Building a Mosque near Ground Zero.

[Kanastrous]

Is it a more typically Muslim practice today, which is to say the period of history in which we ourselves actually live and have responsibilities, than it is a Christian one? Sometimes distant history, while interesting is not as significant as more current affairs.

Maybe it's just a matter of reportage, but it certainly appears that knocking down and/or converting other people's holy sites is primarily a Muslim practice, in the recent past and today. Which would make it a lot more relevant than what people of other faiths were up to, some number of decades or centuries ago.

[Sarevok]

Kanastrous's your viewpoint on this particular issue is shockingly ignorant and bigoted. I am sorry to say this but it is true. For nine years now the muslims world is being told America is not at war at them. Yet you want to confirm just that fact for the extremists. Someone is building a mosque in the same neighbouring area NOT on top of where the towers stood. You want to draw all sorts of conspiracy theory esque connections to it. If you are looking for enemies it far too easy because hate is the easiest emotion to stoke. On the other hand sometimes a cigar is a cigar and a mosque is just a mosque. There is no need to complicate this issue any further than that and the more you overthink the harder it will be for America to move on past its WoT phase.

[Thanas]

Is it a more typically Muslim practice today, which is to say the period of history in which we ourselves actually live and have responsibilities, than it is a Christian one? Sometimes distant history, while interesting is not as significant as more current affairs.

Maybe it's just a matter of reportage, but it certainly appears that knocking down and/or converting other people's holy sites is primarily a Muslim practice, in the recent past and today. Which would make it a lot more relevant than what people of other faiths were up to, some number of decades or centuries ago.

It is? When have muslims redecorated a church post WWII? You must have something to base that assumption on, so let's hear your evidence.

And American missionaries are far more and far better funded than muslim ones today.

[Kanastrous]

I'm thinking of the destruction of the Bamiyan statues - the eradication of someone else's long-extant religious place because it's not Islamic, the destruction of churches in India and Indonesia, and the destruction and conversion of Christian sites by Turks during the Turkish/Armenian genocide. Also the destruction and conversion of synagogues throughout the Muslim Arab world pre- and post-1948, and the bulldozing of Jewish cemetaries and use of the headstones as pavers and latrine liners.

I realize that the Turkish destruction was pre-WWII but is still within recent modern times and still underwrites the point.

Now it's your turn to clue me in to some examples of Christian missionaries destroying mosques and/or converting them into places for Christian religious observance. Not saying it doesn't happen but I'm looking forward to learning - post WW-II of course - exactly when.

*EDIT* and as an afterthought, while it's not literal it's part of the same impulse...the manner in which the Waqf responsible for the Haram al-Sharif treats any materials they find that confirm or relate to a pre-Islamic Jewish presence on the Temple Mount - which go straight to the dump, if the Waqf has their way. That's the same kind of hide-the-evidence-to-erase-another-faith's existence on the site, too, done in modern times on an ancient location.

[Thanas]

I'm thinking of the destruction of the Bamiyan statues

Done by the Taliban, not typical muslims.

the destruction of churches in India and Indonesia,

Link please - and note that Hindu fanatics are doing the same to Mosques.

and the destruction and conversion of Christian sites by Turks during the Turkish/Armenian genocide.

Doesn't really count as that was done under the ottoman mindset and aimed towards the complete eradication of the Armenians. Turkey meanwhile is rather secular.

Also the destruction and conversion of synagogues throughout the Muslim Arab world pre- and post-1948.

Synagogues are not churches and the destruction there was a direct response to Israel doing the same iirc.

I realize that the Turkish destruction was pre-WWII but is still within recent modern times and still underwrites the point.

It really does not as it is in no way applicable to the topic at hand.

So all you have so far is the destruction of two buddha statues by religious fanatics, which are in no way connected to the Mosque in New York. I mean, writings like this do not indicate fanaticism.

Now it's your turn to clue me in to some examples of Christian missionaries destroying mosques and/or converting them into places for Christian religious observance. Not saying it doesn't happen but I'm looking forward to learning - post WW-II of course - exactly when.

Not happening because they do not have the political power. However, where they have it, they are quite willing to destroy artifacts.

[Akhlut]

Plus, it's not like al Qaeda is demanding that a Wahabi madrassah be built directly upon Ground Zero. It's a Muslim-outreach group trying to build a community center near the larger WTC complex.

Also apparently true. But I don't think that will affect the propaganda-value of a mosque going up there (even as part of a larger complex which is very obviously Islamic in terms of its visual design). Really, is it *so* necessary for the mosque to go right on that spot, considering that it can serve precisely the same purpose for precisely the same people, precisely as well, being situated a few blocks in most any other direction?

The Cordoba Initiative already owns the land and existing building; why the fuck should they move something they've clearly already invested a lot of time and money in? Just to appease a bunch of quasi-theocratic shitheads who can't discern elbows from assholes?

[Kanastrous]

I'm thinking of the destruction of the Bamiyan statues

Done by the Taliban, not typical muslims.

DANGER WILL ROBINSON! NO TRUE SCOTSMAN FALLACY AHEAD!

Seriously though, I don't want you to think I'm ignoring this but I'll have to research links later. Remember to call me on it if I let it go too long.

[Kanastrous]

The Cordoba Initiative already owns the land and existing building; why the fuck should they move something they've clearly already invested a lot of time and money in? Just to appease a bunch of quasi-theocratic shitheads who can't discern elbows from assholes?

To cater to the kind of sensitivities that Muslims so frequently and loudly bitch about non-Muslims failing to cater to, when the sensitivities are Muslim sensitivities?

I'm not proposing that as a legal matter they are obliged to do anything, to satisfy anyone, you know.

[Thanas]

I'm thinking of the destruction of the Bamiyan statues

Done by the Taliban, not typical muslims.

DANGER WILL ROBINSON! NO TRUE SCOTSMAN FALLACY AHEAD!

DANGER. IGNORANCE AND LACK OF KNOWLEDGE AHEAD.

Seriously though, I don't want you to think I'm ignoring this but I'll have to research links later. Remember to call me on it if I let it go too long.

Will do.

[Akhlut]

The Cordoba Initiative already owns the land and existing building; why the fuck should they move something they've clearly already invested a lot of time and money in? Just to appease a bunch of quasi-theocratic shitheads who can't discern elbows from assholes?

To cater to the kind of sensitivities that Muslims so frequently and loudly bitch about non-Muslims failing to cater to, when the sensitivities are Muslim sensitivities?

I'm not proposing that as a legal matter they are obliged to do anything, to satisfy anyone, you know.

Firstly, they aren't quite the same thing. This isn't a Muslim group opting to build a giant inverted crucifix to piss upon when entering Ground Zero, or otherwise 'blasphemous' offense to Christianity. It's building a community center/religious structure, much like the larger synagogues of old.

Secondly, do you have proof that the Cordoba Initiative people are the ones who engage in that behavior anyway? Or are we going to gleefully paint all Muslims with the same brush?

[Akhlut]

I'm thinking of the destruction of the Bamiyan statues

Done by the Taliban, not typical muslims.

DANGER WILL ROBINSON! NO TRUE SCOTSMAN FALLACY AHEAD!

Are you completely ignorant of Islam and its larger theological differences? There's more to Islam than "Taliban" and "the dude who goes to mosque once a week and believes Allah will forgive him for eating bacon every morning." It is quite accurate to say that the Taliban is not composed of typical Muslims, just like it is accurate to say that the Hutaree Militia is not typical of most Christians.

[Samuel]

The Taliban aren't considered typical Muslims because they were rather different than much of the Islamic world. They were only recognized by three other countrys... and one was Pakistan who has a rather porous border with them (the other two being Saudi Arabia and UAE). They are about as typically Muslim as Nigeria is typically Christian.

I mean, you have Egypt, a Muslim country which considers the relics and artifacts of the pharoahs (pagan god kings) to be part of their national heritage and is pissed when people took them from their country.

This isn't a Muslim group opting to build a giant inverted crucifix to piss upon when entering Ground Zero, or otherwise 'blasphemous' offense to Christianity.

Isn't an inverted crucifix the symbol of Paul?

[Zed]

This isn't a Muslim group opting to build a giant inverted crucifix to piss upon when entering Ground Zero, or otherwise 'blasphemous' offense to Christianity.

Isn't an inverted crucifix the symbol of Paul?

No, but an inverted cross is the symbol of St. Peter.

[Master of Ossus]

Are you completely ignorant of Islam and its larger theological differences? There's more to Islam than "Taliban" and "the dude who goes to mosque once a week and believes Allah will forgive him for eating bacon every morning." It is quite accurate to say that the Taliban is not composed of typical Muslims, just like it is accurate to say that the Hutaree Militia is not typical of most Christians.

But the Taliban did have close ideological ties with the group that destroyed the World Trade Center in the first place. It's reasonable to hold up the Taliban as indicative of the Al Qaeda militants' world view.

[Stark]

But the Taliban did have close ideological ties with the group that destroyed the World Trade Center in the first place. It's reasonable to hold up the Taliban as indicative of the Al Qaeda militants' world view.

Kanny is trying to paint stealing buildings as typically Muslim.

[Thanas]

But the Taliban did have close ideological ties with the group that destroyed the World Trade Center in the first place. It's reasonable to hold up the Taliban as indicative of the Al Qaeda militants' world view.

Which might be a good argument if there was any indication there were radical muslims building a mosque there.

[Master of Ossus]

Which might be a good argument if there was any indication there were radical muslims building a mosque there.

It would be an even stronger argument if that were the case, but it's a reasonable argument regardless. We shouldn't do things that allow radical Muslims moral victories that result from their terrorist attacks.

Kanny is trying to paint stealing buildings as typically Muslim.

I don't think he is. I think he's arguing that this sort of viewpoint is common among radical Muslims, and that we shouldn't encourage them to engage in terrorist behaviors.

[Zed]

I don't think 'moral victory' means what you think it means.

[Thanas]

Which might be a good argument if there was any indication there were radical muslims building a mosque there.

It would be an even stronger argument if that were the case, but it's a reasonable argument regardless. We shouldn't do things that allow radical Muslims moral victories that result from their terrorist attacks.

No, it isn't. It isn't even on Ground Zero.

And anyway, I'd argue that the inclusion of peaceful muslims is more important than allowing some radical muslim to go "HAHA" while he's being hunted by the US.

If you let your policy towards muslims be dictated solely by the radical elements, then those have already won.


Also, the US handed the terrorists the largest moral victory already. Twice of them, in fact. Building a mosque - which is not even on the site of the "victory" - is trivial to them having beaten the crusaders twice already.

[Master of Ossus]

No, it isn't. It isn't even on Ground Zero.

So what? The point is that we're dealing with their perceptions.

And anyway, I'd argue that the inclusion of peaceful muslims is more important than allowing some radical muslim to go "HAHA" while he's being hunted by the US.

Why? The moderate Muslims are the ones that shield radical elements.

If you let your policy towards muslims be dictated solely by the radical elements, then those have already won.

How?

Also, the US handed the terrorists the largest moral victory already. Twice of them, in fact. Building a mosque - which is not even on the site of the "victory" - is trivial to them having beaten the crusaders twice already.

I guess that means we should just keep handing them more victories.

[Thanas]

No, it isn't. It isn't even on Ground Zero.

So what? The point is that we're dealing with their perceptions.

No, you are dealing with the perceptions of a very small minority. Which does not matter in the long run. What matters are the moderates.

Unless you want Muslims to become second-class citizens.

And anyway, I'd argue that the inclusion of peaceful muslims is more important than allowing some radical muslim to go "HAHA" while he's being hunted by the US.

Why? The moderate Muslims are the ones that shield radical elements.

By that logic, policy towards christians should be first and foremost dictated by militias.

If you let your policy towards muslims be dictated solely by the radical elements, then those have already won.

How?

Really? I have to spell it out for you? Because you will alienate moderates, drive them towards the radical elements and generate distrust between muslims and the rest of society.

I guess that means we should just keep handing them more victories.

Yes, you could read that into my post if you were incapable of seeing shades of grey. The term for that is fanatic or Dubya. Take your pick.

[Master of Ossus]

No, you are dealing with the perceptions of a very small minority. Which does not matter in the long run. What matters are the moderates.

But a dangerous and very active minority. And how do they "not matter in the long run?" Do you think that the Taliban would've left on their own? And how long is the long run that you're referring to? Certainly countries like Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Indonesia, and Sudan have failed to remove these radicals even over a very long period of time.

Unless you want Muslims to become second-class citizens.

You become a second-class citizen if you can't build a religious building anywhere you want? This is truly the religious nutcase persecution mentality.

By that logic, policy towards christians should be first and foremost dictated by militias.

And it would be in places like Northern Ireland in the 1970's. With Christians, it's demonstrably untrue that moderates shield the radicals. In the US, moderate Christians do not suggest that milita members are role models who should be appreciated for their virtues. In Pakistan, that is how the Taliban and al Qaeda are viewed by the popular masses.

Really? I have to spell it out for you? Because you will alienate moderates, drive them towards the radical elements and generate distrust between muslims and the rest of society.

Evidence? This tired line is bandied about in virtually every thread we have on the subject of how to deal with radical Islam. There's simply no evidence to suggest that moderate Muslims are a few minor inconveniences away from turning terrorist. Japanese Americans were outright interned for years during World War II, and not a single one of them decided that it was time to fight for Imperial Japan, and the treatment they received was vastly worse than a mere refusal to let them put up a Shinto shrine in Pearl Harbor.

Yes, you could read that into my post if you were incapable of seeing shades of grey. The term for that is fanatic or Dubya. Take your pick.

Your effort to refute the statement that handing them victories is a bad thing consisted entirely of the counter-assertion that we've already done it in the past. That's a completely fallacious line of thought.

[Thanas]

No, you are dealing with the perceptions of a very small minority. Which does not matter in the long run. What matters are the moderates.

But a dangerous and very active minority. And how do they "not matter in the long run?" Do you think that the Taliban would've left on their own? And how long is the long run that you're referring to? Certainly countries like Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Indonesia, and Sudan have failed to remove these radicals even over a very long period of time.

Because some countries like the USA and Saudi Arabia sponsored them or still do. In the long run, considering the history of Muslims in the USA, they do not matter, unless you seriously want to argue they comprise the majority or a significant minority of US muslims.

Unless you want Muslims to become second-class citizens.

You become a second-class citizen if you can't build a religious building anywhere you want? This is truly the religious nutcase persecution mentality.

Nice try. Unfortunately, it is still dumb - if every other religion besides yours can build a religious building where they want, then yes, your religion is second-class. Would there be a stink about it if it was a christian church? No?

By that logic, policy towards christians should be first and foremost dictated by militias.

And it would be in places like Northern Ireland in the 1970's.

I am sorry, I must have missed the part where Northern Ireland was somehow part of the USA.

Evidence? This tired line is bandied about in virtually every thread we have on the subject of how to deal with radical Islam. There's simply no evidence to suggest that moderate Muslims are a few minor inconveniences away from turning terrorist.

So why alienate them and not allow them to practice their religion where they want then if there is no thread from them?

Japanese Americans were outright interned for years during World War II, and not a single one of them decided that it was time to fight for Imperial Japan, and the treatment they received was vastly worse than a mere refusal to let them put up a Shinto shrine in Pearl Harbor.

So...because past repression has been a mistake, we should continue with it because....why, exactly?

Yet your advocated policy attempts to refute the statement that handing them victories is a bad thing by arguing that we've already done it in the past. That's a completely fallacious line of thought.

Oh, c'mon. You got to be pretty desperate to attempt this line. You know full well that the greatest recruitment drive for Al-Quaida was the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. Building a mosque is pretty trivial in comparison.

And you still have to really present any evidence that this would somehow help al-quaida and why the dangers of those outweigh the benefits of making muslims feel they are a part of this society. I mean, this is of the same logic that we should not report on casualties or question our leaders because that would embolden the terrorists.

[Zed]

I'm still quite astounded that it's believed that, if this mosque is built, it would be a moral victory for extremists. If anything, it would be a moral victory for the United States, because that would mean that the liberties it grants to its citizens and visitors aren't compromised by a terrorist attack supported by a very small minority. Claiming that the building of this mosque is a moral victory for the extremists is tantamount to claiming that the extremists have the moral high ground.

[weemadando]

I would make arguments, but this one from Jon Stewart pretty much covers all my points:

Vidja link