Kooch, not really clear what you are saying. While your first link, the wikipedia one, seems not too unbalanced, your second link is clearly inflammatory and not based on facts. Since it starts off by claiming that a Mosque is being built on the ground where the Twin Towers were, right away, I see lies and falsehoods, and slanderous utterances.
You also quote a bit from the Imam's wife, but not the whole sentence, which makes more sense than your snippet.
Full quote :
While the media widely described the center as a mosque, and the protests were against the mosque, the Initiative's official blog portrayed it as a community center with prayer space, making comparisons to the YMCA or Jewish Community Center.[85] The Initiative said that some services planned for the Cordoba House, such as the restaurant and performance center, disqualify it from being a mosque.[86] Daisy Khan, Imam Rauf’s wife and partner, in August 2010 also said:

We insist on calling it a prayer space and not a mosque, because you can use a prayer space for activities apart from prayer. You can't stop anyone who is a Muslim despite his religious ideology from entering the mosque and staying there. With a prayer space, we can control who gets to use it.[51]

The official website for the facility says it will include "a mosque, intended to be run separately from Park51 but open to and accessible to all members, visitors and our New York community".[87]

Besides the Muslim prayer space, the Initiative's plan includes a 500-seat auditorium, theater, performing arts center, fitness center, swimming pool, basketball court, childcare services, art exhibitions, bookstore, culinary school, and a food court serving halal dishes.[37][21][66][74][88][7]

I am not sure what that quote meant to you, but want it meant to me, was that they don't want fanatical hatred filled fanatics, using the space.
As a native New Yorker, born in New York City, and also quite present that day, I am fully for, not letting the Terrorists win, and that means, supporting the Constitution, and refusing to discriminate against any religion. Either we are better then them or we are not.
There's no religion in my book that is better than any other, and I gather in yours. ( Which seems to mark a change for you ? ) but I do believe in the Constitution, and the rule of law, and that means a balanced across the board freedom, for religions.
At some point, I wondered a lot, how Hitler, came to power..and..what about the everyday people / Did they collectively rise up and decide to just over look evil ? Or did they decide to participate. How did that all happen ? Look into it sometime, because I tell you true, the way things are going, the rise of populist "leaders" like Palin and Beck, and this Islamaphobia, correlate way too closely .. Evil does exist, imho, but it exists wherever ignorance and sloppy thinking trump reason, not some shadowy figure.

I'm going to post this list again, because it irks me to hear people cite how traumatized they are by 9/11 and use that as a reason to tell "them" to go build it somewhere else.

So apparently, although many Muslim people died that day, their grief is not as important as that of a non-Muslim person. Muslim grief is something that should be swept under the carpet, the only deaths being mourned are those of the men who took over the planes. Because we lost the chance to kill them ourselves.

Muslim people who died that day:

Samad Afridi
Ashraf Ahmad
Shabbir Ahmad (45 years old; Windows on the World; leaves wife and 3 children)
Umar Ahmad
Azam Ahsan
Ahmed Ali
Tariq Amanullah (40 years old; Fiduciary Trust Co.; ICNA website team member; leaves wife and 2 children)
Touri Bolourchi (69 years old; United Airlines #175; a retired nurse from Tehran)
Salauddin Ahmad Chaudhury
Abdul K. Chowdhury (30 years old; Cantor Fitzgerald)
Mohammad S. Chowdhury (39 years old; Windows on the World; leaves wife and child born 2 days after the attack)
Jamal Legesse Desantis
Ramzi Attallah Douani (35 years old; Marsh & McLennan)
SaleemUllah Farooqi
Syed Fatha (54 years old; Pitney Bowes)
Osman Gani
Mohammad Hamdani (50 years old)
Salman Hamdani (NYPD Cadet)
Aisha Harris (21 years old; General Telecom)
Shakila Hoque (Marsh & McLennan)
Nabid Hossain
Shahzad Hussain
Talat Hussain
Mohammad Shah Jahan (Marsh & McLennan)
Yasmeen Jamal
Mohammed Jawarta (MAS security)
Arslan Khan Khakwani
Asim Khan
Ataullah Khan
Ayub Khan
Qasim Ali Khan
Sarah Khan (32 years old; Cantor Fitzgerald)
Taimour Khan (29 years old; Karr Futures)
Yasmeen Khan
Zahida Khan
Badruddin Lakhani
Omar Malick
Nurul Hoque Miah (36 years old)
Mubarak Mohammad (23 years old)
Boyie Mohammed (Carr Futures)
Raza Mujtaba
Omar Namoos
Mujeb Qazi
Tarranum Rahim
Ehtesham U. Raja (28 years old)
Ameenia Rasool (33 years old)
Naveed Rehman
Yusuf Saad
Rahma Salie & unborn child (28 years old; American Airlines #11; wife of Michael Theodoridis; 7 months pregnant)
Shoman Samad
Asad Samir
Khalid Shahid (25 years old; Cantor Fitzgerald; engaged to be married in November)
Mohammed Shajahan (44 years old; Marsh & McLennan)
Naseema Simjee (Franklin Resources Inc.'s Fiduciary Trust)
Jamil Swaati
Sanober Syed
Robert Elias Talhami (40 years old; Cantor Fitzgerald)
Michael Theodoridis (32 years old; American Airlines #11; husband of Rahma Salie)
W. Wahid

I hurt in my heart when I think about the families of these people watching this bullshit circus in the media. To me it is akin to spitting on a grave.

Fear is indeed, the great mind killer, because when I see incredibly intelligent people latch onto that fear and participate in Islamophobia I die a little inside.

I have to wonder if anyone noticed the parallels between Islamophobia and the wave of hatred/racism against MY people: Hispanics? It seems being brown is now a viable reason to put a target on ones back in this country and expect those same brown people to be fucking grateful for the small amount of civil liberties they may still receive. So gross, and so scary and when I read Merrick speaking of the Holocaust in comparison to what is happening here in this country right now I know she is right.

Wait, I'm not sure I understand this. So you are saying that even though you do not endorse or agree with what Mssrs Morris or Gaffney are saying, and even though you do not put a disclaimer along the lines of "the views I quote do not represent my views..." you quoted the aforementioned gentlemen and expect us NOT to conclude--quite reasonably--that you are posting their views because you agree with them. Really? See, if I'm going to post something quoting from someone that I disagree with but that view is representative of a position I disagree with, I will take the time to make certain that the reader *knows* that I'm quoting someone I disagree with. If I don't, then I work under the idea that the reader will conclude (correctly) that if I'm quoting someone then I'm doing so because I *agree* with them. I find your disclaimers somewhat disingenuous, FA.

So your argument appears to be that you want a place where "all people can come together", well why not, say, the site of the strip club? Is that also not a place that all people could come together in? And does NYC *really* need another strip club? Which will be a place more welcoming to the largest number of people, a strip club or the Cordoba house?

Also, if I pulled a made-up statistic like, say, "20% of all Christian churches are not Reconstructionist or Dominionist or otherwise theocratic and simply want to worship in peace..." would you believe that statistic? Look, I'm going to preempt the "I have a right to my opinion" spiel and state that your right to your opinion and your right to express it are not at issue here. However, your right to *express* an opinion does not insulate that opinion from being challenged nor does it render you immune to having said expression eviscerated if it is not based upon solid, reliable evidence (yes, such an animal exists).

Cheers
Aj

Corkey:

If *I* were, say, a high up in Hamas, Hezbollah or Al Qaeda I would be sending money--as much as I could--to the cause of *preventing* this community center from being built. I would task someone with showing up at every single protest against it--no matter where it happens. I would task someone else with simply hanging out at RedState, Drudge, FOXNews.com and every other right-wing website and copy and paste editorials and comments to same about this community center. And then, when the side that is convinced that this community center might as well be Al Qaeda Central, I would take all that video, all those interviews and every single word written in opposition to the Cordoba House and make movie after movie, pamphlet after pamphlet, showing how Americans behave. Each one would start and end the same. The beginning would be quoting the First Amendment and then the words "And here is American religious freedom in action..." followed by the quotes and images and voices of opposition. The end would simply read: Any Questions?

We are *writing* the Hamas propaganda FOR THEM! And the thing that would be funny if it weren't so damn tragic, is that the people carrying the propaganda water for Al Qaeda et. al. are the MOST religious and MOST conservative people in America! If Usama Bin Laden is alive he is laughing hysterically as he watches this play out.

Merrick:

As I said last week, I'm working my way through William Shrier's tome "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" and you are, of course, spot on. This pattern is well known and the path well worn. Now, are we in Germany in 1933? No, not yet. We are, however, in Germany circa 1931. We have (and it PAINS me no end to say this) a weak liberal government that is not willing to stand up for itself (the Obama administration and Congressional Democrats), we have a proto-fascist movement that is gaining strength and being allowed to believe that statements like "2nd amendment remedies" in response to elections that their side loses is appropriate (it's not) and we have conservative politicians who do not necessarily buy into the proto-fascism but are willing to use the proto-fascists toward electoral ends, believing that this will work out in their favor this time. It won't. The people who brought Hitler to power, ultimately, were the conservative forces in Germany--not the National Socialists, but the German Army and the German industrialists who thought that the Nazi's could be controlled. The army wanted arms and the Nazis were promising to rearm Germany in defiance of Versailles. The industrialists wanted someone to put a stop to the socialists, the communists and the trade unionists and didn't much care who did the stopping just so long as they were stopped.

I wonder if, 50 years from now, another historian will be writing a book "The Rise and Fall of the American Empire" and stating repeatedly, as Shrier did in his work, that the leaders of the American Theocracy TOLD the world and their countrymen what they were up to. Ann Coulter, Dick Morris, Franklin Graham, Pat Robertson, Sarah Palin and their fellow travelers have ALL stated, without pulling punches or reserve, what their agenda is and what they would do. We pretend that they don't mean it at our peril.

I am shocked when I hear things like.... Not in our city.

A lot of Muslims reside there too. Should they too get out of your city? (general you)

AJ said it best in another thread.

To be Brown, or Muslim is a scary fucking time in America, either we are terrorists, taking jobs, building facilities that are training monsters, decapitating folks in the desert.


It's coming, soon you will want us to wear some symbol, you'll want us in lil camps cause you want to make sure who we are....



This Saturday more of that fear is gonna be spread..

We really ARE playing into the hands of Al Queda. Already, US Servicemen are being attacked as Afghan people protest the burning o the Koran by burning American Flags and what not. This idiot pastor is putting the lives of our young ones in the military in grave danger, and does NOT care.

GAINESVILLE, Fla. --

The pastor at Dove World Outreach Center in Gainesville has vowed to burn Korans next weekend on the ninth anniversary of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks -- a plan that has sparked a fiery and emotional protest in Afghanistan.

Pastor Terry Jones called the book burning a warning. He said he plans to send a message to Muslim extremists by burning copies of the Koran on his church's lawn.

"We believe people are afraid of radical Islam. We hope it brings awareness," Jones said.

The pastor's plans to torch the holy books ignited outrage in Kabul. Hundreds of Afghans shouted anti-American slogans.

The protesters burned American flags, along with a replica of the pastor.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39034907

Well, it seems that there ARE cool heads making news about this;


Item 1:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/09/07/new...ex.html?hpt=T2

Numerous faith leaders in recent weeks have expressed concerns about hate crimes against American Muslims in the runup to this weekend's anniversary of the September 11, 2001, terror attacks, which coincides with the holiday of Eid-al-Fitr marking the conclusion of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan.

Attorney General Eric Holder is slated to discuss the concern at a Tuesday afternoon meeting with religious leaders at the Justice Department. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton may weigh in on the debate as well when she joins a Ramadan celebration at the State Department Tuesday night. Clinton is expected to deliver remarks around 8 p.m. ET.

Item 2:

General Petraeus is also warning that this idea of burning the koran is going to cause problems for troops still in the Afghan theater of operations

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-11209738


Cheers
Aj

this is ridiculous. if they were burning bibles in Afganistan, they would want to nuke them
ignorance......

it wouldn't matter if the aformentioned Mosque was built 1 block or ten blocks away from "Ground Zero", someone would have a big opinion on how it was "disrespectful"

the terrorist acts made on America were not made by the entire Muslim world, but if these ignorant assholes keep burning the Koran, and saying inflammatory things about other people's religion, we will just make more enemies.
i am neither Jew, Christian, nor Muslim...... and if you read what i have been reading in the news and on the internet, you would understand why
all i see from any of the "organized" religions is hate and war and intolerance.......

i wonder if i travel to Iraq if the civilian population there would be justified in killing me? after all, the death toll of Iraqi citizens is around 106,000. these deaths were mostly at the hands of Americans.

so i just have to wonder about the crazed sense of entitlement our country has?

around 8,000 total from 9/11 and war in Iraq is our body count so far i think.

8k to 106k. who should be burning what?

As the calendar inexorably marches toward what would be my mothers 88th birthday and having just left behind in mid-August what would have been my father's 88th, I find myself grateful that they did not live see America take this turn. About 65 years ago, my father--along with a whole lot of other Americans--began to demobilize as WW II closed. My father, as part of the 761st Tank Battalion, earned a Purple Heart and Bronze star for his actions in that war. My parents, my father particularly since he SAW the camps, drilled into us that we had an obligation to make good a promise of 'Never Again', a promise that to our (all of humanity) eternal shame we have not made good on. They also drilled into us that at the time that Hitler came to power, Germany was the most educated, liberal and culturally advanced nation in Europe if not the world. They made us aware that if it could happen in Germany it could just as easily happen here. Seeing their country do this--and keep in mind that these are people who lived through Jim Crow, both my parents had siblings who were the victims of physical violence that cost one uncle his life and another uncle the ability to walk right--would break their hearts.

As my parent's generation exits the stage I am seeing one of my great cultural fears come to pass; namely that we would soon forget once the last generation of Americans who had stared evil--real, true, visceral, unmitigated evil--right in the face were gone. And here we are. My father, if he were alive, would be on his way to D.C. for the 2 October rally and would tell everyone who would listen that "we've heard this song before" just because now the words are in English and not German and just because the targets are Muslims and not Jews, doesn't mean that this isn't the same old ugly song. I understand that a lot of people on the other side are people of good will. I also understand that they *really and genuinely* believe that 8 of 10 mosques are *actually* terrorist training facilities carefully disguised as places of monotheistic worship.

Here's the thing--and to anyone on the other side, I want you to really read what I'm saying here and then sit with these questions--does anyone really believe that the Germans didn't think that the Jews were *really and genuinely* a threat to all things German? Does anyone here believe that the Germans didn't *actually* think that Jews were trying to bring down Germany or that Jews controlled 'all the banks' or that Jews didn't have all kinds of bizarre rituals wherein they killed Christian babies? Is there a single person reading these words that has ANY doubt that every German who turned in a Jewish neighbor, every German who was in the SS or the SA, every German who saw the persecution of the Jews, didn't think that THEY were on the side of right and good? That THEY didn't really hate or fear the Jews per se, they just needed to make certain that they weren't a threat? It's comforting but wholly wrong to believe that the evil done by people is done with the perpetrators knowing that they are doing evil. That is so incorrect that it is not even wrong.

Rather, the Germans thought that THEY were on the side of good in slaughtering the Jews and the gypsies and the homosexuals and the communists and the socialists and the trade unionists. White segregationists didn't think they were evil or propping up an evil system, rather they believed that THEY were on the side of right and good. The Soviets under Stalin did not think that their system was dehumanizing and cruel, they were doing what needed to be done to promote the interests of the proletariat. The Khmer Rouge thought that it was necessary to kill the writers, teachers, lawyers, artists, musicians and others who did not have sufficient revolutionary fever or the children of same because they carried the bourgeois taint of their parents. The Chinese under Mao, the Serbs under Milosevic or the Rawandans all believed the same thing as they committed stomach-turning atrocities. They were on the side of good, the other guys were on the side of evil and the elimination--as regrettable as it might be--just had to happen in order to protect all that was good and noble.

In the name of good, righteousness, nobility and, ironically, freedom we are poised to do the same thing to at least two other groups in this country--Muslims and Hispanics. If you aren't a Muslim or a Hispanic, you might feel safe but don't put your money on that bet. You aren't. If you are reading this then you're queer and make NO mistake that they will come for us. Now, they might get around to us AFTER they are done with the Muslims and the Hispanics but that's actually counter to the historical pattern. The pattern in Germany was that, actually, homosexuals were really part of the test run, to see what they could get away with.

If you are queer, your white skin will not protect you. If you are queer, your Christian religion will not protect you. You'll be gotten around to eventually because movements that seek to cleanse or purge the Other are never satisfied with one group, there's always one OTHER group preventing the nation from achieving its true historical zenith that is its due and when that group is removed THEN all will be well. I know this sounds alarmist but that's only because we're on the 'before' side of whatever historical event we seem hell-bent on hurtling toward. Maybe I'm wrong. I want to be. I hope I am. So far, though, everyday we seem to be taking more and more steps toward an abyss.

Cheers
Aj

I hope you will take this in the spirit in which it is given, FA. You say you see who you are dealing with but I wonder if you do. Most everyone here arguing the other side simply wants a cogent, coherent, *reason* to oppose this community center that doesn't rely on stereotypes, breathless accusations of Muslim triumphalism or other non-evidence based arguments. I know that's all I want.

Look, I get it that you oppose this community center being built. I also understand that it can be lonely arguing a contrary opinion on a message board. However, if you say you oppose this community center and your opposition is based upon the idea that this is inappropriate then the rest of us are perfectly within reason to ask why it is inappropriate. But, unless I missed a post of yours, I haven't really read an argument why this center shouldn't be built. I certainly haven't had one that met the Kantian imperative that one should never back a law, ethic or principle that one would not want to see applied universally without prejudice.

So let's say, for instance, that you were to wake up tomorrow morning and find that an a Christian church in, say, Indonesia (the largest Muslim country in the world) had been burnt to the ground. The BBC, doing 'man on the street', interviews in Jakarta shows person after person saying "we burned this church to the ground because of all the Muslims who have been killed by Christians". Would you shrug your shoulders and say "well, of course" or would you feel an injustice had been done? What if, the day after that, you saw a headline that Indonesia had passed a law saying you could not practice Christianity in that nation? Again, the BBC interviews the average Indonesian and again you hear that it is insensitive for Christians to be in a Muslim nation given all the demonstrable blood shed by Christians. Would you agree, at least in principle, with the passage of said law or would you, again, think an injustice had been done? The following day you wake up and you see an American soldier, his face is bruised and bloodied, his lips are swollen. The man in the face mask, standing just behind him with a pistol to his head, says that this soldier is the first but not the last who will pay with his blood for deaths of all the Muslims who died in Iraq and Afghanistan. Would you think that this was a reasonable act? On another day, there is footage of a mass Bible burning. Would you think that this was fine because the Bible is the book of Christians and the people setting the book to the torch are Muslims.

I doubt that any of those would sit well with you. So is this principle of "its insensitive" one that you would want applied universally without favor or prejudice?

Cheers
Aj

Standing ovation for Dreadgeek's post <clap, clap, clap, clap.......>

One other thing
 

Before I go to lunch, since this is on my mind, I wanted to post and I hope folks, particularly folks on the other side of this issue, will think about it:

If I stand up and shout loudly and long about how much I value and treasure MY right to free speech or MY right to practice the religion of my choice, I've told you nothing much about my commitment to those principles. Any fool, once she figures out she has a right to free speech and religion, is going to be all in favor of her rights. If, on the other hand, I stand up and shout loudly and long about my support of the right of expression of the person who espouses an idea that I not just disagree with but find odious and deeply offensive, NOW you've learned something useful about how much I mean it when I say I believe in free speech. Likewise, if I stand up and defend the right of someone to practice the religion that I not only don't practice, but wouldn't practice if you paid me, that I don't know much about and what I do know, I don't like THEN you can tell something about how deep my commitment is to freedom of conscience and religion.

The First Amendment is not, as many Americans suppose, there to protect Christianity in a nation that is majority Christian. If you are a Christian, your religious freedom is protected because your religion is in the majority. The First Amendment is there to protect the Jew, the Muslim, the Buddhist, the Hindu, the Atheist, the Pagan, the Sikh and others. Yes, it protects Christians as well but Christians don't *need* the protection--the minority religions do. In the same vein, the First Amendment doesn't protect the popular opinion. It isn't there to protect proclaiming that Jesus is Lord nor is it there to protect chanting USA! USA! USA! at the least provocation. Rather, it is there to protect the scholar who says that there's scant evidence that the historical Jesus actually existed and that the Gospel stories borrow liberally from other myths that were known in the Levant at the beginning of the Common Era. It is there to protect the person who says "well, America is good but then there's slavery or the decimation of the native populations or the unprovoked invasion of Iraq..." The popular position NEEDS no protection, it is the least popular opinion, the one that you wish the speaker would shut the hell up and never say another word, that needs protection.

That is how we know whether someone means it when they say that they believe in free speech and freedom of conscience.

Cheers
Aj

Outside of 'the banality of evil' the best sentiment I've ever read on the evil that ordinary people will do is this one from Terry Pratchett:

"And it all meant this: there are hardly any excesses of the most crazed psychopath that cannot be easily duplicated by a normal, kindly family man who just comes into work every day and has a job to do." (Small Gods)

First of all, I stand up and applaud you as well. I appreciate that you did not call me names, put words in my mouth, assume you know me, my heart and what I feel, and think or that I am posting to play a victim here.

Let me now do the best I can do conveying what I think in this post. But I am not here to to have people not like my reasoning so they start assuming again.

I *DO NOT* oppose a community center.
I at first said "I thought it would be "inapproprite" to put a Mosque which I am being told is not a Mosque so a *community center* so close to ground zero.
I then apologized for using the word "inappropriate" because who am I to judge what is and is not appropriate?
I then said I thought it would be nice to have a center which represented all faiths as a place to come together.
Unfortunately, I then chose a poor source for a resource.
Now let me ask you something? Have you never put your foot into your own mouth before? I have on this thread. And I am done inserting it any farther. Understand?
Thanks.

Why is it not OK for this to be built?? What is *your* reasoning?

As for a place for all to come and pay their respects, I believe a few people have pointed out that a memorial is being built on ground zero..

This of course has not happened 9 years later, why is no one up in arms about this?


So I ask cause I am curious to know your opinion, why can't a Community Center/ Mosque be built where it is being built?

What is so wrong about that?

Oh, and I am not seeing where anyone called anyone names.....

I don't think I can know what people's hearts are like. I do think I know what people's thoughts are based upon what they write. But thank you, I'm glad you find my tone civil; I strive for my posts to always be civil.

Have I ever put my foot in my mouth? Absolutely! Part of why I can be verbose is that I try to make it absolutely clear what I am and am not saying. Being a writer I know that the reader cannot and should not have to try to get inside my head to fill in the things I think are self-evident because they are self-evident to ME. I am curious why you chose the sources that you did.

As far as the having a place for people of all faiths to come together why would it have to be at the Cordoba house site? The argument that the community center should not be built close to the WTC site because it would be better to have a place for people of all faiths to come together seems, well, let's just say I don't follow the logic. The same could be said of ANY building use that was not an interfaith center. "We want to build a 100 story shopping mall a block over from the WTC site..." "Why not build a 100 story center where all people could come together...." See how that works? Extending the logic--and I'm taking your words to mean what they appear to mean--then really ANY building around the WTC site would be just as well used as an ecumenical center. So why is it that the use that would result in a community center frequented by Muslims is questionable while the use as, say, a Burger King or sushi restaurant or, for that matter, 100 story shopping mall wouldn't be?

As far as your statement "who am I to judge..." well, you are a citizen of a democratic republic and so, in point of fact, it is kind of in the job description of citizen to judge such things. If someone wanted to, for instance, open a strip club across the street from the high school I would have issues about that. I would go and make certain that those issues received a public hearing. Am I anti-strip clubs? No, not particularly. Am I anti-sex? Absolutely not! However, I judge it inappropriate to put a strip club across the street from a high school. Am I making a judgement? Yes. That's part of being a responsible citizen. However, in making said judgement, I should expect that my position will be challenged by people who may hold a contrary view. I should be expected to be prepared to explain my reasoning and, if my reasoning is shown to be flawed, incoherent, or based upon non-factual or non-evidentiary grounds then I should also be prepared to change my position.

As I said in my post to you, all of us arguing the other side, are simply looking to understand the why of it and so far, I can't say that I've seen, read or heard a cogent argument about why the place shouldn't be built. I certainly haven't seen a principle applied that any person would want applied universally without favor or prejudice.

Btw. just as an aside--I am defending the rights of practitioners of a religion I do not practice and would not practice (because I don't 'do' theism generally or monotheism specifically) because I believe that minority faiths, ethnic minorities, racial minorities, and queer people are the canaries in the social coal mine. If this is happening to Cordoba house today, and the mosque (which IS a mosque) in Tennessee or California tomorrow, then it's only a matter of time before someone gets around to noticing the couple of million Americans who practice Zen Buddhism and decide that because Japan was Buddhist (which is sort of correct but Shinto was the majority religion in Japan during the War) and since we fought a war 70 years ago, it's not a good idea for there to be Buddhist temples in America.

Btw. the next time you hear someone say something along the theme of "they can build their mosque, just not there" run this one around your head and see what you come up with:

"Blacks can marry anyone they like, as long as the person isn't white."
"Blacks can live anywhere they want, just not next door."
"Gays and lesbians can marry any person they want, just so long as it is a member of the opposite gender."

Different words, identical sentiments. It's like being in favor of, say, your neighbor coming for dinner provided that they don't eat or drink anything.


cheers
Aj

So much for love thy neighbor
 

A non-trivial point that I missed
 

I was watching Olbermann and there was a young man on with Afghanistan and Iraq Veterans of America who made a good point that I missed. There are still troops at the tip-of-the-spear in Afghanistan. The Afghanis and the foreign fighters who might be in that country to fight the Americans have satellite TV and Internet access as well. They see news that we see through Al Jazeera or the BBC or CNN World. This Saturday a church in Florida is going to burn the Qur'an as a sign of solidarity with the victims and families of 9/11. This young man, in talking about this event, said something that I think is germane here: images of the Qur'an being will be seen in Afghanistan and there are young men and women whose lives will be put at risk. Images of Americans protesting the building of an Islamic community center will be seen in Afghanistan. Those images will put the lives of soldiers at risk.

My son is one of those soldiers. What we do here in America has consequences off shore. Something that perhaps we might want to think about.

Cheers
Aj

Yes, those images will and I am glad that military generals are speaking up about this. No joke about your son and all of the daughters and sons in Afghanistan.

Today while listening to the radio while out, I heard this minister just shine this whole thing on, saying that if more lives were lost, it was not our fault (his congegation planning on doing this), it is Islam's fault. I wanted to climb through the radio waves and smack him. I have a couple of good friends with kids serving in Afghanistan. The thought of them risking their lives for the likes of this minister boils my blood. One of the things our military is trying to accomplish there has to do with changing the way the US is viewed by Muslims. Many are trying to gain trust with a people that have had nothing but war and other countries occuping their country in their country for decades.

I had to just turn the radio off after hearing this- it was in response to Gen. Peteraus (sp?) speaking out about the danger this could escalate for troops. You know, I am actually starting to have physiological responses about this each and every time I hear about the buring, the community center and the coutless bites about anti-Muslim sentiments. My stomach does wrench. I think about my friends (and you, plus other members that have kids/loved ones serving) and think about what it would be like if my kid were there and this was going on. My oldest grand daughter will be 18 soon and what if she decides on a military career? It could happen.

My best to your son, Aj- and I hope these idiots don't do this.

Piggy Back off AJ's post
 

On Hardball:
 

Although, I am usually on the left side of these discussions and honestly view this entire story/issue as just one cog on the wheel of an ever increasing anti-Muslim ladder in the US - I get what you are saying, here.

So often, one statement from a poster is jumped all over when, everyone, has put a foot in their mouth at one time or another. It happens. And since we do not have a 3 dimensional way of "hearing" each other, I find pile ons (not saying that is happening presently) to be very unfair. And a tool for hindering communication because once put on the defensive, most people will dig further into their stance and not consider opposing convictions.

One of the things that I value the most on the site is seeing what other people think about issues, etc. I don't always agree, but, there have been many times that my own thinking has been enriched by someone else's take on things.

Thank Goodness!!!!
 

so apparently he is saying that he is not going to burn them cuz some Islamic Leader told him that the "mosque" near Ground Zero will be moved elsewhere.

Which is false information, the man who made the statement has nothing to do with the Islamic Center in NY.

so the guy is going to NY on Saturday to meet with....?


beejeezus some people have things so convoluted i don't even know what to think or say.

Obama Sends Best Wishes to Muslims for Eid-al-Fitr

Mr. Obama said this year's Eid is also an occasion to reflect on the importance of religious tolerance.

President Obama said that this year, those affected by the devastated floods in Pakistan will be on the minds of many around the world. He said all Americans can participate in the relief, recovery and reconstruction efforts by donating to the Pakistan Relief Fund at www.state.gov.

*I* personally am glad that they did not take Trump's offer, what a pompous ass.

right?

and the pastor trading on act of Islamophobia for another makes me throw up in my mouth a little. asshat.

Q: how many folks here on this thread, let alone on this site, have used the words, "nuts", "wacko" nut-jobs" ?? What are you going to do censor everybody that does use such "offensive" language?

Again and for the last time. The words I used, are the words I used, and they were NOT meant for anyone here!! I was describing the nuts, the people that hate on other people without even knowing them and causing all kinds of trouble etc etc...k? NOT about anyone here! Tell me, did you also contact others (in private too) that responded to the thread and got on their case about these 'offensive' words ? Someone took this too personally, giving that it wasn't even about them to begin with.
Look, I don't know you, if we disagree ok fine, we disagree..you may use words to express yourself that I may find offensive, but how would you know what those words are, you don't know me...does that keep you from expressing yourself, because I or somebody else (and I'm not talking about verbally attacking someone here because of their opinion) may find offensive?For the last time...I was NOT name calling anybody here those names, keep it in context! You wrote to me in private....among other things, that " I am awaiting your response...", well this is it. Peace and have a nice day.

Me, too! Pompous and always ready for the press and photo ops! Plus, can you imagine the flack from the right-wing with the 25% mark-up and what they would be saying about the money going to Islamic terrorist cells!?

Sometimes good things happen.

http://www.towleroad.com/2010/09/dud...ecration-.html

I'm not sure, I haven't been counting and I'm sorry you're feeling singled out and victimized. I think you might be missing my point. FA took exception to your language and indicated that to you directly, yet you continue to use and defend your use of... that very same language.

A better question might be how many people purposely used that language after the exception was taken?

Whether or not I agree with FA's position regarding the main issue of this thread, I think in the least, we should respect another member's sensitivity to language. Language that I find dehumanizing and used to perpetuate inaccurate stereotypes of the mentally ill.


I'm not interested in censoring you or anyone else for that matter and I'm sorry you feel censored. Censorship implies the suppression of language, specifically your language, by someone in a position of power...that clearly isn't the case here.

I'm interested in participating in conversations with people who behave sensitively and compassionately of their own volition. When someone has indicated a particular sensitivity to language, my hope is that the sensitivity is respected as one person's truth, and that their truth is upheld and honored...That's all really.


You asked......So I did.

In addition, I responded to you specifically because you indicated in this thread and in another thread that FA was the only person who took exception to your language. That clearly isn't the case, so I let you know privately that I also took exception to and currently take exception to, your continual use of the same language. I am happy to take this conversation back to private or to another thread entirely.

We may not intend to offend, but words can be like bullets and our keyboards like guns...if someone gets hurt, doesn't it make sense to put the safety on?

I think we need to be sensitive when using language that historically, has been derogatory. I think we should be especially sensitive when it feels like our insensitivity is targeting people who are already marginalized, like people with psychiatric disabilities.

I may, and if I do, I hope you let me know that you found my language offensive, so that I can minimize the damage I do with my words.

It appears that there was not only one mosque in the twin towers, but two (existed after 1999)! Both blown up on 9/11 obviously. Keith Olberman tonight cited that this was not reported via the media until Sat, 9/11 by a columist in the NY Times. Olberman also talked about how the media has been remiss in not discussing this earlier as this situation has unfolded. Sounded like he did not have this knowledge, as well- I certainly did not know this. I also have no problem with the proposed community center and prayer room (already talked about my personal experience with loss in tghe towers that day).

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#39161595

This (above link) is the entire podcast of his show tonight, so you have to listen to other stories covered before you get to this info. and where the name of the columist is mentioned that brought this to light on Saturday.

Something else- There were people killed in Afghanistan during anti-US/West demonstrations due to the Florida preacher threatening to burn the Koran. It appears these were civilians that were shot by government troops (don't have links- read article in SF Chronicle morning at breakfast about this).

OK... I have used wacko, etc. and yes, I do use such terms often when referring to right-wing political or Christian extremists. However, since some have been offended, I have not in this thread since they mentioned this.

For me, if something offends another person and they stand up and let me know this, I feel like I should respect their feelings. there are probably quite a few terms/phrases that are offensive to me that can be fairly common and I appreciate it when someone respects my feelings. Frankly, I have learned that we all just can have sensitivities and if I dismiss these feelings, I am devaluing someone.

It isn't a big deal for me to refrain from using some of these terms. It's kind of like knowing that my mother would react to some swear words and out of respect for her, I didn't use them around her. I never felt censored due to this. other people may feel very differently about this.

i don't believe in stereotyping a whole group based on what a few\minority do. our community should know that better than any other! the muslims that want the mosque don't want to fly planes into buildings or hurt or kill anyone and they had nothing to do with 9-11. true terrorism begins the day we lose our constitutional liberties such as freedom of religion.

ya know........Bill O Rilley ... he is a jerk..... and how dare he tell Joy to hush up and that she might learn something..... omg!!
the video clip is in the link below..


If anyone knows how to create water cooler moments on television, it’s the ladies of "The View" and FOX News' Bill O'Reilly. It's no surprise then that putting the two of them together on the same set caused some fireworks.

During a discussion about building a mosque at ground zero -- which O'Reilly is against -- Whoopi Goldberg asks the TV personality why he thinks it would be inappropriate. His response: "Because Muslims killed us on 9/11." This angers Goldberg, who lets an expletive fly out of her mouth before adding that it was religious extremists, and before getting up and walking off the set behind Joy Behar, who herself was angered by the comment.


Barbara Walters apologized for her colleagues' swift departure, which prompted O'Reilly to clarify things. "If anybody thought I was demeaning all Muslims," he said, "I apologize." Goldberg and Behar later returned and the discussion continued. Here's a clip of the entire incident:

http://social.entertainment.msn.com/...c760&GT1=28103