Muslim cultural center near 9/11 site causes distress

[Michael]

I think they should build it. But, they should also build an inter-faith center as part of the complex. They could also record all of the sermons and upload with English transcripts in real time to Youtube. THAT is probably the ONLY way they are going to appease most people.

Also, IF they were smart about it, they'd fully extend a hand to Hindu and Buddhist while comparing this openness with local Christian Churches.

I see no problem with Muslims building a center. Most of the problem stems with cultural-backwardness. Like brainwashing Muslim boys and girls to marry a Muslim cousin from back home or, for the girls at least, wearing a burka-like tent. If this Mosque also promoted Muslim girls fashion to resemble Sunday morning attire as seen worn by Christians, again, tensions lessen. It's really all about integration. How much to the sponsors really WANT to integrate with American values?

IOW it could be a big win-win if the people with the initiate really followed through.

 

[GeoffP]

Yes, but do you really suppose it will?

 

[quadraphonics]

you do know that for a while Islamic Iberia was one of the most prosperous and tolerant societies in the world.

It was neither as prosperous nor as tolerant as the United States of America is today.

The Cordoba Mosque, for example, was erected from the ruins of a Christian church razed by the Caliph (again, decidedly not a good connotation for a group looking to erect a mosque near Ground Zero). And even at the height of Cordoban prosperity and "tolerance," it routinely conducted pillaging raids into neighboring Christian kingdoms, demanded tribute for safety from such, etc. Shit was medieval, and the fact that Cordoba was more tolerant than Ghengis Khan or more prosperous than Dark Ages Europe is hardly a recommendation in the here and now.

And let's note the foundations and terms of this "tolerance:" unchallenged Muslim theocratic supremacy, of the same sort that Islamists routinely congratulate their supposed progenitors for even today. Genuine tolerance is rooted in a real sense of respect and equality, not the magnanimity of the victorious.

 

[pjdude1219]

In other words, I'm right again. Sorry, pj. Reality doesn't work the way you seem to want.

No your not right again. Your making incorrect conclusions based on what I can only assume is your anti islamic bogotry.
and please quit trying to troll me. if you continue to try and provoke me with your ahistorical ramblings I will report you. I'd rather not because your amusing to watch an action but I will if you continue to try and ruin discusions with your provokations and suck

 

[pjdude1219]

It was neither as prosperous nor as tolerant as the United States of America is today.

it must be jusged with in its historical era.

The Cordoba Mosque, for example, was erected from the ruins of a Christian church razed by the Caliph. And even at the height of Cordoban prosperity and "tolerance," it routinely conducted pillaging raids into neighboring Christian kingdoms, demanded tribute for safety from such, etc. Shit was medieval, and the fact that Cordoba was more tolerant than Ghengis Khan or more prosperous than Dark Ages Europe is hardly a recommendation in the here and now.

And let's note the foundations and terms of this "tolerance:" unchallenged Muslim theocratic supremacy, of the same sort that Islamists routinely congratulate their supposed progenitors for even today. Genuine tolerance is rooted in a real sense of respect and equality, not the magnanimity of the victorious.

Your as bad as Geoff. keep everything with in the context of its historical era. Your trying to reflect current standards backwards through time to diminish what were high standards for the time. I feel its dishonest when geoff does it and it is no less so because you are doing it. also the standards your so keen to use against that time period and people are only maybe 60 or 70 years old at the most.

 

[GeoffP]

It was neither as prosperous nor as tolerant as the United States of America is today.

The Cordoba Mosque, for example, was erected from the ruins of a Christian church razed by the Caliph (again, decidedly not a good connotation for a group looking to erect a mosque near Ground Zero). And even at the height of Cordoban prosperity and "tolerance," it routinely conducted pillaging raids into neighboring Christian kingdoms, demanded tribute for safety from such, etc. Shit was medieval, and the fact that Cordoba was more tolerant than Ghengis Khan or more prosperous than Dark Ages Europe is hardly a recommendation in the here and now.

And let's note the foundations and terms of this "tolerance:" unchallenged Muslim theocratic supremacy, of the same sort that Islamists routinely congratulate their supposed progenitors for even today. Genuine tolerance is rooted in a real sense of respect and equality, not the magnanimity of the victorious.

Well said.

No your not right again. Your making incorrect conclusions based on what I can only assume is your anti islamic bogotry.

When you assume...well, not me, in this case.

and please quit trying to troll me. if you continue to try and provoke me with your ahistorical ramblings I will report you. I'd rather not because your amusing to watch an action but I will if you continue to try and ruin discusions with your provokations and suck

Please go ahead. You're known as the fastest complainer and greatest troll on the forums, pj. I'm sure your complaint will carry a great deal of weight, especially considering that I've contributed far more to this thread than a vague argument based on a transient point in history; not to mention the glowing ignorance of what your point really entails. But don't mind those details, pj: I'm sure the caliphate would be every bit as glorious for everyone as the last time. N'est-ce pas?

 

[GeoffP]

it must be jusged with in its historical era.

And its moral underpinnings. You don't mention those. Why not? Spell out exactly what such a glorious period would entail from the perspective of human rights.

 

[pjdude1219]

And its moral underpinnings. You don't mention those. Why not? Spell out exactly what such a glorious period would entail from the perspective of human rights.

I don't see the point in trying to attack the concept of the divine right to rule in islamic states while ignoring it in christendom.

 

[GeoffP]

I don't see the point in trying to attack the concept of the divine right to rule in islamic states

Of course you don't. What you don't understand is that the same terms in Christendom don't make it okay to promote Islamic suppression of other cultures now, pj. You can't crow about how great it all was once upon a time as a comparison to the name of the Cordoba Institute without needing to reflect on the horrifying abuses of power directed at non-Muslims during the period you cite as being so enlightened and prosperous. Not to mention you don't make the slightest attempt to qualify the relative prosperity of the respective periods - now and then - to justify your unsubstantiated statements.

This is ridiculous. You come on the thread, make some kind of absurd plea to real estate prices, for which you have also posted no evidence, and then deviate off into a completely irrelevant defense of the Islamic 'Golden Age' vis-a-vis the choice of name of the institute, and when I point out the hypocrisy of this position, you fly into an ad hominem rage. This is classic trolling. Enough.

 

[Asguard]

I think they should build it. But, they should also build an inter-faith center as part of the complex. They could also record all of the sermons and upload with English transcripts in real time to Youtube. THAT is probably the ONLY way they are going to appease most people.

Also, IF they were smart about it, they'd fully extend a hand to Hindu and Buddhist while comparing this openness with local Christian Churches.

I see no problem with Muslims building a center. Most of the problem stems with cultural-backwardness. Like brainwashing Muslim boys and girls to marry a Muslim cousin from back home or, for the girls at least, wearing a burka-like tent. If this Mosque also promoted Muslim girls fashion to resemble Sunday morning attire as seen worn by Christians, again, tensions lessen. It's really all about integration. How much to the sponsors really WANT to integrate with American values?

IOW it could be a big win-win if the people with the initiate really followed through.

challange for you, go to the nearest catholic church and OPENLY try film a service. I can GARENTIEE they wont alow it (even batisims and wedings will only alow filming of very specific sections and not the service itself) and you will be thrown off the property for tresspass because its private property

why exactly should muslims subject themselves to things that catholics wont?

As for why NEAR ground zero (NOT ON IT for the idiot who said that this would be the equivilant to building a church ON the federal building rather than around the courner), probably because a) there are a group of muslims there in need of a mosque that isnt currently there, b) the land was either for sale cheeply or already owned by that group c) it has the correct zoning.

 

[GeoffP]

challange for you, go to the nearest catholic church and OPENLY try film a service. I can GARENTIEE they wont alow it (even batisims and wedings will only alow filming of very specific sections and not the service itself) and you will be thrown off the property for tresspass because its private property

why exactly should muslims subject themselves to things that catholics wont?

Well, how many Catholic institutions have connections to terrorism in the US? How many pass out hate materials? How many of them are financed and supplied textbooks by Riyadh?

As for why NEAR ground zero (NOT ON IT for the idiot who said that this would be the equivilant to building a church ON the federal building rather than around the courner)

You are in deep misunderstanding, Asgard. The site is effectively right on 'Ground Zero'; the wreckage of the site extends for quite some distance. But let's see your map. If I consider it far enough away, I'll change my position. You might also post some information on the people pushing the mosque; not one of those opposed to it here (who seem to engage in as much personal attack as you) has done so yet. Why not? Afraid of something?

 

[superluminal]

What a load of philosophical twaddle.

Some humans, in the name of their god, destroyed nearly 3000 other humans of all kinds at this site. They forever cemented (as if more were needed) the image of religion - and particularly islam - as the ignorant and backward practice that it is, in the minds of millions of rational humans.

Build a religious structure anywhere near this site? You should all be fucking ashamed at your own perverseness and depravity. People like Bells, who love to portray this tolerance bullshit at all costs, are even worse than the ignorant slobs who don't know any better. They make it seem like we who oppose it should feel almost guilty or ashamed of ourselves for being so intolerant.

Fuckall and bollocks is what I say to that bullshit.

Here's an idea. Lets propose a monument in the form of a nuclear warhead be erected at the site of Hiroshima ground zero. Just to remind us how tolerant we are of nuclear scientists. They're not all evil, right? And the harnessing of the atom was a great achievement of science, right? Why don't the Japanese show a little more tolerance here?

I won't even elaborate my plans for a German Nationalist monument at the site of Auschwitz. After all, not all Germans are evil, right?

 

[Asguard]

Well, how many Catholic institutions have connections to terrorism in the US? How many pass out hate materials? How many of them are financed and supplied textbooks by Riyadh?



You are in deep misunderstanding, Asgard. The site is effectively right on 'Ground Zero'; the wreckage of the site extends for quite some distance. But let's see your map. If I consider it far enough away, I'll change my position. You might also post some information on the people pushing the mosque; not one of those opposed to it here (who seem to engage in as much personal attack as you) has done so yet. Why not? Afraid of something?

"ground zero" is the site of the towers, the "ground zero" of the oklahoma bombing is the site of THAT building. You can bleat all you want but you cant change the termonology to suit your own bigotry.

 

[Bells]

?? I thought you were ignoring me. You definitely said you wouldn't be talking to me any more, and then there were some assorted insults.

And thank you so much for respecting my wishes of leaving me alone on this forum. Four posts to respond to me? No, really, I'm flattered. You can stop now. Just as I asked you to stop previously and you still can't seem to do it.. But thank you for reminding me. I guess I forgot when you still kept posting responses to me even though I'd specifically asked you to go away.

 

[GeoffP]

"ground zero" is the site of the towers, the "ground zero" of the oklahoma bombing is the site of THAT building.

On what basis? You were perhaps unaware that St. Joseph's Old Cathedral was also destroyed in the Murrah building attack?

On a corner adjacent to the memorial is a sculpture titled "And Jesus Wept", erected by St. Joseph's Old Cathedral. St. Joseph's, one of the first brick and mortar churches in the city, was almost completely destroyed by the blast.[222][223] The statue is not part of the memorial itself.[224]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing#St._Joseph.27s_Old_Cathedral

It's about 500 ft away. As for Ground Zero, fragments from the planes hit the building. That's close enough in my book that I don't have to start splitting hairs about what constitutes Ground Zero, especially when the proprietors are as shady as they are.

You can bleat all you want but you cant change the termonology to suit your own bigotry.

You don't mind about the intent of the builders, but I'm the bigot. Right.

 

[Bells]

"ground zero" is the site of the towers, the "ground zero" of the oklahoma bombing is the site of THAT building. You can bleat all you want but you cant change the termonology to suit your own bigotry.

The irony is that it is also very hypocritical. I mean, think about the news letters the Catholic Church and schools send out asking parents to let their children be altar boys.. while the news is rife with the sexual abuse of altar boys and students by priests...

Apparently for that it's 'turn the other cheek'.. But build a Mosque a few blocks from ground zero? The bigotry comes out.. They also seem to forget that the division over this is split. There are those relatives who are against it, just as there are relatives who are for it. Apparently the opinions of those who support it don't really count.

*Sniff*... Ah, the hypocrisy is rancid here today.

 

[GeoffP]

And thank you so much for respecting my wishes of leaving me alone on this forum. Four posts to respond to me? No, really, I'm flattered. You can stop now. Just as I asked you to stop previously and you still can't seem to do it.. But thank you for reminding me. I guess I forgot when you still kept posting responses to me even though I'd specifically asked you to go away.

I'm sorry it came to four posts; but they were legitimate responses. Here's the thing: if I ask Sam and everyone I disagree with to stop commenting on my posts, would they? More importantly, should they, if they consider that they're making useful points or arguments? How will this work?

Id est, when I asked you several times to stop unjustly attacking me, did you? Is what I said just or unjust? Meanwhile, in a thread about the sensitivities of a possible extremist building a mosque next to Ground Zero, you think it's reasonable to bring up child molestation by Catholic priests, because we apparently turn the other cheek to that (??) but not to Muslim extremists trying to establish a triumphal 30-story monolith on the site of the murder of 3000 people, including Muslims. Which seemingly is okay, because...well, Muslims were killed there too, doncha know?, as if inclusion of some of the victims in that religious group (none of you having the slightest idea about their individual spirituality) makes it all okay.

Wow. The stench of hypocrisy is indeed a bit thick here, all of a sudden. Or something or things are extraordinarily thick.

 

[GeoffP]

Apparently for that it's 'turn the other cheek'.. But build a Mosque a few blocks from ground zero? The bigotry comes out.. They also seem to forget that the division over this is split. There are those relatives who are against it, just as there are relatives who are for it. Apparently the opinions of those who support it don't really count.

So the will of those who don't care one way or another supplants that of those who are incredibly hurt by the proposition. I see. This is an unusual conception of human emotion.

 

[GeoffP]

Well, that's it for today, I think. Happy reporting.

 

[quadraphonics]

it must be jusged with in its historical era.

Not when you're suggesting that it's the sort of thing that should be emulated in the here and now.

keep everything with in the context of its historical era.

I'm happy to do that sort of thing, when engaged in a discussion about history as such.

When discussing which pieces of history should be selected for emulation in the present, those standards aren't relevant. Or, at the very least, they eviscerate the object of emulation: we're apparently supposed to cherry-pick some of the for-the-time-relatively-impressive general aspects of a society, ignore everything else in the name of historical relativity, and somehow end up with a coherent, common understanding of what we're aiming at. Which is ridiculous, as evidenced by the immediate failure to reach any consensus on what such a program would look like. Once you've thrown out emulation of any of the particulars of a society, you've hand-waved it into oblivion as an object of comparison. If it's just supposed to represent "tolerance and prosperity," in the abstract, then those words should simply be used directly.

More than that, I'm addressing the connotations of the name, in the context of the stated goals of the organization. Historical relativity has nothing much to do with that. The connotation is Moorish conquest, Muslim theocracy and specifically the erection of a mosque on the ruins of a church. It's an awfully tone-deaf choice of names for the project in question: I'd think it obvious that any such organization would want to avoid any mention of Moorish Spain. Or the Ottoman forays into Europe, the Barbary wars, and any other instances of conflict between the West and Islam.

Your trying to reflect current standards backwards through time to diminish what were high standards for the time.

Yes, exactly. Systems that were relatively humane for their time frequently become dated and cease to compare favorably to competitors. It's called "progress," and its why invoking societies from nearly 1000 years ago as emblems of progress in the present is so problematic.

I feel its dishonest when geoff does it and it is no less so because you are doing it.

It would only be dishonest if said historical standards were the relevant ones. But I'm not disputing that Cordoba was relatively humane and prosperous: I'm pointing out that those standards no longer apply. In particular, they do not bear on the connotations of the term - only present standards do that.

also the standards your so keen to use against that time period and people are only maybe 60 or 70 years old at the most.

Even if that were true - and it emphatically is not - it wouldn't matter.