Reply With Quote
DarrinS just tried to justify murder.
Technically? No.
Your attempt at rationalization doesn't change the fact that the two scenarios are both immoral actions committed by individuals with distorted beliefs in their religion.
Whether they target supposed "innocents" or not, does not justify their actions.
DarrinS just tried to justify murder.
I agree with that.
I never said that. I was just pointing out a key difference. I dont' think either is justified.
Whether they target supposed "innocents" or not, does not justify their actions.
I also think that the radical flavor of Islam is much more mainstream than you think, especially abroad.
We fear what we don't know. I would venture to say that near 100% of those that provide the most fierce opposition to the mosque only know about Islam what has been reported. I am in that boat. The terror acts against the abortion doctors while almost all would say it is wrong don't fear that terrorist because they have a much better understanding of christianity. From what I have read from DarrinS I don't think he is a racist or bigot but he is on the wrong side of the issue.
Anyone who is prone to making broad-brush generalizations about a group of people based on the words/actions of some is bound to be "on the wrong side of the issue".
You could apply the same logic to Boutons on republicans, for instance.
From what I have read, his phobias are what put him on the wrong side of the issue.
From the initial posts:
I realize there are a lot of like-minded people here but how is this all that confusing (my view, that is)?
My words have been distorted, misrepresented, misunderstood (possibly by some just coming to this late and not reading the OP) and led to some rather ridiculous and inconsequential questioning. Thus, I began to have some fun trolling Nancy. He deserved it, as he displayed an enormous amount of butthurt stemming from this part of the inital OP, I believe:
He apparently took offense, as he felt the shoe fit.
A lot of people seem to be preaching tolerance by way of intolerance and ignorance. What exactly is that when you generalize, stereotype and lump ALL whom oppose or you simply don't understand, as being the same?
I never said -- not once -- that racism, Islamaphobia, stupidity or whatever you want to say along those lines, didn't have its part. Only that it's a PART, not the whole picture.
Nancy broad-brush-painted ALL whom oppose his view (one I share, as it pertains to the building of the mosque) as having to ALL fall into his neat little bigoted categories; I've actually come to my opinion/views by way of anecdotal evidence from a portion of the opposition. Yet, all that's been asked since is: how is it that you can respect a portion of the opposition's views; or how are these people morally conflicted?
Really?
The burden of proof falls on the person with actual anecdotal evidence and not the one making complete generalizations of an ENTIRE segment of the population?
One last time:
I know, for a fact, some good people who disagree with me and oppose the community center. They believe this can only end up as kindle to the fire for those who perpetrated the acts of 9-11's brethren and that it will inevitably become another recruiting tool. They believe the developers aren't showing the proper sensitivity under the cir stance, which has led to some resentment -- I've been asked on multiple occasions why it is they have to build there when there's a mosque within 4 blocks, the logistics (where the Muslim community is largely based and how the commute makes little-to-no sense) and the fact that there were plenty of available places to develop the community center that would never have brought 9-11 into the equation. I could only say it didn't factor into my decision; but it didn't seem to be utterly unreasonable or outlandish questioning.
I personally believe this is a great opportunity for the American-Muslim and, specifically, the Mideastern Muslim-American. No one in their right mind would tell you someone seemingly in the "right" should have to go out of their way to exercise their rights, but this is the real world -- there's never black/white, cut/dried or anything without nuance. Fact of the matter is, a lot of times in life you have to put yourself out there and put a little more effort into things than you should if you really want to be understood, accepted and hopefully, embraced by all fair-minded individuals. So for those that want to keep this in the classroom and say this is "right" and this is "wrong," have at it. Ain't nothing fair or that easy in the real world.
If the people want to diffuse the situation down at the community center, all they have to do is put a little extra effort into the assimilation of their people. Embrace 9-11. Commemorate something on or outside the community center and show the acts of 9-11 could -- and never should -- be confused with Islam. Make it unmistakeably clear that the acts were an affront to Islam as much as 9-11 (taking any kind of victory from the extremists who'd try to claim one -- the ones causing consternation with some decent people). A good-faith show of solidarity to their American brethren. A simple gesture.
Islamphobia, ignorance and anything else that involves a lack of understanding or misplaced fear can be corrected with the proper light and knowledge. Hate is hate, there's no getting around those people, but there are plenty of people that could still see the light or be won over. Why not make the effort? (It sure beats the out of having to defend where you choose to practice, display, build and live the life you choose at every corner.)
Should they or anyone else have to do something like that when they're seemingly in the "right?" No. Would they and the rest of the country stand to benefit if they did? Absolutely.
This is why never gets done. Ignorance and stubbornness is a disease, and it happens to plague the human race more now than at any other time in my lifetime . . .
Phobias driven by ignorance of the Islamic faith not hate for muslims.
Those that fear rarely have the capacity, ability or willingness to differentiate.
Those without the willingness are a hopeless bunch. The capacity and ability I think most have. We teach world history in our schools maybe we should push for classes on the major religions of the world.
More knowledge is never a bad thing.
Like I said, haters (racists, bigots, etc.) will always exist. But there are many more people that simply don't understand or are blinded by emotion that could become the kind of person you'd hope all would be: tolerant -- live and let live.
Shouting racist and bigot at the drop of a hat -- regardless what "side" says or does it -- is not an example of that, or the recipe to achieve it.
True. Around here it seems to cause hearts to harden in their own prejudice.
The role of neurotic guilt ought not be downplayed. The simulation of social rec ude primarily has significance for the performer, who may or may not possess the socially agreed minimum of extra-legal moral probity.
Exactly what I would've said had I gone to college, I imagine.
Bad faith/guilt is a .
How, though? How could America allowing a Muslim to open up a Muslim mosque possibly be used as "kindle for the fire"? If they say, "they'll say America is weak", doesn't it suggest the exact opposite? The strength of our American ideal of freedom of religion allows us to see through the insensitivity to do the right thing?
When you present them with the facts, that they are building on this land because they own it, and the number of Muslims in the area, do they then change their opinion? Or do they continue to come up with various reasons? If the latter, this shows that their argument is not based on facts but emotion.
I agree with your personal view of the mosque, but just because good people may disagree doesn't make their view on this valid. Good people can be wrong/biased/etc on certain decisions/topics/subjects.
But what else are we to call it when DarrinS has admitted he would watch Muslims "like a hawk" on a flight? Or when Muslim tries to equate faulty cars with faulty people of a religion? I mean, DarrinS himself has built a preponderance of evidence that he is irrationally afraid of Muslims.
You don't have to call it anything. Let it speak for itself.
Eh, I appreciate the value of a good label. It's shorthand, without which I'd have to explain every comment DarrinS made regarding the subject. Far easier to just suggest he's irrationally afraid of Muslims.
Mine says jackass. Go make your own.
I have another token embossed with the words "race hustler."
DarrinS claims to be a debunker, but his ironic pose is little discernible from the sincerity it eagerly imitates.
To that point, I could claim to be a magical unicorn; that obviously does not, in the words of Picard, "make it so".
No, the objection has little to nothing to do with the people actually developing the site. There's definitely some resentment at some perceived insensitivity, but it's really not about the good and fair-minded people.
It simply comes down to unintended consequence. Unintended, but consequence just the same -- that is, the potential for anything sinister to be gained from the victims and memory of 9-11 (i.e. a possible recruitment tool for extremists and the potential that they could claim any kind of victory or satisfaction from this community center).
I really wish Bloomberg and the Imam, , get Giuliani for the photo-op, would open this son on 9-11 with a commemoration to the fallen and that the good people of this community center could be viewed in a positive light. They just need to be seen and made human and not the foreign en y they're perceived to be now. They need to put a face to all of this and have their voice heard in the right setting, one where there's no need to be on the defense, just fellow Americans trying to live their life. They need to be seen and heard for who they are, not who or what people have been made to believe or have misunderstood -- rhetoric tends to change and even soften when there's an actual face to be seen and a clear voice to be heard.
TBH, I haven't researched the layout and all the demographics of the city to present them with all of the facts. It's never mattered to me, so I didn't take the time.
From the little I've heard, their questions seem to have some credence, in that there doesn't seem to be much in the way of a reason why they'd choose to build there, other than the fact they chose to build there. Again, I don't talk out of my ass and say something with a certainty I haven't researched or found out for myself, so that's just on the little I've heard.
As far as I'm concerned, they've apparently met all requirements to build and I have no reason to believe the people of this center are anything other than Americans simply practicing their religion -- something this country was founded upon.
It's not about validity or what you or I to deem to be the right thing, it's simply disagreeing without being disagreeable. Respecting one's view, even if not shared. Respecting it not for their belief or conclusion but because you know it comes from a good person without hate or malice or prejudice.
You mentioned emotion. Yes, that's a HUGE part of it. And while emotion is most often without rational thought, it largely genuine, pure. So long as that purity doesn't come from a hateful and intolerant place, it's something that should be respected -- who are we to judge how someone else is affected by an event such as 9-11?
It may be wrong and it may be misguided but the people that I'm speaking to are pure and genuine in their opposition, not racists or bigots. That's all this has ever been about. I choose to give the people of this community center and the good people I disagree with the benefit of a doubt. Some simply can't, for whatever reason.
Well said
bloomberg has already explained this in detail. the plan is over a year old. its not that hard to research.
if you wanted to.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions