By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - The MYTH of American Islamophobia

badgenome on 26 August 2010
superchunk said:

I completely disagree with your last statement as I've seen the exact opposite from many people as quoted in their reasonings to why the Mosque shouldn't be allowed to be built.

Well, I continually see this "When we can build churches in Mecca...!" argument, and I'm sure you do, too. It's a horrible argument to put forth, but it shows you where people are coming from.



Around the Network
Kasz216 on 26 August 2010
Kamal said:
badgenome said:
superchunk said:
badgenome said:
 

I don't think you have to be an "Islamophobe" to think that choosing this location for a mosque shows a serious lack of propriety, and I'm pretty sure that 70% of the population isn't Islamophobic (regardless of what Time magazine says, and it was that article to which Goldberg was responding).

It seems to me that you're suggesting that nobody should even be talking about this because it might encourage radicals to do something.  The tenor of the whole debate on both sides has disappointed me, but people are still responsible for what they do. "I SAW SUM SHIT ON TEH NEWZ AN IT MAED ME ANGREY" isn't an excuse, and if someone punches out a mosque opponent tomorrow, I doubt you'll be so quick to blame it on the intemperence of a whole faction.

The reason given to the mosque issue is based on a series of fallacies. Its not at Ground Zero, nor is it a terrorist center or a trophy for the terrorists, etc. The whole issue is stemmed in Islamaphobia and the underlying ideas by way too many Americans that Muslims are simply terrorist and as such Mosques are breeding grounds for these terrorist. Why else is there another big uproar in Tennessee over another new Mosque proposal? Just because these people are not physically attacking people doesn't mean they are generally afraid of Muslims and Islam due to ignorant beliefs about the religion.

I never said the issue shouldn't be discussed because it might incite radicals, but that it shouldn't be discussed because its entirely ludicrous and a result of its discussion is a natural increase in attacks.

As for your last statement, true I wouldn't call it intemperance of a whole faction; I'd call it another example of inflamed actions out of hate and anger that came from this absurd Mosque conflict.

You find it to be absurd, and it can be argued that there is no rational reason for the mosque not to be there, but there is certainly an emotional reason to locate it elsewhere. The overwhelming majority of Americans oppose it, and since the Cordoba Initiative says its mission is to build bridges, one would think they would see the value of respecting people's sensitivities. After all, the imam involved said during the Mohammed cartoon uproar that he respected freedom of speech but found the cartoons to be appalling and even a "willful fomentation" (and this at a time when death threats were flying like crazy).  So he, of all people, should understand that just because someone has the right to do something, doesn't mean they should.

I think most people's anger and frustration is less about "mulimz r terists" and more about the perception that tolerance is always going to be a one way street


I think after touting all that "Draw a Muhammed day" still happened. I think the mindset of tolerance sometimes blurs emotional responsibility, kinda ironic.

Isn't this Mosque suppose to cost $100 million, seriously why the stretch?

Isn't that the perfect example for why the thing shouldn't be built?

People have the right to do stuff, like draw muhammad.  That doesn't mean they should.  Though said day was ALSO about the fact that tons of people were trying to kill one person who drew him.

So it's a bit different.

Still it's a good example of rights vs responsibility.

So is the Dr. Laura usign the N-word thig.

She had a 1st ammendment right to do it... but she also deserved all the trouble she got for saying it.

 

Should muslims have not complained they were offended?

Does civil rights mean racists can say any insensitive racist thing they can say and nobody can say anything about  it?



FootballFan on 26 August 2010
superchunk said:
FootballFan said:
superchunk said:
Kasz216 said:
 

Once again... you are simply not looking at it correctly.

If, radical Christians killed your daughter in an abortion clinic bombing near your work.

How would you feel about an Church being put up right next to said ruins that you have to drive by every day?


The mosque being there will be a sign of america's greatness.

But the greatness that we even protect the rights of people when they use those rights to be giant assholes.

I wouldn't care because I don't have a irrational fear (phobia) of Christians. I would know this was a terrorist action of a single group/person and not Christianity.

Plus, the most IS NOT NEXT DOOR TO GROUND ZERO! Its over 400ft away and only 80ft from an existing mosque.

Surely your last statement begs the question of the need to put this mosque here. 80ft from an existing mosque seems slightly pointless and makes me think that the person who is funding the building of the religous structure could have alternative intentions. Perhaps not.....but thats the immediate feeling I get.  Just like you stated that the author was a Jew and in support of Isreal in the attack on Palistine without any previous knowledge of the person.....Jus' sayin'

Becaue the new one isn't really for the purposes of a Mosque. that is only one rather small part of the entire 15 story center.

As for my last remark on Jewish author, read it again, I was clearly joking. I can't believe so many people fail to read the whole sentance.

Oh! I see. Maybe if they just had it as a islamic cultural teaching centre and didn't include the Mosque there wouldn't be any complaints by many Americans.  Also I did see the full sentence. I just got the feeling you instantly associated a name with a religion. Or dare I say steriotyped!!!!!



superchunk on 26 August 2010
Kasz216 said:
 

It's the same difference.   I just put them closeley together because there literally isn't a comprably sized mosque.  Also your ignoring the fact that it's in direct view of 90% of people who view it.  Since it is right next to the WTC subway exit.

Though fine, it's 400 feet away, 15 stories tall... visible from the site, and you see it every day as you wait for the bus or go into the subway.  That's incredibly insensitive.

Heck, say this mosque gets built... and within a week is bombed by a fundamentalist christian group.  Then they build a 15 story church two blocks away and visible.

I've got a feeling you'd be pissed about the church. 

 

Also, it's not called being illogical.  It's called post traumatic stress disorder.

You are forcing a lot of the victims and victims families to relive the incident by putting it there.

omg.

1. You can't see it from Ground Zero. You need to take a better look at the locations.

2. Its not a "15 story Mosque" Its a 15 story building that on one floor will contain a Mosque.

3. Again no I wouldn't. As I stated earlier to the fictitious church/abortion clinic story, I do not have a irrational fear (phobia) of christians. I know the actions of one person is not the actions of the religion.

Islam in the US has a lot of misinformation beleive true by regular people that just breeds this Islamiphobia, especially when conflicts like thes are exacerbated among the media.

EDIT: Image for support of me. Two very large buildings between new building and Ground Zero.



Kasz216 on 26 August 2010
theprof00 said:
Kasz216 said:

Once again... you are simply not looking at it correctly.

If, radical Christians killed your daughter in an abortion clinic bombing near your work.

How would you feel about an Church being put up right next to said ruins that you have to drive by every day?


The mosque being there will be a sign of america's greatness.

But the greatness that we even protect the rights of people when they use those rights to be giant assholes.

The same as the KKK's right to throwing racist protests is a sign of America's greatness.

I wouldn't do anything about it. I, my family, and my daughter are tragic victims of fate. I wouldn't dare to take revenge by terrorizing the innocent. And I don't deign to think that my actions have any impact on the security of my loved ones or of humanity itself.

Who is "terrorizing the innocent."

If anything this community center is going to "terrorize the innocent" by causing victims and victims families to suffer PTSD attacks.

It's the same reason you wouldn't build a church nearby a burned out abortion clinic.



Around the Network
Kamal on 26 August 2010
Kasz216 said:
Kamal said:
badgenome said:
superchunk said:
badgenome said:
 

I don't think you have to be an "Islamophobe" to think that choosing this location for a mosque shows a serious lack of propriety, and I'm pretty sure that 70% of the population isn't Islamophobic (regardless of what Time magazine says, and it was that article to which Goldberg was responding).

It seems to me that you're suggesting that nobody should even be talking about this because it might encourage radicals to do something.  The tenor of the whole debate on both sides has disappointed me, but people are still responsible for what they do. "I SAW SUM SHIT ON TEH NEWZ AN IT MAED ME ANGREY" isn't an excuse, and if someone punches out a mosque opponent tomorrow, I doubt you'll be so quick to blame it on the intemperence of a whole faction.

The reason given to the mosque issue is based on a series of fallacies. Its not at Ground Zero, nor is it a terrorist center or a trophy for the terrorists, etc. The whole issue is stemmed in Islamaphobia and the underlying ideas by way too many Americans that Muslims are simply terrorist and as such Mosques are breeding grounds for these terrorist. Why else is there another big uproar in Tennessee over another new Mosque proposal? Just because these people are not physically attacking people doesn't mean they are generally afraid of Muslims and Islam due to ignorant beliefs about the religion.

I never said the issue shouldn't be discussed because it might incite radicals, but that it shouldn't be discussed because its entirely ludicrous and a result of its discussion is a natural increase in attacks.

As for your last statement, true I wouldn't call it intemperance of a whole faction; I'd call it another example of inflamed actions out of hate and anger that came from this absurd Mosque conflict.

You find it to be absurd, and it can be argued that there is no rational reason for the mosque not to be there, but there is certainly an emotional reason to locate it elsewhere. The overwhelming majority of Americans oppose it, and since the Cordoba Initiative says its mission is to build bridges, one would think they would see the value of respecting people's sensitivities. After all, the imam involved said during the Mohammed cartoon uproar that he respected freedom of speech but found the cartoons to be appalling and even a "willful fomentation" (and this at a time when death threats were flying like crazy).  So he, of all people, should understand that just because someone has the right to do something, doesn't mean they should.

I think most people's anger and frustration is less about "mulimz r terists" and more about the perception that tolerance is always going to be a one way street


I think after touting all that "Draw a Muhammed day" still happened. I think the mindset of tolerance sometimes blurs emotional responsibility, kinda ironic.

Isn't this Mosque suppose to cost $100 million, seriously why the stretch?

Still it's a good example of rights vs responsibility.

 

Thats what it boils down too.



"Life is but a gentle death. Fate is but a sickness that results in extinction and in the midst of all the uncertainty, lies resolve."

Kasz216 on 26 August 2010
superchunk said:
Kasz216 said:
 

It's the same difference.   I just put them closeley together because there literally isn't a comprably sized mosque.  Also your ignoring the fact that it's in direct view of 90% of people who view it.  Since it is right next to the WTC subway exit.

Though fine, it's 400 feet away, 15 stories tall... visible from the site, and you see it every day as you wait for the bus or go into the subway.  That's incredibly insensitive.

Heck, say this mosque gets built... and within a week is bombed by a fundamentalist christian group.  Then they build a 15 story church two blocks away and visible.

I've got a feeling you'd be pissed about the church. 

 

Also, it's not called being illogical.  It's called post traumatic stress disorder.

You are forcing a lot of the victims and victims families to relive the incident by putting it there.

omg.

1. You can't see it from Ground Zero. You need to take a better look at the locations.

2. Its not a "15 story Mosque" Its a 15 story building that on one floor will contain a Mosque.

3. Again no I wouldn't. As I stated earlier to the fictitious church/abortion clinic story, I do not have a irrational fear (phobia) of christians. I know the actions of one person is not the actions of the religion.

Islam in the US has a lot of misinformation beleive true by regular people that just breeds this Islamiphobia, especially when conflicts like thes are exacerbated among the media.

1.  Yes... you can.  You can't see it now... because it's not built.  However it's totally within view.  YOU need to take a better look.  Seriously.  It will be eaisly visibile on Vesey and Church street.

2.  Same difference?  It's going to be a 15 foot building with a dome.

3. It's got nothing to do with Phobias and everything to do with PTSD and just being REALLY damn insensitive.



superchunk on 26 August 2010
Kasz216 said:
superchunk said:
Kasz216 said:
 

It's the same difference.   I just put them closeley together because there literally isn't a comprably sized mosque.  Also your ignoring the fact that it's in direct view of 90% of people who view it.  Since it is right next to the WTC subway exit.

Though fine, it's 400 feet away, 15 stories tall... visible from the site, and you see it every day as you wait for the bus or go into the subway.  That's incredibly insensitive.

Heck, say this mosque gets built... and within a week is bombed by a fundamentalist christian group.  Then they build a 15 story church two blocks away and visible.

I've got a feeling you'd be pissed about the church. 

 

Also, it's not called being illogical.  It's called post traumatic stress disorder.

You are forcing a lot of the victims and victims families to relive the incident by putting it there.

omg.

1. You can't see it from Ground Zero. You need to take a better look at the locations.

2. Its not a "15 story Mosque" Its a 15 story building that on one floor will contain a Mosque.

3. Again no I wouldn't. As I stated earlier to the fictitious church/abortion clinic story, I do not have a irrational fear (phobia) of christians. I know the actions of one person is not the actions of the religion.

Islam in the US has a lot of misinformation beleive true by regular people that just breeds this Islamiphobia, especially when conflicts like thes are exacerbated among the media.

1.  Yes... you can.  You can't see it now... because it's not built.  However it's totally within view.  YOU need to take a better look.  Seriously.  It will be eaisly visibile on Vesey and Church street.

2.  Same difference?  It's going to be a 15 foot building with a dome.

3. It's got nothing to do with Phobias and everything to do with PTSD and just being REALLY damn insensitive.

1/2. Two very large buildings in the way. Sure you may be able to see top few floors of new building, but it will just look like any other tall building. After all the Mosque will only be part of one floor, not the whole building. Can you show me the plans of the new build to demonstrate what will be so offensive?

3. I just have to disagree with you here. I would never associate the terrorist action with anyone else but that specific group that carried out the attack. I have Palestinian family, yet I don't blame anyone but Israeli government laws and the extremist elements in Israel for their grievances. So I already have a real life example and already prove your point to be wrong.



FootballFan on 26 August 2010

I have a question based on the sensitivity vs responsibility arguement.

Lets say I went to someone's house and killed them then the police shot me down right there on the spot. My parents decided to buy a plot of land next to the other dead guys parents then built a statue (lets imagine they could do that) saying: "In memory of XYZ"

My parents would be perfectly allowed to build whatever they like based upon having these "Amercian freedoms", but in the circumstances, would it be right to specifically next to the other persons house based upon what had previously happened? It would clearly be insensitive when they probably be fine with building it just not in that exact radius.

Is it right to build a Chruch next to a Abortion clinic.....No

Is it right to build a mosque as part of the building....? This debate is going to rage on for years. Tbh I would be suprised if it ever gets fully built. In America thing's take years as it is to build...



theprof00 on 26 August 2010
Kasz216 said:
theprof00 said:
Kasz216 said:
 

Once again... you are simply not looking at it correctly.

If, radical Christians killed your daughter in an abortion clinic bombing near your work.

How would you feel about an Church being put up right next to said ruins that you have to drive by every day?


The mosque being there will be a sign of america's greatness.

But the greatness that we even protect the rights of people when they use those rights to be giant assholes.

The same as the KKK's right to throwing racist protests is a sign of America's greatness.

I wouldn't do anything about it. I, my family, and my daughter are tragic victims of fate. I wouldn't dare to take revenge by terrorizing the innocent. And I don't deign to think that my actions have any impact on the security of my loved ones or of humanity itself.

Who is "terrorizing the innocent."

If anything this community center is going to "terrorize the innocent" by causing victims and victims families to suffer PTSD attacks.

It's the same reason you wouldn't build a church nearby a burned out abortion clinic.

You wouldn't call these protests terrorizing?

When you see the hate on these people's faces, I'm sure it terrorizes the shit out of the other side, who haven't done anything wrong. They try to control the actions of others through fear. That's the basic definition of the word.

Why haven't they been protesting the mosque that's already right there? 
And let me question you about the ptsd comment.

How do you quantify that into a value? 

Where is the line? How many people do you need to have, and how mentally imbalanced do they need to be? 

If there is one person suffering, does that qualify?

Because of the undefinable nature of your evidence, I find it hard to take into consideration. 

I believe that those people should be allowed to live happy lives, but by your earlier statements comparing one level of violence to another and implying that it wasn't a big deal, they should deal with it. Right?