I was not trying to say that your position means the terrorists actions were justified, only that their emotions were. Many people would say that the terrorists are wrong for hating us (everyone can agree they were wrong for attacking us), your statement means their hatred for us is justified. And that is what I believe (at worst) the Imam was saying. But I could be wrong there, as I haven’t looked into him all that much.
—————-
I really like the question you posed. My initial reaction to it is: yes, my feelings would change about the project if it was funded by Al Qaeda. I sort of eluded to it in my last post (when I stated “if the facts of the situation were different…”). I would not like the building of the center if it was being done by Al Qaeda, but I still don’t think I would try to prevent them from doing it. And this is where the KKK analogy works even better, in that I don’t support anything the KKK does, but it’s not my style to go out and protest their marches.

In this alternate scenario though, I would not be so vocal in criticizing the opponents of the community center, so it would therefore change my opinion/actions if Al Qaeda was involved. And so I do concede that if Al Qaeda (or any radical Muslim group) is behind the community center, that your feelings are justified. But I have no reason to believe that our enemies are responsible for the community center. And simply following the money trail can be misleading (as shown by The Daily Show when they showed that the money is coming from Fox News).
—————-
My turn to ask an alternate scenario question. Would you be against the community center if it was being built by Hindus? Now, I’m going to assume the answer is ‘no’, and I will assume that your reasoning would be ‘because Hinduism and Islam are different religions’. And you probably feel that Islam is what inspired those who attacked us. (if I’m wrong, please let me know)

But here is my actual alternate scenario question that I want you to respond to. Let’s say there is another terrorist attack, and the terrorists belonged to the Westboro Baptist Church (the radical Christian group led by Fred Phelps that protests at the funerals of soldiers). Now they do their real-world protests because of how they interpret the Bible, so let’s say the Bible is also what led them to attack us. Would you be against a Catholic Church being built near the site where the Westboro terrorists attacked? (I’m trying to create as similar a situation as I can, just replacing Muslim groups with Christian ones)

My positions cannot be justified, according to you. That is your opinion because you don’t agree with me. My position that the project should be moved away from Ground Zero in an effort to respect the sentiment of those who lost loved ones there on the day of 9/11, doesn’t need further justification. Most fortunately, this is a free country and I can feel any way I want about anything I want.

You asked me if I feel they SHOULD have the right to build it there. My answer is yes, for the same reasons I have the right to bear arms, the right to speak freely, and the right to worship as I please. Having the right to do something doesn’t make it right to do. I have said once, and will again, that in my opinion, this issue is not one of rights, but one of human compassion, sensitivity, and tolerance. I have become frustrated and angry with the growing notion that we, as Americans, should “tolerate” every religion, culture, custom, and language, other than what is fundamentally our own (i.e. No mention of God in school prayer in a Judeo-Christian developed nation, yet Allah and controversial mosques should be welcome with open arms. That is another discussion entirely, I know). The Islamic Americans behind the Cordoba project have, as they should, the constitutional right to build it where and as planned. I can respect that right intellectually without supporting it emotionally.

I harbor reasonable doubts about the intentions of the Imam is because he has never publicly denounced or criticized the actions of Al Queda. He did, however, publicly express understanding of the terrorist attacks on America on 9/11. I would like to know more about the financial origin for the proposed project. This would be helpful, as an example. Question for you – how would your feelings change about this project, if at all, if it were revealed the center was being financed by Al Queda? Obviously, we can’t assume it is, because we have no proof of that as fact. Yet we also cannot be sure it isn’t, because that information is not being disclosed to us. Curious for your answer.

“Whereas in my opinion, there are many different interpretations, many of which can’t peacefully co-exist with other religions.”

When I meant:

“Whereas in my opinion, there are many different interpretations, many of which can peacefully co-exist with other religions.”

The difference between “can’t” and “can” definitely changes the paragraph, so I wanted to point out the typo.

“My opponent voted to keep the eye-sore of Brighton front and center at the hub of our great city. Obviously, he has poor judgement. Vote for me. I know real art when I see it.”

Or

“Because of my opponent, Brighton is without our most recognizable landmark. We’ve lost not just our cultural strength, but our identity as well. Vote for me. I know real art when I see it.”

Nice article.

I think we have different understandings of logic, but that’s alright.

You state that “Emotions are always justified”. And I take the position that emotions are not always justified, but can be. Just to give you fair warning, I’m going to use your stance against you.
————–
I sympathize with many groups (including BOTH the community center proponents and the opponents), but I don’t let my sympathies cloud my judgement of what is right and wrong. My basis for right and wrong does not hinge on which side is more sympathetic, but instead based on a stoic analysis of the facts. I believe that this is a foundation of our society that should not be sacrificed. We are a nation of freedoms that should not be subjected to public opinion based on those who are exercising those freedoms.

We may despise the KKK, and in no way sympathize with their opinions, but that does not mean we should prevent them from being able to have the same rights as everyone else (if they want to assemble, we have to let them, in order to ensure that all groups have the right to assemble).
Any attempt to deny them their rights is unconstitutional.

Now I am not comparing the KKK and Muslims in any characteristics other than that they do not have popular support (I feel that Muslims are unfairly hated, whereas I agree with the negative opinions of the KKK). And I understand that technically, you may not be trying to deny the Muslims their rights, but that is effectively what you are fighting for. On the other hand, I will as aggressively fight for your right to protest the cultural center as I fight for their right to build it. If someone was trying to stop you from protesting it, I would take your side and be against them.

I do not want to prevent from your side from voicing their opinion, I only want you to address the criticisms of that opinion (as I feel there are many). If the facts of the situation were different, I could even see myself being on the side that acknowledges that they have the right (and they should have the right), but would prefer that they don’t excercise that right (although I wouldn’t protest it since that’s not my style). But with the facts of the actual situation, I can’t be on that side.

Quick question- you state that they have the right to build, but do you think they SHOULD have the right to build there? I say they should have the right to build at any location that they own, if it abides by the local zoning ordinances (even if it actually was at Ground Zero). If another religion could build something there, so should they be able.
———————
I’m sorry I misunderstood your “blatant hypocrisy” claim. I thought you were calling me hypocritical for preaching religious tolerance, as if I was not tolerant of religion. But instead, you seem to be saying that everyone who disagrees with you is hypocritical, for defending the rights of a group that you feel is intolerant, but I don’t see how their intolerance makes me hypocritical. And as I stated, I don’t use a broad brush to paint all Muslims as intolerant- only those who are radical in their beliefs. And I’m not saying that you have to tolerate Muslims (just as you don’t have to tolerate the KKK or any other unpopular group), but you can’t deny them their rights.

Oh, and I dispute that Islam is at war with the west. You are taking a philosophy that one-sixth of the world identifies with, and claiming that the philosophy has to be understood to be anti-America. Whereas in my opinion, there are many different interpretations, many of which can’t peacefully co-exist with other religions. You may want to take a literal interpretation of their religious texts/teachings, but if you use that approach in analysis of other religions, you will find the same intolerances.
——————–
I do not know the intentions of Imam Rauf, but I have no reason to assume that his intentions are bad. This is where I am using your “Emotions are always justified” statement against you.

You think that his comments regarding 9/11 identify him as someone who we should be suspicious of, yet what are the Imam’s comments other than “the 9/11 terrorists had anti-American feelings, and they felt those emotions were justified because of X, Y & Z.” And if your statement is correct, then not only did the terrorists feel their emotions were justified, but you must agree with them, since “Emotions are always justified”. So at worst, the Imam took the same position as you, and yet that is the basis for your mistrust of him. At best, the Imam was simply explaining what led to the terrorists attacking us.

I abide by ‘innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt’, and there is without question (in my mind) reasonable doubt against the claim that the Imam has bad intentions.
————————-
My bottom line, is that you can find the community center insensitive, and I will defend your right to be against it, but A) the fact that you find it insensitive should not have any impact on whether or not they are able to build it; B) I think you base your opinion on unjustified prejudices and there are many criticisms of your position that you can not account for; and C) that the community center is not at Ground Zero, and it is completely arbitrary how far away from actual Ground Zero is required before those who are against it would no longer be against it.

You assume I relish “bashing” people during my debates. You assume incorrectly. Not my style. I respect the opinions of others enough to refrain from malignant conversation, regardless of how strongly I disagree.

“Isn’t it common for emotions to be illogical?”

No. Not from where I stand. This may be a little more psych than I care to debate. Emotions are always justified – as they belong solely to the individual harboring them. Perhaps illogical isn’t the word I would use here. Illogical means, simply, without logic. To say pigs can fly is illogical to me. There is no proof of this. They are not anatomically capable of doing so, and as such, it is factual that they cannot. But how can an emotion be without logic? Furthermore, who is an outsider to determine whether or not it is?

“How is my position thoughtless toward people who are not opposed to the community center, who are also part of humankind?”

It’s not. Are you selective in which parts of humankind you sympathize with, or feel thoughtful toward? I am asking because you seem to more affectionately side with supporters of the project, while dismissing the sentiment of the 9/11 victims, which in my opinion, is where the sentiment should lie in this case. Perhaps I misread into this because of your initial posts. I understand you support the project at Ground Zero. I do not. My reasons for this, and basis for my argument relative why I think the project should be relocated, relate explicitly to the families of the victims of 9/11. This is NOT to be interpreted as me not supporting a mosque in lower Manhattan. There are already several.

“I don’t understand who you are calling hypocritical. I am not a Muslim.”

I was not implying you were a Muslim. How did you derive this? I am calling anyone who blasts the citizens of this country, particularly NY residents, for not supporting the location of the mosque for emotional reasons, a hypocrite. I say this because the most apparent criticism of non-supporters is that they are being unconstitutional, and intolerant of other religions. The hypocrisy of that resides in the FACT (because it is a fact) that Islam is highly intolerant of other religions. The punishment is often death. I acknowledge that we are not at war with Muslims, per se, but Islam (in decree) is at war with the West. This cannot be disputed. I believe what you are truly seeing with the majority of Americans who do not support the location of this project is an uncertainty about the intentions of it (not to mention, undisclosed details such as financing, etc.). As the judge stated in his post, if more Muslims in this country who asserted that this part of Islam aligned with American values outwardly separated themselves from the extremists, it would be more clear where they stand, and as such, draw more support. Lack of clarity, consistency, and frequent contradiction, are the problems, in my opinion.

“…I don’t see the reason why the Cordoba Initiative is to be related to the terrorist attacks.”

Maybe not directly. But Ground Zero is sacred ground to many, and for good reason. I am saying I agree with the judge in that the insistence of this location is insensitive. This contradicts their own credo which states the purpose of the community center is largely centered on “generosity and respect for all.”

Additionally, how much do we really know about the intentions of Imam Rauf, and others, behind the project? You say the Imam is of the Sufi sect of Islam – a sect denounced by radical Muslims (i.e. those behind the terrorist attacks). I know this is what we are told. Yet, his videotaped comments post 9/11 regarding Americans deserving tell another story. How are you able to dismiss this, and be so certain of his loyalties?

My bottom line, Jordan, is that I acknowledge the constitutional right of the Imam to build this community center at Ground Zero. I find this insensitive. I also find his insistence on doing so questionable, because it dismisses his fellow American’s feelings about what is painfully personal.

I feel that my posts so far have outlined the lack of logical consistency in this article, but if you disagree, please feel free to counter them (but that requires actually acknowledging my argument).

But even if you don’t want to respond to my points, I’m willing to respond to yours-
____________________
Yes, I can try to empathize with the families of the victims on 9/11. I can understand them being quite sensitive about anything related to Ground Zero. You end the first paragraph though with a very interesting statement, so I must ask: how am I being egotistical and thoughtless towards humankind in general? How is my position thoughtless towards people that are not opposed to the community center (who are included in ‘humankind’)? I would think you can answer that one, since I am openly asking you to bash me.

In response to your 2nd paragraph, I ask: why can’t feelings be both understandable, yet also illogical and worthy of criticism? Isn’t it common for emotions to be illogical? Or if understandable feelings can be illogical, why is it wrong to state that fact?

3rd paragrah. I understand that Islam can be interpreted to be intolerant, just as Christianity and Judaism as well (the 1st Commandment in the Old Testament is blatant intolerance, but that’s fine as long as people don’t use that Commandment to justify intolerant behavior), but I don’t understand who you are calling hypocritical. I am not a Muslim. And I think rights belong to everyone, not just to those who agree with them (example: anti-2nd-amendment people should still be allowed to own guns).

I read the 4th & 5th paragraphs, but I’m not seeing the connection, since I don’t see any reason why the Cordoba Initiative is to be related to the terrorist attack.
____________________

In total, your position seems to rely on equating the people who want to build the community center with those who attacked us on 9/11. And if the two groups do not equate (as is the basis for my position in my earlier posts), to punish the former group due to the latter’s actions is an illogical action.

If I’ve misunderstood your position, please let me know. Or if you do think that it is fine to punish one group for the actions of another, unrelated group, please justify.