59155 - Sauron on mosques and memorials

[wired]

In this thread: one person says something, then another person quotes it or modifies it a little bit, then says it applies to the other side

[Tao]

In politics: one person says something, then another person quotes it or modifies it a little bit, then says it applies to the other side

Fixed it.

Edit: mmm, perhaps I should weigh in with a less flippant tone. I will endeavor to do so when I've digested the contents of the posts thus far and balanced my thoughts on the matter.

[vorpal blade]

Let's assume there was a Mormon extremist who bombed an abortion clinic, then a new LDS chapel went up a few blocks away. Would he be restricted from worshipping there? Absolutely not. Hence we have to not discriminate against a particular sect just because they would be free to (and likely to) worship there.

The nice thing about an analogy is that it can illustrate in a powerful way what we are thinking. Sometimes all that is necessary is for another person to clearly understand what we are thinking, and then they will say, “Oh, I see what you mean. Okay, I agree with you.” In the hypothetical situation you gave I absolutely agree with you. It would not be fair to restrict a new LDS chapel from being erected a few blocks away. We all know that a Mormon extremist who bombed an abortion clinic would be acting on his own, without any support or encouragement from his fellow Mormons. Almost no one would be offended by the presence of an LDS chapel nearby. They would not associate that building with the act of a lone, deranged, Mormon extremist. The building would not cause uncomfortable and unpleasant memories to come forth. Actually, I think it is likely that few people would really remember that an abortion clinic had once existed at the site, and few would remember that it was a Mormon who did it. I can’t say that everyone would forget, but those would be a few that we could easily dismiss as cranks or Mormon haters.

So, your analogy is useful in getting across what is in your mind. And if I thought the analogy accurately corresponded to the Ground Zero Mosque I would be persuaded to agree with you. I believe this analogy has been considered by the majority of those who object to the Ground Zero Mosque, which is according to the polls the majority of Americans, and rejected. Why do you suppose that is?

The problem with analogies is that they compare two things that are different, but similar, and we may be guilty of missing the most important elements that exist in the differences. If this is the case, then the analogy does nothing to persuade the opposition that you are correct. It only convinces them that you fail to understand what is in their minds. Sometimes this arouses suspicions in their minds that you deliberately structured your analogy to obscure the really important points they are trying to make. Now, let me hasten to add that I do not believe this is the case for you or any of those who have posted in this thread. I just state it as a friendly reminder that all of us need to be careful when we make analogies that we do not trivialize or misrepresent the opinions held by others. Even if inadvertently done it can cause hurt feelings, or frustration at the least. I’m reminding myself of this as well.

So, what missing elements do I see that may be important in comparing the Park51 project with a Mormon extremist bombing an abortion clinic? Before I state them let me just say that I don’t necessarily agree that those who consider these elements important are right, just that to be fair we need to consider them.

1. Some of the debris from the hijacked planes that struck the WTC fell on the Burlingham Coat building. So, in a very real sense, in the minds of many, the Park51 project is actually located on Ground Zero, and not a few blocks away. It depends on who is defining what Ground Zero is.

2. The 9/11 attack was the work of an organization, and not just a lone extremist. That organization still exists and is still a threat to the United States. There is not a comparable group within Mormonism.

3. The percentage of Mormons in the world who would feel that the Mormon extremist did the right thing would be extremely small. A 2008 Pew poll found confidence in bin Laden to do the right thing to be 58% in Nigeria, 37% in Indonesia, 34% in Pakistan, and 19% in Jordan, which is down from confidence levels of 2003. http://pewglobal.org/files/pdf/262.pdf In 2003 the support for bin Laden was 71% in the Palestinian Authority (http://pewglobal.org/files/pdf/185.pdf). In a 2010 Pew poll it was found that 18% of Pakistanis have a favorable opinion of al Qaeda, with 28% saying they don’t know ( http://pewglobal.org/files/pdf/Pew-Glob ... Report.pdf ). So while a slim majority in Pakistan has an unfavorable view of al Qaeda (53%) the number of al Qaeda supporters is huge. Taking the 2008 for just Pakistan, Indonesia, and Nigeria we get that over 195,000,000 Muslims have at least some confidence in Osama bin Laden to “do the right thing regarding world affairs.”

4. There are clerics and Muslim scholars and thinkers who believe that the al Qaeda tactic of killing innocent civilians in the name of their religion is the right thing to do, and they teach this in some schools and mosques. You couldn’t find such ecclesiastical support in the Mormon Church (or at Church schools) for an abortion clinic bomber.

5. Most Americans feel that a Mosque so near the former WTC would be an affront, because they do see a connection. It is doubtful that most Americans would feel the same way about an LDS chapel built near a bombed abortion clinic, despite the fact (according to some polls) Americans have a more favorable opinion of Muslims than they do of Mormons.

6. The impact of 9/11 on America’s psyche was huge. Millions of Americans remember exactly what they were doing that day. Emotions ran deep, and for many still run deep. The 9/11 event united the country and made possible official justification for invading one or two nations, at the cost of billions of dollars and many lives. The impact of an abortion clinic bombing would be minor, in comparison. Perhaps we just need to give it a few more years for wounds to heal.

Now, if you translated all of that into your Mormon extremist bomber analogy, there might be a few people who would say, that does make a difference , and could not now support the building of an LDS chapel at that location.

Another problem with analogies is that they can be taken too far, and not just be faulted for leaving out the important elements. For example, the Imam involved now says it was a mistake. ( http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/201 ... _near.html )

If he had it to do over again, the Imam behind the "Ground Zero mosque" would have ditched the plan.
"I would never have done it," Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf told Christiane Amanpour on ABC's "This Week" on Sunday, when asked if he would have proposed it knowing the controversy it would spark.
"I'm a man of peace," he said. "The whole objective of peace work is not to do something that would provoke controversy."
However, things have gone so far and Park51, his proposed Islamic community center, has gained so much attention, moving it to another location or canceling the project isn't quite so simple, he argues.

Continuing the analogy, if the person behind building the LDS chapel, which would ultimately be the prophet, President Thomas S. Monson, were to say that proposing the building of the chapel was a mistake, then if you say that building the chapel was a good idea then you are going against the prophet.

Of course I am not accusing you, Marduk, of going against the prophet. But for many people who oppose the Park51 project their objection is that it was not a good idea, much like Imam Rauf now says in hindsight. Words like “condemn,” and “discriminate,” and “freedom of worship” are much too strong.

[vorpal blade]

this is actually not true. at least, not completely. my dad is a Shi'ite Muslim, and when he goes to mosque he doesn't go to a Sunni mosque because there are fairly extreme doctrinal differences between the branches, nevermind Sufism. ... My dad goes to mosque about 30 minutes from his house because he wants to go to a Shi'ite mosque.

I find this very interesting, Imogen. Does your father go to his mosque several times a day? That's a long trip to make 3 or 5 times a day. Approximately what percentage of Muslims do you think would go out of their way to avoid the local mosques?

They're probably Sunni Muslims from all over the Muslim world and while some people will go to the mosque for convenience, many will travel far to go worship at the place they feel most comfortable.

I've also heard that many Sunnis and Shi'ites will travel far to visit a Sufi mosque, especially if it is a shrine. I'm told each year hundreds of thousands of non-Sufi Muslims visit the Sufi mosque at Lahore, Pakistan. Have you heard of things like that?

Plus, it's not like someone can just walk into a mosque and just teach whatever they want. The principal imam will organize speakers and events the align with what he believes is correct, just like any other religious leader would. i'm sure he won't let any random person off the street come into his place of work/worship and do and say things he feels are against the Quran.

I can see that they wouldn't let just any random guy off the street do or say things contrary to the Quran. But I'm wondering who does make the decision on who will be the speakers. Do you know if it would be the Imam, or the board of directors? And what about the school that would be set up there. Are the teachers selected by the Imam or the board of directors? In some churches the minister is also the school teacher, but I'm not sure Imam Rauf would have the time. Do you have any idea?

Thanks for your valuable input.

[vorpal blade]

Hey guys, I don't have time to make much of a contribution here, but I'd like to point out this thing that Vorpal said:

"I don’t see any point in your going through and looking for things that you know that I did not intend."

I think this applies nicely to other facets of the overall discussion.

Love you all.

Hey, I'm glad you like that quote. I thought it was pretty good myself, except I think Marduk saw it as attacking him, and I'm sorry for that.

Now, your reference is quite oblique but I think you are intending to say that all of us, including me, should examine what we write to see if we are looking for things that we know others did not intend to say. Fair enough.

In this thread: one person says something, then another person quotes it or modifies it a little bit, then says it applies to the other side

It happens.

Edit: mmm, perhaps I should weigh in with a less flippant tone. I will endeavor to do so when I've digested the contents of the posts thus far and balanced my thoughts on the matter.

I hope you do, Tao. I'd like to hear what you have to say.

[Marduk]

An addendum here; John Stewart recently interviewed King Abdullah II of Jordan, and although the things they talked about don't necessarily apply directly here, I think a lot of the issues surrounding this are a microcosm of what they talked about. Here's the interview, in two parts, the first televised, the second online.

King Abdullah II interview, part 1

King Abdullah II interview, part 2

[Tao]

Whoooo. I hope I do not open a can of worms by my post, but I did say I would weigh in, and I will do so.

A few quick words of praise. First off, thank you Sauron for the well written answer that sparked this conversation. I know I have learned from the discussion, and for that I can most heartily thank you for the time and energy that went into such a lengthy and through response. Also, I feel I must praise wired for his Pearl Harbor remark. This is how my mind often works, I like to take someone's argument and toss it on a different subject to study it w/o the context intrinsic. That being said, I felt vorpal's counterstroke was a work of genius. While satire should be so over the top that the reader is forced to come to grips with the fact that his ideas my need review w/o a direct follow up from the author, this truly is rare and other, unfortunately more manipulative, methods often suffice.

As for the drama, I echo W&S's latest comment applying vorpal's line to the whole of the discussion. I was intrigued to see how often the feeling was given (or directly spelled out) that the first line of a previous post was sufficient to render all following moot. What I got from this was how often each side was finding only what they expected to see in the other's words. While it may or may not be the case that vorpal is quick to perceive an attack when there was perhaps none intended, and martyr himself; it is my opinion that there are many who are less careful of their diction than ideal and have thrown daggers of their own.

@ vorpal: You and I have had our own epic discussion, and I'd like to think that we understand each other a little more than perhaps otherwise would have been possible. As such, I'd like to remind you that there are times that you can be extremely difficult to relate to, making further deviations from your stance easier to make, and distortions of your statements more common. Your presence here is very needed, as a conservative voice, yes, but also as an anchor against some of the idealism that seems to be very common on the Board. Please remember that as an anchor, while you may feel at odds with the body lunatic, you are as much a part of the ship as any other and jarring resistance is prone to damage, and action reaction will send the shock right back at you. As a generation, we are not only prone to the stoic 'ignore emotions' mentality of yesteryear's Ward Cleaver (again, real or perceived), but we also do a bang-up job of thinking of ourselves first. Unfortunately this often gives the impression of having the communication skills of a stampede; join in or get hurt. Since in this medium, pride is about the only thing we have one the line to get hurt, the more we are able to check it at the login screen, the less bumps and bruises there'll be until the herd calms down.

@ all: I'm not exactly sure to whom I should be addressing this. To say 'to the leaders of the opposition' reinforces the 'vorpal vs the world' impression, which comes across as accusatory and ultimately wrong. While not all have had any inflammatory influences in this thread, I'd think that all of us could stand to be a little more forgiving in our interpretation of other's words and less defensive of our own. The Bahá'í have a wonderful precept: when you have offered your thoughts to a forum, you have done exactly that; relinquished ownership thereof. They are no longer yours and belong to the body as a whole. Interpret all offerings of the group as such, if you are typically critical, be as critical of the words that were once your own as you are of any other words now belonging to the whole. The anonymity of internet forums should actually make this easier (the number of times Tao has said something that I read as completely foolish may only be rivaled by someone else I've lived with since I first drew breath...), yet it all too often seems we take it as an excuse to say things that we'd never had considered vocalizing in real life.

As for my thoughts concerning the proposed building: As an idealist, I'd say there is great potential for growth and mutual understanding. As a cynic, I'd say that few will ever seek out said growth, and that fear and hostility will be stirred up thereby. As a realist, I'd say that there is no such thing as bad publicity, and my opinion really has no weight upon this topic. Information and misinformation will spread, people will continue to believe and act as they wish, and neutrality will be left behind or enlightened.

Feci quod potui, faciant meliora potentes.

[Marduk]

say things

Gah?

[vorpal blade]

Thank you, Tao, for your level-headed and gentlemanly response and assessment of this thread. I intend to take your advice and tone down my comments while trying to keep in mind that I may be hard to understand. I think we can all work harder to look for common ground and mutually agreeable solutions.

I would like to propose a solution to the Park51 controversy. So far the project has generated a great deal of ill will and anti-Muslim feeling. The Imam Rauf says that had he known what the response would be, he would not have done it. Now he says that he dare not cancel the project or move it to another location for fear of what the Muslim world will think or do.

So, I suggest that the Park51 organizers take a somewhat different tactic than head-on-push-it through. They would continue to use the space they now have at 51 Park Place as they were doing before the controversy arose. That space accommodates at present about 600 worshipers every Friday, plus is available as a daily prayer room. So, there would be no question of restricting in the slightest their freedom of assembly, or other religious freedoms. Not a single extra step would any worshiper have to take to find his place of worship. The building would, in fact, continue to function as a Muslim mosque. If the organizers so chose they could add to the building they have all of the features they want in the Community Center http://blog.park51.org/?page_id=46

Park51 will be a community center promoting tolerance and understanding through three types of programs: arts & culture, education and recreation. We will offer all New Yorkers valuable services, world-class facilities and empowering opportunities to learn more about the world around us and about each other

.

That should satisfy reasonable Muslims everywhere. What would satisfy the opposition, and generate tons of good will, would be to announce that they are not going to tear down the existing building and build a $100 million dollar edifice in its place, at least not until public opinion is strongly in favor of it. Let the positive benefits of education, growth, and mutual understanding developed by the Park51 project have a chance to win the hearts of New York and the rest of the United States. Out of understanding and sensitivity to the rest of the city, and with no wish to cause disharmony, they will voluntarily refrain from changing the external appearance of the existing building. I really think that would satisfy most all of the objectors. The Park51 organizers would also be free to build the building of their dreams immediately, but just a few blocks further away, if they choose.

Why should the Park51 people be forced to compromise at all, and not get the building they want, where they want it, and when they want it? It wouldn’t be force; it would be by their choice. And it would be because they sincerely desire to win good will by love, rather than giving the appearance of trying to generate good will over stiffening objections. As I see it they lose nothing by using this approach. They still have their mosque or “prayer space” with Friday sermons, exactly where they want it. They can have all the other educational and cultural and recreational facilities they want. With a little patience they can have it all.

That’s my suggestion.

[Imogen]

this is actually not true. at least, not completely. my dad is a Shi'ite Muslim, and when he goes to mosque he doesn't go to a Sunni mosque because there are fairly extreme doctrinal differences between the branches, nevermind Sufism. ... My dad goes to mosque about 30 minutes from his house because he wants to go to a Shi'ite mosque.

I find this very interesting, Imogen. Does your father go to his mosque several times a day? That's a long trip to make 3 or 5 times a day. Approximately what percentage of Muslims do you think would go out of their way to avoid the local mosques?

They're probably Sunni Muslims from all over the Muslim world and while some people will go to the mosque for convenience, many will travel far to go worship at the place they feel most comfortable.

I've also heard that many Sunnis and Shi'ites will travel far to visit a Sufi mosque, especially if it is a shrine. I'm told each year hundreds of thousands of non-Sufi Muslims visit the Sufi mosque at Lahore, Pakistan. Have you heard of things like that?

Plus, it's not like someone can just walk into a mosque and just teach whatever they want. The principal imam will organize speakers and events the align with what he believes is correct, just like any other religious leader would. i'm sure he won't let any random person off the street come into his place of work/worship and do and say things he feels are against the Quran.

I can see that they wouldn't let just any random guy off the street do or say things contrary to the Quran. But I'm wondering who does make the decision on who will be the speakers. Do you know if it would be the Imam, or the board of directors? And what about the school that would be set up there. Are the teachers selected by the Imam or the board of directors? In some churches the minister is also the school teacher, but I'm not sure Imam Rauf would have the time. Do you have any idea?

Thanks for your valuable input.

sorry i procrastinated. grades were due for my kiddos!

1) muslims don't have to go to the mosque to do their prayers. that's an unrealistic expectation, even if a mosque is close by. so my dad prays at home and in his office. he goes to mosque on thursdays for talks and hanging with the dudes (sexes are separated), and evening prayers. most musims won't go to a mosque for actual prayer unless it's close, especially in this country.

2) thousand of non-sufis may visit a sufi shrine, but there are millions of muslims in the world. like i said, sufis are very strange. they're like....the wiccans of islam. sort of. i don't even know how to describe them. but most sufis i've talked to think of religion as a very personal thing and meditate and commune with allah internally, as opposed to trying to convert people.

3) i think that would depend on if there was a board or not. if there were, i'm sure they'd have a say in who could interact with their worshipers.

[vorpal blade]

Interesting, Imogen. Thanks for answering my questions. I learned something.