fine, peaceable, human beings.'

Again, I haven't read much of that sentiment in the engagement of the Muslims who have shown up here.

If you have been on this site and have not noticed the hypocrisy of the atheists-agnostics toward Christians versus Muslims, then you have not been paying attention. It is blatant, and disgusting, in my eyes.

I can only tell you what I've noticed...and I spend about as much time arguing with the heathen, especially the sneering sort, as I do goofing off aloud to lighten spirits here and there. If there's a pro Muslim sentiment I've missed it. Could happen. I'm mostly concerned with a fair treatment of Christendom.

This topic really brings it out. If this were a Christian Church being proposed, in a similar scenario, their outrage, at the callousness of Christians would be on the Richter scale!

Again, maybe there's a segment so inclined, but it doesn't sound like the atheists and agnostics I know who are more than drive by posters.

Since you don't like to speculate, you'll just have to trust me on this one........or not!

:chuckle: Let's just say I believe you believe it, but that given our differing perspectives on other subjects, I'd have to be convinced by a clear showing of some sort. No offense intended by the reservation.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Thanks for answering my questions, and you did answer them as I suspected you would. I of course disagree with the idea of building the mosque, two blocks from ground zero. Just as you are consistent, I am consistent in that I would oppose building a Church two blocks from a mosque demolished in the scenario I presented. It is a question of proving how insensitive and unresponsive you are to the suffering and objections of the true victims.

The mosque builders and their proponents prove it more as each day passes, and diminish their religion and their god and his prophets, in the eyes of others, by continuing to do so.

By saying that they are doing this to promote unity between faiths and show the world true Islam, in the face of mounting opposition and suffering of others, puts the lie to their very own stated purpose and goals. Perhaps you can't see that?



My opinion on atheists and agnostics view of Islam versus Christianity, is in reference to the blatant hypocrites on "this" forum only.

Most of them are here because it is great sport to them to ridicule the Christians, and their beliefs at almost every possible turn.

If we could condense all the posts into one statement each, concerning Christians, versus Muslims, by "non-believers" on this site, I think they would read like this.

'Christians are generally people of low intelligence, who try to cram their hateful, homophobic, anti- choice, creationists crap, down everyone's throat.'

'Most Muslims are not terrorists and are fine, peaceable, human beings.'

If you have been on this site and have not noticed the hypocrisy of the atheists-agnostics toward Christians versus Muslims, then you have not been paying attention. It is blatant, and disgusting, in my eyes.

This topic really brings it out. If this were a Christian Church being proposed, in a similar scenario, their outrage, at the callousness of Christians would be on the Richter scale!

Since you don't like to speculate, you'll just have to trust me on this one........or not!

I think this subject brings out your own bias in terms of attitude regarding atheists/agnostics.

Consider that this is a Christian run site. The Muslim contingent is a distinct minority and as such the more zealous attitudes regarding homosexuality et al stem from the fundamentalist Christian stance. So it stands to reason that objections are primarily in that direction.

For example, do you think that the very same would be more sympathetic to zealous proponents of sharia law? I doubt it....
By the same token I wager most recognize that the 'hardcore' positions on display represent a minority of Christendom. It's simply a case that there are several Christians of that persuasion to argue with here, and you can't expect the same level of criticism to extend to Muslims because there simply aren't enough here to make it worth the investment. What's the point in arguing against something when there's nobody there to answer back? Hardly conducive to debate....

Sure, there's some who seem to argue and vent for the sake of it but then you can hardly deny that some believers invite the very reactions you find so offensive IMO.

 

[Tyrathca]

My opinion on atheists and agnostics view of Islam versus Christianity, is in reference to the blatant hypocrites on "this" forum only.

Such as?

If we could condense all the posts into one statement each, concerning Christians, versus Muslims, by "non-believers" on this site, I think they would read like this.

'Christians are generally people of low intelligence, who try to cram their hateful, homophobic, anti- choice, creationists crap, down everyone's throat.'

'Most Muslims are not terrorists and are fine, peaceable, human beings.'

Well that depends a lot on the context of what they are replying to doesn't it? I would say the same thing about both if the relevant comments came up, but they don't on this forum.

For example if someone was stupid enough to say that all Christians are terrorists then I would same statement you claim I would say about muslim's. I may have even done as much already (anyone remember Abu Rashid?).

For the record I have a far lower opinion of Islam than I do of Christianity, but that comes out only infrequently in my posts on this forum because there are so few Muslims to respond to.

If you have been on this site and have not noticed the hypocrisy of the atheists-agnostics toward Christians versus Muslims, then you have not been paying attention. It is blatant, and disgusting, in my eyes.

Or maybe it is you who is not paying attention, or only paying a biased attention.

This topic really brings it out. If this were a Christian Church being proposed, in a similar scenario, their outrage, at the callousness of Christians would be on the Richter scale!

And what do you think "the atheists-agnostics" reaction is to the mosque based on this thread?

 

[Skavau]

Todah, I'm permanently banned from Ummah.com where I clocked up many more posts than this. I've also been directly accused by Muslims in debate that I am just biased against them and never say a word about Christianity.

 

[Nick_A]

Todah, I'm permanently banned from Ummah.com where I clocked up many more posts than this. I've also been directly accused by Muslims in debate that I am just biased against them and never say a word about Christianity.

Don't feel bad. I've been kicked out of Beliefnet for my support of recognition of the Armenian genocide even though it is denied by the United States and Israel.

A site will always have regulars who must be catered to. With Beliefnet, certain Jewish regulars must be catered to that are incapable of discussing Jewish hypocrisy as it relates to recognition of the Armenian genocide. It is considered "disruptive."

Since I know that hypocrisy is normal for the human condition, discussing it just seems natural. It is not the case when Interfaith is just a feel good word that furthers an agenda

One thing that has become increasingly clear is the hypocrisy of Interfaith. To raise obvious questions of how the mosque can be built on a basis of insensitivity to the needs of others is absurd to Interfaith. Being insensitive to the "wrong" people is seen as building bridges. To raise the obvious question in relation to Islam seems normal but as you've seen, people cannot practice what they preach.

Learn by experience. There will be always those, regardless of faith, that are open to understanding and those that are not. They invent feel good words to further their agendas. It is the way of the world. No amount of feel good platitudes will change it.

 

[Nick_A]

Enough is enough
Show some respect, human decency and stay away from ground zero

By CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER
Saturday, August 21, 2010 11:31 PM CDT

WASHINGTON — It’s hard to be an Obama sycophant these days. Your hero delivers a Ramadan speech roundly supporting the building of a mosque and Islamic center at Ground Zero in New York. Your heart swells and you’re moved to declare this President Obama’s finest hour, his act of greatest courage.

Alas, the next day, at a remove of 800 miles, Obama explains that he was only talking about the legality of the thing and not the wisdom - upon which he does not make, and will not make, any judgment.

You’re left looking like a fool because now Obama has said exactly nothing: No one disputes the right to build; the whole debate is about the propriety, the decency of doing so.

It takes no courage whatsoever to bask in the applause of a Muslim audience as you promise to stand stoutly for their right to build a mosque, giving the unmistakable impression that you endorse the idea. What takes courage is to then respectfully ask that audience to reflect upon the wisdom of the project, and to consider whether the imam’s alleged goal of interfaith understanding might not be better achieved by accepting the New York governor’s offer to help find another site.

Where the president flagged, however, the liberal intelligentsia stepped in with gusto, penning dozens of pro-mosque articles characterized by a frenzied unanimity, little resort to argument and a singular difficulty dealing with analogies.

The Atlantic’s Michael Kinsley was typical in arguing that the only possible grounds for opposing the ground zero mosque are bigotry or demagoguery. Well then, what about Pope John Paul II’s ordering the closing of the Carmelite convent at Auschwitz? Surely there can be no one more innocent of that crime than those devout nuns.

How does Kinsley explain this remarkable demonstration of sensitivity, this order to pray - but not there? He doesn’t even feign analysis. He simply asserts that the decision is something “I confess that I never did understand.”

That’s his Q.E.D.? Is he stumped or is he inviting us to choose between his moral authority and that of one of the towering moral figures of the 20th century?

At least Richard Cohen of The Washington Post tries to grapple with the issue of sanctity and sensitivity. The results, however, are not pretty.

He concedes that putting up a Japanese cultural center at Pearl Harbor would be offensive, but then dismisses the analogy to Ground Zero because 9/11 was merely “a rogue act, committed by 20 or so crazed samurai.”

Obtuseness of this magnitude can only be deliberate. These weren’t crazies. They were methodical, focused, steel-nerved operatives.

Nor were they freelance rogues. They were the leading, and most successful, edge of a worldwide movement of radical Islamists with cells in every continent, with worldwide financial and theological support, with a massive media and propaganda arm, and with an archipelago of local sympathizers, as in northwestern Pakistan, who protect and guard them.

Why is America fighting Predator wars in Pakistan and Yemen, surveilling thousands of conversations and financial transactions every day, and engaged in military operations against radical Muslims everywhere from the Philippines to Somalia - because of 19 crazies, all of whom died nine years ago?

Radical Islam is not, by any means, a majority of Islam. But with its financiers, clerics, propagandists, trainers, leaders, operatives and sympathizers - according to a conservative estimate, it commands the allegiance of 7 percent of Muslims, i.e., over 80 million souls - it is a very powerful strain within Islam. It has changed the course of nations and affected the lives of millions. It is the reason every airport in the West is an armed camp and every land is on constant alert.

Ground zero is the site of the most lethal attack of that worldwide movement, which consists entirely of Muslims, acts in the name of Islam and is deeply embedded within the Islamic world. These are regrettable facts, but facts they are. And that is why putting up a monument to Islam in this place is not just insensitive but provocative.

Just as the people of Japan today would not think of planting their flag at Pearl Harbor, despite the fact that no Japanese under the age of 85 has any possible responsibility for that infamy, representatives of contemporary Islam - the overwhelming majority of whose adherents are equally innocent of the infamy committed on 9/11 in their name - should exercise comparable respect for what even Obama calls hallowed ground.

 

[Town Heretic]

Enough is enough

I agree, but so far you just won't stop misrepresenting things.

Show some respect, human decency

Again, I agree. Stop insulting these poor people and acting like you have a grievance against them instead of the actual villains and their ilk.

and stay away from ground zero

No one is doing anything at ground zero except building a memorial. Don't tell me you're against it. :shocked:

By CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER
Saturday, August 21, 2010 11:31 PM CDT

Look, you're really not supposed to post long bits by other people. Portions to illustrate with your point or commentary interspersed is one thing, but sheesh...

I guess this means I get to take on Chuck, after a fashion. Okay then.

WASHINGTON — It’s hard to be an Obama sycophant these days.

Or, if you read C.K., remotely objective.

You’re left looking like a fool because now Obama has said exactly nothing: No one disputes the right to build; the whole debate is about the propriety, the decency of doing so.

Rather, the whole debate as framed by those who want to drive the intellect out and run on ill considered, knee jerk emotionalism. Because that's the only way you can attempt to suggest that there is anything remotely indecent in building a house of worship two blocks from a national tragedy.

It takes no courage whatsoever to bask in the applause of a Muslim audience as you promise to stand stoutly for their right to build a mosque,

It takes even less to champion the unthinking outrage that has most Americans on the wrong side of the principle here. Way to suck up to the overdog, C.K. Your medal is in the mail...:think:...if not in your position...though now that I think on it that's a different spelling.

Where the president flagged, however, the liberal intelligentsia stepped in with gusto, penning dozens of pro-mosque articles characterized by a frenzied unanimity, little resort to argument and a singular difficulty dealing with analogies.

Well, a little reason is still superior to a great bit of paranoid, sweeping generalization paraded as something noble.

The Atlantic’s Michael Kinsley was typical in arguing that the only possible grounds for opposing the ground zero mosque are bigotry or demagoguery. Well then, what about Pope John Paul II’s ordering the closing of the Carmelite convent at Auschwitz? Surely there can be no one more innocent of that crime than those devout nuns.

This is disingenuous even for C.K., which is saying something. The Vatican was shamefully silent if not complicit in much of the horror that flowed from Hitler's rise to power. It's understandable that it would feel the need to make a gesture of this sort. Islam has no Pope nor the sort of singularity that Catholicism presents. To suggest the parallel is to reveal an ignorance regarding both the structure and history of the two faiths. But then, ignorant assumption/assertion is the meat of much of those who mistake stereotyping with sensitivity.

He concedes that putting up a Japanese cultural center at Pearl Harbor would be offensive, but then dismisses the analogy to Ground Zero because 9/11 was merely “a rogue act, committed by 20 or so crazed samurai.”

You know why the parallel used isn't the building of a Christian mission two blocks from the heart of the Hiroshima or Nagasaki blast sites?

This is why--from Paul Woodward's, The 9/11 Holocaust and the Ground Zero Mosque:

"Within a decade of the nuclear attacks, the Catholic Memorial Cathedral for World Peace had been opened in Hiroshima. The Japanese raised few objections to the construction a church close to the original ground zero."​

Obtuseness of this magnitude can only be deliberate.

lain: Took the words, if not the aim, right out of my mouth.

Ground zero is the site of the most lethal attack of that worldwide movement, which consists entirely of Muslims, acts in the name of Islam and is deeply embedded within the Islamic world. These are regrettable facts, but facts they are. And that is why putting up a monument to Islam in this place is not just insensitive but provocative.

And there you have it, stripped away and naked, the final, inevitable step once you broad brush people in the name of sensitivity and compassion. Then you tell the whole ugly truth you're barely hiding and suggest that it's not the villains, but what they claimed they stood for that should be shamed and suspected.

Just as I thought. oly:

 

[Nick_A]

TH

Enough is enough
Show some respect, human decency and stay away from ground zero

I didn't write the title of the article though I do agree with it.

The Atlantic’s Michael Kinsley was typical in arguing that the only possible grounds for opposing the ground zero mosque are bigotry or demagoguery. Well then, what about Pope John Paul II’s ordering the closing of the Carmelite convent at Auschwitz? Surely there can be no one more innocent of that crime than those devout nuns.

How does Kinsley explain this remarkable demonstration of sensitivity, this order to pray - but not there? He doesn’t even feign analysis. He simply asserts that the decision is something “I confess that I never did understand.”

This is the bottom line. I would agree with the Carmelite nuns that it isn't the right thing to do. Others would say they must demand their rights.

Consideration is something we either feel or we don't. The Carmelite nuns understood even though they were guilty of nothing. They simply decided to do the right thing.

The first step in building bridges is putting yourself into the position of another and not telling them how they should feel or what they should believe. This first step is beyond the dignity or the aims of the bridge builders. Just do the right thing and bridge building will take care of itself. It won't happen. It is too easy.

 

[Todah]

Rather, I disagree with your conclusion/reading of the situation. I don't believe that is the primary function of a mosque of any sort, only a point of emphasis in addition to its primary function as a place of worship. But my argument isn't so much concerned with the use of the mosque. It's about both the right to create it and the nature of the objection to it.

I didn't say it was their primary function, in building the mosque either. It is a stated goal of their's to promote unity and understanding between the faiths, and show everyone a different side of Islam; a more compassionate and understanding side. They are failing, in that goal, as the numbers in opposition are increasing and not decreasing. They should either move their proposed site, or drop unity, as a stated goal. They can't have it both ways.

Or they can continue to play the misunderstood martyr card, and simply build it in spite of what others think.


I am not disputing their right to build it, according to the law as it is written. It simply is not achieving their goal of unity, and putting a new face on Islam. It is hurting the emotions and souls of the non -muslim survivors of 9\11, and spitting on the graves of the victims.

You cannot minimize their suffering by telling them that they shouldn't feel offended, and that they don't understand all Muslims.

You show compassion and understanding by asking them.... "how can we help you?"

The overwhelming answer is....."By not building this mosque here and now!

There are things more important than insisting upon property rights, and freedom of religion. It is alleviating suffering, by human compassion, and therefore moving your "rights", a few blocks north.

Just as Yeshua said there are things more important than keeping the Sabbath, when it came to relieving human suffering on that day.
The pharisees condemned Him for healing the blind and the sick, on the Sabbath Day of Rest.

These Compassionate Muslims are technically right, and yet, I believe, Yeshua would condemn them as complete hypocrites, just as He did the pharisees of His day.

A stand for the technicality of the law being upheld, while the suffering continues, puts one in the same class, as the Pharisees, and these truly "self righteous" Muslims.

Do you really want to be in that class ...Town Heretic? I know self righteousness when I see it. Can't you see it in this Imam and Bloomberg, et.al.

 

[Todah]

I think this subject brings out your own bias in terms of attitude regarding atheists/agnostics.

Consider that this is a Christian run site. The Muslim contingent is a distinct minority and as such the more zealous attitudes regarding homosexuality et al stem from the fundamentalist Christian stance. So it stands to reason that objections are primarily in that direction.

For example, do you think that the very same would be more sympathetic to zealous proponents of sharia law? I doubt it....
By the same token I wager most recognize that the 'hardcore' positions on display represent a minority of Christendom. It's simply a case that there are several Christians of that persuasion to argue with here, and you can't expect the same level of criticism to extend to Muslims because there simply aren't enough here to make it worth the investment. What's the point in arguing against something when there's nobody there to answer back? Hardly conducive to debate....

Sure, there's some who seem to argue and vent for the sake of it but then you can hardly deny that some believers invite the very reactions you find so offensive IMO.

I don't substantially disagree with your post. Because my comments were about this forum, not the world in general.What I note is that when given the opportunity to denounce Islam or Muslims, on this forum {this topic being a prime example} Where is the outrage, where are the nonbelievers? They are relatively silent and obscure.

I have definitely noticed a couple of things, here on TOL: If a Christian denounces the Islam religion concerning its violent teachings and doctrines and Muslim terrorists who carry them out in the name of Allah. The most frequent retort of non believers on this forum is this. "Not all Muslims are terrorists, there are many fine decent peace loving ones."

Have you ever said something like that? Would you say the same concerning Christians, if they were to commit a condemnable act of violence?

Secondly, if I say something like homosexuality is a sin and it ought to be recriminalized: Most non-believers will think I am crazy, and question my intelligence. However all I really want them to do, is go back in the closet. Muslims under Sharia Law want to behead them?

Yet the outrage is reserved for Christians, and we are called homophobic and hateful.

Do you see what I mean?

 

[The Barbarian]

I didn't say it was their primary function, in building the mosque either. It is a stated goal of their's to promote unity and understanding between the faiths, and show everyone a different side of Islam; a more compassionate and understanding side. They are failing, in that goal, as the numbers in opposition are increasing and not decreasing. They should either move their proposed site, or drop unity, as a stated goal. They can't have it both ways.

Most people opposed integration, too. I don't think that's a reason to toss American values out the window.

Or they can continue to play the misunderstood martyr card, and simply build it in spite of what others think.

You have no sense of irony at all, do you?

I am not disputing their right to build it, according to the law as it is written. It simply is not achieving their goal of unity, and putting a new face on Islam. It is hurting the emotions and souls of the non -muslim survivors of 9\11, and spitting on the graves of the victims.

Don't see how. Who but a bigot would take those people as the same as those who flew into the towers?

You cannot minimize their suffering by telling them that they shouldn't feel offended, and that they don't understand all Muslims.

The "suffering" seems to be largely political. Indeed, the families of the 9/11 victims are divided on the question. If those people can retain a sense of fairness and decency in spite of such a horrendous loss, how is it you can't?

There are things more important than insisting upon property rights, and freedom of religion.

Yeah, that's what Saddam said.

It is alleviating suffering, by human compassion, and therefore moving your "rights", a few blocks north.

It is a few blocks north. How is it that a couple of blocks will assuage your sensitivities?

These Compassionate Muslims are technically right, and yet, I believe, Yeshua would condemn them as complete hypocrites, just as He did the pharisees of His day.

I think you would be surprised to whom He would address that rebuke.

I know self righteousness when I see it.

So can I.

 

[Town Heretic]

TH

Enough is enough
Show some respect, human decency and stay away from ground zero

I didn't write the title of the article though I do agree with it.

I'm fairly sure I mentioned that, apparently, I was arguing with C.K.

This is the bottom line. I would agree with the Carmelite nuns that it isn't the right thing to do. Others would say they must demand their rights.

And I set out why it's a bad comparison. Anything to actually address my points? Or to take on the Japanese and their non histrionic response to the Catholic edifice near ground zero of a much greater loss of life?

Consideration is something we either feel or we don't.

Consideration for the suffering of some is a kindness. Consideration of a bigoted or unreasonable sweep is fostering the sort of bile that allowed C.K. to point the finger at all of Islam by the end of his piece. Another point you side stepped on your way to repeating the same tired nonsense you started out with...predictable and sad.

The first step in building bridges is putting yourself into the position of another and not telling them how they should feel or what they should believe.

No. That's the first step to enabling, if the feeling or belief is, say, that black people can't be trusted, or that Muslims are all in on 9/11, or that the government is the best answer to every problem.

It's always easier to go with the tide of public sentiment and to champion whatever anger is run up the flag pole. And then, in a few decades the next couple of generations can look at us the way we look at people who put the Americans in camps because they were of Japanese descent while doing nothing similar to Americans of German descent at any point. Of course, they weren't so "other" were they.

 

[Todah]

So the families are divided, so let's somewhat ignore the majority, marginalize their suffering, as largely political.....there's some more compassion......

Then let's call the minority of families, fair and decent, again showing more compassion to those "others" and now, heaping guilt and dishonor upon them, by inferring they are not fair and decent, but small and petty?

I have retained my sense of fairness and decency. You have simply redefined "compassion" for unfairness and indecency.

It is neither fair nor decent to build a mosque within two blocks of the victims, of the terrorists who claimed their deeds in the name of Allah, and that their Allah is superior.

When did you lose that sense of fairness and decency. I would suggest it was through your political correctness and political corruption. Yes I agree with you, it is political. The suffering however is real.


Funny how you changed my word few, which is ambiguous, to a couple, which means two. Nevertheless, I would answer your question by saying no "nearer" than any other existing mosque? at the least. Ten blocks would assuage my personal sense of decency.

Does two blocks appease your sense of fairness and decency? I assume you would not want one, directly upon ground zero!

 

[Town Heretic]

I didn't say it was their primary function, in building the mosque either. It is a stated goal of their's to promote unity and understanding between the faiths, and show everyone a different side of Islam; a more compassionate and understanding side. They are failing, in that goal, as the numbers in opposition are increasing and not decreasing. They should either move their proposed site, or drop unity, as a stated goal. They can't have it both ways.

Would it be a failure if the [your least favorite radical group here] wasn't moved? I'm suggesting that building a bridge to support traffic that denigrates a religion by implication isn't really worth the bricks or effort.

Or they can continue to play the misunderstood martyr card, and simply build it in spite of what others think.

I don't believe thinking is at the root of this problem. Rather, the lack of rational approach and distinction is.

I am not disputing their right to build it, according to the law as it is written. It simply is not achieving their goal of unity, and putting a new face on Islam.

Again, it depends on the audience. An earnest attempt at outreach is a good thing, as is a house of worship that is dedicated to peaceful principals in Islam, ESPECIALLY in the shadow of the evil committed by some who would have another message at the center of their faith.

It is hurting the emotions and souls of the non -muslim survivors of 9\11,

If you do something to me you can cause an injury. If I do it to myself the blame is my own. Blaming people who had, literally, nothing to do with that sorrow, people who publicly decried it and who are in part attempting to manifest that intent in the very function of their place of worship--blaming those people, which you must if you find their very presence hurtful, is an irrational and shameful act, unworthy of our principals or our enabling.

and spitting on the graves of the victims.

How is building a house of worship spitting on anyone? I'd really like to see the 1+1=2 of that. No. It's only an offense if you make it one and to do that you have to cross the threshold from reason to the sort of bias that is the foundation for dehumanization--as your characterization of spitting does, to my very great disappointment.

You cannot minimize their suffering by telling them that they shouldn't feel offended, and that they don't understand all Muslims.

Rather, I'm providing a context to distinguish between justifiable anger and bias that echoes the foolish hate of the very men and ideas they should and can rightly protest--the actual villains of 9/11 and their ilk.

You show compassion and understanding by asking them.... "how can we help you?"

The overwhelming answer is....."By not building this mosque here and now!

Again, capitulating to an ill is no virtue and standing against it no vice.

There are things more important than insisting upon property rights, and freedom of religion.

I agree. That's been the cornerstone of my objection to the anti mosque movement from the start.

Just as Yeshua said there are things more important than keeping the Sabbath, when it came to relieving human suffering on that day.
The pharisees condemned Him for healing the blind and the sick, on the Sabbath Day of Rest.

And now you're drawing a parallel to them with the killers of Christ, Todah. This is how it begins. Ask the Pope. He's still apologizing.

Do you really want to be in that class ...Town Heretic? I know self righteousness when I see it. Can't you see it in this Imam and Bloomberg, et.al.

I've had my say on the reading of other men's hearts, Todah. And I'm completely resolved in my unwillingness to capitulate to an attempt by some to put a noble face on a lamentable practice.

 

[Nick_A]

I'm fairly sure I mentioned that, apparently, I was arguing with C.K.

And I set out why it's a bad comparison. Anything to actually address my points? Or to take on the Japanese and their non histrionic response to the Catholic edifice near ground zero of a much greater loss of life?


Consideration for the suffering of some is a kindness. Consideration of a bigoted or unreasonable sweep is fostering the sort of bile that allowed C.K. to point the finger at all of Islam by the end of his piece. Another point you side stepped on your way to repeating the same tired nonsense you started out with...predictable and sad.


No. That's the first step to enabling, if the feeling or belief is, say, that black people can't be trusted, or that Muslims are all in on 9/11, or that the government is the best answer to every problem.

It's always easier to go with the tide of public sentiment and to champion whatever anger is run up the flag pole. And then, in a few decades the next couple of generations can look at us the way we look at people who put the Americans in camps because they were of Japanese descent while doing nothing similar to Americans of German descent at any point. Of course, they weren't so "other" were they.

TH

Were the Carmelite nuns being considerate or not?

Consideration for the suffering of some is a kindness. Consideration of a bigoted or unreasonable sweep is fostering the sort of bile that allowed C.K. to point the finger at all of Islam by the end of his piece. Another point you side stepped on your way to repeating the same tired nonsense you started out with...predictable and sad.

This is the issue and also why I'm against all this political correctness and Interfaith. It is a way furthering selective morality by declaring what is right and what is wrong. In this case it is declaring what is bigotry and what is consideration for the suffering of some.

No. That's the first step to enabling, if the feeling or belief is, say, that black people can't be trusted, or that Muslims are all in on 9/11, or that the government is the best answer to every problem.

So people would say it is insensitive and provocative to use the N word. Others would say it is enabling not use it and deny ones free speech. Using the N word is politically incorrect so considered insensitive. Being considerate to those rightfully protesting a Sharia cultural center at ground zero to further Sharia Law, which is not a house of worship, is considered enabling so also politically incorrect.

It's always easier to go with the tide of public sentiment and to champion whatever anger is run up the flag pole. And then, in a few decades the next couple of generations can look at us the way we look at people who put the Americans in camps because they were of Japanese descent while doing nothing similar to Americans of German descent at any point. Of course, they weren't so "other" were they.

I believe in respecting sites where a national tragedy has occurred. To use it for political advantage is an ugly thing to do. Respecting a site means it must be free of politics and serve as a reminder to what we are capable of. A graveyard doesn't go out of fashion if people respect the dead buried there. Public sentiment wants to respect the dead. The public is right. No wonder they are considered the Great Unwashed. They believe common decency is more important than politics.

The Jews have an expression: "Never Again." It refers to the Holocaust. It means we must keep this idea of the evils we are capable of alive so as not to allow them to repeat.

Now we will put a sign at Ground Zero reading "One More Time." It means push your way in. Be inconsiderate. People will forget and then everything will repeat.

The sheer lunacy of Interfaith has now made itself even more evident by Julie Menin, chair of Community Board 1. She writes:

http://www.christianpost.com/articl...ed-to-heal-divide-on-mosque-near-ground-zero/

"The mosque and community center near Ground Zero should not be enshrined as a battleground of discord, but rather be transformed into an inter-faith center for reconciliation and peace-containing nondenominational houses of worship to be shared by Muslims, Christians and Jews,"

She suggested that Muslims behind the project dedicate a floor of the 15-story Islamic center to an interfaith, nondenominational space. The interfaith chapel at the Pentagon, which was also attacked in 2001, was cited as an example of a place of worship that was built on hallowed ground without controversy.
"The project, open to all, would celebrate all faiths and inter-faith understanding," Menin wrote.

What an absolute disgrace. She wants to invite people who have suffered the direct effects of 911 to go up 15 floors to some sort of secular meaningless chapel in order to show off as to how understanding they are. And that is supposed to help the suffering to feel good. Anything is better than actually showing some honest human consideration by keeping all this plastic compassion away from Ground Zero and just be neighbors.

All this stupidity will do is cause a battle of demonstrations already being planned for 9/11 which will not do anything but prove to those having suffered the effects of 911 that building bridges more often than not leads straight to hell.

Talk about a bridges to nowhere!

 

[Town Heretic]

...Were the Carmelite nuns being considerate or not?

Different animal. I've answered on this point. Catholicism isn't a parallel to Islam. What's your reaction to the Japanese not raising a hue and cry when a Catholic center was built in the shadow of the horror of nuclear annihilation sponsored by a Christian nation?

This is the issue and also why I'm against all this political correctness and Interfaith. It is a way furthering selective morality by declaring what is right and what is wrong. In this case it is declaring what is bigotry and what is consideration for the suffering of some.

That's silly. I didn't declare. I set out exactly why it is warmed over bigotry. Find a flaw in it or not, but don't pretend you've answered a single point of my objection or that you have reason on your side of it. You have sentiment and emotionalism and the inevitable end of that sort of distortion: an unreasonable demand on an innocent people.

So people would say it is insensitive and provocative to use the N word.

It is. But it isn't a parallel.

Others would say it is enabling not use it and deny ones free speech.

I agree that people have the right in this country, subject to the restraint of the law, to utter whatever ignorance pleases them and theirs. I counsel against it though.

Using the N word is politically incorrect so considered insensitive.

Rather, it's considered bigoted and/or ignorant by anyone who isn't.

Being considerate to those rightfully protesting a Sharia cultural center at ground zero to further Sharia Law, which is not a house of worship, is considered enabling so also politically incorrect.

Utter garbage from beginning to end. There's nothing justifiable in the sudden fervor and protest, it isn't at ground zero, it is a house of worship and the crowd roars its approval, so the "correct" sentiment is with the face of angry, unreasoned bias.

I believe in respecting sites where a national tragedy has occurred.

So do I. I'm glad they're building a memorial. That's not what we're talking about.

To use it for political advantage is an ugly thing to do.

Ironic and funny, since only one side is profiting by this and it isn't the minority voice or reason.

The public is right.

You mean the louder, larger part? No, they aren't. And unlike you I've done more than declare and kept my distinctions honest. I'd say shame on you were I convinced you were capable of it.

No wonder they are considered the Great Unwashed.

Said the only one here to ever utter the term about anyone.

The Jews have an expression: "Never Again."

The Jews were a people unreasonably persecuted, dehumanized and eventually reviled, captured and massacred by the millions. Shame on you for approaching that memory given your position in this...

I omit your bizarre struggle with arguments other than my own.

 

[Todah]

I suppose the question boils down to this. If this particular group of Muslims, led by this Imam, is truly extending out its hand in an act of friendship and mutual understanding, can I reject that hand.

Yes I can. Must I feel badly about it. NO! There are plenty of people that Yeshua said to be wary of, and not associate with them. This particular group of Muslims and what they are proposing to do, raises a multitude of red flags. Are they a type of wolf in sheep's clothing. They certainly give many indications of being such. The prime example is their unwillingness to stop their project, as of yet, despite its creating outrage and hurt upon the survivors, and their unwillingness to move their site, despite kind and generous offers of help and support.

A true hand offered in friendship, would have already done so, IMO.
That is why I do not trust them.

Islam in any name has a lot to prove across America, and especially in the middle East and Africa. This group, has to cross a high threshhold, not the low one, based upon our American history and beliefs.

Americans and Christians have very little to prove, and practically nothing to gain by accepting this particular hand of friendship.

The burden is upon this Imam to show Islam as tolerant and compassionate. He made a mistake by choosing a site two blocks from ground zero, and he refuses to correct that mistake, in the present. That speaks volumes to me.

I won't accept cries of bias, from the biased.

 

[Town Heretic]

I suppose the question boils down to this. If this particular group of Muslims, led by this Imam, is truly extending out its hand in an act of friendship and mutual understanding, can I reject that hand.

Yes I can. Must I feel badly about it. NO! There are plenty of people that Yeshua said to be wary of, and not associate with them.

There's a difference between associating and what we're talking about. For instance, I don't visit any Kingdom Halls or frequent mosques or hang around the local Baptist church sports complex...and yet I never protested the buildings they erected nor would I suggest it to anyone else.

This particular group of Muslims and what they are proposing to do, raises a multitude of red flags.

Only if you're color blind, Todah. By which I mean only if you haven't read their intent, or the statements made by the leadership against 9/11, the thing most people were decrying an absence of as an indicator of complicity or solidarity in Islam and proof, to some extent, that for some good enough is a finish line that can't be crossed.

Are they a type of wolf in sheep's clothing. They certainly give many indications of being such. The prime example is their unwillingness to stop their project, as of yet, despite its creating outrage and hurt upon the survivors, and their unwillingness to move their site, despite kind and generous offers of help and support.

So one of the reasons you don't think they should build is that they want to build...lain: That's what your above reduces to...it's reasonable to suspect them because they want to build a house of worship EVEN though doing so would upset people who...shouldn't be upset by a house of worship absent some actual connection to their loss, which doesn't exist. :sigh: Madness...

A true hand offered in friendship, would have already done so, IMO.
That is why I do not trust them.

A friend tells you what you need to hear, not what's easiest for you to listen to. Did you really trust them before? Reading the rest of this I don't see it. Especially in your generalized position in relation to Islam itself.

Islam in any name has a lot to prove across America, and especially in the middle East and Africa. This group, has to cross a high threshhold, not the low one, based upon our American history and beliefs.

As I said earlier, this is what we're really talking about. And if I applied the same structure to a question of race you would neither like nor advance it. You shouldn't here.

Americans and Christians have very little to prove, and practically nothing to gain by accepting this particular hand of friendship.

...Muslims are American too, Todah. That's another dangerous sort of conflation by association, a step toward the "other" and using this methodology it becomes easier to deny essential elements of respect in a civil society, even without meaning to do it.

The burden is upon this Imam to show Islam as tolerant and compassionate.

No more than it is on a man accused to prove his innocence. Not in our America. You want to understand his principles, visit the center or read what they have to say about 9/11 and the relation of his Islam to our America.

He made a mistake by choosing a site two blocks from ground zero,

As opposed to the functioning mosque that no one is offended by four blocks away. Because two extra blocks is outside this growing zone of selective sensitivity? Or is that mosque next. Should it be closed to protect the tender, unreasoning bias of the many? And if not, why not? Isn't four blocks close? And if four blocks why not five? Is five somehow more respectful? And on and on it goes, inch by unreasonable inch.

I won't accept cries of bias, from the biased.

First examine your own eye and remove the plank you keep swinging every time you look around, friend Todah.