59155 - Sauron on mosques and memorials

[Craig Jessop]

I read your post again, and I will stand by my point that building an Islamic center there is in bad taste. I don't think they should build it there. I don't believe it would be morally wrong (unless Rauf is doing it for some sinister purpose, which I admit is unlikely), and I don't think that it should be stopped. I would prefer they build it elsewhere and put a prayer room in the Freedom Tower, that wouldn't be offensive. Don't ask me why, it just would sit better with me. I do think that the hysteria against Park51 has fed Islamophobia, which is too bad.

Also, I served in an area with two straight up mosques just up the street from the LDS church, one in each direction. They were absolutely the worst neighbors ever! They blocked our parking lot five times a day, triple parked illegally and snarled traffic five times a day for an entire block of a major road, and pulled the religious persecution card whenever anybody told them that they were drastically interrupting several thousand peoples' lives (one of the mosques was next to a major freeway on/offramp). And on Sundays we were strictly prohibited from using their parking spaces, but somehow they were entitled to block our driveway three cars deep. Again, we were persecuting them when we told them they couldn't do that. It was so frustrating.

[vorpal blade]

And finally, don't you at least acknowledge that Imam Rauf is, in his eyes trying to do good: he wants to serve the local community, to espouse a moderate world-view among muslims, to promote understanding between cultures, including the understanding that moderate, good muslims live, work, worship, and die in this neighborhood. It may not be doing that — in fact, the backlash against the mosque has, I think, inadvertently fed widespread Islamophobia. But I have no doubt that Rauf's heart was in the right place.

I don’t know the full extent of Imam Rauf’s intentions; none of us do. People often sanctify the intentions of their own side, while demonizing the intentions of the other side. If we are going to decide which side of an issue we support I think it should be on the basis of the consequence of the actions, rather than what we suppose to be their intentions.

After all, the terrorists on 9/11 intended to further the cause of peaceful Islam. In their eyes they were trying to do a good thing. They sincerely believed that all of our interests would be better served if we were under Islamic rule. As I understand it they felt Muslims were not properly understood in this country, and that our cultural influences were hurting the Muslim culture. I suppose they thought their actions would promote understanding of their culture, and give increased respect to moderate, good Muslims in America. It could be said that the 9/11 terrorists had their heart in the right place. A great many Muslims still think so today.

It is possible that the Iman Rauf was unaware that his actions would be divisive, provocative, inflammatory, and generate ill-will and greater mistrust and hostility on both sides of the issue. But he seems like an intelligent man. Whether or not the consequences were clear to him at the start, they should be clear to everyone now. Whatever his intentions may be, if we are going to decide on whether his course of action is a wise one or not we should look to the consequences, which at this time look bad. And I believe that the consequences will only get worse.

[thebigcheese]

If this ever went to court, the Muslims could easily win by arguing discrimination. But it makes me wonder--speaking generally, if courts would ever rule in favor of "keeping the peace" or "respecting the dead" arguments? It's not exactly justice, but the popular opinion might be more preferable in some cases (to avoid rioting, violence, etc). Is justice always the ultimate authority?

[Yellow]

Maybe I'm just the odd man out, but I'm really failing to understand the uproar over this whole thing. I cannot understand why it is such a big deal where this community center is built. It's a group of people who want to gather together to worship God as they see fit. There is no harm in that. If we believe in freedom of religion, freedom of congregation, and freedom of speech as we claim to, then it seems to me that opposing the construction of this community center is extremely hypocritical.

In fact, let me go further. Even if it were a mosque (not a community center), and even if that mosque were being built by the specific denomination of Islam that was responsible for the 9/11 attacks (which it is not), I would still support them in building this hypothetical mosque. As long as what they are doing is legal, I support them in it. I would suspect that the government would be keeping an awfully close eye on the activities carried out there, and I would suspect that any illegal activity would be closely monitored, and that police would be keeping a close eye on people affiliated with that group, but I would support them in building the mosque. Moving this hypothetical mosque further from Ground Zero would not change my opinion on it one whit; if terrorists planned to use this location to plan further terrorist activities, its proximity to the World Trade Center site wouldn't affect their ability to do so at all.

It seems to me that protesting when Muslims try to build a place to worship only gives extremist Muslims more reason to hate the U.S. What am I missing?

[vorpal blade]

Have you ever wondered why the Muslim terrorists picked the targets they did on September 11? What did they hope to accomplish? Why the twin towers? It was obviously thought out long in advance, and these targets were carefully picked after a great deal of thought. I don’t think it was hatred of Americans, trying to kill as many of us as they could. I believe they wanted to make a statement. They were doing something highly symbolic for psychological reasons.

I believe the twin towers in lower Manhattan symbolized to many Muslims our economic power, which has been a key factor in our dominance in the West, and crucial in the conflict with Islamic influence. If they could strike these symbols of our economic and cultural power and influence, they thought it would weaken us and strengthen them.

To many Americans, and I understand it to be about two thirds of us, there is a symbolic opening of old wounds by building a mosque at the site where Muslim extremists humiliated us. We know that peaceful Muslims have frequently built mosques at places the less peaceful Muslims have conquered, places that had what the conquered people considered spiritual or cultural significance. To be fair it has been common for the Catholic Church to build their places of worship on top of holy places of people they conquered. To many Americans this building has nothing to do with worshiping God, but is putting a stamp of approval on the actions of Islamic terrorists. I’m not sure how articulate most Americans are about this, but I think they sense that it is much more than symbolically adding insult to injury.

I doubt that the affronting symbolism is lost on the Muslim community. They fully understand the meaning of it, even if many of the rest of us do not. I note that the Iman in central Florida says he is opposed to the building of this Muslim cultural center near Ground Zero.

Americans do not object to a mosque being built a few blocks further away from Ground Zero because a mosque being built there does not have the powerful symbolic effect. It is just another mosque, no big deal. The issue is not religious freedom, not freedom of assembly, not freedom of speech, and not fear of Islamic terrorism. Americans want Muslims to share these freedoms with us. It’s about the manipulation of powerful symbols.

[wired]

Instead of responding to vorpal's hollow argument (yeah, lame for me to call it that without responding, but I have to do homework), I just thought I would point out how incredibly outraged I am by the amount of Japanese restaurants built just minutes away from Pearl Harbour. Disgusting.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source= ... 69086&z=13

[Craig Jessop]

Instead of responding to vorpal's hollow argument (yeah, lame for me to call it that without responding, but I have to do homework), I just thought I would point out how incredibly outraged by the amount of Japanese restaurants built just minutes away from Pearl Harbour. Disgusting.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source= ... 69086&z=13

Don't you think that was a little over the top? Way to go!

[ahem.]

Don't you think that was a little over the top?

I think that was exactly his point. He is drawing a parallel to some of the anti-Islamic center arguments being made. To many of us, those arguments seem just as ridiculous and over-the-top as the idea that there shouldn't be Japanese restaurants near Pearl Harbor.

[wired]

Don't you think that was a little over the top?

I think that was exactly his point. He is drawing a parallel to some of the anti-Islamic center arguments being made. To many of us, those arguments seem just as ridiculous and over-the-top as the idea that there shouldn't be Japanese restaurants near Pearl Harbor.

His point. But everything else, dead on.

[ahem.]

I have no idea what you are talking about, young man.

[wired]

I have no idea what you are talking about, young man.

BLAST! Edit sniped!

[Marduk]

I'm personally offended that ahem. would choose to put her posts in such close proximity to the posts she destroyed of wired's. To me, that is very insensitive of the hurt he has suffered, and puts a symbol of her superiority right on top of his post. If she were to, say, put her post a few posts away, I think it would better serve the online community.

[Craig Jessop]

So now you've turned to straight up mocking our argument.

[Marduk]

A little bit, yes. My apologies, my intent was not to offend; we have to be willing to take a little satire towards our arguments and be a little thick skinned, however. It is an argument ad absurdum, by pointing out how the argument sounds, we can better charactarize it. If any offense was taken, I do apologize. (For the record, Bob was right behind me as I typed it. I asked her if it might be too offensive to post; she said that I could post if I wanted, but I would probably offend Craig and Vorpal. I admit knowing this was likely, but I went ahead anyways. How about I offer you dinner to apologize?)

[Craig Jessop]

How about I offer you dinner to apologize?)

DONE. You're officially forgiven. How about we drop this topic now? I don't think that there can be anymore productive debate, and we've all had ample exposure to the other side's point of view.

[vorpal blade]

I just thought I would point out how incredibly outraged I am by the amount of Japanese restaurants built just minutes away from Pearl Harbour. Disgusting.

Dear Wired,

I think you have your crosses wired...I mean your wires crossed. Did the Japanese pilots bomb Pearl Harbor in the name of the Japanese food industry? Has it been the Japanese tradition for centuries to build a Japanese restaurant over the top of a conquered holy place? Did the 9/11 terrorists fly their planes into the twin towers in the name of Shish kebab, and now someone wants to build a Middle Eastern restaurant two blocks from Ground Zero?

Nevertheless I will attempt to mitigate against your outrage.

The Japanese who bombed Pearl Harbor are not at all like the peaceful people who are building the Japanese restaurants. The Japanese pilots were all from the Samurai class, at the top of the social class structure, while the restauranteurs are from the Merchant class at the bottom of the four-tiered class system. The violent Samurai class represents only a tiny minority of the Japanese, and are adamantly opposed by the rest of the entire, heterogeneous Japanese population. Many peaceful Japanese say that the Samurai are not Japanese at all. I hope to show you how the bombing of Pearl Harbor was not at all analogous to the 9/11 attacks.

Just below the Samurai class is the Farmers/Peasant class. According to the principles of Confucius the farmers produced the food that the other classes needed to live, so they were of higher importance than the Artisans and Merchants. While honored in principle, the farmers were heavily taxed to support those above them. The Artisans produced useful things, but things not as important as food. Most Artisans are peaceful, but you do have the crazies. You can't really blame the whole Japanese nation by what a few nut-jobs do. The Merchant class was considered parasitic to the society, profiting from the labors of the truly productive peasant and artisan classes. The merchants have been the targets of attacks by the Samurai. They are very peaceful, and no Samurai would ever associate with a merchant, or vice versa.

Do you see why treating the Merchants or restaurant owners near Pearl Harbor as if they were in the same class as the Samurai is a really stupendous logical fail? “Every single argument put forward for blocking the building of Japanese restaurants leans in some way on the misconceived notion that all Merchants, and Japan itself, share the responsibility for, or are tainted by, the atrocities of Pearl Harbor.”

Can you see why many peaceful Merchants might say that the Samurai pilots who bombed Pearl Harbor are not Japanese at all? The Samurai who bombed Pearl Harbor were not members of the Merchant class in Hawaii. Quite the contrary, the Samurai and the Merchants are religiously, ideologically, and socially incompatible with each other.

Here are some beliefs of the Merchants:
"We condemn Samurai. We recognize it exists in our nation, but we are committed to eradicate it."
“We denounce restaurant burnings in Japanese countries, rejected Samurai triumphalism over other classes, and proposed to reclaim Japan from violent radicals such as the emperor."
“We condemn kamikaze bombings and all violence carried out in the name of religion."
"categorically condemned kamikazes."
"pro-American within the Japanese world."
"American democracy is the embodiment of Japan's ideal society."
"The teachings of Japan are very similar to the teachings of Christianity, of loving the one God and loving thy neighbor."

These kinds of Japanese are the ones the Japanese fear.

(A spoofed ridiculous analogy meant to ridicule an argument is really...ridiculous. And I'm just getting started.)

[Waldorf and Sauron]

(A spoofed ridiculous analogy meant to ridicule an argument is really...ridiculous. And I'm just getting started.)

What a riot. You're just getting started? Just now?

And in the same thread as this post you made last week?

Vorpal, your posts in this thread have been difficult to even start responding to, mostly because they've been drenched in this overblown indirect semi-parodic nonsense. I'd like to discuss these issues with you, but I don't think you've tried to present your case from the ground up. I would like to engage in a discussion on that level.

[Foreman]

I just thought I would point out how incredibly outraged I am by the amount of Japanese restaurants built just minutes away from Pearl Harbour. Disgusting.

The Japanese who bombed Pearl Harbor are not at all like the peaceful people who are building the Japanese restaurants.

(ETC. FOREVER)

So, wait...you're saying that although this is not a direct parallel, this is a different group that happens to be from the same complex, heterogeneous society?! That all members of a society are not guilty for the actions of a few?!

Now there's something that actually applies to both and makes sense! How about it!

I'm with Craig. Seems like this argument has pretty much been played out here.

[wired]

(A spoofed ridiculous analogy meant to ridicule an argument is really...ridiculous. And I'm just getting started.)

The problem is, my ridiculous analogy leads to an asinine result, indicating that if it is a logical parallel to your argument, there is a problem. Your ridicule of our argument leads to a consistent, believable result that makes good sense - Japanese restaurant owners shouldn't be held responsible for Japanese kamikaze bombers.

[Damasta]

So I'll start out by admitting that I haven't read all four pages of this thread. Before I jump in, I'll state where I stand. I think Sauron's answer to the question was pretty well handled. I believe that most Muslims (regardless of sect) are good people and not terrorists. I believe that since they legally purchased Park51, they have every right to build a mosque, community center, rabat, &c. on their property. But it might be insensitive. Why? Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf has been educating Americans about Islam since the 1980s. He knows that over 99% of Americans conflate the different sects of Islam. So he shouldn't be surprised that many people are hurt and/or outraged by the Cordoba Initiative.* But that's not my real question.

Here it is: The FAQ for the Cordoba Initiative says:

The proposed community center in Lower Manhattan will serve as a platform for multi-faith dialogue. It will strive to promote inter-community peace, tolerance and understanding locally in New York City, nationally in America and globally.


Given how much controversy and anguish this has caused, wouldn't it do a lot "to promote inter-community peace, tolerance and understanding locally in New York City, nationally in America and globally" if they moved it? I mean, Donald Trump offered them 125% of their original buying price, for goodness sake! Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf worries that if they move it, it will only bolster terrorist recruitment internationally (source, ca. minute 4:00). Well, the controversy is already doing that. The longer it drags on, the more mileage the recruiters are going to get out of it. So I really see a few possible realities, here: either Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf is just stubborn, he's not very bright, or there's some ulterior motive in refusing to move.**

*Also, Terry Jones is a moron, who has a right to express himself, and is also incredibly insensitive.
**Even if it is the latter, though, I doubt it will turn out to be anything as dire as the noisemakers on the right are making it out to be.