You keep using this argument. What does it matter if this is a mosque or a cultural center? I only refer to it as a cultural center because it's not a mosque. It's not that I'm trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes.Have you read any of my posts in this thread? I just talked about how frustrated I am with the stupidity that is angry watchdogs screaming "LIES!!1!!11!!!!1!" any time the word "Mosque" is used to describe the Cordoba House project. Noting the changes in how the project is classified only illustrates the effect the angry watchdogs have had. It has zero to do with some giant attempt to mislead anyone.
This is not a mosque. Period. Not every Muslim building is a mosque. Is a mosque more or less offensive or something?
Why isn't he talking to them? They're violent mobs that kill people! Are you serious?Please, I was obviously talking about the violent protestors in Kashmir that I linked to. Rauf did say he condemned people who engage in acts of terrorism, but what about angry mobs that also kill people? Rauf warned that our decisions could incite their violence, implying that that should have an affect on how our decisions are made. Why do that? Why isn't he talking to them about how stupid and unproductive a violent reaction is?
Those violent mobs were in INDIA, in Kashmir. Rauf is an Egyptian-American. Where's the connection there?
Rauf is not the face of Islam. He also is not the moral dowsing rod of Islam. Would you expect Franklin Graham to ease violent tensions in Croatia? Why do you expect the Imam to make a statement on every Islam-related incident?
And Rauf did condemn terrorism, as I showed to you last post. Notwithstanding that angry mobs could be classified as terrorists, I think his statement pretty well covers his thoughts on angry mobs who use violence and who kill. That's like forcing an anti-genocide advocate to issue a statement that he's also against murder. It can be pretty well assumed. For some reason, however, you seem to assume the worst of Imam Rauf until, and even after, proven otherwise. Why do you even question whether he condones such violence? It's absurd.
You trivialized the entire religion of Islam.Yeah, ok. So I can't make a satirical remark without your insistence that I'm trivializing Islam. Yet, here you are trivializing the crap out of the people who are making a plea for the Mosque's location to be moved out of sensitivity & understanding for the feelings of those who lost loved ones on 9/11. Suddenly they're just irrational-minded Islamophobes out to marginalize Islam, undermine the Constitution, and infringe the rights of every American. Mm-hmm.
I characterized a specific group of people in an unfavorable light.
But anyway, my concerns are concerns irregardless of the situation. I have a concern for the marginalization of Muslim Americans, be it intentional or not (I wrote that last time; you ignored it). I have a concern that Islamophobia is growing. I have a concern that people are thinking irrationally (that's not a dig -- these are not irrational people; they are people thinking irrationally). I have a concern for the rights of fellow Americans.
That you see these concerns as an attack on victims' loved ones reflects a disturbing naivete. It's similar to people who protest defense lawyers. Someone who is obviously guilty goes on trial for murder every day. Do we just lock them up and throw away the key? Hell no. That person still deserves adequate representation. A defense lawyer who takes on such a case doesn't condone his client's actions. And the lawyers is not attacking the victim's family. No, the lawyer is making sure that justice is carried out properly. He is making sure that the accused gets adequate representation. He is making sure that the accused is not pressured into false commissions, is not awarded unjust penalties, and is not deprived of every legal argument he may have.
Read the background to National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationa...lage_of_Skokie). A bunch of neo-Nazis wanted to march through a majority-Jewish town, many of whom were Holocaust survivors. And yet the SCOTUS upheld the neo-Nazis' right to freedom of expression. The SCOTUS was not condoning the neo-Nazis' actions. The SCOTUS was not attacking a bunch of innocent Jewish people. The SCOTUS had a concern for free speech that was independent of the situation.
Such are my concerns. These concerns, in my eyes, trump the possibility that victims' loved ones will be offended. And when you add in that those loved ones who are against this are thinking irrationally (and hell, it's hard to blame them), then I see little reason why I'm wrong. Just because these loved ones had family members die doesn't make them right. And it certainly isn't a justification for effectively infringing the rights of other Americans.
Stop it. You cry wolf every time you perceive an accusation of bigotry, intolerance, or whatever, and yet you call every person on this board intolerant. Stop it.But it's good to know the feelings of the terrorists' direct victims are obviously a low priority next to the feelings of general Muslims who have suddenly become *victims* of "Islamophobia." Good to know who stands where on the totem pole of tolerance.
And this quoted portion is pretty crazy. We have (1) the risk that building a cultural center to promote peace will offend the loved ones of people who died two blocks away pitted against (2) the risk that an American's rights will be ignored, that an American will be assigned blame for the acts of others, that this American's religion will paint him evil, that an American will be run out of town by an angry mob of protesters who are not acting through the appropriate judicial or legislative processes. And my totem pole is ****ed? Ha.
This again? I already stated that a fear of terrorism plays no part in my assessment of this situation. Fear is not a reason to build this cultural center and not a reason to stop it from being built. Understand?How? By appeasement? That if we just don't piss them off, they'll suddenly like us? I've heard this over & over & over again in history and I've never understood this thinking. Nothing we ever do, or don't do, will change the terrorists' minds that we're the Great Satan and must be destroyed. That's what appeasers never understand.
Since when am I defending every action of Imam Rauf?Imam Rauf would seem to disagree you.
If, at that very worst, Rauf is simply fear-mongering, then yes, I disagree with him. Fear is not an appropriate motivator in any situation.
That advocates of one alternative are fear-mongering does not make that alternative wrong. This cultural center should be built because those who own the land want to build and have complied with the letter of the law. That's where the real issue ends. Even extended to the sensitivity issue, however, I still feel the cultural center should be built. Those against it have no logical argument: there is zero connection between this center and 9/11. Ground Zero is not a Christian site, this center is not at Ground Zero, the developers had nothing to do with 9/11 ... If those against this center succeed in preventing its development, then we have witnessed a modern-day lynching. We will have witnessed Americans effectively appropriating the rights of fellow Americans. We will have witnessed culpability for the crimes of nineteen imputed onto one billion.
This is not Christianity vs. Islam, and I refuse to view it as such.
Please. Imam Rauf's connections are with the US Presidency. Bush and Obama, terrorists?Really? Imam Rauf has no pipeline into Muslim culture, and terrorist organizations? Really?
Just read his Wikipedia bio page.
I don't care how terrorists want to spin this. If they want to say their threats of violence built this cultural center, so be it.No it isn't. People bowing to what they want under threat of their violent response is actually exactly what they want. They would most certainly want an Islamic cultural center in downtown Manhattan, and anywhere else in the world.
Say I threaten to hurt you if you don't brush your teeth tomorrow. If you do brush your teeth tomorrow, is it because of my threat? Did my threat cause you to act? No. You would have done that anyway. BUT ... can I spin that to make it look like you brushed your teeth because of my threat? Absolutely.
So be it.