Mosque

[Partha]

Religious Freedom? Only if you're OUR religion.
Individual Rights? Only if you're fitting in with the majority.
Freedom of Association? Only the associations WE approve of.
Tyranny of the Majority? Hell yes!

It's not even Tyranny of the Majority, it's Whining Of The Tiny Minority With Big Fucking Bullhorns.

You think Middle America gives a shit about another community center in NYC? Really? Ask 100 people on the street and 65 either won't care or won't know what the hell you're talking about, 20 will say it's the WORST THING EVAR and 15 will ask the other 20 to chill the fuck out and take their Thorazine.

[Lurker]

I think they're massive hypocritical douchebags who are only looking to rub salt in the nation's wounds for the purpose of creating controversy and divisiveness rather than for any wholesome reason.

I disagree. In certain respects it's like the Westboro Baptist freaks celebrating the deaths of soldiers at their funerals, only marginally sneakier. They may have the right to do it, but they're assholes for exercising that right. Recognizing that is not bigoted or intolerant any more than it's intolerant to recognize the inappropriateness of waving an American flag at the A-Bomb Dome or Peace Memorial Museum in Hiroshima. It's insensitive.

Can you provide one shred of evidence that the people behind the community center are doing this to celebrate the 9/11 attacks or to create divisiveness?

Fabricating "facts" to support a reasonable sounding argument is a "marginally sneaky" way to hide your own bigotry and intolerance, but when we strip away the fabrication all that's left is the bigotry and intolerance.

Embar's guilty of doing the exact same thing to support a position he'd normally find disgusting and offensive.

[Jarochai Alabaster]

The people who want to build the community center are not associated with the people who orchestrated 9/11, so what comparison is there to draw between the two? This isn't insensitivity on the part of Muslims, it's insensitivity on the part of Americans who associate all Muslims with Al Qaeda. It's insanity, and defending it is almost as insane as being involved in the protests.

[Riggen]

Can you provide one shred of evidence that the people behind the community center are doing this to celebrate the 9/11 attacks or to create divisiveness?

I thought it was clear that I was presenting an opinion. My evaluation of their motives is rooted in the implausibility that a religious group--presumably led by people of station and respect in the community--could legitimately be so insensitive. I'll grant the possibility that they could have the hugest case of Asperger's ever diagnosed or have the empathy of a tree stump, but I think it more likely that they knew ahead of time what reaction the proposal would eventually garner--it's not a difficult prediction to make--and chose to go ahead with it anyway. Which would mean that they don't care about anyone else, or are deliberately trying to make a statement. Either way, it's a dick move.

Fabricating "facts" to support a reasonable sounding argument is a "marginally sneaky" way to hide your own bigotry and intolerance, but when we strip away the fabrication all that's left is the bigotry and intolerance.

I'm not sure what "facts" you're talking about. (I love air quotes. And parentheses.) But I am sure that terms like "bigot" and "racist" and "intolerant" are key words to which most people today have an almost instinctive aversion. Use those words and most of the time they'll jump aside. It makes for rhetoric that's handy for bypassing meaningful discussion to quickly get your way, just as you have neglected to address my actual point in favor of attacking me personally. I particularly appreciate how you selectively cut off your first quote of me. Well done.

So let me be reiterate. I support the rights of those wishing to build the mosque, and I oppose anyone who seeks to prevent them from building it. Personally I don't feel much of anything about the prospect either way. Even my "they're assholes" reaction is largely academic. But I recognize that there are those who could legitimately be distressed by it and I think it's hurtful and wrong to simply blanket label them as bigots and marginalize them. Forlorn hope that it is, I would much prefer to see a harmonious compromise reached.

[Lurker]

My evaluation of their motives is rooted in the implausibility that a religious group--presumably led by people of station and respect in the community--could legitimately be so insensitive. I'll grant the possibility that they could have the hugest case of Asperger's ever diagnosed or have the empathy of a tree stump, but I think it more likely that they knew ahead of time what reaction the proposal would eventually garner--it's not a difficult prediction to make--and chose to go ahead with it anyway. Which would mean that they don't care about anyone else, or are deliberately trying to make a statement. Either way, it's a dick move.

Your evaluation is rooted in complete ignorance.

There was no controversy until a racist blogger, with the assistance of the right wing media and some opportunistic politicians, succeeded in making it controversial.

Your entire last post is quite amusing. You smear the organizers of the community center by attributing motives that aren't supported by reality, using some hateful rhetoric in the process, and then whine about us trying to "bypass meaningful discussion" by calling you an intolerant bigot. Just amazing.

After reading the timeline I posted, do you grant the possibility that the organizers of the community center were trying to provide a meaningful and peaceful service to their community and had no idea that a bigoted blogger would successfuly gin up a controversy? Is it possible the "dick move" was hers and yours and not theirs?

[Riggen]

I don't get your point at all, Riggen.

Everything I've seen shows the Islamic community were not the ones who started this shitfight. My understanding was a bunch of bigots saw "Muslim community center" on the town planning document and kicked up a storm, which all sorts of wingnuts have since weighed in on. You only have to compare the pro-center demonstrations with the anti-center demonstrations to see where the sanity lies on this.

Now, if they were building a proper mosque with spires, minarets and the like then you may have a point. If they were pushing themselves out into the public in a "fuck you" kind of way then you may have a point. If they're just building a community center, using an existing building and not going out of their way to do any more than that (which was my understanding) then your point makes no sense. I would be interested in evidence to the contrary though.

Granted, most of the information I initially heard on the matter I picked up while listening to NPR, so maybe I got something other than the reality of the situation or was missing some kind of mitigating detail. But my understanding is that a community center is only part of the total construction, which is to include a proper mosque with architectural reworking of the site as necessary to support that function.

One thing I find interesting here is the alarmist notion that the debate is somehow hardening the hearts of our true enemies and creating more terrorists. In one of my browser tabs I'm now reading an MSNBC article suggesting that this is a non-issue outside the US, where controversies over the banning of burkas in Europe or Switzerland's hold on minaret construction are dominant.

Also interesting is that the governor of New York has suggested that some state land farther from Ground Zero could be used for the center's construction, and more importantly that at least some of the proposed mosque's builders are open to discussion on the idea. This sounds like the makings of a great compromise where everybody can win.

[Riggen]

You're going off the deep end there, Lurk. This doesn't have to be personal.

My evaluation was simple logic, really. Premise 1: Regardless of the motive for doing so, it is insensitive to erect Islamic symbology practically next door to the site of the worst atrocity ever committed on American soil in the name of Islam.

Premise 2: A child could see that.

Premise 3: The mosque builders proceeded with their plans anyway.

Why? The conclusion was that it was either ignorance or malice. Given premise 2, malice seemed more likely. In an endeavor such as this, either are worthy of criticism. And so I criticized.

It's unfortunate that the situation was brought to light in the manner it was. It makes it that much murkier. But it doesn't change anything. Prior to the last few days most people had no clue this was happening. How ever questionable its origin, the controversy is now real.

But given today's developments, it looks like there's hope for the situation to proceed positively. If the organizers move forward in good faith and work toward a compromise then I would be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that they initially acted in ignorance rather than malice. Even then, it still would have been a dick move to build a mosque so close to the WTC.

[Lurker]

The NY TImes article from December of last year covers some of the motivation behind the location.

You've accused Imam Feisal of malice, mental illness, or stupidity. I think you're wrong. I think the last line of your post about it being a dick move to build a mosque so close to the WTC (which they weren't even doing!) is twisted and disgusting.

If he's guilty of anything it's of drastically overestimating the American public. He didn't realize that a few bigots and opportunistic politicians aided by a compliant media could whip up a controversy over nothing and turn a worthwhile project into something sinister. It's stunning how easily Americans abandon core beliefs and succumb to fear and hate. This situation shames us, not him or what he's trying to build.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Hyperbole, thy name is Lurker.

The point both Riggen and I are trying to make is that, sure, they have the right to build, but is it really a wise move on thier part? It doesn't matter how the controversy started. It matters as to what people feel about the issue, given what they know about it. I find your statements condeming Americans for painting all Muslims with the same brush to be hypocritical when you insinuate that only bigots are against the building of the community center.

[Lurker]

This is probably another issue you simply haven't followed closely. There are anti-muslim protests going on across the country, not just against the center near ground zero, and the people pushing this the hardest are known bigots and opportunistic politicians like Palin and Gingrich. While I sympathize with people who are sincerely hurt by this because it opens wounds for them, they are few and not the driving force behind the controversy... and it's simply not a good enough reason to oppose the plan or attack the organizers of the community center.

You need to re-read what you've written here, the stance you took and the solution you suggested, because it's truly shameful.

[Riggen]

Ok, you think I'm wrong. That's fine.

Considering that the essential difference between your position and mine is that I believe the imam's conduct to be sufficiently insensitive to warrant a little derision, and that I would like the final outcome of the situation to satisfy everyone, WHY do you think I'm wrong?

Can you give any reasons beyond gut reactions like "It's shameful" or "it's bigoted" or "it's fear and hate" or "it's twisted and disgusting"? Why is it any of those things? Bearing in mind that I too sometimes engage in hyperbole, I think most of what I said was pretty mild. For instance, "it's a dick move" is meant in common parlance to mean more or less the same thing as "it's a jerk move" or "it's extremely inconsiderate". Why is that any more repugnant to you than any of the things you've said yourself?

In my last post I attempted to spell out my explicit reasoning. Is there a specific premise with which you disagree? Why?

[Ddrak]

The point both Riggen and I are trying to make is that, sure, they have the right to build, but is it really a wise move on thier part? It doesn't matter how the controversy started. It matters as to what people feel about the issue, given what they know about it.

I get the point, and I think it would be valid for anyone making a new application now the hysteria is in full swing. The question is whether the current project should abandon their plans given there was no controversy or opposition when they initially began the project - it only sprang into existence about a year after they began.

A similar question is whether the other mosques around Ground Zero should be abandoned. Surely they are no different in their "desecration" of the site?

In essence - should a group abandon something because of what is essentially a lynch-mob reaction? I see that as a similar thing to giving in to terrorist demands - it will only encourage similar action in the future.

Dd

[Lurker]

When you listen to the people driving this controversy it's clear they don't just think it's inconsiderate or dickish to build so close to the WTC site. Their opposition is rooted in fear and hatred against muslims and it almost always devolves into an attack against the entire religion. And this isn't just happening in NY. Muslims are facing the same fear and bigotry across the nation.

And like I said, while I sympathize with the few who are sincerely hurt by the location in NY because of it's proximity to the WTC site, I do not think their argument is valid and it's simply not a good enough reason to attack the project or it's organizers. For one thing, he's a moderate who actively opposes the terrorists who attacked us. For another thing, it's absurd to suggest we need to create a mosque free bubble around the WTC site. And as Ddrak said, if we give in to demands where would it end?

[Riggen]

When you listen to the people driving this controversy it's clear they don't just think it's inconsiderate or dickish to build so close to the WTC site. Their opposition is rooted in fear and hatred against muslims and it almost always devolves into an attack against the entire religion. And this isn't just happening in NY. Muslims are facing the same fear and bigotry across the nation.

I agree, and I am not defending those people. I have, in fact, specifically attempted to avoid making populist appeals in this thread for that very reason. But that still doesn't answer the question. (Relax, I'm not going to pursue you too hard on it. I just want you to think about it instead of giving in to the "BIGOT! " reflex.)

And like I said, while I sympathize with the few who are sincerely hurt by the location in NY because of it's proximity to the WTC site, I do not think their argument is valid and it's simply not a good enough reason to attack the project or it's organizers. For one thing, he's a moderate who actively opposes the terrorists who attacked us. For another thing, it's absurd to suggest we need to create a mosque free bubble around the WTC site. And as Ddrak said, if we give in to demands where would it end?

And I'm glad of it, too. But I'm not sure which argument you're disagreeing with, or why. Do you mean the argument that the mosque's construction should be blocked? I'd concur with you in disagreeing with that. The argument that the lack of consideration displayed in constructing a mosque at that location merits criticism? I'd argue that it does. Nobody is above reproach.

[Lurker]

But I'm not sure which argument you're disagreeing with, or why.

I've heard lots of hateful rhetoric about the entire Islamic religion and misinformation about the Imam and his motives, but I haven't heard a convincing argument from someone who's primary reason for opposition is the nearness of the site to ground zero. Why is it offensive for a moderate muslim to locate a prayer hall near the WTC site?

[Embar Angylwrath]

Maybe he's not what you think he is? He certainly has made statements in the past, and is part of some pretty anti-Jewish organizations (more specifically, part of organizations led by anti-semites)

He doesn't win too many points with Americans by saying the US was an accessory to the 9/11 attacks, and that Osama Bin Laden was made in the US. (60 Minutes interview, 2001, September 30). Nor does he win points by being a permanent member of Perdana. Add to that his involvement in the Islamic Cultural Center, which has hosted a couple of winner leaders such as Imam Sheik Muhammad Gemeaha and his successor Omar Saleem Abu-Namous, both known anti-semites and blaming the Jews for the World Trade Center, disavowing any Muslim involvement in the attacks.

The man ain't Ghandi...

[Lurker]

Thanks for proving my point.

[Riggen]

But I'm not sure which argument you're disagreeing with, or why.

I've heard lots of hateful rhetoric about the entire Islamic religion and misinformation about the Imam and his motives, but I haven't heard a convincing argument from someone who's primary reason for opposition is the nearness of the site to ground zero. Why is it offensive for a moderate muslim to locate a prayer hall near the WTC site?

Because it's cruel to needlessly remind a grieving person of their loss.

[Ddrak]

Because it's cruel to needlessly remind a grieving person of their loss.

It would be a fair point if the proposed community center was doing this - it is not obviously an Islamic center and someone would have to explicitly search for it to find it. Someone grieving would have to go out of their way to hurt themselves more to actually know it was there, and that's a psychological problem with the person grieving. The "needlessly reminding" didn't start until about a year after the project was started and some hatemongers started stirring up public sentiment for no good reason. If anyone is being cruel here, I'd suggest it is those that are stirring up the reaction against the community center - had they never started kicking up a stink and telling people how upset they should be then there'd be no more issue with this center than there is with the other two mosques within a few blocks of the WTC site.

Is it needlessly cruel to build a Catholic Church within a block of the OKC bombing?

My view is the victims here are as much those still grieving over 9/11 AND the Islamic community within NYC. The people who really need to be made an example of are anyone stirring the fear and hate which as usual is the neocon machine.

Dd

[Ddrak]

Look, here's what I'm talking about with the "needlessly reminding". In this street view is an example of a "mosque" in NYC. It is as conspicuous as the proposed one, and a similar distance from the WTC site.

NYC Mosque

Find the Mosque.

Dd