Ground Zero Mosque. Yes or No?

[RisnDevil]

I say no.

In the interest of full-disclosure however, before I explain why I say no (which is a simple answer), I want everyone to know that I may be biased: I am a Soldier. A COMBAT Soldier (Army Infantry). I have spent 32 months in Iraq, and am preparing to go to Afghanistan within the next 60 days. I made several (good) friends over there (primarily in the form of my interpreters) and have even lost a few. So...

I say no because it is down-right disrespectful. I know, as much as anyone, that no, no one in that mosque or as a member of that assembly had anything to do with the Twin Towers. The six-degrees-of-separation game probably couldn't link anyone at that mosque to the bombing. BUT (there's always a but....), you (as in the Mosque people, staff, owners, whatever) know, KNOW, that it WAS Islamic/Muslim radical extremists, that did this. You know, KNOW, that doing this will offend LARGE amounts of people. You can decry the executioners of this act as vehemently as you would like, but that changes nothing. Radical extremists or not, they ARE/WERE bad seeds of your tree, and yet you don't care how many people are offended.

Now, on the same note, I do come from a Nation of equality and fairness, so for that I also say this: since there shouldn't be a Mosque there, there also should not be anything else there, other than maybe a nondescript, quiet, unaffiliated, "prayer" room.

But that's my two cents.....


RisnDevil

 

[Bri]

RisnDevil,

I'm offended that Catholic priests have molested children. Therefore, Catholics need to stop building a church in my neighborhood (and any others that are closer than 2 blocks from children).

I say no because it is down-right disrespectful. I know, as much as anyone, that no, no one in that Catholic church or as a member of that assembly had anything to do with the molestation of any children. The six-degrees-of-separation game probably couldn't link anyone at that church to molesting children. BUT (there's always a but....), you (as in the church people, staff, owners, whatever) know, KNOW, that it IS Catholic priests, that did this. You know, KNOW, that doing this will offend LARGE amounts of people. You can decry the executioners of this act as vehemently as you would like, but that changes nothing. Child molesters or not, they ARE/WERE bad seeds of your tree, and yet you don't care how many people are offended.

Guilt by association is a very slippery slope.

-Bri

 

[RisnDevil]

Bri,

I like (absolutely no sarcasm there, though I know stating this makes it seem like I do mean sarcasm, but whatever) your attempt to "turn the tables" and show how my statements are wrong, but I do not think your parallel is correct. Lets try this scenario for you....

Father Mulcahey (sorry M*A*S*H*, first name I could think of) raped and molested little boys in his neighborhood for 13 years. The only thing that stopped him was when Erich, a boy just hitting 15 who could no longer take the abuse, went on a "rampage" shooting up the church, and setting a fire that burned down THE ENTIRE NEIGHBORHOOD, PLUS SEVERAL OTHER CLOSE NEIGHBORHOODS, resulting in THOUSANDS DEAD. Not just offended, dead. As massive money gets poured into the reconstruction, one of the first things being built is a new, bigger, better Catholic Church. Sorry, but just an "I'm sorry for what THAT OTHER GUY DID" from the Catholic Church just doesn't cover what sprouted from someone within their ranks.

And I never said they were guilty of the crime, only callous disrespect to many, MANY people.

 

[retKHAAAN]

So is this discussion about people's "feelings" or is it about what's "right" based on our Constitution?

If it's about feelings then Americans should stop building ANYTHING on this soil. It is a callous disrespect to the Native Americans from whom they stole the land and murdered.

 

[Bri]

RisnDevil,

You would find it disrespectful for the people who had nothing to do with the molestation or the subsequent rampage to rebuild their church? Unless somehow you feel that the church members were negligent and should have prevented the molestation or the rampage, you'll have to explain that one. How many blocks from the neighborhood should the church be required to be in order to be rebuilt?

How many blocks from the neighborhood should Father Mulcahey's family, or the boy's family, be allowed to rebuild their homes that were destroyed? How about the school the boy attended, should it be allowed to rebuilt in the neighborhood? The boy was a member of the Cub Scouts -- should they be allowed to meet in the neighborhood? Should any Catholic priests be allowed to remain in the area? How about the other boys who were abused? Maybe they shouldn't be allowed to live there either. After all, we can't be sure that they don't sympathize with the boy and might do the same thing again. It would be downright disrespectful for them to remain there. What do you think?

-Bri

 

[Uncle FEFL]

Absolutely. No opinion interprets the jurisdiction of Constitutional law. They have every and any right to build there. Even if they wanted to build ON ground zero, I have no objections.

"They have the constitutional right to, but should they?" - Sarah Palin. Shut the fuck up, idiot. Threats of mass hysteria against the mosque won't work. *In a country accent* That's terrorist talk right there, is what that is.

Waleed, the man who's funding the community center, owns 7% of Fox News, and the reporters who did a report on this are retarded for patronizing their own boss.

This whole "ordeal" is meaningless. It's just a building. Being built. Big fucking deal. Who cares if part of it will offer a Muslim worship center?

 

[RisnDevil]

Yes, I do find the Church negligent and that it should have prevented the molestation. The school did nothing to the boy making him go on this rampage, so they are clear, along with Mulcahey's and the boys families. Mulcahey and "his" church, are persona non grata, and to rebuild in the neighborhood that they wrecked, or allowed wrecked, is blatantly disrespectful. They want to make amends, apologize, or show a true desire to make things better, wait to be invited. Help from the outside with no "professional/personal" or private gains.

 

[Bri]

So, you think that all Muslims (or at least the ones building that community center near ground zero) are negligent for not preventing 9/11. Gotcha.

So...back to that new Catholic church in my neighborhood. You agree that all its members are negligent for not preventing Catholic priests from molesting children, right?

-Bri

 

[retKHAAAN]

i am genuinely amused at all the analogies we are spewing forth right now

 

[heat6jones]

I think they should build it in the middle east instead.

 

[RisnDevil]

I never once said, or implied, that I felt that about the Muslim community or members of that church. I only said that in direct relation to the church analogy, which (sadly) is not a perfect parallel. That does not change the fact that the person(s) (re)building this mosque are being callous and blatantly disrespectful.

Back to the church again, it is not entirely the members of the church that have the burden of blame to bear, but the other "staff" members of the church who allowed it. Take any psych class or some class that shows criminal behavior and its affects, and you will see that if these people(s) had cared to actually look, or pay attention to what they saw, they would have seen something. Just because you don't talk about the pink elephant in the room (or the fact that Father Mulcahey takes really long "private confessions" with little boys outside of the confessional booth) doesn't mean it's not there or happening.

And Uncle FEFL, I never said that they were not allowed to build there, only that they shouldn't out of respect for their fellow human beings. Yes, they have every right, but not from a "country bumpkin" standpoint the question of if they should IS actually pretty valid.

PS - Bri, my wife really likes your choice of methodology in your (initial) counter-argument, and feels you have valid points, but also agrees that there is a callous disrespect essentially in their choice of location, not what they are building (which I much point out, is pretty must what I am saying).

edit: typo

 

[RisnDevil]

I think they should build it in the middle east instead.

Why? Because they are Islamic/Muslim? Fine, go build all your churches in England and Italy, and keep them out of this country. That is the kind of close-minded statements that promote hate, not open discourse.

 

[Bri]

I never once said, or implied, that I felt that about the Muslim community or members of that church. I only said that in direct relation to the church analogy, which (sadly) is not a perfect parallel. That does not change the fact that the person(s) (re)building this mosque are being callous and blatantly disrespectful.

Back to the church again, it is not entirely the members of the church that have the burden of blame to bear, but the other "staff" members of the church who allowed it. Take any psych class or some class that shows criminal behavior and its affects, and you will see that if these people(s) had cared to actually look, or pay attention to what they saw, they would have seen something. Just because you don't talk about the pink elephant in the room (or the fact that Father Mulcahey takes really long "private confessions" with little boys outside of the confessional booth) doesn't mean it's not there or happening.

The point here is that you feel that the reason the church in your analogy shouldn't be built because its members are negligent. If they weren't negligent (if it was something that they knew nothing about) you'd have no problem with it. Therefore, one can assume that you feel that the Muslims who want to build the community center and mosque are somehow negligent. If that's not the case, then your analogy kind of falls apart.

QUOTEAnd Uncle FEFL, I never said that they were not allowed to build there, only that they shouldn't out of respect for their fellow human beings. Yes, they have every right, but not from a "country bumpkin" standpoint the question of if they should IS actually pretty valid.

PS - Bri, my wife really likes your choice of methodology in your (initial) counter-argument, and feels you have valid points, but also agrees that there is a callous disrespect essentially in their choice of location, not what they are building (which I much point out, is pretty much what I am saying).

Personally, I think my analogy is better than yours, given that all I did was take your argument and change "mosque" to "Catholic church" and "Islamic/Muslim radical extremists" to "Catholic priests" and "destroying the Twin Towers" to "child molestation."

Unless you feel that all Muslims are somehow responsible or negligent for 9/11, I'm not sure why you feel that it's a sign of "callous disrespect" for a group of them to build a community center two blocks away from ground zero where (as someone pointed out earlier in the thread) there are already plenty of churches and synagogues. In my opinion, the insinuation that all Muslims are somehow responsible for 9/11 or negligent in not having prevented it is the epitome of callous disrespect.

-Bri

 

[RisnDevil]

There is no need to assume anything about what I am saying, as I have a habit of stating what I feel and not leaving it open to interpretation.

I VERY clearly stated that the mosque SHOULD NOT be built ON GROUND ZERO (I will admit that I was not clear that it only should not be built there, but now I have) NOT because its members/owners/builders were responsible or negligently responsible for 9/11, but because it is disrespectful to build something (anything really) like that that will KNOWINGLY offend or disrespect a VERY LARGE number of people. Look at the poll here and see nearly (not completely, but nearly) half of the people say no.

Also, I very clearly stated that I DID NOT feel that the MEMBERS of the church were negligent, but its STAFF MEMBERS, and there is no one in all of God's green Earth that you will convince me that NOT SO MUCH AS A SINGLE STAFF MEMBER had any kind of inclination or proof of said actions. See my post related to psych and such.

You want to build a mosques "ten millimeters" away from GROUND ZERO; go ahead. Just don't build one on ground zero. Have some respect for your fellow human beings who feel that that is a flagrant display of arrogance and hubris, or just downright rude. "You" didn't do it, I know. I am not saying you CAN'T worship, pray or build where you want: I am "asking" you to think of your fellow man, just like you will be asking people to treat you with common respect and courtesy when people offend or disrespect you (sadly, often times with violence).

Again, I have now said at least three times, that I DO NOT feel that all Muslims are in ANY WAY responsible or negligently responsible for 9/11, so please stop saying that I am implying that.

 

[MMX]

the general population isn't very educated and chances are they read newspapers that use fear and panic for higher sales, like all media.

It's also so much easier to see the world in black and white.

The same debate is going on in my hometown (Mönchengladbach) and they're protesting every week against a mosque.

Before 9/11 nobody cared if a mosque was built and now they think it's a secret base for planning terrorist attacks and spreading propaganda.

PS: this reminds me sometimes of Spy vs Spy from MadTV. It's basically the same on both sides

 

[emigre]

There is no need to assume anything about what I am saying, as I have a habit of stating what I feel and not leaving it open to interpretation.

I VERY clearly stated that the mosque SHOULD NOT be built ON GROUND ZERO (I will admit that I was not clear that it only should not be built there, but now I have) NOT because its members/owners/builders were responsible or negligently responsible for 9/11, but because it is disrespectful to build something (anything really) like that that will KNOWINGLY offend or disrespect a VERY LARGE number of people. Look at the poll here and see nearly (not completely, but nearly) half of the people say no.

Also, I very clearly stated that I DID NOT feel that the MEMBERS of the church were negligent, but its STAFF MEMBERS, and there is no one in all of God's green Earth that you will convince me that NOT SO MUCH AS A SINGLE STAFF MEMBER had any kind of inclination or proof of said actions. See my post related to psych and such.

You want to build a mosques "ten millimeters" away from GROUND ZERO; go ahead. Just don't build one on ground zero. Have some respect for your fellow human beings who feel that that is a flagrant display of arrogance and hubris, or just downright rude. "You" didn't do it, I know. I am not saying you CAN'T worship, pray or build where you want: I am "asking" you to think of your fellow man, just like you will be asking people to treat you with common respect and courtesy when people offend or disrespect you (sadly, often times with violence).

Again, I have now said at least three times, that I DO NOT feel that all Muslims are in ANY WAY responsible or negligently responsible for 9/11, so please stop saying that I am implying that.

but its not being built near Ground Zero. Its several blocks away from it and it wouldn't be visable from Ground Zero.

 

[BlueStar]

but its not being built near Ground Zero. Its several blocks away from it and it wouldn't be visable from Ground Zero.

I can't believe this has been pointed out just about every page for 30 pages and people still don't get it.

Amazing how people can have such strong feelings about something they haven't even looked at enough to know the most basic facts of.

The whole "Ooh, it might offend people" is what people on the right usually call political correctness, "Oh, you have the right to do it, but you mustn't."

What about the families of 9/11 victims who've come out to say they're offended by people hijacking their grief and using it to spread bigotry and intolerance? If you say the mosque shouldn't be built near ground zero in case it offends some 9/11 families, why aren't you saying that people should be stopped protesting the mosque near ground zero in case it offends 9/11 families?

 

[emigre]

Well when people are bloody minded, they seem happy to ignore fact, reason and logic.

 

[MadClaw]

People seem to care more about not offending Muslims than they do the people who's lives were effected by 9/11. What's up with that?

 

[emigre]

People seem to care more about not offending Muslims than they do the people who's lives were effected by 9/11. What's up with that?

I call it being abel to tell the difference betweent eh decent majority than teh bad minority. And people's lives won't be affected by this building. There's been no decent, cohesive and logical arguement against it. The 'tehe feelings of the victims' arguement is just a poor attempt at emotional blackmail. THere's nothing constitutionally wrong with this place being built. Ergo they should be able to build it without narrow minded fuckers like Sarah Palin taking advantage of people's fear for their own political gain.