Building a Mosque near Ground Zero.

[Master of Ossus]

Because some countries like the USA and Saudi Arabia sponsored them or still do. In the long run, considering the history of Muslims in the USA, they do not matter, unless you seriously want to argue they comprise the majority or a significant minority of US muslims.

We're not exclusively talking about US Muslims. I have no idea where you have gotten that impression. Moreover, sponsorship from countries like the USA and Saudi Arabia, to the extent that it is the problem in areas like the Sudan and Afghanistan, is the long-run equilibrium. Obviously this is a long-run problem.

Nice try. Unfortunately, it is still dumb - if every other religion besides yours can build a religious building where they want, then yes, your religion is second-class. Would there be a stink about it if it was a christian church? No?

I think people would have a problem with it if a Christian church were to decide to set up a church right next to the Oklahoma City Federal Building. But in any case, who cares? That's a very slight imposition on one's religion in acknowledgment of one of the worst terrorist attacks in history.

I am sorry, I must have missed the part where Northern Ireland was somehow part of the USA.

I'm sorry. I missed the part where we were dealing exclusively with the United States.

Evidence? This tired line is bandied about in virtually every thread we have on the subject of how to deal with radical Islam. There's simply no evidence to suggest that moderate Muslims are a few minor inconveniences away from turning terrorist.

So why alienate them and not allow them to practice their religion where they want then if there is no thread from them?

In case you can't recall, I asked for evidence of your claim. Post it or retract.

But in any case, it's hardly "alienating" to tell people that they can't set up a religious building in the same area in which thousands of people were killed in the name of their religion.

So...because past repression has been a mistake, we should continue with it because....why, exactly?

No. God. Are you deliberately ignoring the point or are you actually this stupid? Moderate people are not one minor inconvenience away from becoming terrorists. This is illustrated by the fact that Japanese Americans were interned for years but were not magically radicalized by the experience. We can expect the same thing out of Muslims in the United States if we ask them to tolerate minor inconveniences as a result of the demonstrated threat that their religion poses to society. The experience of the Japanese Americans in World War II completely puts the lie to your argument about how alienating moderates drives them towards radicals. It doesn't. Either post evidence to support this claim or retract.

Oh, c'mon. You got to be pretty desperate to attempt this line. You know full well that the greatest recruitment drive for Al-Quaida was the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. Building a mosque is pretty trivial in comparison.

Who. Stinking. Cares? The point is that past actions do not justify continuing with failed policies.

And you still have to really present any evidence that this would somehow help al-quaida and why the dangers of those outweigh the benefits of making muslims feel they are a part of this society. I mean, this is of the same logic that we should not report on casualties or question our leaders because that would embolden the terrorists.

Al Qaeda have been known to use Muslim activities in the US as evidence of their successes and the US's weaknesses. Indeed, they've suggested that an uninvited couple being able to enter the White House somehow indicated that Obama was incapable of governing. They pretty much throw things at the wall and see what sticks. The difference, here, is that this one can be tied directly to their own actions. We shouldn't encourage them when it costs us nothing to do otherwise. As for the burden, that's on you to show. I've already asked you to present evidence that alienating Muslims transforms them into radicals, so I'll ask you, again: post evidence for that claim.

[Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba]

The idea that destruction of holy sites is even a normal practice at all of Muslim peoples is farcical. There's a reason why Turkey has the best-preserved ruins of the European Antiquity in the world - largely, Muslim practice has been to revere and preserve the legacies of the past. When the Ottomans took Constantinople, they re-furbished not only the Aya Sofia, but many districts of the city, including Churches, including buildings and neighbourhoods that had been ruins since 1204.

In fact, the only examples of destruction of heathen sites I can think of that do not boil down to nearly-anecdotal accounts of villagers pillaging old, abandoned churches for marble or soldiers looting are examples that come from the Twentieth Century, after the European dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire, after the Christian subjugation of the vast majority of Muslims, and the subsequent reactionary rise in the popularity of violently fundamentalist practices, most based on the British-backed House of Saud.

Though it ought to be mentioned that the occasional defacement of Byzantine icons by earnest Muslims was certainly an act of religiously-inspired vandalism that deserves mention as an addendum.

[Thanas]

Because some countries like the USA and Saudi Arabia sponsored them or still do. In the long run, considering the history of Muslims in the USA, they do not matter, unless you seriously want to argue they comprise the majority or a significant minority of US muslims.

We're not exclusively talking about US Muslims. I have no idea where you have gotten that impression. Moreover, sponsorship from countries like the USA and Saudi Arabia, to the extent that it is the problem in areas like the Sudan and Afghanistan, is the long-run equilibrium. Obviously this is a long-run problem.

This is a US mosque we are talking about. It will be used by US Muslims. Why shouldn't this be the case`

I think people would have a problem with it if a Christian church were to decide to set up a church right next to the Oklahoma City Federal Building. But in any case, who cares? That's a very slight imposition on one's religion in acknowledgment of one of the worst terrorist attacks in history.

If said Christian church were preaching hate, yes. If not, why does it matter? There is a Jesus wept statue already there.

I'm sorry. I missed the part where we were dealing exclusively with the United States.

What, you think a US mosque used by US muslims somehow is relevant to...what goes on in Dublin?

In case you can't recall, I asked for evidence of your claim. Post it or retract.

I don't have to do jack. You are the one claiming it would hand the terrorists a moral victory and that alienating muslims is worth it. You are making the positive claim, now prove it.

But in any case, it's hardly "alienating" to tell people that they can't set up a religious building in the same area in which thousands of people were killed in the name of their religion.

It is if you equate them with the people who did it.

No. God. Are you deliberately ignoring the point or are you actually this stupid? Moderate people are not one minor inconvenience away from becoming terrorists. This is illustrated by the fact that Japanese Americans were interned for years but were not magically radicalized by the experience. We can expect the same thing out of Muslims in the United States if we ask them to tolerate minor inconveniences as a result of the demonstrated threat that their religion poses to society. The experience of the Japanese Americans in World War II completely puts the lie to your argument about how alienating moderates drives them towards radicals. It doesn't. Either post evidence to support this claim or retract.

So...just because it does not alienate moderates (according to you) despite 19% of them feeling they are discriminated against and 26% of having faced suspicion due to their religion PDF....you think not allowing them to build a highly publicized mosque now is somehow going to help that feeling?

In any case, your argument that just because Japanese did not fight for Japan (how could they, seeing they were locked up) means they suffered no loss of loyalty or respect for the USA is completely idiotic and I'd like you to source it now.

Who. Stinking. Cares? The point is that past actions do not justify continuing with failed policies.

You have not even proven that this will in any way help Al-Quaida.

Al Qaeda have been known to use Muslim activities in the US as evidence of their successes and the US's weaknesses. Indeed, they've suggested that an uninvited couple being able to enter the White House somehow indicated that Obama was incapable of governing. They pretty much throw things at the wall and see what sticks. The difference, here, is that this one can be tied directly to their own actions. We shouldn't encourage them when it costs us nothing to do otherwise.

Right. And Al-Quaida matters in a discussion about american muslims how, exactly? DO you deny that this is primarily an issue facing muslims in new york? If so, why should Al-Quaida even matter here?

[Thanas]

Oh, and this WSJ article sums it up quite well.

When Kahn’s organization found a vacant property on Park Place, the former site of a Burlington Coat Factory that had been damaged by airplane debris on September 11, 2001, the potent symbolism of the site also became a compelling rationale for the project. “We decided we wanted to look at the legacy of 9/11 and do something positive,” she explained in an interview. Her group represents moderate Muslims who want “to reverse to trend of extremism and the kind of ideology that the extremists are spreading.”

[...]

“People often say, ‘Where are the moderate Muslim voices?’ A building like this, with this scale, will be an amplifier for that often silent majority,” Kahn says. “What most people don’t know is that the people who are driving this forward are very integrated into the community downtown. We are nothing to be feared.”

[Guardsman Bass]

Al Qaeda have been known to use Muslim activities in the US as evidence of their successes and the US's weaknesses. Indeed, they've suggested that an uninvited couple being able to enter the White House somehow indicated that Obama was incapable of governing. They pretty much throw things at the wall and see what sticks. The difference, here, is that this one can be tied directly to their own actions.

Who the fuck cares? Do you have any proof that this type of stuff leads to any real increase in danger to the US, as opposed to what the US invasions did by feeding the "War on Islam" narrative and driving an international movement of potential jihadists into Iraq and Afghanistan to take potshots at US troops? Do you think a whole bunch of potential new terrorists are going to join up or donate money to their cause because a group of American muslims built a community center a couple blocks from the actual site?

In other words, nobody gives a fuck if Al-Qaeda points to a mosque in New York City as an example of "See! We've shamed the infidels!", unless you've got some proof that this actually helps them or hurts the US.

EDIT: Thanas more or less said the same thing as I was writing this, so credit to him.

[Master of Ossus]

Thanas, I concede the larger point. I do, though, question the "moderate" Muslims' judgment. For a group demanding tolerance to simultaneously build a mosque in an area where it is likely to cause offense does not strike me as being an intelligent decision, although I concede that they have the right to be morons.

I do, though, disagree with your characterization of persecution as constituting some sort of serious issue.

So...just because it does not alienate moderates (according to you) despite 19% of them feeling they are discriminated against and 26% of having faced suspicion due to their religion PDF....you think not allowing them to build a highly publicized mosque now is somehow going to help that feeling? with failed policies.

Many groups feel discriminated against in the United States in even larger numbers. 42% of blacks, for instance, said that they felt discriminated against in the last month alone. Indeed, 26% of Muslims self-reporting discrimination or suspicion indicates relatively low levels of perceived persecution in comparison with ethnic and racial minorities.

In any case, your argument that just because Japanese did not fight for Japan (how could they, seeing they were locked up) means they suffered no loss of loyalty or respect for the USA is completely idiotic and I'd like you to source it now.

But they weren't made dangerous by these feelings--the issue you've purported to care most about. Moreover, not all Japanese Americans were locked up. Japanese Americans in Hawaii, for instance, were exempt, as were Japanese Americans who lived far enough East (including my grandfather and his family) during the conflict. It wasn't simply an inability to fight for Japan--none of them wanted to.

[Illuminatus Primus]

What happened to private and unfettered rights to property? Is that only for the Chosen Race?

[Ritterin Sophia]

What happened to private and unfettered rights to property? Is that only for the Chosen Race?

I don't think we're talking race here, I honestly don't think if the First Baptist Church wanted to put a church in the community there would be this kind of animosity. Having said that it's still bigotry, just not the kind based on race.

[Sarevok]

Has anyone taken look at jihadist propaganda ? They always portray themselves as fighting Christian crusaders. Would you confirm a UFO nuts theory by borrowing a USAF spaceplane and buzz his house ? Giving credibility to these nutcases by blocking construction of a mosque only makes them stronger. In the 90s in my country if someone claimed to be fighting crusaders they would looked at as being mentally ill. Today it is an entire valid banner to rally around because of the climate of self perpetuating hate on both sides the WoT has produced.

[General Zod]

Has anyone taken look at jihadist propaganda ? They always portray themselves as fighting Christian crusaders. Would you confirm a UFO nuts theory by borrowing a USAF spaceplane and buzz his house ? Giving credibility to these nutcases by blocking construction of a mosque only makes them stronger. In the 90s in my country if someone claimed to be fighting crusaders they would looked at as being mentally ill. Today it is an entire valid banner to rally around because of the climate of self perpetuating hate on both sides the WoT has produced.

You'd think they'd twist events to their needs regardless of whether the mosque gets approved. Mosque gets the go-ahead? "Hai guiz, the Americans are weak! The Mosque proves they'll let us put up monuments if we make our demands loud enough!" Mosque gets blocked? "Hai guiz, the Americans are cowards and won't put up a mosque because they're afraid of us!"

[Sarevok]

Yeah. This mindset on both only goes to prove no matter how we comfort ourselves this really is a christian vs muslims war to some extent. It would be easier if the christian fundies and jihadis could be isolated and put on a battlefield to annihilate each other. But in the sadly in the real world it is them fighting with rest of us ordinary people suffering the consequences.

[Thanas]

Thanas, I concede the larger point. I do, though, question the "moderate" Muslims' judgment. For a group demanding tolerance to simultaneously build a mosque in an area where it is likely to cause offense does not strike me as being an intelligent decision, although I concede that they have the right to be morons.

See my quote above, they wanted to reach out to the community and explain to people that they were not murderous fanatics.

I do, though, disagree with your characterization of persecution as constituting some sort of serious issue.

So...just because it does not alienate moderates (according to you) despite 19% of them feeling they are discriminated against and 26% of having faced suspicion due to their religion PDF....you think not allowing them to build a highly publicized mosque now is somehow going to help that feeling? with failed policies.

Many groups feel discriminated against in the United States in even larger numbers. 42% of blacks, for instance, said that they felt discriminated against in the last month alone. Indeed, 26% of Muslims self-reporting discrimination or suspicion indicates relatively low levels of perceived persecution in comparison with ethnic and racial minorities.

Yes. Still, there are 26%. So why make it higher? Because if you deny them the mosque, they will get higher. As an aside, it never ceases me how casual the USA is about racism. Over here, a third of the immigrants facing discrimination is considered a "FREAKING HUGE PROBLEM" and caused all kinds of problems for the Government.

In the USA: 42 of blacks are discriminated again, so 26% of Muslims is still small, so we can afford to raise that number.

But they weren't made dangerous by these feelings--the issue you've purported to care most about. Moreover, not all Japanese Americans were locked up. Japanese Americans in Hawaii, for instance, were exempt, as were Japanese Americans who lived far enough East (including my grandfather and his family) during the conflict. It wasn't simply an inability to fight for Japan--none of them wanted to.

Yes. So maybe they were not willing to fight for Japan. But you can't tell me they did not feel resentment at having their property stolen, thrown into concentration camps and then not getting reimbursed for their suffering except with a pittance and only after several years of lobbying, with final payments only having been made in the 90s. I mean, unless Japanese are somehow different from all the victims of other state oppression, then I really, really have to wonder why you think that they did not feel betrayed and alienated.

Add to that the larger point that they have already paid for the land and have the right to build their mosque- which you already conceded - then it makes me wonder how you think forbidding them to built their mosque does not make them feel alienated and unwelcome. Even if none of them turn to suicide bombing, I bet they will be greatly disappointed and disillusioned about the land of the free.

[loomer]

Aren't a lot of American muslims, y'know, black? Because that'd mean significant overlap between the two figures.

[Master of Ossus]

See my quote above, they wanted to reach out to the community and explain to people that they were not murderous fanatics.

Again, they decided to show this to the community by building a mosque where it would offend people. That's... really, really dumb.

Yes. Still, there are 26%. So why make it higher? Because if you deny them the mosque, they will get higher. As an aside, it never ceases me how casual the USA is about racism. Over here, a third of the immigrants facing discrimination is considered a "FREAKING HUGE PROBLEM" and caused all kinds of problems for the Government.

In the USA: 42 of blacks are discriminated again, so 26% of Muslims is still small, so we can afford to raise that number.

This is self-reported discrimination, though. Believe me, I've talked to plenty of people who report that they're discriminated against, and it's almost invariably bullshit. Jesse Jackson thinks Lebron James was discriminated against, for Christ's sake. There are degrees of discrimination that aren't captured by a poll asking people to describe their own situation.

Yes. So maybe they were not willing to fight for Japan. But you can't tell me they did not feel resentment at having their property stolen, thrown into concentration camps and then not getting reimbursed for their suffering except with a pittance and only after several years of lobbying, with final payments only having been made in the 90s. I mean, unless Japanese are somehow different from all the victims of other state oppression, then I really, really have to wonder why you think that they did not feel betrayed and alienated.

Because.... really... they don't. The Japanese American community was extremely successful after World War II. Even the people who left camp are now among the most affluent of all US ethnic groups (easily outpacing whites in terms of total assets and earnings). A small fraction of people were upset, but for virtually all of them it was water under the bridge by 1960 at the latest. They just got over it, and if you talk to these people today, they'll say that things were bad in camp, but they're also really happy to be living here now.

[Gil Hamilton]

Again, they decided to show this to the community by building a mosque where it would offend people. That's... really, really dumb.

That sounds like a problem with the offended, not with the people who own the property. I've never understood the notion that you should stop doing something because bigots may not like it. These folks own the land, I believe, and aren't JUST putting a mosque there, where as before they purchased the land, it was a crumbling, damaged part of New York. That sounds like "urban development" to me, which is something that area needs. Oooooh, those sneaky Islamicists, investing in a neighborhood that needs investment.

What's more important, that Kahn's group is investing a considerably amount of money in a neighborhood that REMAINS somewhat damaged or listen to morons who think that all Muslims are terrorists and that they are putting up, what was it that that jackass said? "A terrorist monument". New York benefits more from investment money than the bleatings of idiots.

[Thanas]

See my quote above, they wanted to reach out to the community and explain to people that they were not murderous fanatics.

Again, they decided to show this to the community by building a mosque where it would offend people. That's... really, really dumb.

It sounds more like the offended are bigots or severely retarded.

This is self-reported discrimination, though. Believe me, I've talked to plenty of people who report that they're discriminated against, and it's almost invariably bullshit. Jesse Jackson thinks Lebron James was discriminated against, for Christ's sake. There are degrees of discrimination that aren't captured by a poll asking people to describe their own situation.

You think anecdotes are really that meaningful in a poll how they perceive the stuff? Man, this thread is comedy gold.

Because.... really... they don't. The Japanese American community was extremely successful after World War II. Even the people who left camp are now among the most affluent of all US ethnic groups (easily outpacing whites in terms of total assets and earnings). A small fraction of people were upset, but for virtually all of them it was water under the bridge by 1960 at the latest. They just got over it, and if you talk to these people today, they'll say that things were bad in camp, but they're also really happy to be living here now.

Where is the source for that?

[Master of Ossus]

It sounds more like the offended are bigots or severely retarded.

Well, that justifies pissing them off unnecessarily.

You think anecdotes are really that meaningful in a poll how they perceive the stuff? Man, this thread is comedy gold.

I think they're about as meaningful as polls about how they perceive things, since that's just an aggregation of anecdotes without context.

Where is the source for that?

It's been pretty heavily reported. Sowell notes that Japanese Americans had caught up with the white population as of ~1960, and that the Sansei, who have no personal memory of the internment, are the ones who are most vocal about it. Moreover, sociological research indicates extremely high assimilation rates among Japanese Americans and the success even of former internees in job and labor markets in the 1960's and onward.

[Akhlut]

It sounds more like the offended are bigots or severely retarded.

Well, that justifies pissing them off unnecessarily.

Why should we care about them getting pissed off about what the Cordoba Initiative does with their own land?

[Master of Ossus]

Why should we care about them getting pissed off about what the Cordoba Initiative does with their own land?

Because, according to Cordoba Initiative, their goal is the exact opposite of pissing people off. They're trying to promote tolerance, but have chosen a completely stupid method of going out and getting it.

[Thanas]

It sounds more like the offended are bigots or severely retarded.

Well, that justifies pissing them off unnecessarily.

You think anecdotes are really that meaningful in a poll how they perceive the stuff? Man, this thread is comedy gold.

I think they're about as meaningful as polls about how they perceive things, since that's just an aggregation of anecdotes without context.

Yeah, really, they did not teach you statistics or polling, did they? Your anecdotes in no way impact the vast majority of statements made, since they are the anecdotes of somebody who in no way feels discriminated against.

Where is the source for that?

It's been pretty heavily reported. Sowell notes that Japanese Americans had caught up with the white population as of ~1960, and that the Sansei, who have no personal memory of the internment, are the ones who are most vocal about it.

Please direct me to the page where he talks about their attitudes towards the internment. In the meantime, this book says that many were distrustful of whites and felt a deep sense of shame, while this book has much more detailed and nuanced viewpoints, including the story of those who returned to Japan rather than be Americans any longer.

Why should we care about them getting pissed off about what the Cordoba Initiative does with their own land?

Because, according to Cordoba Initiative, their goal is the exact opposite of pissing people off. They're trying to promote tolerance, but have chosen a completely stupid method of going out and getting it.

So the pope asking for forgiveness in Jerusalem or Dachau was also completely stupid?

[Akhlut]

Why should we care about them getting pissed off about what the Cordoba Initiative does with their own land?

Because, according to Cordoba Initiative, their goal is the exact opposite of pissing people off. They're trying to promote tolerance, but have chosen a completely stupid method of going out and getting it.

Except that a lot of the people who are most pissed off are the sort who will never trust Muslims. People who think what they're building is a 'monument to terrorism.' Their mere existence is offensive to those people, so why should they even be considered in this?

[Kanastrous]

Without much time for the requisite research I've been re-reading the thread from its start and have come to agree with Thanas.

Your point, sir.

[Darmalus]

My only objection to this building is that it is ugly. The shiny white doesn't look good next to it's stone neighbors, and the surface pattern would look better on a wrought iron garden fence.

I don't actually care what gets put in the building, mosque, post office, giant Christopher Walken statue, doesn't matter. The important thing is the exterior is an eyesore.

[Kanastrous]

What happened to private and unfettered rights to property? Is that only for the Chosen Race?

Which Chosen Race do you have in mind?

[Thanas]

Without much time for the requisite research I've been re-reading the thread from its start and have come to agree with Thanas.

Your point, sir.

That is very decent of you.