Mosque/Mohamed picture

[Jonnyclueless]

What practical, clearly non-offensive purposes would it serve?

To pay homage and tribute to the prophet. There is nothing in the Qu'ran that forbids this being done or any kind of depiction. If they added a fast food restaurant to serve a useful purpose, would then the picture be OK?

 

[Thunder]

anti-Mosquevites:

"building a mosque near GZ is offensive!!! if you do it, we shall be offensive to you, and put up an insulting picture of Muhammed across the street."

great way to ask folks to not do something they consider offensive. threaten to retaliate with an offense gesture of their own.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

How do you know that the purpose of the mosque is to not intentionally offend?

Because they have not declared that to be their intent. Yes, that's nothing more than taking them at their word, but the alternative is to engage in baseless speculation about motives—conspiracy theory territory.

How do you know that the intention of the picture is to offend?

There are at least two factors that would indicate the intent:

1. Has the individual or group responsible protested the community center in any way?
2. It's common knowledge in this country that depictions of Muhammad are viewed as offensive by at least a very vocal subset of Muslims. Most would probably believe that it's offensive to Muslims in general.

Should we limit our freedom of speech just because someone may be offended?

Of course not.

Maybe the purpose of the picture would be to test whether Islam respects freedom of speech.

That's a pretty broad test. Much as the choice of location for the community center could be viewed as a test of whether or not Americans respect freedom of religion.

But one of these scenarios is real and the other is hypothetical, so... who's really being tested here? And would the response from a subset indicate failure of the entire group?

 

[johnny karate]

To pay homage and tribute to the prophet. There is nothing in the Qu'ran that forbids this being done or any kind of depiction. If they added a fast food restaurant to serve a useful purpose, would then the picture be OK?

For all I care, they could add a water slide coming out of Mohamed's rear end. I would still defend their First Amendment right to do it.

However, within the context of this thread, what we're talking about is clearly meant to be intentionally provocative. And the effort being made by some to equate that with Park51 offends my intelligence.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

... Should we also test Christianity and Judaism by intentionally offending people of those faiths? ....

Some people think so some of the time. Jesus on a cross in a tank of urine comes to mind. I don't care if someone finds that art important to construct. If someone wants to have a "Draw Mohammad Day" to protest the lunacy of cartoon riots or death fatwahs, then they felt the message was worthwhile.

I don't see the issue. But I do see an issue with an attempt to appease every religious requirement out there so as not to offend. So where do you stop and why? Should all gays stop sinning? Everyone better start praying to appease Pat Robertson and John Hagee. Why is a Mohammed picture so much more sacred than a Wiccan symbol on a headstone? It is an impossible task not to offend people's religions.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

For all I care, they could add a water slide coming out of Mohamed's rear end. I would still defend their First Amendment right to do it.

However, within the context of this thread, what we're talking about is clearly meant to be intentionally provocative. And the effort being made by some to equate that with Park51 offends my intelligence.

The Park51 matter is separate from depicting Mohammad and if someone depicts the profit just to stir up a fight, then stirring up a fight is the issue, not necessarily the means used.

 

[tsig]

How do you know that the purpose of the mosque is to not intentionally offend?

How do you know that the intention of the picture is to offend?

Should we limit our freedom of speech just because someone may be offended?

Maybe the purpose of the picture would be to test whether Islam respects freedom of speech.

The proposed Muslim community center serves many practical, clearly non-offensive purposes.



What practical, clearly non-offensive purposes would it serve?



No.



Why is this test necessary? Should we also test Christianity and Judaism by intentionally offending people of those faiths? Besides which, the only body that need "respect freedom of speech" is the U.S. government. Even if the Muslim community responded with outrage at your idea and demanded the picture be taken down, hypocrisy is not a loophole that allows one's Constitutional rights to be revoked.

...you oppose the mosque? Took you a while to mention that in your thread. Why didn't you just say so in your OP instead of trying to be cryptic? Why did you throw out questions in post 50, get answers in post 53, and completely ignore them?

It has been universally accepted in this thread that if someone exercised their freedom of speech and put a large picture of Mohamed right across the street from the proposed NYC mosque, this would be okay. I take it that you hold the same stance with the mosque: you oppose it but are okay with it being built?

And I think that it is extremely clear that the mosque is not intended to be intentionally provocative. If you think it is: then stop asking questions and playing silly games and trying to trap other posters into indirectly calling you a bigot and lay out your case. Show us what evidence you have and how you came to your conclusion.

That's odd I see questions in post 53 not answers. I'm not trying to be cryptic.

I don't think it's "been universally accepted in this thread that if someone exercised their freedom of speech and put a large picture of Mohamed right across the street from the proposed NYC mosque, this would be okay".

I didn't try to trap JK into calling anyone a bigot. He did that all on his own.

Why do you get to state your opinion that the placement of the mosque is not provocative without any evidence yet you demand evidence that it is.

 

[tsig]

What about it is provocative? Is is the swimming pool? The basketball court? Perhaps it's the art studio? Or is it the childcare center you object to?

What specifically about Park51 is provocative?



Why would I retract something you seem unable or unwilling to refute? My statement remains unchallenged. And until such time, I stand by it.

How do you refute an insult? Your only argument seems to be that everyone who disagrees with you is a bigot. There's nothing to refute there.

 

[Mojo]

When you start modifying your behavior because someone might be offended, where do you stop?

Is it normal behaviour for New Yorkers to plaster large pictures of Mohammed around the place?

 

[johnny karate]

How do you refute an insult? Your only argument seems to be that everyone who disagrees with you is a bigot. There's nothing to refute there.

On the contrary. I made this statement:

This topic has roughly 7 or 8 active threads going right now, and I've yet to see a reason for opposing Park51 that wasn't rooted in bigotry.

This can easily be refuted by simply providing a reason to oppose Park51 that is not rooted in bigotry.

Instead, you choose to play the role of indignant sufferer of grievous insult while conveniently ignoring my multiple invitations to prove my position incorrect.

 

[banquetbear]

That's odd I see questions in post 53 not answers. I'm not trying to be cryptic.

...how surprising. There are clear answers to your questions as well as requests for clarification. How much clearer of an answer can you get for a question than "no"?

I don't think it's "been universally accepted in this thread that if someone exercised their freedom of speech and put a large picture of Mohamed right across the street from the proposed NYC mosque, this would be okay".

Its not a very long thread. Name the people who would not be okay if someone exercised their freedom of speech and put a large picture of Mohamed right across the street from the proposed NYC mosque. They might not like it, but they would respect their right to free speech.

I didn't try to trap JK into calling anyone a bigot. He did that all on his own.

Of course it was a trap. The whole thread is a trap. You expected people to oppose the picture of Mohamed so you could play "gotchya!" When noone fell for your game you kept changing the rules until you managed to catch someone. Well, you got your "gotchya" moment. I believe that you are being intentionally provocative. I believe that there is more evidence you are being intentionally provocative with this thread than there is that the people behind Park 51 are being intentionally provocative.

Why do you get to state your opinion that the placement of the mosque is not provocative without any evidence yet you demand evidence that it is.

...there is of course, no evidence that the motives for the placement of the mosque was intentionally provocative at all. No evidence. Nada. Zip. If there was, you would of course have posted it and settled the debate. Instead, you decide to dance. "You have to prove that the placement wasn't provocative!" you demand. More game playing.

Here is the FAQ for Park 51.

http://www.park51.org/faq.htm

The Story: The Need For A Mosque in Lower Manhattan



We’d been looking for at least seven years to find a space to accommodate the growing population of Muslims in lower Manhattan. We had also been eager to contribute to the revitalization of lower Manhattan, in part because this is our area of business and also because as New Yorkers we wanted to give back to our city and help make it a better place to live.



Prior to purchasing our current facility at 45 Park Place, there were two mosques in lower Manhattan, although Park51 is not affiliated with either of these mosques. One was Masjid al-Farah, which could fit a maximum of approximately 65 people, and had to hold three or four separate prayer services on Fridays just to fit the crowds.

The second mosque, at Warren Street, accommodated about 1,500 worshippers during Friday prayers - people had been praying on sidewalks because they had no room. They lost their space around May 2009. 



We made the move to buy 45 Park Place in July 2009 in part to offset the loss of this space. Currently, our space at 45 Park Place accommodates around 450 people every Friday. We are also easily accessible from many different parts of Manhattan, Brooklyn, and Staten Island, which was an important consideration.



There you go. The motive for the positioning of Park 51. Your turn. Firstly: you need to provide proof that what is written on the FAQ is a lie. Or if you don't think it is a lie, how you think that this is intentionally provocative. Secondly you will need to provide proof that the site chosen was intentionally provocative. Do you have any official statements that lead you to this belief? How about some leaked transcripts? Documents? Something on the website?

Provide the proof that the people behind Park 51 are lying or concede that you have no evidence to support your proposition of intentional provocation.

 

[tsig]

...how surprising. There are clear answers to your questions as well as requests for clarification. How much clearer of an answer can you get for a question than "no"?



Its not a very long thread. Name the people who would not be okay if someone exercised their freedom of speech and put a large picture of Mohamed right across the street from the proposed NYC mosque. They might not like it, but they would respect their right to free speech.



Of course it was a trap. The whole thread is a trap. You expected people to oppose the picture of Mohamed so you could play "gotchya!" When noone fell for your game you kept changing the rules until you managed to catch someone. Well, you got your "gotchya" moment. I believe that you are being intentionally provocative. I believe that there is more evidence you are being intentionally provocative with this thread than there is that the people behind Park 51 are being intentionally provocative.




...there is of course, no evidence that the motives for the placement of the mosque was intentionally provocative at all. No evidence. Nada. Zip. If there was, you would of course have posted it and settled the debate. Instead, you decide to dance. "You have to prove that the placement wasn't provocative!" you demand. More game playing.

Here is the FAQ for Park 51.

http://www.park51.org/faq.htm



There you go. The motive for the positioning of Park 51. Your turn. Firstly: you need to provide proof that what is written on the FAQ is a lie. Or if you don't think it is a lie, how you think that this is intentionally provocative. Secondly you will need to provide proof that the site chosen was intentionally provocative. Do you have any official statements that lead you to this belief? How about some leaked transcripts? Documents? Something on the website?

Provide the proof that the people behind Park 51 are lying or concede that you have no evidence to support your proposition of intentional provocation.

The placement of the mosque has other threads so if you have no objection to the picture then I guess we're done.

I got the idea for this thread from a post at Pharyngula and I wanted to see what the opinion of the forum was about it, I think that is the motivation for most who start a new thread.

 

[tsig]

On the contrary. I made this statement:


This can easily be refuted by simply providing a reason to oppose Park51 that is not rooted in bigotry.

Instead, you choose to play the role of indignant sufferer of grievous insult while conveniently ignoring my multiple invitations to prove my position incorrect.

Opposing Park51 is not the subject of this thread so let's end the derail here.

I assume you have no objection to the picture so my question is answered.

Thanks for your participation.

 

[banquetbear]

The placement of the mosque has other threads so if you have no objection to the picture then I guess we're done.

I got the idea for this thread from a post at Pharyngula and I wanted to see what the opinion of the forum was about it, I think that is the motivation for most who start a new thread.

...as expected you have no evidence to support your assertion of intentional provocation. I'm not expecting you to retract your claim, but your concession is noted.

 

[Elind]

Opposing Park51 is not the subject of this thread so let's end the derail here.

You raise a good point IMHO.

This and related topics seem to always devolve into two camps; one about an act and one about a symbol.

In short, one cannot be critical about Islam without someone defending a building, and one cannot be critical about a building without someone calling out bigotry against religion (and I mean religion, not just Islam).

I claim both sides of the fence. I am critical of the rotten core of Islam (apologies to all the very nice Muslims who discount the rotten parts by human instinct), and I am critical of the stupidity of the building organizers who thought if they build it all will come.

 

[tsig]

...as expected you have no evidence to support your assertion of intentional provocation. I'm not expecting you to retract your claim, but your concession is noted.

The placement of the mosque is properly addressed in other threads.

If you have no objection to the picture then I have nothing further to say.

ETA: Here's the OP:

Would it be OK if someone exercised their freedom of speech and put a large picture of Mohamed right across the street from the proposed NYC mosque?

So you say yes?

 

[banquetbear]

So you say yes?

...you've read the thread yes? What was post number 2?

 

[johnny karate]

Opposing Park51 is not the subject of this thread so let's end the derail here.

I assume you have no objection to the picture so my question is answered.

Thanks for your participation.

Here you go.

 

[tsig]

...you've read the thread yes? What was post number 2?

You're right I missed it.