What's new

Ground Zero mosque wins approval !!

Status
Not open for further replies.
.
But muslims have no problems making anything an 'Islam vs <something>' issue.
Don't generalize - the issue here is specifically American Muslims and their rights and attitudes.

No, 'Islam vs something else' is an issue created by the 'something else', as is evident with the protests against multiple mosques in the US now, not just the ground zero mosque. Many Muslims who refer to this are merely pointing out the attitudes and positions adopted by the 'something else'.

If a section of Americans wish to be bigots and racists and denigrate all Muslims, is it wrong to point out that the positions of those Americans are 'anti-Islam' and 'anti-Muslims'?
Public policy does not need a governmental face. There were nothing in the US Constitution that sanctions lynchings and public hangings of blacks. And yet those things did happened. Public policy can be informally endorsed and practiced by a group and if group sentiment is powerful enough, even as powerful an entity as 'the government' may have no choice but to acquiesce to the public. And when we have an agreement between the two, public policy can transcend borders, like in the case of the Muhammad cartoons or the Rushdie affair. I have read enough HERE versions of 'what do you expect' or 'asking for it' when it comes to group, read muslims, sentiments about anything that muslims considered to be offensive to them. But when it comes to American feelings and sentiments, ours are tripe worthy to be trampled upon by muslims. Thanks much.
Its a rant that essentially repeats the argument already debunked in the earlier post by Muse, and in your case, comes close to justifying the lynchings and hangings of Blacks (and discrimination against Muslims by extension) to quite clearly expose your attitudes and biases.

And the cartoons and novels denigrating Islam and Muslims are meant as direct insults and caricatures, there is no doubt over their motives - you have yet to establish that your 'sentiments and feelings' are upset because of any deliberate desire to insult or critizize America or the 9/11 attacks and its victims by the construction of this mosque, so your 'sentiments and feelings' are really not on the same plane.

But keep going with the bad analogies, you might hit on something sometime. Keep throwing enough BS and something might stick, to paraphrase a saying.
 
Last edited:
.
Correct...And the fine print allows money, under UN administration supposedly honest and impartial, to buy medicines for Iraq.

See, this is getting ridiculous. Here you have been arguing all along and you don't even understand the causes for the infant deaths.

Shortage of medicines was only one factor for the deaths. Many deaths were caused by malnutrition, disease, etc. caused by shortage of clean water and general disrepair of infrastruture due to lack of spare parts. Chlorine, used in water purification, was banned under the sanctions.
 
.
Don't generalize - the issue here is specifically American Muslims and their rights and attitudes.
But you have no problems doing it yourself.

No, 'Islam vs something else' is an issue created by the 'something else', as is evident with the protests against multiple mosques in the US now, not just the ground zero mosque. Many Muslims who refer to this are merely pointing out the attitudes and positions adopted by the 'something else'.
Before Sept 11, 2001, Americans never gave Islam and muslims much thoughts, even when weekly there were news about Jews versus muslims over in the ME. The protests we see today is a backlash against muslims in America over what we perceive to be insensitivity by the proposal of this mosque.

If a section of Americans wish to be bigots and racists and denigrate all Muslims, is it wrong to point out that the positions of those Americans are 'anti-Islam' and 'anti-Muslims'?

Its a rant that essentially repeats the argument already debunked in the earlier post by Muse, and in your case, comes close to justifying the lynchings and hangings of Blacks (and discrimination against Muslims by extension) to quite clearly expose your attitudes and biases.

And the cartoons and novels denigrating Islam and Muslims are meant as direct insults and caricatures, there is no doubt over their motives - you have yet to establish that your 'sentiments and feelings' are upset because of any deliberate desire to insult or critizize America or the 9/11 attacks and its victims by the construction of this mosque, so your 'sentiments and feelings' are really not on the same plane.

But keep going with the bad analogies, you might hit on something sometime. Keep throwing enough BS and something might stick, to paraphrase a saying.
The issue is not about whether the Muhammad cartoons were accidental or deliberate. The issue is about 'feelings' and 'sentiments' and when should they trump laws. Your friend opened up this can of worms. Muslims repeatedly ask others to be 'sensitive' about their religious practices and for America we have complied, either willingly or after being educated by the muslims whenever we made a proverbial 'boo-boo'. Now the table is turned and the muslims are crying foul over 'Constitutionality' and religious persecutions when even Fox News regulars like Sara Palin publicly said that this has never been about the laws but about asking for reciprocity when it comes to 'feelings' and 'sensitivity'.
 
. . .
Powerfully articulated - we need people like him articulating the same in the Pakistani media on Pakistani social and minority issues.
Only for Pakistan? I would think that what Olby expressed, if applicable to US, should be applicable to all. What he said is more of an indictment against the religious oppressions we see common in the ME, including Pakistan, than in the US.
 
.
But Gambit those Mid East Countries are in fact dictatorships.They don't promote themselves as a country where freedom is the most important thing.They don't promote democracy but do you want America to be like them?America is supposed to be one of the world's best democracy.
 
.
But you have no problems doing it yourself.
Not at all - I am specifically referring to those Americans who are openly expressing their bigotry in opposing the mosque for no valid or rational reason. At no point have I condemned all Americans.

Before Sept 11, 2001, Americans never gave Islam and muslims much thoughts, even when weekly there were news about Jews versus muslims over in the ME. The protests we see today is a backlash against muslims in America over what we perceive to be insensitivity by the proposal of this mosque.
Past ambivalence towards Muslims is not an excuse for the current bigotry and hate-mongering being openly articulated by some Americans (Muslim and non-Muslim).

Irrational and invalid opposition to a mosque does not justify that bigotry and hate-mongering, not matter what arbitrary point in time you want to pick and distort to justify your attitudes.
The issue is not about whether the Muhammad cartoons were accidental or deliberate. The issue is about 'feelings' and 'sentiments' and when should they trump laws. Your friend opened up this can of worms. Muslims repeatedly ask others to be 'sensitive' about their religious practices and for America we have complied, either willingly or after being educated by the muslims whenever we made a proverbial 'boo-boo'. Now the table is turned and the muslims are crying foul over 'Constitutionality' and religious persecutions when even Fox News regulars like Sara Palin publicly said that this has never been about the laws but about asking for reciprocity when it comes to 'feelings' and 'sensitivity'.
The deliberate use of the cartoons to attack Islam is relevant, since it leaves no room for questioning the motives of those who printed them originally (and I am not supporting the reaction to the cartoons, merely pointing out the difference between the mosque and cartoons). On the other hand, those opposing the cultural center have not provided any rational or valid argument to substantiate their opposition. They have not been able to show how it is an insult, or an attempt to belittle America, 9/11 or the victims of 9/11.

The correct analogy to the Islam/Muslim bashing cartoons would be something like the 'Piss Christ' exhibition, and you'll find that Christians often do object to actions deliberately meant to demean Christianity and Christians.

So no, racism and bigotry are not 'sentiments and feelings' that need to be pampered to.
 
.
Only for Pakistan? I would think that what Olby expressed, if applicable to US, should be applicable to all. What he said is more of an indictment against the religious oppressions we see common in the ME, including Pakistan, than in the US.

My connections, for the most part, are to the US and Pakistan, I will speak primarily for those two.
 
.
Where I have read

'Muslims are to America; what Russians were for Churchill'
 
.
But Gambit those Mid East Countries are in fact dictatorships.They don't promote themselves as a country where freedom is the most important thing.They don't promote democracy but do you want America to be like them?America is supposed to be one of the world's best democracy.

University of Minnesota Human Rights Library

just read this junk which is the guiding standard for oic countries.
 
.
Not at all - I am specifically referring to those Americans who are openly expressing their bigotry in opposing the mosque for no valid or rational reason. At no point have I condemned all Americans.
You do not need to condemn all Americans. All you have to do is generalize that anyone who expresses opposition to this proposed mosque, regardless of his true reason, is a racist. You are casually playing the proverbial 'race card'.

Past ambivalence towards Muslims is not an excuse for the current bigotry and hate-mongering being openly articulated by some Americans (Muslim and non-Muslim).
If there are muslims in America and Canada who opposes this proposed mosque, then how can you justify your broad accusation that said opposition is racism?

Irrational and invalid opposition to a mosque does not justify that bigotry and hate-mongering, not matter what arbitrary point in time you want to pick and distort to justify your attitudes.

The deliberate use of the cartoons to attack Islam is relevant, since it leaves no room for questioning the motives of those who printed them originally (and I am not supporting the reaction to the cartoons, merely pointing out the difference between the mosque and cartoons). On the other hand, those opposing the cultural center have not provided any rational or valid argument to substantiate their opposition. They have not been able to show how it is an insult, or an attempt to belittle America, 9/11 or the victims of 9/11.

The correct analogy to the Islam/Muslim bashing cartoons would be something like the 'Piss Christ' exhibition, and you'll find that Christians often do object to actions deliberately meant to demean Christianity and Christians.

So no, racism and bigotry are not 'sentiments and feelings' that need to be pampered to.
But there were no Christians in public demonstrations carrying signs calling for the artist's painful death, were there? The issue here is 'feelings' and 'sentiments' regardless of cause. Companion to that is the issue of intensity of those 'feelings' and 'sentiments'. The Muhammad cartoons and 'Piss Christ' are no comparisons to each other. But the Muhammad cartoons and this proposed mosque are comparable, intentional or unintentional. Why is that? But even if you do not care as to the 'why', you have no choice but to care as to the response.

Muslims quite forced us to respond to the Muhammad cartoons. Some of us stood by their rights and some retreat. Those who stood by their rights do so with the understanding that their lives can be ended by a muslim at any time. Those who retreat do so with the quiet understanding that they are cowards. Either way, muslims all over the world benefited by the fact that they managed to evoke responses commensurate with their expressed 'feelings' and 'sentiments'. Back then, anyone who stood by their rights were called 'racist' and 'bigots'. Today, any American who asks for respect for their 'feelings' and 'sentiments' are cast in the same. The 'racist' charge can be quite convenient.
 
.
You do not need to condemn all Americans. All you have to do is generalize that anyone who expresses opposition to this proposed mosque, regardless of his true reason, is a racist. You are casually playing the proverbial 'race card'.
Without a rational reason to oppose the mosque, what else could they be?
If there are muslims in America and Canada who opposes this proposed mosque, then how can you justify your broad accusation that said opposition is racism?
Motives matter - they could be opposing the mosque in order to appease the majority and pamper to their prejudices - or could be self-loathing bigots like Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

Again, I see no rational reason to oppose the 'cultural center', but either Muslim or non-Muslim Americans.

But there were no Christians in public demonstrations carrying signs calling for the artist's painful death, were there? The issue here is 'feelings' and 'sentiments' regardless of cause. Companion to that is the issue of intensity of those 'feelings' and 'sentiments'. The Muhammad cartoons and 'Piss Christ' are no comparisons to each other. But the Muhammad cartoons and this proposed mosque are comparable, intentional or unintentional. Why is that? But even if you do not care as to the 'why', you have no choice but to care as to the response.

Muslims quite forced us to respond to the Muhammad cartoons. Some of us stood by their rights and some retreat. Those who stood by their rights do so with the understanding that their lives can be ended by a muslim at any time. Those who retreat do so with the quiet understanding that they are cowards. Either way, muslims all over the world benefited by the fact that they managed to evoke responses commensurate with their expressed 'feelings' and 'sentiments'. Back then, anyone who stood by their rights were called 'racist' and 'bigots'. Today, any American who asks for respect for their 'feelings' and 'sentiments' are cast in the same. The 'racist' charge can be quite convenient.
Again, I made clear that I was not supporting the protests, and try and stick to the protests by American Muslims on that issue if you do wish to make a comparison. I am sure there were all sorts of colorful posters around the world. I am not responsible for any of them. But the fact remains that unless you are able to clearly show that the mosque intends to insult and denigrate, as did the Mohammed Cartoons, the comparison is feeble and invalid.

The 'why' of opposition to the mosque is clear - bigotry, hate-mongering and in some cases racism - since there is no rational or legitimate 'why' - no one has articulated it. And I have had enough of your threats of 'no choice but to care about the response' - if you need to rant along those lines go find a White Supremacist forum, or a 'Church of converted Vietnamese bigots and extremists' or something (Pat Robertson isn't connected to your Church is he?)

There can be no 'respect' for feelings of 'bigotry and racism'. If you can illustrate that the mosque is deliberately 'insulting and denigrating America, 9/11 and the victims of 9/11', as in the case of the cartoons, your argument might have some grounds. But as of yet none of those opposing the mosque have provided any rational justification for those 'feelings'.
 
.
EDIT:
OOPS - Video Already posted by Durran3 (above) - highly recommend it.
 
.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom