Religion

[wellington1869]

incidentally grimmy, in case its not obvious, I agree with you and quadibloc.

As do a majority of new yorkers (a pretty leftist town), and 62% of democrats.

To suggest (as some have above) that only republicans are against the mosque is to be, well, wrong.

[Lanx]

incidentally grimmy, in case its not obvious, I agree with you and quadibloc.

As do a majority of new yorkers (a pretty leftist town), and 62% of democrats.

To suggest (as some have above) that only republicans are against the mosque is to be, well, wrong.

Polls are pretty irrelevant, i mean they sampled what, 100 nyer's walking down main st?
i mean i was born and raised in ny, w/ a public school education (not a private/catholic school one, tho the skirts...) and worked 2 blocks away from WTC (even coming from the A/C trains under the WTC to work) for 4 years, and would probably still be there if my fiance didn't have a job to move to 9 years ago, i'm a republican not cuz i have republican beliefs, but cuz i registered as one to get the perks.
am i against this mosque? no
am i for it? no
i just don't care, do whatever you want, cuz it's in the constitution, freedom of religion.
just like owning a gun
am i for guns? no
am i against? no
i just don't care about guns

just b/c something is an issue doesn't mean you have to be on one side or another, you can also be on the side that just doesn't care, cuz it doesn't affect you.

However, the second you decided to say some religions are ok to be near ground zero and some aren't (even tho it's on private property, not owned by the state/govt or whatever)
then that becomes an issue of constitutional stuff.
You can't say every citizen is entitled to freedom of religion, but near ground zero... well there are certain exceptions cuz we believe "YOUR" religion caused a few fanatical wackos to plan a very eloborate scheme to train 20 odd ppl to fly planes, give them money and execute a 3 pronged plane attack.

thats is why i believe it's all or nothing, any religion should be allowed ground zero, or none at all, if a mosque is the exception, then they should demolish that church, 1 block away (st pauls chapel).

besides ny blocks are really small, i could walk from one block to another in less than 30s (using ny walking speed, which is different than any other walking speed, like a rural area, actually rural areas they sort of just limp along compared to ny speed). Everything is compact and together, you all types of establishments in a 3 block radius. They are trying to compare a mosque to "seedy" places like xxx stores... well j&R computer world (where i worked) sold tons of xxx dvd's, they didn't sell well cuz well it was in the business section of the store, which i managed(in this tiny alcove). And this is the type of ny you get, businessmen(cuz they're in suits and we're 3 blocks from wallst, nyse) go hmmm whats that? oh xxxdvd lemme go check. And you know i actually got asked at least once a month, excuse me, can you help me out? I'm selling microsoft windows and quicken and in this alcove that is sectioned off i get asked for help in the xxx section. Why does a business man have to ask a 18yr old pimply college kid(that was me 10 yrs ago) for help in the xxx section? I just made up ****, oh that ones good, we have a few requests for that one(not really i just pointed to the dvd that only had one on the shelf instead of 5, thereby creating a false impression of being popular and getting these nutjobs out of my area).

So really is this just dressing up a pig? i mean you can't dress the ugly out of a pig(no offense to pigs).

[wellington1869]

constitutionality vs advisability. I dont think anyone is seriously saying they dont have the right to build it; by all accounts they do. The question is about advisability, about what it says about them, what its significances and symbolisms are, both within the muslim world and outside it. And how they proceed at this point will say a lot about them -- imam rauf and daisy khan -- their stated goals, their vision, and their political and religious values.

their funding sources says a lot about them too, btw. Nearly all saudi money.

And rauf still refuses to condemn hamas, and is on record as saying 9/11 was americas fault.

not good so far, for claims of peace, dialogue, and bridge-building, in lower manhattan.

and yea, its 600 feet from ground zero.

[Lanx]

who cares what it says about them, it's what it says about us.
we're america, practice your zombie worshipping ways and scare ppl into censoring allah if you want, you can do it here.
if this is about who wins and who loses it'll be a never ending battle b/c the US can look like it won b/c it did not give in to denying the constitution, and it can look like the US lost b/c there is a monument to terrorism. Or if the US denied them then the terrorists can go "see america isn't so free when push comes to shove" and the US can say "fck off ground zero terrorists, sorta ppl"

[quadibloc]

The ****Cat Lounge near Ground Zero is the place to worship.

Ah, yes. There we are. Clearly, New York City will have to expropriate that facility too, if it were to declare a... penumbral zone around the WTC site where any sort of potentially questionable or controversial construction is permitted.

Otherwise, the complaint of discrimination could have some weight.

[RoboKrikit]

People who are "against" the Burlington Mosque Factory are acting like bigots.  Yeah, there are bigots who are Democrats too.  People act like it's Big Al Qaeda's Mosque and Beheadarium.  It's a church.

I thought this was funny.

http://twitter.com/jasonmustian/status/21337496786

[wellington1869]

People who are "against" the Burlington Mosque Factory are acting like bigots.  Yeah, there are bigots who are Democrats too.  People act like it's Big Al Qaeda's Mosque and Beheadarium.  It's a church.

I thought this was funny.

http://twitter.com/jasonmustian/status/21337496786

wow, you so brilliantly convinced me that american democracy is the same as islamic terrorism!

[wellington1869]

who cares what it says about them, it's what it says about us.
we're america, practice your zombie worshipping ways and scare ppl into censoring allah if you want, you can do it here.
if this is about who wins and who loses it'll be a never ending battle b/c the US can look like it won b/c it did not give in to denying the constitution, and it can look like the US lost b/c there is a monument to terrorism. Or if the US denied them then the terrorists can go "see america isn't so free when push comes to shove" and the US can say "fck off ground zero terrorists, sorta ppl"

again, no one is "denying the constitution", (that claim is wonderfully dramatic except that its a non issue here, since no one, not even the organziers of the mass protests, is denying that they have the constitutional right), but if the imam genuinely believes in dialogue, thats not where the mosque goes.

you're right about 'what does it say about us'.
What does it say about us, that we let an imam who wont condemn hamas and says openly (on 60 minutes, no less) that 9/11 was america's fault, build a mosque 600 feet from ground zero?

The imam behind plans to build a controversial Ground Zero mosque yesterday refused to describe Hamas as a terrorist organization.
According to the State Department's assessment, "Hamas terrorists, especially those in the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades, have conducted many attacks, including large-scale suicide bombings, against Israeli civilian and military targets."

Asked if he agreed with the State Department's assessment, Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf told WABC radio, "Look, I'm not a politician.

"The issue of terrorism is a very complex question," he told interviewer Aaron Klein.

"There was an attempt in the '90s to have the UN define what terrorism is and say who was a terrorist. There was no ability to get agreement on that."

Asked again for his opinion on Hamas, an exasperated Rauf wouldn't budge.

but hey, maybe you feel the same way about hamas, which might explain our different take on the significances of such things.  I wonder tho, what does it say about us?  or about you?
and we're the bigots?

Oh yea, btw, he believes in sharia law.

Abdul Rauf continued: "Current governments are unjust and do not follow Islamic laws." He added:

New laws were permitted after the death of Muhammad, so long of course that these laws do not contradict the Quran or the Deeds of Muhammad ... so they create institutions that assure no conflicts with Sharia. [emphasis in translation]

what does it say about us? you're right. yea, we should embrace the kkk too. and the tea partiers. anyone who's against those two groups must be a "bigot" too. After all, what does it say about us if we dont embrace them? We'd be discriminating!

because, yea, you're right, we couldnt find any real muslim moderates to build truly open-minded mosques in such a sensitive location? I guess thats what you think then. Wow, you have a pretty low opinion of moderate islam (and we're the bigots?), but hey, if thats what you believe, then thats one reason we differ I guess.  

quote from his book:

The foundation of the Shari'ah is wisdom and the safeguarding of people's interests in this world and the next. In its entirety it is justice, mercy, and wisdom [!]. Every rule that transcends justice to tyranny, mercy to its opposite, the good to the evil, and wisdom to triviality does not belong to the Shari'ah although it might have been introduced therein by implication. The Shari'ah is God's justice and mercy among His people [!]. Life, nutrition, medicine, light, recuperation, and virtue are made possible by it. Every good that exists is derived from it, and every deficiency in being results from its loss and dissipation....For the Shari'ah, which God entrusted His Prophet to transmit, is the pillar of the world and the key to success and happiness in this world and the next."

yea, sharia is just personal law, thats all. nothing to see here.  Like keeping kosher. no biggie.


oh yea, he's a prominent supporter of the biggest backer of the flotillas against israel.

yea, israel, who needs 'em.

Polls are pretty irrelevant, i mean they sampled what, 100 nyer's walking down main st?

it was a quinnipiac poll, actually. I mean they're just a professional organization that does polls for a living, thats all. Oh and a bunch of other institutes and news organizations comissioned polls too, but you know, whatever.

Or if the US denied them then the terrorists can go "see america isn't so free when push comes to shove"

like you said, who cares what they say?

[wellington1869]

I wonder though, in all seriousness: who is more hurtful to islam?

1. Those who believe that all muslims are terrorists?

2. Or those who believe no muslims are terrorists?

My answer: while both are wrong, the latter are far more hurtful to islam and muslims. Why? because they deny moderate muslims the opportunity to have an internal debate with their own radicals (who 'dont exist' supposedly), and they deny the rest of the world the opportunity to engage with radical islam (which 'doesnt exist', supposedly).

We -- we leftists -- dont do this to any other religion. There is no other religion on earth that we so instinctively and thoughtlessly protect, at a time when islam is so obviously in a complete and total crisis.

We dont do this to christianity. We never declare that all christians are good.
We dont do this to hinduism. We dont do this to judaism.

Moderate muslims who try to engage their own radicals -- we call them seditious, traitors, stooges of western imperialism.
And non-muslims who try to engage the radicals -- we call them 'bigots'.


We do this incredibly hurtful thing to muslims. We, leftists.  We're the moderate muslim's worst nightmare.

[Lanx]

again, no one is "denying the constitution", (that claim is wonderfully dramatic except that its a non issue here, since no one, not even the organziers of the mass protests, is denying that they have the constitutional right), but if the imam genuinely believes in dialogue, thats not where the mosque goes.

you're right about 'what does it say about us'.
What does it say about us, that we let an imam who wont condemn hamas and says openly (on 60 minutes, no less) that 9/11 was america's fault, build a mosque 600 feet from ground zero?



but hey, maybe you feel the same way about hamas, which might explain our different take on the significances of such things.  I wonder tho, what does it say about us?  or about you?
and we're the bigots?

Oh yea, btw, he believes in sharia law.


what does it say about us? you're right. yea, we should embrace the kkk too. and the tea partiers. anyone who's against those two groups must be a "bigot" too. After all, what does it say about us if we dont embrace them? We'd be discriminating!

because, yea, you're right, we couldnt find any real muslim moderates to build truly open-minded mosques in such a sensitive location? I guess thats what you think then. Wow, you have a pretty low opinion of moderate islam (and we're the bigots?), but hey, if thats what you believe, then thats one reason we differ I guess.  

quote from his book:


yea, sharia is just personal law, thats all. nothing to see here.  Like keeping kosher. no biggie.


oh yea, he's a prominent supporter of the biggest backer of the flotillas against israel.

yea, israel, who needs 'em.


it was a quinnipiac poll, actually. I mean they're just a professional organization that does polls for a living, thats all. Oh and a bunch of other institutes and news organizations comissioned polls too, but you know, whatever.


like you said, who cares what they say?

I can now see where gr1m is getting dismayed,
i guess it stems from the generalization that i agree w/ these hamas or imam ppl heck i don't even know wth i'm saying, let alone know if i'm supposed to agree with them b/c i think in my way.
i guess the imam is some guy in a position and the hamas is some organization.

i just really don't see where your going or what i'm being dragged into.

[ThirdLap]

I'm not in the mood to read eleven pages of posts, so could someone that has already done so summarize everything?  Am I correct in assuming that a sizable percentage of Geekhackers are non-religious/atheist?

[RoboKrikit]

wow, you so brilliantly convinced me that american democracy is the same as islamic terrorism!

I said it was funny, not poignant.

I wonder though, in all seriousness: who is more hurtful to islam?

1. Those who believe that all muslims are terrorists?

2. Or those who believe no muslims are terrorists?

My answer: while both are wrong, the latter are far more hurtful to islam and muslims. Why? because they deny moderate muslims the opportunity to have an internal debate with their own radicals (who 'dont exist' supposedly), and they deny the rest of the world the opportunity to engage with radical islam (which 'doesnt exist', supposedly).

We -- we leftists -- dont do this to any other religion. There is no other religion on earth that we so instinctively and thoughtlessly protect, at a time when islam is so obviously in a complete and total crisis.

We dont do this to christianity. We never declare that all christians are good.
We dont do this to hinduism. We dont do this to judaism.

Moderate muslims who try to engage their own radicals -- we call them seditious, traitors, stooges of western imperialism.
And non-muslims who try to engage the radicals -- we call them 'bigots'.


We do this incredibly hurtful thing to muslims. We, leftists.  We're the moderate muslim's worst nightmare.

I'm not sure if you're just thinking out loud or what.  I personally do not care who is or isn't Muslim and I really, truly do not give a flying fecal wad about protecting them or any religion's followers in any extra special way.  I just think it is silly that people are so up in arms about a church.

Did someone say no Muslims are terrorists?

[ThirdLap]

This kinda sums up my feelings on the issue.

I'm a three-time OEF/OIF combat veteran with twelve years of service, and fairly liberal because of it.

[ch_123]

I said it was funny, not poignant.

Welly gets a bit butthurt when people point out that America isn't all that great.

[itlnstln]

We -- we leftists -- dont do this to any other religion. There is no other religion on earth that we so instinctively and thoughtlessly protect, at a time when islam is so obviously in a complete and total crisis.

We dont do this to christianity. We never declare that all christians are good.
We dont do this to hinduism. We dont do this to judaism.

Moderate muslims who try to engage their own radicals -- we call them seditious, traitors, stooges of western imperialism.
And non-muslims who try to engage the radicals -- we call them 'bigots'.


We do this incredibly hurtful thing to muslims. We, leftists.  We're the moderate muslim's worst nightmare.

I don't give a free pass to any religion.  Religion, especially Christianity and Islam, have just as much potential for harm/evil as good.  In other words, I am equally skeptical of all religion, but would like to think, and recognize, that there is some good in the people that practice (I know there is... I seeeen it).  My last point on the Ground Zero thing is that you can either allow everybody or allow no one to erect a place a worship, but you can't pick and choose, especially in a country that was founded on religious freedom.  I also agree with Ripster that blocking the building of a Muslim anything only validates the terrorists' motive, and it alienates one of the largest-growing demographics in the nation.


Welly, I clock out of GH at 5 p.m. Central Time.  By the time I clock back in, the set up just doesn't have the same impact any more.

[quadibloc]

I just think it is silly that people are so up in arms about a church.

I'll tell you what they're really up in arms over.

On the one hand, they think that their feelings should be respected, and that something which appears to lend itself to interpretation as a symbol of victory by the terrorists should not be built in the vicinity of the WTC.

On the other hand, they find it strange that the First Amendment means that their feelings in this regard must be ignored, and yet despite the First Amendment, we should be "responsible" and not show any disrespect to the man who instigated the murder of the husbands of these three women:

Saffiyah bint Huyeiy ibn Akhtab
Rayhana bint Zaid
Maria al-Qibtiyya

and their abduction, and made them his "wives".

The third was a present from one of his followers who had originally made her his "wife".

[Voixdelion]

Interesting -

what do we do as a society when 2 of the ideals the society is founded on are in direct conflict?  In this case the freedom of individuals (the wives - and murdered husbands) conflicting with the freedom of religion to have a separate set of rules for those individuals.  There isn't a set precedent for which set of "rules" takes priority here in our system.  Is that what you mean?

[ch_123]

I'm not in the mood to read eleven pages of posts, so could someone that has already done so summarize everything?  Am I correct in assuming that a sizable percentage of Geekhackers are non-religious/atheist?

There was a pretty amusing argument with a creationist baptist, who eventually said that about 2/3s of the world population was going to burn in hell.

It all went downhill from there.

[quadibloc]

There isn't a set precedent for which set of "rules" takes priority here in our system.  Is that what you mean?

I'm sure that if somebody came out of a cave in America today, and told people that an angel spoke to him, and organized a band of followers who committed robberies, the rule against violent aggression would indeed take precedence over the rule in favor of freedom of religion.

One could Google "Ghost Dance" for a precedent, even.

So that's not quite what I mean. Instead, the issue I was trying to express is this: if freedom of religion means we must tolerate what appears to be disrespect for the victims of 9/11, but freedom of speech must be exercised "responsibly", and we may not object too loudly at attempts to force us at gunpoint to be polite and respectful to a rapist... then that means we're accepting a status of being everyone else's doormat.

Giving respect when it is not deserved, but asking for none in return.

America is not so weak that Americans feel they have to put up with that.

[Konrad]

True enough. I wonder why advanced aliens would bother to travel countless light years for no better reason than to engage in juvenile pranks on corn fields and cattle belonging to a bunch of ignorant rural rednecks. I wonder why a cosmic being wouldn't think of less ambiguous ways to instruct his followers than to communicate through disrespectable half-insane prophets who spend their time wandering aimlessly through desert wastelands.
 
I wonder how America - when suffering bloodshed for the first time, when feeling the dagger of hate actually strike the heartland, when seeing the first evidence of foreign invasion tainting their soil - manages to justify a clandestine holy war. People from the middle east endure bombs and bloodshed all the time, they are accustomed to the unwanted presence of foreign superpowers; it's natural for them to seek refuge and higher meaning in their religious faith. What's America's excuse?
 
George W was desperate to be remembered in history, hated and reviled by some perhaps but not forgotten. Not just another mediocre president who got the job done and passed the torch along. Obama inherited that pile of **** and - in all fairness - hasn't really done that bad a job managing it. But the war is too profitable and too ingrained, it has too much momentum to be stopped by a mere gesture of magnanimous compassion, so in the end the **** just sits in a toilet that doesn't get flushed. A steady trickle of American lives get spent every month, the price of feeding the machine, stealing natural resources, getting more wealth for the wealthy. A demonstration of power in it's ugliest form.
 
America can't be a hero unless there's a villain. At no point in history should there be no villain. The war against "terror" will not end until a more threatening enemy can be identified, the hate must never end because it fuels a military economy. No villain would equal no hero.  No hero would equal no reason to sustain the capability for dominance.  Religion and education are merely used as tools to indoctrinate and focus this hate, because they provide an easily accessible fairytale that needs a hero and a villain to work on an emotionally satisfying level.

[wellington1869]

konrad, with all due respect, you really need to study world history a bit more. Evil didnt originate with america, i'm sorry to inform you.

Meanwhile, since you're so up on the latest righteous righteousness rhetoric (such style and feeling! You're so clearly against injustice and hypocrisy!), could you please explain to me this fairytale?

couple stoned to death in afghanistan

I'm guessing you think its right that adulterers should be stoned to death in public. And since you're so against hypocrisy and injustice (obviously you are! you speak with such feeling about it!) then i'm sure you must be right.

[wellington1869]

Welly gets a bit butthurt when people point out that America isn't all that great.

lol, anyone who wades through the previous 40 pages can see how much I criticize the US. (And you know that too, ch, you're a smart guy, so i assume you're trying to be provocative here).

What i'm against is the total loss of perspective on my side, which makes the left become complicit with the religious right-wing of islam (and worse). And leave moderates out to dry.

yea, i'm against that. go figure.

[wellington1869]

thought 1:

I don't give a free pass to any religion.  Religion, especially Christianity and Islam, have just as much potential for harm/evil as good.

thought 2:

My last point on the Ground Zero thing is that you can either allow everybody or allow no one to erect a place a worship, but you can't pick and choose

I'd like to propose something here. I propose that thought 1 and thought 2 contradict each other directly.

Religions have as much potential for harm/evil as good.
Then why allow "all" to build or "none" to build?
To say "Religions have as much potential for harm/evil as good" implies that what is needed is the ability, then, to discriminate (in the sense of applying one's judgement, reason, decision making apparatus) to filter out good versions of religions from bad versions of religions.
If one discriminates (in this positive normal sense), then one cannot "willy nilly" reject all or accept all, then, can they?

intellectual discrimination: means you must in fact pick and choose. And this nation does all the time. We storm cults in waco texas dont we? discrimination! (in both senses).

so, basic contradiction in your approach to the mosque problem, I think. You call for us to discriminate, and then rail against the discrimination.

especially in a country that was founded on religious freedom.

not complete religious freedom, because religious freedom in america is counterbalanced by separation of church and state. This effectively places religion in the personal sphere alone. When religion tries to take over the state (as in theocratic intentions and acts - like in sharia law, for instance, or in certain forms of evangelical christianity), that is in fact as unamerican as anything you could think of, and historically is always the point where religion is shut down, because it comes into direct conflict with the constitution.
so no, cant hide behind 'religious freedom' on this one, any more than with wacko christian cults. Double standard then?

  I also agree with Ripster that blocking the building of a Muslim anything only validates the terrorists' motive

clearly there are obvious exception to this this as a blanket rule (dont know why you'd try to make blanket rules when context and nuance is so obviously called for when assessing any religion and its effects)
german mosque used by 9/11 hijackers is shut down

, and it alienates one of the largest-growing demographics in the nation.

this assumes that demographic is so incapable of internal debate that they will in unison act out against any attempt to engage their religion and philosophy in a free criticism. Thats a pretty poor and insulting evaluation of muslims, actually, dont you think? Of their capacity for engaging in free discussion? I have a higher opinion of them than that.

I fail to see why there is this insistence, in this  mode of thinking, on seeing both muslims and americans with such a monochromatic filter.
And we're the bigots?

[itlnstln]

I'd like to propose something here. I propose that thought 1 and thought 2 contradict each other directly.

Religions have as much potential for harm/evil as good.
Then why allow "all" to build or "none" to build?
To say "Religions have as much potential for harm/evil as good" implies that what is needed is the ability, then, to discriminate (in the sense of applying one's judgement, reason, decision making apparatus) to filter out good versions of religions from bad versions of religions.
If one discriminates (in this positive normal sense), then one cannot "willy nilly" reject all or accept all, then, can they?

intellectual discrimination: means you must in fact pick and choose. And this nation does all the time. We storm cults in waco texas dont we? discrimination! (in both senses).

so, basic contradiction in your approach to the mosque problem, I think. You call for us to discriminate, and then rail against the discrimination.

Nobody stopped Koresh from starting the cult in Waco.  Why?  Religious freedom.  When bad things happened, that's when the invasion occurred.  Why don't we prohibit Catholic chuches from being built?  The IRA murders people all the time.  There were the crusades, all the molestation, etc.  Why can people go to Temple?  The Israelis are kicking the **** out the Palestinians.  Why can Mormons have a Tabernacle?  They have groups that still practice bigamy.  Why can mega churches exist?  Texas exists.

You can believe in any religion you want.  The Constitution protects that. What the Constitution does not protect is the practice (acts) of the religion.  You can believe what you want, but you can only practice what you want until you start breaking laws.  That said, I don't think your arguments apply.  You can find fault in any group of people.  Would you stop an NAACP office from being built near ground zero?  Since religion is protected there is nothing to stop a mosque, church, temple, whatever from being built where ever they want legally (other than maybe building codes, but that affects everyone equally).

[wellington1869]

Nobody stopped Koresh from starting the cult in Waco.  Why?  Religious freedom.  When bad things happened, that's when the invasion occurred. .

but this argument is a canard in the current situation. Because no one, not even the organizers of the protests, is disputing the right to build a mosque there. Its legal. Everyone who matters has acceded to that point. So what you're arguing here is a non-issue.

Whats being debated in new york (and around the nation) is the advisability of building it there: specifically,
1) an imam who wont repudiate hamas,
2) who believes in sharia law
3) who is on record saying most of the funding will come from arab fundamentalist regimes
4) building a 100 million dollar center, including a mosque,
5) 600 feet from ground zero.

Yes, its legal, but completely obliterates any pretense on his part to want dialogue with his community.

Thats the issue.

[wellington1869]

like skokie march: legal but incredibly hurtful

[wellington1869]

and I'm frankly shocked at how many so-called leftists here see this as a islam versus christianity issue. Its not. Its a peaceful moderate individuals (of any religion) versus non-peaceful, immoderate people (of any religion) issue.

but you can count on leftists to obliterate such context and nuance. The left needs an 'enemy'.

Makes me sad because as a leftist I have to watch my fellow leftists turn into monochromatic-thinking bigots. The views here on the capacity of moderate muslims is disheartening to say the least. You're assumptions about civilizational conflicts (america [treated as a unified block, for some reason] versus the world!) is, well, very conservative.  There's nothing liberal about it.
The moral relativism, the inability to apply your own values consistently to all groups -- all are very conservative values actually. There's nothing liberal about it.

[Konrad]

konrad, with all due respect, you really need to study world history a bit more. Evil didnt originate with america, i'm sorry to inform you.

Ah, well sorry if I was a bit overzealous there. I just happen to be caught up in another religion "discussion" where not everybody is capable of being reasonable.
 
Of course evil (whatever that is) didn't original in America. No doubt evil exists in America just as it does everywhere else, but America has no unique claim to good, evil, nor any other moral definition. Likewise, Christians, Muslims, and Martians too have no particular claim to being identified with good or evil.
 
There are countless opinions about evil. I believe American foreign policy is evil. I define "evil" not as some sort of demonic eternal damnation, but as acts where stupidity, belligerence, greed, and cruelty permit the suffering and subjugation of "good" people. This is not the same as saying that I believe America or Americans are evil. I'm not even claiming that the people suffering are necessarily "good" or innocent, either.
 
My point here wasn't even about nations or religions, it's just hard for anyone - including me or you - to avoid naturally pointing the finger at "them" when trying to identify the problems with our beliefs.
 
I believe that the shape of events in todays world are oftentimes "evil", and I believe that a ton of that **** can be squarely pointed at religion. If not religion as a thing that inherently guides people, then religion as a tool to guide mass populations by reshaping the focus of their belief (ie, what they believe to be good and evil) to suit what goal is immediately convenient.
 
Religion itself just isn't for me. Personally, I don't understand why spirituality and religion are necessarily tied together, why do we need to install middlemen and unquestioningly accept what we're told? A belief system that doesn't permit self-growth through questioning, where only the sheep are rewarded - that's just not for me. What disturbs me most is that politics are much the same thing.
 
Monotheism was a great idea in the age of religion, but now it's a pervasive "evil" that holds us back from progressing into the age of reason. It could even be argued that religion ingrained into our species through selection. But some bronze-age book known to us as the Old Testament (along with the three great religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam which have evolved from it) is really all about the all-powerful patriarchal sky god, the god of all men and all tribes who demands obedience, who jealously destroys the temples of all other gods, who's followers will convert or kill all who oppose them for their own good ... I just have to shake my head when this mentality is allowed to shape lives and events in the real world. It actually pisses me off when it's not even about religion, but the old traditions and symbols make a convenient platform to manipulate or justify events.
 
I'm not bashing anyone. I believe the sky god (by any name) is a fairy tale, perhaps you believe my soul is in peril of eternal damnation - to each his own. I guarantee neither of us will have any luck "saving" the other from his "misguided" beliefs. No doubt I'm gonna piss some of you off.
 
So having clarified my position a bit, I'll reiterate my intended point from my last post. It's just not acceptable to invade a country, occupy it long enough to install a "friendly" government, while
1) passively encouraging a religious fervour, something of a crusade or jihad, and
2) officially denying it, even while still stirring the pot up and clearly identifying Evil in a religious context.
Sure the obvious symbols, heros and villains alike, are the fervent fanatics.  What I'm talking about is shaping the moderates, the people of any faith who are basically just decent unoffensive human beings.
As great as America is, what I see happening in this regard is what I'd call evil. Talk about hypocrisy? Automatically declaring all of islam is guilty (leaving the burden of proof on the innocent) while simultaneously allying with Saudis (whose national motto is Allah is the One True God and Mohammed is His Prophet). And let's not even talk about Israel, since - officially - religion doesn't factor into state policy.
 
They say that the victor writes history. They don't talk much about how the victor also writes religion.

[wellington1869]

I'd appreciate your perspective more if you had any.

from Dictionary.com

arent you due for posting another funny pic?

[Konrad]

Your priests look an awful lot like Jedi masters, rip.

[microsoft windows]

I believe American foreign policy is evil. I define "evil" not as some sort of demonic eternal damnation, but as acts where stupidity, belligerence, greed, and cruelty permit the suffering and subjugation of "good" people.

And of course, Iran's foreign policy isn't.
(Sarcasm)

[wellington1869]

konrad, i understand what you're saying, and I appreciate your moderate tone.

But you do seem to have an 'original sin' theory of world conflict, seeing other regimes' acts as merely 'resposnes' to 'america', and thats what i'd disagree with (and refer to as simplistic, and even complicit with the very values you claim to be against) every time. Further, that line of thinking is leading you down a path of disastrous moral relativism (if you ask me). Will reply more at length to specific points in your previous post when I get a chance.

[itlnstln]

but this argument is a canard in the current situation. Because no one, not even the organizers of the protests, is disputing the right to build a mosque there. Its legal. Everyone who matters has acceded to that point. So what you're arguing here is a non-issue.

Whats being debated in new york (and around the nation) is the advisability of building it there: specifically,
1) an imam who wont repudiate hamas,
2) who believes in sharia law
3) who is on record saying most of the funding will come from arab fundamentalist regimes
4) building a 100 million dollar center, including a mosque,
5) 600 feet from ground zero.

I hadn't heard all of that yet.  Points 1-3 might be cause for concern (I haven't heard all the facts yet); 4 and 5 are a non-issue.  In my completely honest opinion, I don't think any places of worship should be allowed in the vicinity.  Maybe small monuments and the like, but not full-blown churches, mosques, etc.

[Konrad]

Actually - aside from my inflammatory closing quips about America / Saudis / Israel - I was careful to not state anything of the sort, wellington.
 
You've unintentionally read some of own beliefs/bias into my statements, just as I've unintentionally written some of my own into them. My words would communicate very different messages if I were to say I was a Catholic priest, Iraqi refugee, Republican senator, or - as it turns out - Canadian observer.
 
Please understand that - no offense intended! - American politics and media blitzes are not very central to my world, I happen to live in another country where news (and perceptions) about America are filtered and other (local) things tend to be more important. Now, having said that, I'm not an parochial idiot; I certainly do recognize that America (for good or evil) is the dominant supernation in today's world and so has a tremendous influence on world events.
 
I'll repeat - my arguments weren't (for the most part) intended to really comment on religion or politics or nationality. It's just convenient to use real-world religious, political, and national events as illustrations and (I thought) would be less prone to distraction and misunderstanding than some bunch of academic generalizations or dead historical examples.
 
I was really intending to relate comments on how belief in general can be manipulated.  Doesn't matter if it's a collective social influence or some sinister illuminati or (as I believe it) the actions rich and powerful elitists.

[Lanx]

Whats being debated in new york (and around the nation) is the advisability of building it there: specifically,
1) an imam who wont repudiate hamas,
2) who believes in sharia law
3) who is on record saying most of the funding will come from arab fundamentalist regimes
4) building a 100 million dollar center, including a mosque,
5) 600 feet from ground zero.

No i actually believe you are adding to this, what the real debate about is perception. perception that there is now a ground zero mosque, (stating that there will be a mosque built on ground zero).
perception that america thinks
all terrorists=muslims
all muslims=terrorists
all terrorists need a base of operations
since all muslims=terrorists
a mosque=a base of operations
A base of operations near ground zero would be the same as the US building an embassy in another nation, it is untouchable, just like in the movies where a US person in a foreign land is running from a foreign power, if they make it to the embassy w/ US soldiers waiting, they cannot be touched.

It is a perception issue, i don't think most ppl give 2 ****s about this iman whatever, or these hamas ppl.

It's the perception that the US is allowed a terrorist organization cloaked in the veil of being muslim/islam to build a base of operations right at the heart of ground zero.

[itlnstln]

The stories I had heard on the news implied what Lanx just said.  In this case, the opposition is just going to have to suck it up and stop looking like a bunch of *******s.  If the opposition is concerned about the Imam, funding, etc., they may have a point.

[Rajagra]

I think we should show people the same respect and tolerance that they show us. Building a mosque near GZ is provocative, insensitive and foolish. If they have the right to do this then fine. But they forfeit any right to complain if they are the subject of provocative, insensitive treatment as a result.

I don't know too much about the plans, but if it is to be a conventional building (by U.S. standards) that just happens to contain a mosque area, then it should be easy enough to just ignore it.

[itlnstln]

I think we should show people the same respect and tolerance that they show us. Building a mosque near GZ is provocative, insensitive and foolish. If they have the right to do this then fine. But they forfeit any right to complain if they are the subject of provocative, insensitive treatment as a result.

I don't know too much about the plans, but if it is to be a conventional building (by U.S. standards) that just happens to contain a mosque area, then it should be easy enough to just ignore it.

This is another good point.  That's why it's my opinion that there should be no churches, mosques, etc. in the area.

[wellington1869]

sam harris (who i admire quite a bit) said it right when someone said "all or none". It matters that its a mosque because it was in the name of islam that the towers went down. And there is a history of islamic mosques over 'victory sites' in muslim history, and that symbolism wont be lost on muslims and particularly the extremists. Most americans dont know this history because america has largely escaped (until now) muslim imperialist wrath. But ask europeans, middle easterners, and asians, who know their history, about victory mosques. They'll tell you what it means.

hamas endorses 9/11 mosque

Even if you dont care how it will inspire extremists (and put up by an imam who wont condemn the extremists), you have to care about what it does to victims families who have to bear the cruel irony. Like the skokie march. That includes moderate muslims who have come out against the mosque by the way, precisely on the question of gross insensitivity.

I agree with sam harris when he says, the ultimate irony here is that, the kinds of muslims who we'd want to have a mosque there - are the kind who are in fact considerate enough to realize that dividing the community and refusing to condemn violence is not the way to start a 'dialogue'

[Lanx]

St Pauls Chapel (built in 1766).  TEAR IT DOWN!!!!  George Washington prayed there BTW.  Probably wondering what all the fuss is about.

Show Image

did you find a pic of the backside? thats where the graves are, freaky ****!

[itlnstln]

you have to care about what it does to victims families who have to bear the cruel irony.

I don't; mainly because there is no irony here from a purely religious aspect.  What the extremists do might be in the name of a religion, but that's to keep the troops in line and inspired.  These people have no real interest in the actual religion, they just want money and power; pure politics.  Nobody wanted to stop people from putting up churches when when the KKK lynched black in the south even though it's a "Christian" organization.  It's the same thing here.  You can't condemn a whole group of people based on what a few do.

[microsoft windows]

No i actually believe you are adding to this, what the real debate about is perception. perception that there is now a ground zero mosque, (stating that there will be a mosque built on ground zero).
perception that america thinks
all terrorists=muslims
all muslims=terrorists
all terrorists need a base of operations
since all muslims=terrorists
a mosque=a base of operations
A base of operations near ground zero would be the same as the US building an embassy in another nation, it is untouchable, just like in the movies where a US person in a foreign land is running from a foreign power, if they make it to the embassy w/ US soldiers waiting, they cannot be touched.

It is a perception issue, i don't think most ppl give 2 ****s about this iman whatever, or these hamas ppl.

It's the perception that the US is allowed a terrorist organization cloaked in the veil of being muslim/islam to build a base of operations right at the heart of ground zero.

I wouldn't call a mosque right near Ground Zero some nefarious headquarters. Its intent is to be a slap in the face to the victims of 9/11 and their families. That's why I got a problem with it.

[Lanx]

sam harris (who i admire quite a bit) said it right when someone said "all or none". It matters that its a mosque because it was in the name of islam that the towers went down. And there is a history of islamic mosques over 'victory sites' in muslim history, and that symbolism wont be lost on muslims and particularly the extremists. Most americans dont know this history because america has largely escaped (until now) muslim imperialist wrath. But ask europeans, middle easterners, and asians, who know their history, about victory mosques. They'll tell you what it means.

hamas endorses 9/11 mosque

Even if you dont care how it will inspire extremists (and put up by an imam who wont condemn the extremists), you have to care about what it does to victims families who have to bear the cruel irony. Like the skokie march. That includes moderate muslims who have come out against the mosque by the way, precisely on the question of gross insensitivity.

I agree with sam harris when he says, the ultimate irony here is that, the kinds of muslims who we'd want to have a mosque there - are the kind who are in fact considerate enough to realize that dividing the community and refusing to condemn violence is not the way to start a 'dialogue'

I think these are the sentiments of muslims over there not in america land.

however the muslims that are living in america land and want this park51, mosque to be built i think they only want to pray.
and while i don't care about ppl praying to whatever, they are allowed to build something there, and they can, so let them pray it probably is easier than forcing the corporations they work for to build some temporary mini temple in the buildings or whatever, or they might have to travel a few more blocks to a faraway mosque, idk.
But i think muslims outside of america land think, "Woo hoo we conquered america here is our temple at our victory site"
while muslims who live in america land think "damn if only we had a mosque here, i wouldn't have to walk 6blocks or whatever"

[ch_123]

The distinction between extremism and 'moderate' Islam is something I find rather amusing. Even if you leave aside the anti-American terrorism, Islam is a particularly nasty and extreme religion within of itself. So, obviously there are some Muslims that don't buy into the sort of violence, misogyny, racism that Muslims are meant to play along with, and these are the "good guys". But then you're expecting people to pick and mix elements of their religion which they're not meant to, which comes across as "It's ok to be a Muslim, as long as you are a bad one". Which is sort of tragically ironic if you think about it all.

[Lanx]

I wouldn't call a mosque right near Ground Zero some nefarious headquarters. Its intent is to be a slap in the face to the victims of 9/11 and their families. That's why I got a problem with it.

Some ppl believe that
mosque=meeting place
meeting place=planning place
planning place=recruitment center
recruitment center=base of operations
base of operations=nefarious headquarters

do you see how ppl relate, to relate to relate and get this ultimate conclusion?
(i mean i don't, but i think many make this 6 pronged correlation)
(this could stem from movies where ppl meet at a church to discuss issues cuz they can't be touched and meet on sacred ground [like highlander!])

and on the note on families, i really can't respond cuz it hasn't affected me as intimately as it has affected them so any type of response to that would just do the ppl who lost loved ones, injustice.

[microsoft windows]

But why else would people be building a mosque near Ground Zero? It's a mockery of 9/11 and we shouldn't tolerate it at all. I wouldn't mind a mosque someplace else in New York City, but why does it have to be right there?

[wellington1869]

The distinction between extremism and 'moderate' Islam is something I find rather amusing. Even if you leave aside the anti-American terrorism, Islam is a particularly nasty and extreme religion within of itself. So, obviously there are some Muslims that don't buy into the sort of violence, misogyny, racism that Muslims are meant to play along with, and these are the "good guys". But then you're expecting people to pick and mix elements of their religion which they're not meant to, which comes across as "It's ok to be a Muslim, as long as you are a bad one". Which is sort of tragically ironic if you think about it all.

well that comes down to whether a particular muslim believes in the literal truth of the quran.
If he does - then its brutal sharia law all the way.
If he doesnt - then there is room for context, interpretation, and even change in the 'spirit' of the original laws but without the all the recommended violence.

The situation isnt much different for christians, for instance. If you believe in the literal bible, sooner or later you'll have trouble convincing people that you can be a reasonable neighbor.

If we can allow (and encourage) christians to interpret their text, if its legitimate for them to do so, and if they believe its legitimate, and they do it, well then they're still "christians". They're just a different sect.

Same ought to apply for "muslims." They'd still be muslims, they'd just be part of some of the non-literal sects.  There is some history of that in Islam (tho generally such sects have been brutally crushed by the literalists).

The main crisis in islam today is that the wahhabi sect (which is strict literalist) has taken over most of the clerical and governmental heirarchy and where it doesnt control those things they're in a brutal war to take them over (this is very much a muslim civil war). Burying all the other sects and interpretations and faces of islam, and burying muslim attempts at modernization.

its not a 'hijacking' in the sense of something from outside islam trying to take over; wahhabis are very much inside islam and have a long history within islam. But its a hijacking in the sense of one sect trying to take over all the others at a time when muslims need to engage with modernity more urgently than ever.

and yea, the moderate muslims in this fight are losing really badly. We're not helping them if we dont back them.

[wellington1869]

I don't; mainly because there is no irony here from a purely religious aspect.  What the extremists do might be in the name of a religion, but that's to keep the troops in line and inspired.  These people have no real interest in the actual religion, they just want money and power; pure politics.  Nobody wanted to stop people from putting up churches when when the KKK lynched black in the south even though it's a "Christian" organization.  It's the same thing here.  You can't condemn a whole group of people based on what a few do.

but i'm not condmening a 'whole group of people'; i'm condemning imam rauf quite specifically.

To wit:
1) wont repudiate hamas
2) thinks 9/11 was americas fault
3) fund raising from arab fundamentalist regimes
4) knows the signifance of the 9/11 location and what happend there
5) and so obviously doesnt give a hoot about dialogue.

you can keep making this out to be a christian-muslim war, but its not.  Its really like the skokie march, and my heart goes out to those holocaust survivors who had to endure it. Its horrible and i think you're heartless if you dont feel it.

I also like the way quadibloc put it:

I'll tell you what they're really up in arms over.

On the one hand, they think that their feelings should be respected, and that something which appears to lend itself to interpretation as a symbol of victory by the terrorists should not be built in the vicinity of the WTC.

On the other hand, they find it strange that the First Amendment means that their feelings in this regard must be ignored, and yet despite the First Amendment, we should be "responsible" and not show any disrespect...

....

the issue I was trying to express is this: if freedom of religion means we must tolerate what appears to be disrespect for the victims of 9/11, but freedom of speech must be exercised "responsibly", and we may not object too loudly at attempts to force us at gunpoint to be polite and respectful to a rapist... then that means we're accepting a status of being everyone else's doormat.

Giving respect when it is not deserved, but asking for none in return.

America is not so weak that Americans feel they have to put up with that.

[microsoft windows]

but i'm not condmening a 'whole group of people'; i'm condemning imam rauf quite specifically.

To wit:
1) wont repudiate hamas
2) thinks 9/11 was americas fault
3) fund raising from arab fundamentalist regimes
4) knows the signifance of the 9/11 location and what happend there
5) and so obviously doesnt give a hoot about dialogue.

you can keep making this out to be a christian-muslim war, but its not.  Its really like the skokie march, and my heart goes out to those holocaust survivors who had to endure it. Its horrible and i think you're heartless if you dont feel it.

I also like the way quadibloc put it:

Alright. That confirms my point of view right there. How is that not a big slap in the face to 9/11 victims?

[wellington1869]

How is that not a big slap in the face to 9/11 victims?

i think it is; i think a majority of nyc'ers think it is, i think a majority of americans think it is, and i think a majority of muslims think it is.  I think imam rauf knows it is.

It is, just like the skokie march was.  Those werent boy scouts marching thru skokie. Or the local high school band. Who was marching and why (and why they chose skokie) is what made that significant and emotional. Those werent christians from the local YMCA. Those christians would have been fine. No, those were KKK.  It has meaning.

It has meaning when imam rauf refuses to repudiate hamas.
It has meaning when imam rauf blames 9/11 on america.
It has meaning when imam rauf raises funds from arab fundamentalist regimes for a 100 million dollar center and mosque 600 feet from ground zero.
It has meaning when imam rauf seems incapable of directly confronting the radicals within his own religion.

Its those meanings taken together that make this event what it is.  Remove those contexts which are specific to this event - and this event has no meaning.