Obama backs mosque near ground zero

[seekerz]

Seekerz, I would ask you to reflect on the fact that Jews were slaughtered because of anti-Semitism long before the Holocaust, for thousands of years. For that reason, the comparison of opposition to a building project to anti-Semitism is completely misplaced and inappropriate.

As for the 70%, perhaps I was not clear. Daisy Khan labeled the entire 70% as being motivated by hate. In my opinion, that sort of “broad brush” is just as hateful as the hate she may believe she is describing. Yes, people can be wrong about this or that, and yes, some people are bigots, racists, or otherwise hateful, that will always be so. But the bigots, racists and general “haters” are a tiny fraction of the population of this country, not 70%. So to paint the entire opposition to this project as hate akin to anti-Semitism, bigotry, racism, or any of the other pejoratives already applied is, in itself, a form of bigotry and hatred. There’s no getting around it.

I think the comparison stands, as it would for any group targeted for opposition because of its religious faith. In any case Muslims have been killed for their faith, as have Christians as have followers of the Dalai Lama; the numbers may not be comparable or the persecution as intense/longstanding as with the Jews, but the causative philosophy is usually similar: hate and a desire to dominate.

On what do you base your calculation that “racists and haters” are a tiny fraction of our population? My view of a broad brush is obviously different from yours. In my mind, a generally decent person is capable of taking a wrong stand on a particular racial matter and as well as of hating a person or persons even while he loves and respects most of his neighbors.

So I don’t think it is necessarily helpful to categorize people into racist/non-racist/hater/non-hater. We all are capable of any of those negative attitudes as well as of their mirror images at any point in time. The tendency to separate people into good and bad seems to me to result in the feeling that ‘good’ people cannot do bad things and vice versa, a premise that is simply untrue of the human family in general.

 

[josephdavid]

I think the comparison stands, as it would for any group targeted for opposition because of its religious faith. In any case Muslims have been killed for their faith, as have Christians as have followers of the Dalai Lama; the numbers may not be comparable or the persecution as intense/longstanding as with the Jews, but the causative philosophy is usually similar: hate and a desire to dominate.

On what do you base your calculation that “racists and haters” are a tiny fraction of our population? My view of a broad brush is obviously different from yours. In my mind, a generally decent person is capable of taking a wrong stand on a particular racial matter and as well as of hating a person or persons even while he loves and respects most of his neighbors.

So I don’t think it is necessarily helpful to categorize people into racist/non-racist/hater/non-hater. We all are capable of any of those negative attitudes as well as of their mirror images at any point in time. The tendency to separate people into good and bad seems to me to result in the feeling that ‘good’ people cannot do bad things and vice versa, a premise that is simply untrue of the human family in general.

You are right it is not helpful this country is splitting and categorizing people based out of ignorance and fear.

 

[Catherine_D]

I think the comparison stands, as it would for any group targeted for opposition because of its religious faith. In any case Muslims have been killed for their faith, as have Christians as have followers of the Dalai Lama; the numbers may not be comparable or the persecution as intense/longstanding as with the Jews, but the causative philosophy is usually similar: hate and a desire to dominate.

On what do you base your calculation that “racists and haters” are a tiny fraction of our population? My view of a broad brush is obviously different from yours. In my mind, a generally decent person is capable of taking a wrong stand on a particular racial matter and as well as of hating a person or persons even while he loves and respects most of his neighbors.

So I don’t think it is necessarily helpful to categorize people into racist/non-racist/hater/non-hater. We all are capable of any of those negative attitudes as well as of their mirror images at any point in time. The tendency to separate people into good and bad seems to me to result in the feeling that ‘good’ people cannot do bad things and vice versa, a premise that is simply untrue of the human family in general.

I’m not saying that good people cannot make a bad decision, everyone is capable of error. But I am saying that it is wrong to make sweeping generalizations about the motives of an opponent, such as calling them racists, bigots, haters or other pejoratives simply because they have a different opinion. That is what the proponents of this projects are doing to those who oppose it. I believe that is wrong, and I believe that it is just as hateful as the hate the proponents say motivates the opponents of this project.

As for the tiny fraction of this country being racists, bigots, etc. ~ while it may not be possible to achieve a society where there is no bigotry, it is also clear that enormous progress has been made in this area in the last several decades. Yet despite that, it appears to be a popular tactic by some to raise the spectre of racism and bigotry against political opponents. This is not only inflammatory and divisive, it is wrong. Some have even alleged that it is an effort to silence political opponents, a violation of our founding principles.

 

[seekerz]

I’m not saying that good people cannot make a bad decision, everyone is capable of error. But I am saying that it is wrong to make sweeping generalizations about the motives of an opponent, such as calling them racists, bigots, haters or other pejoratives simply because they have a different opinion. That is what the proponents of this projects are doing to those who oppose it. I believe that is wrong, and I believe that it is just as hateful as the hate the proponents say motivates the opponents of this project.

As for the tiny fraction of this country being racists, bigots, etc. ~ while it may not be possible to achieve a society where there is no bigotry, it is also clear that enormous progress has been made in this area in the last several decades. Yet despite that, it appears to be a popular tactic by some to raise the spectre of racism and bigotry against political opponents. This is not only inflammatory and divisive, it is wrong. Some have even alleged that it is an effort to silence political opponents, a violation of our founding principles.

You seem to condemn the opponents being broad-brushed but isn’t that what you are doing to the proponents here in your statement above that I put in bold print?

 

[estesbob]

You are right it is not helpful this country is splitting and categorizing people based out of ignorance and fear.

Another “people who disagree with me are ignorant bigots” post.

But then in a thread where a 9/11 survivor was told to quit his whining and get over it it does not surprise me. In fact the only argument the mosque apologists have offered has been they are enlightened and everybody that disagrees with them are ignorant.

 

[Catherine_D]

You seem to condemn the opponents being broad-brushed but isn’t that what you are doing to the proponents here in your statement above that I put in bold print?

No, I’m saying just the opposite. I’m saying it’s wrong to reflexively portray political opponents as racists, bigots, haters, etc. And I gave an example ~ Daisy Khan, the wife of Imam Rauf, described all opponents to this project, which represent approximately 70% of the American public, as haters that go beyond islamaphobia, something akin to anti-Semitism. She described 70% of the American population as haters simply because they oppose the project.

My point was that this was just as much a sweeping generalization, just as much of a “broad brush” as the so-called haters she purported to describe.

Describing political opponents as racists, bigots, or any of the other pejoratives that have been used in this and other debates is not only not helpful, it is destructive.

 

[livnlern]

You are right it is not helpful this country is splitting and categorizing people based out of ignorance and fear.

I wouldn’t say that opponents of this mosque are “categorizing people based out of ignorance and fear.”
It’s more like reacting to the proposal with anger and a desire to protect what is ours. Why should the sensitivity and tolerance all be on our side while the righteousness and good will all be on the side of the Imam and his people (who ever they are!). Most people are tired of being told what we should feel and that we’re bigoted because we’ve been attacked and want to stand our ground against having salt rubbed in the wound. Any Muslim with common sense should be able to understand this and go build their mosque somewhere else.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

So we hurl four letter words at people we are demanding respect for sensitivities from and that is supposed to achieve what exactly? Maybe they’ll repay our insults with kindness or turn the other cheek - no, wait they’re not the ones who preach that…

So, is Islam a religion or is Islam a political movement? Or is Islam both a religion AND a political movement AND a culture?

All I ask for is transparency.

Why have the same document with TWO titles: one for believers and a different title for non-believers.

Why the reluctance to discuss the details of the plans for Shariah Law to be introduced into the United States?

 

[Monte_RCMS]

So, is Islam a religion or is Islam a political movement? Or is Islam both a religion AND a political movement AND a culture?

All I ask for is transparency.

Why have the same document with TWO titles: one for believers and a different title for non-believers.

Why the reluctance to discuss the details of the plans for Shariah Law to be introduced into the United States?

Keep in mind: there is NO separation of church and state under Islam.

Under Islam, Shariah Law is imposed by their word: Jihad. [Or, since Muslims are under no obligation to tell the truth to infidels, by “stealth Jihad”.]

We need to use the lexicon of Islam.

Their words, not ours.

So, is the Cordoba Mosque a political statement?

www.jihadwatch.org ]

 

[Monte_RCMS]

I’ve been reading all these posts regarding this issue. Taking everything that has been said,
what do you think about the Port Authority denying the Orthodox to** rebuild** their church near Ground Zero? An already exsisting structure destroyed on that terrible day. Whay isn’t THIS an outrage? Why isn-]/-]'t the media telling their story?
Not to take away from this important debate…but this really makes me wonder.

Interesting in the rest of the story: Click keeptalkinggreece.com/2010/08/19/church-at-ground-zero-off-the-table-greek-americans-shocked/

If we are to have religious freedom in this country, it needs to be for all.

The discussion of the “reluctance” to rebuild St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church which was crushed when the south tower, 2WTC, fell is essential.

Why the difference in treatment between St. Nicholas Church and the Cordoba Mosque?

Why does the Governor of the State of New York offer subsidies to relocate the Cordoba Mosque, but after TEN YEARS, there still is no movement regarding St. Nicholas Church?

 

[templar44]

It is very sad that this debate is even necessary. It is simply unnecessary and insensitive to even consider putting a mosque up in this particular location. There are many other locations that could be chosen. And I think that is the point. The rest is just political posturing. Anyone can see that this issue is near and dear for so many Americans, so why would you want to make the building of a house of worship the focal point for so much negative feeling. Those behind this planned mosque are showing contempt and arrogance where instead they should display sensitivity and understanding.

 

[seekerz]

No, I’m saying just the opposite. I’m saying it’s wrong to reflexively portray political opponents as racists, bigots, haters, etc. And I gave an example ~ Daisy Khan, the wife of Imam Rauf, described all opponents to this project, which represent approximately 70% of the American public, as haters that go beyond islamaphobia, something akin to anti-Semitism. She described 70% of the American population as haters simply because they oppose the project.

My point was that this was just as much a sweeping generalization, just as much of a “broad brush” as the so-called haters she purported to describe.

Describing political opponents as racists, bigots, or any of the other pejoratives that have been used in this and other debates is not only not helpful, it is destructive.

You did use Daisy Khan as an example, but you also generalized your view of what Ms Khan is doing to include, in your own words: “proponents of the mosque”.

I’m not sure how this whole controversy started, but unless these particular Muslims were supposed to somehow know that placing a mosque two blocks away from where another already exists, was supposed to offend someone, I’d have to say they are reacting to opposition that they don’t seem to have deliberately stirred up.

In considering most issues, I try to put myself in the others’ shoes. If I were simply going about my business, making plans to build a place on worship on my land after obtaining the permissions required by law and even after obtaining a positive nod from leaders of other faiths, I probably would not feel like being very ‘sensitive’ to a bunch of people just showing up from nowhere (some hurling insults and almost all angry and loud) demanding to decide for me what to do with my property.

 

[seekerz]

So, is Islam a religion or is Islam a political movement? Or is Islam both a religion AND a political movement AND a culture?

All I ask for is transparency.

Why have the same document with TWO titles: one for believers and a different title for non-believers.

Why the reluctance to discuss the details of the plans for Shariah Law to be introduced into the United States?

All that is relevant is that the planners seem to have taken steps both to obtain the legal permissions as well as (name removed by moderator)ut from local clerics. Whatever you may think of or fear from their religion, their politics or their culture, is largely irrelevant to this particular debate.

BTW, if there isn’t already a Shariah law focus group somewhere out on the planet where conspiracy theories are nurtured before being planted on earth, then I emphatically assert that there most assuredly should be one.

 

[Catherine_D]

You did use Daisy Khan as an example, but you also generalized your view of what Ms Khan is doing to include, in your own words: “proponents of the mosque”.

I’m not sure how this whole controversy started, but unless these particular Muslims were supposed to somehow know that placing a mosque two blocks away from where another already exists, was supposed to offend someone, I’d have to say they are reacting to opposition that they don’t seem to have deliberately stirred up.

In considering most issues, I try to put myself in the others’ shoes. If I were simply going about my business, making plans to build a place on worship on my land after obtaining the permissions required by law and even after obtaining a positive nod from leaders of other faiths, I probably would not feel like being very ‘sensitive’ to a bunch of people just showing up from nowhere (some hurling insults and almost all angry and loud) demanding to decide for me what to do with my property.

Kindly notice that I didn’t generalize what Daisy Khan was trying to do, I reported what she did. She labeled those who opposed the mosque as being similar to anti-Semitic bigots. That’s 70% of the American population. She did that, not me. She is the one who generalized. So she is the one who is just as responsible for sweeping generalizations as those she was trying to portray that way.

I don’t know precisely how this controversy began either, and while it is easy to get all kinds of opinions about it, it’s harder to get verifiable facts. But I think it is important to note that both sides of this controversy have pointed to “broad brush generalizations”. Maybe they should both stop doing that, don’t you agree? Wouldn’t that be more productive? People that aren’t bigots don’t like to be labeled as such.

 

[seekerz]

I wouldn’t say that opponents of this mosque are “categorizing people based out of ignorance and fear.”
It’s more like reacting to the proposal with anger and a desire to protect what is ours. Why should the sensitivity and tolerance all be on our side while the righteousness and good will all be on the side of the Imam and his people (who ever they are!). Most people are tired of being told what we should feel and that we’re bigoted because we’ve been attacked and want to stand our ground against having salt rubbed in the wound. Any Muslim with common sense should be able to understand this and go build their mosque somewhere else.

Listen to yourself for a moment, seriously. “Whoever they are…” doesn’t owe anybody anything but they might have considered yielding to the ‘sensitivities of others’ if asked nicely. Thing is, they weren’t asked nicely and since the land and the permits are in their possession, guess what? They get to do whatever they decide. Simple. The way I’d want it for my place of worship, the way I support it for theirs.

 

[seekerz]

Kindly notice that I didn’t generalize what Daisy Khan was trying to do, I reported what she did. She labeled those who opposed the mosque as being similar to anti-Semitic bigots. That’s 70% of the American population. She did that, not me. She is the one who generalized. So she is the one who is just as responsible for sweeping generalizations as those she was trying to portray that way.

I don’t know precisely how this controversy began either, and while it is easy to get all kinds of opinions about it, it’s harder to get verifiable facts. But I think it is important to note that both sides of this controversy have pointed to “broad brush generalizations”. Maybe they should both stop doing that, don’t you agree? Wouldn’t that be more productive? People that aren’t bigots don’t like to be labeled as such.

I quoted your own words, in context, but be that as it may let’s move on…

People that aren’t bigoted should question the wisdom of getting on the same platform as people who seem to be. Case in point, the heated demonstrations near the proposed mosque where a man wearing a skull cap was surrounded by angry, shouting people. All that situation needed was a match…

Almost everyday I post on this thread I encounter at least one post that reeks of bigotry and intolerance. Just last night I reported one offensive post regarding Muslims and the moderator responded with an admonition so I don’t think I was hallucinating.

Not all opponents of the Mosque are exhibiting bigoted behavior, though some are definitely confused about what they are seeking in this debate, but to deny that the bigotry/intolerance exists in this debate or to try to minimize it, does a disservice to whatever cause it is they are pursuing.

 

[Catherine_D]

I quoted your own words, in context, but be that as it may let’s move on…

People that aren’t bigoted should question the wisdom of getting on the same platform as people who seem to be. Case in point, the heated demonstrations near the proposed mosque where a man wearing a skull cap was surrounded by angry, shouting people. All that situation needed was a match…

Almost everyday I post on this thread I encounter at least one post that reeks of bigotry and intolerance. Just last night I reported one offensive post regarding Muslims and the moderator responded with an admonition so I don’t think I was hallucinating.

Not all opponents of the Mosque are exhibiting bigoted behavior, though some are definitely confused about what they are seeking in this debate, but to deny that the bigotry/intolerance exists in this debate or to try to minimize it, does a disservice to whatever cause it is they are pursuing.

There will always be a few bigots, at least in this world, because some people will cling to that sort of thing no matter what. What I have been trying to point out, is there is bigotry and intolerance on both sides of this debate, although it would appear that at least some people can only see it on one side.

When one person, or some group of people, broadly paint the group they oppose as bigots or racists or some other pejorative they are often guilty of doing exactly the same thing in the process. This does nothing to further productive dialog and is often destructive. It would be refreshing to see all sides drop this method of marginalizing their opponents.

 

[seekerz]

There will always be a few bigots, at least in this world, because some people will cling to that sort of thing no matter what. What I have been trying to point out, is there is bigotry and intolerance on both sides of this debate, although it would appear that at least some people can only see it on one side.

When one person, or some group of people, broadly paint the group they oppose as bigots or racists or some other pejorative they are often guilty of doing exactly the same thing in the process. This does nothing to further productive dialog and is often destructive. It would be refreshing to see all sides drop this method of marginalizing their opponents.

I see the point you are making and I agree: don’t simply paint everyone on a particular side as bigoted. That however does not mean bigotry should be swept under the rug. It needs to be called out for what it is. Also, the non-bigoted opponents owe it to themselves and the rest of us, to clarify exactly what they are getting so heated about.

The 911 survivors’ sensitivities are ostensibly what this is about, but 911 survivors are not a homogeneous group; just today I read that some survivors are coming together to support the mosque (just as there a some Muslims speaking publicly against the mosque). What about the sensitivities of the Pentagon survivors? Muslim prayers are reportedly being regularly said right inside the building - is that hallowed ground being desecrated? What are feelings of the survivors of the various religions or philosophies or political ideologies? This is a diverse, heterogeneous group: do all their feelings count or not?

I have asked this question and since it goes unanswered I’ll ask it again: who speaks for the Twin Tower survivors and what precisely are they seeking in this debate? Without answers to those questions, it would seem to me that people are just being carried along on a wave of understandable but totally confused emotions.

 

[Catherine_D]

I see the point you are making and I agree: don’t simply paint everyone on a particular side as bigoted. That however does not mean bigotry should be swept under the rug. It needs to be called out for what it is. Also, the non-bigoted opponents owe it to themselves and the rest of us, to clarify exactly what they are getting so heated about.

The 911 survivors’ sensitivities are ostensibly what this is about, but 911 survivors are not a homogeneous group; just today I read that some survivors are coming together to support the mosque (just as there a some Muslims speaking publicly against the mosque). What about the sensitivities of the Pentagon survivors? Muslim prayers are reportedly being regularly said right inside the building - is that hallowed ground being desecrated? What are feelings of the survivors of the various religions or philosophies or political ideologies? This is a diverse, heterogeneous group: do all their feelings count or not?

I have asked this question and since it goes unanswered I’ll ask it again: who speaks for the Twin Tower survivors and what precisely are they seeking in this debate? Without answers to those questions, it would seem to me that people are just being carried along on a wave of understandable but totally confused emotions.

I agree that bigotry should also not be swept under the rug. Further, those who have flung around perjoratives indiscriminately just to demonize political opponents have actually made such accusations suspect and as a result many will simply ignore such charges as overheated rhetoric, even when real bigotry exists. That’s at least one danger of using such accusations as a political tactic.

I don’t pretend to speak for 9/11 survivors but were I to speculate as to who speaks for them and what are they seeking, I would say that there are many different voices, including those who support the Cordoba project, but among those that oppose it, the majority opinion appears to be (at least to me) that, regardless of the legal right to build, this project is insensitive and should not go forward.

 

[livnlern]

Listen to yourself for a moment, seriously. “Whoever they are…” doesn’t owe anybody anything but they might have considered yielding to the ‘sensitivities of others’ if asked nicely. Thing is, they weren’t asked nicely and since the land and the permits are in their possession, guess what? They get to do whatever they decide. Simple. The way I’d want it for my place of worship, the way I support it for theirs.

By “whoever they are” I mean that we don’t know who’s backing the building of the mosque. And I have to wonder why this particular spot was chosen since I’ve heard time and again that there’s no Muslim population in the area to be served by it.
As for “asking nicely”, Muslims are the ones who have to prove their good intentions to us. Not the other way around.
Instead of going ahead with this building, why don’t they at least try to show good intentions: create a city park for children to enjoy…start a fund to support city firemen or families of the victims or make a sizeable donation to one already in existence…build a center for homeless people. If their intentions are good I’m sure they could come up with something to show their sincerity to promote peace and unity instead of creating more bad feelings and pushing something that is offensive to a good many people.