[steven1989pdx]

On Facebook a friend of mine brought of a conservative view about the plans to build another mosque in NY. This was my response after many before me arguing for and against the matter. I was hoping to gain the most feedback from Athests, regardless of political affiliation. By the end of this rather essay of a comment, I began to question my own beliefs on ethics, such as "As an INTP, why am I defending something in the manner of defending other people's feelings?" And of course some other things popped into my mind as well but I forgot them. Silly personality type.

From Facebook:

I would suggest reading _____'s last comment over again. This is an intolerance for intolerance, perhaps hate in a sense if you will, but the motives of religion as a collective whole is not the point being made. Extremist muslims are a true threat to ALL of mankind for their inability to accept and "TOLERATE" any other perspectives than theirs, invade other countries (Europe) and force them to recognize and enforce such detrimental crap as "Sharia Law," and who lash out in a savage manner whenever their religion is slandered even in the most trivial nature; Terrorism.

Although the same point could be made about Christians also invading Africa and other countries praising the name of the "lord" in an attempt to effectively destroy other culture in lieu of pure ignorance. Being Atheist wouldn't support any religion, it's deeds, or anything else associated to it.

You would assume (hope rather) that common courtesy would play it's part and muslims would infer it ethical to not build a mosque at or near Ground Zero, even NY preferably. This is a blatant display of disrespect to Americans. Despite this, we don't bomb them or threaten, for all are intimidated by the muslim culture in it's entirety for what the extremist have proven they're capable of. Compare extremists if you want to (perhaps christan and muslim) and the point becomes clear. It's a matter of disrespect, such as bringing over a terrible party guest a second time after they have proven themselves unfit the first time.


Any views from other Atheists would be greatly appreciated regardless of political affiliation, since I am an Atheist republican. Of course, all INTP's insights are top priority.

 

[Nitou]

As an INTP, why am I defending something in the manner of defending other people's feelings?

Because they are relevant. Allowing Muslims to build a mosque in that location is like granting permission for someone to teabag you after they knocked you on your ass. Your argument is much better written than mine though.

Btw I am a moderately liberal atheist.

 

[steven1989pdx]

But don't you think it's unethical to inhibit anyone from building anything as long as they were qualified and given permission to do so? In that regard I think that it's wrong regardless of the teabag analogy, which I find completely relevant and comical.

 

[Acebrock]

Because they are relevant. Allowing Muslims to build a mosque in that location is like granting permission for someone to teabag your face after they knocked you on your ass. Your argument is much better written than mine though.

Btw I am a moderately liberal atheist.

That location being 2 blocks northeast of the WTC neighborhood, and not visible if you're looking from ground zero. I'm not seeing that's even comparable to "teabaaging your face." Also, it's not a mosque, but a community center

 

[Shmo]

The premise of Western civilization is in my view the supremacy of law. The book before the heart. Even if something feels wrong if it is not legally forbidden it must be allowed.

Therefore as offensive a gesture as it is, for some, to have a mosque close to ground zero, something's being offensive is not valid grounds for its prohibition. Just as anyone should be able to draw Muhammad regardless of the disrespect it incurs, so should the mosque be allowed.

 

[Acebrock]

Never mind...

 

[steven1989pdx]

Never mind...

Acebrock, you're totally valid! I mean there's a few different sides to this. I'd assume you're more "feely," which is great. I still haven't decided how I view the whole thing. On one hand, sure, we have definitely been wronged, but there is the ethical argument that nobody should be refused the right to build anything so long as it's permissible by law. Both wonderful sides to the argument.

 

[Shmo]

I definitely understand the argument against the construction of the mosque, and I would personally not have it built.

The worry I have is that is that in a common law system as soon as an exception is made, everyone's personal objections will become valid reasons to curtail the freedom of others beyond the need to protect said freedom.

 

[Nitou]

Just as anyone should be able to draw Muhammad regardless of the disrespect it incurs, so should the mosque be allowed.

How often do Christians issue death threats because someone insults their religion? I think a little intolerance toward Islam is justified.

 

[Shmo]

But not in law. If you are suggesting to codify intolerance based on who believes in what fantasy I would have to disagree vehemently. Let those who issue death threats be dealt with individually. The sort of eye-for-an-eye politics you seem to be suggesting would destroy the entire point of even fighting.

Yes, I dislike Islam. I dislike Christianity. Religion in general is a very stupid idea, but its foibles cannot be allowed to interfere with liberty.

 

[steven1989pdx]

Religion in general is a very stupid idea, but its foibles cannot be allowed to interfere with liberty.

Excellent point.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

 

[nothingnew]

I voted For It and Neither. I am very surprised that that is the most popular opinion ATM. You people are cool I lean liberal, sometimes conservative, but often just consider the lesser of two evils. I personally rarely feel represented.

The argument against the mosque sadly shows the entire world how self-centered and stupid Americans are. Muslims are paying more attention to this issue than the average American; be aware. Even putting Muslims in the same boat as the terrorists is a huge insult to over a billion people globally. I am a Christian, but I took a college class on religious diversity and one on critical thinking; and I guess that sadly makes me smarter than most Americans on the subject.

To compare all Muslims to Al Quada is no different than comparing all Christians to KKK members. Very insulting to most spiritual people. Muhammad gave specific instructions for peace, and said something similar to 'love the Christians and Jewish, they are our brothers under God.' Jihad does not mean 'holy war', it translates as 'struggle.' Of course, saying that does not lead to media sensationalism and ratings. All three religions have the story of Moses and the Ten Commandments. If I remember correctly, Muslims differ in that they believe Jesus was a prophet of God, but Muhammad was the third and final prophet around 500AD(or CE - Current Era to be religiously politically correct).

To think that many Americans would likely be more comfortable with a gun store, nudie bar, or travel agent next to ground zero is mind blowing

 

[SomeWeirdGuy]

Why not? We build churches Baghdad where we caused many deaths from bombs and more. Why can't they build mosques on our only homeland casualties?

Well, I can tell you why: Our deaths are worth 10 times one of theirs to the public. 20 insurgents killed and two soldiers killed... but who cares about those soldiers? Their kids probably cried as much when they saw their dad dead on the battlefield, but nobody cares...

Fuck, intelligence sucks. Excuse me while I go smack my head into the wall to clear the horrifying images of dead soldiers and bloody ground.

 

[Refu]

Tolerance isn't just some abstract ideal to strive for, it's a practical way we generally live our life. Most people are member of some identifiable group of people or minority.

"They came first for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up."

Martin Niemöller was a German pastor and theologian born in Lippstadt, Germany, in 1892. Niemöller was an anti-Communist and supported Hitler's rise to power at first. But when Hitler insisted on the supremacy of the state over religion, Niemöller became disillusioned. He became the leader of a group of German clergymen opposed to Hitler. Unlike Niemöller, they gave in to the Nazis' threats. Hitler personally detested Niemöller and in 1937 had him arrested and eventually confined in the Sachsenhausen and Dachau concentration camps. Niemöller was released in 1945 by the Allies. He continued his career in Germany as a clergyman and as a leading voice of penance and reconciliation for the German people after World War II. His statement, sometimes presented as a poem, is well-known, frequently quoted, and is a popular model for describing the dangers of political apathy, as it often begins with specific and targeted fear and hatred which soon escalates out of control.

(from wikipedia)

 

[Just_Some_Guy]

Not many people talk about this, but it is mildly alarming for me.

The mosque being built will be called the "Cordoba Mosque." Research quickly, if you would, the history of Cordoba. It was a Spanish, Christian city that was conquered through violence by Muslims. The Muslims tore down a Christain church and built the mosque at the sight of its destruction. Soon after, Cordoba became the center of the Muslim world. It lasted a few hundred years and was then re-sacked by the Christians.

The problem here is that the implications of militant aggression is flagrant. If the mosque was called the "Bob Jones Mosque," I wouldn't take issue with it, but it is "coincidentally" being named after an historic Muslim war trophy that is overtly symbolic of military and religious domination.

 

[jockthemotie]

I voted For It and Neither. I am very surprised that that is the most popular opinion ATM. You people are cool I lean liberal, sometimes conservative, but often just consider the lesser of two evils. I personally rarely feel represented.

The argument against the mosque sadly shows the entire world how self-centered and stupid Americans are. Muslims are paying more attention to this issue than the average American; be aware. Even putting Muslims in the same boat as the terrorists is a huge insult to over a billion people globally. I am a Christian, but I took a college class on religious diversity and one on critical thinking; and I guess that sadly makes me smarter than most Americans on the subject.

To compare all Muslims to Al Quada is no different than comparing all Christians to KKK members. Very insulting to most spiritual people. Muhammad gave specific instructions for peace, and said something similar to 'love the Christians and Jewish, they are our brothers under God.' Jihad does not mean 'holy war', it translates as 'struggle.' Of course, saying that does not lead to media sensationalism and ratings. All three religions have the story of Moses and the Ten Commandments. If I remember correctly, Muslims differ in that they believe Jesus was a prophet of God, but Muhammad was the third and final prophet around 500AD(or CE - Current Era to be religiously politically correct).

To think that many Americans would likely be more comfortable with a gun store, nudie bar, or travel agent next to ground zero is mind blowing

Good post. One must differentiate between extremist viewpoints, and responsible practitioners. Disallowing the mosque to be built implies that there is no difference between the terrorist and responsible practitioner, which is false. As above, it's similar to saying that all Christians are like those of Westboro Baptist Church, with their "God hates fags" nonsense.

I don't believe there is really an ethical consideration here. There are realities to consider: evaluating the safety of such a building in that area, concerns of misplaced aggression, etc but ethics in this situation are nonsense. They do not belong.

 

[CrabHammer]

ETG, first of all thank you for bringing that to my attention, as well as anyone else who may not know. I was inspired to do some research (by which I mean, I looked a few things up on wikipedia) and feel at least a little better informed on the topic.

However, I feel like the conclusion you've made is a bit of a leap. For one, the city of Cordoba was captured almost 1300 years ago. I suppose that doesn't reduce any potential symbolism, but I doubt the average Muslim worshiper is going to realize what could be implied by its name. Secondly as you said, Cordoba was a major cultural center for Islam. The more sensible conclusion, and maybe I am alone in this, is that they would want to name a cultural center in a major city for one of the great cultural centers in their religious history. The Christians they conquered were the Visigoths, who are not exactly renowned for their cuddly behavior either. And finally, it wasn't even clear to me from the article that the church was even finished. It took the Muslims 200 years just to refit the existing structure, which had been started ~180 years earlier. This is slightly speculative though, because as I said, it wasn't actually clear from the article whether the existing church was actually finished.

I can at least understand the apprehension of many people to put a Mosque so near a very sensitive place for us, but I think this is an opportunity to show the Muslims that do like us (believe it or not they do exist) that we can step above this "Holy War" nonsense. Instead many of us are just playing along and demonizing the entire religion over the acts of the extremists. nothingnew mentioned that Christians would not want to be judged on the actions or the KKK, and I had a similar thought that they wouldn't want to be judged on the Spanish Inquisition either. If you base your opinion on the worst people of their kind, of course they will come out looking bad.

Also, did someone seriously suggest that there should no mosques in NYC? That would be downright religious oppression, which is exactly the kind of thing we are fighting against.

EDIT: So I guess this opinion makes me for the mosque, but honestly, it's more accurate to say I am against the opposition of the mosque. Saying I'm for it makes it sound like I think it's a great idea. It seems like it is in poor taste to me, and they were short sighted if they didn't foresee at least a little backlash, but I really wouldn't care at all except for the vehement opposition.

 

[Dogod]

So the choice is between offending a few thousand people and taking away the rights of a few million people?
I think the choice is obvious.

 

[Shmo]

Yes. Even if it were a choice between offending a few million and taking away the rights of one, the rights of one would be supreme.