Merged Obama enters GZ Mosque debate

[Peephole]

Has this been posted here yet?

http://manhattan.ny1.com/content/to...ive--developer-won-t-budge-on-mosque-location

Really happy that this person isn't letting himself be intimidated by the islamophobes.

 

[Neally]

Only when it stops being accurate.



Is bigotry more acceptable when the majority agrees with it? For me, it just makes it that much more frightening.

Of course not. The point was the broad brush definition of "bigot" and "extremist" that is being used here to paint everyone that doesn't share your opinion.

Well, except that the Imam is hardly a radical. Which you would have known if you'd bother reading about the subject before forming an opinion.

Which I already acknowledged. My example was used as just that, an example of a rational concern IF the imam was a radical, apparently he is not. Try reading for context next time.

Ignorant and bigoted opinions aren't made correct (or any less ignorant and bigoted) when they're held by even a majority of people. That's pretty much the textbook definition of the Argumentum ad populum logical fallacy.

Try reading for comprehension. I wasn't arguing that opposition was right due to a majority of people thinking such, but that the name calling, "bigot" and "extremist", is clearly an overly broad accusation when nearly 70% of the people have an issue with this.

You really should take your own advice. As I said, the chances of a "radical Imam call[ing] upon other radicals to join their mosque as a sign of victory there in the death of thousands of infidels" happening with this particular mosque are pretty much the same as the chances of a rabbi calling upon Neo-Nazis and Holocaust Deniers to join his synagogue as a sign of victory over the perfidious Jews.

And you should really read my comments before responding. I already acknowledge that the imam was not a radical and my comments were meant as an example only if he was a radical.

Of which people?

The people polled, which within statistical limitations, are representative of the population.

There are already laws against terrorism. The people building this thing aren't terrorist.

Yes, it's bigotry when you argue as if all Muslims are terrorists.

And who has stated "all Muslims are terrorists", or is this just some straw you are throwing out?

You've already shown that you have no problem inventing (false) facts to support your case. I do think it's proper in forum devoted to skepticism and rational thinking to point out that the position you've been advocating is irrational.

And what would those "false facts" be exactly? And what exactly do you think my position is?

Neally, in this post, you are repeatedly requesting that you not be associated with bigotry. That's a perfectly acceptable desire. Let's explore the issue further.

There are plenty of bigoted, irrational reasons to oppose the building of this mosque. I'm not making a profound statement, here. The same could be said of pretty much any issue, anywhere. I'm sure you would agree.

But if it cannot be shown that there is a rational, non-bigoted, intellectual reason for one to oppose this mosque, then it naturally follows that the irrational reasons are the only ones left. Neally, please share with us your rational reasons for opposing this mosque. If you have none, then the charges of bigotry stand.

I've already stated that my concerns are eased when learning that the Imam wasn't a radical. Do the 70% percent of those who are opposed also know this? If not, can you honestly accuse them of being bigoted extremists?

Questions for Neally:

Do you really think all Muslims are terrorists (i.e. criminals)?

If not, do you think the ones proposing the construction of this building are criminals? Do you think they were involved somehow with the 9/11 attacks?

If so, then why stop at denying them a building permit? Why not arrest them and prosecute them for their crimes?

So by now I hope you'll admit that these are people who are innocent of any wrongdoing. These are people who are protected by the First Amendment.

You really need to keep up with the thread before adding new posts. Already discussed.

And this is a "concern" that isn't rational either. It's born of prejudice--as if all Muslims supported the 9/11 attacks. Do you also think all black congregations should repudiate the Black Panthers (or even specific acts of violence by them) before we grant them building permits? (If not, what is the distinction?)

It's entirely rational and being legitimately cautious checking the background and intentions of the leader of a muslim group intending to open a mosque at GZ as it's not just some random location, but one of significant symbolic significance to the radicals.

In Reid's case, I think his comments were especially odious because I don't think he actually shares the popular misconceptions. I think he's merely playing politics and pandering to popular bigotry.

And you know that he doesn't actually share the "popular misconceptions" how?

 

[I Am The Scum]

I've already stated that my concerns are eased when learning that the Imam wasn't a radical. Do the 70% percent of those who are opposed also know this? If not, can you honestly accuse them of being bigoted extremists?

I think that's a pretty fair assessment. We're only left with a few explanations, here. One could be opposed to the mosque for no reason whatsoever. One could be opposed because they hate Muslims. One could be opposed because they have been misled and deceived, which is a decent possibility, but this would only lead me to question why one so easily believes the worst-case scenario.

If there are other options available that I am leaving out, please let me know.

 

[Cleon]

Has this been posted here yet?

http://manhattan.ny1.com/content/to...ive--developer-won-t-budge-on-mosque-location

Really happy that this person isn't letting himself be intimidated by the islamophobes.

Ditto. I especially got a kick out of this part:

"I am surprised at the way that politics is being played in 2010. There are issues that are affecting our country, which are real issues: unemployment, poverty, the economy,” he said. “And it's a really sad day for America when our politicians choose to look at a constitutional right and use that as basis for their elections."

Emphasis added.

Now, compare that to rwguinn's approach:

I can't help but wonder why it is that the Librulz here scream about our lack of sensitivity to the cultures of others, and scream like hell when their lack of sensitivity to our culture is raised.
The building of the Mosques is not a freedom of/from religion thing. It merely has the appearance of insensitivity--as in "Up yours, America!"

rwguinn talks as though it's "us" vs. "them," as if there is some sort of separation between "Muslim" and "American."

Sharif El-Gamal talks about "our country," where Muslims are part of the fabric of society. For him, he is just as American as everyone else.

I would rather live in Sharif El-Gamal's America than rwguinn's.

 

[Cleon]

Of course not. The point was the broad brush definition of "bigot" and "extremist" that is being used here to paint everyone that doesn't share your opinion.

No, I'm painting bigots as bigots. It doesn't matter if they're a majority or a minority; if they exhibit irrational prejudice towards a religious minority - and they do - they are, by definition, bigots.

If you don't like the label, explain why it's wrong. Whining "70% don't agree with you" over and over doesn't accomplish that.

Try reading for context next time.

...

Try reading for comprehension.

...

And you should really read my comments before responding.

...

You really need to keep up with the thread before adding new posts. Already discussed.

Had you bothered to follow your own advice, you'd have stopped on page 1.

 

[A'isha]

Of course not. The point was the broad brush definition of "bigot" and "extremist" that is being used here to paint everyone that doesn't share your opinion.

No, the "bigot" and "extremist" labels are only being applied to those who are (or are acting like) bigots and extremists.

Which I already acknowledged. My example was used as just that, an example of a rational concern IF the imam was a radical, apparently he is not. Try reading for context next time.

I eagerly await your explanation as to how something that's not true, has never been true, and was trivially shown not to be true as far back as the Bush Administration could possibly form part of a "rational concern" for anyone but the willfully ignorant and/or the bigoted.

What's next, saying it's rational to be concerned about the Imam if he were a shapeshifting alien lizard from the lower fourth dimension who has been sent to Earth to harvest our organs?

Try reading for comprehension. I wasn't arguing that opposition was right due to a majority of people thinking such, but that the name calling, "bigot" and "extremist", is clearly an overly broad accusation when nearly 70% of the people have an issue with this.

Well, now, that really depends on why they have an issue with the mosque, now doesn't it? And right now there's been a definite dearth of non-bigoted reasons for opposing it...

And you should really read my comments before responding. I already acknowledge that the imam was not a radical and my comments were meant as an example only if he was a radical.

Great. What other wholly fictional and easily disproven "concerns" about the Imam do you have?

I've already stated that my concerns are eased when learning that the Imam wasn't a radical. Do the 70% percent of those who are opposed also know this? If not, can you honestly accuse them of being bigoted extremists?

It's not like the information about the Imam is hidden - all of it is easily uncovered by even the most cursory investigation into Rauf, Sufi Islam, and the Cordoba Initiative.

It strikes me as rather odd that all these people are so concerned about the "Ground Zero mosque" and it's potentially radical Imam that they don't bother to do even the most superficial investigation into the facts, instead relying entirely on the lies that bigoted, prejudiced sources are feeding them.

It is, in fact, eerily like they're simply accepting whatever fits their pre-existing prejudices in lieu of actually seeking out the truth of the matter.

It's entirely rational and being legitimately cautious checking the background and intentions of the leader of a muslim group intending to open a mosque at GZ as it's not just some random location, but one of significant symbolic significance to the radicals.

Checking? Absolutely.

Not checking, and instead saying things like "maybe if a radical Imam called upon other radicals to join their mosque as a sign of victory there in the death of thousands of infidels" and "there is a concern that the center due to it's location might attract extremists" (especially when such things are repeated not just after failing to do a simple Google search, much less in a thread where the foolishness of such statements had already been pointed out), on the other hand...

 

[Thunder]

Its fascinating when folks who wish to strip Muslims of their freedom to build a house of worship on private property, are complaining about how offensive it is to be called bigots and extremists.



KKK Guy- "get our of here black guy!!! we don't want want you!! take your black church with ya!!"

Black Guy- "you know, this is America. I have the right to live here and build a church. you are being racist"

KKK Guy- "racist? easy now, I find that a bit rude and offensive. please refrain from such ad homenim attacks".

 

[Neally]

Had you bothered to follow your own advice, you'd have stopped on page 1.

Do show me where I misunderstood someones comment or missed relevant comments in any of my responses.

I eagerly await your explanation as to how something that's not true, has never been true, and was trivially shown not to be true as far back as the Bush Administration could possibly form part of a "rational concern" for anyone but the willfully ignorant and/or the bigoted.

What's next, saying it's rational to be concerned about the Imam if he were a shapeshifting alien lizard from the lower fourth dimension who has been sent to Earth to harvest our organs?

I'm tired of trying to spoon feed you in order for you to comprehend. Go back and read #315.

Its fascinating when folks who wish to strip Muslims of their freedom to build a house of worship on private property, are complaining about how offensive it is to be called bigots and extremists.

Fascinating also how all who oppose this are bigots and extremists except Reid, and presumably other democrats. Somehow, just somehow they can't possibly really be opposed to this, instead they just must be pandering to voters.

 

[johnny karate]

Fascinating also how all who oppose this are bigots and extremists except Reid, and presumably other democrats. Somehow, just somehow they can't possibly really be opposed to this, instead they just must be pandering to voters.

I like how you imply Reid is somehow getting off easy in that assessment. I personally think he is pandering to voters. And in a lot of ways, that makes him worse than the bigots he's pandering to.

 

[Taarkin]

I'm tired of trying to spoon feed you in order for you to comprehend. Go back and read #315.

Your response to an accusation that the concern you offered was dumb and unfounded is to...direct our attention to a dumb, unfounded concern?

 

[A'isha]

Do show me where I misunderstood someones comment or missed relevant comments in any of my responses.

Okay.

I'm tired of trying to spoon feed you in order for you to comprehend. Go back and read #315.

How convenient - you provide an example right here. Post 315, where you quote my own post explaining to you just how ineffably dumb the idea that radical Muslim extremists would be in any way associated with or attracted to this mosque truly is, which you labeled as "irrelevant", despite it explaining to you just how ineffably dumb the idea that radical Muslim extremists would be in any way associated with or attracted to this mosque truly is.

And all of this following, in that same post 315, you expressing how concerned you are that "a radical Imam [might call] upon other radicals to join their mosque as a sign of victory there [at "Ground Zero"] in the death of thousands of infidels."

I'd certainly label that as some pretty epic missing of relevant comments. Especially when you keep bringing up this "concern" in later posts of yours, as if it were some legitimate reason to oppose the mosque, rather than being the long since (and extremely easily) debunked fiction that it truly is.

Fascinating also how all who oppose this are bigots and extremists except Reid, and presumably other democrats. Somehow, just somehow they can't possibly really be opposed to this, instead they just must be pandering to voters.

We speculate about Reid possibly saying what he said because he does have a reason other than bigotry and extremism to oppose the construction of the mosque: pandering (foolishly and spinelessly, in my opinion) to voters. Presumably, however, the vast majority of your oft-cited 70% of Americans who also oppose the mosque are not currently running for re-election like Reid is, and so can't ascribe their position to a shameless trolling for votes.

So what's their excuse for why their opposition shouldn't be labeled bigotry and extremism?

 

[Foolmewunz]

Do show me where I misunderstood someones comment or missed relevant comments in any of my responses.

I'm tired of trying to spoon feed you in order for you to comprehend. Go back and read #315.

Fascinating also how all who oppose this are bigots and extremists except Reid, and presumably other democrats. Somehow, just somehow they can't possibly really be opposed to this, instead they just must be pandering to voters.

I see someone else beat me to the immediate response, but if you read my previous posts, I clearly said that I have no respect for Reid's pandering to those who oppose the mosque. That is my assumption, and I may be wrong, but the timing of his stand on this issue is pretty apparently election posturing.

Why do you keep bringing this up? I think you're attempting to divide this into Dems v Reps, and that's not the case from the majority of the posters I see in this thread. In case you haven't noticed, the Democrats are cannibals. We eat our own. It's the Republicans who have that 11th Commandment. I'm not coming out in support of everything a prominent Democrat does or says. Why, heck, I've been known to criticize the First Brother!

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

One could be opposed because they have been misled and deceived, which is a decent possibility, but this would only lead me to question why one so easily believes the worst-case scenario.

Good point. When I first heard the story, it was told incorrectly (that someone is proposing building a mosque at Ground Zero), and my initial reaction was to think that that can't be right. I think being easily misled by sloppy news reporting is a sign of a biased thinker.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Do show me where I misunderstood someones [sic] comment or missed relevant comments in any of my responses.

I still haven't seen you retract the nonsense about zoning codes and local ordinances or admit that you were flat out wrong when you said that Obama never mentioned them.

So it sure looks like you missed my relevant comments on that particular issue.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

We speculate about Reid possibly saying what he said because he does have a reason other than bigotry and extremism to oppose the construction of the mosque: pandering (foolishly and spinelessly, in my opinion) to voters. Presumably, however, the vast majority of your oft-cited 70% of Americans who also oppose the mosque are not currently running for re-election like Reid is, and so can't ascribe their position to a shameless trolling for votes.

And actually, I think that's a good reason to find Reid's comments even more odious than those made by people who are honestly bigoted. (What a great concept that is! Honest bigotry! But it is meaningful--it's sort of like the idea of pious frauds among supernatural claimants.)

But I get your point. As I've been saying, there are no rational arguments in opposition to the construction of this building. It's a fair assumption that with few exceptions, bigotry and other un-American sentiments (those that run contrary to some of the fundamental principles our country is founded on) are the reason people hold that irrational position.

I find it telling that Neally seems more concerned about quibbling over what people speculate is the reason for people holding an irrational position rather than attempting to provide any rational support for the position.

 

[Thunder]

Fascinating also how all who oppose this are bigots and extremists except Reid, and presumably other democrats. Somehow, just somehow they can't possibly really be opposed to this, instead they just must be pandering to voters.

great stawman there. do you pay buy the pound or the liter?

Reid may be against the mosque because he is an anti-Muslim bigot. or it may because he is in the fight of his life for his Senate seat.

or maybe a bit of both, who knows.

 

[MattusMaximus]

The mind-readers around here to the contrary, I can't imagine why everybody thinks of this issue solely in political terms. For the record, once again, I doubt if this will have any significant impact on the elections in 2010 and 2012. It's a nothing issue as compared to the economy.

Good on you, Brainster. I must agree with my esteemed colleague from across the aisle on this one - folks, this sort of thing is just fodder for the political junkies on the right & left. The vast majority of the rest of the voters don't give a hoot about this, despite the fact that the media are salivating over it. Remember: "It's the economy, stupid."

The supporters of this project have become so blinded in their belief that not only is the Mosque good and noble, but that nobody could possibly oppose it for reasons other than base ones. Dudalb is so far around the bend that he thinks Harry Reid is only opposing it to get reelected, and to top it off, he refuses to condemn Reid because there is a higher calling, that of beating a tea party candidate.

I honestly couldn't care less one way or another if this mosque is built near GZ. In fact, if this weren't an election year nobody else would give a damn, either. I just wish people would get back to discussing something important, like... ummm... the economy, perhaps?

Skepticism no, cynicism yes.

You've posted to the Politics subforum before, right?

 

[eeyore1954]

Originally Posted by Thunder
yes, how is a Mosque offensive to American culture? I'd really like to know.

oh...wait...I got it. the USA is a "Judeo-Christian" nation. so anything other that a church or synagogue built in our land, is offensive.

got it.

A mosque is not offensive to most American culture. How many mosques are there in NYC, have you heard much uproar about any of them. This is the first I have heard.

9/11 was an extremely emotional experience for most Americans , watching the buildings collapse with all those humans in it is something that stays with you. It may be irrational but the overwhelming majority are against the mosque being there. They don't have to be bigoted to feel this way and I am pretty sure that most are not. It is an emotional response to a traumatic event. Remember not everyone has the highly rational minds that many posters here think they possess.

In my opinion the builders should recognize that it can bring this irrational feeling and consider changing the location. Which it looks as if they are willing to at least consider.

Its fascinating when folks who wish to strip Muslims of their freedom to build a house of worship on private property

You do understand most people are not in favor of stripping the Muslims of their right to build but would like them to reconsider.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Just a factual question related to the polling on this issue...

I've seen a lot in the headlines about 70% of those polled are against the mosque being built, or something to that effect. My question is about the wording of the poll, because I haven't seen the actual poll: does it say the mosque is being built at GZ, or does it mention it is being built close to GZ, or does it mention that it's being built about 1/4 mile away from GZ, etc?

Anyone got the link to the poll everyone keeps citing? I apologize in advance if its already been posted and I missed it.

Cheers - MM

 

[eeyore1954]

Originally Posted by Brainster

The mind-readers around here to the contrary, I can't imagine why everybody thinks of this issue solely in political terms. For the record, once again, I doubt if this will have any significant impact on the elections in 2010 and 2012. It's a nothing issue as compared to the economy.

Good on you, Brainster. I must agree with my esteemed colleague from across the aisle on this one - folks, this sort of thing is just fodder for the political junkies on the right & left. The vast majority of the rest of the voters don't give a hoot about this, despite the fact that the media are salivating over it. Remember: "It's the economy, stupid."



I honestly couldn't care less one way or another if this mosque is built near GZ. In fact, if this weren't an election year nobody else would give a damn, either. I just wish people would get back to discussing something important, like... ummm... the economy, perhaps?



You've posted to the Politics subforum before, right?

I have heard a few commercials in the Tri-state area where conservative politicians have tried to use the fact that their opponets are in favor of the mosque as a tool.