Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Amaroq

Mosque on the Twin Towers ruins

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

There are churches near bombed abortion clinics, as well as close to the federal building in Oklahoma City (in fact a quick google maps search reveals 5 or 6 churches, within a couple of blocks). Name one step that you took to prevent the existence of a single one, or at least one objection you made to its existence.

Uh... wasn't Timothy McVeigh an Agnostic?

I'd like to see some examples of churches near bombed abortion clinics, I'm curious about this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uh... wasn't Timothy McVeigh an Agnostic?

No. He stated that he believed in God numerous times, and he seemed to draw his moral values from that belief.

(http://www.time.com/time/nation/printout/0,8816,109478,00.html and American Terrorist (Lou, Herbeck). p. 142–143)

He also supposedly wrote a letter to a British paper, claiming to be an agnostic (without elaborating), but in light of the above, he clearly had no idea what that word means. It doesn't just mean you don't have a specific church to go to.

I'd like to see some examples of churches near bombed abortion clinics, I'm curious about this.

Go to one, look around.

Edited by Jake_Ellison

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you have been paying attention, you will know that it is not actually a mosque. If the sponsors can raise the money (which remains to be seen), it would contain a prayer room, but also a restaurant, a 500-seat theatre, basketball courts and a swimming pool that would be open to all. It would not have a minaret, but there would be a memorial to the 3 000 people (in cluding 300 Muslims) who died in the 9/11 attacks. Now, what is wrong about it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you have been paying attention, you will know that it is not actually a mosque.

If you have been reading the thread, you would already know what the arguments against it are and would have responded to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to use an argument from authority, but a principle Rand held applies here amply.

Rand participated in the HUAC trials in the 1940s. These trials were meant to expose members of the Communist party in America. The Communist party was not merely a political party that supported communism but an organization that supported and planned on violent attacks on the establishments of the U.S. Many years after the events of the trials, Rand commented that they were a great failure. She stated that she wished the trials had actually done what they set out to do, instead of persecute an idea.

What is happening to this Muslim cultural center is nothing less than thought crime. And it's a new kind of thought crime. We admit that the Imam may not even harbor any extremist views, yet putting anything Islamic near the WTC emboldens the enemy. This is not only demonstrably false but irrelevant if true. Are we to now say that anything that "emboldens" the enemy is illegal? Very well. Islam is now illegal. No one can convert to islam. Imagine if America turned to be 15 or 20% Islamic? That would truly embolden the enemy, so we can't allow it. For even if the people turning to Islam are not plotting against us, it's making some people in caves happy. So, no new mosques anywhere either. Not just near ground zero or NYC but no mosques anywhere.

This is fucking sick, to put it bluntly. It's the last thing I would expect out of anyone that calls themselves an Objectivist, but it's a direct logical consequence from the principle at play.

Let us say you disagree, that it isn't a logical consequence. Then how far from the World Trade Center can we build? Must we now create laws that say "You can't build a religious institution near an area that was damaged by it"? And what's the actual distance? 10 blocks? 15 blocks? Westchester county? One intelligent man from the Glenn Beck rally for religious dictatorship said 100 miles. Perhaps some of you can find common ground with morons like that.

I certainly hope those calling for a legal ban on a mosque or anything Islamic near ground zero are just as stupid as your arguments are, and that you aren't indeed as evil as your arguments are. It would be a great shame if I ever had to associate myself with anyone of such depths of evil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uh... wasn't Timothy McVeigh an Agnostic?

I'd like to see some examples of churches near bombed abortion clinics, I'm curious about this.

There are many instances of this (at least considering the number of bombed abortion clinics). Either way it is inconsequential because based on this specific concern alone...there is no "right" to not be offended.

Edited by CapitalistSwine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I definitely agree. I think it's very silly that so many consrevatives are trying to bring up that zoning laws prohibits this.

I'm against zoning laws, but they're wrong: zoning laws are there primarily to protect the value of your house. Not to make sure you don't get offended.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are many instances of this (at least considering the number of bombed abortion clinics). Either way it is inconsequential because based on this specific concern alone...there is no "right" to not be offended.

Peikoff has a podcast on this topic.

Why is it acceptable to put an advertisement up on personal property, but not pornography? Why is it permissible to use the police power of the state to make people wear clothes in public?

The essence of the answer he gives is that taking offense is not necessarily arbitrary, and there is no right to threaten.

The relation between the destruction of the World Trade Center and the construction of the Ground Zero Mosque is not a made up, subjective, arbitrary delusion. "This destroys that", as Victor Hugo wrote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is happening to this Muslim cultural center is nothing less than thought crime.

A building is an objective concrete (with bonus actual concrete to aid reaching absolute clarity!) not a thought.

... putting anything Islamic near the WTC emboldens the enemy. This is not only demonstrably false but irrelevant if true. Are we to now say that anything that "emboldens" the enemy is illegal?
It does not merely embolden the enemy, it demoralizes us.

Imagine if America turned to be 15 or 20% Islamic?
I can imagine that quite easily based on the now nearly constant lawlessness and occasional rioting in and around Paris. The muslims will group together in enclaves led by Saudi-financed imams and try to enact sharia. If that ever happens in America there will be open warfare. It will mean the Waco, TX incident reenacted a thousand times over.

This is fucking sick, to put it bluntly.
Your analysis is flippant and unserious, exhibiting not the slightest acquaintance with history or even current events. A large Islamic Cultural Center was built in Boston (it only opened in 2009) and it has simply become a center for radicalizing the existing muslim population and a place to recruit terrorists.
(7:05 minutes)

The video was produced by "Americans for Peace and Tolerance" (www.peaceandtolerance.org) which has Sheikh Dr. Ahmed Mansour on its board of directors. That is what a real reformist muslim is like (if there were no persecution and imprisonment he would not be doing it right), not a lying taqiyyah practioner like Feisal Rauf.

Let us say you disagree, that it isn't a logical consequence. Then how far from the World Trade Center can we build?
Three blocks would be enough, and would be within the bounds of federal law and court precedent.

I certainly hope those calling for a legal ban on a mosque or anything Islamic near ground zero are just as stupid as your arguments are, and that you aren't indeed as evil as your arguments are. It would be a great shame if I ever had to associate myself with anyone of such depths of evil.
Your self-righteousness is self-flattery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you have been paying attention, you will know that it is not actually a mosque. If the sponsors can raise the money (which remains to be seen), it would contain a prayer room, but also a restaurant, a 500-seat theatre, basketball courts and a swimming pool that would be open to all. It would not have a minaret, but there would be a memorial to the 3 000 people (in cluding 300 Muslims) who died in the 9/11 attacks. Now, what is wrong about it?

I recognize their right to build the mosque. However, I think their jerks for doing so. Why do they have to build it right there? Really? Right next to the world trade center, in New York's financial district? That can't be coincidental. And how much did they spend to get that land? That location had to be expensive as hell.

Its all in really bad taste. If the builders of the mosque want to improve relations then why do they insist on putting the mosque in such a delicate location? Plus, the name of the mosque is "Cordoba" which is the name of the Mosque that Islam created when they conquered Spain. The very word Cordoba is synonyms with conquering of the west in the Islamic world.

The Japanese didn't try and build a cultural center over Pearl Harbor. The US didn't build an American University over Hiroshima, Germany doesn't build its embassies over former Holocaust sites. Why? Because it would be an insult to that nation and they have respect for the sites and the people that died there. I guess we can't expect the same from the Muslim world. That speaks volumes about their culture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A building is an objective concrete (with bonus actual concrete to aid reaching absolute clarity!) not a thought.

I think you are misinterpreting what he was saying with that statement.

It does not merely embolden the enemy, it demoralizes us.

It does not embolden the enemy. There are many reasons why this is the case (I do not mean to say it always is the case), especially for this cultural center. It demoralizes us? We are fighting 2 wars in the wrong place with record suicides, an awful economy, nim-wit generals and administration (good luck changes that in the next 20 years even), and people will not accept anything more than these 2 wars right now. It just will not happen, so meanwhile, the only thing we could possibly need to get a "morale boost" is for drone bombing wedding ceremonies and inflating the numbers of Taliban in Afghanistan to record levels during the occupation, and allowing for an Iraq, that will never repair itself now, short of another dictator (not that I suggest such), and allowing for Iran to get a strategic hold in Iraq, which is a cost to us that I don't think we could even ballpark, strategically speaking. Oh and thats assuming that any of the overall American population has even close to a clue about anything regarding the Middle East or the nature of Islam.

I can imagine that quite easily based on the now nearly constant lawlessness and occasional rioting in and around Paris. The muslims will group together in enclaves led by Saudi-financed imams and try to enact sharia. If that ever happens in America there will be open warfare. It will mean the Waco, TX incident reenacted a thousand times over.

Everytime one of you "I am afraid to get nuked in my jammies" people bring this up, I always ask how do you exactly expect Shariah law to gain hold here? I am talking here, in America, no where else. I never get a satisfactory answer. The only thing that can be garnered from your statement here is that it is a worry for you that America will be, with certainty, under "attack" from the inside if we ever happened to get that percentage. I ask you, why do you think just because there are Muslims here, that this would be the case. I would be willing to claim that you have a flawed interpretation of the nature of Islam and particularly its adherents and have a washed-version of history to support it. You are in effect categorizing a group that thus far has, overall, not held the characteristics that you are suggesting they will have (I can back this up with data).

The video was produced by "Americans for Peace and Tolerance" (www.peaceandtolerance.org) which has Sheikh Dr. Ahmed Mansour on its board of directors. That is what a real reformist muslim is like (if there were no persecution and imprisonment he would not be doing it right), not a lying taqiyyah practioner like Feisal Rauf.

Ok, so we have some bad cultural centers. That doesn't mean all of them are. The fact of the matter is members of what will be this congregation have been praying there for a year now in the basement of the building. No bombings yet. He had a Mosque in Manhattan further away for all of these years, no bombings, unless you are to suggest the terrorists were linked to him or his mosque in some way. There is no evidence of that. I have other questions about this Boston Center that are relevant. Was the Imam Sufi? What kind of background does he have? What kind of cultural center was it? Did it have a mutli-faith directors board, multi-faith programs etc. like this one will? What was the thru traffic like? These are all important questions on determining if a Mosque is or other Islamic center has the likeliness of preaching or supporting radicalism.

Three blocks would be enough, and would be within the bounds of federal law and court precedent.

Three blocks would be far enough? Why? You think it will be any less radical (its presence or its members) if its 1 block away? Do you think it will be any more of a "desecration" of the site, which is surrounded by gaudy souvenir stands, strip clubs, (apparently a soon to come Muslim gay bar) etc. Hell it might even be a good thing to keep it there, besides the fact it is going to be built to more or less blend in with the surrounding buildings anyways, theres a big ass building right in the viewing path to the memorial site.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rearden_Steel I couldn't have said it better myself. No, really. I couldn't have. But I'm workin' on it! :thumbsup:

I don't like that this mosque is being built, and neither does half of the country. But, unless there is evidence that they are making a conrete plan to harm us, how is offending half of America justification for violating their property rights?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always ask how do you exactly expect Shariah law to gain hold here? I am talking here, in America, no where else. I never get a satisfactory answer.

The shariah law problem will by fomented in majority minority enclaves that are radicalized by foreign imams. That is the pattern that is being enacted in Europe, so it is not some theoretical exercise. I hope you are not claiming that because it hasn't happened yet in America that proves it will never happen. Immigrants have always formed enclaves in America. In the past, moving to America meant breaking contact with the old country with the exception of some letters, and immigrants have moved here wanting to be American not aspiring to remake America. That has changed.

The only thing that can be garnered from your statement here is that it is a worry for you that America will be, with certainty, under "attack" from the inside if we ever happened to get that percentage. I ask you, why do you think just because there are Muslims here, that this would be the case. I would be willing to claim that you have a flawed interpretation of the nature of Islam and particularly its adherents and have a washed-version of history to support it. You are in effect categorizing a group that thus far has, overall, not held the characteristics that you are suggesting they will have (I can back this up with data).

Yeah sure, muslims make a fine minority. But the more of them there are the more fractious they become. Everywhere in the world where there is a muslim minority that climbs beyond single digits in percentage of population there is conflict and war (examples: India, former Yugoslavia, Chechenya, several African countries, Sri Lanka, Phillipines.) (Come to think of it, all current wars involve Islam.)

Ok, so we have some bad cultural centers. That doesn't mean all of them are. The fact of the matter is members of what will be this congregation have been praying there for a year now in the basement of the building. No bombings yet. He had a Mosque in Manhattan further away for all of these years, no bombings, unless you are to suggest the terrorists were linked to him or his mosque in some way.
Boston was not exactly a terrorist hotbed either before their ICC got built, what happened? If this thing gets built it will not long remain a one man show, and there will be Al-Qaeda sympathizers making a mini-hajj to the victory mosque that will not be turned away. The place will be an attraction to the types that have their own more strident version of Islam in mind and do their own proselytizing. Look what happened in Boston without the "helpful" social dynamics of a major terrorist attack site within the city.

Three blocks would be far enough? Why? You think it will be any less radical (its presence or its members) if its 1 block away? Do you think it will be any more of a "desecration" of the site, which is surrounded by gaudy souvenir stands, strip clubs, (apparently a soon to come Muslim gay bar) etc. Hell it might even be a good thing to keep it there, besides the fact it is going to be built to more or less blend in with the surrounding buildings anyways, theres a big ass building right in the viewing path to the memorial site.
Three blocks would encompass all of the debris impact sites (mapped here). They don't need to see the memorial site, they can paint an "X" to mark the spot on the basement floor where where an engine from United Airlines Flight 175 came to rest and put up black curtain around it. There will be no bar, gay or otherwise because the New York state Alcohol Beverage Control (ABC) law prohibits liquor licenses for establishments that are on the same street and within 200 feet of a building “occupied exclusively as a school, church, synagogue or other place of worship…”. Existing establishments are not grandfathered but have their licenses revoked. And yes, a new mosque would be more of a desecration than a strip club. Strip clubs are secular.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"It does not merely embolden the enemy, it demoralizes us."

Grames, this is a powerful statement, and something I've been thinking about since 9/11, so I had to react.

Some questions:

Who is the enemy? (briefly) - Those who do harm to the West; those who support harm to the West; those who wish harm to the West; those who ideologically don't like the West; or, those who just happen to share the same religion as all the above?

Who is "us"?- Objectivists; freedom-loving Westerners; or, members of various competitive religions, Statists...etc. I believe "we" should be more careful about fighting others' battles for them.

"Embolden": strengthening one's confidence and courage. What do you think is more confidence-building to an enemy - for the US to quietly, and without fanfare, absorb one more religion, and one more mosque, into its vast milieu (business as usual) - OR, to panic, make mistakes, restrict liberties, and surrender its reason and principles to fear and hatred?

"Demoralize"; who would be demoralized but those whose morale and morality was lacking, anyway? Those who can only think collectively, who can't see the forest for the trees, and who can't or won't see that it is Individualism that makes the USA great - that Justice demands that every context,( and every Muslim ), has to be viewed as a separate entity.

For those of us elsewhere who believe that your nation is still the only hope for any liberty in the world, the reaction to the mosque has been saddening.

(And I think it is a terrible idea to build it, even if it's not meant to be provocative; but when is any religion going to be rational?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everytime one of you "I am afraid to get nuked in my jammies" people bring this up, I always ask how do you exactly expect Shariah law to gain hold here? I am talking here, in America, no where else. I never get a satisfactory answer.

Well, it is pretty simple actually. The politically correct have been pushing for sometime to take a person's "cultural heritage" into account when applying law. If reasonable people do not speak out it will certainly gain a foothold just as all injustices in our society have.

For instance we have the case of a New Jersey judge who refused a restraining order to a woman who was beaten and repeatedly raped by her husband. His ruling was based on the Islamic notion that a woman cannot refuse sex to her husband- and thus no rape occured.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/5670250/new_jersey_family_judge_accepts_sharia.html?cat=17

It was overturned on appeal, but still, there it is and the judge still has his job.

Edited by SapereAude

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peikoff has a podcast on this topic.

Why is it acceptable to put an advertisement up on personal property, but not pornography? Why is it permissible to use the police power of the state to make people wear clothes in public?

The essence of the answer he gives is that taking offense is not necessarily arbitrary, and there is no right to threaten.

You really are trying to grasp any straw you can aren't you? This is laughable that you are putting this in the same situation as these things. This is a different matter than pornography or clothing, they are different kinds of situations. I am sorry but I really cannot take this as a legitimate argument given the facts about the one we are discussing, and I don't see how you can either. Then again you have amazed me several times over with some of your arguments. Last time I checked the Imam hasn't done any threatening, and if he does, well, I am sure there will be plenty of non-Muslims participating in this buildings programs, or someone on the board that is a non-mulsim, that will hear about it and they can take legal action appropriately.Until then, the people involved with that building have the right to free speech and may use it as they wish.

The shariah law problem will by fomented in majority minority enclaves that are radicalized by foreign imams. That is the pattern that is being enacted in Europe, so it is not some theoretical exercise. I hope you are not claiming that because it hasn't happened yet in America that proves it will never happen. Immigrants have always formed enclaves in America. In the past, moving to America meant breaking contact with the old country with the exception of some letters, and immigrants have moved here wanting to be American not aspiring to remake America. That has changed.

So just as I expected I got the default answer to this question, and the actual question is left unanswered. Have you read any studies as to why this effect is so effective in Europe and in other countries? Have you seen studies that show progression of Muslim integration into American society compared to Europe and other locations? Have you seen anything of these natures? My guess is you haven't. No I am not saying that because it hasn't happened yet in America that it proves it won't ever happen. I am saying, given what we know (via studies, experts, etc.) about what causes and allows the spread of such things, and allows to them to take hold in various locations that have been having this problem, that such a thing is very unlikely and will at most get only localized footholds and for temporary periods of time.

If this thing gets built it will not long remain a one man show, and there will be Al-Qaeda sympathizers making a mini-hajj to the victory mosque that will not be turned away. Look what happened in Boston without the "helpful" social dynamics of a major terrorist attack site within the city.

Your suggestion that what is certain of one center, in Boston, that has many different characteristics from this situation (I looked into it since the last post) does not hold any water. In fact there is a study that suggests people exactly like the Sufi Imam in charge of this new site have been shown to decrease radicalism in their communities (let me know if you want the studies, I have to find them again which is why I didn't post them right away). If you think Al-Qaeda sympathizers will be happy about this "victory Mosque" or would have any kind of positive reaction to it whatsoever then not only do you have a very poor understanding of Al Qaeda as an organization, but you have an even worse understanding of Islamic-based terrorism, so it is no wonder that you are making all of these ridiculous comparisons and suggestions that no one that really knows about these things would consider credible statements. If anything they would bomb this Mosque (after its usefulness is drained by it being built, since the controversy would wane down from what it currently is, which benefits Al Qaeda), which is why I cannot take that comment of yours seriously to even the slightest degree. This whole "I read a few anti-Islam blogs and listened to some ARI lectures my Journo so I am an expert now" stuff needs to stop. Hell, even spread your sources for information out a bit more at least for pete sakes. How you are getting these kinds of ideas about Al Qaeda and not having them contested in any way, shape or form is beyond me. In fact, here is a nice place to start:

http://counterterrorismblog.org/

There is one posting on there about the Ground Zero Mosque. I suggest you read the article:

http://counterterrorismblog.org/fastsearch?query=cordoba

You might like this snippet:

One such miscreant, in expressing his views on Cordoba House in an online al-Qaeda chat, said, "the game is clear--damn Obama and his goal of building this mosque. The purpose of building the mosque in that place is for America to regain its dignity."

In fact the guy Counter-Terrorism expert that wrote the book "Al-Qaida's Jihad in Europe: The Afghan-Bosnian Network." wrote that very article. So he is hardly unaware of the realities of the threat.

And before you say that this is innacurate, for whatever reason, Al Qaeda has gone out of its way to show their utter distaste for this very website:

http://counterterrorismblog.org/2008/04/al_qaeda_officially_hates_the.php

This is the kind of stuff that makes it hard to take comments from you on matters related to terrorism and Islam in general seriously. This is the exact kind of stuff that the renowned counter-terrorist experts around the world have been saying, yet people choose to watch PJTV and their sensationalist right-wing nonsense instead. This isn't some libertarian bullshit and its not Liberal PC or multi-culturalism, this is the real deal. Hell, a lot of CT experts are conservatives. So why are they all saying things like this? Why have they been saying things like this the last 10 years? Because they are true, no one listens to them, and so we have record numbers of Al Qaeda and Taliban in Afghanistan and we have a south-Iraq dominated by covert IRA entities by Iran.

But I guess people like this:

Rita Katz, the Director and co-founder of the SITE Intelligence Group, has studied, tracked, and analyzed international terrorists, the global jihadist network and terrorism financing for more than a decade. Since well before September 11, Ms. Katz has personally briefed government officials, including the NSC at the White House, investigators in the Department of Justice, Department of the Treasury, and the Department of Homeland Security on the financing and recruitment networks of the terrorist movement.

Born in Iraq, and a graduate of the Middle Eastern Studies program at Tel Aviv University, Ms. Katz speaks both Arabic and Hebrew with native fluency. As part of her work, Ms. Katz, has gone undercover to numerous terrorist's front group gatherings, collecting crucial information, and working to expose those groups in the United States. Many of her leads have prompted the government to investigate and take legal action against individuals and organizations suspected of ties to terrorism.

Ms. Katz has served as a consultant to the U.S. government and other foreign governments on many occasions, and has appeared as an expert witness for the U.S. government and abroad. Ms. Katz has also testified before Congress about al-Qaeda, the global jihadist network, and the online jihadist threat.

For her unique contributions to FBI counterterrorism investigations, Ms. Katz received special recognition in 2004 from FBI Director Robert Muller for her "outstanding assistance to the FBI in connection with its investigative efforts."

Among her educational activities, Ms. Katz has been commissioned to provide training sessions on counterterrorism to law enforcement agents from a variety of U.S. government agencies, as well as teaching sessions in non-governmental organizations' meetings and academic conferences.

Ms. Katz is the author of TERRORIST HUNTER: The Extraordinary Story of a Woman who Went Undercover to Infiltrate the Radical Islamic Groups Operating in America (Harper Collins, 2003). Her commentary on terrorism issues frequently appears in prominent media outlets, including the New York Times, the Washington Post, 60 Minutes, and others.

aren't as well "in the know" about the "reality" of things, as Allen Barton, Bill Whittle, etc.

The relation between the destruction of the World Trade Center and the construction of the Ground Zero Mosque is not a made up, subjective, arbitrary delusion. "This destroys that", as Victor Hugo wrote.

If I had seen this earlier, since I somehow missed this post (which is why I am addressing it now) I would have just stopped responding to you. This is not only completely wrong, but the thought process that leads to it is collectivist in nature. A is A you cannot attribute the actions of a minority group to over a billion people, and anyone that suggests you can I am not going to take very seriously. This is as insensible with any other group as it is with Muslims. They don't have some special case. It is improper and illogical and for the same reasons as always.

Edited by CapitalistSwine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ryan, the mosque is a victory symbol and a shrine to the martyrs that brought down the towers. Everyone knows it, and thats how it is seen in the Muslim worldview.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There seems to be a lot of people talking past each other here.

It doesn't seem like you are all even arguing the same issue.

The main arguments seem to be "is it legal"?

and "is it morally wrong for them to build it, legality aside"?

To the question is it legal either side could be "right" legally. Zoning laws are often left deliberately vague in areas so as to allow wiggle room for people with connected friends or sufficient money for attractive bribes.

That is- by law, freedom of religion, the mosque has the ostensible right to exist.

Also by law, zoning officials can take into consideration plans for a property that might cause offense. It may not be right, but it is so.

If I was refused the right to open a certain business because the neighbors took offense to the plans (gay bar, strip club, adult video store, whatever) do I then deem it my right to likewise protest others' plans on the same basis?

Since zoning is at issue here an anecdote I hope is not too off-topic. I was involved in a business that had an ongoing zoning battle due to religious services nearby. The business had held a liquor license for 70 years straight (obviously a couple transfers of ownership occured). At some point after we'd been operating several years a building a couple hundred feet from us was rented out by a religious group for use as a synagogue. A couple months later the cops come in and shut us down- violation of zoning code- no alcohol sales within so many feet of religious services. This turned into a lengthy and legally expensive battle. What ended up happening was we had to pay a large bribe to the synagogue bi-annually for them to sign off on papers as necessary giving us permission to exist (depsite being there first).

The point of this aside being that zoning is frequently brought up in this mosque issue by both sides. It is a poor argument to use because zoning laws are vague, hapahazard, unobjective and arbitrarily applied.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ryan, the mosque is a victory symbol and a shrine to the martyrs that brought down the towers. Everyone knows it, and thats how it is seen in the Muslim worldview.

Do you want me to make a 20 page (obv. an exaggeration) list of news articles proving you wrong? Because I am willing to do that this upcoming weekend. I don't think you understand the Muslim worldview at all. I don't think you understand Al Qaeda's worldview. I think you understand Robert Spencer & Pamela Geller's world view. Are you suggesting that you know more than people that have studies and participated in Counter-terrorism for over 30 years? (yeah yeah appeal to authority or whatever)

Edited by CapitalistSwine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you want me to make a 20 page (obv. an exaggeration) list of news articles proving you wrong? Because I am willing to do that this upcoming weekend. I don't think you understand the Muslim worldview at all. I don't think you understand Al Qaeda's worldview. I think you understand Robert Spencer & Pamela Geller's world view. Are you suggesting that you know more than people that have studies and participated in Counter-terrorism for over 30 years? (yeah yeah appeal to authority or whatever)

Ok... more appeal to authority then... I'd like to know where I can find objective sources about Islam. For instance, is this author lying?: http://www.hudson-ny...-equals-victory -- I'm following up.

Considering the event and site that this specific issue is revolving around, I find it objectively prudent to heighten one's focus on the facts of this matter. There is an objective reality. There are, in fact, recent violent realities directly and concretely associated with (yes, among others) this specific belief system in question. It seems an especially odd (and intentional) evasion of reason and reality by those who appear to assume that this Iman's intentions are benign (as opposed to holding, at least, a neutral view as the baseline).

We will never know how many passengers on those planes evaded knowledge that something was wrong. On the one plane where they figured it out (and took action), there can be no evading the fact that a building full of lives was saved.

Edited by freestyle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to know where I can find objective sources about Islam

An interesting thought.... can there be such a thing as objective information about a religion's intentions? If you are a non believer you already believe the people are deluded and irrational and a believer is..well, a believer.

Can we rightly rely on anything other than precedent?

What does precedent tell us about Islam?

Then again precedent doesn't determine all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok... more appeal to authority then... I'd like to know where I can find objective sources about Islam. For instance, is this author lying?: http://www.hudson-ny...-equals-victory -- I'm following up.

Considering the event and site that this specific issue is revolving around, I find it objectively prudent to heighten one's focus on the facts of this matter. There is an objective reality. There are, in fact, recent violent realities directly and concretely associated with (yes, among others) this specific belief system in question. It seems an especially odd (and intentional) evasion of reason and reality by those who appear to assume that this Iman's intentions are benign (as opposed to holding, at least, a neutral view as the baseline).

We will never know how many passengers on those planes evaded knowledge that something was wrong. On the one plane where they figured it out (and took action), there can be no evading the fact that a building full of lives was saved.

I am very glad that you brought Wafa Sultan up, in particular. I will not be able to post about her until later however as I have class and then work soon. But since we are both using appeals to authority here, I ask, who is more trustworthy? This woman who had everything to gain but her actions, or by Counter-Terrorist experts that have been studying terrorism for decades, who have wide intelligence resources available, and who have, in many cases, gone deep into Wahhabist meetings undercover or dealt with the Muslim Brotherhood (a terrorist organization) first hand?

That dozens and dozens of these people hold this view, while people like Wafa Sultan, that writer of Infidel whatever her name was, that Bridgette woman, all have something to gain from their actions, and have often been the victims of localized situations that were on the extreme side of the problem, and not in normal communities. But don't answer this until I come back with some information on Wafa Sultan you might find interesting. Unlike the Counter Terrorist experts, when they denounce Islam on occasion (as they should) they don't, unlike Wafa Sultan, turn right around and do the very opposite regarding groups like Gush Emunim Underground (a Jewish terrorist organization).

Trust me, there is no evasion going on here.

I am well aware of this:

http://www.terrorfinance.org/the_terror_finance_blog/2010/08/feisal-abdul-rauf.html

There are a few things that need pointing out. Certain respects of this are taken out of context from what the Imam actually meant. He has a view of Shariah law that is common for Sufi and other individuals with his background, which is not along the same lines as the hateful, women punishing, medieval-like shariah law you witness in Iran. Not that I don't complete detest any kind of shariah law.

However I think this evidence, particularly regarding his affiliation with members of the Muslim Brotherhood is sufficient to call for an investigation by the U.S. government. The problem is, all of these affiliations are loose or do not tie into direct actions by the Imam which would be enough to condemn him, if that were the case. An investigation...I am all for that. I am not for taking action against this building for some vapid suggestion of sacredness and I am not for taking action against it without concrete evidence of such harmful activities, which would be provided, easily enough, by an investigation if there was one.

I am also well aware of his actions (such as his book, and previous actions 9/11) that speak otherwise. If I ever said he was not a mixed bag then I was mistaken at the time, I take a neutral stance on the Imam currently. How well that shows through in my comments due to the nature and purpose of them I am not sure but I am clarifying this now. To further clarify, I do not like the Imam generally speaking, I think he is hiding some of his real beliefs, but he has acted, at least in the U.S. under the guise of a moderate Sufi, and this "mosque" will be under the guise of a lot of eyes, Muslim and non-muslim. My reason for this neutral position is because I don't see how we can pull of anything dangerous given his environment. Sure he could do so in his own home or something of that nature, but if he can, why hasn't he yet? I think an investigation, which is warranted, would cover all of these bases and lay these concerns to rest. I do have serious concerns about the Imam and this situation, which is why I have always supported a proper investigation and I believe their is validity for one. I would rather people pushed for that in New York instead of their rather pointless hate speeches and sign waving in front of the construction site. As of right now I am against the WTC mosque because of the affiliations it and the Imam have with the organization. I am equally against however, lambasting everyone as a terrorist, spouting inaccuracies about the center, and suggesting the law is used improperly to remove it when there is more than enough material available on the internet alone that has been verified that could easily call for an investigation of the Imam and the organization in general and put this whole thing to rest. Somehow people seem to be confused about that and wish to think of me as an "appeaser". I am against the means, and the process that is being propagated by the majority here, I am not against the results.

Some people ask me why I always seem to be "defending Islam". The fact that people on here (as opposed to everywhere else) are unable to make the differentiation between what I am doing and "defending" Islam is the exact reason I continue to do what I have been doing. Normally these things are of little consequence due to principles and essentials, but I have been seeing some of these inaccuracies carried over into actual, concertized policy suggestions that could have extremely negative consequences for America and its people, and that worries me. So the reason you have not seen plenty of blog posts (if you follow my blog even) on the dangers of Islam, on Iran (like this one), and this, the battle with the West, injustices in the Middle East, the Jihad movements in Europe, and so on is because I only have so much free time and I am kept so damn busy trying to cure these inaccuracies that seems to be transferred into concertized policies (instead of leaving it up to the military and the experts as Peikoff himself has earlier suggested on multiple occasions).

Edited by CapitalistSwine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am very glad that you brought Wafa Sultan up, in particular. I will not be able to post about her until later however as I have class and then work soon. But since we are both using appeals to authority here, I ask, who is more trustworthy? This woman who had everything to gain but her actions, or by Counter-Terrorist experts that have been studying terrorism for decades, who have wide intelligence resources available, and who have, in many cases, gone deep into Wahhabist meetings undercover or dealt with the Muslim Brotherhood (a terrorist organization) first hand? [emphasis added]

If you are asking who do I trust: someone who has something to gain from their actions or someone who has nothing to gain? Then I trust someone who has something to gain every time. The attitude you are espousing here is altruistic. Objectivists always hope to gain from their actions. Who do you trust more the CEO who holds stock in the company he manages or the one who doesn't? You need a better argument than that to dismiss Wafa Sultan.

Beyond that, who do you trust more to understand what is going on here: someone who has lived through it, experienced that culture, denounced it and discovered the truth or a group that has been brainwashed by an academia and culture philosophically opposed to the very ideas that have made this country great. She knows that ideology is important here while most in our pragmatic culture see no connection between Iran, al Quaeda, and Ft. Hood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...