Obama's support for Ground Zero Mosque

[Danzig]

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.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

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.

It's sad when a comedy show is more thorough than a "news" organization.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mo...t-company-trap

Jon Stewart continued his coverage of the 'Ground Zero Mosque' debate last night, focusing on Fox News' incongruities harder than he ever has. In a segment called "The Parent Company Trap," Stewart shared with his viewers how Fox News' plan to "follow the money" from mosque builder Imam Rauf to terrorists will be a tricky one because it leads right back to Fox News.

Stewart showed clips from his show last week, in which he mocked Fox News for playing a dangerous game of association based on speculation, and wherein Fox continued to mention a nameless man with ties to Imam Rauf through the "Kingdom Foundation." It turns out the man they are referring to but never name is Saudi prince Al-Waleed bin Talal, one of the biggest shareholders of Rupert Murdoch's News Corp.

Showing a photo of the prince shaking hands with Rupet Murdoch, Stewart exclaimed, "That's right, the guy they're painting as a sinister money force OWNS Fox News." Stewart then used Fox's own logic to explain how the "terror mosque" is funded by Prince Alwaleed, despite being a co-owner of Fox News, and therefore funding terrorism. So, using their logic, Stewart said, "If we want to cut off funding to the terror mosque, we must, together as a nation, stop watching Fox."

But with this new information, one thing is now uncertain. Did Fox actually not know the name of the Kingdom Foundation leader or that he is a News Corp investor? Or did they, as Stewart said, "purposefully cover it up because it didn't help their fear-driven narrative?"

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

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.

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.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

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.

people have become so quick to judge and slap labels. i thought the article was correct on every point. there is room for questioning here-it's not a simple issue, but people want to make it so.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

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.

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.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by Riot

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.

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.

[Honu]

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.

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by Honu

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.

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!

[Honu]

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

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!

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.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

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!

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

[Riot]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

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.

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

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Riot

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

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.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

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.

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"

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by Riot

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

LOL...You weren't responding to me. Even if you're were, it's pretty obvious America doesn't have over 2 million Moslems killing people (like their prophet gave them the authority to do.) Lady, you got a definite accounting problem. Why don't you present a person's position as it is? Embellishing it is a bad habit that you've picked up.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

LOL...You weren't responding to me. Even if you're were, it's pretty obvious America doesn't have over 2 million Moslems killing people (like their prophet gave them the authority to do.) Lady, you got a definite accounting problem. Why don't you present a person's position as it is? Embellishing it is a bad habit that you've picked up.

Yes, I'm the one doing embellishing, when you describe Islam as you do.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Riot

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.

Why do you always do this? It gets old. You twist everyone's words and views. For the 5,000th time, nobody on this board has said that "anyone remotely associated with Islam is an evil murdering anti-American terrorist". Nobody here has said anything like that or anything remotely similar to that.

Yet if anyone brings up anything negative about Islam, you will accuse them of having this view. I don't get it.