The last refuge of a liberal

[LnGrrrR]

What it seems most here are doing is painting all the opposition as the most vocal and adamant portion. As in most cases like this, the most visibly seen and heard are the extreme element of their faction.

And it is the vocal ones, the extreme ones, that shape the opinions of the masses.

This issue on a scale of 1-10 is probably a 3 in the people I've alluded to and my life. It only became a point of discussion once it became this whole ridiculous sideshow. So I can't say what it is most of them would have felt had they just been asked the question in passing one day (i.e., "What would you think if a mosque/community center were to be built near Ground Zero?"), instead they were asked once it became what it is now.

What difference does that make on whether a stance is rational or not?

Are they all arguing that it needs to be moved or not built? Not really. I'd venture to guess some would prefer that its location change, but they don't feel that will prevent any consequence from happening -- I believe most -- if not ALL -- I've talked to believe whether this thing is built, moved or not built, there will be propaganda and pro-extremist rhetoric to be gained. I guess some could believe it's a lose-lose under the cir stance, so they might as well move it ... but I couldn't say for sure. Seems that that'd be a pretty decent possibility.

Your argument was that "good people" had rational, valid reasons for wanting the mosque to move. Can you articulate those arguments? If the argument is that the building of this mosque will be used as propaganda, well, you already pointed out that MOVING it will also cause propaganda, making that argument invalid.

So what valid argument do people who feel the mosque should be moved have? The only argument left is to conflate radical terrorists who happen to believe in the same God as hundreds of thousands of "normal" (for lack of a better word) practicing Muslims.

They're not on the scene protesting or taking away time from their lives or families trying to figure out how to stop this from happening. Again, it's just not that important to them, myself and there are certainly more pressing issues in our world and around the world at large.

What does that have to do with the rationality of their beliefs? The degree of belief has nothing to do with the rationality behind it.

They believe Park51 was in the wrong for taking an unnecessary risk with lives -- and with the people that lost theirs memory -- and they simply can't understand why or condone their actions.

Why? Because some radical Muslims happened to be behind 9/11? What does that have to do with the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of Muslims that are normal, everyday people? Do they feel that churches should not be built in the vicinity of abortion clinics for the same reason?

You'll never be able to tell them -- and even myself -- that the building of a mosque/community center within the close proximity of Ground Zero was a decision made with the requisite sensitivity.

I thought you said that these "good people" were open to discussion? Now you're telling me that we'll never convince them. Why not? Is it because their disapproval rests not with logic of facts, but emotion alone?

Why would people building a mosque require a certain level of "sensitivity" anyways? Do we judge other buildings by the same standards? What about the strip clubs near Ground Zero?

In fact, given that there are already many existing mosques in NY city, how would the builders know in advance the furor that would erupt? Should they have been able to predict public reaction? As I stated in an above post, the wife of Imam went on the Laura Ingraham show, and she didn't seem particularly offended by it.

So, we have a building/builders that are being held to different standards that other bldgs... why is that, do you think? Why would people be offended by MUSLIMs praying near Ground Zero?

They'll never understand why you wouldn't err on the side of caution in this particular case. I agree with them in that respect -- if the community center had sought my advice beforehand I would have told them to buy their property a little further away.

Why are Muslims praying near Ground Zero offensive? Can you give me a valid reason?

Err on the side of caution and do your thing. There's no need to even leave open the possibility the sensitivities of 9-11 could come into play.

How much farther would you ask them to build it? 4 blocks away? 10? Another city?

Where exactly would people's "sensitivities" not be offended?

So the people I'm talking to oppose but -- by in large -- they believe it's too far down the road to believe their opposition could do much -- if any -- good, at this point.

What does that have to do with the validity of their belief that the church should move?

EVEN IF they thought the builders went about it the wrong way, they STILL could feel that since this is the spot chosen, they should build. But you go one beyond; you state that these "good people" not only believe that the designers should have been more "sensitive", but that they should move the mosque as well, if they were decent people.

But they still fall into the opposition because they can't simply not oppose in light of their opinion/belief not mattering. It's a principle stand. They don't believe Park51 was in the "right" for building there (as in human beings and fellow Americans just using common sense), so they can't just be pro-Park51 on account of their inability to make things better with their opposing view.

Why don't they believe Park51 was right? Why do they think Muslims shouldn't be allowed to have a community centre near Ground Zero?

I can respect their views and beliefs because I happen to agree that Park51's decision to buy and build within such proximity to Ground Zero wasn't the best thing they could have done. I just don't -- for some of the same reasons they do.

Would you care to enunciate those reasons? All you've said is that it might affect people's feelings, that it's a "sensitive" issue. Why? Why is allowing Muslims to pray near Ground Zero something that would offend others? Because a few radicals who also prayed to Allah caused 9/11? If this is what you think, do you think it's a valid, rational belief?

Where I differ is believing what I believe should matter. Whatever I believe the best and most prudent thing to do might be, it shouldn't matter in this case.

Why doesn't it matter? People's beliefs on issues like these reflect who they are as a person. Of course it matters.

As Jean-Paul Sartre once said,

To choose this or that is to affirm at the same time the value of what we choose, because we can never choose evil. We always choose the good, and nothing can be good for us without being good for all.

I joked about it, but it's like my pro-choice stance: pro-choice as a rule/law, pro-life as it pertains to me (with 1-2 extreme exceptions). I believe Park51 has every right to do whatever they deem necessary or a good idea to do, so long as they've met all the requirements, which I believe they have. It doesn't matter whether I think it's the best idea or the smartest idea. As far as I'm concerned: Do it to it. Ain't my decision to make.

But you have the ability to shape the minds, the opinions of others, don't you? To not do such shirks a responsibility, to educate your fellow man. If you feel they are in the wrong, and they are teachable (as that is evidenced by your definition of a "good person", or it was previously) then why not teach?

No one here will convince me to believe the people I've alluded to in opposition or -- that I, myself -- is somehow a bigot for believing Park51 didn't make the wisest of decisions building where they did. I've yet to here any reasoning suggested as to why they had to buy and build their property there other than: They bought and decided to build their property there.

Why should they need a more valid reasoning? Because it will allow Muslims to pray there? Do we question the reasoning for other buildings as we do this one?

If there's something to be gained for choosing the location I -- and I'm sure the friends and family I've discussed this with -- would honestly love to know.

Obviously, the people who bought the property bought it for a reason, yes? I'll put myself at risk of committing a false dichotomy, but the answer seems to split into two categories. Those who feel they bought that property because they wanted to create a community center/mosque for local individuals, and those who feel it's some inside plot to claim victory for Muslim terrorists everywhere by building a mosque near Ground Zero. There's a great deal more evidence for the former than the latter.

All I've heard is the questioning of the people I've defended motives, not Park51's, which would seem to suggest tolerance only goes one way: If innocent until proven guilty is the law, why is Park51 the peaceful and good Muslim until proven otherwise and everyone in opposition a racist or bigot until proven otherwise?

And there it is. Why should we just "assume" that Park51 is peaceful and good? Surely, we can assume that they're a secretly evil terrorist organization!

We assume Park51 is good because they are building a mosque/community center, which is admittedly a positive thing for a local community, correct? People who want to prove that the building of that area is BAD thing have to prove their case rationally, without resorting to bias, strawmen, etc. Blake, I, and others have provided ample opportunity for you to make that case; all we've seen so far is this "Good people can disagree!" and "The builders weren't sensitive enough" without any solid, specific reason why building it there is bad/offensive. Can you provide one?

They both should be given the benefit of a doubt until proven otherwise, which is the point I've tried to make all along -- you can't promote tolerance and understanding through intolerance and ignorance; that's exactly what blanket statements and generalizations are rooted in and those that make them haven't the intention of getting things "right" or the "right" things done, only that they're right in a classroom's theoretical, vacuous discussion/argument.

I've not once accused the "other side" of racism; I've accused them of irrationality if anything. So why do you keep bringing it up?

That's not doing what is "right," that's simply trying to win an argument for the sake of winning an argument. The kind of thing usually reserved for a college kid, the pretentious, the insecure or the out-of-touch.

Nice ad hominems there. I personally feel that "winning this argument" will have far-reaching, long-term effects in the Muslim community throughout the world. But I'm probably a college kid, pretentious, insecure, or out-of-touch.

That's about the best I can do to crystallize what is I've been trying to say. We'll see if it focuses the discussion more instead of having it venture further away from what this was really all about -- the semantics of morality, racism or anything else that has entered the equation, is open-ended and never-ending.

You could focus the discussion more if you could state a clear, rational reason why they should have to move the mosque. You already stated that YOU morally disagreed with them building there as well, so let's cut out the "good people" middleman.

Why do YOU think allowing Muslims to pray near Ground Zero is offensive/should not be encouraged?

[LnGrrrR]

What possible reason (other than they did) would this community center have to buy and build their project there when there are supposedly over 100 mosques in the New York state area, plenty of spaces to buy and rent available and a mosque stands only 4 blocks from where the World Trade Center once stood?

They wanted to? What does that have to do with the correctness/morality/etc of the building itself, or their actions? They chose this area because it reflected their wants, whether it be due to a perceived good location, high traffic, or some other metric.

But of course, that answer is boring; the implied reason (they wanted to offend America and claim victory for terrorists!) is much more exciting. *Cue scary music*

[Blackjack]

If they are that important to you, you should have no problem posting them again.

They, and you, are not important to me. But since you like to try and imitate Chump with your questioning -- even if you fail to replicate the substance and humor -- I figured it'd be nice to see you actually answer something.

I have absolutely no idea why they would build a Muslim community center where they did.

Thanks. So they're bigots, at least by your logic -- you just don't know or can't understand.

Any more questions?

Nope, that should do it.

[Blackjack]

They wanted to? What does that have to do with the correctness/morality/etc of the building itself, or their actions? They chose this area because it reflected their wants, whether it be due to a perceived good location, high traffic, or some other metric.

But of course, that answer is boring; the implied reason (they wanted to offend America and claim victory for terrorists!) is much more exciting. *Cue scary music*

Simple, if you feel the need to question the motives of one particular group on the basis of subjection/generalization, it would stand to reason that you scrutinize the other side just the same. Tolerance goes both ways.

[LnGrrrR]

Put simply, if there's a 1% chance something you're wanting to do could cost someone a life or dishonor any of the innocent people that lost their lives, why do you take that chance if you've got other options?

Wow, so many glaring problems within one post.

The first is this idea that we don't do something because it may cause harm. Do you drive to work? If so, you're probably taking a 1% chance that you could cost someone a life. Do you use electricity? Electricians throughout the country die each year. Etc etc. We accept mortality based on the need for an item vs the risk to procure it.

Given that, the next problem with your post is evident. What are the odds that building this mosque would lead to lost lives? You throw out 1%... do you know that the odds of being hurt in a terrorist attack are ridiculously low, compare to any number of diseases/accidents/etc etc? In fact, if you live in America, you've got a greater chance of being killed by a bee than a terrorist; the majority of terrorist actions occur overseas.

Final problem with this post; preventing people from "dishonoring" innocent people that lost their lives. One, does this mosque dishonor everyone? Aren't there 9/11 families that support the mosque? In fact, didn't some Muslims die during 9/11? It's not like that building only had white people in it.

[LnGrrrR]

Simple, if you feel the need to question the motives of one particular group on the basis of subjection/generalization, it would stand to reason that you scrutinize the other side just the same. Tolerance goes both ways.

But the only reason you'd question WHY they are building the mosque there is if you didn't believe their stated reasons for it; to build a community center to strengthen the community and build an inter-faith bridge, and instead think they were building it there because of some other reason. Do you think that?

Edit: Also, I'm not questioning their MOTIVES... I'm questioning their ARGUMENT. Their ARGUMENT is faulty, regardless of the motive for said argument.

[Blackjack]

Wow, so many glaring problems within one post.

The first is this idea that we don't do something because it may cause harm. Do you drive to work? If so, you're probably taking a 1% chance that you could cost someone a life. Do you use electricity? Electricians throughout the country die each year. Etc etc. We accept mortality based on the need for an item vs the risk to procure it.

Winehole tried to make the same analogy, and I simply don't agree or see it.

Why does one drive? Usually, it has to do with the living of your life and the ability to get to work to pay for that life. There's of course the recreational aspect but in the grand scheme of things, driving's a necessity to the living of a lot of people's lives and livelihoods.

Why does one feel the need to build a mosque/community center within a stones throw of Ground Zero; specifically when there's a mosque 4 blocks away, over 100 mosques in the state and plenty of opportunities and locations to choose from that wouldn't even bring 9-11 into play? I don't see a necessity involved.

Given that, the next problem with your post is evident. What are the odds that building this mosque would lead to lost lives? You throw out 1%... do you know that the odds of being hurt in a terrorist attack are ridiculously low, compare to any number of diseases/accidents/etc etc? In fact, if you live in America, you've got a greater chance of being killed by a bee than a terrorist; the majority of terrorist actions occur overseas.

Can you say with certainty that some disenfranchised youth or person won't join the cause of Jihad because of the propaganda gained from a perceived victory tower on Ground Zero?

That's not what I believe it to be or what I believe Park51's intentions to be, but do you really think this won't be spun in some way to make it seem that way -- have we not seen what a no-nothing piece of 's decision to burn Quran's was painted as, as if this was some kind of "American thing" and not a "nutjob thing?"

Bottom line, why is it important that the community center be built in such proximity to Ground Zero? If it was the only place, more power to them. But if not, why; why even take a chance with anyone's life? whether it's a 100% chance or a 0.1% chance, why would you ever take a chance like that for no reason?

Final problem with this post; preventing people from "dishonoring" innocent people that lost their lives. One, does this mosque dishonor everyone? Aren't there 9/11 families that support the mosque? In fact, didn't some Muslims die during 9/11? It's not like that building only had white people in it.

If some nutjob uses the placement of the mosque as a means to perpetuate terror, that's dishonoring the memory of those that lost their lives. Simple as that. It's not about the decent, but those that would use the decent's actions to further their own cause.

See, while good and fair-minded Muslims (the majority) don't associate themselves with the extremist element, the extremist element associates with them in the name of Allah. They (the extremists) see any advancement of Islam as a victory to their cause, even if not vice-versa. So if anything bad comes from this decision of Park51 -- and, , it could be a wackjob from the opposition -- that's not honoring the fallen.

It doesn't matter how small the risk of something happening might be, it's still a risk. An unnecessary, needless one, unless someone can suggest a reason otherwise.

But the only reason you'd question WHY they are building the mosque there is if you didn't believe their stated reasons for it; to build a community center to strengthen the community and build an inter-faith bridge, and instead think they were building it there because of some other reason. Do you think that?

No, I'm asking for consistency. Innocent until proven guilty is just that. It may not always happen in the court of public opinion but it seems strange to suggest ALL those in opposition are racist or bigots -- simply because it's beyond one's understanding -- and giving a pass to the other side when there doesn't seem to be a real logical reason as to why Park51 chose this venue. Why could they not do their good from another venue that would never have brought 9-11 into play?

Again, there are over 100 mosques in New York, one 4 blocks away from Ground Zero and plenty of places to build. Is it more or less crazy to question Park51's rationale given those facts or ALL of the opposition's?

Edit: Also, I'm not questioning their MOTIVES... I'm questioning their ARGUMENT. Their ARGUMENT is faulty, regardless of the motive for said argument.

You're questioning a belief and rationale, not an argument. As I mentioned in my last monstrosity of a post, the people I've discussed this with are in opposition on principle. They don't believe whatever they believe matters at this point in the game, as it is what it is. But they can't say they're simply for it in light of that fact, they're not. Again, it just is what it is.

Note: Off to drink irresponsibly and watch some football, so don't feel abandoned if you don't hear from me for 16-24 hours Wino or anyone else.

[Blake]

Note: Off to drink irresponsibly

why even take a chance with anyone's life? whether it's a 100% chance or a 0.1% chance, why would you ever take a chance like that for no reason?

[LnGrrrR]

Winehole tried to make the same analogy, and I simply don't agree or see it.

Why does one drive? Usually, it has to do with the living of your life and the ability to get to work to pay for that life. There's of course the recreational aspect but in the grand scheme of things, driving's a necessity to the living of a lot of people's lives and livelihoods.

Why does one feel the need to build a mosque/community center within a stones throw of Ground Zero; specifically when there's a mosque 4 blocks away, over 100 mosques in the state and plenty of opportunities and locations to choose from that wouldn't even bring 9-11 into play? I don't see a necessity involved.

Because they wanted to? Why should one have to justify one's desire to build what they wish on land they've purchased? Do you hold the same rigorous standard to other people who wish to build?

Again 9/11 wasn't brought into play until people chose to.

Can you say with certainty that some disenfranchised youth or person won't join the cause of Jihad because of the propaganda gained from a perceived victory tower on Ground Zero?

Really? I expect better. Let me show you how dumb this question is.

"Can you say with certainty that some youth won't be inspired by us allowing the mosque to be built there, and all the passionate supporters of the mosque, and thereby turn away from terrorism?"

Heck, I could even say, "Can you say with certainty that Osama won't be turned in by this same idealistic Muslim?"

That's not what I believe it to be or what I believe Park51's intentions to be, but do you really think this won't be spun in some way to make it seem that way -- have we not seen what a no-nothing piece of 's decision to burn Quran's was painted as, as if this was some kind of "American thing" and not a "nutjob thing?"

We already agreed it could be spun either way, regardless of it moving or not, correct? Then why do you keep bringing up this failed argument as if it had validity?

Bottom line, why is it important that the community center be built in such proximity to Ground Zero? If it was the only place, more power to them. But if not, why; why even take a chance with anyone's life? whether it's a 100% chance or a 0.1% chance, why would you ever take a chance like that for no reason?

Because they chose to. As far as this "Why take a chance with life" argument, that's just utter crap. As you pointed out above, we all take chances with life, due to tradeoffs. You say driving is a necessity... is it? I know people who live without a car. Sure, it's limiting, but they do it. Why do you take that chance Blackjack? You could potentially hurt an innocent, and yet, you still take up this action.

You introduce another strawman when you say that they built it there for "no reason". You admitted above you didn't know their reason; that's not the same as them having no reason.

Finally, again, forcing someone to admit "why" they built a mosque there completely glosses over the fact that it shouldn't be inflammatory at all, and people are only sensitive about it because they associate all Muslims with the terrorist actions of 19 radicals.

We don't live our life by these "What if" moments, because if we did, we'd never leave the house. I see no need to hold these builders to such ridiculous standards. That's even more asinine than the "If you smoke weed, you're supporting terrorism!" claim.

If some nutjob uses the placement of the mosque as a means to perpetuate terror, that's dishonoring the memory of those that lost their lives. Simple as that. It's not about the decent, but those that would use the decent's actions to further their own cause.

How the do you figure? If some nutjob uses the placement of the mosque as a means to perpetuate terror... that means he's a nutjob.

Let me point out again how ridiculous your statement is. Let's say the owners of the mosque DO move, in a hypothetical future.

Now, some nutjob is pissed because he thinks that means that American Muslims are second-class citizens, and decides to become a nutjob and bomb a building. Now what? How does your logic resolve this possible situation? Doesn't it demand that they CAN'T move the mosque, due to such a possibility?

See, while good and fair-minded Muslims (the majority) don't associate themselves with the extremist element, the extremist element associates with them in the name of Allah. They (the extremists) see any advancement of Islam as a victory to their cause, even if not vice-versa. So if anything bad comes from this decision of Park51 -- and, , it could be a wackjob from the opposition -- that's not honoring the fallen.

And if anything bad comes from MOVING the mosque, that's not "honoring the fallen" either, is it?

It doesn't matter how small the risk of something happening might be, it's still a risk. An unnecessary, needless one, unless someone can suggest a reason otherwise.

Pascal's Wager. Have you read up on it yet? I suggest you do.

No, I'm asking for consistency. Innocent until proven guilty is just that. It may not always happen in the court of public opinion but it seems strange to suggest ALL those in opposition are racist or bigots -- simply because it's beyond one's understanding -- and giving a pass to the other side when there doesn't seem to be a real logical reason as to why Park51 chose this venue.

And yet, you are unable to voice a rational reason for wanting the mosque moved. As you can see above, that argument isn't very rational, and won't fly.

Why could they not do their good from another venue that would never have brought 9-11 into play?

Why did you buy a computer to type on when there are millions of people starving? You could have donated that money to poor kids in Africa, and yet, you didn't. Not very sensitive of you.

Again, there are over 100 mosques in New York, one 4 blocks away from Ground Zero and plenty of places to build. Is it more or less crazy to question Park51's rationale given those facts or ALL of the opposition's?

Have you even bothered trying to find out? Why don't you read what's on their website?
http://www.cordobainitiative.org/?q=...sked-questions

Why are you building “a mosque near Ground zero?”
Strictly speaking, it will not be a “mosque,” although it would have a prayer space on one of its 15 floors. At the beginning, no one considered the fact that Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf Abdul Rauf’s current mosque is 12 blocks from the Ground Zero site, while the Park51 Community Center location is only 2 and one-half blocks away. We never discussed wanting to be close to Ground Zero; our goal was to find a good real estate opportunity for a community center. 51 Park seemed to fit the bill.

But why so close to Ground Zero?
We were always close to the World Trade Center. Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf has been the Imam of a mosque twelve blocks from the Twin Towers for the last 27 years. American Muslims have been peacefully living, working and worshipping in this neighborhood all along and were also terribly affected by the horrific events of 9/11.
We wanted to build a community center in our old neighborhood, and the Park51 location became available. (In our part of lower Manhattan, it’s hard not to be close to Ground Zero.) As Muslim New Yorkers and Americans, we want to help and be part of rebuilding our neighborhood. It is important for everyone to show the world that Americans will not be frightened or deterred by the extremist forces of hatred.

Do you believe his words, or not?

You're questioning a belief and rationale, not an argument. As I mentioned in my last monstrosity of a post, the people I've discussed this with are in opposition on principle. They don't believe whatever they believe matters at this point in the game, as it is what it is. But they can't say they're simply for it in light of that fact, they're not. Again, it just is what it is.

I'm sorry, but this was barely intelligible.

Why are the people opposed on principle? Why do they think it's offensive? Is it because they don't want Muslims praying so close to Ground Zero?

I guess there's "enough" mosques so those Muslims don't need anymore. And 4 blocks away is close enough... they're getting a little uppity asking for a mosque 2 blocks away, am I right people?

Also, there's a monster post that I posted that you missed responding to. It's there whenver you're ready.

[LnGrrrR]

Here's some more info from the website:

Isn’t the location insensitive given that the 9/11 attackers were Muslims?
 


The events of 9/11 were horrific. What happened that day was terrorism, and it shames us that it was cloaked in the guise of Islam. It was inhumane, un-Islamic and is indefensible regardless of one’s religious persuasion. Not only Americans but also all Muslims are threatened by the lies and actions being perpetrated by these self-serving extremists and their perverted view of Islam.
The community center will be a platform to amplify the voices of the overwhelming majority of Muslims whose love for America and commitment to peace gets drowned out by the actions of a few extremists. It will become a platform where the voices of those who resist religious extremism and terrorism can be amplified and celebrated.
But, why not build it a little bit farther away? Let’s say a mile away?
No one should be driven out of his or her own neighborhood – especially for religious reasons. It is uncons utional and un-American. Our congregation has been peacefully worshipping in this area for almost three decades. Our neighbors have encouraged us to remain here, and the City and the Community Board have encouraged our continued presence here. The community has backed up their support by approving every resolution and challenge in the community center’s favor.

What about the 9/11 families? Don’t you see their pain?

Like all New Yorkers and Americans we too were devastated by 9/11. We share and respect the incredible pain and loss suffered by the victims of 9/11. We fully recognize their legitimate concerns and sensitivity to the community center. It shames us that extremists who profess to be Muslim perpetrated murder on such a horrific scale for political and financial gain in the name of Islam. We look forward to actively engaging with leaders of the victims of 9/11 to respond to their concerns and obtain their support for our efforts.

Will the extremists take over the Community Center once it’s built?

Extremism on both sides is the danger – it’s what we’re working against. A community center that celebrates diversity and multi-faith collaboration is an hetical to the extremists’ worldview. This center will be a blow to all extremists. In addition, the new organization’s multi-faith Trustees and Board of Advisors will ensure that our good intentions are not hijacked by extremist elements who reject our vision of peace, tolerance and understanding.



Are you not building a project that will be one of conquest? Isn’t this a victory for the extremists?

The community center is opposed to religious extremists of all faiths. It demonstrates that Americans cannot be intimidated and will join together to promote moderation, peace and understanding when challenged.
The extremists will not find victory or comfort in a community center whose sole purpose is to bring peace through multi-faith collaboration and celebrate the diversity of views in our world.
This center is an important step towards building understanding and peace. Just as we strive to understand the faith and traditions of our neighbors, this center will invite others to learn about the true nature of Islam. A religion of peace, tolerance, and understanding.

So, according to the website, the property became available and they bought it because it had the room they were looking for and was at an acceptable location. The community center is dedicated to recognizing all faiths and working together to bridge gaps between them. They don't wish to move, even a mile away, because they feel (rightly so) it is un-American to ask someone to move due to religious reasons. They're ashamed of the Muslims who claimed the name of Allah to carry out their attacks on 9/11, and they share the tragedy, as many of them worked in lower Manhattan before the attacks, a congregration that, according to the website, has been peacefully worshipping for over three decades.

Given the above info, what's your principled stand against them building there?

[Winehole23]

Note: Off to drink irresponsibly and watch some football, so don't feel abandoned if you don't hear from me for 16-24 hours Wino or anyone else.

You've been ting on us at great length in this thread, but saying very little, for days now.

Thanks for giving us a little break. I sure won't miss you.

[Nbadan]

You've been ting on us at great length in this thread, but saying very little, for days now.

Thanks for giving us a little break. I sure won't miss you.

Blackjack's views are representative of quite a few millions Americans...radical? likely....true? hardly.....genuine? nope....dismissible? dangerous...

[Blackjack]

You've been ting on us at great length in this thread, but saying very little, for days now.

Thanks for giving us a little break. I sure won't miss you

The well ran dry, Wino. Time for you to get on, I apologize in advance -- it's nature . . .

Because they wanted to? Why should one have to justify one's desire to build what they wish on land they've purchased? Do you hold the same rigorous standard to other people who wish to build?

I know. It's ridiculous, right? Questioning people's motives just because. It's weird ... I say something, figure you'd realize where I'm coming from ... but it never fails -- it must be in the Political Forum's water (or just the fact that the ones who seem to post the most seem to be extremely like-minded ideologues (with 2-3 being on the other side).

I made the point with Park51 to show how you could do the same ridiculous to the other side. Prove you're not a racist! Prove you're not a terrorist!

What's the difference?

Again 9/11 wasn't brought into play until people chose to.

Well, that, and the location.

Really? I expect better. Let me show you how dumb this question is.

I'm beginning to realize the LnGrrrR I enjoyed outside of the Politics forum doesn't exist here.

"Can you say with certainty that some youth won't be inspired by us allowing the mosque to be built there, and all the passionate supporters of the mosque, and thereby turn away from terrorism?"

Again, you're just failing to see what I was speaking to. You and your brethren here have been professing to know what's in the minds and hearts of ALL those that oppose. They couldn't have opposition without them being racist, Islamphobes, morons, and basically, beneath you -- there's definitely no lacking of the typical elitist rhetoric here.

There's a reason it sounded stupid, it was supposed to; as stupid as professing or believing that all whom are in opposition would be better off exterminated. Let's not beat around the bush, the brethren here can't stand these people. "How dare they oppose!" "Those in racist!" "Ain't no one more tolerant than me!"

We already agreed it could be spun either way, regardless of it moving or not, correct? Then why do you keep bringing up this failed argument as if it had validity?

Stay with me here, brah, but my stance hasn't changed, nor has the post I made (that really long one that I took the time to try and boil it down to find where the disconnect was). I know people here like to change the goal posts, make terrible analogies and throw around the word "strawman" ad nauseam, but I'm the same dude with the same take and y'all keep coming back for more, creating more than there ever was in the process.

I'm not talking about moving the mosque. I'm still for it. The majority I know to oppose it, they simply oppose it on principle. They're not gonna be out there in the streets trying to stop this. They're resigned to the fact that it will be built. They're simply hoping for the best, at this point, since -- like myself (and even yourself, to some degree) -- believe this story's become too big to not become propaganda with whatever the outcome. The resentment comes from this story ever becoming this big, something that was pretty much inevitable once Park51 decided to build where they did. You may not like that, I don't in' like it either, but it didn't take a genius to know this would become a huge issue. There aren't more emotionally-charged topics than 9-11 and deciding to build something on this scale (maybe if it's just a little hole-in-the-wall mosque with no pomp and cir stance around it it never gets noticed, I guess it's possible) wasn't going to go well in the public arena.

Because they chose to. As far as this "Why take a chance with life" argument, that's just utter crap. As you pointed out above, we all take chances with life, due to tradeoffs. You say driving is a necessity... is it? I know people who live without a car. Sure, it's limiting, but they do it. Why do you take that chance Blackjack? You could potentially hurt an innocent, and yet, you still take up this action.

For a lot of people, yes, driving is a necessity. Public transportation ain't what it is in places like New York, Boston, etc. You want to get to work, you need to get there -- not sure if you've ever been or lived in San Antonio but I was born and lived there for a good chunk of my life ... you need a car (unless you happen to live right next to your work).

But you admit there's a tradeoff. What's the tradeoff for Park51? We know the cons but what are the pros? Just because? Because it's somewhat of an old stomping ground?

Heck, I could even say, "Can you say with certainty that Osama won't be turned in by this same idealistic Muslim?"

No, I cant (and, yes, I'm being facetious)

You introduce another strawman when you say that they built it there for "no reason". You admitted above you didn't know their reason; that's not the same as them having no reason.

I love that word.

I said I'd like to know the reason. Essentially, I'm pulling a Nancy on you. Prove a negative. Guilty until proven otherwise. Admittedly, I don't see what's to be gained from this on Park51's behalf -- why it is they decided to purchase and build where they did -- but I'm all ears if there is an actual reason. Again, it just seems extremely naive to believe Park51 didn't know there was going to be some kind of blowback from the project, so I've honestly gotta wonder what's to be gained?

Finally, again, forcing someone to admit "why" they built a mosque there completely glosses over the fact that it shouldn't be inflammatory at all, and people are only sensitive about it because they associate all Muslims with the terrorist actions of 19 radicals.

Y'all are some really liberal, open-minded, generalizin' son es, aren't you?

Do you guys live in some utopia I should know about: "shouldn't be inflammatory at all," really? There's too much classroom here and not enough common sense. Why is it always what should be and not what is? The world and people around you are what they are, you deal with that accordingly.

Islam is obviously associated with Terrorists. Should it not be? Associated, that is. It doesn't mean all Muslims are terrorists, though. It means the bulk of today's terrorism is done in the name of Jihad and Allah. Maybe y'all just want to tiptoe around that, as some kind of way to not offend or come off as less-than-tolerant for your "open-minded" views, but it's just a fact. Is it not?

We don't live our life by these "What if" moments, because if we did, we'd never leave the house. I see no need to hold these builders to such ridiculous standards. That's even more asinine than the "If you smoke weed, you're supporting terrorism!" claim.

Well, technically, if your including all forms of terrorism and not being specific to Islamic terrorists . . .

[QUOTE=LnGrrrR]How the do you figure? If some nutjob uses the placement of the mosque as a means to perpetuate terror... that means he's a nutjob.[QUOTE]

Well I in figure (just figured I'd share in the profanity) that if the community center never came to bear -- as in , being built near Ground Zero -- there'd be nothing there to potentially spark any kind of nutjob to do anything because of it -- whether that ends up being an Islamic extremist or some skinhead or whatnot in opposition. And if something comes about because of Park51's decision to build near Ground Zero, it's kinda hard to see it as honoring the memory of 9-11. So the people dying there wasn't enough ... it's now gonna be some kind of reason for some other kind of terroristic act? (Hypothetically, of course -- I hate that I'm not able leave things implied.)

Let me point out again how ridiculous your statement is. Let's say the owners of the mosque DO move, in a hypothetical future.
Now, some nutjob is pissed because he thinks that means that American Muslims are second-class citizens, and decides to become a nutjob and bomb a building. Now what? How does your logic resolve this possible situation? Doesn't it demand that they CAN'T move the mosque, due to such a possibility?

Again, the only thing ridiculous is you thinking my stance has changed or that I'm arguing something I'm not. You, and more so, Nancy, decided to keep on implying I never said or advancing the argument to a place that was irrelevant to the OP. The more that's written seems to take us further away from the point that was made: don't be an ignorant, intolerant person throwing inflammatory rhetoric under the guise of tolerance and understanding.

Unless there's any truth to the stick wanting to burn Qurans having some meeting with the Imam, Park51 or whomever, and they're not going to build if he doesn't bust out the smores, this thing is getting built. It ain't moving. I ain't asking them to move, nor is anyone really adamant they should move from the people I've talked to. (Maybe 2 feel it's a lose-lose and would probably be for a move to get it away from Ground Zero if that's the case.) It's too far down the road at this point and there's simply nothing to be gained. So please, for God, Jesus, Jebus, Allah, and the Baby Jesus, stop with the moving . It ain't part of the equation on my end.

Pascal's Wager. Have you read up on it yet? I suggest you do.

Will do. But it doesn't change the fact that you've responded to my whole post on a failed premise. I essentially played devil's advocate for the same stance being taken by you and others as it pertains to Park51. I've put the burden of proof on you to prove innocence.

And yet, you are unable to voice a rational reason for wanting the mosque moved. As you can see above, that argument isn't very rational, and won't fly.

And there's a reason for that: I've never, not once, suggested they should move, nor have I suggested that the opposition in question has suggested they should move. I'm not sure if Nancy's lack of reading comprehension and subsequent posts put that in your head or what, but it's just false. Plain and simple.

Why did you buy a computer to type on when there are millions of people starving? You could have donated that money to poor kids in Africa, and yet, you didn't. Not very sensitive of you.

Because kids are ing annoying.

Do you believe his words, or not?

Good stuff, and I'm prone to believe him. I just got done hearing how he wouldn't have purchased and decided to build his place had he realized the type of reaction he would have received though (Larry King's show), so something just doesn't seem right about that -- I just have a hard time believing he wouldn't know how a project of this undertaking and location wouldn't cause a controversy or uproar.

Having said that, I love what I'm reading. And, no, I'm not tracking down stories and trying to research whatever this guy's said, I'm for the building of the place. I really couldn't care much less. This issue is nowhere near the top of my priorities and I've talked more here about it over the last few days than at any other time. But that begs the question: Why is this not being said, seen and heard more than it is?

Like I said earlier in the thread, the best possible scenario for all involved would be to see this Imam and Park51 embrace their fellow Americans with a concerted outreach and/or a noteworthy commemorative gesture placed on, in or around the community center for the victims of 9-11. Bloomberg, Giuliani, , you may even be able to find something redeemable in Bush if he were to go out and extend his hand and advance the cause of tolerance. Whatever, however and with whomever they do it, I can see no better way of bridging the gap and honoring those that lost their lives than with a sign of unity and solidarity for all Americans and those looking on from afar.

I'm sorry, but this was barely intelligible.

I'm sorry but your tact is less-than-bearable.

Why are the people opposed on principle? Why do they think it's offensive? Is it because they don't want Muslims praying so close to Ground Zero?

Because they feel if they'd been in Park51's position -- as do I -- they wouldn't have done it. We both would have erred on the side of caution with such a sensitive issue in play. There's simply no reason to risk any kind of discontent or anything worse. It's a pros-cons thing, and neither of us see the type of pros to risk the cons (unless the type of stuff you've shared becomes the prevailing wisdom and the most seen and heard rhetoric moving forward and upon Park51's completion -- I, and I'm sure those whom I know to oppose, would see the pros then)

Also, there's a monster post that I posted that you missed responding to. It's there whenver you're ready.

My monstrosity of a post was an attempt to respond to that and others. The topic wandered grossly off the topic with mischaracterizations/misunderstandings and a delving into the semantics of morality, race and whatnot, and I have no desire to engage in an open-ended, never-ending subject like that -- I like to stick to one mind numbing point of contention at a time, tbh.

Given the above info, what's your principled stand against them building there?

I don't have one. I'm still for it. I don't have a stand against them. I did believe it to be pretty insensitive, but I've never stood in opposition.

And to that point, had I known and heard those particular questions asked and heard those answers, I wouldn't only be for it, I'd be championing it. Like I said, this was a complete non-issue to me and, thus, I haven't been trying to dig up quotes for all involved. But it begs the question again: Why the is this not the type of thing we're hearing and seeing more? I mean, not just a little here or there ... but is this not being hammered home by Park51 and their supporters/handlers?

I imagine there are plenty of people that could be swayed to being for this thing had they been armed with that particular knowledge and had it been something that one wouldn't have to search for on the computer -- plenty of people live full enough lives that searching for their own news just isn't all that feasible.

It's clear as day Park51 needs to step up their PR game and get their message out -- it's either been missed, hijacked or they're looking to with people (and, again, I'm being facetious).

Blackjack's views are representative of quite a few millions Americans...radical? likely....true? hardly.....genuine? nope....dismissible? dangerous...

[Stringer_Bell]

I haven't opened this thread for awhile even though I kept seeing it bumped. Now I wish I avoided it longer. This place looks like an episode of Hoarders, gathering and sitting in your own filth of useless arguments. That is all.

[MannyIsGod]

I entered it for the first time in a long time this morning also. I just skimmed most of the posts. Too late to enter this fray.

[Blake]

I entered it for the first time in a long time this morning also. I just skimmed most of the posts. Too late to enter this fray.

there's nothing to really argue any more. It's more of a personal case study.

I have absolutely no idea why they would build a Muslim community center where they did.

Thanks. So they're bigots, at least by your logic -- you just don't know or can't understand.

Somehow he concluded that I think the builders are bigots.

People like this that claim victory after such a post fascinate (and entertain) me.

[Spurminator]

Why does one feel the need to build a mosque/community center within a stones throw of Ground Zero; specifically when there's a mosque 4 blocks away, over 100 mosques in the state and plenty of opportunities and locations to choose from that wouldn't even bring 9-11 into play? I don't see a necessity involved.

Why are there two donut carts on every street corner in Manhattan?

Have you ever been to New York?

[DarrinS]

Why are there two donut carts on every street corner in Manhattan?

Have you ever been to New York?

I have. There aren't enough Muslims in lower Manhattan to justify the size of Park51, Cordoba House, Muslim Land, or whatever they're calling it now.

[Winehole23]

So what? It's their development. If they build it too big the investors lose and the thing goes under. I'd think you'd encourage that, D.

[DarrinS]

So what? It's their development. If they build it too big the investors lose and the thing goes under. I'd think you'd encourage that, D.

I was specifically addressing the question, "Why are there two donut carts on every street corner in Manhattan?".

[MannyIsGod]

No, you weren't. No where in answering that question should the word Muslim come into play.

[Blake]

I was specifically addressing the question, "Why are there two donut carts on every street corner in Manhattan?".

your answer:

There aren't enough Muslims in lower Manhattan to justify the size of Park51, Cordoba House, Muslim Land, or whatever they're calling it now.

e-sigh.

[Spurminator]

I have. There aren't enough Muslims in lower Manhattan to justify the size of Park51, Cordoba House, Muslim Land, or whatever they're calling it now.

There are plenty Muslims in lower Manhattan.

My point being, the idea that it's redundant to build a mosque within six blocks of another mosque in Manhattan could only be suggested by someone who hasn't had much experience in Manhattan. And that's ignoring the fact that the other mosque is 40 years old while the new one would be a lot more modern.

[MannyIsGod]

I'm sure since Darrin knows he'd be happy to share with us the population density of Muslims in lower Manhattan and at what point such a density would provide the necessary population for the Muslim center?

[Blake]

There are plenty Muslims in lower Manhattan.

My point being, the idea that it's redundant to build a mosque within six blocks of another mosque in Manhattan could only be suggested by someone who hasn't had much experience in Manhattan. And that's ignoring the fact that the other mosque is 40 years old while the new one would be a lot more modern.

Possible extremists would never declare victory over a remodeled 40 year old mosque six further blocks away.

It must have a swimming pool or victory cannot be claimed.