radarrider: (Default)
[personal profile] radarrider
Here is a set of quotes that do a pretty good job of explaining why this mosque should not be built at that location.  Some I agree with more than others but all are worthy of consideration.  However, the two that I think do the best job I include below.

In recommending that a different location be found for the Islamic Center, we are mindful that some legitimate questions have been raised about who is providing the funding to build it, and what connections, if any, its leaders might have with groups whose ideologies stand in contradiction to our shared values. These questions deserve a response, and we hope those backing the project will be transparent and forthcoming. But regardless of how they respond, the issue at stake is a broader one.

Proponents of the Islamic Center may have every right to build at this site, and may even have chosen the site to send a positive message about Islam. The bigotry some have expressed in attacking them is unfair, and wrong. But ultimately this is not a question of rights, but a question of what is right. In our judgment, building an Islamic Center in the shadow of the World Trade Center will cause some victims more pain – unnecessarily – and that is not right. -- The Anti-Defamation League

If you read no further, know this: RedState supports the Anti-Defamation League in its opposition to the so-called “Ground Zero mosque.” The ADL is right on all counts: in its rejection of bigotry, its affirmation of American religious freedom, and its declaration that common decency demands the end of this effort. As the ADL notes, this is “not a question of rights, but a question of what is right.”

...The fact is that the groups behind the “Ground Zero mosque” / Cordoba House / Park51 chose the site explicitly for its proximity to Ground Zero, and then spent months boasting about it in the press.

...A “Ground Zero mosque” — even if only near Ground Zero, even if a “community center” rather than a mosque — is the opposite of reasoned restraint. It tramples upon the principle of a public square marked by democratic consideration. It displays a grotesque lack of generosity, while demanding extraordinary generosity toward itself. It insists upon rights — which no one disputes — and ignores responsibilities. It is, in short, a bitter vindication of the critics of American democracy at our nation’s Founding. -- The Directors, Redstate

Remember, the flipside of rights is the responsibility that comes with them to exercise them wisely and with care.  We are demanded to show sensitivity, especially when it comes to religions other than Christianity.  Why should not the people intending to build this structure be held to the same standard?
Date: 2010-08-04 06:14 pm (UTC)

technoshaman: Tux (Default)
From: [personal profile] technoshaman
What happened to this being a nation of laws? If the ground is zoned and permitted appropriately, why not? The whole POINT, at least I *hope*, is to show that the vast majority of Muslims (in this country, at least), did NOT support what happened in New York. And further, the whole POINT of the First Amendment is to allow folks to get up on the street corner and *be wrong* (if indeed that is what they're doing)... and for the whole world to be able to respond openly, and laugh them off their soapbox if they are.

Think "Westboro Baptist Church". They've done more in the last six months or so to *advance* the cause of gay rights than any group I can think of off the top of my head... simply by being *stupid*.

Let'em build.
Date: 2010-08-04 06:32 pm (UTC)

technoshaman: Tux (Default)
From: [personal profile] technoshaman
And you know what? If I'm wrong? Noo Yawk as a populace will make its feelings known. I know a few of those folk. They're not shy. And this is as it should be.

Besides. Who gets to decide what's "right"? You? RedState? I sure as heck hope it's not the latter; they don't represent me, much less the... interesting people... I tend to hang with...

Quid custodes.
Date: 2010-08-04 11:39 pm (UTC)

technoshaman: Tux (Default)
From: [personal profile] technoshaman
On a practical level? The individuals in New York will decide whether they like such an animal or not, and, if they don't like it, what they're willing to do about it. It is perfectly, perfectly legit for them to stand *across the street* and make unpowered noise loud enough to disrupt services. Will they do that? I don't know. Frankly, I don't give a damn.

But exercising a priori restraint against building the thing in the first place flies in the face of all that is American. And, no, not every action is interfering with religious freedom. See also, the ComicCon counterprotest against Westboro. That was perfectly legit, *and* beautifully done.

The line here is, nobody gets to decide somebody else's speech, or religion, is wrong and prevent it from the get-go. *Everybody*, however, can stand on their own soapbox and decry, point and giggle, or drown out.
Date: 2010-08-05 09:13 pm (UTC)

draconis: Default icon (Default)
From: [personal profile] draconis
"So who does get to decide what's 'right?'"


Every individual will decide for themselves whether they think it is right or wrong, but until and unless their opinion is in line with the law, then their opinion makes very little difference. As Technoshaman pointed out, there are plenty of perfectly legal ways to express one's approval or displeasure of such a thing. So long as everybody involved stays within the limits of the law, I don't see where there's any problem.
Date: 2010-08-04 08:51 pm (UTC)

From: (Anonymous)
http://messageboards.aol.com/aol/en_us/articles.php?boardId=551411&articleId=488112&func=5&channel=Member+Guided+News
Date: 2010-08-04 08:54 pm (UTC)

From: (Anonymous)
Islam always takes over the host country's sacred sites to build mosques. This is a manifestation of Islam's principle of making the kafirs submit. The Jews have submitted to Islam on the issue.

The most famous theft of sacred sites is in India. The Taj Mahal was a Hindu temple devoted to Shiva. After Islam invaded they converted it to an Islamic site. The number of Hindu temples in India that have been destroyed and mosques built on the sites is beyond counting.

When jihad conquered the Greeks in Anatolia (now Turkey) they converted the famous Saint Sophia cathedral into the Hagia Sofia mosque. Throughout the Middle East the churches became mosques after the triumph of Islam.

As soon as Mohammed had conquered Mecca, he destroyed all religious art. Next, he sent out his best warrior to destroy the temple sites of the native religions near Mecca. This is Sunna (the example of the ideal man, Mohammed) and has been followed by Islam ever since. Remember when the Muslims destroyed the Buddhas in Afghanistan? Same principle.


Islam always takes over the host country's sacred sites to build mosques. This is a manifestation of Islam's principle of making the kafirs submit. The Jews have submitted to Islam on the issue.

The most famous theft of sacred sites is in India. The Taj Mahal was a Hindu temple devoted to Shiva. After Islam invaded they converted it to an Islamic site. The number of Hindu temples in India that have been destroyed and mosques built on the sites is beyond counting.

When jihad conquered the Greeks in Anatolia (now Turkey) they converted the famous Saint Sophia cathedral into the Hagia Sofia mosque. Throughout the Middle East the churches became mosques after the triumph of Islam.

As soon as Mohammed had conquered Mecca, he destroyed all religious art. Next, he sent out his best warrior to destroy the temple sites of the native religions near Mecca. This is Sunna (the example of the ideal man, Mohammed) and has been followed by Islam ever since. Remember when the Muslims destroyed the Buddhas in Afghanistan? Same principle.
Date: 2010-08-04 11:52 pm (UTC)

technoshaman: Tux (Default)
From: [personal profile] technoshaman
:/

Anybody who thinks he conquered New York with a couple of airplanes and 5500 deaths does not grok New York. I don't proclaim to grok New York in fullness, but I know a few people who do, and I think their response to such an idea would involve the digitus impudicus or something more or less equivalent.

Yaknow what? Let him build his puny mosque. There's no way he could afford to have it be more than a few hundred feet high. Let him build it in the shadow of the new building(s). Let that shadow fall upon his worship of violence and conquest, like a massive birdie finger saying to all comers, "Bring it, mudkips!" And we'll just see whose gods are more powerful.

Date: 2010-08-05 09:09 pm (UTC)

draconis: Default icon (Default)
From: [personal profile] draconis
"Islam always takes over the host country's sacred sites to build mosques. This is a manifestation of Islam's principle of making the kafirs submit. The Jews have submitted to Islam on the issue."


They are hardly unique in that practice. The Christian church did much the same thing whenever it expanded into a new area, except instead of taking over buildings it took over festivals. The two biggest and most blatant examples are Christmas and Easter.

What happened there was heinous, and no amount of "word games" can change that -- nor would I want it to. A lot of people will probably consider building a mosque there to be in poor taste. Fortunately for all of us, doing things in poor taste is not against the law.

I think my feelings on the subject can be summed up very well by a line from a recent episode of the TV show "Leverage":

That's the difference between a real soldier and this little Hallowe'en outfit you have. You guys would kill others to protect your rights. A real soldier would die to defend someone else's.


Or, if you prefer a more classical model, there is Voltaire:

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.


Date: 2010-08-06 04:30 pm (UTC)

draconis: Default icon (Default)
From: [personal profile] draconis
Yeah, it's kind of scary -- Rhi and I actually have TV programs that we like lately!

We used to watch almost no TV at all. Then we added Eureka and Warehouse 13... then Burn Notice... and now Leverage, White Collar, and Covert Affairs.

Six programs a week? When did that happen???

Profile

radarrider: (Default)
radarrider

August 2010

S M T W T F S
123 4567
891011121314
15 161718192021
22232425262728
29 3031    

Most Popular Tags

Page Summary

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 20th, 2017 09:41 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios