I don’t doubt that a majority would oppose the “Ground Zero” [sic] “mosque” [sic] even absent demagoguery & misinformation. But not 68%-29%.
I don’t doubt that a majority would oppose the “Ground Zero” [sic] “mosque” [sic] even absent demagoguery & misinformation. But not 68%-29%.
The question was asked in a fair manner, more or less (i.e. the wording of the question was probably as fair as could be). My question to you would be, if you don’t believe the 68-29 number, do you believe the 52-46 numbers on the question of whether gays and lesbians should have a constitutional right to marry? And if that 68-29 spread seems too large, wouldn’t one logically infer that the 52-46 spread should be larger? I don’t think the 52-46 numbers are believable.
Put another way, I think the 52-46 numbers are probably off and a realistic gauge of public sentiment would switch those numbers to something like 46 in favor and 52 opposed. But if that were true, I’d also surmise the 68-29 split is more accurately something like 74-23.
In any case, I’d like to see this so-called demagoguery and misinformation. The sentiments against allowing an Islamic center close to Ground Zero (whether two blocks or right on site) are wholly understandable.
I disagree with Andrew that all of the sentiments againts the mosque are understandable, I think a lot of them that I have seen and heard are full of hatred and not reasonable at all. I think there is going to be a sizeable amount of people who DO have defensible reactions though.
I personally think that the founders of this mosque/center shouldn’t build it where they are planning to out of respect and sensitivity given the circumstances, but I abhor the reactions of others who are equating them with the same people who commited the atrocities on 9/11.
LOL…love the [sic]s
You guys do realize the whole purpose of building the mosque on that site is to commemorate the “Islamic victory” of 9/11 don’t you?
How about we agree to let them build this mosque the day after the Saudis allow Christians to build a church anywhere in Saudi Arabia?
“You guys do realize the whole purpose of building the mosque on that site is to commemorate the “Islamic victory” of 9/11 don’t you?”
Citation needed.
#2 – since the folk that committed the atrocities on 9/11 are very dead right now, it’s clear that those seeking to build the Cordoba House mosque are not the same folk …
It is, however, a mosque for the same religion whose tenets, currently, are expansionist proselytising by force … the Qu’ran is explicit in saying that, where two passages are contradictory, the latter one has effect – and the later passages in the Qu’ran are the more violent, less peaceful ones …
By current Islamic dogma, most US citizens are half-people (eligible to be dhimmi) … and a bunch are counted as not-people (those who are neither Muslim nor dhimmi) …
Now, if Cordoba House was being designed to contain a Mosque, a Synagogue, and a Christian Church (for all three of the Peoples of the Book), I would be less against the idea … but, as it stands, the idea sends all the wrong messages, and none of the desirable ones …
Also:
“How about we agree to let them build this mosque the day after the Saudis allow Christians to build a church anywhere in Saudi Arabia?”
Since when do we base our decisions in this country on what some other country allows?
“How about we agree to let Muslims vote after the Saudi’s allow women to vote”
You do realize that not all Muslims are Saudi’s right? That the Saudi’s don’t represent all Muslims? That in addition to their being two major branches of Islam that within those branches there are many many different groups who view the Koran in a variety of interpretations right?
Should we hold all Christians responsible for the act of the loonatic fringe who do things like blow up abortion clinics?
… throughout Islam’s history, whenever a region was conquered, one of the first signs of consolidation was/is the erection of a mosque atop the sacred sites of the vanquished: the pagan Ka’ba temple in Arabia was converted into Islam’s holiest site, the mosque of Mecca; the al-Aqsa mosque, Islam’s third holiest site, was built atop Solomon’s temple in Jerusalem; the Umayyad mosque was built atop the Church of St. John the Baptist; and the Hagia Sophia was converted into a mosque upon the conquest of Constantinople.
http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/07/08/bloomberg-submits-to-islam-honors-911-victory-for-allah/
Nevertheless, the conquests of Radical Islamist Jihad have tended toward the conversion of churches into mosques, most notably the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem and the Hagia Sophia in what is now Istanbul. These famous mosques were erected in commemoration of military victories against the West, and the new Ground Zero mosque may join them………….While New York boasts the greatest number of American Muslims, Newt Gingrich pointed out that more than 100 mosques already stand within the city, and that Park51 Mosque seems to fill an ideological, rather than a practical, purpose.
http://www.examiner.com/x-52406-Jane-Norton-Senate-Campaign-Examiner~y2010m8d5-A-Norton-Victory-and-a-Potential-Misstep-Local-Endorsement-and-Immigration-Ad
David K:
I can’t tell if you are being deliberately dense, or are just ignorant. Islam is completely intolerant of other faiths. The Koran explicitly rejects any type of interfaith outreach.
Muslims see our tolerance as a weakness to be exploited, which is the whole purpose of this mosque.
So you have no actual statements or proof that this mosque is being built for the reasons you claim, just because some mosques were built that way in the past. Of course this isn’t a mosque but a cultural center which will include a pool and other things one of which is a prayer space.
You seem to believe we should judge all Muslims based on the actions of a few without proof in individual cases. Fair enough, I am going to assume that anyone who calls themself a conservative or a Republican accurately represents your views on every issue, regardless of what you say.
In short, you are a bigot.
“I can’t tell if you are being deliberately dense, or are just ignorant. Islam is completely intolerant of other faiths. The Koran explicitly rejects any type of interfaith outreach.”
Funny, I am friends with many Muslims who respect my faith and have seen and been to interfaith events that include Muslims, but surely your bigotted extremist and absurdly generalized view of the beliefs of hundreds of millions of people around the world acting as one single monolithic belief system must be correct. I should discount all the counter examples to your bigotted view and assume you are right because you say so.
This may be true by way of a literal reading of the Quran, but that doesn’t mean that even the majority of Muslims see things that way. As an example, the Book of Mormon is quite a bizarre book, but most Mormons I know are pretty down to earth and are drawn to the church more for its focus on family life than for any other reason (e.g. the chance to become a god of their own planet in the afterlife).
<blockquote.Muslims see our tolerance as a weakness to be exploited, which is the whole purpose of this mosque.
I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt that most Muslims supporting this Islamic center generally have altruistic motives. However, I’ve read enough about the imam, Feisal Abdul Rauf, to give me concern about whether his intentions are 100% pure, and the fact is that tens of millions (if not hundreds of millions) of Muslims elsewhere in the world will see this as a Western capitulation and not as a sign of good faith and healing. That’s more than enough for me to say, ain’t no way in hell I’d support allowing this Islamic center to go forward at that location.
Of course this isn’t a mosque but a cultural center which will include a pool and other things one of which is a prayer space.
You know what Muslim “prayer spaces” are called? Mosques. So let’s cut the bullshit right now about this not being a mosque. “Islamic centers” routinely, almost invariably include mosques — they are their raison d’être. To take one local (for me) example, the Dar Al-Hijrah Islamic Center in Falls Church, whatever else it contains, is one of the DC area’s largest and most influential mosques (and of course it has hosted some pretty “moderate” characters).
AMLTrojan – I suspect that David K is not familiar with taqiyya …
Well, he sees it practiced by the Dems on a regular basis, I suppose, but I don’t know if he realises what it is as a concept …
(grin)
As usual Alasdair, you add nothing to the discussion.
David, the allegation of “bigot” is uncalled for. Let’s do a thought experiment to illustrate why the allegation is absurd.
Suppose for a minute that the WTC really was destroyed by a cabal of evil Israelis (Jewish, of course) intent of fomenting war between Muslims and the West (have I got the conspiracy theory right?). If a prominent rabbi requested to build a synagogue 2 blocks from Ground Zero, my feelings (and I suspect that of most Americans) would be the same: Hell No. Build a synagogue, and build as many of them as you want, somewhere else.
In this hypothetical, are you really going to label me and my fellow Americans as anti-Semitic and bigoted? Really?!?
@Joe Mama, you know there is a difference between a prayer space and a mosque right? I mean surely you don’t think that a chapel and a cathedral are the same thing? You can still oppose the location, but lets also not pretend they are planning on buldozing buildings left and right and putting up something with minarets from which the call to prayer can be issued so it will be constantly heard by those in downtown Manhattan.
Plus, if you’d take the time to read you’d realize that I’m not a fan of locating it where they awnt to EITHER, I’m actually on the side of Andrew and others on this, but like I also said there ARE plenty of hate filled bigots (gahrie being one of them) who are merely using it as an excuse to spread their ignorant, extremist, repugnant views.
Andrew, I didn’t call you a bigot, I called gahrie a bigot. I have said that I agree there are people who oppose this who are not bigoted, but i do think that there ARE bigots criticizing this.
I wouldn’t conclude that gahrie and other critics using similar arguments are truly bigoted, just that they are letting emotions hijack any sense of nuance — which is why you see them making overly broad statements about all Muslims that are nonetheless true at their core (e.g., the intolerance of the Quran and fundamentalist / orthodox Islam). Combined with enough anger, it can sound like hateful bigotry, but with the exception of a small minority who truly are bigoted, most people are simply reacting to a very emotional issue.
Good lord, obviously no one is suggesting there will be bulldozers clearing space for minarets, or that the call to prayer will be a nuisance. That is ridiculous. What I’m saying is that part of the space for this “Islamic center” will be used as a mosque. You know that many mosques — including many of those in Manhattan that aren’t 600 feet from Ground Zero — don’t have minarets, right?
You and Brendan should stick to arguing on First Amendment or property rights grounds, which are much stronger arguments than the tortured use of scare quotes and [sic]s to pretend that the Cordoba House isn’t really a mosque, or that 600 ft is “worlds away” from Ground Zero. Those are lame points which just weaken any valid argument in support of the mosque.
P.S. You would also do better to drop the “bigotry” ad hominem and address the many points that opponents of the mosque have raised about the shadiness of Imam Feisal Rauf (e.g., his source of funding for the mosque, his refusal to condemn terrorist organizations, etc).
I’m not sure if this is really an argument I wan’t to get into. Squabbles between religious fundamentalists bother me because both sides tend to be idiots and its generally not worth the time. But…
The first amendment is quite clear that the government cannot base its decisions based on the religion involved. So 600 feet is too close for a church or it isn’t. There isn’t really a middle ground on that. To wit, this is a local zoning issue.
Now I could, perhaps, see arguing that the particular person or group trying to build this in some way should not be permitted to do so. Such an argument though should not be simply based on religion. In other words there is a difference between a generic mosque and this specific building that is proposed. One cannot in good conscience and without being bigoted oppose a generic mosque where one would permit a church, synagogue, or any other religious structure. It may be reasonable that this person should not be permitted to build any mosque, though even then the first amendment also protects speech, so this person would need to actually be involved directly or indirectly in acts of violence for such an argument so hold significant water.
Perhaps I’m missing something, but I don’t see this as some kind of zero sum game, where in order for “us” to “win” “they” have to “lose”. (I think that’s enough scare quotes for the next week and a half.) I know gahrie in particular seems to think this very much is a zero sum game, Joe and Al to a lesser extent seem to be on board with that idea. It seems AML doesn’t but objects to the Imam involved on somewhat defensible grounds.
Beyond that, it seems like there is some kind of massive misunderstanding of Islam on this blog. Whether this is because of bad translations, willful ignorance or what I have no idea. But basing your entire understanding of a religion based on the interpretations of it’s most extreme elements seems rather short sighted. So to be clear there is nothing to make me think that as a religious tradition Islam is any better or worse than Christianity. Nor is the worst Muslim any worse than than the worst Christian. Further the best Christian is no better than the best Muslim.
Islam is no more or less evil than Christianity. This point seems obvious to me, but for some reason it seems to bear repeating.
I say this as someone that sees a lot wrong with religion in general. From outside both groups–both appear to have their serious flaws and their good points, and the places where they have lost their way. And their tendencies to be overly Dogmatic.
Joe, forgive me if I missed this elsewhere, but what exactly do you have against the mosque? I can understand how it might be unsettling or unnecessarily disturbing to some people if we’re hearing calls to prayer, etc., but of course this is nothing like that.
And let’s be clear: people weren’t initially objecting to Rauf when this whole outcry started – they were objecting to a mosque being a few blocks away from Ground Zero. Now it sounds like people are conceding that this is a stupid objection and are now turning to criticizing Rauf. That’s fine. That’s legit. I could see how what he’s saying could be controversial and subject to real criticism. But this is getting away from the initial issue: what exactly is the big problem with having a mosque downtown? What do you suggest instead? Hell, they’ve been in the community for years already.
If your problem is with Imam Feisal Rauf, are you suggesting that this Islamic center is serving some other purpose? That it will be an advance base for future terrorism? I mean, what are you getting at then? It sounds like vague political spooking to me. At least come clean and be direct. If you think it’s a front for terrorism, say so, and let’s have a discussion about that.
@Joe Mama
How else but bigotted can you classify gahrie’s statements about Islam given ample evidence to the contrary? Islam is not some singular monolithic collective whose members all follow one central creed to destroy all infidels as he seems to believe. The founding of a Mosque is not universally a symbol of victory in the great Jihad against the un-believers as he asserts. Islam is made up of many distinct and very different groups of people whose practices can vary quite widely from total peace (most in the U.S. for example) to extreme violence (bin Ladin). Similar extremes can be found in just about every other religion and even outside religion.
It is absolutely possible to be against the location of this cultural center/mosqu while still recognizing those differences. I think its a bad idea because of the associations of people in New York at Ground Zero, not because I question the motives of the people involved. But make no mistake, there ARE people who are against this because they are bigots and based on his statements above gahrie is one of them.
Joe, forgive me if I missed this elsewhere, but what exactly do you have against the mosque? I can understand how it might be unsettling or unnecessarily disturbing to some people if we’re hearing calls to prayer, etc., but of course this is nothing like that.
Can you understand how it might be unsettling to some people if a Shinto shrine was put up at Pearl Harbor? The “big problem with having a mosque downtown” is that, while the VAST majority of the Cordoba House’s opponents don’t object to mosques in general (as you and I both say, they’ve been in Manhattan for years), putting a mosque right next to Ground Zero, where the biggest f*cking mass murder in U.S. history was carried out by radical Islamists, screams of deliberate provocation. It’s hard to believe that only 68% of respondents (according to Pew) see this. What do I suggest instead? For those behind the Cordoba House to, as Mayor Bloomberg put it, “show some special sensitivity to the situation” and put it somewhere else. It’s not as if there’s a lot of Muslims walking around lower Manhattan with nowhere to pray.
Now, do I favor the gov’t stepping in to prevent it? Not necessarily. Assuming that Imam Feisal Rauf is indeed a peaceful, bridge-building Muslim who is just astonishingly tone deaf — which no informed person should take for granted AT ALL — then I tend to side with the free speech and property rights crowd in thinking that more is lost by the gov’t forcing Rauf et al. to do the right thing. If, on the other hand, Rauf is acting in bad faith, as most opponents of the mosque suspect, then I might see it differently.
Correction: If, on the other hand, Rauf is coddling terrorist organizations and accepting their money, as most opponents of the mosque suspect, then I might see it differently.
Islam is not some singular monolithic collective whose members all follow one central creed to destroy all infidels as he seems to believe.
Really?
That statement alone proves I know far more about Islam then you do. Islam does not preach co-existence and toleration of other religions. The Koran and Hadith include specific commands to spread Islam by the sword and to discriminate against non-believers.
gahrie – it would seem that our David K is as dhimmi as they get, would it not ?
And, at the risk of someone anti-semantic complaining about what I say, it’s not actually possible to discriminate against non-believers in Islam – since the kufr are literally of no value and no importance … one may say anything to a non-believer, one may promise anything, one may make any contract, and there is no penalty for lying to a non-believer – there is no cost for killing a non-believer in pure Islamic law …
Like I said, should I take the opinion of a bigot like you gahrie (and apparently Alasdair) or the people I know who ACTUALLY practice Islam? I’m going to go with the later over the former, any day of the week.
gahrie, do you believe that Islam is a singular monolithic collective whose members all follow one central creed to destroy all infidels? Alasdair?
gahrie, do you believe that Islam is a singular monolithic collective whose members all follow one central creed to destroy all infidels?
Until Islam undergoes a reformation, or I hear Muslims reject the Koran and the Hadith (which will never happen) …..yes. That doesn’t mean every Muslim is a suicide bomber. It means that every Muslim is a member of a religion and culture that demands that our way of life, and all other forms of religion, must be eliminated.
But what I believe is unimportant. What is important is what do Muslims believe? There is only one creed in Islam, the life and words of Mohammed. There is no “Protestant” version of Islam. There is no “Prince of Peace”, or “turning the other cheek.”
Tell you what, since I am such a bigot, show me a nation or culture that is majority Muslim, and is living in peace and toleration with a religious minority.
Nigeria is one, there are others, but your question proves nothing as there is ample evidence of Muslims who reject the views you claim they believe right here in this country. Millions of them in fact. I personally KNOW some of them. I eat, work, and socialize with them. But you expect me to reject objective reality based on personal interactions with ACTUAL Muslims as well as account after account of people who practice Islam who are NOTHING like bin Ladin and instead accept your declaration? I realize that you are used to blindly following what a few people tell you and ignoring all evidence to the contrary, but going through life as an ignorant bigot is no way to live. I reject your view and the hatred, intolerance, and lack of critical thinking behind it.
Nigeria is one
1) Nigeria is not majority Muslim, it is still split roughly 50/40/10 Muslim/Christian/animism.
2) The North of Nigeria is Muslim, the south of Nigeria is Christian, and there is in effect two separate Nigerias, one ruled by sharia law, and one not.
3) Research why the 2002 Miss World pageant was forced to move from Nigeria.
4)http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Africa/2010/0308/Nigeria-violence-Muslim-Christian-clashes-kill-hundreds
5)http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8169966.stm
David K:
Personally, I don’t care about your Muslim friends. I too have Muslim friends who will never be suicide bombers.
But how do you explain all of the rich and middle class westernized Muslims who
are joining al Queda and becoming suicide bombers?
I have a lack of critical thinking skills?
You are the one claiming the Koran and the Hadith don’t mean what they say.
You are the one ignoring nearly two thousand years of history.
Qur’anic verse 3:28 is often seen as the primary verse that sanctions deception towards non-Muslims: “Let believers [Muslims] not take infidels [non-Muslims] for friends and allies instead of believers. Whoever does this shall have no relationship left with God—unless you but guard yourselves against them, taking precautions.”[7]
Muhammad ibn Jarir at-Tabari (d. 923), author of a standard and authoritative Qur’an commentary, explains verse 3:28 as follows:
If you [Muslims] are under their [non-Muslims’] authority, fearing for yourselves, behave loyally to them with your tongue while harboring inner animosity for them … [know that] God has forbidden believers from being friendly or on intimate terms with the infidels rather than other believers—except when infidels are above them [in authority]. Should that be the case, let them act friendly towards them while preserving their religion.[8]
http://www.meforum.org/2538/taqiyya-islam-rules-of-war
You can continue your bigoted ramblings but I stopped reading, FYI.
But of course…can’t let any facts intrude on your fantasy world.
Tell you what..I’ll make a prediction…Nigeria will become majority Muslim within the next ten years, will attempt to impose sharia law on the whole country and begin persecuting non-Muslims.
First off, I’m for freedom of religion in this case. Look it up, gahrie. It’s in the Constitution, and is part of that document conservatives so cherish. So long as the law isn’t being broken, there is no reason to deny this community center.
Secondly, where is this idea of Islam building mosques on their sites of conquests coming from? Is this a real pattern, or just a hyped up slogan?
I mean, it’s probably technically true, in the sense that a conquered country was a Muslim country, and mosques were built there. But the same could be said of Christianity, or any religion that ever had an aggressive king adhere to it. Seems very canard like to me.
Gahrie, thinking about the Qur’an the same way you think about the Bible is wrong. Generally speaking in both cases actually, but I won’t bother with that. Suffice to say, the Bible, the Qur’an, or any other philosophical text is a lot more interesting if you think about and understand its context. You seem to prefer to read it as though it were simply quotes, mostly out of context. The Bible doesn’t work that way, though this does seem to be the modern interpretation of most Mega Church pastors these days. But it is important to understand that Qur’an really can’t be read that way–the, for lack of a better word, commentary of the Imam and the ritual of the practice are far more important then they are taken in modern Christianity. The entire religious tradition of Islam is very different from modern Christianity. You cannot understand Islam simply by reading the Qur’an. You can’t understand Christianity very well that way either. Though in both cases there are those who are wont to try, and those that do are doomed to posses the facile understanding of children in these matters.
Seriously, ideas about the Qur’an and Islam make about as much sense as your plan for strategic whale reserves… Or seepage, or whatever bullshit you came up with for why oil won’t run out.
And one last point, if you compare the track record of Christianity and Islam for the majority of their histories, Islam is by far the more tolerant religion. And by tradition and their book, accepting of other faiths of the book in a way that Christianity has never been. In fact, the idea that we are all children of Abraham and that that should be respected comes from Islam. There are a lot of things to quote, and you must understand that a translation can never impart the real meaning of a text. Arabic is a very complex language, and it is very easy for those of us who don’t understand it well to deeply misunderstand it.
dcl #43 …
Fascinating …
So, by comparison of the number of Christian Churches and Synagogues in Saudi Arabia versus the number of Mosques in the US, you are trying to tell us that Islam is the more tolerant religion ?
By comparison of the numbers of non-Muslims in the legislatures of Muslim countries versus the number of Muslims in the legislatures of non-Muslim countries, you are trying to tell us that Islam is the more tolerant religion ?
By comparison of the numbers of countries forcibly converted to Judaism or Christianity or Hinduism versus the numbers of countries forcibly converted to Islam over the past 1500 years, you are trying to tell us that Islam is the more tolerant religion ?
In which countries is apostasy (renouncing of religion of birth) automatically considered to be a capital crime ? Muslim or Christian ?
In which countries is being gay more likely to be fatal due to the political and religious practices of that country ? Muslim or Christian ?
From which countries do the vast majority of current terrorists and homicide bombers come ? Muslim or Christian ?
Just from the above, which side is more tolerant – Muslim or Christian ?
dcl #43:
OK..explain to me why Islam has the term and concept of dhimmi, and then explain why there is no counterpart in Christianity?
Secondly, where is this idea of Islam building mosques on their sites of conquests coming from? Is this a real pattern, or just a hyped up slogan? I mean, it’s probably technically true, in the sense that a conquered country was a Muslim country, and mosques were built there. But the same could be said of Christianity, or any religion that ever had an aggressive king adhere to it. Seems very canard like to me.
I’ll take that one. The idea of Islam building mosques on their sites of conquests obviously comes from the historical record. For example, following gahrie’s link in # 8 above, you will see that a middle east scholar, Raymond Ibrahim, says that “throughout Islam’s history, whenever a region was conquered, one of the first signs of consolidation was/is the erection of a mosque atop the sacred sites of the vanquished: the pagan Ka’ba temple in Arabia was converted into Islam’s holiest site, the mosque of Mecca; the al-Aqsa mosque, Islam’s third holiest site, was built atop Solomon’s temple in Jerusalem; the Umayyad mosque was built atop the Church of St. John the Baptist; and the Hagia Sophia was converted into a mosque upon the conquest of Constantinople.” That is not some “hyped up slogan.”
Or take the Western Wall in Jerusalem, which is all that is left of Herod’s expansion of the Temple Mount — on top of it is not one, but two Islamic holy sites (The Dome of the Rock and the al-Aqsa Mosque) which have replaced what is probably the holiest place on Earth for Jews, who are forbidden from entering either one.
Or take more recent examples, if you prefer. This is not “canard like” at all.
To be fair, there surely are examples of fundamentalists of other religions behaving similarly (e.g., the Crusaders), but unlike radical Islam, those examples tend to be in the distant past. The bottom line is that gahrie is absolutely correct that erecting mosques and other holy sites on or near places of great cultural significance to their enemies is something which Muslims appear historically inclined to do.
Woops…referred to the al-Aqsa Mosque twice 🙂
So who lead the crusades? Whose behavior was more tolerant upon the sacking of Jerusalem, the Christians or the Muslims? Did the Pope not say that to kill a Muslim was not murder? Whose behavior was more tolerant upon the sacking of Spain, the Mores or the Catholics? And which of those two groups worked to rescue philosophical texts that predated their religion, versus burning them? Which one attempted to eradicate the entire world population of Jews (The Nazis were not Atheists, they were, in fact, Christians)? Which one has coerced conversions and led missions to every continent on the earth but Antarctica? And subsequently murdered or enslaved native populations, in some cases regardless of conversion. Which group has repeatedly decided to burn “witches”? Defined, more or less, as people that don’t quite seem to be good Christians.
And yes, the Muslims did indeed have a word for non Muslims living in their government districts. So did the Christians, it was called dead. The Muslims generally did not persecute those who were not Muslims. If you are even going to begin to argue that the Christians were not bigoted and prejudicial towards non Christians living amongst them you are quite possibly the biggest moron that has ever lived. Christians are capable of intense prejudice and bigotry against other Christians that happened to be of a different sect, so try believing something different.
I’m not talking about the present day (Though you are doing well at proving the intolerance of modern day “Christians” at the moment); however, I’m talking about the track record, and the track record of Christians on tolerance is abysmal. Including repeatedly and regularly killing people that simply aren’t the right kind of Christian.
This is not to say Muslims are perfect, simply to point out that Christians are no better and in the scope of history, arguably worse on the issue of tolerance until very recently. And that tolerance has generally come from and been enacted by those that are basically only nominally Christian.
That said, I’m perfectly content to lambast any and all religions, any and all are susceptible to arguments about their irrationality, violent tendencies, intolerant behaviors, and human rights abuses, etc, etc, etc.
But to the real point at hand, not only is there the first amendment (the second amendment is, after all, not called “The Amendment”) that guarantees the right to free exercise, they must simply meet local zoning requirements, but I was under the impression that the ultimate act of Christianity is to “turn the other cheek”, is this not correct?
In other words, get over it and prove what you are trying to argue, that you are the more tolerant. Or accept that you are an intolerant bigot. This issue really is that black and white. Admit your position and own it, at least it’s honest. But you can’t make a donkey a thoroughbred by giving it a fancy hair cut.
f you are even going to begin to argue that the Christians were not bigoted and prejudicial towards non Christians living amongst them you are quite possibly the biggest moron that has ever lived
The difference is, we changed. Our civilization went through a reformation. Islam has not significantly evolved since the Middle Ages.
I have never tried to say I am tolerant on this issue. That is the whole point. I have never denied their legal right to build a mosque there. I simply will not tolerate it however. That doesn’t mean I hate Muslims or want them deported. If the suicide bombers had been Japanese who practiced Shinto, I would be opposed to a Shinto shrine there. Especially if there was a history of building Shinto shrines to commemorate victories.
Well, at least that’s reasonably honest. Though I’d argue that anything approaching tolerance didn’t date from the reformation. Possibly a little in the enlightenment, but not really. With the foundation of the US, a good bit more, as it was founded in part by people tired of the different reformation churches persecuting each other and there was a understanding that freedom to practice in peace was important. But I don’t think it is unreasonable to argue that tolerance in the sense you describe and as a western value probably dates only to the 1950’s or so.
The real problem I have with most of the anti Mosque (cultural center, YMMA, whatever you want to brand it) group is that, not to go all Glen Beck on this, it really kind of echoes some rhetoric and some ideology that predates the 1950’s and that I’d really rather not see repeated. Seriously, how far is far enough away? Or is it no new Mosques. Are all Muslims the other? Or just some of them? I really really don’t like that road. So while I can understand the feeling that putting a Mosque there is hurtful, even possibly an inciting provocation; the alternative seems completely unacceptable to me as it violates who we are as a people and what we stand for as a nation. If it were always easy to turn the other cheek, there would be no admonition to do so, as it would be superfluous.
Well the real problem I have with most of the pro-mosque group is their deliberate misrepresentation of pressure to reconsider placement of the 201st (or whatever) mosque in NYC next to Ground Zero out of good taste and decorum as an attempt to legally ban mosques by religious bigots.
I wouldn’t say I’m pro-mosque, I would say I’m pro-religious freedom.
For the record though, this is the neighborhood that they are talking about putting the center Mosque in. “Hallowed Ground”. This is New York, as Brendan alluded, two blocks is actually pretty far, so how close is too close, how far is far enough?