fish82;474513 wrote:I could be wrong....but this thread may have jumped the shark.
Heretic;474530 wrote:Well, this is the 519th post and I'm pretty sure that no one has completely changed their viewpoint or conceded anything more than, "Well, you made some good points, but I disagree with your stance in general"...so by God/Allah/Harry Potter, there's still work to be done!!!
Nowhere in that article do those religious leaders ever use the word Islamophobia- they condemn bigotry, derision, and violence, among other things. Islamophobia of course was used in the title of the article by its authors, and it makes a convenient term for you to make your point.Footwedge;475333 wrote:Here is a great article on this very subject. Religious leaders from across the spectrum, including the Anti Defamation League...all denouncing in unison the mad rage of Islamophobia. Eerily absent from this group are the radical Christian fundamentalist group. Gee, what a surprise.
http://ipsnorthamerica.net/news.php?idnews=3270
Someone needs to define Islamophobia, and quit tossing it around on everyone who opposes the GZ mosque, or everyone who questions the teachings of Islam. To someone else, "Islamophobia" could be used for people who don't want sharia law jammed down their throats.Richard Cizik, a former head of the National Association of Evangelicals and currently president of the New Evangelical Partnership for the Common Good, was particularly harsh toward those "mainly conservative Christians &who are responding with open bigotry and hatred" toward fellow citizens because of their faith. Not only are they rejecting the Constitution's first amendment protecting freedom of religion, but they "bring dishonour to the name of Jesus Christ", he said.
Are you purposefully lying or just not reading the link you are referencing?Footwedge;475333 wrote:Here is a great article on this very subject. Religious leaders from across the spectrum, including the Anti Defamation League...all denouncing in unison the mad rage of Islamophobia. Eerily absent from this group are the radical Christian fundamentalist group. Gee, what a surprise.
http://ipsnorthamerica.net/news.php?idnews=3270
ptown_trojans_1;475644 wrote:I'm guessing most people who oppose the center won't care, but here is the Imam today in the NYT:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/08/opinion/08mosque.html?ref=todayspaper
I said earlier in this thread, I don't like the "Let us build the mosque here or else radicals will recruit more radicals" argument. We could build 10 mosques directly on the site of Ground Zero, erect monuments that said, "Allah is great, and Islam is the only true religion", and radicals will still be radicals.The wonderful outpouring of support for our right to build this community center from across the social, religious and political spectrum seriously undermines the ability of anti-American radicals to recruit young, impressionable Muslims by falsely claiming that America persecutes Muslims for their faith. These efforts by radicals at distortion endanger our national security and the personal security of Americans worldwide. This is why Americans must not back away from completion of this project. If we do, we cede the discourse and, essentially, our future to radicals on both sides. The paradigm of a clash between the West and the Muslim world will continue, as it has in recent decades at terrible cost. It is a paradigm we must shift.
jhay78;475837 wrote:How about Muslims in America, the Middle East, and all the world over standing up and overthrowing the radicals who speak for them? How about Imam Rauf advocating women's rights in Iran and Saudi Arabia, or the right for Jews/Christians to worship freely in multiple Muslim countries, or the right for Jews to even enter Mecca, or the right for Muslims to convert to Christianity without the fear of being executed by their families? There are hundreds of other real, tangible ways to improve interfaith relations between Muslims and non-Muslims- constructing a $100 million facility next to Ground Zero is not one of them.
jhay78;475837 wrote:99.9% of that sounds great, and I'm glad he said the financing will be open for all to see, but I disagree with this part:
I said earlier in this thread, I don't like the "Let us build the mosque here or else radicals will recruit more radicals" argument. We could build 10 mosques directly on the site of Ground Zero, erect monuments that said, "Allah is great, and Islam is the only true religion", and radicals will still be radicals.
How about Muslims in America, the Middle East, and all the world over standing up and overthrowing the radicals who speak for them? How about Imam Rauf advocating women's rights in Iran and Saudi Arabia, or the right for Jews/Christians to worship freely in multiple Muslim countries, or the right for Jews to even enter Mecca, or the right for Muslims to convert to Christianity without the fear of being executed by their families? There are hundreds of other real, tangible ways to improve interfaith relations between Muslims and non-Muslims- constructing a $100 million facility next to Ground Zero is not one of them.
I Wear Pants;475853 wrote:So the .01% you disagree with is a semantic argument about his belief that us being welcoming of different religions makes it difficult for wackos to claim that we persecute people is enough for you to think this is a terrible idea outright?
ptown_trojans_1;475866 wrote:Because, it is much more difficult than just saying, "Hey King Abdullah, open up!" It is social, economic, historical, and cultural. It takes time, and will not happen overnight.
jhay78;476127 wrote:No- his past controversial statements about America/terrorism, along with his refusal to condemn Hamas, make his "building bridges" and "interfaith healing" talk a little hollow. I just think the proposal, coming from him, makes it controversial. Now, if non-Muslims in NYC came up with the idea (and the funding) to build an interfaith center next to Ground Zero, then that would be a genuine statement of "Let's build some bridges here". To ptown's point below, it would be like the Saudis holding a "Jews are welcome to Mecca" festival. That would promote interfaith healing. But if Jews worldwide were shaking their fists, clamoring for a syangogue to be built in Mecca, and predicting a future increase in radical Judaic terrorism if such weren't built, that would not promote healing of anything.
I agree completely- I don't expect him (or anyone) to solve stuff like that anytime soon- I just think two blocks from Ground Zero is an odd place to start.
I Wear Pants;478672 wrote:Ok fair enough. But why is it that Muslims cannot build an interfaith center?
Also, why is 5, 7, 10, whatever blocks away okay but 2 is somehow taboo? Where is the arbitrary "you should build nothing Muslim associated beyond this point" line? And why are you not similarly outraged at smut stores in the area?
fish82;479602 wrote:1. No one is saying they can't. The question is whether they should. We're expected to show "sensitivity" to their needs/wants at every turn. Is it that unreasonable to expect some in return?
B. I don't recall Larry Flynt or Vivid Video knocking down any buildings and/or killing any people in NYC. Your analogies need some work.
I am sure SOME people with deep emotional wounds dont think Muslims should even be allowed in this country, should we listen to them? I am sure some think we should nuke the middle east, should we listen to them also? what about the people with deep emotional wounds who think the mosque should be built there?HitsRus;479624 wrote: While I don't necessarily diasagree fundamentally with your argument/statements, you have to admit that yours is an 'above the fray' viewpoint. You make statements and judgement of 'rationality' and 'justification' ignoring and dismissing the deep emotional wounds surrounding the area that SOME people have over the events that happened 9 years ago today.
I Wear Pants;478672 wrote:Ok fair enough. But why is it that Muslims cannot build an interfaith center?
Also, why is 5, 7, 10, whatever blocks away okay but 2 is somehow taboo? Where is the arbitrary "you should build nothing Muslim associated beyond this point" line? And why are you not similarly outraged at smut stores in the area?
Sounds like Imam Rauf a) is a little hypocritical and b) has no problem intervening elsewhere around the worldHere’s an interesting thing about the man behind the mosque. A few months back, a controversial court ruling in Malaysia held that “Allah,” the Arabic word for God, was not the exclusive property of Muslims. A Christian monthly, the Herald, had decided it would use “Allah” to refer to God — as Imam Rauf is fond of saying, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are all Abrahamic faiths whose adherents worship the same deity, right? So why not use the same name?
It turns out that tolerant, moderate Malaysian Muslims didn’t see things quite that way. They took the Christians’ ecumenical gesture as an affront — an effort to proselytize for Christianity or, as Imam Rauf himself put it, “to manipulate the word [“Allah”] to win converts.” So the tolerant, moderate Muslims did their usual Terry-Jackass-Jones-on-steroids routine: They didn’t just burn Bibles, they fire-bombed churches. Non-Islamic proselytism is prohibited by sharia, as Imam Rauf, who wants the United States to be more sharia-compliant, could tell you.
And what did Rauf do? Did he condemn this blatant Christianophobia? Did he lecture Malaysians that the Herald was perfectly within its legal rights to invoke “Allah” in the service of Christianity, and that living in a tolerant, pluralistic society that ensures free expression means accepting the Herald’s actions even if they make Muslims uncomfortable?
Are you kidding?
Instead, Imam Rauf took to the newspapers to admonish Christians on the need to show more sensitivity to Muslims’ feelings. “My message to the Christian community in Malaysia,” he proclaimed, “is that using the word Allah to mean the Christian God may be theologically and legally correct, but in the context of Malaysia, it is socially provocative. If you want to have influence with people in Malaysia, you must find a way to convey your message without provoking this kind of response.”
You know what else might be “socially provocative”? A giant mosque at Ground Zero.
I don't recall this Imam or the people that will go to this community center having anything to do with 9/11.fish82;479602 wrote:1. No one is saying they can't. The question is whether they should. We're expected to show "sensitivity" to their needs/wants at every turn. Is it that unreasonable to expect some in return?
B. I don't recall Larry Flynt or Vivid Video knocking down any buildings and/or killing any people in NYC. Your analogies need some work.
I wasn't making an analogy...merely knocking down his comparing the Mosque to a smut store. Hence, my two part post.Glory Days;479649 wrote:So does your analogy, this Imam had nothing to do with knocking down any buildings any more than Larry Flynt did.
I Wear Pants;479694 wrote:I don't recall this Imam or the people that will go to this community center having anything to do with 9/11.
HitsRus, It doesn't bother me and I really don't care if it is or isn't built because I don't live there. But I also think its worth noting that the Imam is in a terrible position. If he moves it then he's bowing to the pressures of intolerant, irrational people that hate Muslims. If he does build it then he's an insensitive asshole trying to rub salt in a wound and celebrating 9/11. Nothing he can do is going to be seen as a good move at this point by many people.
jhay78;479690 wrote:In honor of Footwedge, another good article from Andrew McCarthy (National Review!):
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/246033/burning-questions-andrew-c-mccarthy?page=2
About the Imam:
Sounds like Imam Rauf a) is a little hypocritical and b) has no problem intervening elsewhere around the worldHere’s an interesting thing about the man behind the mosque. A few months back, a controversial court ruling in Malaysia held that “Allah,” the Arabic word for God, was not the exclusive property of Muslims. A Christian monthly, the Herald, had decided it would use “Allah” to refer to God — as Imam Rauf is fond of saying, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are all Abrahamic faiths whose adherents worship the same deity, right? So why not use the same name?
It turns out that tolerant, moderate Malaysian Muslims didn’t see things quite that way. They took the Christians’ ecumenical gesture as an affront — an effort to proselytize for Christianity or, as Imam Rauf himself put it, “to manipulate the word [“Allah”] to win converts.” So the tolerant, moderate Muslims did their usual Terry-Jackass-Jones-on-steroids routine: They didn’t just burn Bibles, they fire-bombed churches. Non-Islamic proselytism is prohibited by sharia, as Imam Rauf, who wants the United States to be more sharia-compliant, could tell you.
And what did Rauf do? Did he condemn this blatant Christianophobia? Did he lecture Malaysians that the Herald was perfectly within its legal rights to invoke “Allah” in the service of Christianity, and that living in a tolerant, pluralistic society that ensures free expression means accepting the Herald’s actions even if they make Muslims uncomfortable?
Are you kidding?
Instead, Imam Rauf took to the newspapers to admonish Christians on the need to show more sensitivity to Muslims’ feelings. “My message to the Christian community in Malaysia,” he proclaimed, “is that using the word Allah to mean the Christian God may be theologically and legally correct, but in the context of Malaysia, it is socially provocative. If you want to have influence with people in Malaysia, you must find a way to convey your message without provoking this kind of response.”
You know what else might be “socially provocative”? A giant mosque at Ground Zero.
FatHobbit;480399 wrote:If true, that is hypocritical. But it's a community center, not a mosque. They already have a mosque.
Bingo. He's a pretty smart guy, and he hit the nail on the head there- but he doesn't want to abide by his own standards now in NYC. In a perfect world, the mainstream media would've found the Imam's piece and questioned/pointed out the hypocrisy there. But alas, we're left to depend on guys like McCarthy from NR to dig this up.My message to the Christian community in Malaysia is that using the word Allah to mean the Christian God may be theologically and legally correct, but in the context of Malaysia, it is socially provocative. If you want to have influence with people in Malaysia, you must find a way to convey your message without provoking this kind of response.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/08/opinion/08mosque.htmlThe wonderful outpouring of support for our right to build this community center from across the social, religious and political spectrum seriously undermines the ability of anti-American radicals to recruit young, impressionable Muslims by falsely claiming that America persecutes Muslims for their faith. These efforts by radicals at distortion endanger our national security and the personal security of Americans worldwide. This is why Americans must not back away from completion of this project. If we do, we cede the discourse and, essentially, our future to radicals on both sides. The paradigm of a clash between the West and the Muslim world will continue, as it has in recent decades at terrible cost. It is a paradigm we must shift.
