Obama backs mosque near ground zero

[estesbob]

If you are not comfortable with people critiquing your opinions, keep them to yourself.

I am not comfortable with somebody lecturing a 9/11 survivor on how they should feel about it. Like I said you should apologize.

 

[Musicadmirer]

And now we have comes full circle back to “people who disagree with me are bigots”

I believe most people in this thread ,on either side of the issue, think you should apologize and move on.

As the person who posted this topic, I apologize to those offended by insensitive/rude posts.
As the CAF rules require, I expected a civil and charitable discussion. If that is too much to ask of everyone, then I will submit to have my thread locked.

 

[estesbob]

As the person who posted this topic, I apologize to those offended by insensitive/rude posts.
As the CAF rules require, I expected a civil and charitable discussion. If that is too much to ask of everyone, then I will submit to have my thread locked.

I too am disappointed it has denigrated into someone criticizing how a 9/11 survivor feels about their experience,.

 

[GratefulFred]

The American Experience, unique in the history of mankind, has always been a balance between the rights and responsibilities of the majority and minorities.

We value religious freedom. Our founding fathers knew the history of killing those who would not follow the IMPOSED RELIGION by a KING. We would have none of that in America. No one would be killed because he went to the wrong church and did not go at all. Religious freedom has worked well these past 234 years since 1776.

We want to continue our valued tradition of religious freedom and accept an Islamic Center with a mosque two streets away from Ground Zero. But, we are shocked at the insensitivity of the location. This challenges our commitment to religious freedom.

The question is whether 9-11 is only the result of some well financed hotheads who HIJACKED their Islamic Faith, or whether 9-11 is the largest, to date, attempt to take down America and the Christian nations and impose Islam and Sharia Law.

We know little about Sharia law. But, we have seen reports of honor killings, even in America. Most of us have at least seen a quick glimpse of a recent TIME magazine cover of a disfigured woman in the ME. These glimpses expose Sharia Law.

Our American problem is how do we honor religious freedom yet defend America. At some point, too much freedom changes the character of America that made it great.

Some media would have us focus only on individual leaves they point out, not the tree, nor the forest, nor the fire spreading just over the hill with the wind blowing our way.

When we skip over the facts and trends (see 8-17-10 Wall Street Journal Opinion, “Our ‘Moderate Muslim’ Problem”) we fail to see the forest and the fire approaching.

In the name of preserving but not abusing freedom, we need a more complete picture of what is really happening.

 

[Stjudeprayforus]

I too am disappointed it has denigrated into someone criticizing how a 9/11 survivor feels about their experience,.

I agree… and the ‘get over it’ comment was disgusting as well.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

I am not comfortable with somebody lecturing a 9/11 survivor on how they should feel about it. Like I said you should apologize.

As the person who posted this topic, I apologize to those offended by insensitive/rude posts.
As the CAF rules require, I expected a civil and charitable discussion. If that is too much to ask of everyone, then I will submit to have my thread locked.

I do not take these accusations lightly, and I believe I have explained my reasoning in each case very clearly. I certainly hope that I have misinterpreted people’s statements, or that there is a flaw in my arguments, but so far no one has offered a critique of either. Pointing out prejudice is not something I enjoy doing, but I would be remiss as a Catholic to stand by and say nothing.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
—Matthew 5:38-42, NIV

 

[Robert_Bay]

NOTICE

Please charitably discuss the issues, not other members. Participants are strongly reminded that charity is essential to our discussions here.

If you wish to review the subject, please see Charity for specifics, or CAF rules for an overview, both of which are located in the Rules of the Road sub-forum.

 

[pnewton]

I prefer a president that sides with America’s ideals instead of choosing the politically expedient path.

Same here, though I do not see what this has to do with the issue, unless you too are poking at the same strawman that keeps hanging around.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
—Matthew 5:38-42, NIV

I have done my best not to accuse anyone of prejudice, only to point out that their statements appear to be. If I did slip and directly accuse anyone of being a bigot, I sincerely apologize. I hope in all other cases that I am either wrong in my interpretations of their statements (in which case, please calmly point out where I made an error) or that the statements in question were unintentional (in which case please retract or correct them.)

 

[SwizzleStick]

"Ground Zero Mosque On The Move?
Opponents To Meet With Developers On Troubling Issue

NEW YORK (CBS 2) – There was a possible resolution in the works Tuesday night in the debate surrounding the proposed mosque and Islamic cultural center near ground zero.

CBS 2′s Marcia Kramer has learned it looks as if the developers of the mosque may be willing to budge and move away from the Park 51 location where they originally planned the construction."…

Entire article: newyork.cbslocal.com/2010/08/17/paterson-king-hope-for-mosque-compromise/

 

[Musicadmirer]

"Ground Zero Mosque On The Move?
Opponents To Meet With Developers On Troubling Issue

NEW YORK (CBS 2) – There was a possible resolution in the works Tuesday night in the debate surrounding the proposed mosque and Islamic cultural center near ground zero.

CBS 2′s Marcia Kramer has learned it looks as if the developers of the mosque may be willing to budge and move away from the Park 51 location where they originally planned the construction."…

Entire article: newyork.cbslocal.com/2010/08/17/paterson-king-hope-for-mosque-compromise/

I hope this deal goes through.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

Since this thread has grown so long, here is my summary of the arguments so far:

1. Opposition group: The Islamic centre is insensitive.
2. Support group: Why is the Islamic centre insensitive?
3. Opposition group: Because those involved with the Islamic centre are Muslim, as were the 9/11 terrorists.
4. Support group: But those involved with the Islamic centre, along with the majority of other Muslims, have denounced the terrorists’ interpretation of Islam. Therefore equating the two groups because of religion is not reasonable.
5. Opposition group: But those involved with the Islamic centre have not proven they have not taken money from terrorists, nor can we be sure they do not sympathize with the terrorists.
6. Support group: No, but we have no reason to be suspicious. Why do you suspect the Muslims involved with the Islamic centre are lying about their beliefs and intentions?
7. Opposition group:
   a) Normal response: I’m not saying I don’t believe them, I am saying that if they wanted to be sensitive, they could build somewhere else.
   b) Prejudiced response: They are not being truthful because they are Muslims, we should be suspicious because Islam says x y and z. Discussion ended.
   c) Possible response (not yet observed): You are right, I guess it does not make sense to be offended by this mosque. Discussion ended.
   d) Possible response (observed, but evidence is insubstantial or anecdotal): no, here is substantial evidence that the centre is affiliated with terrorism. Discussion shifted to the validity of evidence.
8. Support group response to 7a: Why is the Islamic centre insensitive? (goto 3)

As you can see, unless I missed something, this cycle can only end if the opposition group chooses b or c, or provides evidence from a reputable source that ties the centre to terrorism.

*Edit: punctuation

 

[CatholicGerman]

I’m not over it.

I wasn’t there. My boss was there for a meeting with in the towers. I just remember his secretary rushing into our office and saying, “Come look at CNN! An airplane has just flown into a building.” So we all wandered over to check out the tv, and then they announced the location as the World Trade Center in NY, and we watched as the second airplane hit.

Then she said, “Oh, my God! He’s in there! He’s in there! He just called me to tell me he’s in there! He’s in there! He’s in there! He’s in there!” and just started screaming and screaming and screaming. I’ll never forget the sound of her hysterical screaming. She had to be dragged out of the room. His wife tried to kill herself the next week.

I remember thinking: it looks like an action movie, or something. I didn’t say anything for hours. None of us did. We just sat there and watch CNN and looked at each other.

I will never forget that. Any of it. No, I am also not “over it already”.

 

[Darryl1958]

Harry Reid shows legitimate worry in his coming out against Obama’s position. It is not politically wise for a politician to come out against the viewpoint of 60 % of the voting population after all.
The politics of exploiting racial and ethnic divides on issues has a way of coming back and biting the insincere in the backsides. One can only hope that that trend continues.

Obama himself has reverted back to his usual “present” vote. Now that he has ingratiated himself with his Ramadan dinner crowd, he is more all about noting with so many of us that there is indeed a difference between what is legal and what is wise.

Not that he bothered to spell that out for his entranced listeners at an iftar dinner at the White House last Friday night, or to those of his supporters who rushed to hail the “finest moment” of his presidency. “Moment” turned out to be the right word. Less than 24 hours later he was telling reporters he hadn’t taken a position on the “wisdom” of the mosque project, only on the organizers’ “right to build a place of worship and community center on private property in lower Manhattan.”.

nationalreview.com/articles/243908/obama-s-ground-zero-dodge-rich-lowry

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

"Ground Zero Mosque On The Move?
Opponents To Meet With Developers On Troubling Issue

NEW YORK (CBS 2) – There was a possible resolution in the works Tuesday night in the debate surrounding the proposed mosque and Islamic cultural center near ground zero.

CBS 2′s Marcia Kramer has learned it looks as if the developers of the mosque may be willing to budge and move away from the Park 51 location where they originally planned the construction."…

Entire article: newyork.cbslocal.com/2010/08/17/paterson-king-hope-for-mosque-compromise/

Should the government provide state land for any religious institution that can come up with a popular reason for wanting to move its facilities?

 

[estesbob]

Since this thread has grown so long, here is my summary of the arguments so far:

1. Opposition group: The Islamic centre is insensitive.
2. Support group: Why is the Islamic centre insensitive?
3. Opposition group: Because those involved with the Islamic centre are Muslim, as were the 9/11 terrorists.
4. Support group: But those involved with the Islamic centre, along with the majority of other Muslims, have denounced the terrorists’ interpretation of Islam. Therefore equating the two groups because of religion is not reasonable.
5. Opposition group: But those involved with the Islamic centre have not proven they have not taken money from terrorists, nor can we be sure they do not sympathize with the terrorists.
6. Support group: No, but we have no reason to be suspicious. Why do you suspect the Muslims involved with the Islamic centre are lying about their beliefs and intentions?
7. Opposition group:
   a) Normal response: I’m not saying I don’t believe them, I am saying that if they wanted to be sensitive, they could build somewhere else.
   b) Prejudiced response: They are not being truthful because they are Muslims, we should be suspicious because Islam says x y and z. Discussion ended.
   c) Possible response (not yet observed): You are right, I guess it does not make sense to be offended by this mosque. Discussion ended.
   d) Possible response (observed, but evidence is insubstantial or anecdotal): no, here is substantial evidence that the centre is affiliated with terrorism. Discussion shifted to the validity of evidence.
8. Support group response to 7a: Why is the Islamic centre insensitive? (goto 3)

As you can see, unless I missed something, this cycle can only end if the opposition group chooses b or c, or provides evidence from a reputable source that ties the centre to terrorism.

*Edit: punctuation

It appears that the mosque builders are having second thoughts about the location. Perhaps they are finally beginning to see the problems that all their supporters do not.

 

[iamrefreshed]

Since this thread has grown so long, here is my summary of the arguments so far:

1. Opposition group: The Islamic centre is insensitive.
2. Support group: Why is the Islamic centre insensitive?
3. Opposition group: Because those involved with the Islamic centre are Muslim, as were the 9/11 terrorists.
4. Support group: But those involved with the Islamic centre, along with the majority of other Muslims, have denounced the terrorists’ interpretation of Islam. Therefore equating the two groups because of religion is not reasonable.
5. Opposition group: But those involved with the Islamic centre have not proven they have not taken money from terrorists, nor can we be sure they do not sympathize with the terrorists.
6. Support group: No, but we have no reason to be suspicious. Why do you suspect the Muslims involved with the Islamic centre are lying about their beliefs and intentions?
7. Opposition group:
   a) Normal response: I’m not saying I don’t believe them, I am saying that if they wanted to be sensitive, they could build somewhere else.
   b) Prejudiced response: They are not being truthful because they are Muslims, we should be suspicious because Islam says x y and z. Discussion ended.
   c) Possible response (not yet observed): You are right, I guess it does not make sense to be offended by this mosque. Discussion ended.
   d) Possible response (observed, but evidence is insubstantial or anecdotal): no, here is substantial evidence that the centre is affiliated with terrorism. Discussion shifted to the validity of evidence.
8. Support group response to 7a: Why is the Islamic centre insensitive? (goto 3)

As you can see, unless I missed something, this cycle can only end if the opposition group chooses b or c, or provides evidence from a reputable source that ties the centre to terrorism.

*Edit: punctuation

I find your summary incorrect.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

It appears that the mosque builders are having second thoughts about the location. Perhaps they are finally beginning to see the problems that all their supporters do not.

The problem is that even if this gets peacefully moved, or is proven to have terrorist ties, it does not retroactively exonerate those who initially opposed it. That is to say, they opposed the centre emotionally and without good reason, as I outlined. It would be like accusing a priest of sex abuse with no evidence. Even if the claim later turned out to be true, or the situation resolved without too much inconvenience for the priest, it does not change the fact that the initial accusation was unjustified. I will be glad when this is over regardless of the outcome, but I also hope that people learn think things through more carefully, especially when emotions are running high.

1. Opposition group: The Islamic centre is insensitive.
2. Support group: Why is the Islamic centre insensitive?
3. Opposition group: Because those involved with the Islamic centre are Muslim, as were the 9/11 terrorists.
4. Support group: But those involved with the Islamic centre, along with the majority of other Muslims, have denounced the terrorists’ interpretation of Islam. Therefore equating the two groups because of religion is not reasonable.
5. Opposition group: But those involved with the Islamic centre have not proven they have not taken money from terrorists, nor can we be sure they do not sympathize with the terrorists.
6. Support group: No, but we have no reason to be suspicious. Why do you suspect the Muslims involved with the Islamic centre are lying about their beliefs and intentions?
7. Opposition group:
   a) Normal response: I’m not saying I don’t believe them, I am saying that if they wanted to be sensitive, they could build somewhere else.
   b) Prejudiced response: They are not being truthful because they are Muslims, we should be suspicious because Islam says x y and z. Discussion ended.

c) Possible response (not yet observed): You are right, I guess it does not make sense to be offended by this mosque. Discussion ended.
d) Possible response (observed, but evidence is insubstantial or anecdotal): no, here is substantial evidence that the centre is affiliated with terrorism. Discussion shifted to the validity of evidence.
8) Support group response to 7a: Why is the Islamic centre insensitive? (goto 3)

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

I find your summary incorrect.

I was playing 20 questions with a young child at one point. After just 15 questions it was pretty clear that he was thinking of the Lego car he had just been building. I acted stumped until the last question and asked if it was the car. The look on his face told me yes, but he squirmed and said no. I asked a few more questions and he hemmed and hawed about each answer, while he was trying to think of a new object. I finally gave up and asked what the object was. He gave an answer that was clearly ruled out by a previous question.
“That can’t be it! It has to have wheels.” I said
“I was kidding” He said.
“So what is it?” I asked.
“I know, but I’m not going to tell you.” was the reply.

If you know there is a flaw in my outline, please tell me what it is.