[Flipside]

The thing is, I'd really rather not be a Muslim living in New York these days, I suspect life is very difficult for people of that religion in the city that was the victim of of the 9/11 attacks. Personally I'd say that any kind of centre where people can meet and discuss social or faith matters, like the proposed open Community Centre, would, rather than be helping the Terrorists, instead would be kicking them in the teeth by trying to help to improve tolerance between Muslims and non-Muslims in New York. If there's one thing that Terrorists want, it's internal strife, particularly strife directed as Muslims, so, in truth, those who are holding up the placards are probably being cheered on by Terrorist elements, because they are doing their promotional work for them.

[Unknown Target]

That's a good point Flipside - but the opposition to the Mosque isn't opposed to them building one; they're opposed to them building one in relatively close proximity to the WTC remains. Again, I know it's really not anywhere near Ground Zero - but at this point, does it even matter anymore? People feel as if it is, and feelings are what's pushing this debate along. I'm sure if they located it anywhere else (and I'm sure there are many different suitable, high profile locations), people would be fine with it...so again, if they really really want it that close to the WTC area, then they should be willing to compromise, because by putting it there and basically telling the other side to be quiet, they're probably doing more damage to their cause than they are good.

[Bobboau]

hell they could probably even move it closer, just the act of moving it at all would send a message of 'Im willing to compromise'

[Unknown Target]

Yea I think that's the main sticking point. They're refusing to compromise on something that they should really consider compromising on - they're kind of staying behind this wall of "we're trying to reconcile our differences", when in reality the refusal to compromise (again, on both sides) is making reconciliation even harder

[iamzack]

Uhm, so basically you're saying that a group of people who have already sunk a ****load of money into their project, who have nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11, who have every legal right to continue their project, should acquiesce to the inane, paranoid ravings of a bunch of racist morons?

land of the free, whoopee.

[Scotty]

**** that, build the community center.

The people who don't like it can go piss off somewhere else.

[Polpolion]

While I personally believe that they are entitled to and if they really want to, have all the right to build the mosque there, it seems to me as if they're trying to "force" tolerance on people.

Don't get me wrong, again, I support the initiative and am not against it, but it's not like the other side is completely wrong either. They're building a very large Islamic community center relatively close to where the 9/11 attacks happened.

I think both sides should compromise; the anti-mosque crowd should accept a mosque near the area, while the pro-mosque crowd should be open to moving it to a less contentious property. Yes, religious tolerance is important, but you're not going to win hearts and minds by shoving this down what (at this point) seems to be half the country - you'll probably do a lot more harm than good in the end.

In the end, I guess my biggest problem with this whole thing is it's an example of how my country has practically split in two; on the one side, we have the who just basically say "lol idiots of course they can build it the Constitution says so and it's open and shut so stop being stupid backwards rednecks!" and the other side who basically says "**** you you children killers you killed thousands of us so get the **** out" - and there is almost no one in the middle going "Guys, guys - you both have legitimate points. Let's talk this over". This entire country and this entire debate have devolved into "I want it all or else" - for BOTH sides. Everyone needs to seriously take a step back and realize that maybe the other side might actually have something to say.

I'd be more sympathetic to your argument if we were actually discussing a mosque on ground zero, if the community center had anything to do with the objectives of 9/11, and if the the arguments of the side of those that oppose the community center weren't wholly based on intolerance. Heeding intolerant arguments doesn't magically spawn tolerance.

[Unknown Target]

Uhm, so basically you're saying that a group of people who have already sunk a ****load of money into their project, who have nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11, who have every legal right to continue their project, should acquiesce to the inane, paranoid ravings of a bunch of racist morons?

land of the free, whoopee.

Just because you have the ability to do something, does not mean you should do that thing. They're perfectly within their rights and I sympathize, but really, with all of the negative emotions swirling around it, it would do a LOT for their cause if the offered to compromise. Right now to the opposition it just seems like them aggressively shoving it down their throats.

Scotty: that's exactly the sort of attitude that's at the root of the problem.

sizzler: at this point, it doesn't really matter whether or not it's technically at Ground Zero - people feel that it is, so the simple act of saying "ok, we'll listen to your concers" would do a lot to calm the furor I think.

[S-99]

This sort of reminds me of what's legal for motorized vehicles that don't require registration and insurance. The law here says must be below 50cc engine size. So now you have all of these 49.99cc small mopeds and scooters everywhere.

In this situation you wont see law enforcement impounding my small moped or scooter because i'm cheating by having a 49.99cc engine so i don't need to register or insure it. I however would probably get a citation or maybe get it impounded if i decided to ride the damn thing on the road as opposed to the side walk.

In other words, we shouldn't be considering the oppositions feelings on the matter at all. Because it's not a mosque, it's not being built on ground zero, and no ones doing anything wrong.

Now if where they're building is going to be around a bunch of intolerant people is the real issue. But, then again considering that izlam is not real popular in america right now, i think you'd find people telling them not to build anywhere. They should build anyway because i don't see it getting treated too much differently if they moved to a different location.

People feeling that something shouldn't be built because of religious intolerance isn't a very good reason i think in this case since you're currently going to have intolerance to izlam anyway.

[Polpolion]

thizzler: at this point, it doesn't really matter whether or not it's technically at Ground Zero - people feel that it is, so the simple act of saying "ok, we'll listen to your concers" would do a lot to calm the furor I think.

But their furor is unfounded. The opponents of of the community center are essentially children throwing a temper tantrum. I don't think the community center buyers should inconvenience themselves because the public is too butthurt to acknowledge that the buyers are perfectly legitimate people in all respects. Come to think of it, not building the community center because "it's a mosque at ground zero" is infinitely better than not building the community center because people would get mad. At least the former was based on some sort of (flawed) rationale as opposed to a response to anger.

[iamzack]

Uhm, so basically you're saying that a group of people who have already sunk a ****load of money into their project, who have nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11, who have every legal right to continue their project, should acquiesce to the inane, paranoid ravings of a bunch of racist morons?

land of the free, whoopee.

Right now to the opposition it just seems like them aggressively shoving it down their throats.

HOW DARE THEY EXERCISE THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS WHEN RACISTS ARE AROUND. Yeah, maybe blacks in the south should have just compromised and not voted even after they got the right to. I mean, it caused a lot of uproar when they tried. The opposition was organized, you know, and maybe those uppity blacks should have respected their feelings and not voted, right?

[Unknown Target]

It's close, but not the same iamzack. This is a private development, not a government one (like allowing blacks to vote). Also, I fail to see the point in refusing to even talk to the opposition about it - at the very least there could be a high level dialog, instead of rabid screamers yelling at each other over a police line. That is, after all, what putting this there is about, right? A dialog? They've even got a 9/11 memorial inside the building. You can't just put your fingers in your ear and give the finger to the other side, you won't get anything but animosity and hate. If you do talk and end up going the same route, you'll at least have tried.

But their furor is unfounded. The opponents of of the community center are essentially children throwing a temper tantrum. I don't think the community center buyers should inconvenience themselves because the public is too butthurt to acknowledge that the buyers are perfectly legitimate people in all respects. Come to think of it, not building the community center because "it's a mosque at ground zero" is infinitely better than not building the community center because people would get mad. At least the former was based on some sort of (flawed) rationale as opposed to a response to anger.

How well is telling them that their furor is unfounded working out? "Everything you're worried about is wrong and you're an idiot" is the attitude coming from the left. I don't personally care that their fear is unfounded - it's still fear. You need to talk to them about it. You don't comfort a child who's afraid of the dark by yelling at them that they're stupid for believing in monsters and shutting the door.

[iamzack]

There's nothing to talk about. What do you want, a patronizing "Wow, really sorry you feel that way, buuuuut we're gonna continue our project anyway"? Or do you honestly want them to dump their project and start all over again just because a handful of complete morons watch who too much Fox news and don't know their own asshole from a hole in the ground are whinging?

Edit:

How well is telling them that their furor is unfounded working out? "Everything you're worried about is wrong and you're an idiot" is the attitude coming from the left. I don't personally care that their fear is unfounded - it's still fear. You need to talk to them about it. You don't comfort a child who's afraid of the dark by yelling at them that they're stupid for believing in monsters and shutting the door.

I missed that part. Are right-wingers children now? Are they that mentally incompetent? I mean, if they really are all developmentally challenged, that would change everything.

[Polpolion]

How well is telling them that their furor is unfounded working out? "Everything you're worried about is wrong and you're an idiot" is the attitude coming from the left. I don't personally care that their fear is unfounded - it's still fear. You need to talk to them about it. You don't comfort a child who's afraid of the dark by yelling at them that they're stupid for believing in monsters and shutting the door.

Then people should certainly do that, but not at the expense of those that aren't doing anything wrong.

[Scotty]

Scotty: that's exactly the sort of attitude that's at the root of the problem.

No.  Calling that attitude a problem is the real ****ing problem.

No minority should ever have to bow to a wrong majority opinion, especially if it's an "inalienable right" as laid down in the Constitution.  That's why the damn right is there in the first place.

So, no, my attitude isn't the problem.  It's any attitude limiting anyone's Constitutional freedoms for ANY reason that's the problem.

Unless you think that homosexuals should have compromised and just still not marry, even though they can now, since that's fairly analogous to your position.

It's close, but not the same iamzack. This is a private development, not a government one (like allowing blacks to vote).

Hold it, full stop, right now.  Absolutely wrong.  It's a religious building, and they have every right to put it there.  The permits are done, and it's guaranteed by GOVERNMENT statute.

[Unknown Target]

No, see, Scotty, rabid fanaticism is the problem - you've got the same attitude the right does, and that sort of screaming has literally paralyzed the country from the top down.

I was just picking at straws with my previous example of the differences between the situations. It really isn't that different, and yea, they have every right to do it. I was wrong to disagree with zack's example.

Then people should certainly do that, but not at the expense of those that aren't doing anything wrong.

Agreed. But I think this whole debate is missing what I'm trying to say; I'm not debating whether or not they're legally allowed to do it. They are. It's completely justified and perfectly acceptable. What I'm debating is the notion that they should just completely ignore people who opposite it. One of the stated goals of this community center is to promote a healing process; how is ignoring the people who disagree with you promoting healing? If you really want a dialog because of this, it might be good to try and talk to these people directly, even if you end up not changing at all (which you probably shouldn't if you want to be steadfast to the Constitution). It's the fact that you're reaching out instead of just saying "lol hicks" and ignoring them - it does neither side any good. Also, it doesn't help you get your side out to moderates who might be more sympathetic.

I missed that part. Are right-wingers children now? Are they that mentally incompetent? I mean, if they really are all developmentally challenged, that would change everything.

First of all, you really don't have much right to call me out on insulting right wingers after that little mini rant you spat out in the first part of your post. Second of all, I was continuing the "child" analogy first put forth by thesizzler. I don't necessarily agree with it.

[Scotty]

No, see, Scotty, rabid fanaticism is the problem - you've got the same attitude the right does, and that sort of screaming has literally paralyzed the country from the top down.

It's not fanaticism.  It's acting like the Constitution is worth more than the paper it's printed on.

There would be no problem if this were a church or Christian community center.  There should be no problem now, and I'm not going to move on that.  The fact that there IS a problem is sickening.

[Unknown Target]

No, see, Scotty, rabid fanaticism is the problem - you've got the same attitude the right does, and that sort of screaming has literally paralyzed the country from the top down.

It's not fanaticism.  It's acting like the Constitution is worth more than the paper it's printed on.

There would be no problem if this were a church or Christian community center.  There should be no problem now, and I'm not going to move on that.  The fact that there IS a problem is sickening.

Not the point I'm trying to make here. I agree with everything you're saying, just not the way you're saying it. Demonizing the other half of the same country only ends up with more problems than it solves. Disagree as strongly as you want, but hating half of your countrymen because of their political beliefs is just as bad as racism IMO.

[Scotty]

I'm not demonizing anything.  I'm not hating anyone.  I'm saying that half of the country is wrong, and if making it better means lying about it and telling them they're right, I don't want to make it better, because that will make it worse for everyone.

[Unknown Target]

I don't think I ever said to lie and say they were right. I believe what I've been saying is to talk to them. There is absolutely no dialog, at least, no civilized dialog, going on right now between the two sides. If the people building the center are willing to put a 9/11 memorial in the building (they are), then it's obvious they are at least aware of what they're doing and how it's stepping on people's toes. So at least opening a dialog with some back and forth, just talking this through instead of saying "**** you you're wrong!" to each other, will end up with a much better result. Do you think all of this is going to go away if they do build it? Do you think all this seething anger and resentment is suddenly just going to vanish when they see it being built? That they'll just go "Goddamn liberals, they beat us!" and go away?
No, this anger will stay there and stay very real. The very least the people who are building this center could do is actually start building bridges, like they say they want to, and try to reach out to people and explain things and assuage their fears.

Standing on opposite sides of a flooding river yelling at each other to fix the dam will only drown everyone.

We live in very, very uncertain times, and the only way we can get through them is if we go together. You can't just give the finger to one side of the country and expect to move on with any degree of success. We really have to stop trying to be louder than the other side and start trying to come together and talk about things.

EDIT: One last thing before I go to bed. Remember that talking does not mean you're losing, or you will lose, or anything like that. It means talking. In the end you might still return to your camps and continue the fight, but at least you will have tried, and maybe, just maybe, the furor will have calmed. There is nothing wrong with listening to the other side, no matter how wrong they are - it doesn't mean your points are any less valid or their misconceptions are any more true.