Yep, I stand corrected. The quip I read this morning made it sound like she got both questions, the birth control and immigration thing.

I read through your comments a couple times Drajeck - maybe I missed something, but is there any specific reasoning that you feel it crosses that threshold? You seem to know where the line is crossed right here by suggesting that building on a spot that is vacant due to a blast that is in almost no way connected to the organization building the structure steps over it. If your justification for it being in poor taste doesn't have anything to do with blaming an organization/religion on fringe elements, then why?

I could claim to do a crime in the name of white people. I could claim to do a crime in the name of my country. I could claim to do a crime in the name of humanity. Does my claim automatically bring harm to the name of anything under the sun so long as I do something atrocious under that label? I'm sorry, but that just doesn't make any sense. A claim of backing or group/organization approval requires evidence, and for the 9/11 attacks, there was zilch for representation of 1 billion Muslims.

Because you don't need to blame someone (or a group) to be sensitive to another group’s feelings. It's wrong to fault the many for the actions of the few, but it's also naive to ignore a life changing incident entirely.

If your spouse’s Father died of a massive heart attack at fancy restaurant in town, would you take her there for your anniversary dinner? Of course she wouldn't blame you or the restaurant for her Father's death, but it would still be in poor taste to go there, especially since you have so many other options.

That may not be the best example, but I hope the idea that something can be in poor taste or emotionally painful for someone, even without assigning blame, makes it through.

The question I suppose is what there is to be sensitive about if the group itself has no real connection to what happened. Clearly in the case of taking your wife to a dinner to where her father died holds an established connection with the specific restaurant. The problem is that there's no connection between the 9/11 attacks and Islam, or at least no more connection there than say - a supposed connection with a person in China claiming he did something on account of China's 1.3 billion people. I just don't see how it's in poor taste if there's no connection between the event and the building.

Drajeck said it well.

I understand that, but we also have to realize that those feelings can't just take precedence over everything. People have to be adults and handle those feelings.

To expand on the restaurant analogy...does that restaurant now have to stop TV advertising because that family might be watching? Or they can't build another location in that town? Of course not.

I still don't get why "good" Muslims would build a mosque, by the site of an attack, carried out by Muslim Extremists. To me and I imagine others this seems like Muslims just thumbing there nooses at the none Muslims. If any thing this shows there lack of respect.

_________________
Devil

Build a man a fire, and he's warm for the night.
Set a man on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.

Read more about the man building it, the way he's spent the last 25 years of his life, and what the full purpose (ie, not just a mosque) of the building is supposed to be. It might make more sense then, rather than just "guessing" at motives that "seem" suspect.

_________________

I know that its more then just a mosque, the intentions are good, the location is bad.

_________________
Devil

Build a man a fire, and he's warm for the night.
Set a man on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.

Get a fucking helmet already. It was 10 years ago.

It occurred to me that I can't count the number of times someone on these boards has said that one of the problems with Islam is that the normal / moderate ones who aren't trying to blow shit up aren't doing enough to decry Islamic extremism and present their side of the story. These arguments generally don't consider the role of the media as gatekeeper to what stories get play.

So some nice moderate Muslims decide to try to set up an education center and mosque designed, at least in part, to decry Islamic extremism and present their side of the story at one of the few places in the US where people might actually see it, bypassing the media gatekeeper. And the immediate gut reaction of a good portion of people is fear and loathing and an unwillingness to assume any degree of good faith.

Having read up more, I think a bunch of y'all have it backwards. I don't think this is designed as the equivalent of the Eric Rudolph Memorial Pro-Life Cathedral being set up across from Olympic Centennial Park. I'm pretty sure the intent is to at least in part present the face of Islam that is disgusted by what happened.

After doing some digging, I've basically moved from "no, why would it be in poor taste?" to "Oh, okay! Yeah, that's a good idea."

_________________
Hope is the new black.

yes it was, the holocaust was about 70 (really started in 1933 and hit full stride in 1942) years ago. We should build a Nazi community center near Auschwitz..or maybe build a Japanese Community Center in Pearl yeah now that would go over good. .. WTF dude? Its about respect for those that lost there life's due to a event.

Forgive your enemies, but never forget their names.
- John F. Kennedy

_________________
Devil

Build a man a fire, and he's warm for the night.
Set a man on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.

I think this is a good idea I think the location should be changed out of respect nothing more.

_________________
Devil

Build a man a fire, and he's warm for the night.
Set a man on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.

I think we're still waiting on some sort of connection to be established between the 9/11 hijackers and the whole of Islam, or at least one that properly associates itself with 1 billion other individuals. Not holding my breath on this one.

If anything, it would almost be disrespectful for them to build the mosque elsewhere if the goal here is symbolic in that many Muslims want to show that they are in solidarity with the people of New York and insofar as being against violent and atrocious acts.

Perception - it can just as easily be a show of support as it can be a suggestion that teh ebil Muslims are "staking a claim" of some kind or some sort of victory building.

It's all how you want to look at it. These days no matter what your prejudices, you can find a way to make anything reinforce them.

How about this. Remember when everyone was worried that if we rebuild at the WTC site, it's just an invitation to another attack? Now there's a mosque there too. It's almost like the non-radical muslims (for those of you who still concede the possibility they exist) are putting up an Islamic shield (and it's only 400 mana, with no cooldown)

So you're comparing a Nazi community center with a mosque? GogoGodwin. I respect those lost lives by not giving into irrational fear. You should try it...after you get your fucking helmet.

Gogo Gadget Godwin!



I totally made this myself 2 minutes ago, just for this.

I have too much time on my hands.

For all the board rhetoric about how irrational people are to believe that all Muslims are extremists, after reading back through the recent threads, I don't see it. If someone says anything at all the relfex response is "stop being an Islamic hater, there are a billion moderates out there". Well no shit. I haven't read anything contrary to that point, not a single all Muslims are the enemy post.

What I have seen are ridiculous comparisons for the other side. Comparing a 10+ year war on terror that has a huge financial support structure on both sides, 10s of thousands (maybe a hundred thousand?) extremist Islamic participants that have had every major country in the world on alert for the past decade...and comparing that to a crazy xyz religion person (usually Christian in this discussion) doing an isolated act of terror in the name of their religion.

It is absolutely wrong to persecute all Muslims for the acts of extremists they do not support. It is also wrong to compare the magnitude of the war on these extremists to such localized events. I acknowledge it's a slippery slope, but it is one that must be traversed.

Actually, you can tell it's a column (even though it doesn't say it) by two things. 1) The photo of the author. Very, very, very few straight journalistic articles have the journalist's photo. 2) The author says "to me" at one point. Another thing that makes it a column and not an actual article. Even though it looks like an article because of quotes and whatnot, it isn't.


Anyway, a few comments (just nitpicky side notes, really). The whole thing about the Catholic church not condoning sexual predators? I find it interesting that the church will excommunicate a nun for allowing a woman to have an abortion to save her life (the baby would have died either way), but as far as I know, no priest has been excommunicated for molestation. Additionally, the molestation of children in churches hasn't just affected boys, but it happens to girls, too. It just doesn't get as much press. So to say it's a "homosexual" thing is inaccurate for many reasons, and the church's failure to remove these priests entirely is a blemish on the church's reputation, and any good Catholic should feel that way, in my not-so-humble opinion. The fact that a nun who saves a life is kicked out of the church, but molesters are just moved from parish to parish is horrible.

That being said, if, as a previous commenter suggested, the church started a support group for sexually molested children, I would not think it inappropriate. It would be a step in the right direction if the church also took proper steps to kick out molesters instead of protect them. If they do not do so, it would be pure hypocrisy.

This is another reason why the examples of a hate group (Hamas, a skinhead/Nazi organization/ec) building near/on/whatever Auschwitz would be inappropriate and in very, very poor taste. In that example, however, it would be intentional because these groups have not forsworn their hatred and desire to rid the world of Jews. A better comparison would be if a German human right's organization opened its doors across the street, decrying the actions of the Nazis.

If a church that protests abortions, supports those who blow up abortion clinics, etc, decided to build on top of a bombing site, it would be inappropriate and hateful. If a church denounces those actions, embraces those who lost loved ones and attempts to support them without pushing their anti-abortion agenda were to build near/on the site, it would be a better comparison.

So in this case, a mosque/organization that denounces the hate groups that caused 9/11 wants to build near (not on) Ground Zero. They stress they want to bring understanding, healing and ensure people know they do not support the actions of terrorist organizations. I don't have an issue with this.

When you make comparisons, you have to make sure you compare apples to apples.

_________________

/agree with this very much - They're two very different things.

I still just think there has to be some sort of tangible connection with an enormous organization and an itzy-bitzy subsection of a group that decides to take violent action for there to warrant some kind of tastelessness.

I mean, for heaven's sake, even BUSH asked us not to place association with Islam with 9/11. I hate to quote Bush, but fuck, he was actually right!

"I also want to speak tonight directly to Muslims throughout the world. We respect your faith. It's practiced freely by many millions of Americans, and by millions more in countries that America counts as friends. Its teachings are good and peaceful, and those who commit evil in the name of Allah blaspheme the name of Allah. The terrorists are traitors to their own faith, trying, in effect, to hijack Islam itself. The enemy of America is not our many Muslim friends; it is not our many Arab friends. Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists, and every government that supports them. "

For there to be tastelessness, there has to be association on which to place a claim of tastelessness on. Plain and simple, folks.

Elessar, what the fuck is your deal? you don't have a clue, its not a Mosque its a community center & Mosque, my point is that there is many other places that they could build this, but they choice the one place in NYC that would cause an uprising, I think that is poor taste and show a lack of respect. I don't have a irrational fear, Its called respect for those that lost there life, I would not expect that somebody who says get a fucking helmet to understand that but maybe you can find a kindergartner to help you with that.

_________________
Devil

Build a man a fire, and he's warm for the night.
Set a man on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.

You've got an irrational fear of Muslims because some insane fuckheads took down the towers 10 years ago in the name of their God. I get it. YOU need to have some respect for those lost lives by appreciating the freedom these folks have to build their community center and mosque wherever they wish as NONE OF THEM flew planes into buildings. If they were calling it the Osama Bin Laden Fucks Firefighters Up the Ass Community Center, then I would I agree that would be in poor taste.

As an aside, you need a "kindergartner" to teach you the difference between their, there and they're. Now, go get your shinebox.

Fucking clownshoe.

You make some good points Austriana. I stand by my last post, but you have given me some thoughts to consider for my overall stance. I'll come back again later if I have anything different to add.

Elessar, I have put in there many times I don't have an irrational fear of Muslims, as a matter of fact it’s quite the opposite, if you remove the radical beliefs it’s quite an interesting belief. So please don’t pretend that you know how I think or what I believe, in this case your 100% wrong.

For a Community Center \ Mosque to be built near a place that an attack was carried out in the name of that belief; yes not by the same people, but never the less it is in poor taste or judgment by the planners, It does not matter what the attack was or by whom it was carried out, putting some type of monument or something that is related to the people that the attack is carried out by has always been in poor taste, look at the Columbine shootings, tree’s were planted to remember the fallen students including the shooters, those two trees were promptly removed. In Germany there is only one WWII memorial, and that is to remember the 5 to 6 people that try to assassinate Hitler and those that were killed during the hunt to find them, is that because all the Germans that fought in WWII we bad and all Germans are bad, hell no, It out of respect for the millions that lost there lives at the hands of the few Germans who had a radical belief.

Oh and thanks for the grammar lesson, I hope that made you feel better about yourself.

_________________
Devil

Build a man a fire, and he's warm for the night.
Set a man on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.

Not sure where you got that info from.

Berlin has a Holocaust Memorial

Additionally, many of the concentration camps have been turned into memorials and museums. (I can provide more examples if you wish.)

While these aren't called "WWII Memorials" and they aren't all in Germany, they do go against your point that Germany doesn't have any memorials dedicated to the millions who lost their lives at German hands.

_________________

I think he was saying that there were no monuments celebrating Germans (other than the German Jews murdered in the Holocaust)

I find it hard to believe that there isn't a single monument in the country that celebrates German heritage.

There are. Just a quick google search brings up all sorts of memorials, large and small, in Germany.

Godwin again. You're a fucking idiot.

PS - Get a <GERMAN/NAZI> helmet.

That's what I am saying, thank you krby.

_________________
Devil

Build a man a fire, and he's warm for the night.
Set a man on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.

Even if that's what you're claiming, you'd still be wrong.

So you're saying Germany doesn't have a memorial to celebrate Nazis? Of course not, and that's not the same kind of comparison. However, names of soldiers who fell during WWII were added to many memorials around the country. So, yes, they did honor their dead from WWII.

http://www.thirdreichruins.com/memorials.htm

It took me less than two minutes to find that info.

Despite this information, it's not the same. A Muslim organization wants to create a community center/mosque near Ground Zero. The organization condemns the actions of 9/11 and other terrorists. It promotes a peaceful cause. And, other than sharing a basic faith, they have no known ties to the terrorists.

If we're going to condemn people for having the same faith as others, I should begin condemning our Lanysite Catholics for the actions of those priests...but I'm intelligent enough to know that the actions of those sick few are not condoned or promoted by the majority of Catholics, including the ones who post on our forums.

_________________

It is nice to see that someone else gets what I was driving at. Thanks for fighting the good fight, Austy. :p

_________________

Hat

Just to repeat - taste is not law.

But, if they wanted to demolish a Center for Abused Children Center and build a Catholic Church over it, I would have a problem with it from a taste point-of-view.

And discrimination is not logic.

_________________

I've already explained why comparing the Catholic abuse scandal and 911 is not a valid comparison. Continuing to use it as an example without addressing those points seems like an ignorance is bliss tactic. Either stop using it, or explain why you think it is valid (given the reasons I listed it is not).

I grant that some of the comparisons I (and others) have used are poor ones, but I've acknowledged that.



That is the best reason I've seen for allowing it, and it is a good one. While I am still considering that point, it is important to remember that the making sure you compare apples to apples argument works both ways.

But Drajeck, I don't really see your point. I think the comparisons are quite valid. Here's what you said:



For the first paragraph, I would point out that in order to believe that it's wrong for this mosque to be built there, it seems to me that you have to believe that either 1) all Muslims are extremists, or 2) those specific Muslims are extremists. Given the statements made by Muslim leaders building the mosque, number 2 seems very unlikely, so I guess we have to go with number 1. No one may be saying that #1 is true, but every time you say it's tasteless for them to build there you are implying it.

For the second paragraph, I simply fail to see how the size of the war on terror is relevant to the comparison. When someone in a group does a bad thing, it doesn't mean the entire group is wrong-- period. When you punish other unrelated members of that group because of the person who did that bad thing-- well that's wrong too. That's the point being made, and therefore the Catholic comparisons seem quite valid.

The difference Fribur, is there are 10's of thousands of people within that group in full support of terrorism, while there are no visible supporters of sexually abusing children. Let's face it, you will not see any TV highlights of priests cheering in the streets that another little boy got what they deserved. I fully understand that blaming 1 billion people for the actions of 50,000 they don't even agree with is wrong. I also understand the sheer magnitude and duration of this self titled holy war makes it different that typical examples like the sexual abuse scandal. It’s not as black and white as claiming that assigning any feelings (not even necessarily blame) towards this issue is the same as condoning the molestation of children by priests.

As for all the Germany and Nazi stuff, I think an important thing to remember is it was 60 years ago. I doubt the world felt the same way about all of it in 1950 as it does now, and I would like to hope this whole issue will be a non issue in 6 decades. Time does heal all wounds and eventually no one will care if a mosque is build near ground zero. I'm sure we'll have moved onto some new reason to hate and kill each other by then.

Yes, that is a clear difference, but that doesn't seem relevent. Whether or not there are people cheering about what happened doesn't seem to me to have anything to do with whether or not it's ok for other, non-extremist Muslims to be allowed to build where they are building.

I didn't post that as a reason for or against the building of the mosque. I posted it to show that it is a poor comparison for either side of the argument because of the significant differences in the two situations. It appears you agree with me on that point, and the Catholic priest bit should not be used as an example since there is, as you put it, a clear difference.

I am satisfied with that minor victory for the moment. I am not dead set against the entire idea anymore based on the thoughts other posters have invoked. I do wish things were simpler sometimes, it's just never as cut and dry as I would like.

I'm glad I still live in a country where people can build what they want, where they want. Strike one for American ideals and one against political correctness.

As a developer, I can tell you with full confidence that you do NOT live in a country where people can build what they want or where they want it. It's a full time job for an entire department to find suitable sites and get legal permissions to build, and even then it is a 50-50 shot in most cases.

Do I really need to explain to you what I meant? Really?

I get it, but we are more restricted than most people believe. More than I ever thought before I got into this field, so that was more an interesting (to me anyway) side note, not arguing with you. I get your point as it relates to this topic.

In any case, you're pretty much wrong anyway, Drajeck.

Whether they "cheered in the streets" or not, the Catholic establishment supported - directly or indirectly, through coverups and silence - those priests that were accused of molestation.

If anything, their actions were worse. Rather than some fringe element cheering in the streets, you had the higher-ups in the mainstream establishment itself protecting these people.

I get the distinct impression if this was some other group, the people arguing for them would be going the other way.

In what way?

_________________
Hope is the new black.

You completely missed my point Bov. I would go through it again, but i think I'll just be repeating myself, I can't think of any new ways to explain the differences of public support and an attempted cover up. Please don't say not to blame the 1 billion non supporters for the 50,000 public supporters, I've already addressed that too. I do not blame the 1 billion for the acts of 50,000, they can't control them. I just acknowledge they exist and understand how that makes this situation DIFFERENT than the catholic church scandal. Not better, not worse, just different. They are not comparable.

Hmm...I guess I did go through it again. Damn you.

I think discrimination against gays and women is a much bigger problem for Islam, the middle east, and Arab mainstream culture than terrorism, personally.

I just read an article about all the issues Elton John is having on his tour in Islamic countries. I didn't realize the extent of those issues in the middle east before.

Ding ding ding. We have a winner!

Seriously, deal with the injustices that happen every day and we'd be addressing the rarer problems at the same time.

Because this is an Islam church being "discriminated" against, people are up in arms. I really believe that if it was the Catholic Church or some other large organization, people would be completely flipped in their position.

For example, if it was an arbortion clinic that was blown up by Christian activists and now some denomination wanted to build a church on top of the site. I believe people arguing in favor of not stereotyping would have a big problem with it. I can't prove it, but I have seen it enough to feel pretty strongly that's the case.

I think there is a difference between being up in arms and rejecting the idea that something is in poor taste. This thread wasn't started by someone upset about discrimination, but by someone upset at the building of the mosque / learning center.

That puts the burden of proof on the "it's in poor taste" camp.

And, as noted by multiple posters, it depends at least in part on motivation. If you're going to erect a church and call it the Eric Rudolph Pro-Life Chapel and attach an "abortion baby graveyard" to it (yes, they have them in Texas - I'm not making it up) next door to where a clinic was bombed, or if the Westboro Baptist Church decided to build Westboro West next to where Matthew Shepard was killed, I would be embarrassed for anyone who *wasn't* embarrassed by that.

But if some Quakers or an Ecumenical social-justice type group like the Carter Center set up a chapel near a site of violence, it wouldn't bother me at all. To me, that's along the same lines as a Holocaust Museum or a chapel / learning center in the South dedicated to the Civil Rights Movement.

_________________
Hope is the new black.

Simple question then. It appears that most catholic churches are moving from "altar boys" to "altar servers" and thus allowing girls to be said servers.

Have there been any reports that the sodomites have now begun to plague both sexes equally or are they still sticking (no pun intended) to the young lads?

===========================================================

Back to the subject at hand, having lost friends and family on that fateful day, I personally find it a shame that the crusades weren't successful. Let them build the mosque if they want to, then implode the fucking thing on their holiest day, preferably full of the "devout".

So you're more "eye for an eye" than "turn the other cheek", eh?

_________________

World of Warcraft: Kallaystra, Gweila, Steakumn, Tarathia [ Feathermoon/Horde ]

lol wtf

The way he's talking, I think he's more for "1,000,000 eyes for an eye".

Just standard prejudice. Nothing to see here.

Don't feed the trolls.