That’s interesting.
Why is it a sweeping generalization to compare what she is experiencing to anti-Semitism? From where I sit, most of the opposition I see to the mosque is open opposition to or fear of Islam, so I have no trouble believing that is most or all of what Ms Khan is seeing. Where is the prejudice in calling the behavior of people who say hateful things about Muslims because of their faith, anti-Muslim?. The very idea that a mosque that has not yet been built far less used for any purpose, good or bad, would offend anyone requires that a broad generalization be made associating all mosques with something offensive. Moderate opponents, such as you seem to be, can hardly be heard above the din and even you don’t seem to be clear on what the objective of this opposition is…
Certainly, here is a list of reasons to support the project:
No. It is 13-story Islamic Community and Cultural Center, run by a religious group, with a massive Mosque integrated into it.
Sorry, but no way. The Imam is not “mainstream.” Hanging a label on something (like “Centrist”) doesn’t make it true, no matter how often a lie is repeated.
Which souls died at the site of the proposed mosque? I’m afraid you are confused.
Actually Catherine - my comment was intended to say that you do not seem to paint with a broad brush - so much for my ability to communicate on these threads!
She identified all those that opposed the project as “beyond islamaphobia” akin to anti-Semitism. Anything that all-encompassing is generally termed a “sweeping generalization”. I don’t see that as hard to understand. Are there people who oppose this project that are bigoted in their opposition? Sure! Such persons and such opinions are ubiquitous, on any topic. But there is principled opposition too. There are the “Twin Tower Families” who object for personal reasons. It is ridiculous to assert that ALL opposition is rooted in hate, fear, bigotry or some other pejorative. It’s not all “islamaphobia”, or worse, and for Daisy Khan to portray it as such is, in itself, a prejudiced position in my opinion. Or, in shorthand, “the pot calling the kettle black.”
You neglected to list the flaws, as you listed previously in your other list. To be objective, you need to list both the pros and the cons of all positions. If you list only the flaws of one position, and the cons of another then you are neither objective nor a “true centrist”. Instead, you are partisan.
Are you quoting the Imam verbatim? I’m of the impression that I’ve seen similar views expressed right here on this forum and within our Church: both about the hardship which the embargo imposed on the people of Iraq and about the US having contributed to being attacked by it’s prior training and support of Osama. So is it the wording of what you claim he said or is it just that Muslims don’t have the right to say the same things that non-Muslims have said freely and repeatedly?
Both were raised Christian (one was at the time very active in his Church) and both definitely had benefited from American generosity/business in the past. It is unlikely that either had been within the vicinity of any mosque for at least some time, and most unlikely that they had ever entered one. Their stated reason for rejoicing? One hated American foreign policy and felt his country was being ignored, the other yearned to see his continent take over as top dog in the world and saw this as America’s downfall…Seekerz, to answer your question, so far as I know, no one died there. But the landing gear of one of the planes that hit the twin towers hit the building in question, so it is “involved” in 9/11, albeit tangentally.
Thanks for letting me know. I shall count you as a friend, although, for now, it appears I am not allowed to have friends according to my forum status.
As an Australian, I have always admired Americans in the way the carefully guard the freedoms given by their constitution. They have shown time and time again that they will fight and die for them. Surely these freedoms, especially of religion, are for all. I agree with Lutheranteach, this argument is out of place in the U.S.
I think you are looking at the big picture and this woman is responding to what’s coming at her…your moderate attitude may simply not be filtering through so I see no reason to object to her calling it like she sees it, but let’s agree to disagree.
Darnit, thought the cut off was 1000.
No, I’m paraphrasing accurately. Here is an exact quote:
If the U.S. has blood on its hands from the Sanctions it only stems from our unwillingness to step forward, even if the UN didn’t want to back us, and ouster Saddam entirely so he could not retaliate against the Shi’ite citizens the rebelled against him when they thought the UN would step up and liberate them from the Ba’ath regime.
I’d be hard pressed to find an instance of an informed member of our clerical leadership saying that you need to understand terrorists and see the culpability of the U.S. for 9/11 because the U.S. sanctions on Iraq killed half a million Iraqi children.
Muslims and non-Muslims alike have the right to say the most hateful and ignorant things imaginable. Any person of any religion getting up on a soap-box spouting off such counter-factual nonsense to teach that the United States is culpable for 9/11, however, is offensive - especially to those whose family or city was attacked on 9/11. They are within their legal rights to be offensive, just as those who are offended are within their legal rights to protest them.