No Mosque at Ground Zero, But a Prayer Room?

[Char. Limit]

Unequivocally.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. To me it screams loud and proud that the law can not be used to gain special favors for religion. It should be treated like a hobby or a social club, except they can not get any special favors like tax breaks or special zoning or placards or any parking privileges. They should be treated like lepers.

Wait, you're saying that religious people should be treated like lepers? As if they have a contagious disease?

How militant are you?

 

[cronxeh]

Wait, you're saying that religious people should be treated like lepers? As if they have a contagious disease?

How militant are you?

Not enough to have ATF knocking on my door, but enough to have the bible humpers running away in agonizing shame and despair

I hate religion. I pity the religious people, really I see them as clinically delusional. You can't really be mad at crazy people once you know they have a 'condition'

Oh to further expand on this point, I think the "founding fathers" knew the truth about religion and their desire to put up a wall between religion and state was motivated by their desire to remain free of permanent ties to any particular regime. The whole neutrality thing was an attempt to remain free from being slaves to the rich and wealthy who control the population through financial institutions and religion which retards their mental growth. Simply put you wanted freedom but instead America became a prison for your mind. You should really burn the Constitution if you want to protest the next time, as it has lost any and all meaning or merit.

 

[Werg22]

I am not going to argue about pro-lifers here; however, the reason why most people are dissatisfied with Muslims is because they do not speak out against or actively try to stop radicalism within their own religion. It is their inaction against these kinds of things that makes them part of the problem.



You'd have to ask a protest that question if you want their answer, but I'd generally agree with that statement.

I don't understand the logic of that argument. One man is not responsible for another's actions. Should we have a problem with men because not enough actively seek to stop rapists? We shouldn't except someone to condemn or stop another's wrongdoings simply because they have a point in common.

 

[Cyrus]

I don't understand the logic of that argument. One man is not responsible for another's actions. Should we have a problem with men because not enough actively seek to stop rapists? We shouldn't except someone to condemn or stop another's wrongdoings simply because they have a point in common.

A person in a religion is responsible for the actions of the collective of that group, if they willingly choose to participate in it. Your example makes no sense.

 

[zomgwtf]

A person in a religion is responsible for the actions of the collective of that group, if they willingly choose to participate in it. Your example makes no sense.

C'mon Cyrus you can't really think that can you?

Many Muslims do speak out against terrorism etc.. I don't think you can group an extremely large amount of people together based on only religion.

First, many people do not 'willingly choose to participate' in their religion. Especially with some Muslims. It's just what they've grown up with...

Second and most importantly, participation in that religion doesn't make you guilty of all actions commited by persons in that religion... unless of course you are party to those actions. I mean this isn't a 'group' thing this is a HUGE religion... Your comment would make sense if it were a smaller group of people and they all knew what was going on and still participated in the group. For instance if my 10 friends want to rob a bank and I know that but I still hang out with them etc. and do not try to stop them then sure you can see it as I was party to that bank robbery. This simply isn't possible with an entire religion as big as Islam. Especially when the group of fundamentalist is extremely small in comparison.

It would be different if you stated that persons supporting or participating in those actions are all collectively guilty but that's not what happens in Islam... far from I think.

 

[lisab]

I don't understand the logic of that argument. One man is not responsible for another's actions. Should we have a problem with men because not enough actively seek to stop rapists? We shouldn't except someone to condemn or stop another's wrongdoings simply because they have a point in common.

"Men" do actively seek to stop rapists, by making rape a crime and sending rapists to prison. Such law is the collective voice of "men".

And women, of course.

Let's say you're a member of a group, and some of your fellow members do something in the name of the group. If you don't speak against them, you are giving your tacit approval of their actions. I think that's an interpretation that many people would make.

And that's the trouble with your example. I don't think rapists say, "In the name of all men I'm going to go rape this woman. Men are great!"

 

[Char. Limit]

And that's the trouble with your example. I don't think rapists say, "In the name of all men I'm going to go rape this woman. Men are great!"

Unfortunately, many of the more militant women think this is exactly what rapists think, for some reason.

 

[zomgwtf]

"Men" do actively seek to stop rapists, by making rape a crime and sending rapists to prison. Such law is the collective voice of "men".

And women, of course.

Let's say you're a member of a group, and some of your fellow members do something in the name of the group. If you don't speak against them, you are giving your tacit approval of their actions. I think that's an interpretation that many people would make.

And that's the trouble with your example. I don't think rapists say, "In the name of all men I'm going to go rape this woman. Men are great!"

I disagree, these people have nothing to do with each other aside from what WE see as their religion. All Muslims do not have to actively speak out against terrorism or illegal actions committed by all Muslims in order to 'clear' their religion. Even though many do, in fact many don't even bother because they don't see these fundamentalist AS Muslims (from personal experience).

This would be like grouping all Christians together and collectively blaming them for what some Catholic priests do, or what the Catholic church does, or what Westboro Baptist Church does, simply because not all Christians voice an opinion on the matter. They don't have to voice their opinion at all, they just have to not follow what those people are doing.

 

[Werg22]

"Men" do actively seek to stop rapists, by making rape a crime and sending rapists to prison. Such law is the collective voice of "men".

And women, of course.

Let's say you're a member of a group, and some of your fellow members do something in the name of the group. If you don't speak against them, you are giving your tacit approval of their actions. I think that's an interpretation that many people would make.

And that's the trouble with your example. I don't think rapists say, "In the name of all men I'm going to go rape this woman. Men are great!"

There are laws in Muslim countries to stop terrorism, believe it or not. By the same argument, Muslims actively seek to stop Muslim terrorists. So where's problem again?

As an aside: the vast majority of Muslims I have ever talked to on this matter are disengaged on the issue. They do not identify with radical Muslims and see terrorists as a threat to their security like everyone else. It ends there.

 

[Werg22]

While we're at it: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10900478"

 

[Dr Lots-o'watts]

HAHAHAAAAAAAAAaaai... Are you blind?!

Maybe. All I see is this :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_Trade_Center_site_2010.jpg

 

[vertices]

A person in a religion is responsible for the actions of the collective of that group, if they willingly choose to participate in it.

you do realize how absurd this statement is?

 

[Evo]

you do realize how absurd this statement is?

In a way I see his point. If crimes are committed in the name of 'religion A' and 'religion A' says that those criminals are not part of their religion and are banned from their religion, then those that adhere to that religion have made it clear there is no afiliation.

If 'religion A' just says "oh, they're just are a bit extreme, and although we don't condone their actions, we still consider them members of our religion". Then, yeah, if you choose to be part of that religion, you are agreeing with that stand, if only passively. Either force change or leave if you disagree with what is happening.

Protestants broke off from the Catholic church because they disagreed with what was happening.

Why don't Muslim clerics do the Catholic equivalent of an excommunication of these criminals? They're not just criminals that happen to belong to a religion.

Perhaps I am just not informed enough about Islam, has the Taliban been thrown out? Are they now outcasts in the eyes of Muslims?

But, why we're discussing this in a thread about a building that has been approved, I'm not sure.

 

[rootX]

Why don't Muslim clerics do the Catholic equivalent of an excommunication of these criminals? They're not just criminals that happen to belong to a religion.

Perhaps I am just not informed enough about Islam, has the Taliban been thrown out? Are they now outcasts in the eyes of Muslims?

I was just reading a news few days ago where Islamic clerics are outcasting Taliban in England and teaching youth about peace and tolerance et. I have come across many other stories.

But who owns Islam and can outcast Taliban? Second this is wide geographic conflict and religion does not have to do much with it.

 

[Evo]

I was just reading a news few days ago where Islamic clerics are outcasting Taliban in England and teaching youth about peace and tolerance et. I have come across many other stories.

But who owns Islam and can outcast Taliban? Second this is wide geographic conflict and religion does not have to do much with it.

Don't they have head clerics? Do they have a figurehead similar to the Pope, or are they decentralized like all of the thousands of protestant groups? They all consider themselves christians but there is no leader.

Can you tell I'm not interested in religion?

 

[vertices]

Don't they have head clerics? Do they have a figurehead similar to the Pope, or are they decentralized like all of the thousands of protestant groups? They all consider themselves christians but there is no leader.

I don't think so..

As regards your previous point:

Then, yeah, if you choose to be part of that religion, you are agreeing with that stand, if only passively.

So all of the 1 billion muslims (a pluralistic bunch, may I add) 'passively' agreed with the motives and are 'responsible for the actions' of the 9/11 terrorists?

There are extremists in all religions - why should ordinary followers of any faith have to defend themselves against these nutcases? Erm, maybe because it would be a bit undignifying for them to so?!

More on topic - it pays to remember, we're talking about a cultural centre (for all communities), not a mosque. Furthermore, this cultural centre is not being built on Ground Zero. You can always trust the right wing media to ignore or misrepresent inconvenient facts..

 

[drizzle]

Maybe. All I see is this :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_Trade_Center_site_2010.jpg

Sorry I misunderstood you. Though, I'm curious to know what exactly do you mean by that, victims?!

 

[Evo]

I guess this answers the question.

"The Taliban are saying they are religious people, but they are using force to get their aims and are using the cover of Islam," Maulavi Khattib said. "But we say this is not Islam. Islam does not support the use of force, and we are telling people not to fight."

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/04/international/asia/04AFGH.html

 

[Dr Lots-o'watts]

Sorry I misunderstood you. Though, I'm curious to know what exactly do you mean by that, victims?!

I just mean that the picture doesn't show a mosque or a cultural center. The relevant site is definitely occupied by non-religious constructions which will surely overshadow anything that is near.

But I am also a bit disappointed that the new WTC is slower to be constructed than expected. Perhaps if they'd been faster, the media would have never noticed nearby constructions. But who am I to judge the work of surely hundreds of people more involved -and certainly more knowledgeable- than I in the project.

 

[Cyrus]

you do realize how absurd this statement is?

If one chooses to be a Muslim, and said members of the Muslim faith commits acts of terrorism and violence, then that person, along with their fellow Muslims, are responsible for both condemnation, and stomping out such members of its faith. Otherwise, one is simply an arm chair apologetic. The only absurdity here is your comment above.

 

[Cyrus]

So all of the 1 billion muslims (a pluralistic bunch, may I add) 'passively' agreed with the motives and are 'responsible for the actions' of the 9/11 terrorists?

Yep.

There are extremists in all religions - why should ordinary followers of any faith have to defend themselves against these nutcases? Erm, maybe because it would be a bit undignifying for them to so?!

Because those nutcases give them horrible PR, and more to the point - there are far too many of these nutcases running around. It's not a small 'fringe'.

More on topic - it pays to remember, we're talking about a cultural centre (for all communities), not a mosque. Furthermore, this cultural centre is not being built on Ground Zero. You can always trust the right wing media to ignore or misrepresent inconvenient facts..

I don't think this has to do with 'right wing media'... it has to do with upset Americans.

 

[ThomasT]

If one chooses to be a Muslim, and said members of the Muslim faith commits acts of terrorism and violence, then that person, along with their fellow Muslims, are responsible for both condemnation, and stomping out such members of its faith. Otherwise, one is simply an arm chair apologetic. The only absurdity here is your comment above.

This really makes no sense. If it was that easy for Muslims, in general, to just "stomp out" people who, it's assumed, they would, mostly, agree are doing bad things, then why don't they just get to stomping them out? Hmmm, let's see, might it have something to do with the 'bad guys' having more guns and money and being more organized and ruthless, and etc., etc. than the average, nonviolent, Muslim? Yes, I think that might have something to do with it.

Might it also have something to do with the fact that 9/11 was a drop in the bucket compared to the atrocities that we've visited on hundreds of thousands of Muslims. Should that make anybody feel any better?

This doesn't mean that I respect the 'religious' beliefs of people who've been acculturated as Muslims (or Christians or Jews for that matter). But I would argue that most of these people are not interested in unduly harming anyone. Of course, I could be wrong about that. However, as far as I know, their 'religions' don't require it.

And if all Muslims are responsible for the violent actions of a few, then are all Americans responsible for the war crimes of the Bush and Obama administrations? But then maybe you're ok with our government's actions. As are, apparently, most American people -- at least the minority who bother to vote.

 

[Cyrus]

This really makes no sense. If it was that easy for Muslims, in general, to just "stomp out" people who, it's assumed, they would, mostly, agree are doing bad things, then why don't they just get to stomping them out?

How am I supposed to know, go ask them why they are not actively doing this.

Hmmm, let's see, might it have something to do with the 'bad guys' having more guns and money and being more organized and ruthless, and etc., etc. than the average, nonviolent, Muslim. Yes, I think that might have something to do with it.

Do you have any basis for this statement of fact?

Might it also have something to do with the fact that 9/11 was a drop in the bucket compared to the atrocities that we've visited on hundreds of thousands of Muslims. Should that make anybody feel any better?

So you're a terrorist sympathizer? ...this is an appalling justification.

 

[vertices]

Yep.

If you seriously think all of the 1 billion muslims are responsible for the actions of the 9/11 terrorists, there is no point discussing this any further. I'm sure you misread my post so I'll give you the benefit of doubt..

Because those nutcases give them horrible PR, and more to the point

Why are you so very anxious about the 'horrible PR' Muslims receive? Most are secure enough in what they believe and have no interest in justifying anything to anyone, least of all to gormless, bigoted idiots who think that all muslims are "responsible for the actions" of terrorists who claim to have the same faith?

there are far too many of these nutcases running around. It's not a small 'fringe'.

Would you care to substantiate this claim?

I don't think this has to do with 'right wing media'... it has to do with upset Americans.

The lies being pedalled by Fox New et al has to do with "upset Americans"?

 

[ThomasT]

How am I supposed to know, go ask them why they are not actively doing this.

Maybe it's for many of the same reasons that you're not "stomping out" bad guys instead of posting here at PF.

Do you have any basis for this statement of fact?

The basis of statements of facts is, well, facts. And the basis of facts is reality. Now, do you think it's a fact that there are Muslims, and Christians and Jews in the world who are armed, and more organized, and who have more money, and are more ruthless, and are more able, and more willing to do violence than most of us regular folks? I think that if you don't think that, then maybe you haven't been paying close enough attention.

So you're a terrorist sympathizer?

I said that 9/11 was a drop in the bucket to the havoc that we've wreaked on Islamic people. Do you doubt this? Want to compare some numbers?

...this is an appalling justification.

If it was meant as a 'justification' for anything, then, yes, that would be appalling. Just putting things into perspective. If you think that the US invasion and ruination and occupation of Iraq, based on lies and deceit, is any less appalling than the destruction of the twin towers, then I think that maybe you're one of the bad guys.

 

[Tobias Funke]

So will anything happen to Cyrus after he said that all Muslims (or rather, I have to be careful here since I know how Cyrus operates, the subset of 1 billion Muslims vertices is talking about) are responsible for 9/11?

Posters are asked for "citations" of clearly personal opinions, but stuff like this is ok because Cyrus is pals with mods here? I couldn't care less what happens, but this section of the site is fast becoming (or already is?) a joke.

edit: Just before this gets locked for turning into a personal flamewar, I just want to clarify that I actually don't want Cyrus to get a ban or even an infraction. I just don't like the seemingly arbitrary standards that I've seen. That thread about the NK torpedo was interesting, cited (although poorly), and was very quickly locked because it's a conspiracy theory. But all Muslims secretly being terrorists and supporting 9/11 is just a fine and dandy theory which I've seen more than a few times here.

 

[zomgwtf]

So you're a terrorist sympathizer? ...this is an appalling justification.

Honestly everything you've said in my opinion has been appalling justification for bigotry.

You can't hate 1 billion Muslims becase a few million (that's a VERY small amount relative) are nutcases.

As has been stated previously in the thread most Muslims are not supportive of terrorism or violence for 'no good reason'. You've admitted that you have no idea how many support violence and you have also admitted that you've never gone out to look for this information. So what you are is bigot and I have a feeling that no amount of reasoning will make you see things differently.

I love how when someone brings up how YOU should be responsible for the war crimes committed under the the president of the USA you just ignore that part of the post completely. I doubt that you feel you should be responsible as a collective group for war crimes committed by your nation. Or if me as a Canadian said you're responsible for Westboro Baptist Church because they are American like yourself... this is stupid. You learn not to make such vague and general categories of people in what grade 2? 3?

Now obviously you'll say: well I don't support those things! So what I have no idea if you do or not and I don't know how to find out if you do or not, so I'm just going to assume that you do because I'm a bigot too! Great joy!

BY THE WAY: In no way have any posts in this thread lead to a logical conclussion that any poster on these forums is a terrorist sympathizer. That is really intellectually dishonest and you should feel ashamed for attempting to label someone that Cyrus. I seriously feel disappointed by you as a person.

 

[zomgwtf]

I said that 9/11 was a drop in the bucket to the havoc that we've wreaked on Islamic people. Do you doubt this? Want to compare some numbers?

Not only that but it's a relatively small incident compared to what these same groups inflict upon their own population.

It's completely bogus to expect all these people to speak out on the basis of protecting their religious views. They will most likely be killed at some point in time, they aren't fortunate enough to live in a country where you can say what you want when you want to. Now if you are talking about only muslims in America then you have to think about their families they may have left behind, and you have to think about those people who HAVE and continually DO (which is a vast majority by the way) condeme violence in the name of Allah.

 

[mheslep]

Not sure if I missed this view from someone else earlier:

Simply declaring a building a mosque does not seem adequate justification for coverage by US religous freedom protections, as the building in reality may have little or nothing to do with religion. The building may actually be simply a political statement, and in this case I see persuasive evidence that this proposed ground zero building is just that. If this 'mosque' is in fact a political statement, its backers are entitled to neither legal protection or social sympathy.

 

[zomgwtf]

Not sure if I missed this view from someone else earlier:

Simply declaring a building a mosque does not seem adequate justification for coverage by US religous freedom protections, as the building in reality may have little or nothing to do with religion. The building may actually be simply a political statement, and in this case I see persuasive evidence that this proposed ground zero building is just that. If this 'mosque' is in fact a political statement, its backers are entitled to neither legal protection or social sympathy.

I guess all Muslim projects are political statements in America now?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38612000/ns/us_news-the_new_york_times

Would it be fair of me to use Cyrus's logic and say this is conclusive that ALL Americans are simple minded and intolerant?

 

[turbo]

A two year study by a team led by a Duke sociologist concludes that contemporary mosques in the US are instrumental in preventing radicalization of Muslim-Americans. I read summaries in the NYT and other places, but I have been unable to open the PDF detailing the study. If I can find a non-PDF version of the study, I will post a link with quotes.

 

[mheslep]

I guess all Muslim projects are political statements in America now?

False dilemma falacy, which should be clear from the approximately http://www.religioustolerance.org/isl_numb.htm" mosques and 7 million Muslims in the US.

 

[Gokul43201]

Simply declaring a building a mosque does not seem adequate justification for coverage by US religous freedom protections, as the building in reality may have little or nothing to do with religion.

What do you propose the builders should have to do in order to demonstrate that their proposed construction is indeed for religious purposes?

The building may actually be simply a political statement, and in this case I see persuasive evidence that this proposed ground zero building is just that.

I haven't followed either the thread or the original story very closely, and have no position one way or the other on this, nor do I doubt the possibility that a religious monument could be constructed as a political statement. Can you show us the evidence you mention?

 

[mheslep]

What do you propose the builders should have to do in order to demonstrate that their proposed construction is indeed for religious purposes?

I haven't followed either the thread or the original story very closely, and have no position one way or the other on this, nor do I doubt the possibility that a religious monument could be constructed as a political statement. Can you show us the evidence you mention?

First of course is the choice of the site, hotly political. Second, political statements like these from one of the (leading?) Imam's pushing the project, Rauf:

BRADLEY: Are — are — are you in any way suggesting that we in the United States deserved what happened?

Imam ABDUL RAUF: I wouldn’t say that the United States deserved what happened, but the United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened.

BRADLEY: OK. You say that we’re an accessory?

Imam ABDUL RAUF: Yes.
BRADLEY: How?

Imam ABDUL RAUF: Because we have been an accessory to a lot of — of innocent lives dying in the world. In fact, it — in the most direct sense, Osama bin Laden is made in the USA.

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/ground-zero-imam-i-dont-believe-in-religious-dialogue/2/

I don't contend this proves the Ground Zero mosque is a political ruse, but in does tip the scale from religious motives to political in my view.

 

[zomgwtf]

False dilemma falacy, which should be clear from the approximately http://www.religioustolerance.org/isl_numb.htm" mosques and 7 million Muslims in the US.

What does that have to do with PROJECTS? You're talking about something already existing, I'm talking about new projects which have yet to be built. Completely different and I don't see how you can make a comparison. It is clear, in my mind, that social ideas change over time so it makes complete sense that at one point in time muslims were not opposed or opposed very little but are facing greater opposition now.

I guess it is a false dilemma as just because many projects are being opposed in America based on intolerance doesn't mean this one is... So I'll make it clear: I think that this is being opposed on grounds of intolerance and not to combat some political statement the mosque may or may not be trying to make.

Even if it WERE making a political statement is it such a negative one? I don't think so I tend to think it would show more of a 'we as Americans can put aside intolerance and move forward and continue to be accepting'.