Are there still people here on DU who oppose the Islamic community center?

[Hugabear]

Haven't been on in a few weeks, and figured surely by now the controversy would have died down, but I see that it's still raging as strong as ever in the media. I keep hearing the same arguments, that the ground near Ground Zero is "sacred" - despite the fact that there are plenty of bars, nightclubs, strip clubs, and gambling establishments within the same radius that the Cordoba Center will be located. The other argument is that somehow it will be an insult to the victims of 9-11, which insinuates that we should hold every single Muslim personally responsible for that tragedy, the "they're all alike" argument. And I still see it continually being referred to as a "mosque", when it's simply a community center with a prayer room. Orlando International Airport has a chapel (I'm sure other airports do as well) - does that make MCO a cathedral?

Please tell me there still aren't people seriously arguing against it here. For the life of me, I still cannot come up with a rational reason against the community center that isn't bigoted.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

1. I could name a half dozen off the top of my head.

And I'm sure there are more. Also, it appears there's at least one mod who believes there are legitimate reasons to oppose it. Although he sure clammed up about it awful fast. I'd like to be a fly on the wall in that super secret chat room.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

4. Make that seven.

[cmkramer]

49. Make that 8 n/t

[uppityperson]

8. you know more than I. I didn't have that many.

I agree with your sentiment here

[uppityperson]

40. Indeed there was.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8875367&mesg_id=8880172

[LAGC]

2. I don't think too many oppose it, but...

There has been some questions over Imam Rauf's motivations here, where he's going to get all the funding, etc.

Because short of some foreign donors from Islamic theocracies contributing a bunch into his campaign (which would only fuel the opposition to the project), its quite unlikely he's going to be able to raise the necessary funds here, as a considerable number of American Muslims don't think its such a wise idea, to piss that many people off over it.

He says he wants to "build bridges" and promote understanding and tolerance of Islam. It's hard to see that happening with the project as it is proposed now.

[chimpymustgo]

37. You know it really doesn't matter where he gets the money or what he wants to do. It's his property

Casting any additional aspersions about motivation and intent is quite irrelevant and anti-American.

[LAGC]

42. Oh, I think it matters a great deal.

If Saudi Arabia or Iran heavily invest in the project (sources which Imam Rauf hasn't ruled out) it will really raise questions about just what form of Islam is going to be practiced there, as those two countries are authoritarian theocracies. Is that the kind of Islam Imam Rauf wants to endorse?

Of course they have every right to build there, few people are disputing that, the question is: what is their goal? If it's really to "build bridges" and reach out to the non-Muslim community, the way they go about it says a lot about the intent of their project.

I'm not saying they should have to move by any means, but I just question how helpful it will be in promoting "peace, tolerance, and understanding" if they build it in an in-your-face manner.

[chimpymustgo]

43. In WHOSE face??? I am stunned by the cavalier bigotry of even so-called liberals in this country.

We have no RIGHT to question someone's goals or funding. Do you question AIPAC? Shit.

[LAGC]

44. Actually, yeah, I do question AIPAC.

I think our foreign policy is very biased in favor of Israel.

But I think you're wrong to dismiss any mere criticism of the mosque as mere "bigotry."

Again, they have every right to build it and they shouldn't have to move, but I'm just trying to put myself in their shoes. Based on their stated goals, I just don't think they are going to accomplish them if they allow themselves to be linked to Islamic extremism.

[uppityperson]

45. "if they allow themselves to be linked to Islamic extremism". Let's look at that

They have stated over and over which sect they are, and that they are there to promote peace and tolerance. Now the bigots continue to "linked to Islamic extremism", no matter what is said, written, televised. I am including MSM in that group.

So HOW the hell do they not "allow" themselves to be "be linked to Islamic extremism" more than they have? Seriously? HOW?

It is bigotry to continue to link them with Islamic extremism. Simply that easy. And it is the bigots who continue to link them.

[LAGC]

46. Simple. Rule out accepting any funds from Islamic theocracies like Saudi Arabia or Iran.

If Imam Rauf came out forcefully and pledged that and stuck to it, then that would go a long way in dispelling questions about his motives.

It's all about the methods. I still think, instead of building an exclusive mosque area in the building, he should instead have a non-denominational prayer area for all to worship, not just Muslims. That would go a long ways towards building bridges, I would think. But indeed, its his property, his call.

It will just be interesting to see if it even gets funding. In the end, it may just be a lot of hoopla over nothing.

[uppityperson]

48. It is not just "an exclusive mosque" but a Community Center open to many if not all

I don't see how he can ever get past the bs if even people here on DU continue to put this forward as "an exclusive mosque" when it isn't. A swimming pool, classes, music, etc are all included with yes, a room for Muslims to pray in.

Hardly an "exclusive mosque".

[pinboy3niner]

51. The prayer hall will be open to non-Muslim visitors

Demanding that they allow other faiths to conduct those faiths' services there is pretty ridiculous--and something not expected of other faiths in THEIR houses of worship.

Park51 is planned to be open to all, with a board of directors made up of half Muslims and half members of other faiths (or no faith). Its leaders have a record of interfaith, interdenominational work, and the center is endorsed and supported by Christian, Jewish and Buddhist religious leaders and institutions.

You may be listening to too much Faux News or taking viral RW e-mails too seriously, but you need to undertand that there is a lot of PROPAGANDA being directed at this project and its leaders.

They already being demonized for "accepting any funds from Islamic theocracies like Saudi Arabia or Iran," even though that is something they HAVE NOT DONE.

Why are you so willing to swallow this bigoted wingnut BS?

[silverojo]

3. Yes...I feel a compromise is necessary.

I think the Muslim community could mend bridges far better, by offering to cooperate with people of all religions (or no religion) to create some sort of monument to those who perished on 9/11. That's a move which could not possibly be misconstrued as belonging to one religion, or being insensitive to anyone.

If these Muslims led a movement to create something that beautiful, rather than stubbornly insisting on building something that is so divisive, we wouldn't have a heated debate about this issue.

Yes, building the mosque/community center is legal. But just because something is legal doesn't mean it's the right idea.

For example, it's perfectly legal for me to wear a pentacle necklace, since I'm a Wiccan. However, if a Wiccan had killed 3000 people--or even just one--deliberately flaunting my faith by wearing my necklace near the site of the murder is not a wise or kind thing to do.

Ignorance about non-Christian religions abounds; Wiccans know this better than anyone. But you don't eliminate that ignorance by antagonizing people. You eliminate it by being sensitive to their feelings. This is not "bigotry", but common sense.

What these Muslims are doing is making it harder for all of us non-Christians to be accepted. It may be legal, but it's very wrong.


(Edited for spelling.)

[Caliman73]

5. So then we should remove all items bearing American flags and such?

Because Americans have killed thousands if not 10's or 100's of thousands of people around the world with our drones and bombs and such and we don't want to offend anyone's sensibilities. I mean we are at war and all, but that doesn't make killing non-combatants okay.

[silverojo]

13. Where are you suggesting we remove them from?

If you mean we should remove them from America, the answer is no, because the vast majority of Americans are proud of their flag and their country. (The government may do terrible things, like the war you're referring to, but our anger should be directed at the individuals responsible, not our country or its flag.)

With GZ, pentacles, etc., I was referring to the actual areas where murders have taken place. Meaning, it would be horrendously insensitive to plant an American flag on the site of a civilian murder. I feel we need to GTFO of the Middle East, for this very reason--they see us as anti-Muslim invaders.

So the answer to your question depends entirely upon where the flag is located.

[uppityperson]

22. "anger should be directed at the individuals responsible" indeed! Not the

religion, especially when this is a very different sect. Rather like not being angry at my uncle the Protestant for the child rapes Catholic priests have done (since they are both Christians).

Glad you are getting it.

[Caliman73]

36. Anywhere in the world where Americans have killed.

Where some group might be sensitive about what was done to them including domestically. Florida, Georgia, the Dakotas, etc.. I am sure that there are many bands, nations, and tribes of Native Americans who would have more suggestions.

That is about the gist of your argument. Do you consider your basis rational?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

6. Aren't you also the one who's against public breastfeeding?

[silverojo]

9. Not that it's relevant to this conversation

But the answer to your question is yes. I'm also against public defecating and urinating, which are far more pressing urges than breastfeeding.

If you've ever had a bad case of diarrhea, you know it's not legal to drop trou just anywhere to let it fly. Similarly, you don't just whip your boob out to feed a baby. Natural functions may be natural, but there are laws agaist exposing private body parts.

It's possible to manually pump breast milk to feed your baby in public. It's also possible to discreetly cover the breast with an article of clothing or a blanket. This is very much in line with the "sensitivity to others" point I made in my post about a GZ mosque compromise.

Clearly, you had no reasonable argument against my compromise idea, or you would not have resorted to a personal attack. That's because there is no reasonable argument against building a monument to the 9/11 dead. Therefore, you just proved my point.

PS: Memorizing the user names of people you disagree with, and attacking them later, is not just a waste of time, but also extremely creepy.

[uppityperson]

12. You don't think the assholes who are "OMG"ing about a community center would not do so about a monum

monument?

Not to address your "excretion is more pressing than eating" bit, will ignore that elsewhere also.

[silverojo]

14. Of course they wouldn't

It's not just RW'ers objecting to it. The majority of Americans object to it. There's always a contingent of RW'ers who will object to anything short of impeaching Obama, but the vast majority of people would love to see a monument dedicated to the 9/11 victims.

After all, there aren't many protests against, say, The Vietnam Wall. ;)

[uppityperson]

17. I'd like to see proof of your assertion. I think they would, because, after all, Muslims attacked

us on 9/11 and how DARE they put up a monument when we all know they'd like to kill us all? A monument for 9/11 victims, yes of course, but NEVER but Muslims!!

I don't think anything by any Islam sect would go over well, what will MSM promoting all the OMGing about it.

[silverojo]

26. You can't prove your assertion, either

You also overlooked one important part of my idea: That the Muslims should invite people of ALL OTHER religions, as well as agnostics, athiests, etc., to assist them. It would not be a Muslim monument.

That would make the entire difference.

[uppityperson]

31. You posted this as fact "The majority of Americans object to it". I posted an opinion

You also wrote "If these Muslims led a movement to create something that beautiful" and "there is no reasonable argument against building a monument to the 9/11 dead." A community center to promote peace, tolerance, education is...ugly? Bigots would have a problem no matter what Muslims did.

I'd like to see what you base your "fact" ("the majority of Americans object to it")on. I'd also like to see why you believe no non-Muslim would be comfortable in the Cordoba House.

I'd like to know what you think the Cordoba House will be? Maybe you truly have not read about it and are basing your opinions on what MSM has said about it rather than understanding that everyone will be welcome, and you can go swimming (like at the Y) or take classes there, with only 1 small part being for prayer.

Perhaps you do not understand about different Muslim sects, like different sects of Christians and believe all Muslims are acting together.

Perhaps?

[pinboy3niner]

27. A memorial to 9/11 victims IS included in the Park51 plans

Are you calling for the ENTIRE building to be a memorial, in addition to the memorial that is incorporated in the WTC site?

[Violet_Crumble]

52. Comparing breastfeeding to taking a crap gives a real insight into yr views...

I can only imagine yr ire if Muslim women were prone to bouts of public breastfeeding!

You know what? I've read yr posts in this thread and I find it revolting that there's Americans who claim to be left-wing who are like you and think it's very important not to hurt the feelings of hatefilled bigots by building an Islamic community centre. Those sort of people don't seem to grasp the concept of freedom of religion, nor that Muslims were victims on that day as well. They also don't have any clue as to what tolerance means.

Have a read of this. I get a feeling you won't find it as funny as most other people do...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/aug/23/charlie-brooker-ground-zero-mosque

[pinboy3niner]

55. Shame on you for being 'insensitive' to bigots!

Don't you know we're supposed to tiptoe around them and treat their most ridiculous arguments as if they are serious, heartfelt, justifiable concerns?

Their oh-so-innocently expressed concerns are supposed to be taken seriously, lest we be accused of being bigoted ourselves--against bigotry!

With a few of our persistent 'friends' we get to re-live 'Alice in Wonderland' every fucking day...

:hi:

[handmade34]

7. compromising with irrational behavior is not productive

it's true that "you don't eliminate that ignorance by antagonizing people" but sometimes eliminating ignorance takes much more than sensitivity. This has been true with almost all civil rights. People of color being able to vote, women's vote, blacks in the military, gay rights, interracial marriage, etc...

The irrational behavior towards the Muslims will not be cured by creating something beautiful... the people are too fearful to see the beauty

[silverojo]

25. You're comparing apples to oranges

Civil rights and religious rights are two very different things.

Civil rights are about basic needs (housing, employment, marriage, voting, etc.). Religious rights, according to our Founding Fathers, are about freedom of religion AND freedom FROM religion.

Nobody's going to be denied housing or voting rights if the GZ mosque isn't built, and since there are dozens of other mosques in NYC, there's really no pressing need for another. That'd be like building a Wal-Mart there--you don't need it. :rofl:

The reason Islam has such a bad reputation is because its adherents refuse to be sensitive to the feelings of others. Combativeness breeds combativeness.

[uppityperson]

28. Do you understand about different sects in religions? This is like expecting all UCCers to go to a

Catholic Cathedral.

"The reason Islam has such a bad reputation is because its adherents refuse to be sensitive to the feelings of others."

Wow.

Obviously you don't.

[nadinbrzezinski]

29. This was not an issue until four weeks ago

could it be silly season? (Elections are coming you know and fear of the other is one thing the other side does so well.)

By the way Rosa Parks was also damn insensitive and if you asked those who wrote the First Amendment they'd gladly explain to you just how freedom of religion is one of the BASIC civil rights of Americans. That includes the freedom to build a temple, church, mosque, when you've already gone through all the LEGAL requirements.

By the way I hate to do this, but my father remembers these words as well, in Poland, in the interwar years. If those Jews just knew and kept to their place!

And yes the comparison is very apt.

[uppityperson]

33. "The reason Islam has such a bad reputation is because its adherents refuse to be sensitive to..."

"The reason Islam has such a bad reputation is because its adherents refuse to be sensitive to the feelings of others."

Good grief

[uppityperson]

11. You'd rather Muslim community build a monument than community center to help tolerance and healing

A community center is so divisive, whereas a monument, blocks from the WTC site would be....sensitive?

You eliminate ignorance by educating people, by involving them. Like with a community center, not a monument.

[silverojo]

16. No non-Muslim would be comfortable in that building

The mosque inside that building is what people are objecting to. If they'd just build a community center with no religious affiliation, nobody would care.

If you seriously think a monument in the area of GZ isn't sensitive, you don't understand people's emotional needs very much.

[Posteritatis]

20. Way to speak for three-quarters of the human population. Please, tell me what else I think. (nt)

[uppityperson]

21. Oh good grief, I would feel very comfortable in a Community Center dedicated to

promoting peace, tolerance, etc. A building over 2 blocks, around the corner, from the WTC site should not be sensitive, esp when there are sex stores and the like in the area. I've family and friends in NYC and THEY have NO objection to this, would much rather see people pulling together in a community center than slicing each other's throats.

Edited to add that no, I am not a Muslim.

[Desertrose]

24. Speak for yourself, not for me, thank you.

How can you speak for other's "emotional needs"?

I would love to visit that community center & mosque. The more we learn about others, the better we understand them.

And really...lest ye harm others, do what ye will. I don't see how a community center would "harm" others.

[nadinbrzezinski]

30. I am Jewish, and I have been in a few Mosques, and a few

Churches... and a few services that covered multiple faiths. You should try that.

This is about you, and how you feel.

[Caliman73]

35. I have worked in Mental Health for years...

I understand people's emotional needs pretty well. I understand very well when people's needs and thought processes are rational and irrational as well. Equating the actions of a few people with an entire, diverse group is irrational. Every respected therapeutic philosophy requires that maladaptive thought patterns or emotional states be understood and corrected.

Trying to conform to irrational and maladaptive emotional needs is not a healthy thing. That is called co-dependence.

[Withywindle]

47. wut?

Don't presume to speak for some 5 billion people, please.

I'm Wiccan too, and I don't think I'd have any problem feeling comfortable there. Why wouldn't I? Classes, swimming pool, music.....Oh, but there's a room with MUSLIMS PRAYING IN IT, oh the horror. By that same token I should have been "uncomfortable" in the Kuala Lumpur bus station.

[Violet_Crumble]

50. I'm not a Muslim and there's no reason why I wouldn't be comfortable...

Guess that's because I'm not bigoted against Muslims...

[Posteritatis]

18. How far away from the site should Muslims be permitted to build places of worship?

Don't give me the "I'm not saying they shouldn't be permitted to" speech either, as what you're saying is identical to that for all practical purposes. How far away before they wouldn't have to "compromise" by building something entirely different from what they want to build in the first place?

Also, I find the idea that people wouldn't completely lose it if Muslims built a 9/11 related monument, no matter what the content was, completely and utterly laughable. People would claim it was celebrating the attacks, or that it's insensitive for Muslims to do anything about it, and then they'd call for an altogether different "compromise" anyway.

[uppityperson]

23. +1000

[justabob]

34. exactly

I agree with everything you said , especially the second paragraph. Thank you.

[chimpymustgo]

38. There is no COMPROMISE. Only retreat from our founding principles.

We should not even be having this discussion.

[Ramulux]

41. You are a sick human being

So you are saying that we should give in to people who are attempting to discriminate against Muslims because we dont want to upset people?

Do you understand anything about this country?

Are you really unable to distinguish between Islam and extreme fundamentalist Islam?

The people who are building this community center and the people who will worship there are not the same as the people who flew a plane into the WTC building. What is so hard to understand about that?

You are trying to discriminate against a group of people and it is disgusting. You should be ashamed of yourself.

[Fuzz]

10. Well, I'm kinda against all religious stuff.

;)

[Posteritatis]

15. Most of the real bigoted ones have either shut up or been tombstoned..

At least a few weeks ago there were lots of real frothers around here on that - people actually buying into the "terror mosque" stuff, saying Osama is the one building it, etc. There's still some people ignorant enough to believe that Wahabbists would happily support Sufis, thinking the two are one and the same and otherwise treating a quarter of the human population as a monolith.

Generally speaking the people around here who still hate the thing for anything other than all-religion-is-bad reasons are the ones who either like collective guilt or who still believe the Cordoba Center's being built with malicious intent. Neither perspective is especially deserving of respect.

[Violet_Crumble]

53. I just did a quick check and I can't see any who've been tombstoned...

Most of them have moved onto other threads either about Islam and Muslims or ones where they can steer the conversation in that direction...

[Uzybone]

19. There are several who display their bigotry with pride

Others are caught up in knots trying to cover Howard Dean for his foolishness, but thats also bigotry.

[VMI Dem]

32. I won't comment on the wisdom of it. They certainly have the right.

[mmonk]

39. Yes. Just peruse through the threads concerning Islam.

They are easy to spot.

[RedCloud]

54. I support their right to practice another "insult" to science!