Islamic Cultural Centre to be built near Ground Zero

[Krynn72]

I disagree. I think it could help the situation in the long run because people will see that an Islamic Center right next to ground zero won't hurt a god damn thing, and eventually people will realize that their shit ass retarded views on Islam are shit ass retarded.

 

[Dan]

I disagree. I think it could help the situation in the long run because people will see that an Islamic Center right next to ground zero won't hurt a god damn thing, and eventually people will realize that their shit ass retarded views on Islam are shit ass retarded.

Give me one example where a group of people entrenched in a collective outlook had their entire opinion shifted 180 degrees because they were forced by the government to concede a confrontation.

 

[Krynn72]

The south with slavery.

 

[Cancer]

Just watched the August 10, 2010 of The Daily Show, apparently the issues go beyond NYC. *facepalm*

Gay people, Islam, etc. can we just get along

 

[Absinthe]

I agree with Dan to the extent that this is probably not the wisest of plans, and maybe a bit of a dick move.

With that out of the way, I throw the rest of my support behind Ryan and Krynn. If some ignorant, hateful, bags of jackwank want to throw a fit over this, fuck them. People have "played nice" with the stupid, grossly misinformed delusions of this country's outspoken idiots for too long. If building this center is going to put these malicious and obnoxious douchebags on display in all their ugly color, then we should use that as a ripe opportunity to expose them for the stupid simps they are and put them down.

Wishful thinking: Maybe things will get violent! Then maybe we can have the government just shoot these people and BOOM - America enjoys a brief period of enlightment for the next decade or two with a few key idiots knocked out of its population. Or maybe it turns out opponents were right and we experience a Muslim takeover.

 

[Sulkdodds]

In a very short distance from where 3000 people were killed becuase of this bullshit?

This is your overwhelming evidence that Islam is such a virulently evil idea that any brain it takes hold in is instantly warped towards fundamentalism - so violent that neither the selection of assimilated priests or the mediation of a liberal denomination can possibly rescue it? "Fight those who disbelieve in Islam"? Really? Maybe you should find the part where it says "thou shalt fly planes into buildings containing civilian populations." But never mind that. Let us disregard also the word 'jizya', a tax levied on non-Muslims under the governance of early Islamic states - a word which positions the text in a historically specific context.

Instead, let's ask what makes this rather mild instance of ideological discomfort any different from similar instances - and therefore what justifies your claim that in a country whose constitution enshrines freedom of religion, one particular religion should not be allowed to build in one particular place (there are Protestant churches in Drogheda). Why does that passage condemn the Islamic religion more than this one (which is less equivocal and no more historically specific) condemns the Christian one?

It doesn't seem enough of an answer that 9/11 happened. As far as Islam's fundamental violence is concerned, it may be a historical accident that on this particular site particular followers of a particular form of Islam happen to have killed particular innocent people - that said particular form happened to exist and be radicalised by particular circumstances, for example, the particular position of Islam and its people in this particular century. To make your case you'd have to convince us that something special in the Islamic corpus/tradition tends inevitably towards 9/11; that 9/11 and Islam are as inseperable as Catholics and mass.

So far you've tried to show that by pointing out the violent unpleasant bits in the Qu'ran. Well, there are violent horrible bits in the Bible too. Whoop de doo. Obviously pure textual analysis doesn't tell us why Islam is more fundamentally violent than any other religion. How about their history? We've been over this one before. The Islamic Empire, their relative liberality, their love of science...pull the other one, chap, it's got bells on. What's left?

Your problem is that to really show that 9/11 was a fundamental result of Islam, never mind anything else, you would have to put Islam and Christianity and all other religions in isolated petri jars and watch them evolve free of outside influences. But that's obviously impossible, and in doing so you would make your own experiment useless: in the real world these religious and thought-complexes are completely bound up in the whole world's history. If "fight the enemies of Islam" is all you can offer, you pretty much disprove that a petri-Jar view of Islam and what it says in its books can explain what makes it a more dangerous force than Christianity - and therefore what makes it so basically awful that a western mosque counts as 'responsible' for the atrocity to the extent that it's actually disrespectful to build one near where it happened.

In fact, if you look at circumstances and outside influences, you find that fundamentalist Islam is heavily rooted in British imperialism and the cold war. It was produced as a radical response to national struggles or oppressive situations. It came from Sayid Qutb's reaction to Nasserite Egypt in the 50s and 60s, incubated under British rule; Abul Maududi's campaign during the Indian partition; Ali Shariati's activism in Iran. Shariati's ideology in particular is instructive: educted in Paris and influencing Che Guavara, he attempted to fuse western ideas of revolutionary struggle and class war with Islamic reformism. His conviction was that Shia Islam - at that time a fairly placid tradition - should not wait for a messiah to save them but should fight for themselves. Many of these people can be positioned in a much wider context of 20th century intellectuals who looked for some kind of motivating myth to counter the apparently empty materialism of modern life.

If we refuse to posit any, oh, I don't know, political or economic cause, then we can only say that this is the bullshit for which 3000 people died, and it is a creature of the 20th and 21st centuries. You're taking the interpretations and approaches of modern political movements with heavy western/secular influences and claiming that they hold the key to a 1400-old text that many other people base their lives on. You are taking specific forms of a religion and claiming them as synecdoche for all other forms; your focus on the (translated) words of their founding document is as blind and foolish as that of any 'fundamentalist'. Apparently this gives you the right to see Islam as an 'other' with no connection to your (former Marxist) self, and governments the right to restrict religious freedom. That kind of thinking only ever leads to baseless conspiracy theories like this one:

This, and I may be wrong, but there can't be that many Muslims in America surely? Where do the US Muslims get the money for such a high cost mosque? I bet it's probably funded by Saudi-Arabia, happens a lot in England and then they end up spewing extremist stuff.

Alternatively, we can try and use our heads. It would be nice. PvtRyan has already pretty effectively poked at the logical holes in Dan's thinking - besides which, nobody has any political stake in a debate over mustard and the relation between two friends is not the relation between all the citizens in a nation-state - but there's more to be said:

Now what has been accomplished? Oh right, nothing.

No way. Building a mosque at Ground Zero accomplishes plenty. It's absolutely to train ourselves to tolerate difference - to accept otherness - to be okay with subversion of everything that we hold dear - and hypocritical of us to enshrine "liberty" but be queasy when anyone wants to make use of it. Providing it doesn't actually harm anyone, a civilised society can ****ing well take it if anyone wants to be uncivilised inside it; to be a mongrel state, a living border, to be impure and hybridised and hotchpotch is healthy and essential and our duty. That's why you build a mosque where 9/11 happened. To show that even if we disagree - which we shouldn't - we don't have to be cowards or children, and we can take it. And because otherwise, as dumb as it sounds to speak so earnestly, we let the terrorists win. Whatever Druckles says about abstaining from ****ing, I cherish the possibility of ****ing someone in exactly the right ways and all the right places - a final ****, a **** to end all ****s. One can but dream.

 

[Yuri]

No, its two or three blocks away. 45 park place, in what used to be The Burlington Coat Factory, right next to Amish Market. Closer than I original thought it was, but still not on the site of Ground Zero, you can't even see it from the building.

It's not on the site of Ground Zero, but it is close. I just wanted to point out it is neither on the site nor extremely far away, as both sides of the argument seem to exaggerate.

I agree with Dan's sentiment overall. However, it's important to distinguish the difference between attempting to stop them, and simply feeling it is a dick move.

 

[Absinthe]

I dunno, "dick move" I'm starting to feel implies too much malicious intent. I don't think anybody behind this wants to spite the victims of 9/11. Perhaps just being stubborn and tactless in making a point.

So... inadvertent dick move?

 

[Stigmata]

I think "tactless" fits the bill.

 

[Krynn72]

I can concede to tactless.

 

[The Monkey]

Why would that concern me?

 

[Yuri]

I agree with "tactless."

Obama doesn't.

 

[Krynn72]

That doesn't say anything to suggest he does or doesn't think its tactless. It just says he supports the right for the place to exist and that he believes in freedom of religion. Derp no shit derp.

 

[Dan]

No way. Building a mosque at Ground Zero accomplishes plenty. It's absolutely to train ourselves to tolerate difference - to accept otherness - to be okay with subversion of everything that we hold dear - and hypocritical of us to enshrine "liberty" but be queasy when anyone wants to make use of it. Providing it doesn't actually harm anyone, a civilised society can ****ing well take it if anyone wants to be uncivilised inside it; to be a mongrel state, a living border, to be impure and hybridised and hotchpotch is healthy and essential and our duty. That's why you build a mosque where 9/11 happened. To show that even if we disagree - which we shouldn't - we don't have to be cowards or children, and we can take it. And because otherwise, as dumb as it sounds to speak so earnestly, we let the terrorists win. Whatever Druckles says about abstaining from ****ing, I cherish the possibility of ****ing someone in exactly the right ways and all the right places - a final ****, a **** to end all ****s. One can but dream.

Like I said, that is taking an action for the sole purpose of practicing a principle and it devalues that principle. Nobody actually cares about the mosque, it's just there to make a point. It is a perversion of liberty to make it an ends and a goal in itself. It is a powerful tool to allow you to live your life which should be your goal. Living your life to promote liberty is doing it wrong.

We have the principle of personal liberty so that you can live your life and feel that you are in control of your destiny. If someone or something denies you the ability to control your personal actions, you point to the principle of liberty and say that as a society we have agreed to uphold this value.

Now if you start taking actions for the sole purpose of promoting liberty and provoking others you are perverting that principle. Your actions are no longer motivated by a desire for control of your destiny, but simply motivated by principles. Society is no longer working for you, you are working for it. Why do we want liberty so badly? Liberty is supposed to allow us better lives, but we start fights about liberty, we will sacrifice our lives for liberty. We will kill for liberty. Do we still remember what purpose liberty serves?

Compare it to the notion of nationalism. By uniting a large mass of people under one identity, we are creating a stronger society and more focused use of large scale resources. But when it becomes a goal in itself, you end up with a nation that is blind to the injustices of its leadership.

A principle is simply a rule or guideline that often works in the long run, but don't confuse it for a purpose in life.

 

[Absinthe]

Not sure I can really fathom the state we'd be in if we didn't adhere to principles of liberty on the grounds that "they make you an asshole". I don't think sticking up for the freedoms of other people is a perversion of said liberty.

It's not all a bed of roses. Sometimes you have to be an asshole and sometimes people need to get riled up. Hell, sometimes people need to die. That may not be ideal, but it's the one practical constant that ensures fairness and involvement in this country (or at least for the most part) and it's certainly preferable to the alternative you seem to be implying: That we're probably better off rolling over and letting the misinformed opinions of others dictate the extent of others' personal freedoms for the sake of playing nice.

I mean, I know that's probably not what you're arguing for. But is it really so terrible that somebody decides to break the status quo of intolerance, even if it's with a [strike]mosque[/strike] sledgehammer?

People argue and fight for the principle of liberty because it has to be done. If they didn't; if we turned into a society that kowtowed to the irrational fears and prejudices of its most outspoken citizens, I'm sure mob rule wouldn't be far off.

 

[63]

Spoiler

 

[Ridge]

Spoiler

I'll admit, I laughed.

 

[CptStern]

I dont think it's tactless. it's like saying all catholics should feel responsible for Jonestown

"we're not those radical muslims so why would it even have occured to us that certain types of americans would find our mosque offensive"

 

[No Limit]

I dont think it's tactless. it's like saying all catholics should feel responsible for Jonestown

Or that catholic churches shouldn't be build near any schools, day cares, or bus stops to protect our children.

 

[CptStern]

Or that catholic churches shouldn't be build near any schools, day cares, or bus stops to protect our children.

hahaha good one

 

[CptStern]

oh joy:

Gingrich compares NYC Islamic community center to "Nazis" putting a "sign next to the Holocaust museum"

ya it's exactly like that because these were the same muslims responsible for 9/11

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201008160005

 

[Yuri]

lol Murphy's law

It is comparable to a German Culture Center next to a Holocaust museum. Or a Japanese Culture Center next to Pearl Harbor. Or an American Culture Center (lol hamburgers) in Hiroshima. Except those aren't all that bad, really.

 

[CptStern]

Or an American Culture Center (lol hamburgers) in Hiroshima

that was my first thought as well

 

[63]

 

[unozero]

I heard they raised by money by adversing this in Muslim countries by saying "hey were building a Mosque near Ground Zero give us som money!"
That's what one guy on CNN said,not sure if it's true but if it is....

 

[Danimal]

I heard they raised by money by adversing this in Muslim countries by saying "hey were building a Mosque near Ground Zero give us som money!"
That's what one guy on CNN said,not sure if it's true but if it is....

>Builderburger Owned Media trying to make you hate a Former CIA Agent who didn't do 9/11 anyway.

 

[unozero]

>Builderburger Owned Media trying to make you hate a Former CIA Agent who didn't do 9/11 anyway.

You people like you actually have a mental disease birthers,truthers and 2012 theories etc.You need help.

 

[Dr.Demento]

They should be allowed to, but they're insensitive dicks for wanting to.

^This

That would be like erecting a Christian church close to where one of Saddam Hussein's palaces once stood.

Oh wait, I doubt most Iraqis liked that guy anyways.

 

[Krynn72]

That comparison doesn't make a lick of sense. I thought you were supposed to be smart, Doctor. Whats your PHD in? Baloney?

 

[Danimal]

You people like you actually have a mental disease birthers,truthers and 2012 theories etc.You need help.

I'd make a post about how tap water is eating away receptors in your brain.

But I think we should just get back on topic.

 

[Tyguy]

 

[Rizzo]

Look at this picture. I found and/or made it myself.

 

[Druckles]

Whats your PHD in? Baloney?

Horribleness.

 

[Dynasty]

^This

That would be like erecting a Christian church close to where one of Saddam Hussein's palaces once stood.

Oh wait, I doubt most Iraqis liked that guy anyways.

Irrelivant I think.

It is only the muslims that actually stay true to their faith, whereas Christians are pointless these days, nobody cares, we've moved on and we're no longer a society that takes an interest in religion.

And yes, I hate religion. Its nothing more than a doctrine to control the masses.

''How can you build a mosque near the site of such destruction and loss of life?!''

My response;

''How can you bomb the crap out of the Middle East for years and not expect a retaliation. This is a scratch on your arm, a mere flesh wound. Stop treating muslims as if they're somehow lower than you in the food chain, and let them have the right to have a mosque. The only reason you hate muslims is for what they did on 9/11, but if you actually read into it, you would see how narrow minded you are.''

 

[kineaesth]

''How can you bomb the crap out of the Middle East for years and not expect a retaliation.''

Muslims retaliate by building a mosque I laugh at this you are a funny man

ps the act of building a mosque is not a retaliation

 

[No Limit]

Irrelivant I think.

It is only the muslims that actually stay true to their faith, whereas Christians are pointless these days, nobody cares, we've moved on and we're no longer a society ''

I see you are on the "all 1.5 billion muslims are exactly the same" boat.

 

[Druckles]

I see you are on the "all 1.5 billion muslims are exactly the same" boat.

With our powers combined...

 

[CptStern]

It is only the muslims that actually stay true to their faith, whereas Christians are pointless these days, nobody cares, we've moved on and we're no longer a society that takes an interest in religion

this would come as a surprise to my muslim coworker and his skirt/heels/make up wearing wife who's also muslim

Nearly 70 percent of Americans oppose the mosque plan, according to a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll released last week. In terms of party affiliation, 54 percent of Democrats, 82 percent of Republicans and 70 percent of independents oppose the plan.

however:

"11 bars, and the aforementioned strip club and sex shop within a few blocks of Ground Zero, as well as 10 churches, three synagogues, a Hare Krishna meeting hallâ??and an existing Muslim prayer hall."

retard is in majority yet again

"The location was precisely a key selling point for the group of Muslims who bought the building in July. A presence so close to the World Trade Center, 'where a piece of the wreckage fell,' said Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the cleric leading the project, 'sends the opposite statement to what happened on 9/11.'

" 'We want to push back against the extremists,' added Imam Feisal, 61."

The reaction? Nada. Later that month, in fact, conservative radio host Laura Ingraham interviewed the imam's wife on "O'Reilly Factor" and said: "I can't find many people who really have a problem with it. . . . I like what you're trying to do."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/09/nyregion/09mosque.html?pagewanted=all

 

[<RJMC>]

you have to say obama is really pushing himself by supporting the mosque considering how bad that will end for his popularity

 

[Solaris]

After seeing that picture of the building it will be in, I'm withdrawing my opposition to it. As long as it doesn't have a call to prayer horn thing and is monitored for radicalism (as their is clearly something wrong with whoever decided to build it).