Humor will not be tolerated!! -Portia

Or maybe he just understands their civil rights.

Moving it does absolutely nothing to promote tolerance and understanding. With controversy there is at least a supporting side and visual evidence that we aren't all Muslim-haters. If they move, it proves to those that are looking for it that Americans are enemies to Islam. I realize that not everyone in opposition 'hates Muslims', but it sends a message that ordinary people share the blame for what extremists have done. Besides, if the law is not upheld even when it may be unpopular with some, the law itself is undermined.

If we're going with the "insensitive" argument you have to look at the other side. What about the non-terrorist Muslims that died as well? There were Muslims on the planes, in the buildings, and among emergency responders. It's a disgrace to their memory and sacrifice that celebration of their culture is viewed unacceptable within a certain radius of where they died.

Nice to hear from you again, Damasta. It seems like it has been awhile.

Darn, it doesn’t look like anyone is going to offer to build a memorial to me for my awesome answer in regard to Japanese restaurants and Pearl Harbor.

I was originally reluctant to comment on this thread, because I thought people would not be able to understand me, or would not try to understand me. And, I don’t like being the subject of ridicule and mockery for expressing my feelings. So far the evidence I’ve seen says that I was right. I have been a little oblique at times, but I thought sufficiently plain to understand if you tried. It is painful to be mocked, and the plainer you are the more painful it is. So, I’ve seriously considered just dropping my participation in this discussion. That, like much of my opinions on this thread itself, is not set in concrete. I have a lot of opinions, but I’m open-minded as to the conclusions to draw from all of this.

Wired and Foreman seem to think that my fluffing out of Wired’s Pearl Harbor/Japanese restaurant analogy, meant to ridicule what I had said, actually made a great deal of sense. I intended that. I also obviously was paralleling Sauron’s arguments in question 59155 (the subject of this thread) which at first seem to make sense. However, my parallel goes deeper. You should be skeptical of my Japanese “facts.” You should be skeptical of Sauron’s Muslim facts.

You should know that the Japanese pilots who bombed Pearl Harbor are not from the Samurai class. The class system I described came to an end in 1868 (http://asianhistory.about.com/od/japan/ ... nClass.htm). I’m sure there are many cultural remnants of the feudal class system, and I am not an expert, but essentially the information I gave was misleading or incorrect. I was making a parallel with the information Sauron was giving regarding Muslims, which I believe should at least be taken very skeptically.

The Samurai were a small portion of the population, but it would be incorrect to say that anyone thought they were not Japanese at all. While we may imagine that the Samurai were opposed by the rest of the population, that is an assumption that would need to be proved, if true. My supposed beliefs of the Merchant class is entirely fabricated. They aren’t correct, and I doubt the parallel beliefs attributed to Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf are really his core beliefs. Nor should we assume that the Muslim terrorists are not widely held up as heroes, as were the Pearl Harbor pilots...in Japan.

But the Imam’s beliefs are probably irrelevant to the discussion, just as the supposed differences between the Japanese pilots and the restaurant owners is irrelevant. The pilots at Pearl Harbor (which were not Kamikaze pilots) were drawn from the same pool of people as the restaurant owners. I could believe that the pilots were more often taken from descendents of the Samurai, but I don’t know that for a fact. I believe that there are more cultural similarities between the pilots and the restaurant owners than differences, if we are talking about restaurant owners born and raised in Japan. I believe that there are more similarities than differences between the various sects of Islam.

I am not suggesting that it is permissible to discriminate against those of Japanese descent when it comes to operating a restaurant near Pearl Harbor. I am trying to help people understand what is in the minds of others. But it is a key element of Sauron’s argument in question 59155 that the people who propose building the Muslim center near Ground Zero are a different sort of Muslim than those who flew our planes into buildings on September 11. I’m saying that you should be skeptical of that, just as you should be skeptical of the claim that only the Samurai class (which hadn’t existed for more than seventy years before Pearl Harbor) flew the planes which bombed and torpedo Pearl Harbor. We don’t know enough about some of the Islamic terrorists involved that day to know their Muslim sect.

Yellow makes the argument that it doesn’t matter if the Park51 organizers share the same beliefs and attitudes as the Islamic terrorists. You could argue that the people who want to build Japanese restaurants near Pearl Harbor may be just like the people who bombed Pearl Harbor, and that should not make any difference to their rights. I’m not arguing against that now. I’m not trying to punish some people for the sins of another, or deny rights on the basis of religion or nationality. I’m just saying that Sauron’s argument involving the various branches of Islam being different and therefore we shouldn’t treat all Muslims alike falls apart if it can be shown that what unites them (Japanese nationality or fundamental Muslim beliefs) is more significant than what divides them. Or that those in control of the Park51 project are not Sufi Muslims at all.

Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf makes a good front man, and many have come to accept the Cordoba House as very moderate and peaceful. The Imam talks as though he is in charge, but there is serious doubt on that issue. From what I have been able to find out Sheila Musai’s perspective on who is behind the project is a good one (http://www.theamericanmuslim.org/tam.ph ... ws/0018224). Now, before you dismiss that site as something you don’t want to read, as some right-wing nut job, you should check it out. She is very pro-Muslim and has a low opinion of those opposed to the Park51 project. But she points out that the entity really in charge is Soho properties, with CEO Sharif El-Gamal, and Hisham Elzanaty apparently the chief financial backer, with seven other unknown backers. El-Gamal and Elzanaty are foreign born Muslims (as I understand), but I don’t think we know whether they are even Sufi Muslims. Imam Rauf has been promised a position on the governing board of 23 directors, suggesting that his role may be a minor one, or he may not have any influence at all, because the directors have in fact not yet been chosen. So, who really is calling the shots in this project? To argue that these people are fundamentally different from the 9/11 terrorists, and we should not conflate the different sects of Islam, is to arguing on the basis of facts not yet in evidence.

habiba wrote:Or maybe he just understands their civil rights.

Let’s talk about rights. I am reminded of the situation in Israel. When I was there in 1968 I saw a nice, broad, modern highway near Jerusalem. It turns out that the Muslims had bulldozed through a Jewish cemetery to build that highway. You could still see the Jewish gravestones pushed to the side of the road. Where was the international outrage at this insensitivity to Jewish feelings? Technically I suppose they had the right to do it. They owned the property, by virtue of conquest. Should we interfere with Muslim religious or cilvil rights? But isn’t it okay to be opposed to bulldozing cemeteries that someone has conquered? I don’t care if it was Muslims or Christians who pushed those gravestones out of the way and built a road on top, in my mind it is insensitive and wrong.

Doesn't it make you want to punch in the face anyone who says “But feelings aren't reasons. You can't tell somebody not to build a road on top of a cemetery 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?”

Honestly Vorpal, it doesn't upset me to ask that question about anything. But then again, I've been accused on more than one occasion of taking logic over feelings. I certainly think it is a critical question to ask in all instances; it doesn't mean that validity will not be found. To draw a parallel (albeit an imperfect one) I believe in the gospel not simply because I've had the confirmation of the spirit, but also because taken as a whole the concepts make sense and are validated by what I see in the natural world.

Vorpal Blade wrote:I’m just saying that Sauron’s argument involving the various branches of Islam being different and therefore we shouldn’t treat all Muslims alike falls apart if it can be shown that what unites them (Japanese nationality or fundamental Muslim beliefs) is more significant than what divides them.

I don't think this is accurate, and I'll tell you why. We must evaluate everything based on the merits and worth intrinsic to it in order to get an exact idea. I would agree that there are a number of similarities between the different sects; I would suggest it is about the same as what we see in Christianity. That being said, for full understanding of Christianity and how it drives the actions of its disciples, one must understand the difference between say, Mormonism and Catholicism. Also, one needs to analyze the relevant similarities to draw accurate conclusions. That is to say, if we fear violence from a particular sect that we would wish wouldn't build that community center, we must ask "are these individuals violent in the same way as those of similar belief who perpetrated previous violent acts?" It is my contention that that threshold of proof has not been crossed.

Sauron has been active in this thread, so for the most part I'll let him defend his own argument. But one concept you brought up, Vorpal, and I believe it to be a very critical one, is the necessity for analyzing consequences of a given action before giving it our seal of approval. I think we'd be well served to attempt to give consideration of the likely ramifications of the various courses of action in regards to this issue soon, as we really have not done so to this point.

More on that last point later.

I'm still reading this with interest, I just haven't been saying much on the board board in general the last few days because of a combination of my thesis work, my soon to be due med school applications, and a pinched nerve in my left arm that's making it hard to type with the last two fingers on my left hand. But all of you keep talking, please.

Turning Ground Zero into a cash cow seems more offensive to me than a religious/community center, but as we all know, tourism is The American Way.

Bob. No one has turned Ground Zero into a tourist site more than out-of-towners who come to our city and gawk at something they have zero relation to or knowledge of.

Hypatia wrote:Bob. No one has turned Ground Zero into a tourist site more than out-of-towners who come to our city and gawk at something they have zero relation to or knowledge of.

Hmm. I don't know if I really agree with this assessment of the situation.

"Zero relation to" kind of puts the 9/11 attack in a NYC-only vacuum. The terrorists physical targets were in NYC and DC, but they were meant to strike against the United States generally. While I lived in a rural Arizona time on September 11, I was grief stricken. My mourning and tears that day are not cheapened because I wasn't from Manhattan. While I agree that 9/11 is probably much more poignant and "real" for New Yorkers then it is for much of America, I think saying the rest of America has "zero relation to it" isn't acknowledging the intent of the hijackers or its actual effect on the United States generally.

"Zero knowledge of" is not accurate at all. If we are defining "knowledge of" as having information about the attacks themselves, I think that almost all of America has knowledge of 9/11. If you mean an understanding of 9/11's fallout in terms of the loss of life or the effect of the attacks on day-to-day activities, then you are right that New Yorkers have a deeper understanding. However, this against discounts the rest of America's involvement and empathy. While I do not know what is like to lose someone who worked in the WTC, I do know what it is like to lose someone who is serving abroad in the armed forces. For those who have lost loved ones in the military occupation of Afghanistan, the WTC serves as a "ground zero" for that activity as much as it is for the deaths of the many New Yorkers. Even those who haven't lose someone in the military probably have lost loved ones unexpectedly and can thus empathize with the many New Yorkers.

For those reasons, I feel there are millions of Americans who may seemingly "gawk" at Ground Zero, who are in reality reverencing the departed. I am sure that picture taking might seem inappropriate, but I am guessing it is an oversight as opposed to a dismissal of New Yorkers feelings. (Just as I think people who oppose the GZM are generally making an oversight as opposed to a blatantly disregarding Muslims feelings.) For those who visit and are obtuse to the sanctity of the area, it's unfortunate, but I don't think we need to lump all tourists into that category.

Very thoughtful, Wired. It is good to see that we agreed on some things. Last week I watched the movie "Flt. 93." We were all upset.

I'm sincerely dubious about out-of-towner's ability to understand what happened and I always will be. No tourist needs "closure" thus no tourist needs to gawk at or snap photos of the site. Also, I absolutely despise tourists.

This isn't especially relevant, but it's kind of related.

Am I the only one who had little-to-no emotional reaction to 9/11? I heard about it on the radio that morning as I got ready for school, and then headed off to catch the bus. My mom later scolded me for not waking her up, but it honestly would never have occurred to me. I just didn't see it as that big of a deal. I mean, I could grasp why people were/are upset, but it just didn't affect me in that way. (I kind of feel left out of a national bonding experience.)

Like in 7th grade, one of the English teachers at my junior high died of cancer. All the girls just sobbed for a week and went to see grief counselors and whatever. And I just kind of watched them thinking... 'Seriously? Why don't they just get over it? We knew she had cancer. Are they just faking it because it's cool to be grief stricken? Should I be crying? Is that what I'm supposed to be doing?'

Now, I can objectively understand that people have valid reasons to be emotionally affected by death. And I try to show respect for people who have strong feelings and reactions to tragic events, but... Sometimes I can't help wondering just a tiny bit if people aren't exaggerating their grief. But that's probably just because I am broken and don't process events that way. So I assume everyone else is exactly like me, they're just better at playing their part.

Hypatia wrote:I'm sincerely dubious about out-of-towner's ability to understand what happened and I always will be. No tourist needs "closure" thus no tourist needs to gawk at or snap photos of the site. Also, I absolutely despise tourists.

Can you help me see understand what you mean by the word understand? Do you mean the day-to-day fallout of it, or what? I am not asking disparagingly; I just really am not sure what you mean by "understand."

On a parallel note, how do you feel about places like the Holocaust Museum or the Vietnam War Memorial? Those are different because they are specifically set aside as memorials, but Ground Zero is set to become such a memorial - will you have similar sentiments towards tourists visiting it once it becomes an official memorial?

EDIT: Ahem, I don't think you are an aberration. When I first heard about the planes, I had the usual, "Holy crap, is this happening?" reaction, but I wasn't at all emotional. It become emotional for me when I began seeing people jump from the towers, I saw the second tower fall, I saw people who were totally unsure whether or not family members were still alive. When I heard about the DC plane, it hit home quite a bit more. My father used to work at the Pentagon and I had friends whose parents were there. That's when it started really become personal. I knew every single person in the WTC had some family member, somewhere whose life would never be the same.

Hypatia wrote:Bob. No one has turned Ground Zero into a tourist site more than out-of-towners who come to our city and gawk at something they have zero relation to or knowledge of.

So, do you think that a physical place can't have meaning for people who don't live near it?

I think most everyone can relate, at least on some level, because most everyone has some connection to it. I remember watching one of my classmates sobbing and hugging other students for a long, long time that day--she had family there, and she didn't know if they were okay. That was troubling to me. Sure, none of my immediate family or friends were killed in the 9/11 tragedy, so I probably don't understand it on the same personally-earth-shattering level that a New Yorker would--but her sorrows still affected me. Of all the TV reports, images, and video from that day, watching her cry is still one of the most poignant images in my mind. Also, this picture is one of the other poignant images stuck in my mind. I remember seeing it shortly after 9/11, and the image has stayed with me over the years. That's got to be one of the saddest photos I've ever seen.

But beyond all that, I think any American that lived through it remembers some of those feelings of uncertainty and fear. We all wondered, is my city next? What's happening to our country? We also remember the surge of great American sentiment that followed, when we all declared our national pride. Those are still very powerful feelings in my memory, and I feel like 9/11 had a profound affect on me--even though I wasn't there and I didn't lose anyone close to me.

So, while I don't need any closure, I would like to be a tourist and visit New York (because it's awesome), and I would make the ground-zero site one of my top-priority stops. I consider it sacred ground.

ahem. wrote: Am I the only one who had little-to-no emotional reaction to 9/11?...

I had a somewhat delayed emotional reaction because it took me a while to realize that it was actually a terrorist attack and just what a big deal it was. I was at byu at the time, and I had an 8 am chemistry class. when I got to class, my professor was like, "Hey, I heard on the radio on the way in that some idiot who apparently doesn't know how to fly a plane just crashed into the world trade center," and then I had my advanced writing class after that, and when I got there everyone was just watching it on tv and it was all just chaos. and it was a tuesday, so I then I went over to the Marriott center, where the devotional had been canceled and everyone was just having a prayer meeting and I started to realize what had really happened and what a big deal it was. then I started freaking out because I have an aunt and uncle who live in new york and my aunt worked in one of the buildings nearby, so I went to call my mom, and she had heard from my aunt, who had actually taken the day off work and was nowhere near the place, but hadn't been able to get a hold of my uncle at his office all morning. and it was several hours before anyone managed to hear from my uncle, who had been trying to get home. He didn't have a cell phone back then, so he couldn't call anyone. the whole day just felt kind of surreal, and when it happened, I didn't understand at all how much it would change everything, because there had been lots of terrorist attacks before in my lifetime, and even one on the word trade center, but this was so very different.

my very best friend had just moved to new york the fall of '01 and had gotten an interview with walden books. last i heard, he was going to be working in the one in the twin towers. my mom picked me up from school early that day, so i sat at home and called him over and over until he answered. turns out, he had been hired at the bookstore in brooklyn, but was in class right across the street when the towers fell. he showed me the pictures he took, and they were scary. so i had a very emotional reaction it that day, but two of my favorite people on EARTH lived there at the time and had legit reasons to be in the towers. i'm glad they both survived.

but ahem. i don't think you're weird. even though i was freaking out, i didn't cry or anything. i was certainly horrified, and i still get sad when i see pictures or videos from that day. but i don't sit down and sob like some people. i actually think it's weird that people have such strong reactions now that it's been so long. you remind a lot of my roommate. she really only shows strong emotion when someone dies, but then she gets over it. she's not good at dealing with crying people. she's been told numerous times that she doesn't have emotions (which isn't true....mostly). it's not weird, she just views the world from a more rational place instead of an emotional one.

My dad was supposed to be in NYC, in the WTC on that day so I was a pretty scared 11-year old. I can understand that not everyone was personally affected, but it definitely had widespread influence beyond people on the east coast.

I don't think you're weird, either, ahem. Sounds like you just react to things differently than the majority, and that is okay.

I was supposed to take a flight out of town later that day, but all planes were soon grounded. I don't remember crying or getting emotional. It took a while to sink in. When they sent me home from work I took my machete out and chopped into little pieces a big pile of branches, until the blisters I got in my hands broke.

I get emotional now when I think about that day.

I didn't even know what the Twin Towers were when I first heard about it. I just remember that there was a big todo on the news when I woke up and it was on the tv in the classroom all day. I didn't know what to think or feel about it. I understand now how horrible it is intellectually, but I still don't have a very strong emotional connection to it. If I did, though, I would feel sad, but probably not cry--I usually only cry when I'm embarrassed. I tend to not dwell on things, though, unless I am the one at fault. Even then, though, I generally don't dwell on the past very much.

I think that a mosque at Ground Zero can be a good thing--it could also be a bad thing, but the bad will most likely come from those who refuse to put down their prejudices instead of building good relationships with those who are different.
My advice to the Islamic community at Ground Zero is to not do anything stupid and to be patient with those of us who are going to be offended anyway.
My advice to us is to get used to the mosque being at Ground Zero. This forum debate is almost certainly not going to change that. Freedom of religion is supposed to be one of the cornerstones of America. Not only that, but it is one of our key beliefs: "let them worship how, where, or what they may" (Article of Faith 11).

I have no connection to it either, but it was still en emotional thing for me. The moment that will always stick out in my mind was when I was in the bookstore watching one of the TVs while passing through. There was a small crowd under each TV while people paused on their way by to watch. And I was watching when they finally got the actual flight numbers to put up on the news- they hadn't released them for a couple of hours after it happened, since they were not sure every other flight was accounted for. And when they came up, a girl standing next to me gasped, started sobbing, and ran away.

I still nearly cry whenever I think of her. That made the whole thing very real to me, very quickly.