Mosque near ground zero

[coverpoint]

And what would you think the reaction would be if the UK govt opened up a cultural center dedicated to King George in front of Jallianwala Bagh? Even though India and UK are friendly countries and all that, do you think this would be allowed? And even if it were allowed would the people of Amritsar swallow this insult without a protest?

Its a wrong analogy. I can answer this one as a Punjabi Hindu with relations to someone who lost their life in Jalianwala bagh. The right analogy would be if the Catholic church were to build a culture center to honor the guys who died in Jalianwala bagh, then I (and a billion others) would have NO issues with that. Thats the difference that most peace loving people should understand. AQ does not and should not represent all muslims. And I would hope that there is a difference between a totalitarian state like Saudi Arabia and USA (or even India for that matter)

[Clarke]

We are discussing the video of Keith oberman, not the first post of the thread. Have you watched the video? It's a good one.

The video's over the top, why on earth does he need to bring up fascist ideology when the sensitivities of people are being discussed ? Criticizing something that hurts the sentiments of the victim's families is democratic, not fascist. He conveniently dismissed the background picture wherein the imam has suggested earlier that 9/11 was 'partly' America's fault and Hezbollah is not a terrorist organization. There's nothing legal or illegal here but this guy hardly sounds like the one keen on building bridges. How on earth does an exclusive monotheistic religious structure promote understanding ? Tell me this, would u agree with a statement like "93 mumbai blasts and 26/11 are partly India's fault" in context of Babri Masjid and post Babri riots and Gujarat riots ? What if such a person suggests building a mega Islamic structure at a place destroyed by 26/11 attacks ?

[Clarke]

Its a wrong analogy. I can answer this one as a Punjabi Hindu with relations to someone who lost their life in Jalianwala bagh. The right analogy would be if the Catholic church were to build a culture center to honor the guys who died in Jalianwala bagh, then I (and a billion others) would have NO issues with that.

General Dyer wasn't a Christian crusader, he was an officer of the British govt.

Thats the difference that most peace loving people should understand. AQ does not and should not represent all muslims. And I would hope that there is a difference between a totalitarian state like Saudi Arabia and USA (or even India for that matter)

There already is a vast difference, which is why there is no legal opposition. Most Indians don't give a damn about Ayodhya. Visit Mathura and let me know which prominent religious structure u see near the supposed birth place of Krishna.

[yoda]

Nope. For example polygammy - which is openly prescribed in the Quran- is not tolerated in US. What it means is that Muslims will have to forego such practices which are in violation of the US constitution. Similarly the verses that prescribe violence and in-tolerence against non-Muslims and inumerable other verses that blatantly violate the US constitution. Ask any American Muslim to reject those verses I listed in my previous post and see how far you get. Iam trying since last few months in the 70 jawans thread ... but other than the usual apologist stuff the man (Kritereon) stoutly tells me that its all a very tolerant ideology and stands by every word in that book. The other aspect is the track record of this community to peddle for Sharia laws .... even while being amongst the most advanced western countries in Europe and America these guys matter of factly stand up and ask for seperate legal system. So much for integration and tolerance and assimilation and respect for constitution !!

Which is why i said as long it is not illegal. Here they just want to have a community center 3 blocks away and everyone is getting their pants all twisted.

[yoda]

The video's over the top, why on earth does he need to bring up fascist ideology when the sensitivities of people are being discussed ? Criticizing something that hurts the sentiments of the victim's families is democratic, not fascist. He conveniently dismissed the background picture wherein the imam has suggested earlier that 9/11 was 'partly' America's fault and Hezbollah is not a terrorist organization. There's nothing legal or illegal here but this guy hardly sounds like the one keen on building bridges. How on earth does an exclusive monotheistic religious structure promote understanding ? Tell me this, would u agree with a statement like "93 mumbai blasts and 26/11 are partly India's fault" in context of Babri Masjid and post Babri riots and Gujarat riots ? What if such a person suggests building a mega Islamic structure at a place destroyed by 26/11 attacks ?

He is totally on the money. Asking a group of people to give up their constitutional right is fascist. The video brings up the excellent point of the location of the center (3 blocks away) and how there is already a place of worship facing GZ from the 70s. Again let me repeat, this new center is not facing GZ, it is away, currently exists, all they are planning to do is rebuild it. Much ado about nothing from the right wing zealots who will do the same to any religion which isn't named Christianity. The 9/11 families are just being take for a ride by these folks, IMO.

[coverpoint]

Nope. For example polygammy - which is openly prescribed in the Quran- is not tolerated in US. What it means is that Muslims will have to forego such practices which are in violation of the US constitution. Similarly the verses that prescribe violence and in-tolerence against non-Muslims and inumerable other verses that blatantly violate the US constitution. Ask any American Muslim to reject those verses I listed in my previous post and see how far you get. Iam trying since last few months in the 70 jawans thread ... but other than the usual apologist stuff the man (Kritereon) stoutly tells me that its all a very tolerant ideology and stands by every word in that book. The other aspect is the track record of this community to peddle for Sharia laws .... even while being amongst the most advanced western countries in Europe and America these guys matter of factly stand up and ask for seperate legal system. So much for integration and tolerance and assimilation and respect for constitution !!

Question for you. There are plenty of things in the Bible that violate the US constitution. Would the Christians in America reject those verses? Heck can you get the right wingers to say anything against them? Abortion is legal in the US. How many Christian right fundamentalists have actually killed to protest that? Should all Christians be blamed for that?

[coverpoint]

General Dyer wasn't a Christian crusader, he was an officer of the British govt. There already is a vast difference, which is why there is no legal opposition. Most Indians don't give a damn about Ayodhya. Visit Mathura and let me know which prominent religious structure u see near the supposed birth place of Krishna.

General Dyer was a Christian (just like the terrorists were muslims). And my point was exactly that. What happened at Jalianwala bagh should be blamed on the British and if the british embassy put a flag there it would be wrong. BUT if the Christian church (just like the Islamic Mosque) wants to do something for the good of the people (or claim they want to do it for the good of the people) why should we have a problem with that?

[Clarke]

He is totally on the money. Asking a group of people to give up their constitutional right is fascist. The video brings up the excellent point of the location of the center (3 blocks away) and how there is already a place of worship facing GZ from the 70s. Again let me repeat, this new center is not facing GZ, it is away, currently exists, all they are planning to do is rebuild it. Much ado about nothing from the right wing zealots who will do the same to any religion which isn't named Christianity. The 9/11 families are just being take for a ride by these folks, IMO.

How on earth is requesting (not forcing) something fascist ? If i request someone to stop cursing (exercising 1st amendment rights) in public, am i a fascist ? FYI the Burlington Coat Factory was damaged on 9/11. Its not as random a place as Olbermann suggests it is. I will agree, the GOP isn't doing the nation a favor by politicizing this.

General Dyer was a Christian (just like the terrorists were muslims). And my point was exactly that. What happened at Jalianwala bagh should be blamed on the British and if the british embassy put a flag there it would be wrong. BUT if the Christian church (just like the Islamic Mosque) wants to do something for the good of the people (or claim they want to do it for the good of the people) why should we have a problem with that?

So tell me this: What was the war cry of the 9/11 hijackers ? Was it Hail Saudi Arabia or Allah hu Akbar ? This isn't about blaming people, its about the sensitivities of the victims.

[coverpoint]

True I dont deny that. No society is truly perfect. On the flip side most of US constitution was written by "Right Wingers" :--D . But here we are talking about a ideology that has a very long track record ( world wide) of secessionism and division in the name of religion ( and not just some comparatively petty topic of Womens rights ) . Just look at our own history surrounding the partition. The same arguments used to me made by liberals and pacifists back then too. In short Iam talking about the scale and gravity to which the situation can descend once you start feeding the Islamic monster under the banner of Secularism. And again there is no better example than India as to what happens when you keep on feeding it in the hope that it will stop harming you.

Thats why I want to be different from "them". One I want to differentiate and marginalize the extremist muslims (and not give them more fodder). Second, I would like to think that I would live by MY ideals and beliefs and not by what others are doing. Hinduism teaches sacrifice and tolerance. IF You think islam teaches hatred, arent you subscribing to their theory over your own religion by becoming like them? In reality I believe most muslims do believe in peace. And to damn them all due to the actions of a few just makes us the same fundamentalists.

[yoda]

How on earth is requesting (not forcing) something fascist ? If i request someone to stop cursing (exercising 1st amendment rights) in public, am i a fascist ?

They are requesting now, they tried forcing the issue via the council earlier. It is an insult to ask people to go elsewhere for no fault of their own. That is how discrimination was practiced, asking blacks to stay away from white restrooms, etc. I wouldn't be surprised if you see some violence by the right as they did to the abortion clinics if this went forward.

FYI the Burlington Coat Factory was damaged on 9/11. Its not as random a place as Olbermann suggests it is.

It is a random place, it is not at GZ. Many many buildings in the area were hit a little here and there, all of that doesn't become GZ.

[yoda]

You completely missed the point and the point is that there is no track record of Muslims ever assimilating and respecting other cultures and ideology - something that Oberman was exhorting us to do. So all his liberal claptrap sounds good in theory ... but reality is a different beetch. And in this case the onus is on them to do whatever it takes to build the bridge and not behave like pests ...

You are the one missing the point. We don't care about track record of Muslims world over. The question is about the US and it's right to freedom of religion. You want freedom of all religions - Islam.

[yoda]

I realize that burying head deep into sand is a fundamental requirement of mindless liberalism. I was hoping that this debate could be conducted keeping realities in mind. So yeah self destruction is your absolute right . Just spare those who dont want to be wiped out in that process. FWIW ... the call for Sharia laws have already begun here ... It wont be that long when some liberal nutcase will stand up and say ... "ohhh you want Sharia Law fine lets make some minor modifications to our constitution afterall it must be all holy wonly as its part of your "holy" religion " ... and why is that sounding sooo familiar ? Ohhh wait we tried that exercise too back in India ... what came out of it ? More death and destruction. How wonderfull ehh ?

When every discussion of yours starts and ends with hate for a religion, there isn't much to do in terms of carrying on a debate.

[Clarke]

They are requesting now, they tried forcing the issue via the council earlier. It is an insult to ask people to go elsewhere for no fault of their own. That is how discrimination was practiced, asking blacks to stay away from white restrooms, etc.

Opposing mosques across the country is discriminatory; about this very site, i guess it depends on how one looks at it.

I wouldn't be surprised if you see some violence by the right as they did to the abortion clinics if this went forward.

As opposed to the ISLAMIC terrorists using the mosque as a sign of victory over infidels and inspiring further attacks ? If clubbing anyone remotely against the mosque as right wingers is okay, so is clubbing all followers of a particular religion. Violence can happen either way if the mosque is moved as well from the 'misguided' believers.

It is a random place, it is not at GZ. Many many buildings in the area were hit a little here and there, all of that doesn't become GZ.

If it were so random, they should be fine to move elsewhere. It still is a part of the landmarks directly hit on that day. Either way, i hope the decision is exclusively taken by the owners of the property and they make the right choice by themselves. Hell, build the mosque, sure it will promote interfaith tolerance and understanding.

[yoda]

As opposed to the ISLAMIC terrorists using the mosque as a sign of victory over infidels and inspiring further attacks ? If clubbing anyone remotely against the mosque as right wingers is okay, so is clubbing all followers of a particular religion. Violence can happen either way if the mosque is moved as well from the 'misguided' believers.

Not clubbing anyone, talking specifically about the hate filled right wingers specifically who seem to be the main opponents of this Mosque construction.

If it were so random, they should be fine to move elsewhere. It still is a part of the landmarks directly hit on that day. Either way, i hope the decision is exclusively taken by the owners of the property and they make the right choice by themselves.

They own the building and are already using it for prayers and gathering, they want to rebuild it into a newer building with other facilities. Why should they move anywhere? And, they are not building a Mosque in the traditional sense with Minarets, etc. It is going to be a multi-storied, multi-purpose building.

[EnterTheVoid]

Lets build a church at the site of every drone strike, it would help communal harmony. This is a non issue for me, let them build the mosque, but build it someplace else.

[coverpoint]

I ask this again ... when did this pacifism ever work for Hindus ... its been about 12 centuries since we first came in contact with them ... any instance of your supposedly superior ideals working out to your and everybody elses satisfaction in any conflict ?

first ... to generalize and say that Hindus have been truly pacifists is not backed by facts. As a punjabi whose family came from Lahore and lost everything at partition when we had to come to India, I know we have suffered from the acts of muslims. But there were many muslims killed too in those riots. Everyone writes their own history but the first hand anecdotes from my grandparents tell me that in a city like Lahore the fights and riots would happen from both sides. We have had our extremists too. Bal Thakaray is just the first name that comes to mind. But back to the point, its not pacifism that I am talking about. I am talking about my own ideals and the ideals that this country (and my original home country of India) was built upon. And those are the ideals of tolerance and equality. Just because Saudi Arabia is a tyranny, does not mean we have to be that way. If our way of life is better (and it is) lets believe in it. If the others can see the light all the power to them (and us). If not ... their loss. Dont get me wrong. I am as much of a believer in securing our land. I have no issues in the security created (and even a bit of profiling in that security) BUT I am against punishing an entire community for the actions of a few.

[coverpoint]

All Iam asking is A single instance in real life of your vastly superior ideology having come thru( meaning you didnt have to evacuate or shut up and put up) . We have been at it for just about 10+ centuries ... so can you name this one instance? If not then what good is your ideology ? Would appreciate straight forward answers. .

and the straightforward answer is that an ideology is a personal choice. In this case I would rather believe in MY country's constitution which says equality for all rather than in someone else's ideology that believes in killing. My ideology (and constitution) says that we treat everyone equally under our country's laws.

How many "jihads" did this guy conduct? Zilch

He, just like OBL, has provoked people into killing. Killing is killing ... no matter who gets killed.

[coverpoint]

So there was never an instance of our civilized way of life having worked against them. Do you realise what the reason for this is ? Or you think this is not a serious matter worth wasting our time on and we should keep feeding the crocodile hoping that a well fed crocodile wont harm you much? And speaking of Hinduism .... it calls you to deal with adharma thru any means. Putting up with adharma is a crime. The many avatars of Shri Vishnu are replete with tales of such situations the most famous one being the Bhagwad Geeta. So dont try to hide behind the "Our ideology doesnt believe in violence" excuse. This is hardly the case .. even you know it. But anyhow ... And just shutting up counting the dead whining a bit and then evacuating is a far nobler alternative ? Isnt that what happened to us in Afghanistan,Kashmir,BD,Pak .... ? Any chance we learn a lesson this millenia ?

Stretching arent we? No one said that we have to accept adharma or crime. I already said this on this thread itself that one needs to defend oneself. And defend means do what it takes. Add security. And even if it means going and attacking terror camps or attacking supporters of terror (what we did in Afghanistan ... and what India should have done in Pakistan). What I am saying is differentiate between crime and religion. Crime maybe committed in the name of religion by a few bigoted people but lets not become bigoted ourselves. Go ahead and attack the criminals and go after them hard. BUT lets not damn an entire religion for that. Our ideals have to be of equality. Thats what India and the US are built on. I am not compromising MY ideals because someone from another religion and country has different ideals or ways of thinking.

[coverpoint]

Iam not stretching anything everything that I said is plainly common knowledge If anything you are stretching when you say that there is only a teeny weeny % of bigots otherwise its just a holy religion like any other. But lets look deeper into this "few bigots wonly" statement that keeps comming up everytime this topic is discussed . I assume you mean to say that just like any other religion out there Islam also is a holy entity and we shouldnt judge it based on actions of a few. Lets look at the realities for a moment ... Right from Bin Qasim to Pervez Musharraf the no.of Non-bigots that represented ROP is a teeny-weeny-minority and can be counted on fingers of one hand. This is the exact opposite Further why dont we produce the same sort of bigots with ulterior motives ? Afterall religion is a powerfull tool that can be used to further political and territorial agendas. How is that we never produced one single ruler that had the same intent like those from Bin Qasim to Musharraf? (And pls dont bring in BT you very well know why) Big fat coincidence ? Lets look at it from the avg joe perspective .... Hindus have migrated far and wide to all corners of earth. Yet there has never been a single instance of us demanding special privileges based on our religious sentiments like how Sharia gets demanded everywhere Muslims go. Again a Big fat coincidence ? If you want to look more deeper and want to investigate this unique phenomenon .... you will have to look into the works of the founder of that religion. So please dont equate them with any other religion (expecially the dharmic religions) and accord them the same respect. This is an insult to the 100s of millions that have been murdered under the banner of ROP. I know it is fashionable to regurgitate mindless cliches from the textbooks of Political Correctness and liberalism but like I keep saying reality is a different animal.

So let me answer with 2 points. 1) First when you say we have not asked for special laws or clauses then that is not true. I consider Sikh's an extension of Hindus (half my family is sikh ... including my grand fathers real brother). In canada and UK Sikhs have asked for special exclusions for allowing them to wear their patkas while in their military etc. Same exclusion was given in the US too from what I remember very recently. 2) Hinduism, as opposed to Islam (or even Christianity), is just not as rigid. We are taught to think inside and do what is right. For example, no where does it say that Hindus should not eat meat. So everyone interprets it in their own way. Islam on the other hand has some very clear directions that everyone must do (similar to what Sikhs have among us or Jains have among us). So their beliefs easily clash with what the west needs. To use that to say that Muslims demand more from the west is not looking at the whole point. All this does not condone the violence. Infact I am hawkish on that point. I am a full believer of going after the criminals and the terrorists. Lets from our perspective learn to differentiate between an terrorist and a muslim

[coverpoint]

This is not a valid comparison even if we stretch Hiinduism to include Sikhism ... it will be valid when we ask for seperate Hindu personal law in UK,US,CA etc ... Again Iam not even talking about petty things like eating habbits and clothing. Demanding Sharia is for asking pretty much a different governance a far more serious situation than what you want to portray .

I guess we have made our points and neither of us is changing our minds. For the record, i am not supporting allowing Sharia law (heck I am opposed to having a sep civil code that we have in India). There should be one law of the land and that should not include religion. Allowing a mosque on an uncontested open land does not require a law change.