Proposed Mosque Near Ground Zero

[Apocalipstic]

Originally Posted by Dylan

And why is it we all weren't aware from the beginning what McViegh's religion was? Why is it the media never shouted out, "OMG, We're Under Attack From HomeGrown Christians! Run For Your Lives!"

Why is it the media, people, Amuricans, etc NEVER went on some rampage about Catholocism, Christianity, The Bible, etc? And how come NO ONE is up in arms about the fact that there's a church right next to where the Federal Building was, AND there's a church within one block...that's TWOOOOOOOOO churches! The horrah of it all...having churches of the bomber's affiliation RIGHT next to the site! How disrespectful (to whom I don't really know, but bigotry and prejudice [and xtian privilege] doesn't always have to be logical or rational, so...)

But now that I've brought it up...to whom is it 'disrespectful' if there's a Muslim community center or mosque or a Muslim ANYTHING really? WHO is being disrespected? Serious question.


Dylan

Ummm.

Sara Palin?

[Dylan]

Originally Posted by apocalipstic

Sara Palin?

Sara Palin = Christian = Terrorist


Dylan...using the same logic that all X religion-practicers are responsible for the actions of a few of the X religion-practicers

'Cuz lest we forget, Obama's a terrorist too since he's (not) Muslim...oh annnnnnnnnnd is middle name is Hussein...that makes him a terrorist dictator!

[Manul]

Let's not forget:

[dreadgeek]

Dylan:

As I love pointing out (and hate that I live in a world where it is true TO be pointed out):

Each white Christian who performs a given act of violence is *that* white Christian. A singular incident unconnected to anything or anyone else. The KKK is N singular, bad apples, none of whom are connected to one another and all of them coincidentally gathering under the banner of that organization, while at the same time being *completely* isolated from one another.

Every non-white and every non-Christian who performs a given act of violence is ALL of that group, X, and all other members of that group either understand why the action took place and/or is even now walking over their own parents to get in line to be the *next* member of that group X to perform such an act.

No one mentioned McVeigh's religion because he wasn't *really* a Christian--no matter what he might have said about himself and, looked at in the correct frame, wasn't *really* a white man either. We can know this because no Christian or white man could *ever* do the acts that McVeigh did and since we know he performed those acts, we can assume that he was neither white nor Christian. On the other hand, John Lee Malvo (the DC sniper) is all black men and the only reason that, for instance, my father wasn't *also the DC sniper is that he was already deceased by that point and even *then* it might be that all the black men who were already dead rose from the grave in order to queue up to be the next freeway sniper.

I know, I know, it looks like a double-standard but only when viewed in the wrong (read liberal) light. Actually a consistent standard is being applied to all non-whites and non-Christians and a consistent standard is being applied to all white men who are Christians so there's no double-standard! Isn't FOX news logic fun?

Originally Posted by Dylan

And why is it we all weren't aware from the beginning what McViegh's religion was? Why is it the media never shouted out, "OMG, We're Under Attack From HomeGrown Christians! Run For Your Lives!"

Why is it the media, people, Amuricans, etc NEVER went on some rampage about Catholocism, Christianity, The Bible, etc? And how come NO ONE is up in arms about the fact that there's a church right next to where the Federal Building was, AND there's a church within one block...that's TWOOOOOOOOO churches! The horrah of it all...having churches of the bomber's affiliation RIGHT next to the site! How disrespectful (to whom I don't really know, but bigotry and prejudice [and xtian privilege] doesn't always have to be logical or rational, so...)

But now that I've brought it up...to whom is it 'disrespectful' if there's a Muslim community center or mosque or a Muslim ANYTHING really? WHO is being disrespected? Serious question.


Dylan

And how come there was never any (excused) panic after Oklahoma City in which (white) people ran around beating and killing people who 'looked like' the bomber (i.e. militaristic white males with brownish hair worn in a 'high and tight' style...you know, cuz that's what allllllllllllll xtian bombers look like, and they should all be treated like the terrorists they truly are)

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by Dylan

Sara Palin = Christian = Terrorist


Dylan...using the same logic that all X religion-practicers are responsible for the actions of a few of the X religion-practicers

'Cuz lest we forget, Obama's a terrorist too since he's (not) Muslim...oh annnnnnnnnnd is middle name is Hussein...that makes him a terrorist dictator!

Dylan:

I think you're on to something. I mean, what *better* disguise for an Islamo-fascist, socialist, terrorist dictator what hate the Baby Jesus (tm) than as a Christian President of the United States? I mean, has anyone ever *seen* a picture of Barack Obama and Osama bin Laden in the same room at the same time? No! Coincidence? I think not. Obama is tall. Osama bin Laden is tall. Bin Laden is about 50 and Obama is about 50. So how likely is it that these are two different men? I'd say those chances are 4 billion to 1!
I mean, have you ever seen Obama drive a Chevy? No. Have you ever seen Obama play baseball? No! Have you ever seen Obama eat apple pie? No!

I'd also like to see Obama answer questions about the disappearance of the planet Alderan about a quarter century ago. Darth Vader's voice--done by a black man. Obama--black man. And Grand Moff Tarkin was tall--and again, Obama is tall. Too many coincidences, I think that Obama is probably behind the construction of the first Death Star.

Cheers
Aj
(The sad thing is that there's no parody any of us could post that would even *begin* to sound over-the-top compared to actual Tea Party/Republican rhetoric.)

[Dylan]

Aj,

It's all so crystal clear now! I don't know how I could have missed all of this before

You're sooooo right! I never HAVE seen Obama and bin Laden in the same place at the same time!

Obama's birth year is also 1961...mhmmm, that's right

If we move the numbers around and invert the 6 that makes it 9am 911!


DaVinci Must Have Known Of This!,
Dylan...bets there's a church somewhere near the White House!

[Cowboi]

Originally Posted by Manul

Let's not forget:

the Rev. Jerry Fartwell, makes me wanna hurl...........

[Apocalipstic]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

Dylan:

As I love pointing out (and hate that I live in a world where it is true TO be pointed out):

Each white Christian who performs a given act of violence is *that* white Christian. A singular incident unconnected to anything or anyone else. The KKK is N singular, bad apples, none of whom are connected to one another and all of them coincidentally gathering under the banner of that organization, while at the same time being *completely* isolated from one another.

Every non-white and every non-Christian who performs a given act of violence is ALL of that group, X, and all other members of that group either understand why the action took place and/or is even now walking over their own parents to get in line to be the *next* member of that group X to perform such an act.

No one mentioned McVeigh's religion because he wasn't *really* a Christian--no matter what he might have said about himself and, looked at in the correct frame, wasn't *really* a white man either. We can know this because no Christian or white man could *ever* do the acts that McVeigh did and since we know he performed those acts, we can assume that he was neither white nor Christian. On the other hand, John Lee Malvo (the DC sniper) is all black men and the only reason that, for instance, my father wasn't *also the DC sniper is that he was already deceased by that point and even *then* it might be that all the black men who were already dead rose from the grave in order to queue up to be the next freeway sniper.

I know, I know, it looks like a double-standard but only when viewed in the wrong (read liberal) light. Actually a consistent standard is being applied to all non-whites and non-Christians and a consistent standard is being applied to all white men who are Christians so there's no double-standard! Isn't FOX news logic fun?

Ohhhhhhhhh, but I saw on a poster that president Obama is the new KKK.

Seriously, I agree that it is maddening that if any one POC acts a certain way then every POC must by default be the same.

Things are so illogically stupid right now....maybe they always have been? but somehow the present always seems stupidest!

[morningstar55]

Hey everyone........ hope no ones mad at me for starting this thread.....
i just heard and read about it this morning on the news and thought it might be a good topic for discussion...... just sayin

[AtLast]

[QUOTE=dreadgeek;160866]Dylan:

I think you're on to something. I mean, what *better* disguise for an Islamo-fascist, socialist, terrorist dictator what hate the Baby Jesus (tm) than as a Christian President of the United States? I mean, has anyone ever *seen* a picture of Barack Obama and Osama bin Laden in the same room at the same time? No! Coincidence? I think not. Obama is tall. Osama bin Laden is tall. Bin Laden is about 50 and Obama is about 50. So how likely is it that these are two different men? I'd say those chances are 4 billion to 1!
I mean, have you ever seen Obama drive a Chevy? No. Have you ever seen Obama play baseball? No! Have you ever seen Obama eat apple pie? No!

I'd also like to see Obama answer questions about the disappearance of the planet Alderan about a quarter century ago. Darth Vader's voice--done by a black man. Obama--black man. And Grand Moff Tarkin was tall--and again, Obama is tall. Too many coincidences, I think that Obama is probably behind the construction of the first Death Star.

Cheers
Aj
(The sad thing is that there's no parody any of us could post that would even *begin* to sound over-the-top compared to actual Tea Party/Republican rhetoric.)[/QUOTE]


Yup! nothing we could formulate that is that over-the-top! Sometimes, I so wish that Obama was not the first African American president.... all of this insanity to weed through at a time in our history when a mind such as his and the ability to think through things and hear others is so needed. Sure, I have some times of disagreement with him, but, I am so thankful to have someone with an actual brain as well as a conscience as president! And a mind that remains hungry for knowledge and seeing what is on the other side.

Although it makes me nuts to think that he very well could end up a one-term president, I honestly believe that what he has accomplished thus far, will make a difference. A little tired of even the left’s lack of acknowledgement of some of the key policies his administration has gotten through. If the left would get going as in 2008, the threat of Obama having to deal with even more NO in Congress and losing more momentum would not be happening. Where are the Yes WE Can supporters?

No matter how I try to understand some of Obama’s methods, I know that there is a piece I and all non-African American people don’t get, and never will. Can’t get in terms of how and why he measures his steps so critically and carefully. We will see something similar when a woman, a Latino, or any other POC is elected as president for the first time.

[dreadgeek]

""I wouldn't say that the United States deserved what happened but United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened," said Rauf. "

I don't understand why this is such a controversial statement. Unless someone is wedded to the idea that a bunch of "crazy Arabs" just decided that since there wasn't anything good on TV, they'd plan an attack on the US it seems to me to be painfully self-evident that US policies in the Middle East, Southeast Asia and the Arabian Peninsula might have *something* to do with other people's actions. That's not a justification and what Mr. Rauf said wasn't justification--he was merely pointing out the obvious in the name of trying to understand why things happen. Given that bin Laden had made it very, painfully clear in the late 90's that the presence of thousands of troops on Saudi Arabian soil was unacceptable and that to the end of changing that he was exhorting the shedding of American blood, I cannot understand why anyone would be surprised by the idea that Al Qaeda had a *reason* for attacking the US. Not saying it was a good reason but it was a reason nevertheless.

Cheers
Aj

Originally Posted by morningstar55

There's a heated debate in New York over plans to build a mosque near the World Trade Center site
What do you think???
why can't they build it somewhere else??
why there???
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/...ag=mncol;lst;3

Opponents call it a mosque that's in the worst possible place.

This site should be turned into a museum," said one New Yorker.

Supporters call it a cultural center in the best spot to encourage understanding.

"If a mosque were built then you guys would know what Islam is about," said mosque advocate Dania Darwish.

At issue, a building in lower Manhattan, the proposed site of a 13-story community center and Islamic prayer space, reports CBS News correspondent Jeff Glor.

"This is the Muslim community's effort to rebuild Manhattan," said Park 51 Project spokeswoman Daisy Khan.

The controversy is that it's only two blocks from ground zero. Tthis week Sarah Palin upped an already raucous debate when on Twitter she called on "peaceful" Muslims to "refudiate" the plan, calling it "a stab in the heart" for America.

Palin's "Refudiate" Tweet on Mosque Draws Fire

Liberal bloggers pounced on the made-up word "refudiate" and Palin retracted her Tweet but not her sentiment, saying Shakespeare "liked to coin new words too."

Grammatical debates aside, New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg has come out firmly in support of the plan. "Everything the United States stands for and New York stands for is tolerance and openness," he said.

"My hope is that [the community center] attracts a lot of people who don't understand Islam," said Valerie Lucznikowska of 9/11 Families for a Peaceful Tomorrow

Tim brown, a former New York City firefighter who lost 93 colleagues on Sept. 11, calls the proposal a slap in the face. He has a message for the developers.

"Stop it. Stop hurting the families. Everyday there are stories in the newspaper. They're hurting the families again. They don't deserve it. These American families have paid too much," he said.

Brown and others, including New York gubernatorial candidate Rick Lazio, are calling for an investigation into financing behind the $4.8 million building purchase.

Their concerns, spurred in part by comments the center's imam, Faisel Rauf, made to "60 Minutes" in 2001, just weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks:

"I wouldn't say that the United States deserved what happened but United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened," said Rauf.

Citing anti-Americanism, opponents are pushing to have the building declared a landmark making it far more difficult for any Muslim center construction to begin.

[AtLast]

As is always the case, this religion is being singled out as the culprit. It isn't. The people that were responsible for 9/11 were a fringe group just like Christian Tea Party whackos and others commit violent acts against intitutions.

Also, Muslims died in 9/11...... as did people from various faiths and non-religious backgrounds it was a World Trade Center.... in a city that has always been a key melting-pot in the US.

It is exactly this kind of thinking that got the US attacked in the first place....

[Apocalipstic]

I am still not 100% convinced that the US Govt at the time had no hand/knowledge in/of the 911 attack.

Think of all the rights we have lost since then. The fear mongering.

I knew the second W was elected that we would be going to war. I sat in the middle of my living room crying, wondering how they would frame it.

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by AtLastHome

As is always the case, this religion is being singled out as the culprit. It isn't. The people that were responsible for 9/11 were a fringe group just like Christian Tea Party whackos and others commit violent acts against intitutions.

Also, Muslims died in 9/11...... as did people from various faiths and non-religious backgrounds it was a World Trade Center.... in a city that has always been a key melting-pot in the US.

It is exactly this kind of thinking that got the US attacked in the first place....

Well, I'm not sure that it's this kind of thinking that got us attacked. Al Qaeda had a reason--and it was a policy-based reason--but it was not so much our internal dynamics than it was our external actions. The thing is, bin Laden made it *clear* why he felt the US should be attacked in a 1998 fatwa. In that statement, it was the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia, our complete and utter control of the waters in the Persian Gulf, our support for Israel and our propping up of some of the most brutal dictators around while talking about democracy and human rights.

The great strategic stupidity of the Bush administration is that in invading Iraq, they made bin Laden right that the United States would, without provocation, invade a Muslim nation and he played right into it making bin Laden appear both correct *and* prescient. One should not let terrorists dictate the terms upon which foreign policy is played out and the Bush administration certainly did that.

They don't hate us for our freedom and they don't hate us for generally libertine ways. I'm not even sure that they hate us--they take a very dim view of our government's foreign policy but most international surveys I've seen on the topic suggest that both America (the ideas of our nation) and Americans (all us ordinary schmucks) are actually thought of pretty well globally. US government foreign policy? Not so much with the love.

I think that there are things we could do that would actually go quite a ways toward giving us firmer ground to stand on, defang some of the terrorist rhetoric and help us withdraw from our empire at the same time. There's no strategic region to be in Saudi Arabia so we should leave. While we're on our way out the door we should cut the House of Saud loose and let them work it out with their own people. We should, in fact, cut loose Mumbarak in Egypt and perhaps King Abdullah in Jordan unless they hold free, fair and UN monitored elections. I'm not suggesting these things because I think that they will prevent another attack--I don't. I'm suggesting we do these things because they're strategically smart things to do. The fact that these moves would likely reduce the energy behind the next attack is something we get 'for free'. Oh and it goes without saying that we should get the hell out of Iraq and Afghanistan.

If I can make a suggestion--when thinking about why the opposing force is doing what they are doing, try to get in their heads. You can start by looking at why your nation does things. Have we *ever* attacked another nation because we didn't like the way they ran their internal politics? No. Not that I am aware of, at least. We *have*, on the other hand, attacked other nations in pursuit of strategic policy goals. Assume that the OpFor is at least intelligent and sane enough to operate in much the same manner.

Cheers
Aj

[waxnrope]

In my opinion, 911 served to accelerate the U.S.'s return to ugliness since the Reagan years. Nothing surprises me any more

[Toughy]

I have no issues at all with this Islamic Community Center being built. I am ever amazed that any thinking person would object.


just cuz.....

If memory serves.......Tim McVeigh was no longer a Catholic. When he went searching for who he was after his military service, he ended up with white separatist christian militia......that is who all those whack wing nut militia folk are: fundamentalist separatist christians.

Rachel Maddow did a great special on Tim McVeigh. Most of it was the words of Tim McVeigh.....he did extensive interviews with some press guy before he was murdered by the State.

(I do not think he should have been murdered by the State..........I do not believe in the death penalty under any circumstances for any human being........it's state-sanctioned murder and makes us no better than the person we murdered.........why should we as a country crawl in that gutter? no response necessary...it's a rhetorical question.)

[AtLast]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

Well, I'm not sure that it's this kind of thinking that got us attacked. Al Qaeda had a reason--and it was a policy-based reason--but it was not so much our internal dynamics than it was our external actions. The thing is, bin Laden made it *clear* why he felt the US should be attacked in a 1998 fatwa. In that statement, it was the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia, our complete and utter control of the waters in the Persian Gulf, our support for Israel and our propping up of some of the most brutal dictators around while talking about democracy and human rights.

The great strategic stupidity of the Bush administration is that in invading Iraq, they made bin Laden right that the United States would, without provocation, invade a Muslim nation and he played right into it making bin Laden appear both correct *and* prescient. One should not let terrorists dictate the terms upon which foreign policy is played out and the Bush administration certainly did that.

They don't hate us for our freedom and they don't hate us for generally libertine ways. I'm not even sure that they hate us--they take a very dim view of our government's foreign policy but most international surveys I've seen on the topic suggest that both America (the ideas of our nation) and Americans (all us ordinary schmucks) are actually thought of pretty well globally. US government foreign policy? Not so much with the love.

I think that there are things we could do that would actually go quite a ways toward giving us firmer ground to stand on, defang some of the terrorist rhetoric and help us withdraw from our empire at the same time. There's no strategic region to be in Saudi Arabia so we should leave. While we're on our way out the door we should cut the House of Saud loose and let them work it out with their own people. We should, in fact, cut loose Mumbarak in Egypt and perhaps King Abdullah in Jordan unless they hold free, fair and UN monitored elections. I'm not suggesting these things because I think that they will prevent another attack--I don't. I'm suggesting we do these things because they're strategically smart things to do. The fact that these moves would likely reduce the energy behind the next attack is something we get 'for free'. Oh and it goes without saying that we should get the hell out of Iraq and Afghanistan.

If I can make a suggestion--when thinking about why the opposing force is doing what they are doing, try to get in their heads. You can start by looking at why your nation does things. Have we *ever* attacked another nation because we didn't like the way they ran their internal politics? No. Not that I am aware of, at least. We *have*, on the other hand, attacked other nations in pursuit of strategic policy goals. Assume that the OpFor is at least intelligent and sane enough to operate in much the same manner.

Cheers
Aj

Oh, I see what your saying. I just feel that the US has always been so Christian focused, it has influenced how we treat, interact and make policy about non-Christian nations which has caused so much alienation. The only country I can think of in which this different is Israel.

I also feel that the US lacks the capcity to understand governments in which religion is central to policy and their societal structures and values. I may not agree with them, either, especially in terms of the role and treatment of women in particular, but, I think our Christian focus (blindness?) keeps us from contributing to the kinds of things that can bring glocal piece. Although, this just isn't a simple situation. Looking at oil for example, certainly brings up a lot of things and most certainly was in play during Dub'ya's terms! Cheny as VP made that very clear.

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by AtLastHome

Oh, I see what your saying. I just feel that the US has always been so Christian focused, it has influenced how we treat, interact and make policy about non-Christian nations which has caused so much alienation. The only country I can think of in which this different is Israel.

I also feel that the US lacks the capcity to understand governments in which religion is central to policy and their societal structures and values. I may not agree with them, either, especially in terms of the role and treatment of women in particular, but, I think our Christian focus (blindness?) keeps us from contributing to the kinds of things that can bring glocal piece. Although, this just isn't a simple situation. Looking at oil for example, certainly brings up a lot of things and most certainly was in play during Dub'ya's terms! Cheny as VP made that very clear.

I don't know that we've always had this Christian focus. If you read the Treaty of Tripoli, the US government under Jefferson bent over backward to show that the United States wasn't a Christian nation (it actually says that in the treaty) and has no quarrel with the "Musselmen" (the 19th century term for Muslims). It's only been since the Cold War that the US got so obsessed that we started moving in directions that can only be described as theocratic.

For very good reasons--and reasons I am actually enthusiastically in support of--Westerners (this isn't an American problem) have a bit of trouble understanding states run by religions because Western Christendom made a pretty clear break between church and state after the European Enlightenment. That simply has not happened in the Middle East and in parts of Southeast Asia so we're certainly going to have problems understanding why, for instance, Iran works the way it does. In fact, of the Western nations America is probably *best* positioned to understand it because we are currently actively flirting with the idea of religious-rule or at least sectarian rule with a veneer of secularism just to keep up appearances for the neighbors. It is only in the United States that, for instance, a candidate who--as far as we can tell from her public pronouncements--really believes that there are demons and that prayer can combat them and have that person be viable as a political figure. Sarah Palin wouldn't last and certainly wouldn't be a power-broker in, say, Sweden but she is viable in the 2012 GOP primary. It seems to me that France, England, Germany *all* would have a much more difficult time understanding the role that the belief "God says our nation should do X" or "God says our society should be ordered thusly" has in public policy than the United States. Those nations are pretty thoroughly secular while the United States has a non-trivial population that *genuinely* believe that Jesus is returning soon, that people will be raptured up when he does show up, and that the state of Israel must exist so that the Jews therein can be 'perfected' or, failing that, wiped out to hasten the battle of Armageddon. We have people in the last administration who believe that so fervently, in fact, that they designed foreign policy around that belief!

The American problem with understanding, for instance, Iran has much more to do with religious differences than in not understanding how the nominally secular government of Iran could be beholden to the religious authorities. We're most of the way there already and there are any number of public policies whose proponents can *only* justify them in terms of religion (prayer in schools, anti-Darwinism in schools, anti-gay, anti-abortion, anti-birth control and non-fact-based sex education being the main examples).

I'm curious, what do you think a less Christian focused view would do for the cause of world peace?

Cheers
Aj

[betenoire]

On topic. Anybody who opposes the building of this community centre has some -serious- self-examination to do.

Off topic. I -really- hate the term "melting pot". Just sayin'.

(Okay, not "just sayin'" It implies a melting away of different cultures. It implies assimilation. It implies becoming "more American". It's poopy.)

More off topic. I so dig that the Holy Trilogy got dragged into this discussion. Some of you people are such giant nerds it makes me want to lick your eyeballs.

Further off topic. Obama was right - Five Guys has the best fucking burgers in the universe. Omg.

[JustJo]

Just to go back to the original question....

I am in favor of allowing this community center and mosque to be built. While I understand that the thought hurts many people, I believe that the only way to heal those wounds is through understanding and making connections.

As many here have pointed out "Muslims" didn't attack the WTC. Terrorists did. Big difference.

Allowing the community center to be built will give people a chance to get to know each other as individuals and as families...not as misunderstood concepts, political tools, or media scare tactics.

I attended a small grad school program with a Muslim man for two years, and was able to have many conversations about what that faith really teaches, to see him with his children and his wife, to hear how he interacted with fellow students, and to debate and converse on many occasions. Knowing him and his family did more to enhance my understanding and promote "tolerance" (I hate that word) than any media report, book, sermon, political speech...whatever.

People have to have the opportunity to get to know each other in order to understand, to accept and maybe even to embrace. This is a good first step.