FA+
Shop
Some Words About A Current Debate
15 years ago
General
They should install a culture center and mosque in that building near ground zero (or infill replacement - haven't seen the plans). That fellow Americans shudder and recoil, as they replay the image of the explosions and collapses on 9/11, is natural, understandable, and an experience I myself share. However, to fill that smoldering void in ourselves with increased guardedness of our cultural and spiritual territory is to play into the hands of the perpetrators. Engendering more hate, they hope to find us in the wrong, and highlight our potential greatest failing - cultural imperialism. If we do this, they will be absolutely correct.
There is a seething nostalgia in what Oren Yiftachel calls the North West - particularly in the Unites States. We see it everywhere, from post-modern design exercises to the political appeals of the right-wing. Onto what are we holding? The only true historical value of America's past qualities, was that it gave no head to the past. Yet we are nostalgic at times when the future seems dark, clinging to past successes like a baby blanket. Just so, many Americans (and Europeans) are caving to their fear of a world more mottled and aggregated than one that passed generations before.
In a more physical and pragmatic prism, we must consider the ramifications of excluding anything within any emotional radius from any ground zero. In so doing, we establish a hazy disk shaped zone on the map, which says one group or religion shouldn't plant seeds therein. Ruminate on this and what it means - passionate, historical, self-conscious zoning. That is dangerous, and smacks of ethnic planning regulations in post Soviet bloc states. The only fit alternative then would be to allow only silence - no religious institutions for many blocks.
So many human travesties have occurred within New York's constituent cities. American's once faced the full might of a British amphibious landing in western parts of Brooklyn and the southern tip of Manhattan. The battle was two sided, but lopsided. In the eyes of the British, the rebels were unrighteous and unrepentent as they kicked-off the empire that rode them. The importance of this is that the subsoil under Brooklyn is probably stained with more human red blood cells than any other part of New York, and yet there is nothing sacred about it (especially the Gowanus).
The reasons could go-on.
If the United States purports to be the fastest minded, most a-historical, forward looking, and innovative nation, then it should accept this as a radical experiment and support the Islamic culture center (with mosque). While they are at it, we should ask for a Shinto shrine in Pearl Harbor and flood Cuba with American tourists (talk about an injustice). This country's memory is getting too good, and only needs to remember that it is at its best when it lives in the immediate present and possibly the future. We must stay fast and forward-looking.
Back in New York, the attendees of this mosque can implore Allah for peace.
There is a seething nostalgia in what Oren Yiftachel calls the North West - particularly in the Unites States. We see it everywhere, from post-modern design exercises to the political appeals of the right-wing. Onto what are we holding? The only true historical value of America's past qualities, was that it gave no head to the past. Yet we are nostalgic at times when the future seems dark, clinging to past successes like a baby blanket. Just so, many Americans (and Europeans) are caving to their fear of a world more mottled and aggregated than one that passed generations before.
In a more physical and pragmatic prism, we must consider the ramifications of excluding anything within any emotional radius from any ground zero. In so doing, we establish a hazy disk shaped zone on the map, which says one group or religion shouldn't plant seeds therein. Ruminate on this and what it means - passionate, historical, self-conscious zoning. That is dangerous, and smacks of ethnic planning regulations in post Soviet bloc states. The only fit alternative then would be to allow only silence - no religious institutions for many blocks.
So many human travesties have occurred within New York's constituent cities. American's once faced the full might of a British amphibious landing in western parts of Brooklyn and the southern tip of Manhattan. The battle was two sided, but lopsided. In the eyes of the British, the rebels were unrighteous and unrepentent as they kicked-off the empire that rode them. The importance of this is that the subsoil under Brooklyn is probably stained with more human red blood cells than any other part of New York, and yet there is nothing sacred about it (especially the Gowanus).
The reasons could go-on.
If the United States purports to be the fastest minded, most a-historical, forward looking, and innovative nation, then it should accept this as a radical experiment and support the Islamic culture center (with mosque). While they are at it, we should ask for a Shinto shrine in Pearl Harbor and flood Cuba with American tourists (talk about an injustice). This country's memory is getting too good, and only needs to remember that it is at its best when it lives in the immediate present and possibly the future. We must stay fast and forward-looking.
Back in New York, the attendees of this mosque can implore Allah for peace.
On a less political note, thanks for the compliment on my fursuit work... I'm pretty proud of it. I do take commissions, though I'm currently full, and not the fastest worker X3
It not ON the site. Its several blocks away.
Make no mistake, it's a war. Maybe not a traditional war, but it's still a war.
Some people cannot bring themselves to change with the world. They fear change. This I don't mind. It's normal. But when they forbid others who want to change with the world, let alone start being aggressive to those who are from another culture, I start hating it.
It's really from their fear that if they don't live in old shacks in poverty, they'd be too engrossed in wordly issues instead of spirit or in faith. Granted, that's their view - and I appreciate that - but when they start HATING another culture without a second thought - no moment of empathy for others of a different paradigm - that's when I really look at those people - who I somewhat see as kin - and go "Really?"
Really?
There is, however, a significant and dangerous element of the Muslim world that does consider itself at war with western culture. We can't afford to ignore extremist elements that would attack us.
We're at war with the people who want to install dictatorships. Not just random poor villagers.
To be fair though, there are several Muslims who are uncomfortable with the proposal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cordoba_House#Muslims
Personally? I'm undecided on the matter - I don't know what views the founders of the Cordoba House have yet, and I've been appalled and infuriated by some of the outright racism of the people protesting this, such as the event where two Arab bystanders were harassed by a mob of people protesting the mosque... And the two Arabs happened to be Christians.
I'm just as disappointed in the racism shown by some of the protesters as the extremists they are protesting. It's up to us to take the higher ground, and show that there can tolerance in the world. Trouble is, tolerance has to work both ways, or it doesn't work at all.
Currently, neither side is displaying the kind of tolerance required to end these kind of debates.
What I wonder is, and this may be naive of me, but who technically owns that land?
To me, the forward-looking thing to do would be to use the land productively for something. Move on. Let civilization flourish. But I really don't care, and it's not my land, so I say let the owners do as they please within the boundaries of the relevant surrounding neighbors' wishes. In other words, treat it like every where else. =P
Although I do enjoy hearing news about this center; it's made it real easy to spot racist/xenophobic bigots, especially on Facebook.
It is not right for a person to persecute a muslim who did not participate, approve, or condone the terrorist attacks. But it is every bit as wrong to ignore that the people who did those things did them >because< of their muslim beliefs. You want to talk about giving a victory to the terrorists? I think building a temple to their religion and culture on the site of their attack against OUR culture would be a pretty damn big victory.
The difference between Radical Islam and "real" Islam is, in everything I have seen, not remotely as far apart as people preaching cultural acceptance seem to want to paint it as. At best, it is no different than the difference between fundamentalist Christians and good decent people who happen to also be Christian. That difference being: The people who are part of the religion while still being Good People are ignoring the vast majority of what their religion is actually telling them to do. Christianity and Islam are remarkably similar in that both religions are driven by violent hateful murderous texts that do direct their followers to commit unspeakable acts against anyone and everyone who does not worship the same god they do. The "good" Christians and Muslims are the ones who ignore most of their religious texts' actual directives.
For the people who lost loved ones in those attacks, I can only imagine the extreme offense and insult that must be felt by the notion of >promoting< the religion that took so many lives. To tell those people that they are wrong to have any strong objections to that religion at all, is FAR worse than any perceived religious persecution against muslims. I'm not talking about people attacking or hating muslims in general, or blaming all muslims for the actions of the radicals, no, I do still agree that is wrong to do. But to propose a muslim mosque be built on that site, or to tell people they are being wrongfully intolerant to disapprove of that religion (or any religion) in general due to the actions performed by its followers, is just as wrong.
It is not racial, cultural, or religious intolerance for non-muslims to disapprove of Islam. Good Muslims who do not remotely support the terrorists have said that yes, the religion does say non-muslims are infidels and must be converted or killed, but that "good" Muslims just don't really subscribe to those parts so much. Just as good Christians don't actually stone to death everyone they meet for the million things the Bible tells them to kill people for.
It is also not something we should be looked down on for wanting to have some kind of cultural identity of our own, either. Britain is being inundated with muslims, and I know >many< people born and raised there who feel like their culture is being paved over with Arabic. America is experiencing something similar with the endless flood of illegals from Mexico. We're not a bi-lingual country, but the spread of needing spanish packaging and advertising is growing a LOT more than the actual legal influx of legitimate mexican-american immigrants.
People from other countries and cultures can move elsewhere, and bring their culture with them. To not let them do this is seen as intolerance and racism and unfair. The people who were born where they are though, and have to watch their own culture get paved over by someone else's, DO have every right to be offended and pissed off by this. It is not bigotry or racism or xenophobia to see your own culture being superseded by another from a foreign land, by people who are >leaving< their own land behind because they feel this one to be better.
I for one, am tired of being treated as if I have to respect ever other culture in the world, while not being allowed to demand any kind of respect or acknowledgment of my own culture's worth as well. I am tired of seeing it dismissed as cultural insensitivity to feel that I >should< be able to express a desire to see my culture continue to exist as it is. Yes, America was built on being a "melting pot." But that's not what is happening anymore. Other cultures aren't coming here and blending with ours for the benefit and growth of all. They're just making little pockets of their own culture here in place of where ours used to be. We are expected to respect this and allow it, to let them have pride in the heritage they left behind, but we are seen as villains if we try to do the same ourselves >in the land we were actually born in.<
Islam killed the people who died that day. Not all Muslims should be blamed or persecuted for that, no, of course not. But acting as if the religion had >nothing< to do with those events, showing >respect< to that religion and >disrespect< to the people it killed by building a mosque on that site is one of the most offensive things I can think of. Let's ask a people who had been ravaged by the Christian crusades to build a monument to the religion that murdered so many of them. Or tell Jews that they should make peace with Nazis since surely not >every< Nazi actually supported the atrocities done against them. Such a thing would not create understanding and peace. It would create further resentment and hatred. There is a point where people >ARE< fully justified in saying "members of that group have wronged me so severely, I do not wish association with anyone who chooses to be part of that group, even if I do know that not everyone under that flag was part of those who wronged me."
Sorry for the textwall, but I am >seriously< tired of talk of respect for cultural and religious diversity when it all amounts to every culture, country, race, etc needs to be respected >except< for predominantly white/european english-speaking ones. Lack of color does not mean lack of culture. And asking for my country, people, history, heritage and culture to be respected and preserved is NOT the same as disrespecting or dismissing everyone else's.
Only an idiot would say that all Muslims are radicals, but it was Muslim radicals that did this, and as such it is really seen as disrespectful to ignore the feelings of all those that lost someone/thing in the attacks that find it devastating that a building glorifying the religion of the attackers would be built on the site. Muslim extremists the world over would absolutely see it as a spurring victory, and frankly this entire thing would go away if they just agreed to build it a short distance away. Why is it so important that it go right there less than a thousand feet away from an already existing Muslim house of prayer?
There is also the fact that the money may have come from dubious sources. Well we don't know exactly where from yet, voices are stirring that say it's suspect. That and the fact that the Imam of the proposed mosque publicly said something along the lines that while he did not agree with the attacks he does not condemn the people that did them. I don't remember his exact words.
I'm all for religious tolerance and such, but it is very clearly a two way street. If the people that threaten the lives of anyone that dares speak the name of or show the image of their holy prophet no matter how innocuous, tried to show some respect and reverence for the importance and pain associated with the 9/11 site, I think everyone would have a whole lot less to bitch about.
I myself am a minority immigrant to this county, and I understand that to be a part of this nation I have to respect others and their beliefs as I would my own, not expect everyone to go out of their way and bend over backwards to make sure I get my way all the time about everything.
1. It's wrong to say they're building it "on the site" when they are actually putting it two blocks away, on the site of an old business. In fact, before I go further, let me also clarify that there is no mosque being built either. What is being built is a community center, by a Muslim group. This is about as much a mosque as the YMCA is a church.
2. No, I think you've got it backwards: by treating regular Muslim actions the way this "mosque" is being treated, we're in fact giving the extremists a victory by equating their beliefs with mainstream Muslim beliefs.
3. No argument here, although I do think it contradicts a lot of what you say here.
4. Ooh, where to start? With the first sentence, I guess: seems no one's asked them, all the reports of protests against this thing I've seen are coming from Joe 'Mericun in Anytown USA who's never even been to New York, much less been affected by 9/11. Second, why are you assuming here that it was purely Islam that motivated the 9/11 attacks? Do you know the history of Osama bin Laden and the United States? Third, again, no, a "mosque" is not being built "on that site" (see point #1).
5. No, it is religious intolerance for non-Muslims to disapprove of Islam in this capacity, as it shows not only a complete lack of understanding about the proposed community center project (which is what this "mosque" actually is; it's a mosque as much as the YMCA is a church), but also a complete lack of understanding of Islam in general, acting like the 9/11 extremists and your average Muslim are one and the same. (See point #2)
6+7. Uh, no, this is exactly what xenophobia is. In fact, given the people you're citing (Arabic and Mexican), I wouldn't be surprised if there's some racism in there too. "Oh no, brown people are coming and speaking their moon languages! I'm SCARED that they'll have an influence on my happy little world!" Also, lol at "American culture." As if the culture of this country is its own thing and isn't built out of other cultures. (Unless, of course, you're talking about Native American culture, in which case ignore that last part).
8. No one has argued that your culture, whatever that may be, is not deserving of respect or acknowledgment, but you're incredibly xenophobic and paranoid if you think immigrants wanting to continue their old cultural practices in this country in any way threatens what you perceive as "American culture." (See point 6+7) "Melting pot"? Please.
P.S., no one's stopping you from celebrating your culture, whichever one you've got. (Unless you're making a point like "Why isn't there WHITE Entertainment Television?" in which case, that's racist, stop it.)
9. Again, one to go through piece by piece. First, just because you keep saying that doesn't make it so. (See point #4-2) Second, why are you treating this center like some kind of conquest? Would you also argue that Americans building a community center in Baghdad would be disrespectful? Third, "There is a point where people >ARE< fully justified in saying..." And this isn't it. You're wrong to say that here. Very wrong. I mean "this-is-what-intolerance-is-made-of" wrong.
10. Again, no one's arguing that a white, European, and or English/speaking culture can't be celebrated. You can celebrate Christmas, the 4th of July, the Scottish Games, or whatever. With this huge wall-of-text, you're just being sensationalist/bigoted/ignorant (pick one.).
And while I don't exactly know the technical definition of what ground zero is, I'd imagine it's the site of the attack as well as the immediate area around where debris and rubble fell. Anyway the building that is at the site they want to build it was hit by several pieces of one of the planes including the landing gear.
So it'll be sort of like a megachurch, except with Islam instead of Christianity. Cool; that should be pleasing for everyone who decides to come by the place.
Wikipedia's official definition of Ground Zero is the 16-acre site the Twin Towers stood on, so I based my definition off of that.
The debris was very widespread on 9/11; if you're going to argue that any place affected by the debris is part of Ground Zero, that would preclude a good chunk of New York City from having a mosque built anywhere.
It's not about fucking racism or skin color, good god so many fucking problems in this country will not EVER be solved so long as people keep steering the arguments away from the REAL issue, and trying to reduce it all to just racism. I count the five closest dearest people in the world to me, and two of them are black. I go up to ten dearest and oldest friends, and only four of those people are white. I am >SICK< of idiotic shits like you acting like any objection a white person raises about a problem that >just happens< to primarily involve non-white people HAS to be based on melanin-levels in the skin rather than EVERYTHING ELSE about the situation. It's not "oh noes brown people and their moon language." It's >ANY< person in >ANY< country who feels put out by feeling like a foreigner in some other land >in the fucking country they were born and grew up in.<
Go to a "brown people" country and start pumping hundreds of whities in there, all of us bringing our american habits and attitudes and english with us, all of us >not< learning >their< language or making an effort to fit into their country and culture, and see how tolerant they are of it. It wouldn't be racism on their part either if the brown people expected all the incoming whities to adjust to >their< culture. "When in Rome," etc. You don't go move into someone else's house and then expect them to bend over backwards to adapt to the lifestyle you had in your old house. No, you adjust to their house rules, or at the LEAST, there is compromise.
"No one has argued that your culture, whatever that may be, is not deserving of respect or acknowledgment"
Short term memory? "Also, lol at "American culture." As if the culture of this country is its own thing and isn't built out of other cultures." Yeah, that's so very respectful of you there. It's exactly what I have such a beef with: people acting like American culture is non-existant and nothing more than an ABSENCE of culture.
And the "white entertainment television" argument (when I've seen it used) is about pointing out the double-standard. Yes, that would be racist if that network existed. Racism is basing decisions solely or primarily on skin color. BET is racist. Ms Black America is racist. Groups promoting any specific ethnicity while dismissing any other ethnicity is racism. But it's all okay so long as it's not white people doing it. It's fucking idiotic, and is a big part of what is keeping racism from dying out.
Thank you for popping up and demonstrating exactly the kind of nonsense I'm so damn sick of seeing. There are problems and issues that need to be addressed and resolved in this world. And they can't even be TOUCHED so long as people like you keep washing >everything< aside and making it all about skin color when that is the >last< thing that >any< of this shit is really about.
The only thing I'd just like to say is that the religion doesn't tell people to kill each other, different religion or not. It's built on peace and mercy. (Or, is supposed to be) like any religion, different people, different interpretations, different sects, etc. It's just so hard to get into the thick skulls of some of your own family members who're so stuck in the old ways because our Arab blood seems to be brimming to death with pride and arrogance.
Honestly though, I really wish more religious muslim people who post can post the same way I see people here or other forums do. I get so bloody sick when I see them act all high and mighty and lack of empathy at all when they dictate to this one convert who is facing a serious problem with his family that is summed up as 'You believe or you burn forever. Your family should be converted or they will burn forever. There's no such thing as a good non-muslim'.
I really do see the kind of people you're talking about a LOT. I get baffled in my family at times because sometimes they act as if Americans or white-skins don't have culture, or they're the bad guys of the world. It's not. As if religious sects don't bicker amongst each other about the most trivial details of how marriage should be handled, we get to drag in culture and race into it.
First off, thank you, I cannot tell you how happy it makes me to see that some people can understand that I'm not speaking because of racism or baseless hatred or anything. I have >nothing< against people in a religion who do not do the horrible things their religion tells them to.
I do have to ask something though. I have been told by many muslims that the religion >does< have a lot of violence and hate in it, that the religious texts do include bits ranging from "it is not bad to kill an infidel" to "it is your duty to convert or kill all infidels," but that good-people-who-happen-to-be-muslims ignore those parts. Which, as I said, is the same as Christianity. There are plenty of good amazing decent people who are christians, but just ignore the parts of the bible that are utterly evil.
That's the thing I am not clear on, because I hear both ways: "Islam does not speak of killing non-Muslims, and is about Peace and Mercy" versus "Islam does speak of killing non-Muslims, but only the extremists listen to those parts." I know for a fact the Bible is an evil hateful book because I have read those passages in it myself. The book very clearly and plainly tells "good Christians" that it is their God-given duty to >kill< people for a whole slew of things that we, today, in a civilized society, recognize as absolutely inexcusable reasons to commit violence or even hate against someone, let alone murder. Usually, all the same sorts of things that extremist Muslims get so angry over; anything that disrespects their chosen god. "Good Christians," as in, Christians who do most of what their book tells them to do (or as much as they can get away with short of breaking laws in today's world) ARE the "extremist fanatical minority." The Phelps people, known for their "God Hates Fags" campaigns and for picketing the funerals of soldiers killed in the iraq war, claiming that God killed them to punish America for tolerating gays, these are the kinds of people who >are< doing the sorts of thing their religious texts want them to do (except for not killing the women who speak against men - something the bible is absolutely clear about but still ignored by even those extremists). This is why I hate Christianity as a religion - because the book it is based on DOES call for horrible evils to be done against non-believers - even though I do not hate any Christian who is a good person despite their religion. Same goes for Islam, I hate it as a religion because of the things it makes people do, even if those people are the minority of Muslims, and even though I do not hate people just for being Muslim if they are still good people.
I have not read any Islamic religious texts, and if I did I imagine they would be translations (just as the bible is) and probably have a lot lost in the translation. Again, many Muslims say their religion is one of peace and mercy, but the Christians say the same thing. The >majority< of Christians DO practice peace and mercy and ignore most of the hateful parts of their book. Many of them aren't even AWARE of what is ACTUALLY in their book, and are horrified when you point out the hateful violent parts that usually get ignored. But that doesn't negate that their religion >is< a violent hateful thing if they were actually adhering to the actual book and not just the niced-up >version< of it that usually gets presented. I've been told by many sources, muslim and non, that the same applies to Islam. That the texts DO preach death and murder and hate for any non-muslims, but that only the extremist fanaticals actually adhere to those parts.
To my mind, Islam and Christianity are the same in this sense. They both give comfort and peace of mind to good people who follow those beliefs. People can feel fulfilled and with a sense of guidance and purpose because of their religion. But they also preach hatred and judgment against anyone who >doesn't< share those beliefs. >GOOD< people, regardless of their religion, will ignore the preachings of hatred and violence. So there are good people in both religions. >BAD< people are the ones who >do< try to push the hateful violent parts of their religion. The main difference between Islam and Christianity today though, is that the percentage of the extremist fanatics in Christianity is a lot smaller than that in Islam, and the worst things they've done do not remotely compare to the actions of Islam's radical extremists. And I don't JUST mean the terrorists who actually go out threatening and killing people, I mean the people who do not >object< or condemn those who do. There is no shortage of reports of many, many, religious leaders in Islam who refuse to take any kind of remotely firm stance against the actions of the terrorists. And most Muslims I see complaining about the anti-Islam backlash, are >not< apologizing for and condemning the actions of the "extremist minority." They're instead asking us to please change our ways to adhere to what the terrorists want.
In other words, we of the Western world do not see "good Muslims" standing up, facing the terrorists and extremists, and saying "You are in the wrong, this is NOT what our religion tells us to do, >WE CONDEMN YOU AND YOUR ACTIONS<" What we see is the "good Muslims" facing us, getting between us and the extremists. They do say to us "no, no, those people are not what we are about" but then try to explain to us why we need to behave differently to avoid making the extremists angry at us. This sends the message that no, it actually IS what the religion is about, just that most Muslims choose not to take it as extremely as the terrorists. That, to me, is why you see such a powerful anti-Islam sentiment in the western world. Because the "good Muslims" are not putting extreme priority on visibly condemning the actions of the extremists, or trying to explain to >their< side's wrongdoers what is wrong with their behavior against us. They are trying to explain to us, the people getting threatened and killed for exercising freedom of speech, one of our core values, how >our< behavior is at fault.
Yes, asking nicely is worlds better than threatening death, but it is still expecting people to conform to your beliefs. To me, it is >not< a matter of religious respect to have this artificial stifling of saying or drawing things that would be offensive to muslims (like the Muhammad cartoons). The Western world is respectful of different beliefs. So much so, that look, they're actually considering building a mosque at Ground Zero. NOBODY can say that the western world as a whole is disrespectful to Islam: Islamic extremists attacked us, killed thousands, and less than ten years later, we're ignoring the feelings and outrage of >our own people< who lost loved ones in those attacks, and preaching acceptance and tolerance of the religion that was the motivation behind those attacks.
However, the Western world is built largely on the idea of freedom of speech and expression, and the Muslim world, even when they are simply asking and pleading for us to "just please don't say/do/draw this or that thing which our beliefs say is blasphemous" is disrespecting the very core of our beliefs in expecting us to silence ourselves to satisfy >their< religious beliefs.
I am FULLY supportive of "please do not say it >to me< or >in my peoples' spaces.<" I agree that freedom of speech does NOT mean you can say anything anywhere to anyone. Muslims do have a right to not have people >seek them out< and >trying< to offend them. BUT, asking for people to not say something >anywhere< as the Muslim world has done and continues to do, is not a matter of respect. Denying that request is not disrespectful of Muslim beliefs nor is it religious intolerance. The request itself is disrespectful to our belief that >NO< idea or statement should ever be completely silenced or not allowed >anywhere.< That, I think, is why so many people seem to be engaging in intentional offense and religious retaliation. It's not just to persecute someone for believing differently, it's to fight >against< the form of persecution that >is< what is happening when someone is expected to censor themselves to avoid offending someone else they had no intention of offending anyways, for fear of violent retaliation from members of that group.
The whole 'kill all infidels' is often misinterpreted. It's that kind of interpretation that does lead to the extremists we see today. If it really *was* like that, then there would have been a lot more bloodshed in islamic history than what is already there. I admit - there was a lot of fighting between the followers and non-muslims in the younger days of the religion. There was the occupation of Mecca by the muslims, and if our religion truly told that we should kill all nonbelievers, then it would've been a spot in history where the muslims slaughtered everyone in the city or any other non-muslim cities that they managed to conquer - like the genocide.
However, I can tell you straight out that at some point after Islam had grown into a very strong force in the middle east/europe, the religion began to segregate into the sects. Pair that up with - pardon the generlisation - the attitude that I've seen countless times in middle-eastern people, you begin to have lots of people holding grudges. On my side of the family and beliefs, I can swear to you that we do not believe that the book tells us to kill in any situation except in self-defense or in the name of mercy. And when we read our book, we read the non-translated version, with all words exactly in arabic as it was first written. I have seen 2 translations of the same phrase in the Qur'an to english that resulted in one sounding more into a violent note, and the other in a more plain note.
I do have to agree on the extremism bit. Even in my close family, we all are baffled at the lengths these extremists go. And we're equally disappointed - and also blame that the governments that are supposedly Islamic are failing to do anything else to rid these insects that blot our religion, instead doing as you said - blaming the white man for inciting such action, and telling them that its their fault, that their soldiers dying were retribution for their sins, etc. I facepalm every time I see this sort of behaviour on the news.
I'll be frank. The government themselves are already in a horrible state. We get countries fighting among and within themselves, then the low education of the people in middle eastern countries don't help. Some of them have their attitude problems, making them refuse to follow with the outside world in the least bit, and refuses to even give thought to even understand them. They think they're on the right, and refuse to believe anything else. When someone like myself tries to drag them away from that mentality, they just get angry, and if you've ever argued with a true thick-blood arab, you'll never win. Even if it looks like you're the winner, he'll make it look like he won.
As far as building on Ground Zero? It's the stupidest thing I ever heard. I knew it'd bring controversy, and it did. It just shows how inconsiderate they were. It's as if they're directly challenging people. I honestly don't know how many muslims are there that actually think or act the same way I do - I only know some, and they're the ones that are my closer friends or family. Everyone else seems to display the same traits that I so despise.
It is not right for a person to persecute a muslim who did not participate, approve, or condone the terrorist attacks. But it is every bit as wrong to ignore that the people who did those things did them >because< of their muslim beliefs. You want to talk about giving a victory to the terrorists?
That is one of the most vicious lies that has been spread in the years since 9/11, i.e., that the Muslim faith is somehow to blame for the attacks. It isn't. The attacks were perpetrated by a small group of extremists who had a grudge against the U.S. government because of the first Gulf War. The fact that they happened to be Muslims is no more relevant than the fact that Bush and Cheney happen to be Christians; despite that fact not all Christians are to blame for the crimes committed by those two wretched goons.
You say it is wrong to persecute someone who didn't participate in or approve of the 9/11 attacks. Then you turn around and attempt to justify persecuting innocent people, who didn't participate and don't approve of the attacks, by denying them their Constitutional rights just because they are Muslims. In addition to being disgustingly hypocritical, it is also pure, hateful bigotry.
Furthermore, the lynch mob mentality behind the opposition to the Cordoba House feeds directly into a narrative cultivated by the likes of Osama bin Laden, i.e., that the "West" is out to destroy Islam. If these bullies succeed in driving the Cordoba House out of New York then, in your own words, "talk about a victory for the terrorists."
I think building a temple to their religion and culture on the site of their attack against OUR culture would be a pretty damn big victory.
More lies. It is not a "temple", but a community center. It is no more a "temple" than a YMCA building is a "church".
And it is not "their" religion that was responsible for "their" attack against "our" culture -- once again, you're lumping the innocent majority together with an extremist minority. If you're going to keep taking those kind of cheap shots at other religions, then you shouldn't get upset when someone calls you a bigot or a racist.
You may think what you like about the Cordoba House -- that is your right. But the group constructing it also has a right to build a cultural center on that location in New York City. And, as I said below, to deny anyone their rights purely on the basis of their religion is bigotry. Period. You either get that, or you don't. And, apparently, you don't.
on the one paw, a mosque is as 'right' as any other religious gathering place, but it can also be seen almost as a bit of trolling to want to put it there, in that particular place.
what we should be remembering, not only there but everywhere, is the sacredness of all the earth beneath each and every one's feet, wherever they might happen to be.
and in that regard, what ought to be built there, the entire former world trade center area, is some kind of nature preserve, with as natural like an environment as can be created in that amount of space, for some of the species that once inhabited the area, before it was over run by human occupation and human development.
september first, 2001, WASN'T "pearl harbour". it was an attempted "crystal knockt" and if it is to be remembered as anything, it is as that. it wasn't a forign invasion. it was an event orchestrated to scare people into accepting a re-brutalizing of the planet, and of the dominance of biggotry and hatred.
i can see how putting a mosque there, is in one sense a symbol of defiance against that dominance of bigotry, but at the same time it is also a taunting and trolling of it.
which of something that needs to be forgotten and gotten rid of, is a very bad idea.
if a religious commemoration of sacredness is to mark the site, let in not be of only one of contending dominant forms of belief, but rather the universality of all faith.
but no. there is another place for that as well. and such a place does exist. it is the baha'i holy places on mt carmel, in israel.
no. the BEST thing to do with the site, is make a pre-america retro garden of eden out of it.
as close as we can. that is what would be logical to me.
Bit disappointed that there isn't more of a 'community' role announced, given the visiblity and all [but then, given the visibility, it'd be hard not to take one, and I hope they can roll it into something that helps people be less irrationally afraid of each other in general] -- but I dunno if that's just being drowned out in all the press or what. [And the astronomical cost of owning/renting real estate down there is certain to have many interests involved.]
I'm getting the impression the planners didn't think it was 'that close,' and if you're going to make the grand gesture of bankrolling some sort of 'interfaith' thing at the site itself, you kinda have to wait for the site to be rebuilt. (And come to think of it, wouldn't shoving miscellaneous holy crap in there discourage future attacks, or at least make them look like dick moves to other fanatics?)
I am proud to live in a country where the Government can not and will not tell them that they can not build a mosque there.
That being said, the organization that is in charge of building it should show a little decency and respect to the families of the dead and move their mosque elsewhere. When it comes down to it, it is an issue about respect. No one would ever support a German pride museum near Auschwitz (heck a few years back they tried to build a catholic convent near there and it was halted.) No one would ever support a US military base or embassy in Hiroshima or Nagasaki (heck out of respect we generally keep our nuclear vessels out of Japanese waters and this was the first year ever we sent an official envoy to the remembrance ceremony) And no one in their right mind would build a Robert E. Lee/Confederate history museum a few blocks away from Martin Luther King Jr's birthplace.
Just because you have a RIGHT to do something, does not necessarily mean that you should do it.
It's about respect and decency.
If you are an American, and a Muslim, you should have enough respect for what happened that day to understand that building a place of worship so close to ground zero is akin to rubbing salt on an open wound.
We respect the rights of moderates to exist and understand that there are differences between moderates and extremists. Moderates in turn should show a little respect for the Muslims (yes there were Muslims killed by the terrorists) and non Muslims murdered in the name of Allah on that day and build their mosque and community center elswhere.
I really can't imagine why folks would want to erect an Muslim cultural center there of all places. Never minding the price of it all, something of 100 million dollars...but, it seems like it's inviting trouble...which it already has. This center, I'd imagine, is going to shelter a lot of Islamic youth. I'm a little disturbed that they would knowingly jeopardize the health and safety of the children and anyone else who enters this establishment as there is sure to be violent backlash once this building is completed.
I don't know, it just seems like a statement is attempting to be made, but why? What is the point? Or, perhaps they really wanted to place this building here as a bridge for peace and understanding. People who visit the newly realized Twin Towers will have an opportunity to see the history of the former towers and learn of the catastrophe of 9/11. They'll receive the American side of the story and know the atrocities of the day.
...but, only a short distance away, they'll also have the opportunity to hear another side of the story and learn, perhaps, why those monsters did what they did and hopefully learn that their actions were completely wrong and not at all founded within the bounds of the faith.
*sighs*
As it is, speaking purely from a constitutional standpoint, there's no justification to halt production on this building. They do indeed have the right. But, from a logical and practical standpoint, I think the possible benefits of erecting this building on this intended sight are far dwarfed by the all the negatives. I don't think this is a good idea. Not because they're Muslims, but because people are still hurting over all this. It's not even been a decade. People are still grieving and pained over those events that befell this country 9 years ago. And when people are in pain, people tend to lash out. And when you provide a ready target to release frustration upon...well...
Yeah, I was right.
My thoughts? I don't particularly have a PROBLEM as such, but then again, reading through peoples' posts, I guess it is insensitive to build one there - it's not so much as it's offensive, as much as it's just...why does it have to be there in the first place?
In the first paragraph, you address "them", but you don't name who "they" are at all. I can assume "evil muslims", but still, who is "they"?
About the topic:
It's stupid to build a mosque there because it's just pissing people off.
And there's no need to get into arguing about if it's alright to put something like that there and if the Muslims are guilty or whatever because in the end this is just provoking and that in itself shouldn't be done.
its all a bunch of pseudo-conservative rabble rousing trying to get people all upset and mad at each other. it the site of an abondond burlington industries warehouse/factory/office something, MORE THEN A BLOCK AWAY (and those are big ass friggen blocks) from the very outermost fringes of "ground zero", the area where the wtc buildings were and fell. there are even other large standing, presumably undamaged buildings between the proposed mosque site and the area.
somebody on another site showed me an arrial photo of the area and marked the site so i, or anyone could plainly see.
Food for thought:
the majority of Muslims would be sensitive to the horrific acts, and they themselves do not condone terror or religious warfare. Islamic friends of mine have even said "it is a poor choice for a Islamic Education center, to be forever linked with those horrific acts"
Obsession Much?
Proving with evidence that the construction would be part of a conspiracy to further break the law, that is another issue.
The tricky part is determining which Islamic's are the radical ones that have declared war against the world from the majority that don't. That I believe is the heart of this particular argument.
My personal problem is, its quite an emotional issue as I am a hard core patriot, problems being when in an emotional hot state, I make poor rationale, thus I stay out of most matters
We would hope that just because they have a right to build there, there would be the realization that it really is in poor taste. I guess it all depends on what message the people building an Islamic center next to ground zero really do want to send after all, isn't it?
The U.S. Constitution grants everyone in this country freedom of speech, association and religion. You might argue that the construction of this cultural center is unwise or even insensitive. But to deny anyone in this country their rights based solely on their religion is the very definition of bigotry. And that has absolutely no place in our society.
Sadly, the naked bigotry exposed by this situation is the direct result of 10 years or so of anti-Muslim propaganda, mainly from the Republican party and its allies. First, as a tool to promote the invasion and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, and now as a political cudgel in order to bludgeon their way back into power.
Those who ignore the past are doomed to repeat its mistakes.
On the other,
You definitely make some very prudent points here.
Thanks for sharing these thoughts.
Rather, I just wanted to say that I enjoy seeing your thoughts, you are a pleasure to read. You are really quite intelligent and well spoken. Makes me hope that I might get a chance to know you. :)