[stasis]

	Originally Posted by Holiman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	So who wants to live in the US after we allow our citizens to persecute and deny entire groups the right to practice their religion ? and which ones next ?

I haven't seen anybody denied anything over this yet. As for the rights of US citizens, I'd like to see a larger degree of freedom from the morality of others added to that list. An increase in rights won by constructing opposition to the oppressor. Amongst the worst contemporary offenders have been these monolithic, monotheistic religions when they merge with political concerns. Since morality is socially a matter of aesthetics, of display, the pursuit of freedom from authoritarian morality begins culturally in aesthetics, in display - which means protests and so forth. I'd also like to see more ethical governance, since this lends itself to the rights of not only US citizens but the citizens of any country having to interact with our establishment (id est, to civilization). One salient means of increasing the degree of ethical governance is to dispense with unreal narratives regarding the 'essential purity' of empowered traditions, such as Islam, in favor of a more realistic narrative inclusive of the real-world limitations of their morality and practice. A valuation of secular governance.

[Imperator]

	Originally Posted by Cooper To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If 'ground zero' is 'hallowed ground', why are these business not being attacked and told they can't be there? A stip club, off track betting, fast food and souvenir t-shirt vendors are okay? Would it be okay to sell souvenirs of the twin towers? Or of the day and departments involved? To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Well clearly nothing says "respect" and "honor" like a $20 lap dance.....

But I can hear the counter-argument already:
They were already there before 9/11. There's actually already a mosque there too, from what I remember.

That does raise a good question though.

If the mosque is offensive, what would be appropriate to build there?
If Starbucks wanted to put a store there, would it be ok?
How about an army recruitment center?
Government office?
Local business?
Book store?

I can find reasons why all of those would be offensive to put on "hallowed ground".
So what do you put there?

[phoboser]

	Originally Posted by Cooper To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If 'ground zero' is 'hallowed ground', why are these business not being attacked and told they can't be there? A stip club, off track betting, fast food and souvenir t-shirt vendors are okay?

It depends on your conception of hallowed. All those things are congruent with mine.

[stasis]

I'd imagine that the offended people tend to be offended because they're left wondering where the shame is. At least, the offended Americans would. They associate the symbols of Islam with this spectacular failure of Islamic morality. Those who are building the community center on the other hand do not. So it wouldn't be so much about a new mosque or the location in and of itself, but rather what the juxtaposition of the two represent. The arguments about what to build and where don't really deal with the nature of the disquietude one way or the other in my opinion.

When people start talking about "hallowed ground" in the context of this issue, for example, they're describing shameless tread. Ostensibly because that's the actual disconnect between conceptions here.

[Cooper]

There is already a Starbucks there.....and a pizza place, and a video store (with adult movies)....

I have a related question....For those that are against a new mosque being built two blocks closer to 'ground zero' then the one that has been there for something like 40 years, how do you feel about Muslims having prayer service at the Pentagon, less then 100 feet from the point of impact?

[Holiman]

Originally Posted by stasis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I haven't seen anybody denied anything over this yet. As for the rights of US citizens, I'd like to see a larger degree of freedom from the morality of others added to that list. An increase in rights won by constructing opposition to the oppressor. Amongst the worst contemporary offenders have been these monolithic, monotheistic religions when they merge with political concerns. Since morality is socially a matter of aesthetics, of display, the pursuit of freedom from authoritarian morality begins culturally in aesthetics, in display - which means protests and so forth. I'd also like to see more ethical governance, since this lends itself to the rights of not only US citizens but the citizens of any country having to interact with our establishment (id est, to civilization). One salient means of increasing the degree of ethical governance is to dispense with unreal narratives regarding the 'essential purity' of empowered traditions, such as Islam, in favor of a more realistic narrative inclusive of the real-world limitations of their morality and practice. A valuation of secular governance.

This sounds nice but its not even what this argument is about. If pressure stops the mosque from being built then we have infringed a minorities freedom of religion. I do not think any sort of enlightenment nor progress towards freedom from authoritation anything will result from any social or goverment pressure against the excercise of another's religion.

[stasis]

	Originally Posted by Holiman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If pressure stops the mosque from being built

Sounds scary. Should I be worried about that?

Because this is about as likely as Obama turning up to the next press conference wearing a sports bra on the exterior of his suit.

	Originally Posted by Holiman To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	a minorities freedom of religion.

What. I know they're kind of brown and stuff but there are actually more than a billion of them.

[Margot]

	Originally Posted by Cooper To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I have a related question....For those that are against a new mosque being built two blocks closer to 'ground zero' then the one that has been there for something like 40 years, how do you feel about Muslims having prayer service at the Pentagon, less then 100 feet from the point of impact?

From the perspective of the protesters, opposition to a mosque and to a prayer service would be two fairly different things. The mosque can be seen as a monument; something intended to convey a sense of permanence and material presence, richly symbolic. It is a physical entity that's constructed with the purpose of housing people, protecting them, sheltering their ideas. Its structure serves as a constant banner for whatever it contains within. For the protesters, to oppose the mosque is to oppose a monument to the religion that "inspired" the WTC attack.

In the case of the Pentagon, the prayer services are held in a nondenominational chapel. A prayer service consists of a group of people getting together to read from their scriptures and exchange words amongst themselves and their God. There's not much that's "permanent" about that kind of gathering; rather, it is transient and not entirely tangible. To oppose a prayer service is oppose the act of gathering in groups and the words spoken with an intent to commune with the divine as perceived by the adherents; the target of such opposition would be the freedom of association and speech as it relates to the religion on which the service is based.

[lurk]

Originally Posted by zibber To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Protip: any random individual reciting the Takbir isn't automatically representative of most practitioners of a religion. In fact, most practitioners of a religion are representative of most practitioners of a religion (crazy, I know). If most practitioners of a religion don't fly airplanes into buildings, it is slightly unfair to take the individuals that do and insist that they have anything at all to do with said majority.

I don't know about quantifying "most", but I sure saw footage of a lot of folks dancing in the streets from North Africa to Indonesia just after 9/11. It was my impression that the vast majority of them were muslims.

[vampyroteuthis]

	Originally Posted by lurk To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I don't know about quantifying "most", but I sure saw footage of a lot of folks dancing in the streets from North Africa to Indonesia just after 9/11. It was my impression that the vast majority of them were muslims.

Loathing of the USA isn't really confined by religion or country.

[Arkeph]

	Originally Posted by lurk To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I don't know about quantifying "most", but I sure saw footage of a lot of folks dancing in the streets from North Africa to Indonesia just after 9/11. It was my impression that the vast majority of them were muslims.

You might be talking about
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Palestinians are certainly muslims, by and large, but their hate is grounded in politics and US foreign policy. Yet, without a doubt, some muslims did celebrate it as divine punishment.

On the other hand, Jerry Falwell also thought it was divine punishment exacted for the sin of tolerating alternative lifestyles. He, of course, falls in with a tiny minority among Christians who agreed with that assessment (and who also thought the same thing about hurricane Katrina).

Any group of people sharing a trait which does not correlate to ethical behavior will have some terrible people in it. A big problem in the US is that most people believe ethics-neutral traits aren't ethics-neutral, and so end up generalizing based on their beliefs and the small groups of awful people in the "enemy" group. Needless to say, that's the only basis of opposition to the community center.

Curiously, I've been hearing (from other sources, not here) about the opposition being merely vocal and not in favor of any action being taken against the wishes of the land-owners.

[larkin]

Originally Posted by Margot To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

In the case of the Pentagon, the prayer services are held in a nondenominational chapel. A prayer service consists of a group of people getting together to read from their scriptures and exchange words amongst themselves and their God. There's not much that's "permanent" about that kind of gathering; rather, it is transient and not entirely tangible. To oppose a prayer service is oppose the act of gathering in groups and the words spoken with an intent to commune with the divine as perceived by the adherents; the target of such opposition would be the freedom of association and speech as it relates to the religion on which the service is based.

Maybe, but I think the more likely reason is that people who have to live or work around the sites of the attack really don't give a shit about whether Muslims pray, celebrate, or build buildings there, and certainly don't think it in any way compromises the memory. The Pentagon is a good example; I've been to an Iftaar very near the site of the crash that they've held every year since 9/11; no one has complained and most have supported. But if Fox News found out...

	Originally Posted by stasis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	What. I know they're kind of brown and stuff but there are actually more than a billion of them.

I imagine he's talking about in the U.S., but even so, freedom of religion doesn't just apply to "minorities" - which of course you know.

	Originally Posted by Arkeph To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Curiously, I've been hearing (from other sources, not here) about the opposition being merely vocal and not in favor of any action being taken against the wishes of the land-owners.

I think that's to some extent because the political landscape had shifted slightly, but it is curious, isn't it? Enough to make you wonder what the fuck they're talking about at all, and why they're talking about it, if they don't actually have any policy point to make? Aside from more specific agendas, generally because Republicans wish to point out that they that they are the only party that really hates Muslims (no, maybe you hate them but they really really hate them), make it politically toxic to think anything else or in any way come off as insufficiently aggressive toward them, and if they're lucky convince a few more people that Obama might actually be one.

[stasis]

	Originally Posted by larkin To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I imagine he's talking about in the U.S., but even so, freedom of religion doesn't just apply to "minorities" - which of course you know.

With the demise of blasphemy laws religion itself has no freedom from criticism, which of course you know. Protests and demonstrations rob nobody of their freedoms, which of course you know. Who knows if even he knows what he's talking about. The debate is rife with empty memes and pretense, socially predefined thoughts, Kegan stage three stuff, and I certainly doubt it.

[Sulla]

	Originally Posted by lurk To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I don't know about quantifying "most", but I sure saw footage of a lot of folks dancing in the streets from North Africa to Indonesia just after 9/11. It was my impression that the vast majority of them were muslims.

I would say this is fallacy of composition or a biased sample. I see lots of very poor examples of pro-lifers on TV- they are not reflective of most pro-lifers.

[Margot]

Originally Posted by larkin To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Maybe, but I think the more likely reason is that people who have to live or work around the sites of the attack really don't give a shit about whether Muslims pray, celebrate, or build buildings there, and can certainly don't think it in any way compromises the memory. The Pentagon is a good example; I've been to an Iftaar very near the site of the crash that they've held every year since 9/11; no one has complained and most have supported. But if Fox News found out...

Possibly. It'd be hard to tell one way or another unless someone proposes a mosque near the Pentagon. My point was more so that opposition to the mosque and to the Muslim prayer service would have to be on different (though not entirely unrelated) premises. Not that I'd be surprised if people protested something like an informal outdoor Muslim prayer service near Ground Zero, but any blatantly anti-Islamic motive on the part of the opposition would be harder to conceal in that case behind appeals to the potential desecration of the memories of loved ones. With a mosque that can be heralded as a "monument", the appeals get taken more seriously and with better air time.

[JakeN]

For starters, I will say I think its a terrible idea...Almost nothing good can come from it in the short term. I'd consider holding onto the land for a while and building something like this years down the road, but there are still too many emotions surrounding the site for this to end well. That being said, emotions should have very little to do with what actually happens from a government involvement perspective.

I understand why we wouldn't allow a bin laden shrine to exist in this space, there are laws around public decency and keeping things tasteful in the public eye. To use those laws to stop this proposal however seems wrong as there isn't a 1:1 correlation between Islam and the attacks, and making the arguement that there is enough of a connection is narrow sighted and small.

So, to summarize, they shouldn't do it, but if they want to they should be allowed to...although I won't be all that surprised (or even feel that bad) when the mosque gets destroyed by some rednecks.

[Paul Siraisi]

	Originally Posted by Imperator To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Not to get involved in this particular pissing match, but every translator, philosopher, philologist, linguist, and linguistically minded person on Earth would concur that for complete understanding of a text, it must be read in the original language, and not "in translation".

Unless those people intend to impose that text's language on every possible reader--which is to say if they have any respect at all for world culture--translation will have to happen at some point. You might as well say no one can understand anyone unless everyone speaks the same language. No, using the 'your understanding will always be inferior' argument is simply a method of putting up a barrier to create a hierarchy, be it by a professional class protecting its intellectual assets (no offense intended) or by a religion named "Submit." Fair translation is possible between humans on earth, and linguistically-minded people should focus on accurately translating for others (as in fact they do).

	Originally Posted by Imperator To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I would just as equally argue the "true Bible" must be read and understood in Greek and Hebrew, with absolute insistence it had nothing to do with religion, or spreading Christian culture.

Obviously it wouldn't have to do with that, since Christianity didn't (at least initially, or in most cases) spread itself by force, and therefore could not have done so without translation.

	Originally Posted by Imperator To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	In fact, not knowing the source of that quote, I would suspect it to be said by an academic.

That's not an exact quote, just a summary of the basic idea that is propagated among muslims. Here, instead, is a quote:

	Originally Posted by Sura 12:2
	Verily we have sent it down as an Arabic Quran in order that you may understand

(Would that be better understood if I quoted it in arabic?) Now, if one knows the context of Mohammed's 'revelations'--that he had them in a world criss-crossed by Christian missionaries preaching from a Bible that was not in Arabic, then the quote takes on new meaning. In fact the exact opposite idea is discernable: Arabs needed a translation of the Bible!

But here is a quote from
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
, which should clarify that the popular attitude is not related to ideas of academic accuracy:

	Originally Posted by some sheik
	The Praise is for Allah, the one who has honoured us with the Qur'ân, and chosen for us the noblest of languages, and the peace and the blessings be upon the best one of the ones who articulated themselves in Arabic, and the most-preferred from the servants of Allah, Our Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him), and his family and his distinguished companions.

	Originally Posted by Imperator To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	There's a phrase I particularly like, which I'm sure quite a good number of philologists know: traduttore traditore. ... I'd say perspective really changes the intent of that quote....

"A translator is a traitor." How appropriate.

Yes, yelling 'fire' in a theater is not the same as yelling it at a firing squad.

[Zadoc]

First, it's
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
, and it's not at "Ground Zero."


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Second,
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
, if not worse.

Where's the controversy? It's just a manufactured wedge issue for conservatives to paint all Muslims as evil so that they can paint Democrats as being pro-Islam later on.

They're cultivating hatred and bigotry to win political points just as Washington predicted.

[Imperator]

Originally Posted by Paul Siraisi To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Unless those people intend to impose that text's language on every possible reader--which is to say if they have any respect at all for world culture--translation will have to happen at some point. You might as well say no one can understand anyone unless everyone speaks the same language. No, using the 'your understanding will always be inferior' argument is simply a method of putting up a barrier to create a hierarchy, be it by a professional class protecting its intellectual assets (no offense intended) or by a religion named "Submit." Fair translation is possible between humans on earth, and linguistically-minded people should focus on accurately translating for others (as in fact they do).

Let me discuss now a different book: Homer's Odyssey.
Quite a number of problematic lines and being poetry, the English really does no justice whatsoever.

Simply, you will get more out of reading it in Greek.

Yet we kick out translations of this book, read pretty much by everyone in the Western World at least at some point in their lives, and no one seems to have much problem with it, myself included.

So what really is the difference between the Odyssey and the New Testament?
Well, nobody considers the Odyssey "holy", nor would they ever say it's infallible, the word of God, inerrant, etc.

These are all things that people believe of the English bible, which is such a farce for the simple fact that the very process of translation is imperfect. What I'm saying is that at a minimum, the idea that Muslims recognize this imperfect process, almost seems a step up from the Christians who don't.

This is not to say I find what they do any less offensive. Christianity has a diverse following, and although limited, we do have gnostic, coptic, and Syrian texts. Islam made this impossible by essentially outlawing and burning all the books that didn't fit the "true" Koran.

They stifled intellectual curiosity and closed the door on creativity and an increase in knowledge. Believe you me, I have significant problems with their religion too.

	"A translator is a traitor." How appropriate. Yes, yelling 'fire' in a theater is not the same as yelling it at a firing squad.

Ever take a foreign language?
The very process of translation is a corruption of the text on some levels.

The point was to show that without context, that was actually a somewhat academic line, well seated in academic tradition. Obviously, words like "true" would never fly, and all their other practices stifle the very essence of learning.

Then again, Christians do the same, as shown.

Perhaps to make my position explicitly (if needlessly) clear, I think religion is the single most destructive force on Earth, and its very nature is to stifle intellectual growth and curiosity. Religion kills critical thinking. Period. So to say Christianity is somehow "better" than Islam because of whatever XYZ factors, to me, is entirely missing the point.

[FlyerX]

It's a Manhattan issue. Let Manhattanites handle it.

[Arcanist]

Should new Japanese restaurants be barred from the area if it turns out the 9/11 terrorists simply adored Japanese food?

[Cooper]

If the mosque is barred from being built there, will there be new laws that forbid the building of and require the removal of all such buildings? Will anything Japanese have to be removed from or near the 'hallowed ground' of Pearl Harbor? What about the 'hallowed ground' of Oklahoma City? Then there are the military bases on or near the sites where the U.S. Army fought Native Americans, thats 'sacred ground', too.....well, I guess that would mean remove all stuff of white men, 'cuz its all 'sacred ground'....

[blueback]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


So, a quarter of Americans believe Obama is a muslim. Does that mean they would object to Obama visiting the WTC site?

[Zadoc]

	Originally Posted by blueback To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. So, a quarter of Americans believe Obama is a muslim. Does that mean they would object to Obama visiting the WTC site?

Yup.

[Apocynum]

Originally Posted by Arkeph To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Any group of people sharing a trait which does not correlate to ethical behavior will have some terrible people in it. A big problem in the US is that most people believe ethics-neutral traits aren't ethics-neutral, and so end up generalizing based on their beliefs and the small groups of awful people in the "enemy" group. Needless to say, that's the only basis of opposition to the community center.

I don't quite understand this...and certainly not in light of the last sentence concluding it is the "only" basis of opposition to the 'community center'. The last sentence by itself says that you fail to consider, if you've even read them, the many different arguments that have presented by those opposing the building.

I was too short on sleep last night (drove someone to emergency room and back), to engage in a metaphysical discussion on the relativism of ethics and morals. I have examined the statements made and what evidence there is from both the American and Middle-Eastern cultural frames (best basis I have for ethical evaluation). I still have unanswered questions and concerns that, until addressed, leaves me opposing the construction of this Islamic Community Center.

	Originally Posted by Arkeph To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Curiously, I've been hearing (from other sources, not here) about the opposition being merely vocal and not in favor of any action being taken against the wishes of the land-owners.

You haven't been reading all posts then if you haven't read the many statements, by those in opposition, who have pretty much all stated that the land owners have every right to build whatever they'd like. I don't wish to be condescending to the other readers of the thread so I don't put this disclaimer on every single one of my posts since originally discussing it - I figure folks are intelligent enough to read and remember it for themselves...if they're genuinely interested in discussing the topic rather than just proclaiming their own beliefs.

	Originally Posted by Zadoc To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	First, it's To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. , and it's not at "Ground Zero."

It is a mosque, it's just more. Like most churches have a sanctuary and a parish hall. It's becoming a personal pet peeve of mine that it is frequently referred to as a "community center", which conveniently leaves off the key descriptor. It is an "Islamic Community Center." There is an Islamic Community Center here where I live - it's the local mosque and meeting place for muslims, geez, just like a sanctuary and hall, just in one building. By calling it just a "community center", it is misrepresented and misperceived since many places have secular community centers that are for everyone to do whatever social activity in.

If you define Ground Zero as 'where the planes crashed in Manhattan,' this building would be included, even though it is not where the twin towers fell (the overwhelming consideration when thinking of Ground Zero).

	Originally Posted by Zadoc To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Second, To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. , if not worse.

Please provide evidence. That is, evidence more recent than, say, two generation ago of people.

	Originally Posted by Zadoc To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Where's the controversy? It's just a manufactured wedge issue for conservatives to paint all Muslims as evil so that they can paint Democrats as being pro-Islam later on.

Another person who is not listening to the concerns and questions being asked. If you don't listen, you can't address them.

	Originally Posted by Zadoc To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	They're cultivating hatred and bigotry to win political points just as Washington predicted.

Which "Washington"? Please provide evidence of said prediction.

I am tired of extremist verbiage attacking the people who are simply asking questions. It is not bigotry or hatred to ask questions, to be have concerns and voice them. To be insulted for doing so I think is itself bigotry.

I've always been fond of the old proverb, "He who throws the first punch admits he has lost the argument." And I always think of it at times like this. Folks are asking questions and they get (verbally) punched - I figure the person doing the insulting can't answer/defend their position.