world

New York Imam: Mosque fight about Muslim role in America

50 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2010 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

50 Comments
Login to comment

Muslims are not the problem, Islam is the problem. Keep trying to make it about the people without looking at the source of where the ideas come from that can influence the people to commit terrorism.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Imam Rauf: promoting tolerance abroad, receiving little of it at home.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Imam Rauf: Asking for understanding and consideration abroad, giving none of it at home.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The headline is correct, this is about islams role in America. Rauf thinks that Western democracy is wrong and should be replaced with a Caliphate and Shariah. And of course he wants to preach that next to the 9/11 site.

The question is if Western society will bow and accept that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Imam Rauf: promoting tolerance abroad, receiving little of it at home.

Oh yes, America is soooo bad bad bad. That's why he chooses to live in the US, and why immigrants (both legal and illegal) are streaming over our borders by the millions instead of staying at home in their own countries where they can be killed just for disagreeing with their government. Heck, in American you can actively hate the US and still be President, right Barry?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Instead, he repeatedly stressed the need to embrace the religious and political freedoms in…

Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan,Yemen, Indonesia, Afghanistan, Somalia, Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon…

Don’t preach to America about religious tolerance Imam, take it to your own brothers and sisters who have no religious and political freedoms!

We don’t want or need your god and we sure as hell don’t want a desecrating mosque built near the site where your Muslim brothers slaughtered 3000 Americans in a jihadistic fireball, while they shouted GOD IS GREAT!!! Even as the towers crumbled on 9-11, the Palestinians danced in the streets. We will not forget.

Yes, God is great, but not the one you serve.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

we sure as hell don’t want a desecrating mosque built near the site where your Muslim brothers slaughtered 3000 Americans...

But a strip joint is okay? (The strip joint is closer to Ground Zero than this mosque will be.) How about a monument to Robert E. Lee at Gettsyburg - where his Southern brethren slaughtered tens of 1000s of patriotic Americans?

A sensible discussion and more at http://www.uscatholic.org/blog/2010/08/productive-dialogue-possible-around-ground-zero

0 ( +0 / -0 )

But a strip joint is okay?

Are strippers blowing themselves up in suicide bomber operations all in the name of puritanical Islam? The last time I checked, no.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Western and Muslim cultures are light years apart. I don't see the two ever getting along. Been that way since the Crusades. Those supporting the Mosque, do it by intellectualizing it while those who oppose it, do it by emotionalizing it; the two arguments, again, are light years apart from ever reconciling with each other....zero-sum situation. Very similar to what's going on in Jerusalem between the Islamic Dome of the Rock shrine and the Tower of David that are almost across the street from each other.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Western and Muslim cultures are light years apart. I don't see the two ever getting along. Been that way since the Crusades. Those supporting the Mosque, do it by intellectualizing it while those who oppose it, do it by emotionalizing it; the two arguments, again, are light years apart from ever reconciling with each other....zero-sum situation. Very similar to what's going on in Jerusalem between the Islamic Dome of the Rock shrine and the Tower of David that are almost across the street from each other.

Very good point! Both sides have valid arguments. However the Moque was not built in a vacuum independent of the events of 9/11. Nor is the mosque an innocuous place of worship. The imam is a radical who supports anti-west violence, and the site was chosen as a symbol of jihad.

So in this case, the "intellectualizing" supporters aren't really "intellectualizing" very deeply.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The question is will Muslim expects to have their own Sharia courts in the U.S. like in Britain?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Not to worry. In three or four generations their kids will be completely assimilated as Americans, watching MTV, snorting coke and cybering in front of webcams. And exchanging Christmas gifts.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

firstly it is an Islamic Centre not a Mosque. There is in fact a mosque close by, in the same area that has been operating for years before 9/11 but know one seems to be talking about that?

try sticking to the facts, if you would be kind enough to show me proof that Imam Rouf is a radical who supports anti-west violence. The AMERICAN STATE DEPARTMENT sent him to the middle east to preach tolerance to them, not americans. Any clue why your own government would sponsor Imam Rouf is this so called radical? Would love to hear your thoughts on this.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

New York Imam: Mosque fight about Muslim role in America

Oh? Before it was about racism and bigotry. Its not about that anymore, or its still about that, but also about the Muslim role in America?

Imam Rauf: Asking for understanding and consideration abroad, giving none of it at home.

Good one.

Don’t preach to America about religious tolerance Imam, take it to your own brothers and sisters who have no religious and political freedoms!

A really good one.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Starke:

" firstly it is an Islamic Centre not a Mosque. "

Fact: The plan includes a mosque on the top floors. Which is of course the centerpiece of the project. While on the official Park 51 they have removed the specs and say it is undecided, on the islamic finder you will see they are advertising it as a magnificent 1000-seat mashid (mosque).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Starke:

" try sticking to the facts, if you would be kind enough to show me proof that Imam Rouf is a radical who supports anti-west violence. "

Violence is red herring. Rauf declares that Western democracy is wrong, and the perfect state is an islamic caliphate under Shariah. He declares that the US is itself to blame for the 9/11 attacks, which he calls a "crime that happened" -- note, note an attack that was carried out by muslim jihadists. He think islam is perfect and does NOT need a reform. All this is on record, you can find it yourself.

" The AMERICAN STATE DEPARTMENT sent him to the middle east to preach tolerance to them, not americans. Any clue why your own government would sponsor Imam Rouf is this so called radical? "

Because they are acting on ignorance and wishful thinking. Like you, they did not bother to do their homework.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

mikehuntez: Imam Rauf: Asking for understanding and consideration abroad, giving none of it at home.

If you want to know what kind of understanding the Imam shows at home, you might try listening to what he says rather than what other, agenda-stricken folks say he says. Your send-up of my comment certainly illustrates the intolerance the Imam is receiving.

Understanding has never meant capitulation. In fact, capitulation would be almost un-American. The Imam may decide to try to persuade the developers to build elsewhere, but that will be America's loss.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

manfromamerica: Don't kid yourself. America can be very bad. Those who choose to come also choose to ignore this. In bashing Imam Rauf, America truly shows its ugly side.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If you want to know what kind of understanding the Imam shows at home, you might try listening to what he says rather than what other, agenda-stricken folks say he says. Your send-up of my comment certainly illustrates the intolerance the Imam is receiving.

Please note what WilliB wrote. All those things are what Rauf said. Wanna try again, or just want to make up stuff to defend your leader?

Understanding has never meant capitulation. In fact, capitulation would be almost un-American. The Imam may decide to try to persuade the developers to build elsewhere, but that will be America's loss.

How exactly would it be Americas loss? Muslims get another Mosque, one mostly free of controversy. Everyone wins. Seems like it would be Americas gain, not loss. The only ones losing if its not built there, are the extremists who want to make it a victory memorial. I guess if you are a Muslim extremist, who thinks Islam should naturally be spread throughout the world, by the sword if necessary, then your viewpoint might make sense. Otherwise, no.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Note to borscht: At Gettysburg, brave Americans were fighting and dying on both sides, or at least that's how I see it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

For a comedy news outlet, a lot of truth can be found in The Onion:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/man-already-knows-everything-he-needs-to-know-abou,17990/

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Molenir, an important part of any claim is "source". If you want to judge what Rauf is talking about, go back to the source. Then tell me who is making stuff up.

As for America's loss, America loses in several ways. First it will have validated a widespread view in much of the Muslim world that America is prejudiced against Muslims. Far more worrisome than the remote possibility that extremist views will be preached here is the almost dead certainty that they will be preached abroad and find willing listeners among the disadvantaged.

Second, it will have deluded itself into believing that its mistaken views of Islam are perfectly justified. The "bad taste" argument is predicated on the perception that all Muslims should be penitent on account of extremists who acted in the name of a religion which, alone among other major religions, has an intrinsic capacity for evil which must be held in check. This is not true. However, relocating the proposed center will relieve Americans of the responsibility of actually finding out what Islam is about and who Muslims are.

Third, rather than everyone winning, the obvious discrimination--for you can bet there would be no hue and cry were it a Christian or Jewish center--will serve to radicalize Muslims here. Not putting up barriers to its construction shows tolerance. Erecting barriers will corroborate the perception of discrimination and successfully preventing construction will tend to give cause for grievance.

Finally, most of the non-Muslim supporters will not "win". Of course the Muslims can build another mosque somewhere. And they will. I doubt that most Americans know what a mosque is, however. Writing in the Washington Post, Edward E. Curtis IV points out that

A mosque, or masjid, is literally any place where Muslims make salat, the prayer performed in the direction of Mecca; it needn't be a building.

Under this definition, if prayers are now performed in the direction of Mecca at the current structure, there is already a mosque there. So, what people are saying to Muslims is, "Don't be visible!" Success in stopping the construction will certainly not be a win for the 30% of Americans who support the right of Muslims to be visible, even in the relatively small way that the planned construction will bring.

I don't think that many of these 30% can be considered to be a "Muslim extremist, who thinks Islam should naturally be spread throughout the world, by the sword if necessary".

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SezWho2 said: Third, rather than everyone winning, the obvious discrimination--for you can bet there would be no hue and cry were it a Christian or Jewish center--will serve to radicalize Muslims here.

And this because people are still grieving over 9/11 apparently. Lest anyone in my family radicalize anyone and get me sucked into the fallout of that, I would give them a very physical beat down myself. All these people are doing is priming the pump for another 9/11. The pleas of grief and good taste are so much horse manure. Too damn much looking back while not looking forward at all.

First we hear complaints about how rank and file Muslims don't do enough to stop extremists. Then those same people turn around and treat rank and file Muslims like yesterday's garbage but expect them to listen to their complaints? What gives? If I thought they were rational, I would think they actually enjoy creating conflict and would love to have another 9/11. Frankly, I think some of them do. I think it would be much more entertaining to them than actually talking to and dealing with rank and file Muslims, making friends of them, and helping them to help us control the extremists.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

First it will have validated a widespread view in much of the Muslim world that America is prejudiced against Muslims.

And America should care that Muslims think we are prejudiced against Muslims why?

Second, it will have deluded itself into believing that its mistaken views of Islam are perfectly justified.

So it was Mormons that attacked the World Trade Center? Again, note that this site was deliberately chosen precisely because of its proximity to 1 WT. Americans are not deluded, only those who think this is about Freedom of Religion are deluded.

Third, rather than everyone winning, the obvious discrimination--for you can bet there would be no hue and cry were it a Christian or Jewish center--will serve to radicalize Muslims here.

Note point 2. It wasn't 19 Christians, it wasn't 19 Jews. It was 19 Muslims. And no American isn't blaming all of Islam for this. Thats why there are so many Mosques in America, thats why more are being built here all the time. Why America welcomes so many immigrants from those intolerant countries. Claiming discrimination, when pointing out the obvious, is simply nonsensical. And with America saying, you can build your Mosque elsewhere, just not there, it is telling that Rauf insists that it is only on that site, that the holy Mosque can be completed. Only there, that Islam can honor the 19 martyrs. Building the Mosque there incites radicalism. Not building it, perhaps incites it around the world, but not in America.

You were concerned about Americas image around the world. But if America allows a mosque to be built at ground zero, it will be seen as bowing to Islam. I ask, which is worse. To be thought of amongst Muslims as being intolerant of them, or being thought of as weak, and surrendering to them? I suggest, that unless you are either a Muslim, or a Dhimmi, the answer is the same. Your response will prove which you are.

Please note again btw, that despite some on the left, attempting to make this a conservative versus liberal thing, it really isn't. 70% of Americans oppose this. That includes a hell of a lot of libs.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Molenir said: And with America saying, you can build your Mosque elsewhere, just not there, it is telling that Rauf insists that it is only on that site, that the holy Mosque can be completed.

Tell you what, why don't all you Islam tolerant Mosque opposers pay for a new site at least close to his original Mosque in exchange for the dirt cheap site he is planning on. You can also compensate him for lost time. Damned easy for you to sit there and suggest a muli-million dollar project be moved someplace more convenient for YOU, and not lift a single finger.

Note point 2. It wasn't 19 Christians, it wasn't 19 Jews. It was 19 Muslims. And no American isn't blaming all of Islam for this.

No, just any Sufis that get too close to ground zero. Just collective punishment for a group unrelated to 9/11. You are probably also fond of the phrase "This is going to hurt me more than you.".

I am no long suprised that you dish out this bullsmack. I am just surprised you can keep it up this long. Most people don't last long in slaughterhouses, even ones that just slaughter the truth.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Molenir: And America should care that Muslims think we are prejudiced against Muslims why?

I think this question was already answered in my previous post. It is in America's interest to promote moderate Islam. It cannot do that if it is seen as being prejudiced.

Again, note that this site was deliberately chosen precisely because of its proximity to 1 WT.

So what?

Americans are not deluded, only those who think this is about Freedom of Religion are deluded.

No. Your sarcasm notwithstanding, Mormons did not attack the Towers. Large numbers of Americans are totally at sea concerning what Islam is. If a cultural center constructed by another religion would be unobjectionable, then objections to an Islamic culture center indicate this is about religious tolerance. I didn't say anything about Freedom of Religion.

And with America saying, you can build your Mosque elsewhere, just not there, it is telling that Rauf insists that it is only on that site, that the holy Mosque can be completed. Only there, that Islam can honor the 19 martyrs.

How generous of "America" to say that the cultural center can be built somewhere else! Not! People can build wherever it is permitted. In Manhattan it is permitted. More residents of Manhattan favor the construction than oppose it, although this may change if the rabble-rousers are successful.

Imam Rauf does not insist that the cultural center be built there. You have rather turned this thing on its head. It is the 70% who are insisting that it not be built there. Rauf has been silent about whether it would be better to choose another site. Some people connected with the project have indicated an openness to considering an alternative site.

And as for the site being the only place where Islam can honor the "19 martyrs", that is simply a false and inflammatory statement. There are no plans to use the cultural center to honor the 19 men who flew planes into the Towers. And as for its being the only place where Islam can do it, that is absolutely wrong. Today those miscreants are being honored in centers of extremism in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen and even in the US. They can be honored anywhere.

It really does not matter that 70% of Americans think that this is in bad taste. 30% support the culture center project (more in Manhattan). Those who support wish to see American Muslims make a strong statement in favor of moderate Islam. It seems to me that most who oppose cite bad taste and back up this sentiment with lies and half-truths.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Taka,

Amazing to read your satirical piece which reads no different from the rabid agents of intolerance posting here.....only they're serious. Frightening stuff.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

'Verts,

Yeah, when I read that piece, I could picture a lot of the posters here.

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Taka,

No offense but did you also picture her also? Neda Bolourchi Muslim.

On the morning of Tuesday, Sept. 11, 2001, I watched as terrorists slammed United Flight 175 into the South Tower of the World Trade Center, 18 minutes after their accomplices on another hijacked plane hit the North Tower. My mother was on the flight. I witnessed her murder on live television. I still cannot fully comprehend those images. In that moment, I died as well. I carry a hole in my heart that will never be filled.

From the first memorial ceremonies I attended at Ground Zero, I have always been moved by the site; it means something to be close to where my mother may be buried, it brings some peace. That is why the prospect of a mosque near Ground Zero -- or a church or a synagogue or any religious or nationalistic monument or symbol -- troubles me.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/06/AR2010080603006.html

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Before you visit Mecca, before you go on jihad, before you go on your first suicide mission - you've got to visit the new Hamas Cultural Center! Conveniently located at ground Zero! It has something for everyone in the family - while dad's busy learning all the ins and outs of Sharia law, kids will love the hands-on approach to bomb-making and martyrdom, and mom can shop for the latest in burqas - all in fashionable black! And everyone will enjoy the observation deck with a spectacular view of the 9/11 site!

Approved by the New York City Planning Commission, and endorsed by Mayor Bloomberg, Hamas and Imam Obama!

The Hamas Cultural Center - the happiest place in radical Islam - coming soon, in the shadows of Ground Zero!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sailwind, I think by now almost everyone has been asked to attend to Bolourchi's words. I think too often people seize upon the fact that she is a Muslim, although self-described as a secular one, and forget to listen to what she is saying:

...the prospect of a mosque near Ground Zero -- or a church or a synagogue or any religious or nationalistic monument or symbol -- troubles me.

I just don't get that most of the protesters would be troubled by a Christian cultural center that contained a place of worship nor that they would be averse to a nationalistic monument or symbol. I have absolutely no problem with what Bolourchi is saying. I'm all in favor of erecting a simple memorial to those who died there, but that is not really the plan for that space, is it?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Wow sail, you dug up a quote from a muslim woman also incapable of understanding that this isn't a mosque, nor is it at ground zero.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

'Verts,

you dug up a quote from a muslim woman also incapable of understanding that this isn't a mosque, nor is it at ground zero.

And sailwind's own intolerance is justified. Just like that!

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sailwind,

I recommend the Onion article to you. They may have even mentioned you by name! How cool is that?

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan,Yemen, Indonesia, Afghanistan, Somalia, Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon…

Don’t preach to America about religious tolerance Imam, take it to your own brothers and sisters who have no religious and political freedoms!

Great posting there. SezWho2 don't you think it somewhat telling that in your comments you seem to suggest (forgive me if I'm wrong) an appeasement of Islam, or at least in "America's interest to promote moderate Islam" as a means of curtailing violence by extremist followers of Islam? Is your suggestion merely for making America not look intolerant, or is it that moderate Muslims will turn to a more extremist viewpoint if we do not appease them by relenting on the building of the mosque? It has become a national and polarizing argument of sorts (though obviously helped a very great deal by media hype). But if the suggestion is that one issue involving the building of one single mosque can provide fuel to create radical followers of Islam that may act against the US, then I think that legitimizes the mistrust in Islam that so many Americans feel.

The list provided in the quote at the beginning of my (this) post is interesting as well. Do those of you who defy the wary eye placed on Islam and the Muslims who follow it in admittedly varying degrees deny that Islamic nations tend to be at the bottom of the list in human rights and religious tolerance? You don't suppose there is any correlation?

While the mosque issue is primarily about the location of a religious center, it has certainly raised the question of religious tolerance and why Islam/Muslims is/are not seen as just another flavor of those that already co-exist here with varying degrees of a peaceful coexistence. We are a nation of religious freedoms, so why are we suddenly being intolerant a-holes? It's easy to say the reason is bigotry and hatred (for those who do, stop saying racism as a religion isn't a race). Without going into the fundamentals of why the US became a free nation and adopted a constitution to preserve these freedoms, it's easy to see that too many see the tenants of Islam as violations of fundamentals. I don't know about you, but in most Islamic countries I look at today, I don't see too much of freedom of speech, freedom of religion (other than Islam), and often not even the right to the pursuit of happiness.

Put another way, in America there has always been religious freedom, but basic freedoms and right trump all else. This doesn't fly with Islam, even the more moderate variety, and that makes a lot of Americans uncomfortable.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

freedoms and rights above - they should really put an edit feature on this.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

tigermoth: don't you think it somewhat telling that in your comments you seem to suggest (forgive me if I'm wrong) an appeasement of Islam, or at least in "America's interest to promote moderate Islam" as a means of curtailing violence by extremist followers of Islam?

What I think is telling is that you use the term "appeasement", more telling when you use the phrase "appeasement of Islam". Islam is neither monolithic nor is it the enemy. My reading of your post that you would give reason why it is the enemy and why, despite the fact that America has lived with Muslims for over 300 years, we must now brand American Muslims as part of "them", too.

I agree with you that America enjoys more religious freedom than Islamic countries, but to this day some in America are Orwellianly more free than others. "Gentlemen's Agreement", the best picture of 1947, documents the systematic denial of the privileges of American society to Jews. 50 years ago fears about Catholicism nearly undid Kennedy. Two years ago the best Republican candidate was (shhhh!) thrown under the bus because he was a Mormon. People out to smear the current President describe him as a Muslim.

Put another way, in America there has always been religious freedom, but basic freedoms and right trump all else. This doesn't fly with Islam, even the more moderate variety, and that makes a lot of Americans uncomfortable.

Apparently, in the case of the planned Islamic cultural center, "basic freedoms and right" do not trump all else--at least not in the eyes of those who protest its construction. American Muslims, however, have lived quite peacefully with these basic freedoms and rights for years. Why, on account of the actions of extremists and theories about religious intolerance elsewhere, should we deny those basic freedoms and rights now? Are you seriously worried that America might become an Islamic state?

Americans are uncomfortable about a lot of things. But if basic freedoms and rights trump all else, Americans have to find a way to live with their discomforts. We all do.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sez, you said in an earlier posting:

I think this question was already answered in my previous post. It is in America's interest to promote moderate Islam. It cannot do that if it is seen as being prejudiced.

Isn't that appeasement? By definition I would say yes. Should I have said pacification? Same thing. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your point, but to me it seems that you are suggesting that allowing the mosque is a way of satisfying or pacifying (appeasement) those who follow moderate Islam who might otherwise turn to a more extremist bent. My issue is that if the followers of Islam are so unstable that being asked to move a proposed mosque a bit further down the road might convert otherwise passive followers of Islam to a more extremist point of view, then something is amiss. They just closed a Catholic church near me because the church was renting the land and it sold to a developer; while they can be wacky at times with the kid touching, I don't expect to see radical Catholics with bombs strapped to their torsos blowing up the local Price Chopper. Granted, anything is possible.

And yes, there are some in America, and aspects of American life that have today and historically not been exactly milestones of basic rights and freedoms. But you bring up exceptions rather than the norm.

And your comments about Muslims living in the US for over '300 years' is true, but a slight misrepresentation of the facts to support your own ideas. Yes, there have been Muslims and followers of Islam in the US for some time. And while I cannot find what I would deem as reliable data for exact number, the consensus projections is that the number of Muslims immigrating to the US has grown astronomically in the last decade. While there has been a small Muslim population in the US for hundreds of years, that population tended to be pretty much assimilated into the general population. With the influx of a larger number of immigrants from other nations and of other religions, the tendency is to live in larger communities (I believe Michigan has prime examples of larger Muslim communities).

Now I'm not concluding that there is anything wrong or sinister with that, but rather just illustrating the point that saying 'we've always had a Muslim population' is somewhat misleading.

Apparently, in the case of the planned Islamic cultural center, "basic freedoms and right" do not trump all else--at least not in the eyes of those who protest its construction.

I would agree that any attempt to legally block them from building this mosque, or even telling them they cannot is wrong, unconstitutional and not what America is about. But I'm also of the opinion that it does not need to be at this location. We can argue the whys and why nots forever, but to me it's a matter of decency and taste, even if it is just perceived. If someone has a child that dies in a swimming pool, they might not want to live beside a swimming pool - the pool itself is not evil or even at fault. It's been argued to death and the 'twain shall never meet' as they say.

Am I worried that America might become an Islamic state? Of course not. There are far too many loony rednecks with guns here to prevent such a thing. American freedoms are too far ingrained into the general populous to allow such a thing. But I am worried about cultural clash that might eventually lead to more and more confrontation and violence. See the trouble with our democracy is that in order to maintain its integrity we have to allow all groups the same freedom enjoyed by all. That works out fine and dandy as long as those groups immigrating to this democracy understand and comply with the notion that their belief system must now embrace these same freedoms. Not Sharia Law. The problem - does their religious law override the laws we've set forth for our democracy? If the answer is yes, then I do see it as a threat to that very democracy. You cannot have a draconian system of law trumping the democratic system in the name of religion, and not expect repercussions. I do realize of course that all religions have their laws and tenants that the faithful must follow. But we've been through the witch trials and all the ultra-religious nonsense and moved on to a truer form (at least I think we have). To that end I do see Islam as a threat. Allowing freedom to the point of downfall and subjugation is unlikely in this case, but history would show it's not impossible.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sailwind,

I recommend the Onion article to you. They may have even mentioned you by name! How cool is that?

Taka

Sato-san, William Reese.....Put a American Cultural Center by her site?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Just for all those who think I'm 'insensetive' about so called moderate Islamists building a Mosque at the site of murder in their name.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Oliver_Reese

This happened two blocks from my home.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"building a Mosque at the site of murder in their name."

19 mentally ill nutcases that vomitted up un-speakable acts nearly 10 years ago do not speak for 2 billion people. That cannot be described "insensitive" behaviour, it's just ridiculous.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

19 mentally ill nutcases

While I would agree with your summation of the mentally ill nutcases, I think it has pretty much been proven that there was a network behind this. While I won't argue that it can't be blamed on 2 billion people (you say 2, I've seen figures everywhere from 0.7 to 2 which is quite a disparity as 'give or take a billion' is no small thing) certainly these were a bit more than mentally ill nutcases. They had a lot of help to get the training and get them into position to carry out the attacks. For instance I couldn't afford flight school and to travel as they did. The folks dancing in the streets when it happened did little to effect cause that these were just nutcases with no support.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

tigermoth: Isn't that appeasement? By definition I would say yes. Should I have said pacification? Same thing.

One of the problems is with the word "appeasement". To understand what I mean, try referring to the internment camps for Japanese Americans as "concentration camps" and see what happens. "Appeasement" is an emotionally loaded word and "pacification" is not much better. Hitler was "appeased". Native Americans were "pacified". Muslims in general require neither appeasement nor pacification.

Another problem is with the concept of appeasement as divorced from its radio talk show meaning. I'm not supporting the construction of the cultural center as an effort to reduce Muslim extremism. If I were, I think that might be referred to as appeasement. I support the construction because I believe there are no good reasons to disallow it and that there are good reasons for it, including the demonstration that we are a nation that is tolerant of all faiths. A national movement to "Stop the Mosque" is exactly the wrong thing to do to demonstrate this.

And yes, there are some in America, and aspects of American life that have today and historically not been exactly milestones of basic rights and freedoms. But you bring up exceptions rather than the norm.

For the sake of argument let us say that this is true. Are you of the opinion that the whole discussion regarding Muslims in America does not constitute another exception? If you are, I just have to disagree. Over 40% of Americans admit to having anti-Muslim prejudices. My guess is that the true percentage doesn't stop with those who admit. Yes, they could just "move on down the road", but why should they have to? I really don't believe that Christians would have to, nor Jews. Do you?

And your comments about Muslims living in the US for over '300 years' is true, but a slight misrepresentation of the facts to support your own ideas.

That would be a lot more convincing if you were to mention the ideas that you think I am supporting with that statement. Be that as it may, I think there has been a significant Muslim population in the US for 300 years or more. However, we called them "slaves" and didn't allow them a lot of personal freedoms. Also, I think it was the second US President who referred to the prophet Muhammad as a great truth-seeker or some such thing. So I don't think that Muslims were unknown to us--ghettoed, perhaps, shunned, maybe, unwelcome down on the farm, probably, but not unknown.

On the scale of worries I have about violence in America, the possibility of Muslim violence in America comes far down on the list of road rage, workers going postal, drive-bys and so on. Yes, some Muslim extremists could make a bomb, but I don't think it's likely to happen at the proposed Islamic cultural center. And, for that matter, anyone like the Weathermen, the Unabomber or Timothy McVeigh can make a bomb.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Tiger,

It is true that there will have been a large network behind the 19 mentally-ill Islamic fundies involved.

It's got to the point where sailwind, amongst others, are literally expressing the same view-point in the afore-mentioned Onion article, only the latter is a satirical piece dripping in sarcasm for the intolerant behaviour these people are showing!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It's got to the point where sailwind, amongst others, are literally expressing the same view-point in the afore-mentioned Onion article, only the latter is a satirical piece dripping in sarcasm for the intolerant behaviour these people are showing!

Madverts,

I know exactly what it's like to be tarred with the same brush as many Muslims were after 9/11, that they were all terrorists or criminals and of the xenophobia that many now had to endure because of 9/11.

Anybody with common sense knows that is not true, you judge people one person at a time but the fact is Islam and Muslims will never ever be able to dis-own that 9/11 will be forever linked with Islam and with Muslims. This is just the way it is.

When I was on active duty stationed in Yokosuka a horrible murder took place on Jan 3rd 2006 about two miles away from the base. Ms. Sato an elderly Japanese woman was making her way to work early in the morning when a drunk Sailor decided to rob her and beat the hell out of her after he had dragged her of the street and went inside a parking garage. He beat her so bad she died.

This happened less than two blocks from house and I walked that very route or rode my bicycle on that very street almost every day. You can imagine the after that horrible day how many with political agendas went on a rampage. Sailors are all criminals, can't be trusted evil people.

And Madverts even though we all know that isn't true this murder was done by a U.S Sailor and we who wore the uniform will be forever associated with with this fool did in Yokosuka. That is also just the way it is.

Thank goodness for the graciousness of my Japanese neighbors and for their kindness, because after that day I was ashamed of what this fool had done and the stain that I would have to carry now when I left my Apartment to go to work on the base.

The very next morning when I went to walked to work on that route I saw many familiar faces, my Japanese neighbors going about the business of daily life. They saw me and said 'Ohayo' ......Good Morning, and I knew that it was going to be okay after that.

Now to very point and heart of this. Do you think that I would or anyone else in Yokosuka would ever in million years advocate an American cultural center in my neighborhood near the site were Sato-san lost her life? A center to promote bridge-building and understanding between the Yokosuka Navy base and our Japanese hosts?

Would that not be the absolute dumbest most boneheaded arrogant idea you could ever think of?

Madverts, I might be living in a different world than others but I respect peoples losses of their ones and common decency and courtesy tells me that one should never ever do anything that would re-open or remind them of that pain.

This Mosque and community center located in the ground zero killing field and debris field will do nothing but remind them of it, and that is wrong.

If that makes intolerant so be it. I'd rather be respectful first of other people's personal losses first regardless of race, religion or politics.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sailwind: Anybody with common sense knows that is not true, you judge people one person at a time but the fact is Islam and Muslims will never ever be able to dis-own that 9/11 will be forever linked with Islam and with Muslims. This is just the way it is.

That's not the way it is. That's the way we make it. We could choose to link 9/11 with Muslim extremists. We could choose to link 9/11 with political fanatics. But we choose to link it with Islam and Muslims.

That the terrorist were Muslims is not in dispute. What does seem to be in dispute is why they did what they did. But even if they did this in the name of Islam we could still choose to recognize that they are not representative of mainstream Islam. However, we refuse to make that choice.

It sounds as though your neighbors refused to make up a story that the offending sailor perpetrated the rape in the name of the US Navy. They chose well. The neighbors of the proposed cultural center more support the construction than oppose it. I think they have chosen well, too. Why doubt their judgment?

We can respect people's losses without submitting to their wishes. To say otherwise gives grief a veto of indeterminate extent. And I would also say this: there is absolutely no reason for Americans to respect the wishes of the grieving when those wishes discriminate on the basis or race, religion, creed or national origin.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

That's not the way it is. That's the way we make it. We could choose to link 9/11 with Muslim extremists. We could choose to link 9/11 with political fanatics. But we choose to link it with Islam and Muslims.

Who do prefer you we link with Mormons?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sailwind: Who do prefer you we link with Mormons?

I really cannot understand your meaning here. Are you asking what event I think we should link with Mormons? If so, will I have to link events to all major religions? Or are you asking if we should link 9/11 to Mormons? If so, that really makes no sense.

What I would say is this, if you feel compelled to link 9/11 to something, try to link it to the people who committed the crime. By linking them to Islam, you are choosing to view them as representative of all Islam first and as terrorists only secondarily. I think I would say that they did not represent all Islam and that in their actions they may well have been political first and extreme Muslims secondarily.

It's not a case of it being just the way it is. It's a case of choosing a viewpoint of the way it is. By linking 9/11 to all Islam and by using this to discriminate against Muslims, you make a popular choice, but the wrong one, I think.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What I would say is this, if you feel compelled to link 9/11 to something, try to link it to the people who committed the crime.

America's rotten foreign policy and this was just blow back.

By linking them to Islam, you are choosing to view them as representative of all Islam first and as terrorists only secondarily

They are just victims of our evilness and darn-it decided to get a little payback for our arrogance.

By linking 9/11 to all Islam and by using this to discriminate against Muslims, you make a popular choice, but the wrong one, I think.

I link nothing of the sort, I ask that a Mosque or a Islamic cultural center not be established near ground zero out of respect for the dead.

No more and no less.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sailwind: Anybody with common sense knows that is not true, you judge people one person at a time but the fact is Islam and Muslims will never ever be able to dis-own that 9/11 will be forever linked with Islam and with Muslims.

SezWho2: By linking 9/11 to all Islam and by using this to discriminate against Muslims, you make a popular choice, but the wrong one, I think.

sailwind: I link nothing of the sort, I ask that a Mosque or a Islamic cultural center not be established near ground zero out of respect for the dead.

It certainly seems to me that you are linking 9/11 to Islam. And, while it is clear that you are calling for the planned construction to be aborted out of respect for the dead, it certainly seems to me that you are discriminating against one religion.

Additionally I would add that the proposed Islamic cultural center shows no such lack of respect. However, plenty of the living have made up that it does so.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites