Obama For Mosque at Ground Zero

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Maximilian

Technically, it's not AT Ground Zero.

And technically, Muslims are not under a moral indictment as a mass group... or at least shouldn't be.

I think it's a provocative move, and becomes even more provocative that the Imam of the temple refuses to denounce terrorism.... but the fact that Muslims want to erect a community center and temple down the street from Ground Zero (by itself) is not a problem.

It's close enough for New Yorkers to be upset about it. To many of them it's an "in your face" statement by these Muslims

The fact of the Imam in charge just reinforces the feelings that this is a "in your face" facet of "Silent Jihad" many are concerned about besides the NYorkers and family members of those that lost their lives just being reminded of the "Violant Jihad" that occured on 9/11

[Maximilian]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

It's close enough for New Yorkers to be upset about it. To many of them it's an "in your face" statement by these Muslims

The fact of the Imam in charge just reinforces the feelings that this is a "in your face" facet of "Silent Jihad" many are concerned about besides the NYorkers and family members of those that lost their lives just being reminded of the "Violant Jihad" that occured on 9/11

Prax, the up-in-arms tizzy started wayyyyyy before any of them knew the Imam, knew his thoughts, etc.... It's fair for those who withheld judgement until knowing all the info, but many people just had a knee jerk emotional reaction that grouped all Muslims into the 9/11 suspects. Unfair and is more of an indictment on them.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Maximilian

Prax, the up-in-arms tizzy started wayyyyyy before any of them knew the Imam, knew his thoughts, etc.... It's fair for those who withheld judgement until knowing all the info, but many people just had a knee jerk emotional reaction that grouped all Muslims into the 9/11 suspects. Unfair and is more of an indictment on them.

When it started is irrelevant. The fact of what the Imam is adds fuel to the fire

And yes many people had a knee jerk emotional reaction...not to a Mosque being build anywhere but so close to ground zero. I think a lot of Americans empathize with them. I don't think it is wise to stoke those emotions.

[Maximilian]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

When it started is irrelevant. The fact of what the Imam is adds fuel to the fire

And yes many people had a knee jerk emotional reaction...not to a Mosque being build anywhere but so close to ground zero. I think a lot of Americans empathize with them. I don't think it is wise to stoke those emotions.

How could it be irrelevant? If people claim that's the reason for their fury, it's contradicting because they were furious before ever having that information. It's quite relevant.

We must be careful to project Islamaphobia. I feel people do lipservice when they suggest "not all Muslims are radical 9/11 terrorists." Many believe that, or at least that all Muslims support that.

How far away is it acceptable, by the way? 3 blocks? 6? 10? 12?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Maximilian

How could it be irrelevant? If people claim that's the reason for their fury, it's contradicting because they were furious before ever having that information. It's quite relevant.

We must be careful to project Islamaphobia. I feel people do lipservice when they suggest "not all Muslims are radical 9/11 terrorists." Many believe that, or at least that all Muslims support that.

How far away is it acceptable, by the way? 3 blocks? 6? 10? 12?

Who said that's the reason for their "fury"?

As I said twice now I think it just adds to it and since the revelation has motivated more people to get on the band wagon.

As I pointed out, this is not a movement to ban Islam nor the building of Mosques. It's simple an issue of placing one so close to ground zero.

How far away is acceptable? I don't know. Since this is really an issue of emotions and the American psyche, I think what might be best is to have a meeting and for the moderate Muslims to say "Look we understand and we sympathize with you. Can we come to a compromise? We don't want to build a Mosque so close that it causes you more emotional pain but we do need another Mosque in this area for worshippers. We've severed ties with ______Imam. How about this location over here? It's further away"


The leaders of this anti Mosque movement will have to come in and say, essentially the same thing, we understand you need a mosque in this area and we are glad you understand the emotional mind set of the families of the fallen on 9/11 as well as the moderate Muslims desire to distinguish themselves from those that perpetrated these actions. We see your concession as an earnest desire towards that end as well. We are fine with the location you have chosen and we thank you for the steps you have taken to alleviate the situation. etc etc


I think that's the only way things are going to work out for both sides. Islam has a bad rap right now and Moderate Muslims are often seen as passive participants. In this case these Muslims have an Imam that just burns that image into the minds of many Americans at this moment.

BTW I repeat that I think the issue of the Imam just increased the numbers of those opposed when they found out and those that were already opposed exasperated their feelings

[Praxeas]

For the record I did not use the term moral in a religious context referring to rules as if this is an issue of sin or Christian vs Islam.

I never made this an issue of christian vs Islam, someone else did. I made this an issue of society and the victims of 9/11

[Maximilian]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

For the record I did not use the term moral in a religious context referring to rules as if this is an issue of sin or Christian vs Islam.

I never made this an issue of christian vs Islam, someone else did. I made this an issue of society and the victims of 9/11

I gotcha... I understand.

I was just asking about the word "moral" that someone else brought up. I took it to be an ethical thing, and I'm trying to understand the unethical part of it. I truly am. One could argue distasteful? Provocative?

I think those who threw a fit at first word of this lose credibility. Those who held out judgement to get the "full story," learned more about the Imam, funding, etc have a right to be skeptical and emotional. The former group has only shown a deep-seeded Islamaphobia.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

For the record I did not use the term moral in a religious context referring to rules as if this is an issue of sin or Christian vs Islam.

I never made this an issue of christian vs Islam, someone else did. I made this an issue of society and the victims of 9/11

Originally Posted by Maximilian

I gotcha... I understand.
Those who held out judgment to get the "full story," learned more about the Imam, funding, etc have a right to be skeptical and emotional.

Exactly!

[DAII]

We can argue about the Constitutionality of a million issues in the past but this one is CLEAR CUT. We expect the office to uphold the Constitution and in this case it does and the zealots go bananas.

Now the litmus test is what others do - the Germans, the Japanese, et al and our "emotions".

We're not the French! Remember that argument?

Perhaps we should re-examine the Churches built near Indian reservations and near massacre grounds in order to Christianize the "savages"?

If this were a Church being rejected by our nation's leader on the Trail of Tears because it is not "wise" to offend ...? Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah.

Really? Don't argue for "strict constructionism" any more when the next Supreme Court appointee rolls around when the President uses it to guide his opinion ... because you don't give a rat's lass' tail about the Constitution.

All this talk about betrayal and our mores .... where were the kool-aid drinkers when the last Christian President lied to us and said we needed to nation build because some non-religious despot had WMDs while committing our troops to bloodshed, killing of innocents under the banner of "collateral damage" and betraying the trust we've worked so hard to garner from our allies? ....

Your brand of constitutionalism only applies to your asinine agendas.

Timlan nailed it when he remarked on FB today ... about the Christian "right" who would mix their Christianity and spiritualize politics like any radical Islamic fundamentalist ...

"Oh yeah, the right is like a bunch of greased pigs on this one. You can't pin them down. Someone was saying that "Saudi Arabia does not allow churches" so we should shut down mosques. Yeah, that's what we should aspire to, I guess, being a fundamentalist religious theocracy instead of a constitutional republic. Great logic."

Liberty is not a la carte.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by DAII

We can argue about the Constitutionality of a million issues in the past but this one is CLEAR CUT. We expect the office to uphold the Constitution and in this case it does and the zealots go bananas.

Now the litmus test is what others do - the Germans, the Japanese, et al and our "emotions".

We're not the French! Remember that argument?

Perhaps we should re-examine the Churches built near Indian reservations and near massacre grounds in order to Christianize the "savages"?

If this were a Church being rejected by our nation's leader on the Trail of Tears because it is not "wise" to offend ...? Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah.

Really? Don't argue for "strict constructionism" any more when the next Supreme Court appointee rolls around when the President uses it to guide his opinion ... because you don't give a rat's lass' tail about the Constitution.

All this talk about betrayal and our mores .... where were the kool-aid drinkers when the last Christian President lied to us and said we needed to nation build because some non-religious despot had WMDs while committing our troops to bloodshed, killing of innocents under the banner of "collateral damage" and betraying the trust we've worked so hard to garner from our allies? ....

Your brand of constitutionalism only applies to your asinine agendas.

Timlan nailed it when he remarked on FB today ... about the Christian "right" who would mix their Christianity and spiritualize politics like any radical Islamic fundamentalist ...

"Oh yeah, the right is like a bunch of greased pigs on this one. You can't pin them down. Someone was saying that "Saudi Arabia does not allow churches" so we should shut down mosques. Yeah, that's what we should aspire to, I guess, being a fundamentalist religious theocracy instead of a constitutional republic. Great logic."

Funny that Obama decides to "backpedal" after his comments at his Muslim dinner speech. He never mentions the "wisdom" of it at the dinner, but taking some heat, he decides to backpedal to a CNN reporter.

"President Barack Obama told CNN Saturday that in defending the right of Muslims to build a community center and mosque near ground zero in a speech Friday night, he was "not commenting on the wisdom" of the project but trying to uphold the broader principle that the government should treat "everyone equal, regardless" of religion."

http://www.breitbart.tv/backtrack-ob...d-zero-mosque/

That is why Prax is correct - "I never made this an issue of christian vs Islam, someone else did. I made this an issue of society and the victims of 9/11."

That is why this is not a "religious" issue or "constitutional" issue. Your President, in effect, said the same thing in his "backpedaling" comment.