Mosque

[Torakus]

You two are really whacked.

The picture I posted here applies. Was she "cramming de-segregation down people's throats"? Should she have compromised?

She wasn't but someone was, and it was done with very specific intent. I have always thought that de-segregation could have been handled much better than it was. Its a totally different discussion but I have always thought that the students were needlessly placed into harms way.

Are the Muslims in Tennessee trying to shove Islam down people's throats? Should they compromise in the face of terrorism? Is a vocal opposition, no matter how irrational or unjustified, all that's required to turn something worthwhile into something horrible that's being "crammed down people's throats"? I don't think so. There's something twisted about your view on this.

You mentioned the Tennessee Mosque and seem to have no problem with it. I'll have to think some more on why you think the NYC project is so offensive because I just don't get it.

Holy apples and oranges batman! Are you seriously comparing the vocal opposition in NYC to the potential terrorist act in Tennessee? Whose view is twisted?

No vocal opposition, no matter how justified or unjustified, rational or irrational, should turn anything worthwhile into something horrible. But, at a minimum I think the side being opposed should consider the merits, if any, of the other side's argument and the merits of the possibility of compromise. In this case, I did not see that the builders of the mosque were open to that. Even when apparently rational third parties stepped in to offer a compromise it was flatly rejected. My wording might not be optimal, but I can only imagine that the opposition sees that refusal to compromise as the builders "shoving Islam down their throats". Not my throat. I don't give a shit about religion.

I don't have a problem with either Mosque. In fact I said that I see a clear need for more Mosques in New York. Perhaps you can quote me saying that the NYC project is offensive. Never mind, you can't because I did not.

Torakus, you are projecting. All I've seen from you is black and white extremes and they are irrational and ridiculous. You call building this center over extremist opposition "cramming religion" down someone's throat? Really? That's ...rational? It's a fucking community center, it has a prayer floor, they've been planning it for a year and no one threw a fit until now. You need to join the real world, where people don't do things the easy way, they stand up for themselves.

Caving into extremists is never the answer. If it was, we'd be constantly giving into terrorists and cowering under our beds waiting for sunshine and unicorns.

Yes because considering the potential of a middle ground is extreme, irrational and ridiculous. You clearly have lost your grip on reality. I get what the fucking thing is Harlowe and I support the project. What I do not support is poking the irrational opposition in the eye, just because we think we can. All you get from poking extremists in the eye is pissed off extremists, and some of them become red-eyed terrorists (Tennessee?).

Please don't mistake me for some shut in who hasn't experienced the world Harlowe. I spent a quarter century getting a gut full of the guilt all American's should share in for the shit we have created throughout the world. But taking an extremist position in regards to extremists is hardly the answer.

Compromise is not caving in, it is capitalizing on the shades of gray between your position and theirs.

Tora

[Fallakin Kuvari]

Caving into extremists is never the answer. If it was, we'd be constantly giving into terrorists and cowering under our beds waiting for sunshine and unicorns.

Then clearly they shouldn't cave to letting them build this "community center" there given that the Imam is a proven extremist sympathizer.

[Lurker]

the Imam is a proven extremist sympathizer.

No, he isn't. Your leaders have poisoned the dialog by trying to paint a moderate Imam as an extremist just to score political points. Embar clearly read up on the Imam, and while he still has some concerns about a few past statements he correctly concluded that the Imam's "record is one of a consensus builder and a moderate."

Are you seriously comparing the vocal opposition in NYC to the potential terrorist act in Tennessee?

No, but they both started as nothing more than vocal opposition. I think that the political opportunists (Palin, Gingrich and others) who took the local NYC issue and made it a national shitstorm created a climate that emboldened the terrorists in Tennessee.

I agree that we shouldn't deliberately poke extremists in the eye just because we can. I just don't agree that that happened in this case. We have a well meaning project that was over a year old and that was approved by unanimous vote of the local planning commission. A clearly bigotted blogger and a right-wing newspaper started stirring up opposition and tried to paint the Imam as a dangerous extremist. Palin and Gingrich nationalized the attack very quickly. I just don't see how it's reasonable for the Imam to scrap his plans and move locations given that the opposition has no legitimacy at all.

[Ddrak]

Let me summarize what I think Tora posted:

Starting a new project in the face of vocal whackjob opposition isn't a good way to promote a cause.
The NYC project is needed.
The NYC project has gone too far to consider the first statement applicable.

I don't have an issue with any of those points.

Dd

[Fallakin Kuvari]

the Imam is a proven extremist sympathizer.

No, he isn't. Your leaders have poisoned the dialog by trying to paint a moderate Imam as an extremist just to score political points. Embar clearly read up on the Imam, and while he still has some concerns about a few past statements he correctly concluded that the Imam's "record is one of a consensus builder and a moderate."

Maybe you missed the most important word in there: "sympathizer".

[Torakus]

Lurker,

I think we agree for the most part. I have never supported scrapping the project just because some nut job with high profile backers started throwing a fit. What I advocated was both sides sitting down and trying to find a middle ground. As far as I know, that never happened. I still feel that ignoring the opposition in this case was the same as poking them in the eye. Don't get me wrong, the Muslim community in Tennessee is the victim and did nothing wrong, but I believe that pissing off the opposition in New York is part of the reason that it happened. I have no way of really knowing that it would not have happened anyway, but it seems unlikely given that this Muslim community had existed there with no problem for a decade.

DD,

Exactly. I should just vet my thoughts through you. It will probably save everyone a lot of time.

Tora

[Lurker]

Fallakin,
I didn't miss your weak qualifier. It's still not true. I know your leader has spent some time trying to demonize the Imam, but he hasn't proven him to be any sort of radical or extremist sympathizer. I have a feeling that you (parroting your leader) are the sort of "opposition" that Riggen, Embar, and Torakus discount out of hand.

Torakus,
Who do you see as "the opposition" that the project organizers should have sat down with to find a middle ground? Who are "both sides"? Certainly not the politicians like Palin or Gingrich, or the 9/11 family front group run by one woman affiliated with Liz Cheney, or the bigoted blogger who started all this. Do you mean Governor Paterson? Hadn't things already gone too far to compromise by the time he asked them to move the site?

[Harlowe]

Previously you said it was ramming religion down people's throats, your argument keeps changing.

Compromise is not caving in, it is capitalizing on the shades of gray between your position and theirs.

What shades of gray do you really think there is with the protesters? And who is it they should be meeting with to sit down and come up with this compromise - the extremists? Do you honestly feel they have any interest in finding a fair common ground with the Muslims? Of course not. They just want to stop it. They are not rational, there is no gray for them. Now you might think there is a middle ground or a gray area, but those people have no interest in Muslim-influenced anything anywhere near that area if they have any say.

It's about as likely as the Westboro nutjobs sitting down with a soldier's family and finding a compromise for their God Hates Fags signs at funerals. There is no gray or middle ground with hateful and irrational people that fear "otherness".

[Torakus]

Harlowe,

My argument has never changed. The fact that the opposition views it as Islam being jammed down their throats is apparent. How does that change my argument? My argument has always been that I felt the planners of the mosque should have considered the possibility of compromise. At a minimum they could have attempted some dialogue in an attempt to find a solution that still achieved their goals and was more palatable to their opposition. Obviously none of this happened and even if it had, we may still be in the same position, but an attempt would have been made. My position has never been that the planners should have caved in and abandoned the project.

I am certainly glad that you are all knowing and can be certain that the opposition would never compromise. It must certainly save time in your world to not even try.

Tora

[Lurker]

Is it fair to say that you don't personally think they are forcing their religion on anyone and that you don't find the opposition to the mosque to be reasonable? And I'm still not sure who you wanted them to negotiate with.

=====

The FAQ from the Cordoba Initiative is interesting. The official site for the project provides more information as well as a good faith offer of outreach to the opposition. Whoever that actually is. Nobody here has been able to articulate a reasonable objection to the location and I haven't seen anyone leading the protests who's primary objection is the location. It always comes down to an attack on the Imam or Islam itself.

[Harlowe]

The fact that the opposition views it as Islam being jammed down their throats is apparent

Well it's sure good that you seem to feel you are equally all-knowing.

You still didn't answer the question....who are they supposed to come to this compromise with exactly? Who within the opposition is in a position to speak for the opposition? Should they just keep tossing out ideas until the angry villagers disperse? I mean really, there are practical things that have to happen in order for this thing called compromise to happen.

To quote Partha, I don't deal in fantasy. What exactly do you think should happen,"they should compromise" is a vague statement.

[Fallakin Kuvari]

Fallakin,
I didn't miss your weak qualifier. It's still not true. I know your leader has spent some time trying to demonize the Imam, but he hasn't proven him to be any sort of radical or extremist sympathizer. I have a feeling that you (parroting your leader) are the sort of "opposition" that Riggen, Embar, and Torakus discount out of hand.

From the Cordoba Initiative:

“Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf is a member of the Perdana Global Peace Organization, which is a funder of the flotilla that attempted to deliver aid to residents of Gaza.”
Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf has never been a member of this group.

Ironically Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf is listed under "Role Players & Contributors" on the Perdana Global Peace Organization's website. They've even called him a "principal Partner".

One of those groups has to be lying.

Here's an actual investigative report done on the man.

Note: While I think the Mosque expansion is distasteful in that location, they have every right to build there since it has been approved.

[Lurker]

You need to re-read the Weekly Standard opinion piece you linked. It doesn't say that Perdana called Imam Rauf a "principal partner"; it says Perdana considers itself a "principal partner" in the Turkish-launched flotilla. Guess Beck doesn't teach reading comprehension on that blackboard of his.

And here's the complete item from the Cordoba Institute in case anyone gets confused by your clipped quote and wonders why Perdana has a short bio on Rauf (which doesn't mention a single thing about him being involved with Perdana btw) on their website.

Clearing Up False Charges Made Against Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf:

“Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf is a member of the Perdana Global Peace Organization, which is a funder of the flotilla that attempted to deliver aid to residents of Gaza.”

Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf has never been a member of this group. Several years ago, Imam Feisal was invited to Malaysia, the most moderate Islamic country in the world, to participate in a Peace Conference sponsored by the Perdana Peace Group. He was one of the hundreds of speakers present. He has no political, advisory or business affiliation of any nature with the Perdana group. A photo of Imam Feisal was taken at the conference, and this has been used to “prove” his membership in the Perdana Global Peace Organization, but the allegation is false. Because of the controversy surrounding Perdana, we have requested the Perdana Group to remove the photo of him from their publicity.

[Fallakin Kuvari]

And here's the complete item from the Cordoba Institute in case anyone gets confused by your clipped quote and wonders why Perdana has a short bio on Rauf (which doesn't mention a single thing about him being involved with Perdana btw) on their website.

You're right, it only lists him under the "Role Players & Contributors" section on the Perdana website... Clearly that means he's not involved with them in any shape or form.

You're more correct that I should've read the Weekly Standard article. Shame on me.

[Lurker]

If Beck is going to play guilt by association he'll have to do better than a bio page on a website.

The bio itself makes no mention that Rauf has any role or affiliation with Perdana. It's likely Perdana added him to the list of "Role Players and Contributors" because he's a well known moderate who was one of many people who spoke at a conference years ago and they wanted to add his credibility to their organization. Rauf has no control over what Perdana posts on their website.

But hey, keep trying to smear the Imam. You prove my point about the true nature and motives of the opposition to this project with every post.

[Fallakin Kuvari]

Um, yes he does. If he doesn't want to be associated with the organization all he has to do is serve them with cease and desist papers and that page would be gone.

Lets not confuse my playing guilt by association with any stance Glenn Beck may have. The fact of the matter is the Imam is listed on the website as a Role Player and Contributor. He has full authority to serve the organization papers that would remove him from the website if he chose to do so. The fact that he hasn't and that a bio of him exists on the organization's website is proof enough that the Imam is involved with them.

As I said (and I'll even bold the important part that is my stance since you seem to be so drawn to assume I think otherwise):

While I think the Mosque expansion is distasteful in that location, they have every right to build there since it has been approved.

I'll even reiterate: While I may not agree with the Imam's view on things or think that he is a "upstanding citizen" and think that the Mosque's expansion is in poor taste given its location; they have every right to build on their location and expand since it has been approved by a board of duly appointed citizens.

[Lurker]

Lets not confuse my playing guilt by association with any stance Glenn Beck may have.

Everything you do or say traces back to Beck. He highlighted this smear and pointed to that exact web page on his show.

The fact that [Rauf hasn't filed cease and desist papers] and that a bio of him exists on the organization's website is proof enough that the Imam is involved with them.

No... it isn't. It's just about the weakest "guilt by association" attack I've ever seen.

[Fallakin Kuvari]

Lets not confuse my playing guilt by association with any stance Glenn Beck may have.

Everything you do or say traces back to Beck. He highlighted this smear and pointed to that exact web page on his show.

You mean he's talked about both the Cordoba Initiative and Perdana on his show while talking about Imam Rauf? Gee, I wonder why.

Not because the connections aren't there or anything...

The fact that [Rauf hasn't filed cease and desist papers] and that a bio of him exists on the organization's website is proof enough that the Imam is involved with them.

No... it isn't. It's just about the weakest "guilt by association" attack I've ever seen.

Just like this is just about the weakest defense of the Imam I've ever seen.

The connections are there, while he may not "be a member" he is clearly listed as a "Role Player and Contributor" on Perdana's website. I doubt either of those roles really require any "membership".

And let me add again, since you seem to be skipping over the point of fact that I DO NOT disagree with the Mosque being able to expand at its current location:

I'll even reiterate: While I may not agree with the Imam's view on things or think that he is a "upstanding citizen" and think that the Mosque's expansion is in poor taste given its location; they have every right to build on their location and expand since it has been approved by a board of duly appointed citizens.

Poor Taste: Yes. OMGOFFENSIVEANDTHEYSHOULDBESTOPPED: No.

[Lurker]

There's a reason I've skipped that point. Your entry into this thread was a smear on the Imam saying he had been proven an extremist sympathizer. It was a lie. So who cares if you claim to support their right to build. Your main goal is to spread disinformation about the Imam because that's what Beck told you.

You mean [Beck] talked about both the Cordoba Initiative and Perdana on his show while talking about Imam Rauf? Gee, I wonder why.

Not because the connections aren't there or anything...

And this is why you are a joke around here. You actually think that Beck covers legitimate topics on his show or that he requires actual connections before he puts them on his blackboard. I wish Embar's Kick Fallakin in the Nuts thread was feasible and that your form of idiocy could be quarantined into a single thread. Sadly it can't.

[Fallakin Kuvari]

As I said, one of the organizations has to be lying about the Imam's connection to Perdana.

Since Perdana has a bio of the Imam under their "Role Player and Contributor" page I'm inclined to believe that he does have a direct connection with them, even if he is "not a member". Otherwise why would that page exist?

And this is why you are a joke around here. You actually think that Beck covers legitimate topics on his show or that he requires actual connections before he puts them on his blackboard. I wish Embar's Kick Fallakin in the Nuts thread was feasible and that your form of idiocy could be quarantined into a single thread. Sadly it can't.

Just like we all wish you and Partha could see reality when its right in front of your face. Sadly you don't.