I'm sorry--how is the opposition to the proposed NYC mosque not out-and-out bigotry?

From everything I understand, this mosque would be for a mainstream congregation of Muslims. I don't think there's been any indication that this is for a terrorist front group or Al Quaeda sympathizers.

Would there be any objection if instead of a mosque, it was for a church or synagogue? Of course not.

"But neither Christianity or Judaism attacked us on September 11th!" would be the likely response.

To that I would say, yes, you are correct. Christianity and Judaism did not attack us on September 11th.

But neither did Islam attack us on September 11th. Just a small sect of people who misappropriated a legitimate religion for violent and hateful purposes. And that is something that every religion can fall victim to.

Furthermore, this site isn't even at Ground Zero--it's several blocks away.

So again, I have to ask--how is the opposition to this not simple and unadulterated bigotry and small mindedness?

call for people to kill, hunt and destroy Democrats. What's the difference.

some members of DU.

Some people on my FB page, including siblings, are disgusting me because they see nothing wrong with it.

Apparently Christianity is the 'official' religion of the United States :eyes:

This congregation lost members on 9/11. They have no ties to any radical groups.

then there should be a ban on construction of all houses of worship. I'd have the ACLU on this like white on rice if it were me.

i really know nothing about the actual merits of the mosque, or the proposed site, the impact on traffic, the need in that area, or any other actual considerations regarding the pros and cons of such a building effort.

what i do know is that if anyone opposes it WITHOUT supplying good, detailed non-bigotted reasons it is reasonable to conclude that they are bigotted.

but i also know that it's also wrong to simply conclude that ANY opposition must be bigotted simply because the mosque would support a discriminated group.

remember, democrats were nearly unanimous in our opposition to clarence thomas, notwithstanding his skin color. only a few senators (unfortunately) got squeamish at the idea of strongly opposing a black nominee. wanting to support blacks didn't mean you had to support this particular black man for this particular job.

similarly, it's possible that people might be fine with supporting the manhattan islamic community yet think that this particular mosque in this particular location is a bad idea. like i said, though, they need substantive arguments to support that position.

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/05/26/nyc-government-votes-in-favor-of-wtc-mosque/

That leaves us with this:

Sure enough, it would appear that radicals have wasted little time in climbing on board the bandwagon. Mark Williams, a leader of the fiscally and otherwise conservative Tea Party movement courted controversy when he recently made disparaging remarks about Islam, terrorism and the purported use of the mosque for propaganda by a “cult”.

http://beta.thehindu.com/news/international/article439079.ece?homepage=true

To who we know it was not the religion, just the small sect, who attacked us. We were attacked by terrorists, not Muslims.

There are people who profess to be liberals or Democrats and yet do things or say things I don't agree with.

...for the simple reason that the irrational thinking of religion is what made a handful of educated, largely middle-class men think that mass murder was a good thing.

Yeah, the city can't deny a building permit because it is Muslim rather than some other religion. And the people who will attend that mosque are not terrorists and were probably horrified by the Sept. 11 attacks. Nevertheless, I'm not going to presume that the peaceful Muslims are the "real" Muslims while the violent ones have somehow missed the point of it. Neither group has any better reason to think what they do than the other one does. It's the same with conservative Christians. On what basis can I conclude that Pat Robertson is wrong while liberal Christians (I can't think of a well-known example) are right? (And before you answer "The Bible," make sure you have actually read it.)

I understand the opposition even while recognizing that there really is no good reason to stop the project. If I hear about a suicide/mass murder anywhere in the world, you don't need too tell me what the perpetrator's religion is, because I already know. Different religions teach different things. For Christianity, suicide is a sin. It usually is in Islam too, but there seems to be a widely-accepted exception when it comes to martyrdom.

If you are going to accuse me of bigotry, please also explain what exactly I have said or left out that makes this factually wrong. If not, I will assume that you are only throwing out the bigot card because your position is indefensible. Some ideas in this world are better than others. The fact that an idea makes claims about god does not exempt it from criticism. In fact, the grander the claim, the more skeptical we have a right to be.

Easy. Look to the texts that form the basis of the religion. Don't simply percieve the religion in terms of Follower A or Follower B in any point in time or history.

So you think religion is irrational, and by all means, that is your believe that you are entitled to. You might think all religion is phony hocus-pocus, and that too is your rightful belief. But putting aside belief in any or all religions as a whole, the fact of the matter is religions exist in this world and will likely continue to exist in this world as long as humans live on earth. And I have yet to know of a major recognized religion that was founded on a theology of hate or express promotion of violence. Exclusivity? Perhaps. But not hate and violence. That is a matter of offshoot, not the religion itself.

It's a tribal fear of the "other." All three surviving Abrahamic religions are founded on violence and xenophobia. It is why they survived. When people become away of other points of view it calls religious dogma into question. Eventually such people stop believing as they largely have in much of Europe. Insularity, punishment of heresy and blaspheme and hostility to infidels are necessary ingredients for the survival of religion.

First of all, what the writings say is not the relevant question. What matters is how that religion is actually practiced. Besides, there is no good reason for accepting the pronouncement of ancient holy books as authoritative of anything. Even so, the writings themselves provide support for the violence. Until someone comes up with a factually demonstrable reason for believing one point of view over the other, I am justified in assuming they are all wrong.

Rejection of religious claims for lack of evidence or because of contrary evidence is not a belief.

Admittedly, I don't know much about Unrue. They committed crimes because of their own personalities and their own problems. They did not kill because people believed in the wrong kind of god. Someone once said (forgot who) that evil people will always do evil things, but to make good people do evil things, you need religion. The 9/11 hijackers thought that what they were doing was a moral imperative and that god would reward their righteousness. This is a perfectly logical opinion if one starts from the premise that god demands people follow Islam and not any other kind of religion or non-religious point of view.

Tiller thought... that he was doing god's work. You seem to be saying that Islam is an 'evil' religion while christianity is 'good'. They are just twins in their beliefs.

I stated that Islam allows and promises to reward suicide in certain circumstances while Christianity always forbids it. That is a fact. Not all religions teach the same thing. Personally, I find the one extreme as objectionable as the other. There are extreme times when suicide is reasonable. I'd rather kill myself than cause a loved one to die or suffer a painful, fatal disease. In Christianity, that is not allowed because suffering makes the believer holy.

That comparison is an accurate description of their respective dogmas. I don't need to qualify that by reassuring everyone that I am just as critical of Christianity. IF the evidence had been that one religion was substantially more ethical or moral than the other, then that would be a fact. In this case each is slightly better or worse than the other on specific details, but ultimately they are both pretty bad if examined without preconception.

The Tiller murderer and the 9/11 hijackers are two sides of the same coin. Each believes without any real reason to do that what they do is right. Not because it will end suffering or advance the human condition, but because their bronze age, sociopathic god says so.

Again, we have freedom of religion in this country, so there is no real basis to object to the mosque being built where they want. That does not mean people have to like it. And yeah, we do know what the hijackers were thinking. The circumstantial evidence makes it pretty clear.

This is probably the best article on the subject:

http://wisdomtoislam.com/myths-on-islam/why-islam-does-not-promise-72-virgins-for-martyrs

Many people are surprised when told that Islam does not promise 72 virgins, and actually condemns people who commit suicide.

No matter how many times it is repeated through the media, it will not changed the fact that such assertion is an absurd lie.

The harsh punishment promised by God for people who commit suicide murder could not be any clearer than the following verse of the holy Quran:

But let there be amongst you Traffic and trade by mutual good-will: Nor kill (or destroy) yourselves: for verily God hath been to you Most Merciful! If any do that in rancor and injustice, soon shall We cast them into the Fire: And easy it is for God. – Chapter 4 (Surah An-Nisa): Verse 29 – 30

So one might ask where such a myth could have sprung from and why the number “72 virgins”?

It comes from an alleged saying attributed to Prophet Muhammad, which has neither been verified nor authenticated. Muslims refer to these dubious sayings as Gharib Hadiths (saying of Prophet Muhammad (saaw) is that is conveyed by only one narrator.)

Sunan al-Tirmidhi Hadith 2562


It is interesting to note that majority of the Muslims outside the western world have not even heard of such saying, which ironically makes the west more aware of it than the Muslim world.





http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2002/jan/12/books.guardianreview5

This German guy believes that some of the words are Syriac and not Arabic, so the virgins are raisins.

it's possible that the terrorist are practicing the religion as it's supposed to be practiced while not ascribing similar leanings towards the whack-job violent Christians or Jews. I'd say that is a pretty good indication of bigotry on your part.

Wow that was easy.

I really have no idea what you mean by "while not ascribing similar leanings towards the whack-job violent Christians or Jews" or why that would be bigotry. So, I have to assume you are merely offended at criticism of religion and have no basis for refuting that criticism.

I'm pretty sure I was clear that others have the same problem and used Fundy Christians as an example. Anyway, the OP was writing about a mosque, not a church or a synagog. And the perfectly accurate fact is that Islam promises to reward suicide-murderers while Judaism and Christianity condemn it. Christianity expects us to suffer all extremities of torment for the faith of Christ rather than committing suicide. So yeah, it has its own problems. The point is that neither peaceful nor violent versions of religion X have any better basis in fact for believing what they do (and acting on those beliefs) than the other one does. Both liberal and Fundy Christians point to parts of the Bible to support their views. Neither of them has any actual evidence to show that side is the right reading or even that there is any reason to believe the Bible in the first place.

What do you mean "as it's supposed to be practiced?" Supposed by whom? Religion is defined by its practitioners. There is no one true standard.

mirror. SOMEONE in this conversation is ignorant and it's not me.

But to be perfectly clear here. You think it's okay to wax philosophical that perhaps the violent extremist version of Islam is the "true" version of it and you don't think that's offensive? Would you make such an assumption about Christianity or Judaism or would you assume that the crazies are outliers? Because people who wax philosophical about the extremists of one religion being the "true" version of that religion (and as a result you feel free to dismiss the religion and its followers) when you wouldn't make such a claim about the others IS bigoted.

I realize this gets you in a huff as someone who claims to be left of center I'm sure but then there are plenty of bigots who claim to be left of center so no pass for you.

"...to know it when I see it." That's what I thought.

It seems to me that bigotry usually takes one of two forms. The first is prejudging a group by ascribing certain characteristics to it--especially characteristics that can be the basis of value judgments--without any factual basis for it. The other is judging individuals by the group. I really don't think I have done either one here.

Also, I have not written a single positive thing about Christianity or Judaism here. Frankly, it would be difficult to think of one. In fact about the only positive comments I have ever made about Christianity anywhere on this website have been sarcastic. I'm pretty critical of all religions for their false promises and unsubstantiated claims. Since not all religions teach the same thing, however, there are also specific criticisms that apply to some but not others. For example while the god of the Old Testament is a psychotic bastard, at least he leaves his victims alone after they die. The concept of ETERNAL punishment began in the canonical gospels with the red letters of JC himself. (I note that because some here have ignored the bad parts of the Bible to such a degree that they only consider the quotations of JC authoritative, however unreliable they are.) Of course 600 years later the founders of Islam lifted that idea as they did with most of their two holy books.

As I have ofter stated, I am not prejudiced against Muslims, Christians, Jews, Hindus or followers of any other belief system. I do hate Nazis and Klansmen, but I really don't think that is a prejudgment. It's the belief systems themselves that I don't like and when people do evil things because they think god wants them to, I think I am justified in spelling out the cause of the problem. Even if I were critical of one religion and not another, it would not be bigotry if it is based on fact rather than preconception.

So, apparently I'm ignorant. What is it that I don't know that is relevant to this discussion? Enlighten me.

This has been clearly demonstrated, most eloquently by Sam Harris in his book, "The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason". Here's a talk given in 2005. At 23 min thru 27 min he articulates his argument that it is religion, not just extremest religion, that incites 9-11 type violence:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8013281663903762676#

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8423553&mesg_id=8423553

Ed.: Correction--thread began yesterday, not this morning.

*if* it were true that this mosque was being constructed AT GROUND ZERO (and it's not) I would object to it. But I would object to ANY religious institution. ANY of them. Quite frankly, it just sends the wrong fucking message to religio-crazy people.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Just WOW.

For those who did lose loved ones on September 11th and have voiced opposition to it, I do have some degree of sympathy but will also say that emotion has a way of clouding reason. For example, I am opposed to the death penalty because I believe it serves no actual purpose but bloodlust, and I believe it is unreasonable. Should a loved one of mine be murdered, I might in my emotion desire for the murderer to be executed. But that's speaking out of emotion, not out of reason.

As for people who didn't lose anyone on September 11th but still oppose the Mosque on the sole basis that it is a Muslim institution, I'm sorry--that's just bigotry.

"Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, a leader of the Cordoba Initiative, said he has been surprised by the vitriolic debate, since he has led his congregation ten blocks north of the World Trade Center for the past 27 years. His mosque lost several members on 9/11 and distributed bottled water to firefighters afterward.

Rauf said he plans to meet with the 9/11 family members who do not support the Cordoba House.

Rauf said emphatically that the center was “not a mosque. Though it will contain space for up to 2,000 Muslims to pray, it will also host many athletic and cultural events, possibly including the Tribeca Film Festival, he said. The Cordoba House may also include a memorial to those killed on 9/11.

“We want to rebuild this community,” Rauf said. “This is about the vast majority of moderate Muslims who want to be part of the solution.”"

Read more:

http://dnainfo.com/20100520/manhattan/politicians-rally-against-tea-party-bashing-of-world-trade-center-mosque#ixzz0p5qQ2O9l

This was posted by tammywammy yesterday in a related thread:

On Joy Behar, whack job Pam Geller spouting off her opposition to a mosque
http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8426169

There are a lot of people in this country whose lives have been shattered by attacks by radical Islamists. Many of them feel, UNDERSTANDABLY (if not "reasonably") that the broader Islamic community hasn't done enough to rid itself of the poison of the radical minority.

I wouldn't blame my mom's cousin for not wanting a mosque in her neighborhood.

Many of them feel, UNDERSTANDABLY (if not "reasonably") that the broader Islamic community hasn't done enough to rid itself of the poison of the radical minority.

Why is it that Americans only trot out that line about Muslims and never about Jews or Christians? There's nothing understandable about that sort of attitude at all...

But then I wouldn't argue that Rand Paul isn't a racist pig either and yet some people insist on trying to make that argument as well.

:shrug:

If you believe that Muslim terrorists killed 3000 Americans not far from there then I understand the feelings and think the mosque should choose another place to be.

Islam did not attack us on September 11th. From everything that I know, the congregation seeking to build the mosque has absolutely zero ties or sympathies to Al Quaeda.

So with that in mind, what is the issue, other than bigotry?

And obviously, you're not seeing the humor in this.:)

It's out and out bigotry.

bigots comfortable?

What a ridiculous notion.

No. Their job is to not make too many waves. :)

It's absolutely stupid from strategic stand point when it comes to battling islamic terrorism. (in my opinion) We should not be alienating non-violent/fundie muslims who are the best people to help us fight/prevent islamic terrorist because of their positions and sway. That's just my opinion, of course. I'm sure will somehow piss off people from all parts of political spectrum. I seem to have knack for doing that with my stupid and idiotic opinions and views. :(

So yes there is a Christian attack on that day.

The day the Ottoman Empire got its as handed to it on a platter by the King of Poland and his friends.

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

There are numerous cases of communities rising up against the building of Mormon temples in their communities.

In my own small community the local Mormon church had to be built outside the city limits because the local "Christian" churches protested and picketed against building on the land they owned in town.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

:thumbsup:

I believe a multi-cultural, multi-faith (and no-faith at all) center devoted to peace would be a much greater contribution than another religious shrine. Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Hindu, Buddhism, etc. etc. - all would be welcome to come and meditate, see photos, leave notes or memorials - whatever.

Having a single religion claim that place, a central, highly public place, near such a culturally significant area such as the World Trade Center calamity that had such global implications is dead wrong, imho. It's the absolute worst message to send on many levels.

I believe we need to transcend the religious bullshit and emphasize our commonalities, not the divisiveness of one religion vs another, especially at such a sensitive site.

I don't believe this is bigotry, I believe it's looking beyond the narrowness of a single religion and trying to reach deeper.

there are churches nearby. I don't understand why this is a problem.

Ask people what they would think of building a Christian church nearby and they would ask you why you consider that news at all, much less the least bit controversial.

Muslims did not attack us. Extremist terrorists who used religion as their excuse attacked us. Most Muslims were as horrified as anyone in any other religion.

Opposition is out and out bigotry.