So... What is your stance of the proposed community center near ground zero?

[Silvercrow]

Well, when I say capitalism I don't mean like ADAM SMITH, and neither does his dad. I mainly meant that the chief source of income for OPEC countries (most of whom are rentier states, perhaps even all of them but I can't say for sure since I'm not familiar with some of them) is from western "capitalist" (as you might say) powers like the US.

[A-2]

I can't believe what I'm reading here. A few people have been brave enough to voice their opposition to the thing, and are automatically labeled bigots/racists. I think that's not only unfair to them (and an easy win for everyone who's playing the race card), but is also a gross oversimplification of the situation. As others have pointed out, there's no opposition to the prayer center that's 4 blocks away from the old site of the WTC wreckage, which should tell you that the opposition stems from more than just hatred - there's something about that location that pisses a lot of people off. There's a good reason for that too - 9/11. More people died in those attacks than at Pearl Harbor, itself considered a terrible tragedy. I saw the attacks live and went to school with people who lost friends/family. It was horrible. People are undoubtedly still smoldering over that attack, and I'm sure those feelings will linger for a long time. This outcry has just as much, if not more, to do with (misplaced) anger and resentment than pure bigotry - if people were simply opposed to building a mosque+community center any old place, you might have a case for prejudice. The imam has the right to build his mosque wherever he wants, but you know what? I have the right to not like it/be upset about it without being labeled a bigot. It's my country too.

[Phoenix Wright]

A few people have been brave enough to voice their opposition to the thing, and are automatically labeled bigots/racists.

False. It's the fact that someone says they can't build there, not for just stating they're against it. For example, if it were actually being built on ground zero, I'd be against it (any building, not just a Muslim place of worship), but I wouldn't deny them the right to build.

As others have pointed out, there's no opposition to the prayer center that's 4 blocks away from the old site of the WTC wreckage, which should tell you that the opposition stems from more than just hatred - there's something about that location that pisses a lot of people off. There's a good reason for that too - 9/11.

I'm not sure I understand. 9/11 is the cause of the hatred, so how could there be more to it?

More people died in those attacks than at Pearl Harbor, itself considered a terrible tragedy. I saw the attacks live and went to school with people who lost friends/family. It was horrible. People are undoubtedly still smoldering over that attack, and I'm sure those feelings will linger for a long time.

OK. People die all the time. Does that mean we can't build a community center with a mosque? Yes, 9/11 was incredibly tragic, but that doesn't stop anyone from constructing buildings nearly a decade later. And it shouldn't.

This outcry has just as much, if not more, to do with (misplaced)anger and resentment than pure bigotry - if people were simply opposed to building a mosque+community center any old place, you might have a case for prejudice. The imam has the right to build his mosque wherever he wants, but you know what? I have the right to not like it/be upset about it without being labeled a bigot. It's my country too.

Anger doesn't give one the right to take others' rights away. Or do you feel it should?

Right, you can be angry. But you cannot threaten people for building something if it's within the law.

Edited October 4, 2010 by Phoenix Wright

[A-2]

False. It's the fact that someone says they can't build there, not for just stating they're against it.

I've seen posts in this thread that indicate otherwise.

I'm not sure I understand.

I can see that. My beef is that posters in this thread are quick in accusing others of bigotry - even for mentioning that they're opposed to the construction. My personal opinion is that part, if not most, of the reason for the outcry is that people who are still hurt and sore over the 9/11 attacks are taking their anger out on the announced plans for the construction. Mostly what I've read is people saying that opposition stems from people who think all muslims are terrorists (which is what reports have said too - I tend to think that stuff gets published because it brings in more page views). Don't think it's fair to assume everyone has the same motivation for not liking the construction, in much the same way that it's not fair to assume all muslims are terrorists.

Anger doesn't give one the right to take others' rights away. Or do you feel it should?

Don't know why you brought this up, I already said that I think that construction should be allowed to proceed.

Right, you can be angry.

Yup.

Edited October 4, 2010 by A-2

[Phoenix Wright]

I've seen posts in this thread that indicate otherwise.

Where? I remember there being misunderstandings, but no accusations of people being bigots for opposing this.

My personal opinion is that part, if not most, of the reason for the outcry is that people who are still hurt and sore over the 9/11 attacks are taking their anger out on the announced plans for the construction. Mostly what I've read is people saying that opposition stems from people who think all muslims are terrorists. Don't think it's fair to assume everyone has the same motivation for not liking the construction, in much the same way that it's not fair to assume all muslims are terrorists.

That doesn't make any sense though. See, a mosque is a place of Muslim worship, so...if anyone disagrees with the construction it's either A) They don't like a Muslim mosque being near the terrorist attack zone, or B) They just don't like Muslims. Either way, it's because of the Muslims. If it were a church instead, no one would have problems.

As I've already admitted, my beliefs would get the best of me if it were being built on ground zero (I wouldn't deny construction rights), however, at two blocks away, it's just another building in New York.

Don't know why you brought this up, I already said that I think that construction should be allowed to proceed.

You stated that those who are in disagreement with this are still probably angry, therefore my question. It had little, if anything at all, to do with you personally.

Edited October 4, 2010 by Phoenix Wright

[Defeatist Elitist]

I can see that. My beef is that posters in this thread are quick in accusing others of bigotry - even for mentioning that they're opposed to the construction. My personal opinion is that part, if not most, of the reason for the outcry is that people who are still hurt and sore over the 9/11 attacks are taking their anger out on the announced plans for the construction. Mostly what I've read is people saying that opposition stems from people who think all muslims are terrorists (which is what reports have said too - I tend to think that stuff gets published because it brings in more page views). Don't think it's fair to assume everyone has the same motivation for not liking the construction, in much the same way that it's not fair to assume all muslims are terrorists.

If they're still angry, their anger is A) specifically directed at only Muslims, and B) misplaced, so they are at the very best completely wrong.

[eclipse]

Where? I remember there being misunderstandings, but no accusations of people being bigots for opposing this.

Scroll up a little, and look at Meteor's posts.

[A-2]

If they're still angry, their anger is A) specifically directed at only Muslims, and B) misplaced, so they are at the very best completely wrong.

Which is not the same as being a bigot, meaning that anyone who is opposed to it is not automatically a bigot, which was the point I was trying to make in the first place.

[Mikethfc]

If they're still angry, their anger is A) specifically directed at only Muslims, and B) misplaced, so they are at the very best completely wrong.

Which is not the same as being a bigot, meaning that anyone who is opposed to it is not automatically a bigot, which was the point I was trying to make in the first place.

In scenario A, yes it does as they're holding prejudices towards the Islamic. Scenario B puts them as the type of simpleton foolish enough to believe the daily mail but I agree not necessarily a bigot.

[Phoenix Wright]

Scroll up a little, and look at Meteor's posts.

I think Meteor is right, actually. Trying to justify a prejudice is an example of being a bigot. I have not heard a single argument against the community center that did not include taking away a Muslim's rights.

Perhaps I should have said "false accusations."

Edited October 4, 2010 by Phoenix Wright

[eclipse]

I think Meteor is right, actually. Trying to justify a prejudice is an example of being a bigot. I have not heard a single argument against the community center that did not include taking away a Muslim's rights.

Perhaps I should have said "false accusations."

Indeed, since it seems you share those same feelings. Be honest with yourself. :)

[lolDeath]

I can't believe what I'm reading here. A few people have been brave enough to voice their opposition to the thing, and are automatically labeled bigots/racists. I think that's not only unfair to them (and an easy win for everyone who's playing the race card), but is also a gross oversimplification of the situation. As others have pointed out, there's no opposition to the prayer center that's 4 blocks away from the old site of the WTC wreckage, which should tell you that the opposition stems from more than just hatred - there's something about that location that pisses a lot of people off. There's a good reason for that too - 9/11. More people died in those attacks than at Pearl Harbor, itself considered a terrible tragedy. I saw the attacks live and went to school with people who lost friends/family. It was horrible. People are undoubtedly still smoldering over that attack, and I'm sure those feelings will linger for a long time. This outcry has just as much, if not more, to do with (misplaced) anger and resentment than pure bigotry - if people were simply opposed to building a mosque+community center any old place, you might have a case for prejudice. The imam has the right to build his mosque wherever he wants, but you know what? I have the right to not like it/be upset about it without being labeled a bigot. It's my country too.

Because we are burning these poor souls in opposition at the stake. Oh wait, we're not? We're just speaking of something that we find unpleasant, the same way you are about it being built? Great Scott!

[Esau of Isaac]

I can't believe what I'm reading here. A few people have been brave enough to voice their opposition to the thing, and are automatically labeled bigots/racists. I think that's not only unfair to them (and an easy win for everyone who's playing the race card), but is also a gross oversimplification of the situation.

It's really not. You can't oppose it being built without being ignorant in some fashion. Unless there is some crazy motivation I've yet to hear.

As others have pointed out, there's no opposition to the prayer center that's 4 blocks away from the old site of the WTC wreckage, which should tell you that the opposition stems from more than just hatred - there's something about that location that pisses a lot of people off.

But there is opposition to a center farther away.

There's a good reason for that too - 9/11. More people died in those attacks than at Pearl Harbor, itself considered a terrible tragedy. I saw the attacks live and went to school with people who lost friends/family. It was horrible. People are undoubtedly still smoldering over that attack, and I'm sure those feelings will linger for a long time. This outcry has just as much, if not more, to do with (misplaced) anger and resentment than pure bigotry - if people were simply opposed to building a mosque+community center any old place, you might have a case for prejudice. The imam has the right to build his mosque wherever he wants, but you know what? I have the right to not like it/be upset about it without being labeled a bigot. It's my country too.

The difference is of course that your outrage is unfounded, damaging, and illogical, not to mention hurtful to an entire group of people based on the fringe lunatics of a bare few men, whereas those irritated at your being upset are entirely justified for the undue persecution they faced.

Oh, and speaking of Pearl Harbor; how about that Japanese Temple within sight of the Arizona Memorial?

Edited October 5, 2010 by Esau of Isaac

[Defeatist Elitist]

If they're still angry, their anger is A) specifically directed at only Muslims, and B) misplaced, so they are at the very best completely wrong.

Which is not the same as being a bigot, meaning that anyone who is opposed to it is not automatically a bigot, which was the point I was trying to make in the first place.

They're "not a bigot" in the same way that someone who has had his daughter raped by a black man is "not a bigot" if he gets angry when a black family tries to start up a business in his neighborhood.

"I just think it's insensitive to move into a neighborhood and start a business when we're going through such a difficult time nevermind all the other businesses around here"

Edited October 5, 2010 by ZXValaRevan

[eclipse]

But there is opposition to a center farther away.

Really?! Just how far away is "good enough"? Eight blocks? City limits?

Ugh. . .I hoped we had learned our lesson about blaming a group of people where 90%+ of those people have nothing to do with what happened. . .I guess I was too optimistic.

[Phoenix Wright]

Really?! Just how far away is "good enough"? Eight blocks? City limits?

Ugh. . .I hoped we had learned our lesson about blaming a group of people where 90%+ of those people have nothing to do with what happened. . .I guess I was too optimistic.

When has this country ever shown signs of that?

[eclipse]

When has this country ever shown signs of that?

Already happened. I hope it never happens again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_internment

[Phoenix Wright]

Already happened. I hope it never happens again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_internment

No, no, no. I meant signs of improving.

[eclipse]

No, no, no. I meant signs of improving.

Improvement starts small. Not too long ago, the country was divided by race and women couldn't vote, because the government said so. The government changed. That was the first step.

People like the majority of the posters in this thread are the next step. The fact that there's two vocal sides to this debate is the improvement. I can't convince every single person to let go of racism, but I can start with me, and the people around me!

[Phoenix Wright]

Improvement starts small. Not too long ago, the country was divided by race and women couldn't vote, because the government said so. The government changed. That was the first step.

People like the majority of the posters in this thread are the next step. The fact that there's two vocal sides to this debate is the improvement. I can't convince every single person to let go of racism, but I can start with me, and the people around me!

I was being facetious. I'm aware of small-scale improvements of the people. However, you said "I hoped we had learned our lesson about blaming a group of people where 90%+ of those people have nothing to do with what happened," to which I asked my [obviously not] humorous and rhetorical question. It's too easy to blame others, and it doesn't take a little bit of courage to blame oneself.

[eclipse]

I was being facetious. I'm aware of small-scale improvements of the people. However, you said "I hoped we had learned our lesson about blaming a group of people where 90%+ of those people have nothing to do with what happened," to which I asked my [obviously not] humorous and rhetorical question. It's too easy to blame others, and it doesn't take a little bit of courage to blame oneself.

My apologies. I tend to take things too literally, even when I'm not behind a computer. . .but what's that last sentence supposed to mean?

[Phoenix Wright]

My apologies. I tend to take things too literally, even when I'm not behind a computer. . .but what's that last sentence supposed to mean?

I hoped we had learned our lesson about blaming a group of people

I'm saying that it's too easy to blame others even in the event that the person himself/herself is at fault. In fact, if I remember correctly, it's even a psychological human defense mechanism. It's psychology stuff that I only know the basics of, and no more. :)

EDIT: As for the reason I wrote it that way, I'm experimenting with different styles of arguing, writing, et cetera. The best place to start is the Internet where few care, and I'm able to self-evaluate my writing without thinking I'm incredibly stupid.

Edited October 7, 2010 by Phoenix Wright

[Life]

Like I said, I argued with my dad over this and it got infuriating to continue the argument soon after since me saying that accusing these people of orchestrating a plot just to slap America in the face was equatable to me condoning the attacks on the WTC.

One of the things that you have to realize is that I'm a Jewish Canadian. So when my dad (and my mom since she said this too) believes that Canada should also have a day of remembrance for the victims, I'm about to go psycho. Not because I don't give two shits about them because it was Americans and not Canadians. But if we go that far, we (Canada) might as well have a day of remembrance for stuff like Iraqi civilians being killed by terrorists and so on and so forth. I don't want my country to take on the weight of the problems of the world and give it as much significance as our own. Yes it was sad when terrorists aimed planes at buildings in the US. But (as terrible as this might sound), it's not a problem that directly involved my country during that moment and something about Canada making it our business doesn't sit right with me.

This doesn't mean that I'm not for trying to bring peace to Afghanistan. It means that Canada should not have some sort of a remembrance day that doesn't involve Canadians. A perfect example would be November 11th up here (Remembrance Day for WWI). Should Americans also adopt that day to remember Canadians? Logically, no. And if that makes me seem like a terrible person, so be it.

There is one thing that bothers me. Apparently Donald Trump was speaking to the guy who bought the spot (the Muslim guy) and the Muslim guy was talking about what a great deal that he made for the spot. Which made Trump think that this guy was actually holding the spot for ransom rather than trying to do something good. Trump also (apparently) offered an outrageous amount of money for the spot (I think he mentioned $250 million but this was a month ago so I'm not sure if that number is even close to correct) and told the Muslim guy that Trump could get him a spot that was 8 blocks away, with the Muslim guy turning it down.

That's the one thing that I find fishy. Gimme a second to look for a source though since right now, I'm going off of memory alone and my memory isn't as reliable as I'd like it to be.

EDIT: My number is way off. It's more like 6 millionish.

Edited October 7, 2010 by Sue Sylvester

[eclipse]

Erm. . .November 11th on this side of the border is Veteran's Day, which is for all war veterans. I do get your point, and I don't think you're a terrible person for it.

[Life]

Erm. . .November 11th on this side of the border is Veteran's Day, which is for all war veterans. I do get your point, and I don't think you're a terrible person for it.

OK fine. But my point still stands as in "I don't feel right with my country having a day to remember people of another country". Like... Chernobyl. Nobody in Canada has a moment of solitude on April 26 when Chernobyl exploded and evacuated more than 350,000 people. That's about 20x the number of people who where directly affected by 9/11 (I mean lost someone that they knew).