Proposed Mosque Near Ground Zero

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by AtLastHome

As is always the case, this religion is being singled out as the culprit. It isn't. The people that were responsible for 9/11 were a fringe group just like Christian Tea Party whackos and others commit violent acts against intitutions.

Also, Muslims died in 9/11...... as did people from various faiths and non-religious backgrounds it was a World Trade Center.... in a city that has always been a key melting-pot in the US.

It is exactly this kind of thinking that got the US attacked in the first place....

Well, I'm not sure that it's this kind of thinking that got us attacked. Al Qaeda had a reason--and it was a policy-based reason--but it was not so much our internal dynamics than it was our external actions. The thing is, bin Laden made it *clear* why he felt the US should be attacked in a 1998 fatwa. In that statement, it was the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia, our complete and utter control of the waters in the Persian Gulf, our support for Israel and our propping up of some of the most brutal dictators around while talking about democracy and human rights.

The great strategic stupidity of the Bush administration is that in invading Iraq, they made bin Laden right that the United States would, without provocation, invade a Muslim nation and he played right into it making bin Laden appear both correct *and* prescient. One should not let terrorists dictate the terms upon which foreign policy is played out and the Bush administration certainly did that.

They don't hate us for our freedom and they don't hate us for generally libertine ways. I'm not even sure that they hate us--they take a very dim view of our government's foreign policy but most international surveys I've seen on the topic suggest that both America (the ideas of our nation) and Americans (all us ordinary schmucks) are actually thought of pretty well globally. US government foreign policy? Not so much with the love.

I think that there are things we could do that would actually go quite a ways toward giving us firmer ground to stand on, defang some of the terrorist rhetoric and help us withdraw from our empire at the same time. There's no strategic region to be in Saudi Arabia so we should leave. While we're on our way out the door we should cut the House of Saud loose and let them work it out with their own people. We should, in fact, cut loose Mumbarak in Egypt and perhaps King Abdullah in Jordan unless they hold free, fair and UN monitored elections. I'm not suggesting these things because I think that they will prevent another attack--I don't. I'm suggesting we do these things because they're strategically smart things to do. The fact that these moves would likely reduce the energy behind the next attack is something we get 'for free'. Oh and it goes without saying that we should get the hell out of Iraq and Afghanistan.

If I can make a suggestion--when thinking about why the opposing force is doing what they are doing, try to get in their heads. You can start by looking at why your nation does things. Have we *ever* attacked another nation because we didn't like the way they ran their internal politics? No. Not that I am aware of, at least. We *have*, on the other hand, attacked other nations in pursuit of strategic policy goals. Assume that the OpFor is at least intelligent and sane enough to operate in much the same manner.

Cheers
Aj

[AtLast]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

Well, I'm not sure that it's this kind of thinking that got us attacked. Al Qaeda had a reason--and it was a policy-based reason--but it was not so much our internal dynamics than it was our external actions. The thing is, bin Laden made it *clear* why he felt the US should be attacked in a 1998 fatwa. In that statement, it was the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia, our complete and utter control of the waters in the Persian Gulf, our support for Israel and our propping up of some of the most brutal dictators around while talking about democracy and human rights.

The great strategic stupidity of the Bush administration is that in invading Iraq, they made bin Laden right that the United States would, without provocation, invade a Muslim nation and he played right into it making bin Laden appear both correct *and* prescient. One should not let terrorists dictate the terms upon which foreign policy is played out and the Bush administration certainly did that.

They don't hate us for our freedom and they don't hate us for generally libertine ways. I'm not even sure that they hate us--they take a very dim view of our government's foreign policy but most international surveys I've seen on the topic suggest that both America (the ideas of our nation) and Americans (all us ordinary schmucks) are actually thought of pretty well globally. US government foreign policy? Not so much with the love.

I think that there are things we could do that would actually go quite a ways toward giving us firmer ground to stand on, defang some of the terrorist rhetoric and help us withdraw from our empire at the same time. There's no strategic region to be in Saudi Arabia so we should leave. While we're on our way out the door we should cut the House of Saud loose and let them work it out with their own people. We should, in fact, cut loose Mumbarak in Egypt and perhaps King Abdullah in Jordan unless they hold free, fair and UN monitored elections. I'm not suggesting these things because I think that they will prevent another attack--I don't. I'm suggesting we do these things because they're strategically smart things to do. The fact that these moves would likely reduce the energy behind the next attack is something we get 'for free'. Oh and it goes without saying that we should get the hell out of Iraq and Afghanistan.

If I can make a suggestion--when thinking about why the opposing force is doing what they are doing, try to get in their heads. You can start by looking at why your nation does things. Have we *ever* attacked another nation because we didn't like the way they ran their internal politics? No. Not that I am aware of, at least. We *have*, on the other hand, attacked other nations in pursuit of strategic policy goals. Assume that the OpFor is at least intelligent and sane enough to operate in much the same manner.

Cheers
Aj

Oh, I see what your saying. I just feel that the US has always been so Christian focused, it has influenced how we treat, interact and make policy about non-Christian nations which has caused so much alienation. The only country I can think of in which this different is Israel.

I also feel that the US lacks the capcity to understand governments in which religion is central to policy and their societal structures and values. I may not agree with them, either, especially in terms of the role and treatment of women in particular, but, I think our Christian focus (blindness?) keeps us from contributing to the kinds of things that can bring glocal piece. Although, this just isn't a simple situation. Looking at oil for example, certainly brings up a lot of things and most certainly was in play during Dub'ya's terms! Cheny as VP made that very clear.

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by AtLastHome

Oh, I see what your saying. I just feel that the US has always been so Christian focused, it has influenced how we treat, interact and make policy about non-Christian nations which has caused so much alienation. The only country I can think of in which this different is Israel.

I also feel that the US lacks the capcity to understand governments in which religion is central to policy and their societal structures and values. I may not agree with them, either, especially in terms of the role and treatment of women in particular, but, I think our Christian focus (blindness?) keeps us from contributing to the kinds of things that can bring glocal piece. Although, this just isn't a simple situation. Looking at oil for example, certainly brings up a lot of things and most certainly was in play during Dub'ya's terms! Cheny as VP made that very clear.

I don't know that we've always had this Christian focus. If you read the Treaty of Tripoli, the US government under Jefferson bent over backward to show that the United States wasn't a Christian nation (it actually says that in the treaty) and has no quarrel with the "Musselmen" (the 19th century term for Muslims). It's only been since the Cold War that the US got so obsessed that we started moving in directions that can only be described as theocratic.

For very good reasons--and reasons I am actually enthusiastically in support of--Westerners (this isn't an American problem) have a bit of trouble understanding states run by religions because Western Christendom made a pretty clear break between church and state after the European Enlightenment. That simply has not happened in the Middle East and in parts of Southeast Asia so we're certainly going to have problems understanding why, for instance, Iran works the way it does. In fact, of the Western nations America is probably *best* positioned to understand it because we are currently actively flirting with the idea of religious-rule or at least sectarian rule with a veneer of secularism just to keep up appearances for the neighbors. It is only in the United States that, for instance, a candidate who--as far as we can tell from her public pronouncements--really believes that there are demons and that prayer can combat them and have that person be viable as a political figure. Sarah Palin wouldn't last and certainly wouldn't be a power-broker in, say, Sweden but she is viable in the 2012 GOP primary. It seems to me that France, England, Germany *all* would have a much more difficult time understanding the role that the belief "God says our nation should do X" or "God says our society should be ordered thusly" has in public policy than the United States. Those nations are pretty thoroughly secular while the United States has a non-trivial population that *genuinely* believe that Jesus is returning soon, that people will be raptured up when he does show up, and that the state of Israel must exist so that the Jews therein can be 'perfected' or, failing that, wiped out to hasten the battle of Armageddon. We have people in the last administration who believe that so fervently, in fact, that they designed foreign policy around that belief!

The American problem with understanding, for instance, Iran has much more to do with religious differences than in not understanding how the nominally secular government of Iran could be beholden to the religious authorities. We're most of the way there already and there are any number of public policies whose proponents can *only* justify them in terms of religion (prayer in schools, anti-Darwinism in schools, anti-gay, anti-abortion, anti-birth control and non-fact-based sex education being the main examples).

I'm curious, what do you think a less Christian focused view would do for the cause of world peace?

Cheers
Aj

[betenoire]

On topic. Anybody who opposes the building of this community centre has some -serious- self-examination to do.

Off topic. I -really- hate the term "melting pot". Just sayin'.

(Okay, not "just sayin'" It implies a melting away of different cultures. It implies assimilation. It implies becoming "more American". It's poopy.)

More off topic. I so dig that the Holy Trilogy got dragged into this discussion. Some of you people are such giant nerds it makes me want to lick your eyeballs.

Further off topic. Obama was right - Five Guys has the best fucking burgers in the universe. Omg.

[JustJo]

Originally Posted by betenoire

Off topic. I -really- hate the term "melting pot". Just sayin'.

(Okay, not "just sayin'" It implies a melting away of different cultures. It implies assimilation. It implies becoming "more American". It's poopy.)

I concur....and prefer to think of us as a nice salad...lots of different flavors, all tossed together. Much better as far as I'm concerned.

[betenoire]

We need a "well-meaning phrases/words that rub us the wrong way" thread

Originally Posted by JustJo

promote "tolerance" (I hate that word)

Exactly. Doesn't "tolerance" basically mean "I put up with but don't understand, embrace, or even actually like _____" ?

Originally Posted by JustJo

I concur....and prefer to think of us as a nice salad...lots of different flavors, all tossed together. Much better as far as I'm concerned.

I like Mosaic. It's pretty and you don't have to eat it.

[AtLast]

Originally Posted by betenoire

On topic. Anybody who opposes the building of this community centre has some -serious- self-examination to do.

Off topic. I -really- hate the term "melting pot". Just sayin'.

(Okay, not "just sayin'" It implies a melting away of different cultures. It implies assimilation. It implies becoming "more American". It's poopy.)

More off topic. I so dig that the Holy Trilogy got dragged into this discussion. Some of you people are such giant nerds it makes me want to lick your eyeballs.

Further off topic. Obama was right - Five Guys has the best fucking burgers in the universe. Omg.

Melting pot via its traditional definition is poopy. For me, it has always meant something different, even opposing because I see the lead pot to be the impermeable holder of customs and traditions of various cultures. Just how my first generation mind works.

I want a burger....

[Toughy]

I want a green chile cheeseburger (the best in the world) from a local dive burger joint known as Dave's in Santa Fe NM.........if it's still open.......if not then I want the green chile cheeseburger from The Tecolate Bar in San Antonio NM (it's south of Albuquerque and birth home to Conrad Hilton and has a population of about 200 on a good day)......I so miss NM green chiles and the smell of them roasting.......

wait this is not a burger thread..........sorry........

[afixer]

Originally Posted by betenoire

Further off topic. Obama was right - Five Guys has the best fucking burgers in the universe. Omg.

this is the truth.


this is worth repeating.

After the number of Americans killed by it,
I cannot abide by such a disrespectful act of building a McDonald's so close to the WTC!

[turasultana]

There's a 5 guys burgers in park slope brooklyn... I think I need to go again soon.

[lipstixgal]

Golly is there a five guys in NJ?? lol

[JustJo]

Just to go back to the original question....

I am in favor of allowing this community center and mosque to be built. While I understand that the thought hurts many people, I believe that the only way to heal those wounds is through understanding and making connections.

As many here have pointed out "Muslims" didn't attack the WTC. Terrorists did. Big difference.

Allowing the community center to be built will give people a chance to get to know each other as individuals and as families...not as misunderstood concepts, political tools, or media scare tactics.

I attended a small grad school program with a Muslim man for two years, and was able to have many conversations about what that faith really teaches, to see him with his children and his wife, to hear how he interacted with fellow students, and to debate and converse on many occasions. Knowing him and his family did more to enhance my understanding and promote "tolerance" (I hate that word) than any media report, book, sermon, political speech...whatever.

People have to have the opportunity to get to know each other in order to understand, to accept and maybe even to embrace. This is a good first step.