Originally Posted by Danzig (Post 687109)

william saletan on the proposed center, from slate:

http://www.slate.com/id/2264754/

Sensitive Conservatism
Is a mosque near Ground Zero "insensitive"?
By William Saletan
Posted Monday, Aug. 23, 2010, at 8:11 AM ET


One by one, the arguments against the proposed Islamic community center and mosque near Ground Zero have collapsed. A "13-story mosque"? No such plan. "At Ground Zero"? Wrong again. The imam's radical politics? A myth. His shadowy jihadist financiers? Imagined. His failure to denounce terrorism? Debunked. The "angry battle" he's "stoking"? Please. The guy isn't even returning phone calls. The anger and stoking have come from the other side.

So the mosque's opponents have fallen back on one last argument: sensitivity.



love this line:

With the exception of Palin, these are not stupid people.

an excerpt:

It's natural to be angry at Muslims for 9/11. In fact, it's natural to want to kill them. We've hated and killed each other for centuries. You kill us; we kill you. The "you" is collective. You aren't exactly the infidel who slew my grandfather. But you're close enough.

Seen against this backdrop, the mosque fight represents enormous progress. We aren't talking about killing Muslims or banning their religion. We're just asking them not to build a mosque near the place where they murdered thousands of our people. "Putting the mosque at a different site would demonstrate the uncommon courtesy sometimes required for us to get along," Hughes suggests. In turn, "this gesture of goodwill could lead us to a more thoughtful conversation to address some of the ugliness this controversy has engendered."

But if our revulsion at the idea of a mosque near Ground Zero is irrational—if it's based on group blame and a failure to distinguish Islam from terrorism—then maybe it isn't the mosque's planners who need to rise above their emotions. Maybe it's the rest of us.

Once we recognize the sensitivity argument for what it is—an appeal to feelings we can't morally justify—there's no good reason why the Islamic center shouldn't be built at its planned site, in the neighborhood where its imam already preaches and its members work and congregate. Asking them to reorder their lives to accommodate our instinctive reaction is wrong. We can transcend that reaction, and we should.

the last paragraph, which i agree should be the real talking points:

By all means, let's have a thoughtful conversation about Islam and its place in the United States. Let's ask the imam what he means when he says sharia is compatible with the U.S. Constitution. Let's confront the reluctance of Muslim clerics, including this one, to denounce Hamas. And let's demand transparency in the fundraising process so extremists don't finance the new building. Moving the building farther away from Ground Zero won't advance any of these discussions. It's the wrong fight. Let it go.

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin (Post 687252)

In that last paragraph, the author brought up the imam's assessment that sharia law is compatible with the Constitution. There is one poster here that probably thinks the author must be a racist, bigot, and islamophobe since he dared to be even slightly critical of the imam. Anyone who has any questions or concerns about Islam is a bigot. Do you know how I know? Because one of the posters here has basically said that.

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin (Post 687252)

In that last paragraph, the author brought up the imam's assessment that sharia law is compatible with the Constitution. There is one poster here that probably thinks the author must be a racist, bigot, and islamophobe since he dared to be even slightly critical of the imam. Anyone who has any questions or concerns about Islam is a bigot. Do you know how I know? Because one of the posters here has basically said that.

Originally Posted by Riot (Post 687355)

Ad hominem is a great debate tactic at times - glad you find it useful.

There's a marked difference between discussing a religion in an objective, inquisitive manner, and maintaining anyone remotely associated with it is an evil murdering anti-American terrorist.

Originally Posted by Riot (Post 687355)

Ad hominem is a great debate tactic at times - glad you find it useful.

There's a marked difference between discussing a religion in an objective, inquisitive manner, and maintaining anyone remotely associated with it is an evil murdering anti-American terrorist.

Originally Posted by Honu (Post 687384)

I wonder how people would have felt in 1950 if in Pearl Harbor the Japanese would have wanted to build a cultural center near the shore of the U.S.S Arizona.

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER (Post 687364)

When you do that, you seem so rabid. Why do you distort people's positions so much? It's like a less expensive form of lying.

Originally Posted by Riot (Post 687401)

Yes, I think there is plenty of beyond-obvious Muslim hate on this board, from some.

Originally Posted by hi_im_god (Post 687400)

http://jcch.com/

google map the address.

they probably would have wanted to put the f'in slants in internment camps. again.

hey! i've got a great idea! let's repeat this over and over again!

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin (Post 687408)

I think your definition of "hate" is quite different from the rest of us. If a person expresses concerns about aspects of a religion, it does not mean they "hate" all the members of that religion.

Originally Posted by Riot (Post 687401)

Yes, I think there is plenty of beyond-obvious Muslim hate on this board, from some.

Originally Posted by Riot (Post 687421)

I hope so. For example, my definition doesn't include referring to all Muslims together as "they" or "tame", or denigrating as in, "This so called religion (more of a hate group than a religion)" or "the most severe hypocrites on earth"

Originally Posted by Honu (Post 687410)

But they didnt build the fn thing 10 years after they bombed the crap out of us.
The Hawaiians are a pretty forgiving folk the military people who were there who survived maybe not so much. I think had the U.S not had a base there and was able to keep the Japanese from taking over the island the Hawaiians might have had just a lil diffirent view. Had the Japanese conqured the island and did to the Hawaiian people what they did to the other islands they captured maybe the locals would have a diffirent outlook.

Originally Posted by hi_im_god (Post 687400)

http://jcch.com/

google map the address.

they probably would have wanted to put the f'in slants in internment camps.

hey! i've got a great idea! let's repeat that fine moment in civil liberties over and over again!

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER (Post 687435)

Not wanting a Mosque somewhere sensitive is the same as putting people in internment camps?

Originally Posted by hi_im_god (Post 687433)

i think the problem is you're conflating an act of war by a foreign government with an act of terrorism by people who were muslim.

there is no united states of islam that attacked us.

confusing the two doesn't serve any national goal. it serves a narrow political purpose for one party over the next few months.

Originally Posted by Riot (Post 687421)

I hope so. For example, my definition doesn't include referring to all Muslims together as "they" or "tame", or denigrating as in, "This so called religion (more of a hate group than a religion)" or "the most severe hypocrites on earth"

Originally Posted by Honu (Post 687438)

But the terrorists have declared war on "us" just because they dont all reside in one country doesnt mean that it isnt a combined effort. Just like Im sure not all the Japanese people wanted to have a war with America but the loudest and proudest did. So when the Taliban was in control of the government of Afghanastan and sent out its recruits to commit Jihad against the infidels that wasnt a sort of "government " act?
Anyway, I just think that the American Islamic community should be just a little more sensitive to the people of New York and how close to the surface this still is for them. Yes they have a right to do whatever they want to do but if they were really trying to bridge a gap between how they are and how people percieve Muslims then they would say" hey you know what, we feel you New Yorkers and we will move our cultural center somewhere else".
Instead they are pushing forward with something that is causing protests and arguments and think its just fine. They need to set an expmple of the religion of peace by making some and putting their building somewhere else.

Originally Posted by hi_im_god (Post 687441)

if we're going to successful in the struggle against religious extremism, we need to educate ourselves enough that we can distinguish between terrorists and muslims.

some muslims are going to be terrorists. a lot of terrorists are going to be muslim. i get all that.

but i think the united states vs. muslims is a much tougher fight than the united states vs. terrorists and i just hope we don't waste so much time jerking off over what serves narrow short term political gain that we lose sight of what actually matters for our long term benefit.

sufis are the unitarians of the the islamic world. if we don't have them on our side, we've taken on a much tougher fight than needed.