Why is the Muslim Canadian Congress OPPOSING the Islamic Community center two blocks from the WTC? (II)

105 posts / 0 new
Last post
No Yards No Yards's picture
Why is the Muslim Canadian Congress OPPOSING the Islamic Community center two blocks from the WTC? (II)
No Yards No Yards's picture

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

To get it completely off topic to make my point let's look at it this way: if I am walking down the street and someone says to me that I am too fat and consuming too much of the world's resources because of my weight, by your logic if I don't stop and have it out with them you are saying I agree? That somehow I owe an obligation to somebody (perhaps you because you are a freedom fighter wanting to fight for me only if I fight for myself or anyone else who might be overweight?). Now if I am in a crowd and someone is about to get their head beaten in just for standing their ground and I say lets get out of here-- just to protect them, then I am denying the defense or saying that the insult is true?

Stockholm -- usually you do better with logic than this. Take a look at your statement and see if you think it really stands the test of basic logic. Otherwise we'll have to have one of those I-see-a-cat-it's-black-there-is-another-it-is-black-ergo-all-cats-are-black discussions.

 

Actually Stockholms logic is fine ... I have a little problem with your though.

How about if a large portion of the country decided that in their opinion you shouldn't be allowed to walk down the street any longer because it was disrespectful to the skinny people not consuming so much of the world's resources? Now if you decided that so many people find you disrespectful by simply existing in their presents, I guess they are right in demaning that you not show my face in public again?

Your comparison would be more applicable if a small group or a single Muslim walking by the proposed community center decided not to stand up against some bullies picketing on the street ... fine, get yourself out of harms way of a bully, but when those bulies want it to become law or official public policy, then when the fuck do you stand up for your rights if not then?

Don't let yourself be fooled into believing this is just a matter of "resepect" ... when the people claiming they are just talking about simple "respect" are the same ass holes who just the day before had gone through convultions to outlaw you, then failing that tried to use city zoning laws to stop you, when they now come pretending to be "all nice" asking you to "show us some respect", ask then where was the "respect" when you refused to even listen to your side of the issue?

What we need to "disrespect" is people who have no "RESPECT" for rights, liberties, freedoms, equality and justice ... the haters should be shown no "resepct", the respect should be reserved for the people who stand up for EVERYBODIES rights, even if they have to "disrespect" a few bigots and racists along the way.

Sean in Ottawa

No Yards-- let me put it another way-- this is type of victim-blaming. You assume that because someone wants to pick a fight that you somehow have the obligation to fight. Does not work that way.

You can argue till you are blue in the face that it is better that the person fight back-- that their allies should give them the advice to fight back but you don't get to say that they are obliged upon penalty of your disrespect to fight back according to what you think they should do.

You missed my analogy completely.

In plain English (I'll try again). If you do not fight something you disagree with -- even if you argue that an ally of yours does not fight something you disagree with, that does not mean that you suddenly agree with it.

And since we are talking about not just any group here-- but THE group that is getting the most bigotry and racism of any here-- who the hell are you or I or anyone outside that group to tell them -- any of them -- what battles they must fight and what advice they must give each other about whether or not to fight a given issue. Who the hell are you, me or anyone else to think that we can call them names for not advising each other to fight or take some strategy they think is best. Who the hell are we, you or me to tell them that because they advised each other not to have this battle that they now agree with those that call them murderers.

Now look at Stockholm's statement-- he is saying that the Muslim Congress of Canada is stating that they agree that:

"Muslims are collectively responsible for 9/11 and we are hereby acknowledging that it was all our fault".

Don't you think that is a little much to say to them? Don't you think that is a little offensive? Why do you think that because they don't want this battle that they are saying this? It is an unbelievable statement.

Sean in Ottawa

No Yards I assume you are aware that this was not some non-Muslim observer that we are talking about.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

No Yards-- let me put it another way-- 

You can argue till you are blue in the face.

You missed my analogy completely.

In plain English (I'll try again). 

- who the hell are you or I or anyone outside that group to tell them -

Don't you think that is a little much to say to them? Don't you think that is a little offensive? Why do you think that because they don't want this battle that they are saying this? It is an unbelievable statement.

Just another respectful post from Sean

Still PM'ing the moderators to get people banned for not living up to your politeness tests?

George Victor

Kropy, that's kind of a cowardly crock.

George Victor

George Victor wrote:

Kropy, that's kind of a cowardly crock on your part.  Quite shitty, really.

Sean in Ottawa

Kropotkin,

I am asking you to edit out that personal attack that implies you have some knowledge of personal messages I may have sent at some time in the past to people other than you and that you are prepared to use that information on the open board.

I think you should remove it perhaps not because of anything mods might do to you, or even because it is extremely nasty, but because it advertises exactly what kind of person you are.

It is intended to make me look bad, obviously, but I can't see how you could think it makes you look good.

Cueball Cueball's picture

You mean to say that you deny the claim that you have sent PM's to the mods trying to get people banned?

Sean in Ottawa

Ok so I guess I have no choice here was the message I sent about Kropotkin about 6 weeks ago that he is throwing out here. And nowhere in it did I ask him to be banned -- I just asked the mods to not ignore the problem:

***

"Was this really ok?
"Yes sir massa sir. Can I go now?"
Because if it is perhaps I should stop trying to be respectful around here.
It seems some people can really say what they like and others cannot -- at least that's the impression I'm getting.
I find the racist undertones of the comment deeply offensive and see no reason why it was brought up for simply disagreeing with me.
As a point of fact that last paragraph he objected to I was trying to credit him where I could while still objecting to the comparison he was making.
Anyway, since you were there to close it and I had already flagged the post earlier, I wonder if I should assume his post was ok?
If I can make that assumption, please spell out where the line is because I just don't know where it is here.
And yes, not everyone is posting here in total secrecy, even my daughters who are somewhat political follow my posts here so, yes, it is an issue when people get personal since not everyone here is as anonymous as everyone else.
I realize this is quite close to the last time I considered the point of being here but this is getting ridiculous-- Can you Mods please draw the line more firmly and enforce it a bit? And when you visit a thread to close it please respond to anything unacceptable if it is in the last couple posts because by closing it you are stopping the person being discussed from responding. And maybe a part of closing a thread ought to include checking if anything had been flagged as offensive and responding to that.
Don't get me wrong -- I am not pretending being a mod is easy-- largely thankless but your role is to introduce some civility and fairness here and I think that's a needed part of it.
I also do very much appreciate what you personally do here-- but I am feeling a bit burned since it has been a few times I've had a blow the belt shot taken at me -- and no response come from Mods- at least until I kicked up a major fuss. Isn't this place supposed to be more welcoming than that? I assume this kind of crap drives a lot of people away from here before they write their first post. Like any harassment the issue is not just for the person who is the direct target but the environment that is permitted to exist. The more people get away with the more they do-- simple as that.

I think it is a major problem to have two poster make my personal correspondence a public issue but I have not deleted anything so if they need to see it that is better than them telling lies about it.

****

And since Cueball is getting involved (he is pissed because I called him on calling me a Dickwad). Here is the message I sent on that:

****
"So one person calling another a dickwad is not something you think is worth responding to???

Wow. Please point out exactly what I said that merited the name calling
or how the name calling ever got to be two-sided sniping -- I did not
get personal.

While you are at it, please explain how sexual sexist personal insults are somehow ok on Babble now -- Mod approved.

I am for the first time not just disgusted by a poster-- something that
can happen from time to time, but I am disgusted by this place and by
you."

***

I have never asked that anyone be banned but I have asked that some basic standards avoiding things like "yes massa" which is racist and offensive (Kropotkin) and "dickwad" which is offensive perhaps sexist.
Now since you want to make it as public as possible do you really think that these two comments would not justifiably get a complaint?

Cueball Cueball's picture

Well, fortunately, I have no such disclosures to make, since I never contact the mods about anything, let alone make detailed complaints.

George Victor

If you find the salivating crowd gathering, Sean, just ignore the bastards...like the "moderators" do.  I went through the experience not long ago.

Sean in Ottawa

So Cueball since you are trying to say that I said something that I did not say and you refer to something that should have been private the only way I can refute it is to post those messages. So now can you remove and edit your post because it is a lie.

And no I have not ever sent a PM asking someone to be banned. I have asked that the mods respond to things as offensive as the crap these two like to sling. I have asked that they be more firm than it seemed they were-- and by that a warning might be a step -- I never specified banning.

Banning is not my decision.

Now please any Mod that has a request from me to ban someone please post it here. Let's clear this up.

And interesting to see that Kropotkin and Cueball after 6 weeks away from a fight now want to draw back in to one unprovoked and to try to involve what would have been private messages.

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Sean you post insults with a velvet touch.  I prefer to call them as I see them.  You demand standards from others that you don't follow yourself.  

 

George Do I get to call you a bastard?  Is that what you call playing nice?  

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

We're supposed to be friends folks, remember who the enemy is.  It's much bigger than any of us.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

My problem Sean is I haven't mastered the subtle sophistry of the conservative frat house.  You know the wrapped insult where if anyone complains they point to the wrapping and feign innocence.  That is not my style I prefer to just tell someone in plain language what I think.

Sean in Ottawa

Kropotkin, Maybe you should try some velvet yourself. Doesn't hurt to know where the line is.

I don't call for standards I don't follow. In fact that has at times been the only thing keeping me from telling you what I really think of you. It is not like I don't know the words-- I just delete them before I hit the "post comment" button.

 

Sean in Ottawa

I don't doubt Kropotkin that you see insult where none is meant but somehow conflate it into something else. Then you fly off the handle and blame the other person for your delusion. A political board prone to argument must be a difficult place for you.

And conservative frat house -? Wow. So you are suggesting that I am some kind of rich kid with a silver spoon now?

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Ok everyone, take a deep breath. Get back to the topic at hand please.

Sean in Ottawa

What's that? discussing what I may or may not have said in a private message?

Cueball Cueball's picture

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Kropotkin, Maybe you should try some velvet yourself. Doesn't hurt to know where the line is.

I don't call for standards I don't follow. In fact that has at times been the only thing keeping me from telling you what I really think of you. It is not like I don't know the words-- I just delete them before I hit the "post comment" button.

 

Precisely. That is what Kropotkin was talkning about. You are agressively nasty and say insulting things all the time, but you delete the bad words. When people respond in kind, but don't delete the bad words, you run to the moderators to try and get them to formal admonish the people for using bad words, who have just responded to your nasty attack, Like the time I called you a "dickwad", after you called me "an enemy of labour", because I don't like the NDP.

Sean in Ottawa

I did not call you an enemy of labour I made a comment about your post not about you:

Your comment:

Revealing in full force the reality, which is that the definition of labour actionable here excludes most of the working class.

My comment that you quoted to show which part you had trouble with:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Of course, there is an agenda here based on whatever anger some people have towards the NDP that in the last comment appears now to be anti-union. I guess that is fair enough since once you cannot deny the relationship between working people and the NDP you have to go after the organizations of working people. In the end, each of us standing alone can be honourable and pure but we will never individually be strong enough to be political actors. It is our organizations be they political or labour that can provide hope and through all the anger at whatever issue you hold most dear, it is important not to forget this. By all means fight to turn our organizations in to what you want them to be, hold them to account and criticize, but to deny their value and call for their destruction does not help any of the causes you claim to support.

(emphasis all yours)

My comment was a reply to yours that I found objectionable-- still I only went as far as to say that your POST APPEARED to be anti-labour.

So, since clearly the Mod here thinks we are all even and thinks that the lies about my personal correspondence is only equal to what I said which was not personal at all, and you and Kropotkin have more problems with me not insulting you directly than being direct how is this: Stop being a fucking liar! Does that work better for you, you fucking asshole?

KenS

Oh boy. Lets replay boys gutter talk.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Sean and Cueball, walk away now. This has nothing to do with being "even" or setting the record straight. It has to do with keeping order and getting this thread back on topic, which is not your personal dislike for each other. Do not drag other threads into this one. Stick to the MCC, Ground Zero and the proposed Islamic Cultural Center.

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

edit: crossposted with Catchfire.

Sean in Ottawa

deleted

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

deleted

Cueball Cueball's picture

Posted.

No Yards No Yards's picture

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

No Yards-- let me put it another way-- this is type of victim-blaming. You assume that because someone wants to pick a fight that you somehow have the obligation to fight. Does not work that way.

You can argue till you are blue in the face that it is better that the person fight back-- that their allies should give them the advice to fight back but you don't get to say that they are obliged upon penalty of your disrespect to fight back according to what you think they should do.

You keep trying to make a comparison about individuals and deciding whether to go out to the parking lot, and sure, if that all this means yo you, then I guess you have a point ... but this is an issue of constitutional rights and freedoms ... no, the Muslim group behind this project doesn't have to listen to any of us, although for the record they are not backing down as yet, but then when it comes to issues as far reaching as constitutional rights and equality, everyone should be free to take a stance ... after all, these ARE the kinds of issues we have protest marches about, and I don't ever recall anyone marching in the streets protesting the political issues involved in a parking lot brawl.

Quote:

You missed my analogy completely.

In plain English (I'll try again). If you do not fight something you disagree with -- even if you argue that an ally of yours does not fight something you disagree with, that does not mean that you suddenly agree with it.

And since we are talking about not just any group here-- but THE group that is getting the most bigotry and racism of any here-- who the hell are you or I or anyone outside that group to tell them -- any of them -- what battles they must fight and what advice they must give each other about whether or not to fight a given issue. Who the hell are you, me or anyone else to think that we can call them names for not advising each other to fight or take some strategy they think is best. Who the hell are we, you or me to tell them that because they advised each other not to have this battle that they now agree with those that call them murderers.

My only problem with any of "THEM" is with Tarek, who wants to suspend the rights of Canadian Muslims in order  to force his concept of "freedom" onto them ... I don't care what religion he claims to belong to, the point is not his religious affiliation, it's his anti-democratic bullshit.

Quote:

Now look at Stockholm's statement-- he is saying that the Muslim Congress of Canada is stating that they agree that:

"Muslims are collectively responsible for 9/11 and we are hereby acknowledging that it was all our fault".

Don't you think that is a little much to say to them? Don't you think that is a little offensive? Why do you think that because they don't want this battle that they are saying this? It is an unbelievable statement.

No, I see that as a completely logical and consistent take on what the MCC is saying ... maybe they don't mean to say this, but that's the message it sends ... that's the message that those against the mosque are definitely claiming to be reason a mosque cannot be built ... if the MCC thinks this is not worth fighting about, then one would assume that there will be no push back from them for any of the other ongoing cases where Muslims are facing protests against their mosque and their "disrespectful locations" ... if it's not worth it in New Your, then its not worth it anywhere (to paraphrase an old song.)

So where would the MCC like to take a stance for Muslims ' rights to build a mosque?

Ground Zero a little too "sensitive" to fight for? How about Staten Island then? No, then how about Tennessee then? No, still too close? How about California then? When do we expect it will be time to start fighting back and defending the rights of a minority religion? Maybe we can ask some of the Jews here if they see any possible problem with "just letting it go", or "sitting back and letting the oppressed and intimidated minority deal with it themselves"?

 

Stockholm

Today Newt Gingrich said the following:

""Nazis don't have the right to put up a sign next to the holocaust museum in Washington," Gingrich insisted, speaking of the museum where just a year ago a guard was killed by a white supremacist trying to enter the building with a gun.

Gingrich then went on to claim that "we would never accept the Japanese putting up a site next to Pearl Harbor." (Note to Mr. Gingrich - there actually is a Japanese Buddhist temple right at Pearl Harbour. Its been there for years - no one seems to care!!)

So, I guess the MCC agrees that building a Muslim community centre should be opposed because its like "Nazis putting up a sign next to a Holocaust Museum"????

Now an anti-mosque rally is happening and the guests of honour include Dutch neo-Nazi leader Geert Wilders etc...I just hope the MCC realizes who they are allying themselves with.

NDPP

re: Newt et al - a little background:

An Analysis of Anti-Islamic Polemic

http://canada.mediamonitors.net/Headlines/An-Analysis-of-Anti-Islamic-Po...

"Truly, anti-Islamic polemic  is older than the Crusades. Since the time of John of Damascus (c.675-c.749) Islam was depicted as a Christian heresy.."

Why Don't Americans Like Muslims?

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/LH17Ak01.html

"What is surprising is how passionately Americans oppose the Ground Zero mosque.."

'Ground Zero' Mosque to Move?

"Have Muslim leaders behind the misnomered 'Ground Zero' mosque backed down?"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/16/ground-zero-mosque-to-mov_n_684...

KenS

Events have moved way past this now. But...

For quite a while that I was hearing about this, I didnt pay attention to the details. I often to do that with news that is as predictable as it pisses me off.

So I just see headlines and verbal clip leaders, and from them I just assume we are talking about a mosque ON the WTC site.

Its only this week I hear that its two blocks away. Two blocks in the heart of Manhattan financial district is not even "next to the site".

I mean, my reaction is the same even if it was on the site. And really we're talking two blocks away? How pathetic.

George Victor

With the conflation of the positions of Newt Gingrich and the MCC  in argument, "pathetic" describes the lengths to which arguments can go in a world free of logic or credible constraint on opinion across cultural divides.

George Victor

Two blocks is too far.  Would one block be pushing the envelope in a relativistic world?  Isn't this reducing it to objectivism, ignoring the idea, the principle? 

DaveW

Stockholm wrote:

Gingrich then went on to claim that "we would never accept the Japanese putting up a site next to Pearl Harbor." (Note to Mr. Gingrich - there actually is a Japanese Buddhist temple right at Pearl Harbour. Its been there for years - no one seems to care!!)

So, I guess the MCC agrees that building a Muslim community centre should be opposed because its like "Nazis putting up a sign next to a Holocaust Museum"????

some very good points; did not realize that there was such a shrine at Pearl Harbor, amazing it has not been widely cited

in any case, in the 1980s, then Pope John Paul ceded to broad pressure to close a Carmelite nuns'  prayer centre at Auschwitz, so any religious presence, benign or not, can be seen a sign of desecration , if presented that way ...

No Yards No Yards's picture

NoDifferencePartyPooper wrote:

"What is surprising is how passionately Americans oppose the Ground Zero mosque.."

'Ground Zero' Mosque to Move?

"Have Muslim leaders behind the misnomered 'Ground Zero' mosque backed down?"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/16/ground-zero-mosque-to-mov_n_684...

 

Not positive but I think huffingtonpost has confused a different compromise.

They make mention of the "Cordoba House", which is what the project was going to be called before another (maybe the same) group of ignorant bigots got up in arms over the name which they claimed was a reference to the Muslim invasion of Spain, and a "slap in the face" to the USA some how ... of course Cordoba was long ago recaptured by the Christians, so it's not likely that the Muslim group was trying to insult the USA by referencing a city they lost.

Anyway, they decided in order to keep the peace that they would change the name, and the project is now called Park 51.

Of course that would never satisfy the ignorant bigots, since they don't deal in facts they have a bottomless list of stupid  fact free "complaints" to draw from.

KenS

No Yards wrote:

They make mention of the "Cordoba House", which is what the project was going to be called before another (maybe the same) group of ignorant bigots got up in arms over the name which they claimed was a reference to the Muslim invasion of Spain, and a "slap in the face" to the USA some how ... of course Cordoba was long ago recaptured by the Christians, so it's not likely that the Muslim group was trying to insult the USA by referencing a city they lost.

Cordoba was [is] generally seen as the zenith of Muslim civilization in Spain. Part of the being the zenith of a rich pluralistic society where Christians and Jews also did very well. [The Jewish scholar Mahmedes (sorry for the butchered name) was from Cordoba.]

Given where the projest is to be located, I'd be willing to bet that it is the rich pluralism that the builders wanted to evoke.

The Muslim conquest of Spain was not as epochal as many other Muslim conquests. And if it was referred to, the origonal conquest of Cordoba is even less noteworthy.

No Yards No Yards's picture

Thanks for the quick history lesson KenS, if I recall correctly your take on the name was exactly what the "Cordoba house" was meant to convey.

Just as a followup note ... the huffingtonpost post that suggests the mosque will be moved has an update:

Quote:
UPDATE: According to the Park 51 Twitter account, Haaretz's report of a move is "completely false."

George Victor

KenS wrote:
Events have moved way past this now. But... For quite a while that I was hearing about this, I didnt pay attention to the details. I often to do that with news that is as predictable as it pisses me off. So I just see headlines and verbal clip leaders, and from them I just assume we are talking about a mosque ON the WTC site. Its only this week I hear that its two blocks away. Two blocks in the heart of Manhattan financial district is not even "next to the site". I mean, my reaction is the same even if it was on the site. And really we're talking two blocks away? How pathetic.

 

Try again:

"Two blocks is too far?  Would one block be pushing the envelope in a relativistic world?  Isn't this reducing it to objectivism, ignoring the idea, the principle? " ... like the principle involved in naming it Cordoba.

KenS

And actually Cordoba is symbolic of the re-conquest of Spain by Christians- the centre of the Caliph having fallen to them relatively early.

George Victor

KenS wrote:
And actually Cordoba is symbolic of the re-conquest of Spain by Christians- the centre of the Caliph having fallen to them relatively early.

 

I understand the historical reference, Charlton Heston managed to recapture it for Christianity as el Cid, or something - clever, subtle devils considering that name - but am increasingly concerned about the seeming obsession with measured distances:

Try yet again:

"Two blocks is too far?  Would one block be pushing the envelope in a relativistic world?  Isn't this reducing it to objectivism, ignoring the idea, the principle? " ... (removing any reference to distracting Cordoba...

Cueball Cueball's picture

George Victor wrote:

With the conflation of the positions of Newt Gingrich and the MCC  in argument, "pathetic" describes the lengths to which arguments can go in a world free of logic or credible constraint on opinion across cultural divides.

 

George. The MCC is an organization of about six people, who make a lot of money being pundits who say the things that mainstream media like to hear. That is about it. They represent no one in the Muslim community, and are not influential.

It has a "board of directors" and a web presence, and that is about. They get a lot of ink because they are Muslims (?) who can be counted on to take the position of the right.

George Victor

Cueball wrote:

George. The MCC is an organization of about six people, who make a lot of money being pundits who say the things that mainstream media like to hear. That is about it. They represent no one in the Muslim community, and are not influential.

I thought there was a sizeable following, Cue.  If they are indeed so limited in attractiveness in the Canadian Muslim community I'll retire from battle. But I really would like Ken's answer to my "objectivism" concern...you know, one block or two, etc.

KenS

I see that a question is directed at me.

But it must be some other conversation, becaue I dont understand at all.

Ripple

[drift]

Tariq Ali's "Shadow of the Pomegranate Tree" and "A Sultan in Palermo" are good fictional accounts of not quite Cordoba, but the historical meeting of Islam and Christianity.  Actually, this is true of the entire series.

see: http://www.socialistreview.org.uk/article.php?articlenumber=9871  for a discussion of the quintet.

I've also been told that Amin Maalouf is a wonderful author.  The library does not list any of his titles, though I've requested that they be acquired.

[/drift]

George Victor

KenS wrote:
I see that a question is directed at me. But it must be some other conversation, becaue I dont understand at all.

 

Sorry Ken, I was having a bit of fun, and thought that an old googler would have looked up objectivism after several references.  I mean, your concern with the distance of the mosque from the 9-11 site, one block or two, instead of concern for the thinking of an (apparently tiny) cadre of Canadian muslims.

 

I would not accuse you of being a follower of Ayn Rand:

 

From Wiki: "The name "Objectivism" derives from the principle that human knowledge and values are objective: they are not created by the thoughts one has, but are determined by the nature of reality, to be discovered by man's mind.[2] Rand stated that she chose the name because her preferred term for a philosophy based on the primacy of existence - "existentialism" - had already been taken.[3]"

al-Qa'bong

Ripple wrote:

[drift]

Tariq Ali's "Shadow of the Pomegranate Tree" and "A Sultan in Palermo" are good fictional accounts of not quite Cordoba, but the historical meeting of Islam and Christianity.  Actually, this is true of the entire series.

see: http://www.socialistreview.org.uk/article.php?articlenumber=9871  for a discussion of the quintet.

I've also been told that Amin Maalouf is a wonderful author.  The library does not list any of his titles, though I've requested that they be acquired.

[/drift]

 

Shadow of the Pomegranate Tree is heartbreaking.

 

I read Maalouf's history of the Crusades, which is a good window on the Arab perspective, which we don't get much of anywhere. I didn't really like The First Century after Beatrice, though. Mme. Qa'bong has read all his novels - she's a big fan.

Stockholm

DaveW wrote:

in any case, in the 1980s, then Pope John Paul ceded to broad pressure to close a Carmelite nuns'  prayer centre at Auschwitz, so any religious presence, benign or not, can be seen a sign of desecration , if presented that way ...

The situation at Auschwitz was totally different. The nuns wanted to place to pray that the victims at Auschwitz be redeemed (ie: accept Christ) etc... and not surprisingly since about 90% of the people murdered at Auschwitz were Jewish there was a lot of sensitivity around an ultra-conservative Catholic order praying for the souls of Jews. I can assure you that in the village of Oswiecim (Auschwitz in Polish) - there are many Catholic churches that are just there for the local people to attend. No one has ever demanded that all churches be uprooted from a 50 mile radius of Auschwitz.

An analogy to Auschwitz would be if some disciples of Bin Laden wanted to open a mosque at Ground Zero where they could pray for the souls of the "infidels" who died at the WTC and that they all redeem themselves by converting to Islam in the afterlife.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Meanwhile at the REAL ground zero they don't seem to have any problems with Moslems or Christians.  Just goes to show the true nature of the beast to the south. The only things that are ever forgiven in America are their own war crimes.  

I am not Moslem but given the Japanese Canadian experience I would not want to rely on being good citizens who don't cause a fuss to protect me when the "racists" start making laws.  Many men from that community fought in WWI and their children went to public schools in towns all over coastal BC.  They thought they were Canadians until they were rounded up and put in DETENTION centers. 

 

http://www.islamicfinder.org/getitWorld.php?id=38097

http://www.japaninyourpalm.com/unionchurch.htm

al-Qa'bong

The Angry Arab weighs in:

Quote:

The controversy continues. The original idea is lousy: a kitsch of sorts but why should religious kitsch be denied to Muslims when it is a habit among all religious groups in this country. Of course, the debate is more than filled with much more than a tinge of racism and bigotry that you expect when the debate is about Muslims in the US. Support for the Palestinians becomes evidence of terrorist inclinations and sympathy. It is really ironic that when Muslims try to appease the country in which they live in and they try to win popular sympathy they get slapped on the face. This is one example. By the way, according to the four Sunni schools of jurisprudence, mosques should not be constructed adjacent to one another because the idea of the mosque was to congregate as many Muslims as possible, and there are already two mosques only blocks from the site. But the ADL is clear: they dont mind if a mosque is constructed provided it is on the moon.

Frustrated Mess Frustrated Mess's picture

So let's say the muslim centre is not built, in the interests of sensitivity, should all muslims leave New York? The USA?

Pages

Topic locked