kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Aug 17, 2010 10:10:26 GMT -5
How do they know how to counter-propose to your satisfaction if you don't give arbitrary lines for your bill of attainder? Welcome to real life.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Aug 17, 2010 10:14:48 GMT -5
The problem, kc, is that the evidence we have about other locations is that they will want votes/polls on that too. Sheboygan, for example, is not sacred ground, much less Murfreesboro. Pretty soon, you're left with a situation where there simply cannot be any new construction of mosques or affiliated community centers. Really? You think we're going to ban construction/development of all such centers? Such a straw man... I certainly think it is more likely than not if the critics win out. I don't blame the critics entirely for this - it is also the weak-kneed folks whose anti-Muslim biases are inflamed by the rhetoric.
|
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506
|
Post by theexorcist on Aug 17, 2010 10:23:53 GMT -5
The problem, kc, is that the evidence we have about other locations is that they will want votes/polls on that too. Sheboygan, for example, is not sacred ground, much less Murfreesboro. Pretty soon, you're left with a situation where there simply cannot be any new construction of mosques or affiliated community centers. Really? You think we're going to ban construction/development of all such centers? Such a straw man... I'll actually grant him this one, but take it one further - it's becoming increasingly difficult to build any houses of worship in communities, since they don't pay taxes and provide a number of potential community annoyances (notably traffic). In addition, Switzerland (not the US, of course) has made it difficult if not impossible to construct mosques, so his proposal was not part of the looney fringe.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Aug 17, 2010 10:49:40 GMT -5
From page 2 of this thread, forget the Nazi party for a while. I'll grant that Gingrich is trying to demagogue this issue (kind of like someone saying how he couldn't believe how any Hispanic person could ever vote for a Republican).
But in regard to the Holocaust museum, let's say someone wanted to build a German -- not Bund, Not Nazi, just German -- tourism office right next to the Holocaust museum.
Does anyone honestly think that would ever happen? Ever? There's no freaking way.
Personally, if they go through with this, I think it is a bad idea, and will inflame rather than calm or unite the community. But they're gonna' do what they're gonna do, so we'll see what happens.
Secondly, if they go through with it, I hope Greg Gutfield goes through with his plan to open a gay bar right next door.
Thirdly, Obama simply does not handle sensitive issues well. At all. This is about the umpteenth example of him failing when it comes to things like this (Shirley Sherrod, Prof. Gates, his "shout out" after the Ft. Hood attack, "suck it up with a straw," etc., etc., etc.) I'm sorry, but he is simply not a strong leader. Period. Say you're for it. Say you're against it. Say it's a local issue and you don't want to comment. But don't give us this Friday-Saturday nonsense that you tried to pull off. That is just plain weak.
|
|
|
Post by hoyawatcher on Aug 17, 2010 10:56:06 GMT -5
Really? You think we're going to ban construction/development of all such centers? Such a straw man... I certainly think it is more likely than not if the critics win out. I don't blame the critics entirely for this - it is also the weak-kneed folks whose anti-Muslim biases are inflamed by the rhetoric. This is not just about the opponents of the Mosque location. It is just as much about the Imam and people behind the Mosque and how they are conducting their business. This is a 2 way street and many on this thread are avoiding the other lane. If the Imam really was about bringing folks together and providing a place of healing he would go about things in a whole different manner. He would have taken Patterson's offer or a similar pathway. Any time you can get Sarah Palin and Harry Reid on the same side of an issue - and firmly against you - you have done an amazing job. In this case it just happens to be an amazingly bad job of playing the public relations/perception game in driving this location forward. Or you meant to do it regardless.
|
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506
|
Post by theexorcist on Aug 17, 2010 11:02:15 GMT -5
I certainly think it is more likely than not if the critics win out. I don't blame the critics entirely for this - it is also the weak-kneed folks whose anti-Muslim biases are inflamed by the rhetoric. This is not just about the opponents of the Mosque location. It is just as much about the Imam and people behind the Mosque and how they are conducting their business. This is a 2 way street and many on this thread are avoiding the other lane. If the Imam really was about bringing folks together and providing a place of healing he would go about things in a whole different manner. He would have taken Patterson's offer or a similar pathway. Any time you can get Sarah Palin and Harry Reid on the same side of an issue - and firmly against you - you have done an amazing job. In this case it just happens to be an amazingly bad job of playing the public relations/perception game in driving this location forward. Or you meant to do it regardless. The only reason Harry Reid is on the same side of the issue is to try to save his bacon. Not really the principled leader of the Senate here. I do agree that, if you're an organization devoted to increasing discussion and interfaith cooperation, with the salt thrown into the wound from this, at some point it makes more sense to take a deal and back down. And can the board please stop making Holocaust allusions for this and other items? I was in the Pentagon on 9/11, 9/11 was a horrible event, but it doesn't compare to the horror that was the Holocaust.
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Aug 17, 2010 11:52:21 GMT -5
From page 2 of this thread, forget the Nazi party for a while. I'll grant that Gingrich is trying to demagogue this issue (kind of like someone saying how he couldn't believe how any Hispanic person could ever vote for a Republican). But in regard to the Holocaust museum, let's say someone wanted to build a German -- not Bund, Not Nazi, just German -- tourism office right next to the Holocaust museum. Does anyone honestly think that would ever happen? Ever? There's no freaking way. Personally, if they go through with this, I think it is a bad idea, and will inflame rather than calm or unite the community. But they're gonna' do what they're gonna do, so we'll see what happens. Secondly, if they go through with it, I hope Greg Gutfield goes through with his plan to open a gay bar right next door. Oh come on, Boz, you've been to New York City before. Auschwitz is in the middle of the woods, Ground Zero is in the middle of one of the most densely developed places on Earth. Two blocks might as well be two miles, and a 13 story building within a sea of 100+ story skyscrapers is barely a speck. I get it, the economy's bad and thus xenophobia is up. But I'd like to think that graduates of a Catholic university would know Know Nothings when they see it. Surely you have a better metric of presidential success than responses to right-wing hissy fits, right?
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Aug 17, 2010 12:06:21 GMT -5
Patterson is meeting with the leader of the community center proposal later this week according to sources. No word on who will attend beyond that, but it may be wise to shut out the Peter Kings, Newt Gingriches, and Sarah Palins of the world.
From a negotiating point of view, it makes sense that the developer would not budge. It is not as though the other side has budged either (on anything over the last two years let alone this side-issue), and the more you budge...pretty soon you'd end up with a mosque in a backwater like Wasilla that would be of no use to the Muslim community in Manhattan.
|
|
GIGAFAN99
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,487
|
Post by GIGAFAN99 on Aug 17, 2010 12:11:29 GMT -5
One thing that bothers me about this debate is everyone tries to hold a "tragic-off" between other terrible events to see where some imaginary line exists when it's OK for people to be deeply affected.
Can we at least admit this is the most tragic single event in American history? I don't think that's hyperbole, not just from a standpoint of loss of life, but because of the fear and dread created by the event.
So nothing really compares to this from a US standpoint. Let's leave everything from IRA bombings to the Holocaust out. This is a big deal no matter how you look at it.
Can they build it? Sure. Do I personally have a problem? No. Should most of the people who are squawking about this care one way or another? Probably not.
But if my dad or sister took his or her last breath on that site on 9/11 would I want to be reminded of the god for which the murderers died when I visited the site? You know what, I don't know. But logically knowing the Muslims in that building are peaceful ordinary people practicing their religion would not comfort me in the least. That distinction and my emotional reaction to it would be very separate from cold, rational thought.
And people grieve in all different ways. Maybe I'm a Christian and I want the mosque to go up to make amends. Maybe I'm Muslim and I walked away from my religion that day when a family member got killed and don't want it anywhere near the site. I'm not saying it would be offensive to everyone.
But I think this could have been dealt with substantially better. What if instead of an Islamic cultural center and mosque, they change the plans to be a mutli-cultural center with places of worship for multiple religions? Wouldn't that be inclusive and healing and honestly, a better outreach? And furthermore it wouldn't have to be this "move it" versus "leave it" argument.
Just a thought. I think most people involved in this debate are just crowing to crow. But I think there's a real, compassionate reason to reconsider the project in exactly its form when I think plenty solutions exist that would be better for everyone involved.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Aug 17, 2010 12:11:54 GMT -5
Bando, my point was that the earlier comparisons were flawed, by including Bund or the Nazis. I don't think you'd ever find any German cultural institutions anywhere near areas of importance to Jewish heritage. If I'm wrong I will accept that, but I don't think I am.
Second, I don't think you'll find anywhere in my post where I said they shouldn't be allowed to locate this center where they have planned to do so. My point was that I think it is a bad idea. A very bad idea. I will neither incite, encourage nor celebrate any unfortunate consequences, but I do foresee them.
And finally, I'm sorry, but if you think these are just "right wing hissy fit issues," then I can't respond. One or two of them? Maybe. But all of them? The Ft. Hood attack was a hissy fit issue? He handled that atrociously. The Gulf spill? No, he handled that poorly again...according to those right wing flamethrowers Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann and Eugene Robinson. (And Shirley Sherrod was a left wing hissy fit issue, IMO.)
Sorry, but if you think that our current President is adept at handling crises and or sensitive cultural issues, then I think you simply have blinders on. Because it hasn't been just the right wing who has been giving him poor grades.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Aug 17, 2010 12:20:32 GMT -5
Giga - interesting perspective. 9/11 was tragic, no doubt, but I think you would also have to consider something like Gettysburg/other civil war battles (which are memorialized strangely in certain circles) and Pearl Harbor at the very least.
Sure, there was fear after 9/11, but I wonder how much of it was truly rational as fear could/should have been after a Pearl Harbor or during the Civil War. In the case of 9/11, we fell victim to our own fear and fearmongering when it came to Iraq, which has yet to be connected to Al Qaeda much less 9/11 specifically in any meaningful, credible way in the pre-war context. In that sense, 9/11 is an ongoing tragedy that has damaged our politics and continues to do so as we consider whether we are truly open to allowing Islamic worship and community events at a place of "their" choosing.
You look at Pearl Harbor, and all of the boxes were checked. The Japanese were a threat and a real one. Ditto on the Germans and down the line. As to Al Qaeda, that line ended in Afghanistan and the one-off hideouts of Al Qaeda elsewhere - the Somalias, Yemens, etc. of the world.
Certainly when you look at the Civil War and specific battles, you'd have to appreciate the tragedy of Americans spilling blood against sometimes Americans. (Yes, there are Confederate monuments at Gettysburg.)
I wonder whether they could fund a multicultural center. Presumably the funding for this thing, much like funding for any church, is raised generally from folks who want to use that space for fellowship and worship within their own religious community.
Anyway, my $.02.
|
|
|
Post by hoyawatcher on Aug 17, 2010 12:40:21 GMT -5
Ambassador, I think your comparisons lack the dynamic of time. 70 years later Japanese soldiers meet US soldiers at memorial ceremonies at Pearl Harbor. Southerners and Yankees can usually meet together and visit Gettysburg now (though leave some of my relatives out of that).
Whatever the intellectual argument, the emotions of 9/11 are still raw and the idea of this Mosque is not just an sterile intellectual discussion. Ignoring or dismissing the fact that there hasn't been sufficient time for some of these wounds to heal is not reasonable.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Aug 17, 2010 12:45:12 GMT -5
Fair point - watcher. Try as we might, I would never mistake this for an intellectual discussion. The Ground Zero mosque is neither a mosque nor at Ground Zero, and it only gets worse from there. (Civil War issues, I think remain fairly sensitive as does race relations generally, as I've discussed before. This year was also the first when we attended a Hiroshima memorial in person.)
The emotions are raw for many of us, and it does us no good to devolve into the "I was in the WTC/Pentagon" or knew someone who was kinds of arguments. The question is how best do we deal with that, and there are admittedly different responses to that. As you mention, the history of the Civil War etc. suggests that reconciliation is possible (although I would not exactly hold that out as an example to inspire any kind of confidence). Some just want to get to that point more quickly than others, but, make no mistake, that point will be reached.
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Aug 17, 2010 12:53:22 GMT -5
Ambassador, I think your comparisons lack the dynamic of time. 70 years later Japanese soldiers meet US soldiers at memorial ceremonies at Pearl Harbor. Southerners and Yankees can usually meet together and visit Gettysburg now (though leave some of my relatives out of that). Whatever the intellectual argument, the emotions of 9/11 are still raw and the idea of this Mosque is not just an sterile intellectual discussion. Ignoring or dismissing the fact that there hasn't been sufficient time for some of these wounds to heal is not reasonable. Yes, but your examples include people who were actually involved in the events... The 9/11 attackers do not represent the 1.8 Billion Muslims around the world. They were a fringe group misusing Islam for their own purposes. And... as TheAmbassador wrote... the "Ground Zero Mosque" isn't at Ground Zero -- but is several blocks away. In NYC where everything is so tightly packed, a couple of blocks is enormous. Standing on the street, one has no idea what is on the nearby blocks. By way of comparsion, Google Maps shows there are 4 "Houses of Worship" closer to GZ than the Mosque would be. And a 5th -- A Greek Orthodox church to replace one destroyed on 9/11 -- will be built on the actual GZ site. That will make it 5 that are closer than the Mosque. In other words, calling this Mosque's location "Ground Zero" is a real stretch.
|
|
HoyaNyr320
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,233
|
Post by HoyaNyr320 on Aug 17, 2010 12:53:47 GMT -5
Bando, my point was that the earlier comparisons were flawed, by including Bund or the Nazis. I don't think you'd ever find any German cultural institutions anywhere near areas of importance to Jewish heritage. If I'm wrong I will accept that, but I don't think I am. I think as Russky explained earlier, comparing 9/11 to the Holocaust is a bad comparisson. Yes, both were tragedies of epic proportion, but the Holocaust resulted in the extermination of 6 million Jews and it was precipitated by the German government at the time with a populace that was at least indifferent if not fully supportive. 9/11 was precipitated by Al Qaeda, not the entire Islamic faith. Muslims were among those that died in the towers and most Muslim communities, especially ones in America, immediately condemned the attacks. It is scary to me in this debate that the Islamic faith is being so closely tied to the 9/11 tragedy. Al Qaeda attacked our country based on their own warped view of Islam, one that is NOT CONSISTENT with the faith itself. Let's not punish an entire religion for the actions of its fringe (again unlike what happened in Germany, when it was an entire country). If people were to judge people's religions by their fundamentalist fringe groups, then Jews could be viewed as dangerous assassins (the fundamentalist group responsible for Yitzhak Rabin's assassination) and we could just assume that all Catholics share the same views as Mel Gibson and his dad's church.
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Aug 17, 2010 13:04:15 GMT -5
One thing that bothers me about this debate is everyone tries to hold a "tragic-off" between other terrible events to see where some imaginary line exists when it's OK for people to be deeply affected. Can we at least admit this is the most tragic single event in American history? I don't think that's hyperbole, not just from a standpoint of loss of life, but because of the fear and dread created by the event. So nothing really compares to this from a US standpoint. Let's leave everything from IRA bombings to the Holocaust out. This is a big deal no matter how you look at it. Can they build it? Sure. Do I personally have a problem? No. Should most of the people who are squawking about this care one way or another? Probably not. But if my dad or sister took his or her last breath on that site on 9/11 would I want to be reminded of the god for which the murderers died when I visited the site? You know what, I don't know. But logically knowing the Muslims in that building are peaceful ordinary people practicing their religion would not comfort me in the least. That distinction and my emotional reaction to it would be very separate from cold, rational thought. And people grieve in all different ways. Maybe I'm a Christian and I want the mosque to go up to make amends. Maybe I'm Muslim and I walked away from my religion that day when a family member got killed and don't want it anywhere near the site. I'm not saying it would be offensive to everyone. But I think this could have been dealt with substantially better. What if instead of an Islamic cultural center and mosque, they change the plans to be a mutli-cultural center with places of worship for multiple religions? Wouldn't that be inclusive and healing and honestly, a better outreach? And furthermore it wouldn't have to be this "move it" versus "leave it" argument. Just a thought. I think most people involved in this debate are just crowing to crow. But I think there's a real, compassionate reason to reconsider the project in exactly its form when I think plenty solutions exist that would be better for everyone involved. Good post Giga and I like the idea of a multi-cultural, multi-religious facility. As for "single greatest tragedy for the USA", that would have to be Pearl Harbor. 9/11 was a remarkably effective attack carried out by a relatively small, non-state group of terrorists. Pearl Harbor was a well thought out, brilliantly executed attack by one of the world's most effective national militaries. It got us into WWII. People on the West Coast thought the next attack would be on California. We look back on WWII and how the US led the Allies to victory, but at the time.... the outcome was anything but certain. It looked as though the REAL "Axis of Evil" might take over the entire globe. But, that doesn't really change the validity of the points you were making.
|
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506
|
Post by theexorcist on Aug 17, 2010 13:06:41 GMT -5
Ambassador, I think your comparisons lack the dynamic of time. 70 years later Japanese soldiers meet US soldiers at memorial ceremonies at Pearl Harbor. Southerners and Yankees can usually meet together and visit Gettysburg now (though leave some of my relatives out of that). Whatever the intellectual argument, the emotions of 9/11 are still raw and the idea of this Mosque is not just an sterile intellectual discussion. Ignoring or dismissing the fact that there hasn't been sufficient time for some of these wounds to heal is not reasonable. Yes, but your examples include people who were actually involved in the events... The 9/11 attackers do not represent the 1.8 Billion Muslims around the world. They were a fringe group misusing Islam for their own purposes. And... as TheAmbassador wrote... the "Ground Zero Mosque" isn't at Ground Zero -- but is several blocks away. In NYC where everything is so tightly packed, a couple of blocks is enormous. Standing on the street, one has no idea what is on the nearby blocks. By way of comparsion, Google Maps shows there are 4 "Houses of Worship" closer to GZ than the Mosque would be. And a 5th -- A Greek Orthodox church to replace one destroyed on 9/11 -- will be built on the actual GZ site. That will make it 5 that are closer than the Mosque. In other words, calling this Mosque's location "Ground Zero" is a real stretch. Yes, but the Greek Orthodox Church doesn't have as its goal to increase understanding between Greek Orthodox and other Christians right next to a spot where Greek nationalists blew up two skyscrapers. The goal, which has been made by those who plan to construct the center, has been to "increase understanding", which is remarkably insensitive. The planned builders have made it very clear that part of their goal is to use Ground Zero to emphasize a more tolerant brand of Islam - which is still a political stance for the area. The desire to introduce politics with this center is an awful, awful idea. It's never been intended solely as a house of worship or a gathering center but as a political statement. And no matter how adept the owners of the center are, it's a recipe for disaster.
|
|
hoyatables
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,603
|
Post by hoyatables on Aug 17, 2010 13:15:41 GMT -5
From page 2 of this thread, forget the Nazi party for a while. I'll grant that Gingrich is trying to demagogue this issue (kind of like someone saying how he couldn't believe how any Hispanic person could ever vote for a Republican). But in regard to the Holocaust museum, let's say someone wanted to build a German -- not Bund, Not Nazi, just German -- tourism office right next to the Holocaust museum. Does anyone honestly think that would ever happen? Ever? There's no freaking way. Personally, if they go through with this, I think it is a bad idea, and will inflame rather than calm or unite the community. But they're gonna' do what they're gonna do, so we'll see what happens. Secondly, if they go through with it, I hope Greg Gutfield goes through with his plan to open a gay bar right next door. Thirdly, Obama simply does not handle sensitive issues well. At all. This is about the umpteenth example of him failing when it comes to things like this (Shirley Sherrod, Prof. Gates, his "shout out" after the Ft. Hood attack, "suck it up with a straw," etc., etc., etc.) I'm sorry, but he is simply not a strong leader. Period. Say you're for it. Say you're against it. Say it's a local issue and you don't want to comment. But don't give us this Friday-Saturday nonsense that you tried to pull off. That is just plain weak. The beauty of America - and particularly New York - should be that you can have an Islamic Cultural Center sandwiched between a gay bar and an all you can eat pork 'n' beer place.
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on Aug 17, 2010 13:22:26 GMT -5
This whole issue boils down to Americans' exposure to, comfort levels with, and nuanced understanding of Islam. To so broadly conflate 9/11 and radical Islamic terrorism with the entire Islamic faith is like conflating Timothy McVeigh and his ass-backwards "Christian Identity" beliefs with all of Christianity.* But in this country, we have been so totally exposed to, become so comfortable with, and so thoroughly understand nuances in Christianity that no one would have raised a peep about the building of church near the Oklahoma City bombing, nor should anyone have done so. Bottom line: if we as a nation had the same general comfort and deep understanding of the complexities of Islam that we do about Christianity, this whole cultural center would almost certainly be a non-issue. That being said, I've also argued from Day 1 that this cultural center may have possibly benefited from a PR position by doing three things: (1) Argue for their right to build until the story got national attention, (2) Sit down with the community leaders, firefighter/police representatives, politicians, etc. who oppose the building and, after a few hours/days of discussion, make a modest but not insulting concession: build maybe another 3–5 blocks away from Ground Zero, and then, the key step (3) Ask those community leaders to come tour the center, attend events there, hold a few events with a broad appeal there, and do a lot of real public outreach to everyone that they engaged and hopefully reached a satisfying, handshake compromise with in step 2. I just think for their purposes—assuming they really are trying to build bridges, engage the community, etc.—this approach might have been very effective. Still, they want the Burlington Coat Factory, they have a right to it, and that's their prerogative. It's not the most sensitive thing in the world to do, but it's also not some horrible slap in the face either. * eyeonhate.com/mcveigh/mcveigh6.htmlethicsdaily.com/news.php?viewStory=15532 (These may not be the most reliable sources on the Internet, but I just don't have the time or inclination to do research. Anyone who questions this assertion is free to enjoy Google, or even Bing if you prefer, for longer than I did).
|
|
hoyatables
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,603
|
Post by hoyatables on Aug 17, 2010 13:22:35 GMT -5
|
|