Ground Zero mosque wins approval !!

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Not really, riots happen for many reasons, sometimes no reason at all that can be told, and are usually a reaction to current events or environment. They are a function of population density and class stratification. Terrorism is premeditated violence to instill fear, which in turn brings about change in government policy or social order. It happens regardless of population density, even in fairly egalitarian situations. A riot needs no goal.
It is like comparing hurricanes and car wrecks.....They are both terrible, and do damage, but the mechanisms and reasons are unrelated.
Now, intentional, directed riots inspired by political leaders are a different matter...

Yes, I was referring to those in bold, which was the case of the Babri Mosque and Gujrat riots. Obviously a riot that breaks out from a protest over poverty, inflation, unemployment etc. can be argued to be a more spontaneous event, though the role of protest movement leaders in instigating violence with the express purpose of making a 'bigger splash' cannot be ruled out.

Nonetheless, such protests are not grounded in religious motives at least. That cannot be said about the examples I mentioned, which did indeed have religion as a primary motive, and the Hindu leadership leading the riots had violent acts against those of another religion as a primary goal of their actions.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

What's tree for you may be forest for someone else and vice-versa.

What's wrong with what Thomas Friedman said. While muslims want mosque and other structures built in US, the very same people don't allow church/temple back in their own Islamic republic countries. This is nothing but hypocrisy and double standards. I think tolerance should be a two-way street.

Nonsense - as I pointed out to Tang0 earlier in the thread when he made a similar comment, many of the Pakistani posters on this thread atleast are very strongly critical of the discriminatory policies and discriminatory social attitudes in Pakistan - just check the comments on the Ahmadi thread for example.

And in terms of the American Muslim community, is there any empirical evidence that illustrates their attitudes towards religious freedom for minorities in their home countries, or are you just making this up?

And some of us have also pointed out how the US system is in fact closer to the 'true Islamic' ideals of what a State should be like, than any Muslim country, including Turkey, which I think went too far in oppressing religious freedoms under the secularist military umbrella.

 

[Tang0]

Who said it has to be a 'shrine' to soldiers? Japanese or Hawaiian Japanese-Americans could propose to build a 'museum' filled with Imperial Japanese Navy hardware relics within sight of the Arizona Memorial and it could still be construed as to be offensive.

Right, but here is the point, Japanese Navy hardware was designed to kill people....Islam as a religion is not. If you believe otherwise, then you are prejudiced or misinformed. Should I not drive my car past locations where people died because a drunk driver got behind the wheel? As AgnosticMusilim mentioned, should black people not move into a neighborhood where another black person robbed houses ten years earlier, for fear of offending or lowering property values?

And that is why I said earlier that Americans will respect the rule of law even if the muslims supporters of this mosque chose not to respect the understanding of sensitivity. And who questions the muslims' right to worship freely? This is just another example out of many exaggerations of persecution of muslims in America. There are other sites equally suitable for worship in NYC. But why chose this one so close to Ground Zero? This is not an issue created by Fox News or Zionists as much as people here would like to believe. This question was asked by ordinary New Yorkers. To respond to this question, effectively responding to them, by resorting to legalism smacks of evasion.

Ordinary New Yorkers (And US citizens as a whole) also have a majority negative opinion of Islam in general, as the result of constant media barrage of Islamic extremist violence, without any of the day-to-day good works that peaceful Islamic groups bring about. God forbid someone try to rectify the situation. Should Muslims just stop practicing in public then, where they might offend somebody?

Naahhh...When I joined the USAF back in 1983, I swore no oath. I just waltzed straight into a base and started jumping all over the planes. Did not even go to Basic Training. (*Sarcasm*)

Actually, NAVAIR and USAF employ civilian systems integration engineers who do precisely that, and swear no oath at all, so I did not want to assume that you were a sworn officer or enlisted maintainer.
Navair Careers

 

[gambit]

Right, but here is the point, Japanese Navy hardware was designed to kill people....Islam as a religion is not. If you believe otherwise, then you are prejudiced or misinformed. Should I not drive my car past locations where people died because a drunk driver got behind the wheel? As AgnosticMusilim mentioned, should black people not move into a neighborhood where another black person robbed houses ten years earlier, for fear of offending or lowering property values?

Very well...I can change it to that some Japanese and Hawaiian Japanese-Americans propose to build a 'museum' extolling the 'Yamato Race' as superior to all race and ethnicities, the Samurai virtues and its cult like devotion to the Emperor, and so on with all the pre WW II Imperial Japan characteristics. No difference here. It would still be considered offensive and it does not even have to be near the Arizona Memorial.

Ordinary New Yorkers (And US citizens as a whole) also have a majority negative opinion of Islam in general, as the result of constant media barrage of Islamic extremist violence, without any of the day-to-day good works that peaceful Islamic groups bring about. God forbid someone try to rectify the situation. Should Muslims just stop practicing in public then, where they might offend somebody?

The issue here is the rule of law and respect thereof. Just as the government is not putting muslims into prisons or restricting their freedoms and rights, no one is preventing muslims from openly practicing their religion or doing good works or exploiting the same media methods to present their religion in any light they want.

Actually, NAVAIR and USAF employ civilian systems integration engineers who do precisely that, and swear no oath at all, so I did not want to assume that you were a sworn officer or enlisted maintainer.
Navair Careers

Those are not sworn agents of the US government. I was. The sarcasm that I did not know about the US Constitution was lame.

 

[Tang0]

Gambit,

I think on the point of the meaning of the mosque, we are going to have to agree to disagree for the moment. You seem to think that many of things Islam extols lead directly to violence, I think otherwise. We could cherry pick quotes from the Bible, Koran, or Bhagavad Gita until the sun reaches heat death, so I won't go there.

I think it is a fact that Islam, as practiced by the vast majority of Muslims, does not lead directly to deaths. Just as cars, as used correctly by the vast majority of non-drunk drivers, are an important tool, and do not lead directly to deaths. Terrorism is a perversion of Islam, precisely as using a car or plane to crash into a group of bystanders is a perversion of the designers intent and work. If you can't tell the difference, that is your problem, not Muslims.

Personally, I think that no-one should ever have to consider other peoples sensibilities when legally and safely practicing their religion. Period. (That extends to things like Vodoo animal sacrifices. If you don't like it, you need to see how your chicken nuggets get made...) Does this give you the right to say...Publicly harass gay people or members of the military because your religion disagrees? Court proceedings in the US have suggested so, but I will say it is a close call, and I don't agree with the US Supreme Court in this case.
Dad sues ?Thank God for Dead Soldiers? church - U.S. news - Crime & courts - msnbc.com

...
Those are not sworn agents of the US government. I was. The sarcasm that I did not know about the US Constitution was lame.

As to my sarcasm being lame, well, your (*Insert Favorite Pastime Here*) is lame as well... So there

Thank you for informing me about your past as a sworn agent of the federal government of the United States, you might want to include that in your public profile so that others won't make my mistake.

 

[gambit]

Gambit,

I think on the point of the meaning of the mosque, we are going to have to agree to disagree for the moment. You seem to think that many of things Islam extols lead directly to violence, I think otherwise. We could cherry pick quotes from the Bible, Koran, or Bhagavad Gita until the sun reaches heat death, so I won't go there.

Never done that.

Personally, I think that no-one should ever have to consider other peoples sensibilities when legally and safely practicing their religion. Period. (That extends to things like Vodoo animal sacrifices. If you don't like it, you need to see how your chicken nuggets get made...) Does this give you the right to say...Publicly harass gay people or members of the military because your religion disagrees? Court proceedings in the US have suggested so, but I will agree it is a close call, and I don't agree with the USSC in this case.
Dad sues ?Thank God for Dead Soldiers? church - U.S. news - Crime & courts - msnbc.com

That is where we will disagree.

As to my sarcasm being lame, well, your (*Insert Favorite Pastime Here*) is lame as well... So there

My sexual performance is 'lame' ? Have you been outside my bedroom window ?

Thank you for informing me about your past as a sworn agent of the federal government of the United States, you might want to include that in your public profile.

No need.

 

[muse]

Sworn agents of the government presumably must froth at the mouth at the mention of Islam or Muslims -- That must not be allowed to be a common perception - it's more dangerous than you imagine.

 

[gambit]

Sworn agents of the government presumably must froth at the mouth at the mention of Islam or Muslims -- That must not be allowed to be a common perception - it's more dangerous than you imagine.

Froth? Depends on how the beer come out of the tap and into the...errr...mouth. Done poorly and there will be froth.

 

[Tang0]

My sexual performance is 'lame' ? Have you been outside my bedroom window ?

No, but your (*Insert Sexual Partner Here*) might have mentioned it to me...In passing....

 

[Tang0]

Sworn agents of the government presumably must froth at the mouth at the mention of Islam or Muslims -- That must not be allowed to be a common perception - it's more dangerous than you imagine.

Froth at the mouth? I don't know, but anti-terrorism is a money pit, so certain types of governmental agents sure do like to bring Islam and Muslims up.

 

[muse]

Froth? Depends on how the beer come out of the tap and into the...errr...mouth. Done poorly and there will be froth.

On a more serious note, if you care and I think you should - we are talking here of US citizens and of the US, not some third world country - Conscience must not be allowed to be swept away by sensibilties presented as patriotism or duty. -- One need look at Pakistan to see how easy and how disasterous it was to allow conscience to be swept away by such a sensibility.

One is increasingly concerned by how frequently US citizens who are Muslims express the sense that their own government is part of the problem and not part of the solution - I was referring to this when I said that this perception must be allowed to become more common - regardless of the size of this segment of the citrizenry, once such an idea gains ground in the perceptions of this segment, the best efforts of govenment to show itself as part of the solution will be met with scepticism - and it is unreasonable to assume that in a country of laws and a resourceful population that such polarization will do the country and it's international standing anythng but severe harm - it may be even be thought that if this the cost of the cure, so be it. after all, how reasonable is it demand that the segment of US citizenry participate in it's own disenfranchisement?

 

[Tang0]

On a more serious note, if you care and I think you should - we are talking here of US citizens and of the US, not some third world country - Conscience must not be allowed to be swept away by sensibilties presented as patriotism or duty. -- One need look at Pakistan to see how easy and how disasterous it was to allow conscience to be swept away by such a sensibility.

One is increasingly concerned by how frequently US citizens who are Muslims express the sense that their own government is part of the problem and not part of the solution - I was referring to this when I said that this perception must be allowed to become more common - regadless of the size of this segment of the citrizenry, once such an idea gains ground in the perceptions of this segment, the best efforts of govenment to dhow itself as part of the solution will be met with scepticism - and it is unreasonable to assume that in a country of laws and a resourceful population that such polarization will do the country and it's international standing anythng but severe harm - it may be even thought that if this the cost of the cure, so be it. after all how reasonable is it demand that the segment of US citizenry participate in it's own disenfranchisement?

I get what you are saying, but much of the scrutiny the US Muslim population is feeling is a result of the massive explosion in the size of domestic intelligence agencies, and their accompanying budget, in the wake of 9/11. Bureaucrats need a reason to exist, and if one does not exist (IE, domestic terrorism from Muslims is not a legitamite threat), they will make one up.
See:
frontline: chasing the sleeper cell: introduction | PBS
Or, More recently:
Top Secret America | washingtonpost.com

Anyway, this will go away with time and steadily decreasing budgets. I think you might be reading too much into a short-term trend.

 

[muse]

I don't think I'm reading too much into it - the agencies were consolidated following a political mandate - they are not going to disappear any time soon - nor will US Muslim as the "other" disappear anytime soon -- it's a political problem -- you may have read me before when I referred to a "structural" problem in the US with regard to US muslims and Islam in general. This "political" problem is what I am referring as the primary engine feeding the sense that their own government is part of the problem and not part of the solution, such a distance between cirtizenry and government bodes ill, for all.

This consolidation may not originally have been constructed with the view you suggested, but operationally, that is to say in practice, that is exactly what it has come to be, or at least be thought of by a section of the citizenry.

I am persuaded that the external is a reflection of the internal - and as a concerned observer, I'm rather pessimistic when observing the scene in the US, at least as presented by US Muslims.

 

[Tang0]

the agencies were consolidated following a political mandate - they are not going to disappear any time soon - nor will US Muslim as the "other" disappear anytime soon -- it's a political problem --

I agree that it is a political problem, and I also agree that the end result is an excess of scrutiny on certain parts of the Muslim population in the US. You seem to think that it is structural, as in, some senator/senior technocrat/executive appointee sat down and said: " You know who is not getting enough attention, and is probably up to no good? Muslims. Hell, I bet if we tell the people at Fox News that, we will get more funding! Lets talk to the other senators/technocrats/whatever and see how many we can convince."

I rather think it is the simple result of giving people lots of money, and little guidance or central oversight. All these newly appointed "Experts" looked around, and said, what is the most obvious threat/ most likely to produce solid leads? And on the domestic terrorism front, all signs pointed at the Muslim community. The FBI had been tracking hate groups, militias, and organized crime for decades, but the Muslim community was a closed book for the most part, and if you dig, it is very easy to find people spouting anti-American/government sentiments. So, for all these newly expanded organizations Muslims in the US became the new "Threat Grouping".

The good news is that they mostly rely on electronic intercepts, rather than a soviet style network of informants. That means that the surveillance can be turned off fairly quickly, with minimal spill-over. All the intercepts go in a vault somewhere, the agents get new jobs, or get reassigned, and the world turns. There, at this time, is no structural bias against US citizens who happen to be Muslim in the US gov. that can be pointed at directly. I challenge you to show otherwise. Currently, all that has been posted here is certain members of some fringe political groups spouting xenophobia. That is not structural bias, not close to Western European structural bias, and certainly not the bias present in the Middle East or Gov. of Pakistan.

Besides maybe Canada, I don't think you will find a Western nation where the Muslim community is more integrated than the US.

Now, if you want to talk about the immigration system, then yes, I would agree with you. There is structural bias against people from certain Muslim countries, and I think that is a valid response to the perceived threat

 

[muse]

You seem to think that it is structural, as in, some senator/senior technocrat/executive appointee sat down and said: " You know who is not getting enough attention, and is probably up to no good? Muslims. Hell, I bet if we tell the people at Fox News that, we will get more funding! Lets talk to the other senators/technocrats/whatever and see how many we can convince

By "structural" I suppose I meant "institutional" - either way, I mean government.

For someone not in LE you seem to have a rather a good handle on it.

Besides maybe Canada, I don't think you will find a Western nation where the Muslim community is more integrated than the US.

Yeah, I want to believe that - but also I'm now scared of allowing myself to believe that, because I think it might be a rude wake call - and then it's thse people I have interacted with, I think I can tell if someone is not being truthful and these people have no reason to not be truthful or attempt to decieve, I just relaying to you what they FEEL. And many suggest that it is a "parole" and they resent it -- but lets see how it plays out.