this mosque thing is blowin up for Barry

[spence]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

the fact that neither of you get it is no suprise. Makes perfect, simple sense.
You both chose to question the motives of the protestors, thats not the issue. The issue is the RIGHT to do it. All 3 are constitutional RIGHTS. you both dove into the "act" (protest/mosque) vs. people's response/opinion. Thats what Im driving at. The response. I dont care about the correlation of the "act".

I don't think we've ever said that people don't have the right to voice their opinion for or against the Islamic community center.

What we have questioned is why people are against it. My argument is that it's driven by 1) misunderstanding of what the intended use of the site it and where it's really located 2) animosity and mistrust of Muslims in general 3) stereotypes 4) 9/11 shell shock and 5) all whipped up by political activists out to toss bombs at everyone's expense.

I've yet to hear a good rational argument against the facility, other than doing so hurts people's feelings...so much of which is driven by misinformation and political gain.

-spence

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by spence

I don't think we've ever said that people don't have the right to voice their opinion for or against the Islamic community center.

What we have questioned is why people are against it. My argument is that it's driven by 1) misunderstanding of what the intended use of the site it and where it's really located 2) animosity and mistrust of Muslims in general 3) stereotypes 4) 9/11 shell shock and 5) all whipped up by political activists out to toss bombs at everyone's expense.

I've yet to hear a good rational argument against the facility, other than doing so hurts people's feelings...so much of which is driven by misinformation and political gain.

-spence

I just swallowed my vomit. I actually agree with you.

[spence]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

I just swallowed my vomit. I actually agree with you.

Good, we should go fishing in celebration

But the white elephant in the room here, is that Americans don't understand Islam.

-spence

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

But the white elephant in the room here, is that Americans don't understand Islam.

-spence

Not sure we understand alot of religions. What's your point? Islam isn't the problem,right?

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

I just swallowed my vomit. I actually agree with you.

[RIJIMMY]

I don't understand a lot of religions. But right now, a lot of bloodshed and senseless killing is being done in the name of islam.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

I don't understand a lot of religions. But right now, a lot of bloodshed and senseless killing is being done in the name of islam.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Do you think that every German should be held responsible by the Jewish for the Holocaust?

How about we hold every Japanese responsible for Pearl Harbor?

Then there's all those wars motivated by Christianity like the Crusades and the 30 Years War.

I guess everyone should look at everyone else with a critical eye. I'm sure you're people, whatever your background, is responsible for the deaths of many. I know mine are.

[spence]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

How about we hold every Japanese responsible for Pearl Harbor?

I was thinking of this today. Remember we did for a while, interning over 100,000 people of Japanese descent (including a lot of American citizens) because of mistrust.

You could make a similar argument to 9/11, that because of the actions of some, that the American people became mistrustful of the many.

That being said, I think we'd all agree that the actions of 1942 by FDR were unjustified and counter to our values.

-spence

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

I was thinking of this today. Remember we did for a while, interning over 100,000 people of Japanese descent (including a lot of American citizens) because of mistrust.

You could make a similar argument to 9/11, that because of the actions of some, that the American people became mistrustful of the many.

That being said, I think we'd all agree that the actions of 1942 by FDR were unjustified and counter to our values.

-spence

But look how good it worked out Now we live in peace together.

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Do you think that every German should be held responsible by the Jewish for the Holocaust?

How about we hold every Japanese responsible for Pearl Harbor?

Then there's all those wars motivated by Christianity like the Crusades and the 30 Years War.

I guess everyone should look at everyone else with a critical eye. I'm sure you're people, whatever your background, is responsible for the deaths of many. I know mine are.

I guess the terms "right now" in my post doesnt mean anything to you. Again, lets have common sense. In the last 10 years and seen to be growing each week, the headlines from the mid-east to africa are full of attrocities commited by one religion. Not all of them, but enough. suicide bombings, beheadings, pillaging villages, etc. So - its not an issue of my "understanding". Protestants, Greek Orthodox, Satanists and the Presbertyrians need to step it up a few notches if they want to make the headlines. Then I'll be concerned with them.
For me, Im a mutt, but I'll play along. I'm 1/4 Lebanese and 1/4 Polish. So lets see, where would I feel less threatened visting Lebanon or visiting Poland.......hmmm? I guess Im a bigot 'cause theres no way in HELL I'm goign to Lebanon. Sorry y desert brothers, I dont understand you.

[spence]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

For me, Im a mutt, but I'll play along. I'm 1/4 Lebanese and 1/4 Polish. So lets see, where would I feel less threatened visting Lebanon or visiting Poland.......hmmm? I guess Im a bigot 'cause theres no way in HELL I'm goign to Lebanon. Sorry y desert brothers, I dont understand you.

Interesting...From Wikipedia...

Intentional homicide rate per 100,000 in 2006, the last year they had data for all three countries.

Lebanon 0.57
Poland 1.28
USA 5.4

I'm sure it's higher today, but remember that Lebanon has historically been a pretty cosmopolitan place and quite a tourist destination.

-spence

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by spence

Interesting...From Wikipedia...

Intentional homicide rate per 100,000 in 2006, the last year they had data for all three countries.

Lebanon 0.57
Poland 1.28
USA 5.4

I'm sure it's higher today, but remember that Lebanon has historically been a pretty cosmopolitan place and quite a tourist destination.

-spence

put up the stats on religiously motivated violence against Americans and then we'll talk.

[JohnnyD]

I wonder if this was just a coincidence...
Taxi driver stabbed after passenger asks if he's Muslim - CNN.com

[buckman]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

I wonder if this was just a coincidence...
Taxi driver stabbed after passenger asks if he's Muslim - CNN.com

I was waiting for you to jump on this. FYI, the kid that slashed him was for the "community center" and also a left wing activist and the Muslim was against it.

I get a kick at how quick this was called a hate crime by the media and how the attack on our solders by a Muslim wasn't.

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

I was waiting for you to jump on this. FYI, the kid that slashed him was for the "community center" and also a left wing activist and the Muslim was against it.

Where did you read this?

Turns out the kid was stinking drunk...sad story.

-spence

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

Where did you read this?

Turns out the kid was stinking drunk...sad story.

-spence

Very sad. All you pro Mosque people are the same.

[RIJIMMY]

I can go to Wiki too - I guess this is just wacky right wing nonsense or we are too dumb to understand....

As Paul Hollander has written: "The most obvious and clear link between anti-Americanism and modernization is encountered in Islamic countries and other traditional societies where modernization clashes head on with entrenched traditional beliefs, institutions, and patterns of behavior, and where it challenges the very meaning of life, social relations, and religious verities. What becomes of the world when women can go to work and show large surfaces of skin to men they are not related to? In a recent case, the indignant male members of a Kurdish family in Sweden were 'provoked' by the transgressing female of their family who had the temerity to have a job and a boyfriend and dress in Western ways. She was finally killed by her father."[4]

Hollander went on to explain:

"In Arab countries and among Muslim populations, anti-Americanism is not only the monopoly of intellectuals but also a widespread disposition of the masses. In these areas, traditional religion, radical politics, and economic backwardness combine to make anti-Americanism an exceptionally widespread, virulent, and reflexive response to a wide range of collective and personal frustrations and grievances-and a welcome alternative to any collective or individual self-examination or stock-taking. More generally, it is the rise of alternatives, ushered in by modernization, that threatens traditional societies and generates anti-American reaction. The stability of traditional society (like that of modern totalitarian systems) rests on the lack of alternatives, on the lack of choice. Choice is deeply subversive-culturally, politically, psychologically. The recent outburst of murderous anti- Americanism has added a new dimension to the phenomenon, or at any rate, throws into relief the intense hatred it may encapsulate. The violence of September 11 shows that when anti-Americanism is nurtured by the kind of indignation and resentment that in [turn] is stimulated and sanctioned by religious convictions, it can become spectacularly destructive."[4]

[Joe]

The casualties of Sept 11 were 2976. Makes you wonder what's going to happen to the principles the country was founded upon someday when the civilian casualty count is six figures or more? When they're pulling corpses out of schools on television? We're closer to loading up the boxcars than we think.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by Joe

The casualties of Sept 11 were 2976. Makes you wonder what's going to happen to the principles the country was founded upon someday when the civilian casualty count is six figures or more? When they're pulling corpses out of schools on television? We're closer to loading up the boxcars than we think.

I agree 100% Joe. However I sleep well at night knowing O and Joe are on the case.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Joe

The casualties of Sept 11 were 2976. Makes you wonder what's going to happen to the principles the country was founded upon someday when the civilian casualty count is six figures or more? When they're pulling corpses out of schools on television? We're closer to loading up the boxcars than we think.

We've already seen what happens when we're out for blood...the people won't care and the motivations of those in power at the time will have free reign.

God help us if there's a really big attack like a small nuke and we don't know how to respond. People will want retribution and won't really care who gets whipped.

Something to think about.

The number of Americans killed in terror attacks in the last few decades is probably around 3500 people, most on 9/11. A lot for sure and there's an economic impact that's big as well.

In response to this, we've already lost almost 5,700 fighting men and women since 9/11, perhaps another few thousand contractors and have created collateral damage in the tens to perhaps hundreds of thousands of civilians depending on who's count you take. Oh and how much spending? Well over a trillion dollars.

In the process, I think we've squashed any hope al Qaeda might have had of establishing a caliphate, but have we addressed any of the root cause issues?

Not so sure...

-spence

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

We've already seen what happens when we're out for blood...the people won't care and the motivations of those in power at the time will have free reign.

God help us if there's a really big attack like a small nuke and we don't know how to respond. People will want retribution and won't really care who gets whipped.

Something to think about.

The number of Americans killed in terror attacks in the last few decades is probably around 3500 people, most on 9/11. A lot for sure and there's an economic impact that's big as well.

In response to this, we've already lost almost 5,700 fighting men and women since 9/11, perhaps another few thousand contractors and have created collateral damage in the tens to perhaps hundreds of thousands of civilians depending on who's count you take. Oh and how much spending? Well over a trillion dollars.

In the process, I think we've squashed any hope al Qaeda might have had of establishing a caliphate, but have we addressed any of the root cause issues?

Not so sure...

-spence

We dont " incite terrorism" Spence.

We are now trying the Kiss A$$ approach to Islamic radicals and yet they still want to kill you,your wife and your children. Not to mention that now even our allies don't like us anymore.

Your math is way off. 3500??? Americans maybe, world wide...X10 easy.

Your formula also fails to take into account how many would have died had we not had a war on terror. Lest you forget, we didn't start this thing, although being the terrorist sympathizer you are, I'm sure you believe we did.

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

We dont " incite terrorism" Spence.

Who said we did? You can read can't you?

We are now trying the Kiss A$$ approach to Islamic radicals and yet they still want to kill you,your wife and your children. Not to mention that now even our allies don't like us anymore.

By your logic, trying to talk to people is kissing their ass, that's part of the problem. I'd note that under Obama we've don't a hell of a lot of killing of radicals, even perhaps pushing the targeting killings beyond Bush.

Your math is way off. 3500??? Americans maybe, world wide...X10 easy.

I said Americans, once again you fail to read.

Your formula also fails to take into account how many would have died had we not had a war on terror. Lest you forget, we didn't start this thing, although being the terrorist sympathizer you are, I'm sure you believe we did.

It's a safe bet that there would be less total dead had we done nothing, not that I'm advocating for that. I do value ours more than there's...

But your comment that "we didn't start this thing" is just stupid. We don't live in a vacuum. Where we are today is a complex mix of actions over the years that didn't just happen by random.

You can accept this, and work towards a solution, or keep your head in the sand and prepare for another attack. Thinking critically doesn't mean you have to admit guilt or culpability.

Your choice.

-spence

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

Who said we did? You can read can't you?


By your logic, trying to talk to people is kissing their ass, that's part of the problem. I'd note that under Obama we've don't a hell of a lot of killing of radicals, even perhaps pushing the targeting killings beyond Bush.


I said Americans, once again you fail to read.


It's a safe bet that there would be less total dead had we done nothing, not that I'm advocating for that. I do value ours more than there's...

But your comment that "we didn't start this thing" is just stupid. We don't live in a vacuum. Where we are today is a complex mix of actions over the years that didn't just happen by random.

You can accept this, and work towards a solution, or keep your head in the sand and prepare for another attack. Thinking critically doesn't mean you have to admit guilt or culpability.

Your choice.

-spence

"But this behavior is directly feeding an Islamic stereotype of Americans that we're anti-Islam - and to those who incite terrorism - out to destroy Islam. Which exacerbates anti-American sentiment and helps fuel more terrorism"

Seems clear enough....

You did say Americans, as I noted.

I would love to hear why you feel sitting back after being attacked and doing nothing would have saved lives.

Admitting guilt is what Obama does. It's the foundation of his Kiss A$$ policy.

[Joe]

It's not an endorsement. I just think it's important recognize that our freedoms are something we aspire to, representations of 'the better angels of our nature.' They have often been at odds with blood and vengeance.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Joe

It's not an endorsement. I just think it's important recognize that our freedoms are something we aspire to, representations of 'the better angels of our nature.' They have often been at odds with blood and vengeance.

It's a very good point.

I think the big picture issue here is that in this instance, there's a pretty direct closed loop correlation between our behavior and other factors that are influencing that exact same behavior!

Example.

The internment of Japanese in 1942 was wrong, but also a product of the times. That being said, did it hurt our ability to win WW2 in the Pacific? Not sure but wouldn't think so.

The negative reactions to the Islamic center in New York are fed by reasons we've stated above, most of which I'd argue are also "wrong". But this behavior is directly feeding an Islamic stereotype of Americans that we're anti-Islam - and to those who incite terrorism - out to destroy Islam. Which exacerbates anti-American sentiment and helps fuel more terrorism....

This of course feeds the American mistrust of Islam...and closes the loop.

-spence

[spence]

I think you missed my comment about not understand the entirety of your Heston comment at first...

That being said, I think you're trying to read too much into this one, perhaps just to undermine it. After all, if it required a dissertation to make a point I'm not sure the Daily Show demographic would get it.

From what I read above, if the Columbine killers were NRA members it would be a valid parallel, but if the only association is that they are all gun owners it's not.

What's the NRA's purpose? I thought it was to fight for the right to bear arms and fight against legal limitations on firearm possession. Looser gun control laws makes it easier for people like the Columbine killers to obtain them.

It would be unfair of course to presume the intentions of NRA members are illicit.

Ultimately we have an NRA meeting in Denver, seen as un-compassionate because of the proximity of "gun talk" and "gun people" and a terrible killing by people who used guns. And in New York we have an Islamic Center seen as un-compassionate because of the proximity of "Islamic talk and Islamic people" and a terrible killing by people who believed in Islam.

The irony is that while the NRA advocates legal and responsible gun ownership the Park51 Imam advocates moderate and responsible Islam.

So do guns kill people or do people kill people? That is exactly the question and why I think it was a perfectly appropriate analogy.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I think you missed my comment about not understand the entirety of your Heston comment at first...

That being said, I think you're trying to read too much into this one, perhaps just to undermine it. After all, if it required a dissertation to make a point I'm not sure the Daily Show demographic would get it.

I am not trying to read anything into the Stewart video. I think it is funny. But, beyond the humor, I just don't see a valid argument against what he accepts as valid--the symbolic argument--sensitivity to the locations meaning. The mini-second clips of those making various comments about Islam are, without context, meaningless--though they can be combined into a silly pastiche. But they don't discount the symbolic argument, and if they did, why does Stewart accept that argument. Are there actual clips that do favor the argument--which he conveniently omits. The somewhat prolonged clip of Bolling with the card and highlighter is chopped up enough to make him look silly. The screen text denotes that the segment was about funding for the mosque and the tax returns of the funders. Did we see any of that in Stewart's version? What we see is Bollling's burned money and his bullet point card with some discussion of the points. How much discussion? I can't be sure how much was edited. I thought it peculiar that the clip was noticeably edited after some words about the Muslim Brotherhood and then it totally skipped the Hamas bullet point and jumped to Iran. It might have been inconvenient for Stewart's discussion to have it pointed out that Imam Rauf refuses to call Hamas a terrorist organization. I am not reading too much here merely to invalidly undermine Stewart's video. Perhaps those who think he nailed it aren't reading enough out of it so as not to undermine it.

From what I read above, if the Columbine killers were NRA members it would be a valid parallel, but if the only association is that they are all gun owners it's not.

What's the NRA's purpose? I thought it was to fight for the right to bear arms and fight against legal limitations on firearm possession. Looser gun control laws makes it easier for people like the Columbine killers to obtain them.

It would be unfair of course to presume the intentions of NRA members are illicit.

Ultimately we have an NRA meeting in Denver, seen as un-compassionate because of the proximity of "gun talk" and "gun people" and a terrible killing by people who used guns. And in New York we have an Islamic Center seen as un-compassionate because of the proximity of "Islamic talk and Islamic people" and a terrible killing by people who believed in Islam.

The irony is that while the NRA advocates legal and responsible gun ownership the Park51 Imam advocates moderate and responsible Islam.

So do guns kill people or do people kill people? That is exactly the question and why I think it was a perfectly appropriate analogy.

-spence

If the only link between the NRA and the Columbine killers is the owning of guns (which is not true, by the way--there are a myriad of other superficial similarities) then would there have been an objection to meeting in Denver at that time by The International Association of Chiefs of Police, or the International Police Association, or the National Black Police Association, or NAPO--National Association of Police Organizations, or (closer to home) the Arizona Professional Police Officers Association, or the American Legion, or Amvets, etc.

The symbolic argument that Stewart says is valid was not about religious people and religious talk (in parallel to your "gun talk" and "gun people"). Though Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc., are religions having that specific trait in common with Islam, the symbolic argument against building a house of worship for one of the non-muslim religions at ground zero would not be valid even though they all have a direct link to Islam in that they believe in a deity (Christianity and Judaism even the same God). The symbolic argument is only valid because it was actual Muslims who killed the 9/11 victims in the name of that specific religion.

The Columbine killers were not generic gun owners killing in the name of gun ownership, or gun rights, or killing because of guns. Who they were and what they did was neither about guns nor about the NRA. The NRA analogy is not specific enough to compare with the symbolic argument against the mosque.

[detbuch]

Even though this thread is dead, and as a little change of pace from the post election chat, I couldn't resist posting this related quote. It is by Tarek Fatah, one of the "moderate" Muslims to whom Spence wants us to raise our ears. In speaking about the Ground Zero Mosque, he said "We Muslims know the . . . Mosque is meant to be a deliberate provocation, to thumb our noses at the infidel. The proposal has been made in bad faith, . . . as "fitna," meaning "mischief making" that is clearly forbidden in the Koran . . . as Muslims we are dismayed that our co-religionists have such little considerations for their fellows citizens, and wish to rub salt in there wounds and pretend they are applying a balm to sooth the pain."

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Even though this thread is dead, and as a little change of pace from the post election chat, I couldn't resist posting this related quote. It is by Tarek Fatah, one of the "moderate" Muslims to whom Spence wants us to raise our ears. In speaking about the Ground Zero Mosque, he said "We Muslims know the . . . Mosque is meant to be a deliberate provocation, to thumb our noses at the infidel. The proposal has been made in bad faith, . . . as "fitna," meaning "mischief making" that is clearly forbidden in the Koran . . . as Muslims we are dismayed that our co-religionists have such little considerations for their fellows citizens, and wish to rub salt in there wounds and pretend they are applying a balm to sooth the pain."

Sorry, I admit I'm delinquent in responding to all posts.

Few quick comments.

The quote appears to be from a piece from this summer before the funding was disclosed in more detail, or the use of the space was detailed. Perhaps this would have unclouded some mystery?

My personal read on the owner of the property is that he's a real estate guy out to make some money rather than an ideologue.

The wife of the Imam collaborated with the Jewish Community Center in New York in modeling the function of the space.

So, it doesn't seem like the thing stinks. I've yet to see any evidence that really indicates it does...just speculation.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Sorry, I admit I'm delinquent in responding to all posts.

Few quick comments.

The quote appears to be from a piece from this summer before the funding was disclosed in more detail, or the use of the space was detailed. Perhaps this would have unclouded some mystery?

My personal read on the owner of the property is that he's a real estate guy out to make some money rather than an ideologue.

The wife of the Imam collaborated with the Jewish Community Center in New York in modeling the function of the space.

So, it doesn't seem like the thing stinks. I've yet to see any evidence that really indicates it does...just speculation.

-spence

The Tarek Fatah quote is from an August 7 article. Has some further clarification on the mosque funding happened since then? Not sure how that would affect Fatah's opinion. Anyway, it's not just "right wingers" with "political agendas" that objected to the mosque's location. BTW, you inspired me to search for moderate Islam. It's been very interesting so far. Hasn't significantly changed my opinion, but there seems to be a ray of hope. I don't view events and policies that have occured to be mistakes (e.g.--9/11 extremism, Iraq and Afghanistan invasions), rather I see them as potential outcomes necessary to the evolution of Eastern and Western interface. Muslim Fundamentalists understandably resist secularization. They rightly see moderation and secularization, practically, as a shift toward irrelevance and extinction. They view the moderates such as Fatah, Dr. Muqtedar Khan, and others who are attractive to the West as being in error and dangerous to Islam. Though most Muslims are "peaceful," the majority are under the influence of fundamentalist scholars who preach against innovation and secularization. At this point in time, the "Ummah" loves the terrorists more than the secular, democratic, West. Interestingly, Dr Khan, who loves Islam AND loves western freedom and pluralism, says that "Muslims are good or can be good when they are minorities. As soon as Muslims get a state of their own everything goes wrong."