59155 - Sauron on mosques and memorials

[Katya]

I want to build something near wherever Sauron was born. Because he's awesome.

[wired]

EDIT: Link for posterity's sake - http://theboard.byu.edu/questions/59155/

Dang. You beat me to it Katya. I was busy putting it on Facebook.*

I don't think Sauron and I agree on many things (well, at least things he posts about... I am sure that we agree on things like, "Little babies are good" and "Ice cream is delicious.) However, I do not think I could agree any more than with what he posted. People who oppose the GZM need understand the illogical (or hypocritical) treatment they are giving Muslims.

*Is there any way we could get "titles" for questions? When I Facebooked his post (first time I've done it) it used the default Board Question title bar. Anyway we could get specific posts to say "Board Question #XXXXX - Ground Zero Mosque Support Rationale" or something else? Even as I'm asking this, I'm thinking it's not that great of an idea, but it would make the board much more "shareable." Also, a Facebook/Tweet button would be nice. Also, serve me a sandwich every time I visit the site.

[Katya]

Thanks for adding the link!

[NerdGirl]

Sauron, that was awesome. I have a couple of other thoughts about this, too. The proposed building is not even some huge mosque, it's a community center with an Islamic prayer space in it. I live in a building with an Islamic prayer room in it, and I have yet to hear anyone refer to my building as a 22-story mosque because of that.

I really like what Keith Olbermann has to say about it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZpT2Muxoo0

And I think what Orrin Hatch has to say about is of particular interest to the LDS crowd: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TtBc7Ws ... r_embedded

And Ron Paul supports it, too: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vRBYmhjKTI4

[Marduk]

I've never understood how a population so inculcated in religious persecution can be so adamantly opposed to the free expression of another faith.

[Katya]

I live in a building with an Islamic prayer room in it, and I have yet to hear anyone refer to my building as a 22-story mosque because of that.

The Wilkinson's Center has a room set aside as an Islamic prayer room. I vote we start calling it the Wilkinson's Mosque.

[Foreman]

I live in a building with an Islamic prayer room in it, and I have yet to hear anyone refer to my building as a 22-story mosque because of that.

The Wilkinson's Center has a room set aside as an Islamic prayer room. I vote we start calling it the Wilkinson's Mosque.

Not only that, but it's the room where I (until recently) met for Elders Quorum.

I've been there for the services. Nice guys.

[C is for]

I live in a building with an Islamic prayer room in it, and I have yet to hear anyone refer to my building as a 22-story mosque because of that.

The Wilkinson's Center has a room set aside as an Islamic prayer room. I vote we start calling it the Wilkinson's Mosque.

"I'm gonna go over to the Mosque for lunch."

"Meet me at the Mosque."

"Homecoming: Mosque Ballroom, 8-11 pm"

[Laser Jock]

*Is there any way we could get "titles" for questions? When I Facebooked his post (first time I've done it) it used the default Board Question title bar. Anyway we could get specific posts to say "Board Question #XXXXX - Ground Zero Mosque Support Rationale" or something else? Even as I'm asking this, I'm thinking it's not that great of an idea, but it would make the board much more "shareable." Also, a Facebook/Tweet button would be nice. Also, serve me a sandwich every time I visit the site.

Hm. Where would the titles come from? Are you imagining something like the subject line of an e-mail, which the questioner would fill out when they ask the question? Or would it be something that editors or writers would add to questions after they were asked, or something?

[wired]

To be honest, any of those could work so long as editor's held discretion to edit the subject line. Relying on the reader's might not be as great since the quality of the subject line would depend on the quality of the reader; I'd rather rely on writer's/editor's quality which I think is generally a distribution that lies to the right of readers.

I realize there are insane amount of problems. For instance, the 55,000+ questions already entered that don't have a subject. I am sure the database that holds all of the info would have to be appended and that field would have to be auto-populated with something for existing questions. Because there are so many problems, I won't be offended in the least if people said, "Eh, too much work and not worth it."

And to get this post within the scope of the subject, a huge commendation to and Sauron for the answer. After Facebooking the answer, I had a friend respond he had sent it to his entire family... revolution!

[Waldorf and Sauron]

Aw shucks, guys.

Katya, I was born in Provo. Build away.

Can I point out a slam-dunk of an article by William Saletan I just came across? It's at http://www.slate.com/id/2264754/

Saletan talks about how opponents are centering on the question of "sensitivity," and digs deep:

Feelings about 9/11 are raw and real. Many people, including families who lost loved ones that day, find the prospect of a mosque near Ground Zero upsetting. I've heard this reaction in my family, too. But feelings aren't reasons. You can't tell somebody not to build a house of worship somewhere just because the idea upsets you. You have to figure out why you're upset. What's the basis of your discomfort? Why should others respect it? For that matter, why should you?

[Laser Jock]

That is an awesome quote. I love it.

[vorpal blade]

I would like to praise Hypatia for her answer to question #59042 (http://theboard.byu.edu/questions/59042/ ) which prompted the follow-up question. I think the way she answered this question was something that Elder Robert S. Wood would have been proud of, though I don't know what his opinion is on the subject itself. I'm referring to Elder Wood's talk “Instruments of the Lord's Peace,” given in the April 2006 General Conference.

Hypatia made a good effort to first attempt to understand and present the views she opposed. As you will remember Elder Wood said:

I recall that as a graduate student I wrote a critique of an important political philosopher. It was clear that I disagreed with him. My professor told me that my paper was good, but not good enough. Before you launch into your criticism, she said, you must first present the strongest case for the position you are opposing, one that the philosopher himself could accept. I redid the paper. I still had important differences with the philosopher, but I understood him better, and I saw the strengths and virtues, as well as limitations, of his belief. I learned a lesson that I’ve applied across the spectrum of my life.

Hypatia did not demonize her opposition, telling us how angry the opposition makes her, and characterizing their beliefs as racist and anti-Muslim sentiment. She did not say they were trying to overrun private property, freedom of assembly, and freedom of worship. She did not attempt to tell us what motivates the opposition, a form of misrepresentation that the opposition finds very offensive. She does not say the opposition is spurred on by irrational fear of those they don't understand, by the tantrum of anger and fear, the conspiracy theory, xenophobia, and acting like two-year-olds. I commend her for following Elder Wood's counsel (excerpts follow, see the whole talk):

Have we who have taken upon us the name of Christ slipped unknowingly into patterns of slander, evil speaking, and bitter stereotyping? Have personal or partisan or business or religious differences been translated into a kind of demonizing of those of different views? Do we pause to understand the seemingly different positions of others and seek, where possible, common ground?

General Andrew Jackson, as he walked along the line at the Battle of New Orleans, said to his men, “Gentlemen, elevate your guns a little lower!” I think many of us need to elevate our “guns” a little lower. On the other hand, we need to raise the level of private and public discourse. We should avoid caricaturing the positions of others, constructing “straw men,” if you will, and casting unwarranted aspersions on their motivations and character. We need, as the Lord counseled, to uphold honest, wise, and good men and women wherever they are found and to recognize that there are “among all sects, parties, and denominations” those who are “kept from the truth [of the gospel] because they know not where to find it.” Would we hide that light because we have entered into the culture of slander, of stereotyping, of giving and seeking offense?

It is far too easy sometimes to fall into a spirit of mockery and cynicism in dealing with those of contrary views. We demoralize or demean so as to bring others or their ideas in contempt. It is a primary tool of those who occupy the large and spacious building that Father Lehi saw in vision. Jude, the brother of Christ, warned that “there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts. These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit.”

Closely related to mockery is a spirit of cynicism. Cynics are disposed to find and to catch at fault. Implicitly or explicitly, they display a sneering disbelief in sincerity and rectitude. Isaiah spoke of those who “watch for iniquity” and “make a man an offender for a word, and lay a snare for him that reproveth in the gate, and turn aside the just for a thing of nought.” In this regard, the Lord has counseled in latter days that we “cease to find fault one with another” and “above all things, clothe [ourselves] with the bond of charity, as with a mantle, which is the bond of perfectness and peace.”

President George Albert Smith observed, “There is nothing in the world more deleterious or harmful to the human family than hatred, prejudice, suspicion, and the attitude that some people have toward their fellows, of unkindness.” In matters of politics, he warned, “Whenever your politics cause you to speak unkindly of your brethren, know this, that you are upon dangerous ground.” Speaking of the great mission of the latter-day kingdom, he counseled: “This is not a militant church to which we belong. This is a church that holds out peace to the world. It is not our duty to go into the world and find fault with others, neither to criticize men because they do not understand. But it is our privilege, in kindness and love, to go among them and divide with them the truth that the Lord has revealed in this latter day.”

In a world beset by wrath, the prophet of our day, President Gordon B. Hinckley, has counseled: “Now, there is much that we can and must do in these perilous times. We can give our opinions on the merit of the situation as we see it, but never let us become a party to words or works of evil concerning our brothers and sisters in various nations on one side or the other. Political differences never justify hatred or ill will. I hope that the Lord’s people may be at peace one with another during times of trouble, regardless of what loyalties they may have to different governments or parties.”

It is impossible to have a polite discussion in an atmosphere poisoned by angry rhetoric, where you can't get anything out of your mouth without being accused of being a religious bigot, opposed to private property, freedom of assembly, and freedom of worship. What chance does anyone have to be heard when the debate has been framed by one side of the issue in a way to exclude all discussion? It is a sad day for America.

But, good job, Hypatia. Keep it up.

[Marduk]

You've referenced that more than once, Vorpal. There certainly is wisdom in trying our best to understand the strengths and ideals of an opposing belief before condemning it outright.

However, I would suggest it has most references to those things in which disagreement can be rightfully had; that is, things about which the answer is unclear. There are times (perhaps in this discussion, perhaps not) when we must hold no place for iniquity. There often comes a time when we must stand up for viewpoints and beliefs that are being tread underfoot.

On this particular topic, it certainly is hard to speak one's mind without being accused of being a terrorist sympathizer, ignorant of the feelings of those who have lost family members, and making way for Muslims to rule over us. It certainly is a sad day, when things that should be plain and obvious are obfuscated for political gain, and turned into political issues where there ought to be agreement.

[NerdGirl]

My power's out so I'm going to make this quick to save my laptop battery for checking hurricane updates, but vorpal and marduk's comments have made me think about a Canadian politician named Preston Manning. Back in the 90s he was the leader of a political party called the Reform party, probably the most far to the right political party Canada has had in a while. Political opinions fairly similar to Ross Perot, although don't quote me on that because I can't go look it up right now. But he's also one of my favorite politicians ever, which you might find shocking since I'm a pretty huge liberal. The thing about him is that he refuses to demonize his opposition and turn issues into extremes. He's no longer in politics, but he runs a political thought institute, and I saw him speak a couple of years ago (and got to talk to him afterwards!) and his message was about what needs to be fixed in politics. He was talking about how no one votes and no one feels involved in the political process and one of the main reasons he thinks this happens is that people turn issues (in this case turning an issue about a building into people either hating Muslims or people supporting terrorists and hating 9/11 survivors) into these extreme things. He said that we can't just tell people it's their civic duty to be involved in the political process until politicians start being more responsible about how the represent the viewpoints they disagree with. Anyway, he's a really interesting guy and you all should go look him up. Now back to your regularly scheduled programing.

[vorpal blade]

I haven't actually made up my mind on this topic. It doesn't seem to make much difference whether I do or don't, my opinion counts for nothing. It isn't something I'm going to have the opportunity or responsibility to vote on.

It would be important to stand up for a people who were being deprived of their religious freedoms, their freedom of assembly, their private property rights, and are the victims of racism. It is just that in this particular case I don't think making the people build their structure a few blocks further away from ground zero violates any freedoms or rights to speak of. It is standard practice to hold a hearing before letting anyone build anything anywhere. There are all kinds of restrictions placed on what buildings can go where, and how they will be built. All it would take is to find an endangered species living in the vicinity of ground zero and building anything would be out of the question. Or an adult bookstore within five blocks of a school. Or just about anything considered offensive by the local community. We already live with numerous restrictions on our right to assemble, use our property, or practice our religion as we wish.

There would be a problem if they couldn't build anywhere at all, or were not free to assemble, or hold private property. I don't really want to discuss it, actually. Those that feel this is some kind of terrible threat to our freedoms and liberties are free to think so if they wish. Those who see this as centered on other issues, and do not believe it is an issue of rights should not be pilloried for seeing it in a different light. If you do think this is such an egregious travesty of justice that it must be made a public issue, then no one has the right to accuse you of being a terrorist sympathizer, ignorant of the feelings of those who have lost family members, or you are deliberately trying to let the Muslims rule over us.

Those who oppose the Muslim building should be treated with respect and love, and not assume they are ignorant of the feelings of the Muslims, or insensitive to their rights.

So, I'm not convinced it makes any difference whether they are allowed to build there or not. You may feel strongly one way or another, but it doesn't do any good to shout angry hurtful words at one another.

[Marduk]

I don't really want to discuss it, actually.

Interesting interjection, considering you've posted multiple times in this thread. Was this an attempt to get the last word?

It doesn't seem to make much difference whether I do or don't, my opinion counts for nothing. It isn't something I'm going to have the opportunity or responsibility to vote on.

True, your opinion won't be counted in a vote. But expressing ideas is a form of making our voice heard too. Every comment, whether on this or other online places, in the workplace, in school, wherever, influences public opinion, even if only marginally. We have a duty to have this sort of discourse when it is possible that someone has their rights violated; the only way we become immune to manipulation and corruption is by continually reformulating our conceptions based on the best available knowledge.

It is standard practice to hold a hearing before letting anyone build anything anywhere. There are all kinds of restrictions placed on what buildings can go where, and how they will be built.

You're absolutely right. However, we have to ask why there are objections. This isn't a question of Mr. Jones objecting because it blocks his view of the park. There is a question because we find their religion distasteful. It is both immoral and unconstitutional to tell a group they cannot peacably assemble in a location because we find others who call themselves by a similar (and generous) name so frightening.

I don't think making the people build their structure a few blocks further away from ground zero violates any freedoms or rights to speak of.

How far away is enough? It already is a few blocks away. Six? Twenty? Twenty thousand? I have news for you. This isn't the first Mosque construction that has been protested, and the rest weren't anywhere near Ground Zero.

Those who oppose the Muslim building should be treated with respect and love, and not assume they are ignorant of the feelings of the Muslims, or insensitive to their rights.

How much do we tolerate? Should I be able to oppose African Americans from living in my neighborhood, if (this is a hypothetical) my sister was raped by an African American? Almost everyone finds this immediately distasteful, yet I'm supposed to tolerate a similar situation because it is a peaceful religious belief, and not an ethnicity?

We have a duty not to sit idly by when individuals are oppressed and persecuted. I won't quote trite expressions at you, but I find it odd that those who accuse the liberal agenda of constantly oppressing the religious right are not so quick to stand up when anyone else is threatened.

[wired]

There are all kinds of restrictions placed on what buildings can go where, and how they will be built. All it would take is to find an endangered species living in the vicinity of ground zero and building anything would be out of the question. Or an adult bookstore within five blocks of a school. Or just about anything considered offensive by the local community. We already live with numerous restrictions on our right to assemble, use our property, or practice our religion as we wish.

The endangered species case is neither here nor there. It wouldn't matter if this was Red Cross or Batman trying to set up a new Batcave, if an endangered species is there, there's law that prevents EVERYONE from building. In this case, there is a building that could be, in physical form, identically made by some other party, and people would not oppose it.

Adult bookstores are usually prohibited on time/place basis because there is a demonstrable negative effect (or so courts have held) and because children are at stake. Even with that, I would say that you are a lot closer in using this example. An adult bookstore is something many people find offensive, so what happens is a duly elected legislature gets together and makes a law against them. But guess what? If those laws are too broad ("You can't have a porn shop anywhere in Texas.") they'll be smacked down on 1st Amendment grounds. Instead, cities require adult businesses to locate in other parts of town. Sounds so much like what people are asking for in the Mosque case, right? In my opinion, it's not. In the Mosque case, people are picking between porn shops. Saying that Muslims shouldn't be able to build there, but other religions can, is preferring one religion over another. Both are religious groups delivering, in essence, the same benefit for the community. Almost certainly if a law was made that said, "We'll allow porn shops featuring white people, but not black people because black nudity offends us," it would be struck down on Constitutional grounds.

Those who oppose the Muslim building should be treated with respect and love, and not assume they are ignorant of the feelings of the Muslims, or insensitive to their rights.

I agree with you that they should be treated with respect and love. I think I may find myself somewhere between you and Marduk. I do not assume that those oppose the Mosques are ignorant of the feelings of Muslims. However, the inherent nature of the opposition leads me to believe that there is some insensitivity toward their rights. That, or a total misunderstanding of Islam. Either way, I feel that it's the community's responsibility to rationally approach the issue and become aware of their own misunderstandings. I don't think everyone who opposes it is Islamophobic, but I do think everyone who opposes it is mistaken in one way or another. This is different from how I feel on other matters, where there is a wide range of stances people could take without there being a single right answer.

[Marduk]

I'd like to take this opportunity to say that black nudity offends me. Then again, so does white nudity. Or at least, they would offend me if I ever took offense.

[Craig Jessop]

Or at least, they would offend me if I ever took offense.

Bahaha! Oh Marduk...again, your superhuman intellectual capacity astounds me.