NYC Mosque's Link to Terror "Found"... What's Next?

[gcoll]

I revised my post and excluded Vietnam, but I really should have left it in. I think that's a pretty extreme list of events. Doesn't have to be the absolute worst.

Except for the part where you claimed America had never been more deeply divided than it is today, and that the level of bickering is "unprecedented"

But I guess listing some large political events is now enough to claim that American society is struggling, and lacks peace and cohesiveness.

So, let's just keep shifting the goalposts.

What discourse are you talking about? What I watched regularly on television never dropped as low as cable news. Not even close. The newspapers I read online never dropped that low either.

Do you even watch enough cable news to come up with an informed opinion, or are you just going on what you hear?

Because I am a regular watcher of cable news. Apart from about 3-4 people, it's not all that extreme.

Again, this "elevated" discourse thing you're on about is your own idea. All I said was that the way cable news has milked anger and controversy has lowered the level of discourse.

Ok. And it lowered the level of discourse FROM what? What was the higher discourse that talk radio and cable news has cost us?

[jrice9]

What discourse are you talking about? What I watched regularly on television never dropped as low as cable news. Not even close. The newspapers I read online never dropped that low either.

I'm calling BS. I live in Canada too and I disagree. We have plenty of columnists in newspapers who take it over the top. There are countless Toronto Star columnists (And I do realize you live in Vancouver buts its all online and its one of the countries largest papers) writing about how Bush was basically the devil and the worst president ever and such and such, going over the top about his inadequacies and Ive seen as well some of the Obama hate also go crazy here from some editorials and columns in the National Post. While I agree that our country doesnt have the extremism to the same degree as the States, I would argue that the reason why is because many Canadians dont believe that their politics is as important as the US's. Many Canadians actively discuss both Canadian and US politics side by side while Americans would never do the same thing. By putting less of a magnifying glass on our politics it lowers the intensity meter a bit imo. Still there are extremists and crazy media in any free country you go to including countries you have mentioned like Sweden and Switzerland.

[ink]

Except for the part where you claimed America had never been more deeply divided than it is today, and that the level of bickering is "unprecedented".

I still actually think that the current situation is worse than anything you listed.

But I guess listing some large political events is now enough to claim that American society is struggling, and lacks peace and cohesiveness.

This is ironic, considering your counter to my point was to list large historical events. lol.

So, let's just keep shifting the goalposts.

I'm going to ignore the adversarial style and try to wrap this up. I haven't shifted any goalposts. I still think current events are extremely dire and I am still concerned about the way things are evolving. Nothing has changed.

But I will add one thing: I am happy that Terry Jones was exposed as a bit of a nutbar by the media. I'm not sure giving his hatred was worth the risk but at least it ended well. btw, the Associated Press put out a statement of policy saying that they didn't want to give profile to kooks like this. Several media outlets dropped him like a hot potato when they found out a little more about him. This one at least seems to have ended well. I'd rather see that outcome than something more serious.

Do you even watch enough cable news to come up with an informed opinion, or are you just going on what you hear?

Because I am a regular watcher of cable news. Apart from about 3-4 people, it's not all that extreme.

I don't know how much a person needs to watch. How many times do you have to eat at Burger King to know that it's not quality food? Even still, I keep giving cable news a shot. I watch at least once a day.

Ok. And it lowered the level of discourse FROM what? What was the higher discourse that talk radio and cable news has cost us?

Pre 24 hour coverage, journalism was far more selective. They didn't need to fill so much air time and sell so many ads. We're living through a time when there is an insane amount of "information" available and as the various streams of media struggle for attention they have dropped their journalistic standards. There are definitely ways to find the best material -- through good aggregators, etc. -- but a lot of people are passive television watchers and don't really dig for the best.

[philab]

I was asked what I would do, hence "my approach". What's illogical about him moving the centre, or perhaps collaborating with other religious denominations on a multi-faith centre? Are you saying that there are only two options here? Not everything is "my way or the highway" right? There are always more options. What the Imam undoubtedly needs is a way to save face if he decides not to build 2 blocks from "ground zero". He either needs alternatives or he needs to convince Americans this isn't offensive. Given the emotion that's driving the rhetoric, I don't think he's going to convince anyone, no matter how reasonable I think he is.

The Imam wants to build a Muslim cultural center. He owns a building in downtown Manhattan. Why would he suddenly want to build a multi-denominational cultural center or buy a new building? Because a bunch of people started screaming nonsense?

I understand the desire to avoid controversy, but choosing either of your two options further marginalizes Islam in the United States and the Western world. I think that's the exact opposite of what the Imam is going for.

Maybe you're more of one to avoid controversy. I can't argue too much with that, although I wouldn't take either of your options. My real question was just whether the actor in your approaches was the Imam and the developers or whether it was the city of New York (or New York state or the federal government). In other words, who would have the authority to choose one of these approaches?

[ink]

I'm calling BS. I live in Canada too and I disagree. We have plenty of columnists in newspapers who take it over the top. There are countless Toronto Star columnists (And I do realize you live in Vancouver buts its all online and its one of the countries largest papers) writing about how Bush was basically the devil and the worst president ever and such and such, going over the top about his inadequacies and Ive seen as well some of the Obama hate also go crazy here from some editorials and columns in the National Post. While I agree that our country doesnt have the extremism to the same degree as the States, I would argue that the reason why is because many Canadians dont believe that their politics is as important as the US's. Many Canadians actively discuss both Canadian and US politics side by side while Americans would never do the same thing. By putting less of a magnifying glass on our politics it lowers the intensity meter a bit imo. Still there are extremists and crazy media in any free country you go to including countries you have mentioned like Sweden and Switzerland.

I really didn't see that much bad stuff in the mainstream media. I don't know of any journalists that called him the "devil". I can see comments like that coming from the web though. I'm not sure there are "extremists and crazy media" in any free country. Maybe it's because, as you say, the "intensity meter" is lower, but I also think there's a lot more self restraint.

[ink]

The Imam wants to build a Muslim cultural center. He owns a building in downtown Manhattan. Why would he suddenly want to build a multi-denominational cultural center or buy a new building? Because a bunch of people started screaming nonsense?

I understand the desire to avoid controversy, but choosing either of your two options further marginalizes Islam in the United States and the Western world. I think that's the exact opposite of what the Imam is going for.

Maybe you're more of one to avoid controversy. I can't argue too much with that, although I wouldn't take either of your options. My real question was just whether the actor in your approaches was the Imam and the developers or whether it was the city of New York (or New York state or the federal government). In other words, who would have the authority to choose one of these approaches?

I know what you're saying.

Right now, it's about which way is the best way to heal the situation at Ground Zero. Whatever it takes. There are all kinds of discussions about people's "rights" and who's "right" or wrong in the affair, but the most important thing is to find a way to lower the temperature.

At the same time, I strongly agree with the goals the Imam had coming into this. He wants people to understand Islam better and I think that's incredibly important right now.

If a multi-denominational centre is not a good idea, fine, then throw it out. It's a time when minds have to be flexible. Do you know what I mean? We can either keep ramming our rights and our ideas at each other, or we can figure out a way to collaborate with the peaceful ones. We really can't afford more conflict.

[gcoll]

I still actually think that the current situation is worse than anything you listed.

Wow.

This is ironic, considering your counter to my point was to list large historical events. lol.

Large historical events in the context of American society. Which is why I listed Japanese internment instead of World War 2. Why I listed the Civil War, instead of every war that the US was ever involved in.

I thought the topic was American society's cohesiveness.

I'm going to ignore the adversarial style and try to wrap this up

Making a comment about it is the exact opposite of ignoring it.

[ink]

Wow.Large historical events in the context of American society.

And I listed a very intense series of events compressed into a relatively short time frame. The political events we're in the midst of are pretty huge and they are not just confined to internal disputes any more.

I thought the topic was American society's cohesiveness.

You asked about "times of trouble". If you don't want to talk about a subject, don't ask about it. It isn't hard to see the relationship between hard times and social unrest. And you asked.

Let's wrap it up. I'm sure we've covered everything by now, and it was a pretty decent conversation. Good night.

[gcoll]

And I listed a very intense series of events compressed into a relatively short time frame. I didn't even mention tensions with Iran.

What are we even talking about? I thought we were talking about social turmoil. You seem to be talking about political turmoil.

Either way, this isn't the worst time for either.

"Times of trouble" is pretty ambiguous.

If a multi-denominational centre is not a good idea, fine, then throw it out. It's a time when minds have to be flexible. Do you know what I mean? We can either keep ramming our rights and our ideas at each other, or we can figure out a way to collaborate with the peaceful ones. We really can't afford more conflict.

Of course we'd all like less conflict. But what do you do when you get pushed?

Be flexible? Why should you be flexible if you've done absolutely nothing wrong?

[ink]

I thought we were talking about social turmoil. You seem to be talking about political turmoil.

You seriously can't see a connection? One affects the other.

Why should you be flexible if you've done absolutely nothing wrong?

Casting things in terms of "right" and "wrong" might be fine for internet "debates" but it gets you nowhere in conflict resolution. People have to get past who is "right" and who is "wrong". Neither the Imam or those who are upset about the projected location of the centre are actually "wrong" at all. They will likely have a mediator who will help them get through this.

[gcoll]

Edited out.

[ink]

The point is that someone could step in and defuse the Mosque situation.

[philab]

I know what you're saying.

Right now, it's about which way is the best way to heal the situation at Ground Zero. Whatever it takes. There are all kinds of discussions about people's "rights" and who's "right" or wrong in the affair, but the most important thing is to find a way to lower the temperature.

At the same time, I strongly agree with the goals the Imam had coming into this. He wants people to understand Islam better and I think that's incredibly important right now.

If a multi-denominational centre is not a good idea, fine, then throw it out. It's a time when minds have to be flexible. Do you know what I mean? We can either keep ramming our rights and our ideas at each other, or we can figure out a way to collaborate with the peaceful ones. We really can't afford more conflict.

I don't want more conflict either, but the alternative isn't exactly a peace agreement. Moving this cultural center will come across as Islam being further marginalized in America, whether with spin or without. It turns this into a Christianity vs. Islam fight when in reality it's anything but.

I've taken courses in mediation, and I understand its extraordinary benefits in many situations -- legitimizing the "agreement," downplaying emotions, facilitating understanding, allowing for catharsis, and all that. My problem is that there are no overlapping interests here. One side has every right and reason to act and the other has no right or reason to stop them. What do the developers gain by mediation? The blessing of a bunch of idiots?

Anyway, I think we understand each other. We just differ in our assessment of the situation, I guess.