Anti_Islam protests victory for extremists?

[CDNBear]

Wow, that's a pretty big task to be honest with you and this is strictly my own subjective assessment of how it would apply, so please take it with a grain of salt.

This is reason one, why I like your posts, and by extension, you, honesty that your opinion might not be perfect.

It would probably start with an assertion of what is 'good' and you can take it from there to see whether the end consequence as a result of the action would ultimately result in the betterment of the lives of the majority.

I think to see if the it "pleases" the majority and has a pleasurable affect, would require more hopeful thinking, then mere foresight. I may be just being negative, but I see the placement as having a long term opposite effect. I see it has being divisive and a fitna.

I personally see the creation of the community center causing an initial rift, as it has so far, but the end consequence would be most of the U.S. acknowledging that its negative implications are far more benign than they earlier suspected. The 'good' that could come from this is a recognition of religious freedom that did not actually interfere with national policy - and hopefully that recognition would extend to other religions, so that they can also co-exist and hopefully that would extend to the harmonious co-existence of theists with non-theists, etc.

I can see exactly what you're saying, and to be honest, it would be a wonderful thing.

The problem is, how do we factor in the fact that not everyone opposes the Mosque for the same reasons? So see it as distasteful for purely emotional reasons, such as myself. While others truly are just phobia type bigots, and even further down the evolutionary ladder, you have your skin head mentalities.

Not all these groups can be appeased, or even placated.

That being a given, wouldn't that be something, someone wishing to build an Islamic memorial to 9/11, be it from a joint friendship perspective or otherwise, would think of, before taking any steps to do so?

Again, that's probably a pipe dream, but it is with the intent of having a free and democratic society that benefits the majority of its citizens, insofar as I can conceptualize what that would be like.

This is reason to I like your posts, you're looking for the betterment. I like that too.

 

[mentalfloss]

I think to see if the it "pleases" the majority and has a pleasurable affect, would require more hopeful thinking, then mere foresight.

Yes, the original intention of the ethics-based philosophy was to associate what was 'good' for society based on 'pleasure' principles. That later morphed into the more appropriate, 'preference utilitarianism'.

 

[CDNBear]

Yes, the original intention of the ethics-based philosophy was to associate what was 'good' for society based on 'pleasure' principles. That later morphed into the more appropriate, 'preference utilitarianism'.

I saw that.

I feel it safe to say that making the decision, to place the Mosque at that site, did not produce the most favourable consequences, for anyone involved.

Furthermore, that aspect of Utilitarianism, seems to support my position, if I interpret...

Since what is good depends solely on individual preferences, there can be nothing that is in itself good or bad except for the resulting state of mind.

...correctly. Nobody is wrong, no matter what side they choose.

 

[mentalfloss]

I saw that.

I feel it safe to say that making the decision, to place the Mosque at that site, did not produce the most favourable consequences, for anyone involved.

I think it's great, personally. The muslim-western conflict has been brought to the forefront and while there is still the same old propaganda, a lot of enlightenment and education about muslim tradition is now prevalent. There may be extremists and ironically, acts of American terror, but I think these will be temporary. It kind of mimics the abortion debate, and while that ship still hasn't sailed - it will ultimately land on one side of the coin the more society is educated about the principles of each argument.

Furthermore, that aspect of Utilitarianism, seems to support my position, if I interpret...

...correctly. Nobody is wrong, no matter what side they choose.

All that means to say is that perhaps right and wrong are not self-evident. They require a human filter. That does not equate to no one ever being wrong, but rather, being right or wrong is more of a subjective assertion. Even if that rock is hurled at one's face, exemplifying the rock's objective existence, the subjective being can still choose not to acknowledge the existence of that rock being real. However, an onlooker, would definitely acknowledge a rock hitting that person in the face.

Similarly, I could think you are wrong. You could think you are right. And vice versa. Even with all kinds of empirical data showing one way or another, the being itself must acknowledge that data before it can have any influence on their decision. But both right and wrong, good or bad still do exist, even if they exist subjectively.

 

[CDNBear]

I think it's great, personally. The muslim-western conflict has been brought to the forefront and while there is still the same old propaganda, a lot of enlightenment and education about muslim tradition is now prevalent. There may be extremists and ironically, acts of American terror, but I think these will be temporary. It kind of mimics the abortion debate, and while that ship still hasn't sailed - it will ultimately land on one side of the coin the more society is educated about the principles of each argument.

I couldn't agree more. Now I can understand how I may have difficulty conveying my thoughts in a way that isn't so sledge hammer like sometimes. But that is exactly why I wish to be honest about Islam.

All that means to say is that perhaps right and wrong are not self-evident. They require a human filter. That does not equate to no one ever being wrong, but rather, being right or wrong is more of a subjective assertion. Even if that rock is hurled at one's face, exemplifying the rock's objective existence, the subjective being can still choose not to acknowledge the existence of that rock being real. However, an onlooker, would definitely acknowledge a rock hitting that person in the face.

I love that analogy. But I was looking at the acknowledgment of "preferences". Which of course has to acknowledge that those preferences will be predicated by perceptions.

Similarly, I could think you are wrong. You could think you are right. And vice versa. Even with all kinds of empirical data showing one way or another, the being itself must acknowledge that data before it can have any influence on their decision.

This too is predicated by perceptions.

But both right and wrong, good or bad still do exist, even if they exist subjectively.

Agreed. Existing in this case, is balance.

 

[ironsides]

71% of Americans do not want the Mosque built so close to the 9/11 site. Especially before the memorial to those who were massacred is built. No one is taking in the feeling of the families of those who died, especially President Obama and Mayor Blumberg.


This Mosque will be more than a place to worship, it will also be a cultural center. Teaching more than the Koran, there is no Muslim Democratic country in the world. Shira law is all they practice to various degrees.



How to ruin the whole mosque thing for them - The Rest of the World - The Rest of the World - DallasBasketball.com Boards - Message Board

 

[Just the Facts]

Right... and growing opposition to Mosques around the US is not intolerance. What dictionary do you use?

I'm well aware of the intolerance of Muslim extremists, you don't need to post that stuff for my benefit. You simply asked Dexter what intolerance. There is plenty. Personally I don't think comparing the US to Pakistan is valid at all. The societies are completely different.

Can't you call a spade a spade?

Of course, that was whole point, to help define intolerance. Your pointing out that comparing the U.S. to Pakistan isn't valid proves my point. They're apples and oranges because the U.S. is tolerant and Pakistan is not. You are obviously perfectly aware of that.

I'm pretty sure urinating in a house of worship....ANY house of worship, is illegal in the U.S. The existance of a smattering of intolerant oddball individuals does not equal the U.S. as being intolerant.

Spade.

I'm pretty sure urinating in a house of worship....ANY house of worship, is illegal in the U.S. The existance of a smattering of intolerant oddball individuals does not equal the U.S. as being intolerant.

Spade.

Just came across this update to your story:

Late Update: The Washington Post was told by the NYPD that Rivera was so drunk that he didn't even know he was at a mosque, and police say they don't believe the incident was bias-related. The New York Post has since updated its original story -- removing any mention of anti-Muslim slurs. A police source also tells the Post that when found by worshipers, Rivera said "My sister's dead."

Late Late Update: The NYPD now confirms to TPM that the incident is not being investigated as bias-related. The NYPD said members of the mosque stated that Rivera did not make biased comments during the incident.

Drunk Man Arrested After Urinating In New York Mosque | TPMMuckraker


You may be right, I AM starting to see the intolerance, and it ain't with the GZ Mosque protestors.

 

[Goober]

Of course, that was whole point, to help define intolerance. Your pointing out that comparing the U.S. to Pakistan isn't valid proves my point. They're apples and oranges because the U.S. is tolerant and Pakistan is not. You are obviously perfectly aware of that.

I'm pretty sure urinating in a house of worship....ANY house of worship, is illegal in the U.S. The existence of a smattering of intolerant oddball individuals does not equal the U.S. as being intolerant.

Spade.

Check out the reaction nation Wide to building a Casino close the Gettysburg - That may add some perspective as to how US citizens look upon some things.

Considering it intolerant is not on the mark - The intolerance is being generated by those that should and in my opinion did know what the reaction would be.

They are cut from the same cloth as Glen Beck types - Fanning the flames of intolerance.

Read about the Danish cartoons of the prophet Mohammad - When they were published - Then months and I say many months later Danish Muslims toured the Mid East to fan the flames again. And what was the result - people being played like violins - excepting violins make music to soothe - these people make music to divide and create hatred.

It is no more or no less than that.

A Planned act - and what has been the result. people can be played so easily.

It is not about rights, it is not about freedom of religion
it is not about - i have the right to build a house of worship in this place.

it is about planning intolerant reactions- Why - read about Gettysburg's.

That is what I see.

We in the West are so caught up in - well this person has the right - When it should be - is it right.

 

[Tonington]

They're apples and oranges because the U.S. is tolerant and Pakistan is not. You are obviously perfectly aware of that.

Dexter never said that the US is intolerant, and I simply gave you some examples when you asked where the intolerance is. Dexter said that some specific actions in a country like the US which prides itself on democratic rights and values is shameful. And that's true.

Intolerance is still intolerance. In context, sure, Pakistan is worse. But if you follow from what Dexter said, it's expected in Pakistan, not in America.

 

[Goober]

How is this provocation? As JTF and others have pointed out, there have been Muslims praying there for years since 9/11. Not a peep, until now, when they want to build a community center around their prayer space. When they reach out to interfaith groups.

What nerve. What unmitigated gall, as Danny Williams would say...

What unmitigated gall - Well to build such a large Mosque is - To look at it otherwise is looking for excuses - I have stated all along that just because you have the right does not make it right. Does anyone give a crap about a small mosque near the WTC - No - Do they care about a major Mosques being built so close to an atrocity - Yes they do - this is not about Rights - this is not about freedom of expression - this is not about freedom of religion -
This is about something planned to create division. You see it differently - i do not - i see how the saudi's export their rteligion by force on monies to build - i see they then use this to preach their version of the Quaran - That is what i see - And yes it is happening in Canada, US, Eastern Europe, Khosovo, Bosnia and on and on.

Again - That is how I see it.

 

[CDNBear]

I still want to know why it's intolerant and bigoted to have a negative opinion about building a Mosque/Center, near the results of misguided Islamic Jihad.

But it's not intolerant, nor bigoted to demand the removal of or banning of pseudo religious cultural norms and paraphernalia in North America.

Why the double standard?

 

[captain morgan]

I still want to know why it's intolerant and bigoted to have a negative opinion about building a Mosque/Center, near the results of misguided Islamic Jihad.

But it's not intolerant, nor bigoted to demand the removal of or banning of pseudo religious cultural norms and paraphernalia in North America.

Why the double standard?

Our inclusionary culture demands that one condemn themself and the mainstream group(s) while promoting others in order to appear tolerant, accepting and open-minded... Sadly, there are more people worried about the "optics" of being labeled negatively as opposed to speaking their minds.

 

[CDNBear]

Our inclusionary culture demands that one condemn themself and the mainstream group(s) while promoting others in order to appear tolerant, accepting and open-minded... Sadly, there are more people worried about the "optics" of being labeled negatively as opposed to speaking their minds.

So in other words, cowards?

 

[captain morgan]

That just about sums it up... People that are all-a-scared of being thought poorly by others, so the easiest answer is to bash yourself. That way, no one can accuse you of being intolerant, racist, xenophobic, etc, etc..

 

[CDNBear]

That just about sums it up... People that are all-a-scared of being thought poorly by others, so the easiest answer is to bash yourself. That way, no one can accuse you of being intolerant, racist, xenophobic, etc, etc..

Do they not understand the slippery slope they themselves have created?

The slow erosion of the very system that promotes equality?

The very culture that allows people to come to the west and still express their culture?

As Gh so kindly pointed out in another thread, it's "Freedom of Reljgion" not "Freedom from Religion".

If this Mosque/Center, is appropriate at that site. Then all the pseudo religion affectations in western culture that have been eaten away, are/were equally appropriate.

Non?

 

[captain morgan]

Do they not understand the slippery slope they themselves have created?

The slow erosion of the very system that promotes equality?

The very culture that allows people to come to the west and still express their culture?

As Gh so kindly pointed out in another thread, it's "Freedom of Reljgion" not "Freedom from Religion".

If this Mosque/Center, is appropriate at that site. Then all the pseudo religion affectations in western culture that have been eaten away, are/were equally appropriate.

Non?

There was an excellent article written in the newspaper that touched on this very topic. I can't recall the author or I'd try posting a link, but the gist was that Western Liberalism would be the ultimate undoing of Western society in terms of self-abasement in the face of aggressive and over promotion of alternate cultures, lifestyles, beliefs (insert whatever element you like).

The key factor relates to the imbalance (and long term effects) of promoting one "ideal" at the expense of another.

 

[CDNBear]

There was an excellent article written in the newspaper that touched on this very topic. I can't recall the author or I'd try posting a link, but the gist was that Western Liberalism would be the ultimate undoing of Western society in terms of self-abasement in the face of aggressive and over promotion of alternate cultures, lifestyles, beliefs (insert whatever element you like).

The key factor relates to the imbalance (and long term effects) of promoting one "ideal" at the expense of another.

Bingo!

 

[captain morgan]

Bingo!

My hat's off to you Bear.. While you are quite succinct in your responses, the choice of words is still forceful... On the other hand, it leads me to believe that I talk too much.

 

[CDNBear]

My hat's off to you Bear..

Thank you sir.

While you are quite succinct in your responses, the choice of words is still forceful...

I'm oft described as the sledge hammer used on the mosquito.

On the other hand, it leads me to believe that I talk too much.

Actually, I though we heard far to little from you.

 

[captain morgan]

Thank you sir.

You are more than welcome.. Afterall, you earned it, all I did is recognize the obvious.

I'm oft described as the sledge hammer used on the mosquito.

As far as I'm concerned, having that ability, especially if it can be done (when appropriate) without it being interpreted in a negative light, is a tremendous personal asset.

Actually, I though we heard far to little from you.

I've got more ten dollar words than an Olde-Tyme politician. It takes no effort for me to fill many pages just trying to say "Mary had a little lamb".