[Scotty]

Honestly, there shouldn't be anything to talk about.  Talking about it grants some legitimacy to the bull**** position these people are adopting.

Standing in the middle of a crumbling bridge trying to fix it by actually allowing religious freedom is more productive than letting it all wash away to go talk to the people who just feel like letting their half fall apart.

[Unknown Target]

I know I said I'd go to bed, but I got distracted.

Talking to people about the problem and saying "no, I understand where you're coming from, but here are the facts. do you still have a problem with this and why?" does not mean that you are suddenly ceding ground to the opposition. You're opening a dialog wherein you actually have a chance of getting these people to either realize that they're wrong, or (more likely) letting third party observers realize that they're wrong.

This is different than what is currently going on ("**** you!") and different than what you seem to think I mean "Ok, well, I think you have some very good points, so hopefully we can just be friends.".

If you really want to use an example of the Civil Rights movement, Martin Luther King spoke calmly, peacefully, and rationally - he explained his points and did not give in to frothing at the mouth rage at the other side for their injustices. That works a whole hell of a lot better than "**** THESE PEOPLE THEY'RE RACIST", which is what the left is doing right now.

Standing in the middle of a crumbling bridge and trying to fix it while the other half lets their side wash away will still make you end up with a broken, crumbling bridge.

[iamzack]

I still can't imagine what conversation you think could possibly happen.

"YOU CANT BUILD A MOSQUE ON GROUND ZERO, THATS DISRESPECTFUL TO THE *REAL* AMURICANS THAT DIED THERE"

"it's not a mosque, it's not at ground zero, it's only disrespectful if you truly believe we personally had something to do with 9/11, ans muslims died on 9/11 too"

"STUPID MUZZIES RUININ' OUR ****RY"

"sorry you feel that way"

Hard to have a conversation when one side has literally *nothing* to back up their claims.

[Unknown Target]

iamzack, I imagine the conversation would be the same if I was talking to you in the reverse;

"We object to putting an Islamic center so close to where these people died by Muslim extremists"

"Lol you ****ing racist moron, shut up and go **** some cows."

"Look, we just don't like the idea of this being put there even though a great number of us object - it's like we're being ignored"

"No **** you're being ignored, you're all retarded."

Again, I'm not saying they're right, I'm preaching the radical notion* that if you want to affect real, lasting change and catharsis, you have to be willing to speak quietly and persevere, rather than scream, ridicule, and ignore. Again, I bring us back to the example of Mr. King, or Ghandi, or any other person that affected real change; how many people do you read about corrected social injustice by screaming and insulting the other person, or constantly belittling them as idiots?

*sarcasm

[Scotty]

Again, I bring us back to the example of Mr. King, or Ghandi, or any other person that affected real change; how many people do you read about corrected social injustice by screaming and insulting the other person, or constantly belittling them as idiots?

How many people do you read about correcting social injustice by ignoring the people doing the wrongs to them?  At sit-ins, Dr. King's supporters ignored insults and violence.  During marches, ignoring bigotry and the like.

I'd take your example a step farther and say ignoring stupid platforms like this (not necessarily the people in all cases, mind you) is exactly the right thing to do.

[iamzack]

The people who object are *actually retarded.* They actually believe that all muslims are in cahoots with the ones who committed 9/11. That's why they ****ing object. They are abject imbeciles, and their feelings are not valid. I mean, ****, do you want us to start patting the heads of young earth creationists, too? Should we start respecting their feelings on whether evolution is a real phenomenon or not? Do we need to compromise with them too? NO!

There is no gray area here. One group is going about their business, building a community center because the constitution guarantees their right to, they went through all the proper channels, the city approved the project, the ****ing president is on their side. The other side believes that every Muslim is responsible for 9/11. The other side isn't concerned about whether objecting to an Islamic community center is insensitive to american muslims who died in the WTC, they're only concerned about being insensitive to all the "real" americans.

[StarSlayer]

I can't help thinking we shouldn't fold on the Constitution nor trample our ideals and freedoms for the same basic sentiment that in 1942 wound over a hundred thousand of our citizens in internment camps.  Now the stakes are certainly not as grave as they were back then but still we shouldn't legitimize a position that is both fundamentally at odds with what we supposedly stand for and is based upon fear mongering and hate.  Especially since this issue is being fueled into a frenzy because of political machinations. 

[NGTM-1R]

Again, I bring us back to the example of Mr. King

I sentence you to twenty readings of Letter From The Birmingham Jail if you honestly believe that Martin Luther King Jr. would have taken any other stance than "damn the Palinists, full speed ahead".

The civil rights movement did not succeed through compromise. It made demands that forced its opponents into an untenable situation by opposing them. Ghandi did not succeed by compromising; he made demands that forced the British into an untenable situation opposing them.

We have the untenable situation, the direct violation of Constitutional rights of American citizens, right here. We will not succeed by compromising on the inalienable rights of the citizenship.

[Dr. Pwnguin]

There is already a Mosque 4 blocks from Ground Zero. The one being built 2 blocks from GZ has a prayer room + 12 stories of community center stuff (Gym, cultural center, etc.). I'm told the Mosques nearby GZ are already overcrowded; which is believable considering how many people live in the area.

So why not allow them to build? The Imam used to come on Fox News and give his points of view about US-Muslim relations and was stopped once the whole controversy began, and by controversy I mean once Politicians began using this to gain and edge in the Nov. Elections.

[karajorma]

Actually I'm of the opinion that they should actually make a concession to the right wing. They should make a very loud noise about the fact that in deference to public sentiment they've decided that instead of a mosque they'll build a community centre and instead of having it near Ground Zero they'll put it 3 blocks away.

I'd love to see how Fox would spin that announcement.

[MP-Ryan]

Actually I'm of the opinion that they should actually make a concession to the right wing. They should make a very loud noise about the fact that in deference to public sentiment they've decided that instead of a mosque they'll build a community centre and instead of having it near Ground Zero they'll put it 3 blocks away.

I'd love to see how Fox would spin that announcement.

IT'S BRILLIANT!  Email that to their PR people now =)

[Mongoose]

I'm very sorely tempted to link you guys to a thread from a Descent forum discussing this same issue.  You'd probably weep at it. Lord knows I am.

[mxlm]

Again, I'm not saying they're right, I'm preaching the radical notion* that if you want to affect real, lasting change and catharsis, you have to be willing to speak quietly and persevere, rather than scream, ridicule, and ignore.

Who's screaming?

But, look, it's like this. "I'm uncomfortable with a mosque being near the WTC ruins (but not there being a mosque in the Pentagon, because I'm ignorant of its existence and/or that's not hallowed ground like the WTC because, uh, because it didn't fall down and not get rebuilt? Sure, we'll go with that." Now, if the person who's uncomfortable lost a friend or relative in the attacks, I'll make allowances--with some reservations--but jesus mother****ing christ on his mother****ing cross, anyone else? Sarah Palin? The pain is too raw, too real? **** you. Grow the **** up and grow a ****ing pair of balls or ovaries, as applicable. It's been nine years, get over it.

Furthermore, you're uncomfortable with the mosque being near the WTC because you associate Islam as a whole with the actions of a few murderous ****s. You do this because you're a bigot. There's no need for anyone to be sensitive of, much less to accommodate, your bigotry. In short, **** you.

Sure, I could be nicer about it, but see the part about not needing to be sensitive of other people's bigotry. Also I'm a dick, but that's not the point.

Now, aren't you glad you asked for a discussion?

[Unknown Target]

I sentence you to twenty readings of Letter From The Birmingham Jail if you honestly believe that Martin Luther King Jr. would have taken any other stance than "damn the Palinists, full speed ahead".

Man, people seem to be incapable of reading my posts in any depth; I didn't say you had to compromise, I said to talk. The reason I brought up King was because he went ahead with what he was doing, but didn't stoop to the level of argument that, say, mxlm is.

Glad to see kara is on the ball as always though


Anyway, I guess since no one seems to actually be reading what I'm saying properly, I'll say it simply: I want them to build the mosque and they deserve that freedom, but if I had to choose a debate team I sure as hell wouldn't pick half the liberals I hear talking about the subject, because they're just as bad as the conservatards IMO - they drive the tone of the debate just as low.

[mxlm]

but if I had to choose a debate team I sure as hell wouldn't pick half the liberals I hear talking about the subject, because they're just as bad as the conservatards IMO.

Oh, please.

[Unknown Target]

What, giving the finger to the other half of the country doesn't make you just as bad as them giving the finger to the other half?

I'm not just applying this to this debate, I'm applying it to all of them. Both sides are assholes.

In support of the mosque, I think this article is pretty good though;

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/08/23/park51

Certainly makes me think over my position in more depth.

[mxlm]

I'm not just applying this to this debate, I'm applying it to all of them. Both sides are assholes.

I'm uncertain what you mean here. You're talking about...every debate between left and right in the country? Every debate about the mosque in the country? Something else?

Although I am curious about something; do you genuinely not view your past several posts as, mm, somewhat hypocritical? You're talking about conservatards in the same sentence you lament the low tone of debates?

This isn't a gotcha, incidentally; I suspect that an honest assessment of what drove you to write what you did will yield insights into why other people write and say what they do.

[Mongoose]

Y'know, UT is absolutely right.  I have to put up with a whole other forum's worth of Fox-worshiping uber-conservatives who think that "liberal" is spelled with four letters, but there are certain individuals here on the completely-opposite side of the spectrum whom I consider every bit as bad.  You don't convince anyone that you have a good point by calling them a ****wit.

[Unknown Target]

I'm pretty sure that's the one post I insulted the other side so directly in, and I debated saying it. The reason I said it is to draw parallels between the racist, idiotic side of the conservatives (conservatards), and the near-rabid, "intellectually superior" **** them **** them **** them side of the liberals. I was insulting both by drawing parallels to a common insult of the one.

And I guess it's my fault about a bit of the confusion; I don't just view this from the POV that it's "just the mosque debate", so I'm arguing for more dialog in general, starting with this. Reading that article I linked in my edited post above, it makes me understand why we shouldn't compromise on this site, but I still think that talking about this and trying to make the middle and less extreme portions of the other side understand is better than screaming across picket lines.

Also, I'd like to draw attention to that video where the black guy was accosted as he tried to make it through the crowd - if you listen, when you hear the bad ones chanting "Muhammad's a pig, Muhammad's a pig", you also hear "you don't need to say that" from a female in the crowd. THAT'S the person that you want to talk to, and THAT'S the person that you're driving away by dismissing outright.

[mxlm]

You don't convince anyone that you have a good point by calling them a ****wit.

Sure. OTOH, if bigotry on this board is greeted solely with scorn and vitriol, well, it's a tad less likely bigotry will be expressed. Which is a positive thing. Even if we don't convince anyone to acknowledge the error of their ways. Or thinking.

but I still think that talking about this and trying to make the middle and less extreme portions of the other side understand is better than screaming across picket lines.

Alright. One of the points I was making was that, well, the opposition to the placement of the community center and mosque is rather rooted in bigotry, as well as the utterly unhealthy way we've made a fetish out of the WTC, and, um, you're going to have a real hard time telling folks that without insulting them, as bigot is a word viewed as an insult, not a descriptor.