Mosque on Ground Zero; Requested Split Topic

[Enters Laughing]

Alright alright, well that's not even my concern, your obviously free to believe whatever you want, I'm not concerned about it.... I don't remember my point now.... but it wasn't to convert you or anything.

lol, I know...at least you don't seem to want to kill me.

[redbaron]

I know that supernatural beings don't exist in the same sense that we do, so in that sense I think that religion is wrong. I'm not so bothered if people decide to have a 'religion' though - I just wish they'd see their efforts as futile.

that's like the biggest loophole ever.

[Jimbean]

Seriously think about this. On one end of it, why would someone build some Islamic center on or near Ground Zero? The only reason why this is considered being built and the news media is reporting on it is so that 1.) they get a news story and 2.) is to p!ss people off.

[redbaron]

Seriously think about this. On one end of it, why would someone build some Islamic center on or near Ground Zero? The only reason why this is considered being built and the news media is reporting on it is so that 1.) they get a news story and 2.) is to p!ss people off.

it makes no sense to me.

[Jimbean]

it makes no sense to me.

Why would you build something that would give you bad media attention and potentially vandalized?

[Enters Laughing]

that's like the biggest loophole ever.

not really. I merely mean that if we truly exist, I don't think a supernatural being can exist as well, except as a figment of the human imagination made real.

[Enters Laughing]

Why would you build something that would give you bad media attention and potentially vandalized?

Why defend your freedom if...oh right, yeah...

[Jimbean]

To whom does this situation benefit?

[Jimbean]

Why defend your freedom if...oh right, yeah...

I don't understand. what do you mean?

[redbaron]

not really. I merely mean that if we truly exist, I don't think a supernatural being can exist as well, except as a figment of the human imagination made real.

well I was totally arguing semantics there. you said they don't exist in the same sense that we do and I would agree with that. but that doesn't mean they don't exist in a different form or way of being. Besides, I think the human imagination does have limits and can't necessarily understand everything that is.

[Enters Laughing]

To whom does this situation benefit?

The people who will use the facility, possibly?
Intercommunal relations, maybe?
The national psyche's sense of feelgoodness?

[Enters Laughing]

well I was totally arguing semantics there. you said they don't exist in the same sense that we do and I would agree with that. but that doesn't mean they don't exist in a different form or way of being. Besides, I think the human imagination does have limits and can't necessarily understand everything that is.

eh. A supernatural being would have to be outside the laws of our universe, which would be impossible if that "supernatural being" was to have any impact on use whatsoever, or even have any religions based on it. If the supernatural being somehow made itself part of the universe, or locked itself out, then our universe would also be applicable to whatever uberverse the "supernatural being" was part of - we'd be a local subset. And so ultimately...the supernatural being wouldn't be supernatural at all.

[Jimbean]

The people who will use the facility, possibly?

So why build it there?

Intercommunal relations, maybe?

Not in that location.

The national psyche's sense of feelgoodness?

Remember, this is a source of conflict for many people. For those who feel good about politically fighting Muslims, who wants them to feel good about it?

[Jimbean]

Remember, this is a source of conflict for many people. For those who feel good about politically fighting Muslims, who wants them to feel good about it?

Remember, this is the same media that hyped up the whole WMD's in Iraq and pushing for the whole clash of civilizations between the West and the Arab world. Don't tell me that there is at least some form of mild conspiracy going on here. But then again, maybe I am wrong, maybe this is all random.

[redbaron]

read this book review:

Cruel and Unusual Punishment

The Muslim treatment of women alone should be enough to discourage this. I can't understand why anybody supports it.

[Jimbean]

I'll come back to this later.

[redbaron]

eh. A supernatural being would have to be outside the laws of our universe, which would be impossible if that "supernatural being" was to have any impact on use whatsoever, or even have any religions based on it. If the supernatural being somehow made itself part of the universe, or locked itself out, then our universe would also be applicable to whatever uberverse the "supernatural being" was part of - we'd be a local subset. And so ultimately...the supernatural being wouldn't be supernatural at all.

I don't understand why a supernatural being couldn't make itself part of our universe while also being larger than that. Why does that make the supernatural being not supernatural?

[Jimbean]

I'll repost what I had originally said (w/ a few minor tweaks), which got lost in the other thread:

There's a reason imagery like this is so evocative:



Victorious U.S. Marines on Mt. Suribachi, Iwo Jima. Victorious Red Army soldiers on the ruins of the Reichstag, Berlin. Nothing else strikes such a clear and decisive message through the heart of history, "We came. We saw. We conquered."

So it is with a mosque (or whatever petty word games a person wants to call it) constructed on ground zero. One can say "it's just a building." Well, yeah. It's 'just a building' to me too. But that's not what gets communicated to an radical-Islamic jihad mentality which has a nasty habit of interpreting every landmark and historical site within a warped context of epic religious symbolism. In all lands they've put to the sword, they build mosques over important cultural and religious grounds of the previous owners. Naturally, they'll see this as nothing less than an act of the most humiliating and disgraceful submission on part of the United States. A glorious day the tide finally turned against the infidels. What sworn enemy wouldn't see it that way?

Being dedicated to tolerance only works when both sides buy into the ideal. It's suicidal to treat others with the same values who wouldn't think twice about slitting your throat, and laugh as you gurgle on your own blood with all your naive gestures of mutual peace and respect.

Okay, so taking this from the "jihadist" side of things, What you are saying is that they are doing this to invoke conquest? Possibly even to symbolize that Americans are weak and to destroy them in asymmetrical warfare?

[Enters Laughing]

So why build it there?

Why build it a mile away, or 500 metres away or...? New York's a pretty big place you know, with people of many nationalities and religions etc. etc.

I personally may object to some aspects of Islam, but I appreciate that people should be allowed to practice their religion as long as it's within the law, and that "these people" may not actually be infidel killers, because there doesn't seem to be a strict definition of what a Muslim is. I know what is meant by "incitement to murder" though.

If "these people" have a religion which is acceptable by your state, even one that might be good for the local community, I don't know why you are so fast to ask why "these people"...presumably not the same people who flew planes into the Twin Towers...can't have this facility.

[Enters Laughing]

I don't understand why a supernatural being couldn't make itself part of our universe while also being larger than that. Why does that make the supernatural being not supernatural?

Because if it was supernatural, it wouldn't be part of natural law. You can't contravene natural law!

[Jimbean]

Why build it a mile away, or 500 metres away or...? New York's a pretty big place you know, with people of many nationalities and religions etc. etc.

I personally may object to some aspects of Islam, but I appreciate that people should be allowed to practice their religion as long as it's within the law, and that "these people" may not actually be infidel killers, because there doesn't seem to be a strict definition of what a Muslim is. I know what is meant by "incitement to murder" though.

If "these people" have a religion which is acceptable by your state, even one that might be good for the local community, I don't know why you are so fast to ask why "these people"...presumably not the same people who flew planes into the Twin Towers...can't have this facility.

I ask the question on not the part of the local government, but on the part of the local Muslim leaders.

In the United States, the First Amendment does protect religion, and the Fifth Amendment protects property. If I were there, I would politely ask them to relocate. I would also warn them that vandalization is likely form the locals.

Edit:

the only two logical reasons for building it there is to assert radical Islamic dominance or to incite a culture clash.

[redbaron]

Because if it was supernatural, it wouldn't be part of natural law. You can't contravene natural law!

I agree! but isn't a supernatural being, by very definition, above natural law?

[redbaron]

I personally may object to some aspects of Islam, but I appreciate that people should be allowed to practice their religion as long as it's within the law, and that "these people" may not actually be infidel killers, because there doesn't seem to be a strict definition of what a Muslim is. I know what is meant by "incitement to murder" though.

that's the problem though. So many of their practices are against the law. Like raping and abusing the women. Read that article.

[Enters Laughing]

I ask the question on not the part of the local government, but on the part of the local Muslim leaders.

In the United States, the First Amendment does protect religion, and the Fifth Amendment protects property. If I were there, I would politely ask them to relocate. I would also warn them that vandalization is likely form the locals.

Edit:

the only two logical reasons for building it there is to assert radical Islamic dominance or to incite a culture clash.

Until there's evidence to suggest that the facility is to be used as a means to incite or provoke, I'm not sure they really have to explain themselves.

Why do you think vandalisation is likely, except perhaps because of the media stirring everything up?

I'm sure there are more than those two reasons btw.

[Skeptic]

that's the problem though. So many of their practices are against the law. Like raping and abusing the women. Read that article.

What

[Enters Laughing]

that's the problem though. So many of their practices are against the law. Like raping and abusing the women. Read that article.

I fear what I might read in that article, and I don't need to. I get your point. I know that ancient texts can be followed to the book, reintrepreted, rewritten, etc. ...and that people can cherry pick what they like. I find it easier to take issue with the acts themselves then whatever branch of whatever religion a person follows.

[Enters Laughing]

I agree! but isn't a supernatural being, by very definition, above natural law?

Yes exactly! Therefore they don't exist!

[redbaron]

Yes exactly! Therefore they don't exist!

[Words]

I haven't followed this conversation from the beginning. I see it is a split thread so I haven't looked at the initial post/article/news report, however I am hoping that the title of this thread, aluding to bulding a 'Mosque on Ground Zero' and why would it be built is enough of a summary to answer somewhat.

I have happened to note that Jimbeam mentioned that a logical conclusion would be to encite a culture clash.

I am no expert in religion, but i'm aware of the Christian motto, to turn the other cheek. As far as I know, such a thing is more or less spoke of in other religions also.

I would hyposit, from a Christian perspective, that building a Mosque (or some sort of Islam community centre, which Vero mentioned), that it is quite a symbol of peace and reconciliation, and that from a Christian perspective, it would show such Christ like qualities in action. Although, in reality, it would be somewhat bizarre if for instance Christians would vandalise the said building in the name of Christianity, if that were to occur of course.

It's no major suprise to see religion being used as an excuse for perpetuating acts of aggression, hostility and unforgivingness, if such a thing where to occur here. Of course not all potential vandals would call themself Christians, but they would be attacking something religious based, as a rejection to that religion, and the innocent people who work/go there, so where does it end?

I guess *what* to build there is the problem. I suppose *something* has to go there. Usually such things end up with a statue of some sort of artistic design, which actually is what's there just now. It's neutral to people and clever enough to seem 'cultured' Or are they just building a new WTC? About the WTC || World Trade Center || Gee, I dunno.

Edit: Visiting the WTC || About the WTC || World Trade Center || - In just a few years, Downtown will become a showcase for the latest innovations in architecture, design and urban planning. At the World Trade Center site, renowned international architects have unveiled critically acclaimed plans for three new skyscrapers to complement the Freedom Tower and the Memorial. When all of these momentous projects are fully realized in 2015, they will stand as magnificent symbols of renewal."
-State of Lower Manhattan 2006, Alliance for Downtown New York

Ahh, yeah, artistic and innovative architecture and such, let's be peaceful and optimistic through art! Although I wonder if such a thing is sort of Ni with Fe, symbolic, sort of emotional but difficult to define it's purpose.

Sorry for rambling, I mean no offense, just thoughts

[redbaron]

I fear what I might read in that article, and I don't need to. I get your point. I know that ancient texts can be followed to the book, reintrepreted, rewritten, etc. ...and that people can cherry pick what they like. I find it easier to take issue with the acts themselves then whatever branch of whatever religion a person follows.

yeah okay, I'm not saying drive the muslims out of the country, but for a government to kind of support the religion that practices those things by building something like this is questionable, imo.

[Cyrano]

Lol, apparently somebody has real plans to build a gay bar next to it.

There is already a "gentlemen's club" nearby, on this "sacred, hallowed ground."

Sorry to see the Burrlington Coat Factory go. And the nearby taco restaraunt is a symbol of our reverence for this special American soil.

[strrrng]

I don't think unconditional surrender is really that easy without giving them some benevolence, or a deal.

the important thing to note, is that these generous acts are the most effective after some form of surrender has been obtained. this is because it forces the enemy to honestly acknowledge defeat, knowing they have been granted the ability to continue living. if you just concede and pander to them, they will never respect you, and will most likely nod their head with a smile, basking in what you've given them until they're prepared to launch another attack.

The thing is, our enemy isn't in the open, we don't know where they're hiding, etc. If they were all holed up in one building, I'd say sure, bomb it, but when they're hiding in thousands of caves and countries all across the globe, making a huge display is only going to provoke, that's right, an equal and opposite reaction.

yeah, that's why I mentioned unconventional warfare. it sucks that it took a handful of fails in the other department for people to see the superiority of this method. but either way, an overt front is an overt front; thus I fail to see how a gradual offensive with diplomatic intentions inspires any less hate than an honest pillage.

[xerx]

the important thing to note, is that these generous acts are the most effective after some form of surrender has been obtained. this is because it forces the enemy to honestly acknowledge defeat, knowing they have been granted the ability to continue living. if you just concede and pander to them, they will never respect you, and will most likely nod their head with a smile, basking in what you've given them until they're prepared to launch another attack.

I completely agree with you in theory, but things aren't so simple in this case.

Just like the common view in America is that the terrorists are the aggressors, the common view in the Middle East is that America is the aggressor. America set up and supported dictatorships, supports corrupt elites, gives a blank check to Israel who then oppresses Palestinians and starts wars with neighboring Arab states, and so on as the argument goes.

It's funny how people try to pawn this off on religion, when even among the Christian Arab elite in Lebanon, the sentiment is that America is the enemy. Only 8 years ago, Saddam Hussein was loathed by everyone in the middle east, but because he "stood up to America" he's become a noble martyr overnight.

It's not possible to manufacture a watershed moment, like the fall of Berlin, that would teach those Arabs humility. They've been learning humility for the past 200 years of American, British and French imperialism. 99% of them have accepted this reality and don't even fight it.

But, otoh, the terrorists who imprinted a radicalized version of the above sentiments into their psyches really don't have anything to lose. They're reacting precisely against having been beaten so often. And if they were willing to commit suicide, chances are they'll also fight to the last breath.

[Jimbean]

I'm sure there are more than those two reasons btw.

No there is not. Those are the only two reasons. There is no other reason.

Either it is a:

1.) Racial Islamic symbol of dominance

or

2.) some kind of provocateur to create conflict within the American people.

That's it!

[Jimbean]

Btw, either way you look at it, it is a conspiracy too. So don't anyone give me this "lolz there's like, no conspiracy dude lolz"

[strrrng]

I completely agree with you in theory, but things aren't so simple in this case.

Just like the common view in America is that the terrorists are the aggressors, the common view in the Middle East is that America is the aggressor. America set up and supported dictatorships, supports corrupt elites, gives a blank check to Israel who then oppresses Palestinians and starts wars with neighboring Arab states, and so on as the argument goes.

It's funny how people try to pawn this off on religion, when even among the Christian Arab elite in Lebanon, the sentiment is that America is the enemy. Only 8 years ago, Saddam Hussein was loathed by everyone in the middle east, but because he "stood up to America" he's become a noble martyr overnight.

It's not possible to manufacture a watershed moment, like the fall of Berlin, that would teach those Arabs humility. They've been learning humility for the past 200 years of American, British and French imperialism. 99% of them have accepted this reality and don't even fight it.

But, otoh, the terrorists who imprinted a radicalized version of the above sentiments into their psyches really don't have anything to lose. They're reacting precisely against having been beaten so often. And if they were willing to commit suicide, chances are they'll also fight to the last breath.

yeah, that makes sense. but this only reaffirms my aversion to the diplomatic intrusion. people repressed to the point of self-destruction will never respond to "help," and so it is ultimately better to let the blight ruin itself, or aid the process, if necessary. otherwise, you'll only have a defective collective psyche producing the same viruses over and over.

[Jimbean]

No there is not. Those are the only two reasons. There is no other reason.

Either it is a:

1.) Racial Islamic symbol of dominance

or

2.) some kind of provocateur to create conflict within the American people.

That's it!

In case #1, it is simple. It is just a matter of people's general awareness of what radical Islam is and how they feel about it.

In case #2, it is more complicated. I think I am going to spend some time detailing what this could in fact be.

[Mediator Kam]

I completely agree with you in theory, but things aren't so simple in this case.

Just like the common view in America is that the terrorists are the aggressors, the common view in the Middle East is that America is the aggressor. America set up and supported dictatorships, supports corrupt elites, gives a blank check to Israel who then oppresses Palestinians and starts wars with neighboring Arab states, and so on as the argument goes.

It's funny how people try to pawn this off on religion, when even among the Christian Arab elite in Lebanon, the sentiment is that America is the enemy. Only 8 years ago, Saddam Hussein was loathed by everyone in the middle east, but because he "stood up to America" he's become a noble martyr overnight.

It's not possible to manufacture a watershed moment, like the fall of Berlin, that would teach those Arabs humility. They've been learning humility for the past 200 years of American, British and French imperialism. 99% of them have accepted this reality and don't even fight it.

But, otoh, the terrorists who imprinted a radicalized version of the above sentiments into their psyches really don't have anything to lose. They're reacting precisely against having been beaten so often. And if they were willing to commit suicide, chances are they'll also fight to the last breath.

This.

[xerx]

yeah, that makes sense. but this only reaffirms my aversion to the diplomatic intrusion. people repressed to the point of self-destruction will never respond to "help," and so it is ultimately better to let the blight ruin itself, or aid the process, if necessary. otherwise, you'll only have a defective collective psyche producing the same viruses over and over.

I think most just want justice to be done and to gain independence for their countries, and will stop once they get it, but you're free to disagree.

Even in the case of really Islamist organizations like Hamas, it's not a clear cut case of religious fanaticism and wanting to wipe out Israel. Most soldiers in Hamas are kids, about our age, who aren't able to get jobs because of the occupation, who just want a better life for themselves and their families. They become more hard-line because they believe they're facing a relentless enemy. And they couch their radical rhetoric in religion because it's the most prominent part of their cultural identity and something that belongs to them. But the underlying reason is economics.

There will always be absolute nuts willing to do anything out of sinister psychological motives, don't get me wrong. Terrorists like that I agree are repressed to the point of self-destruction. But people like that exist in any society (See: Timothy Mcveigh).

[mu4]

Mmm, I always thought the economic relationship between the Middle East and the western world to be the source of conflict renewal between them. As long as the economic relationship exists, it's difficult for either side to disengage.

It's like a bad marriage, but you still have to live in the same house.

In this particular case, there is no cold-war policy that can be adopted to isolate the Middle East, rather there is only a conflicted engagement over resources.

The kind of war being fought in the middle east is prohibitively expensive and it is also no longer morally supported in the US. I think as long as our dependency on oil is reduced in the coming generations, the problem will solve themselves. It's likely civil conflict will occur in the middle east without western money and funding simply because of the atrocious management of the governments. However, these corrupt reigmes are being funded by the western world's demand for oil.

As far as the Mosque, if it's legal, I don't think there is anything should be done about it. It certainly is contentious and I think it's a sensitive issue, I think the people building the Mosque probably aren't that fond of America and the people who don't want to the Mosque have no real reason to like Muslims, but it's a conflict both sides seem willing to engage in.

As far as Jimbean's comment, it's meaningless, America operate under the rule of law and as long as they stay within the rule of law, they have the freedom to build the mosque. It's pointless to speculate on the reasons, you can protest, picket, try to keep people from entering the mosque.

See segregation for example.






Look at all the nice people. Don't they seem so friendly in the sunday best.

America isn't a utilitarian society, because it views the protection of some freedom and diversity as being a higher priority then more measurable utility, and this is why we get to own guns, have religious freedom, thump our noses at authority, piss people off with words/mosques/varying level of offensive behavior, and many others protections to non-utilitarian principles.