izybx wrote:This is what Im talking about. Cant you be against the mosque without being accused of "vilifying" an entire group of people and feeding the flames of fear and hatred or whatever. Cant you be against the mosque without being accused of being a bigot?

DrAlphaeus wrote:

arkrud wrote:I believe that all Muslim people should share the responsibility for what happened and not bother the feelings of these who have loved one get killed by their brothers.
If they do not understand it is their problem.

arkud, so does that mean that all U.S. citizens should share the responsibility for the various assassinations & atrocities done by the U.S. government, military & its agents?

If so, aren't you just justifying what the 9/11 terrorists did by attacking us?

We absolutely do. I do not support any assassinations & atrocities done by the U.S. government, military & its agents.
But this cannot justify violence and killing of US people.
In fact if we and Muslim people will stop supporting the evil actions of our governments and leaders (religious and not) we will not need to discuss this sad things.

arkrud wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:

arkrud wrote:I believe that all Muslim people should share the responsibility for what happened and not bother the feelings of these who have loved one get killed by their brothers.
If they do not understand it is their problem.

arkud, so does that mean that all U.S. citizens should share the responsibility for the various assassinations & atrocities done by the U.S. government, military & its agents?

If so, aren't you just justifying what the 9/11 terrorists did by attacking us?

We absolutely do. I do not support any assassinations & atrocities done by the U.S. government, military & its agents.
But this cannot justify violence and killing of US people.
In fact if we and Muslim people will stop supporting the evil actions of our governments and leaders (religious and not) we will not need to discuss this sad things.

That's a fair point. This isn't exactly "Disneyland in Hiroshima" to me but those scenarios are interesting examples of the "appropriateness" argument. I can see where you are coming from.

sidsanders wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:

arkrud wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:

arkrud wrote:I believe that all Muslim people should share the responsibility for what happened and not bother the feelings of these who have loved one get killed by their brothers.
If they do not understand it is their problem.

arkud, so does that mean that all U.S. citizens should share the responsibility for the various assassinations & atrocities done by the U.S. government, military & its agents?

If so, aren't you just justifying what the 9/11 terrorists did by attacking us?

We absolutely do. I do not support any assassinations & atrocities done by the U.S. government, military & its agents.
But this cannot justify violence and killing of US people.
In fact if we and Muslim people will stop supporting the evil actions of our governments and leaders (religious and not) we will not need to discuss this sad things.

That's a fair point. This isn't exactly "Disneyland in Hiroshima" to me but those scenarios are interesting examples of the "appropriateness" argument. I can see where you are coming from.

would any one equate comparing disney co with what the us military did in 1945? would folks equate a private enterprise from opening a strip joint (see islefans article for an interesting tie in to an appropriate biz in "hallowed ground") on indian turf? heck, most of the states are land taken from the indigenous people. the nazi arg is more equivalent to something like the supporters of mccvay building him a memorial in okc, and i dont think that compares at all to this arg either.

People equate things with other things for all sorts of reasons. Witness WTO protestors firebombing Starbucks. Does Starbucks control the World Bank? No. But they represent globalization, cultural homogeny etc. to some. Disney is often a similar symbol of our perceived Micky Mouse culture. Yet we get praise for other parts of our culture, like the blues, jazz, soul, hip-hop (created largely by oppressed people here). I still think Bloomberg & the developer are the most on point here. I get the point arkrud is saying though, even if I don't agree with it.

arkrud wrote:And tell me this. If let’s say some people will build a Go-Go bar near the place in Indian reservation where Indian people were mass-killed back then
Or neo-Nazi will build their center neat Oswiecim, or US will bill Disneyland in Hiroshima? Will it be appropriate?

EwingsGlass wrote:

fishmike wrote:

arkrud wrote:And tell me this. If let’s say some people will build a Go-Go bar near the place in Indian reservation where Indian people were mass-killed back then
Or neo-Nazi will build their center neat Oswiecim, or US will bill Disneyland in Hiroshima? Will it be appropriate?

if the zoning laws permit it then sure.. those things should be fine

Fish, you are confusing "legally permitted" and "appropriate". Not to confuse property law with first amendment rights, but by way of analogy-- not everything that you are permitted to say under the First Amendment is appropriate to say at any given time. So, a person may not legally stop someone from saying what they want, but just because what someone says is legal doesn't stop them from being an @$$hole for saying it.

This Mosque is a similar analogy. In accordance with the local zoning and the landmarks preservation laws, nobody can legally stop them from building a mosque in that location(except the landowner), but that doesn't make it an appropriate locale (or the guys doing this not @$$holes).

I think the placement of the Mosque by those individuals is not truly intended to be a sign of peace and friendship, but that the intent is to incite emotion and to create conflict. It's not to say that the actions of a few people represent that of the entirety, its just that those who acted did through an interpretation of the same religion that is now placing a mosque directly across the street from the site of a disaster. In a location that was the site of such human tragedy, it is inappropriate to put a mosque so close and prominent particularly because the perpetrators believed they were performing in the name of the same religion. Yeah, it wasn't the mosque-builders, but come on, it isn't appropriate.

I am a bit confused about what is actually being built. Is it a place of worship? Like a church? Or is a community center? A Muslim version of a YMCA?

arkrud wrote:

Markji wrote:

martin wrote:

Markji wrote:

grillco wrote:I'm against it unless they're also putting a church and a temple there. In that case all religions should have the right to be included.

I like your idea of having a religious center there where all religions can have a place of worship in that location. That would open up the possibility for mutual understanding and respect.

to me the answer of having a religious center dodges the underlying question and point: this is private property and you are telling the people that own it what to do when in fact they are well within the bounds of what they are doing.

Yes, that is what I was doing - dodging the underlying question and bringing in another solution. It's called the "Principle of the 2nd element." Because I agree with both sides, and yet there should be some common ground for a solution.

In thinking more on this, I would love to see the City allocate land on the WTC site for a Religious Center, not 2 blocks away where the proposed Mosque/Muslim center is. A separate building, modern and religious looking that would honor all religions and have places of worship within the building that accomodates, Christians, Moslems, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Catholics, Doaists, etc. Show the religious tolerance and freedom that this country was founded on. Then all people within this country as well as tourists could come and pray to God in their own way and remember those innocent people who died there from a very warped terrorist act.

I think this is great plan and great intensions. But I do not think it is possible.
The core idea of Muslim religion is that only Muslims are people of God and all the rest should convert or burn in hell (after life or in Twin Towers).
Same notion is more or less behind other religions with the difference of not being so active in making this the goal of live and honor in death.
Islam is young and aggressive religion. Christianity and Judaism was aggressive long back and moderated since.
I see the plan to build it as statement... I believe that all Muslim people should share the responsibility for what happened and not bother the feelings of these who have loved one get killed by their brothers.
If they do not understand it is their problem.

This other point about the Muslim religion

The core idea of Muslim religion is that only Muslims are people of God and all the rest should convert or burn in hell.

Fear is a dangerous weapon. Some words of wisdom from Yoda (really George Lucas) which ring very true.

loweyecue wrote:1 IN 5 People believe Oabama is Muslim? So 20% of the country falls below the grade of "abysmal" when it comes to intellectual capacity. Wonder what that says about the national average? Methinks, I will change my ID to MediumIQ.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_obama_urban_legends

An even larger percentage of Americans would vote for and feel OK with McCain and Palin in the White House. It's not too much of a stretch for an ignoramus to buy into the shyte that Fox News (et al) spew at them. Fox News wouldn't exist if we didn't have a large percentage of morons willing to watch it.

Moonangie wrote:

loweyecue wrote:1 IN 5 People believe Oabama is Muslim? So 20% of the country falls below the grade of "abysmal" when it comes to intellectual capacity. Wonder what that says about the national average? Methinks, I will change my ID to MediumIQ.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_obama_urban_legends

An even larger percentage of Americans would vote for and feel OK with McCain and Palin in the White House. It's not too much of a stretch for an ignoramus to buy into the shyte that Fox News (et al) spew at them. Fox News wouldn't exist if we didn't have a large percentage of morons willing to watch it.

True, but ignorance is not the only issue here. These people are also fairly belligerent about their "views" so I would call them ignoranus not ignoramus. They are ignorant and most times a complete ass about it.