Burning books and building mosques - lessons in insensitivity

Laminations

It appears that when an american nutjob pastor says he'll burn the koran, a vast swathe of the muslim world becomes anti-american. Many see fit to generalise this nutjobs actions to a wider resentment for the US. But look at the number of american figures who have come out against this guy. He has been condemned right up to the president to the point where he has backed off but still we get protests and killings.

Two people were shot and killed on Sunday by the Afghan army in the eastern district of Baraki Barak as a crowd of up to 300 protesters chanted anti-US slogans and tried to storm the governor's office.

However, the pastor has the right to burn books if he wants. Its provocative, its insensitive, its idiotic, but it can and should be ignored. He should have received no press. He has the right to burn books, just as the Imam (Feisal Abdul Rauf) in New York has the right to build a mosque but neither have to exercise that right, especially when it pisses so many people off. Obama has been very careful to protect the rights of the property owners building the mosque while not saying anything about whether he agrees with it. I'm of a similar opinion. I think they have every right to do it (and I wouldn't be near as quick to champion the right to burn books), but they should really consider the 70% of people who believe it to be insensitive. I personally dont see it as a problem and wouldn't mind a mosque being built there (espeicially as they say it'll be a center for reconcilliation) but I do see it as insensitive as it is pushing ahead despite the objections from so many. To me it would be similar to the british building an embassy in or near the GPO. Now is it only the intolerant who'd hold a grudge against the current British for events of the past (David Cameron didn't shoot any guns in 1916). Similarly, the attackers on 9/11 were muslim extremists, I think people are wrong to expand their hatred to the muslim world en masse, but I can understand that a majority feel uncomfortable, even if I dont agree with it.

It seems now that muslim extremists are dictating the location of the mosque

'My (NY Imam) major concern with moving it is that the headline in the Muslim world will be 'Islam is under attack in America',' he said. 'This will strengthen the radicals in the Muslim world, help their recruitment.'

'The recent controversy, I think, has heightened the concern among Muslims, but we feel that there is a spike of Islamophobia which is reaching and perhaps even possibly exceeding what happened right after 9/11.'

So why doesn't he use his influence to counter this perception? Why doesn't he focus muslim attention on the protests in favour of the mosque, or the huge protestations against the burning of the Koran? or explain that the move is happening because its original location was insensitive to a large majority of NYers. Muslim radicals like the mosque there for the same reason that the pastor wanted to burn the Koran - to piss 'the other side' off. If people are being condemned for being islamiphobic for reacting to a mosque that has no great support then why aren't people being condemned for being americanophobic for reacting to the preacher who has no great support?

Seems that nobody wants to make muslims angry. People shouldn't burn the koran because it is wrong and insensitive, not because it'll make muslims angry and they'll unjustifiably shoot any old americans they see.

ei.sdraob

The bookburning debacle is kneecap response to the mosque building
both are stupid ideas trying to stir up ****e, but yes both parties have their rights of course..

to be honest i have no time for religious nutcases, i propose burning the lot, the world would be a better place without organized religion

Nodin

It's not a mosque.

Lamintations wrote:

To me it would be similar to the british building an embassy in or near the GPO

The cultural centre is being built by a Sufi muslim. The attacks were carried out by an extremist Wahabi sect.

Lamintations wrote:

It seems now that muslim extremists are dictating the location of the mosque

"seems" to the ignorant and easily led, perhaps.

Laminations

Nodin wrote: »

The cultural centre is being built by a Sufi muslim. The attacks were carried out by an extremist Wahabi sect.

doesn't matter, if an Irish person killed someone in Spain and the foreign minister wanted to attend the funeral, I'd find it insensitive if he plowed ahead even if the family didn't want him there. He obviously had nothing to do with the killing, that's besides the point. It's about respecting peoples feelings and wishes, something people like you seem to think should be a one way street.

Answer this, does the pastor have the right to burn the Koran, even if you and I and every Muslim disagrees with it. He has the right but he is a prick and an idiot for being so provocative and insensitive.

"seems" to the ignorant and easily led, perhaps.

thinly veiled insult. It's either being dictated or the imam is using extremists as scapegoats for not moving the mosque. Islam cannot be seen to give in or it will cause radicalism, that's an argument for confronting radicalism, not for entrenching your position

Black Swan

Laminations wrote: »

... but neither have to exercise that right, especially when it pisses so many people off... they should really consider the 70% of people who believe it to be insensitive.

Why don’t the Americans rule by poll? The current poll says that “70% of people” think that the Muslim community center should not be built 2 blocks from Ground Zero? How about if the Americans toss out the First Amendment to their Constitution and simply rule by what they happen to be “sensitive” about at the moment?

For example, before the 2nd Gulf War (Iraq II) 62% of Americans wanted war in 2002 and they got it. Then in 2008 they change their polling minds to 54% against.

10 October 2002 Pew Research Center reported:

As in previous surveys, a solid majority (62%) of Americans say they support military action to "end Saddam Hussein’s rule," about the same percentage indicating support for military action last month.

19 March 2008 Pew Research Center reported:

"In Pew's latest national survey, conducted Feb. 20-24 among 1,508 adults, a 54% majority said the U.S. made the wrong decision in using military force in Iraq, while 38% said it was the right decision."

On the other hand, maybe there was a reason why the framers of the US Constitution and Bill of Rights made it so difficult to change these documents? Were they aware that the "sensitivities" of Americans blow like the wind, this way and that, sometimes trampling the rights of some of their citizens?

Another example about sensitivities... "On December 1, 1955 in Montgomery, Alabama, [Rosa] Parks, age 42, refused to obey bus driver James Blake's order that she give up her seat to make room for a white passenger." Apparently it was "insensitive" for a Black female to ride with the Whites near the front of the bus, although she was within her constitutional rights to sit with them.

There were dozens of innocent American citizens of the Muslim faith that died alongside their coworkers in the Twin Towers of NYC when the terrorists attacked with hijacked planes, but for some reason it is not "insensitive" to exclude them as victims, only being "sensitive" to Christians, Jews, etc.?

Sources:
http://www.cfr.org/publication/5051/most_americans_support_war_with_iraq_shows_new_pewcfr_poll_commentary_by_lee_feinstein.htmlhttp://www.cfr.org/publication/5051/most_americans_support_war_with_iraq_shows_new_pewcfr_poll_commentary_by_lee_feinstein.html
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/770/iraq-war-five-year-anniversary
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosa_Parks

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Nodin

Laminations wrote: »

Islam cannot be seen to give in or it will cause radicalism, that's an argument for confronting radicalism, not for entrenching your position

'Islam...its HQ located in a hollowed out volcano, on an Island shaped like a skull...'

Laminations

I'm not arguing that the government should step in to reflect or protect the sensitivities of 'any' group or a majority. I'm saying that individual groups and cultures should respect the sensitivities of other people, like for example, NOT burning their holy book or NOT building a controversial centre. There are plenty of Americans welcoming the centre and championing the right that people have to build what they like. Where are the dissenting Muslim voices championing the idiot pastors right to burn the Koran without the threat of violent retribution?

Nodin

Laminations wrote: »

Where are the dissenting Muslim voices championing the idiot pastors right to burn the Koran without the threat of violent retribution?

Who cares? Its right to allow the mosque to go ahead regardless of what some semi-mythic 'other side' does.

Laminations

Nodin wrote: »

'Islam...its HQ located in a hollowed out volcano, on an Island shaped like a skull...'

What?
My point is that the imam using the likely retaliations from more radical elements and twistings of Islam as an excuse not to move the centre, rather than condemning these threats is akin to Gerry Adams refusing to talk peace due to threats from the IRA.

Laminations

Nodin wrote: »

Who cares? Its right to allow the mosque to go ahead regardless of what some semi-mythic 'other side' does.

Something being a right does not make it right. I think it's a good idea, but I recognise a majority of NYers don't.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Black Swan

Laminations wrote: »

Something being a right does not make it right.

Rights are not right?

Laminations wrote: »

I think it's a good idea, but I recognise a majority of NYers don't.

Which New Yorkers? Manhattan is where Ground Zero is located, as is the proposed Muslim community center. According to a recent poll of Manhattan residents:

"The Quinnipiac University poll, released Thursday morning, found that 46 percent of Manhattanites support the 13-story mosque and community center, called Cordoba House. Thirty-six percent of Manhattan voters oppose the proposal and 18 percent are undecided."

Source: http://dnainfo.com/20100701/manhattan/manhattanites-support-mosque-near-ground-zero-poll-finds

Laminations

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

So Muslims live in fear of minority radical elements? Where was the calls of americanophobia while anti-American protests took place due to a stupid threat from one man?

What is your definition of insensitive and with that definition is the ground zero centre insensitive?

@blue lagoon, exercising a right is not always right. Exercising the right to remain silent when you have evidence of a crime is not ALWAYS right for example

Black Swan

Laminations wrote: »

What is your definition of insensitive and with that definition is the ground zero centre insensitive?

Is it "insensitive" to only consider the feelings of the victim families that were Christians, Jews, etc., and not the feelings of those victim families that were Muslims?

Memnoch

What ridiculous nonsense.

A group of PEACEFUL muslims, want to take a site where they have been praying for YEARS and develop it further into an expanded community centre which will include a prayer room. Note, they are not doing this to offend anyone or to cause offence.

A bunch of extremist idiots, who hate Muslims in any way shape or form, jump on this and try to get it shut down.

When the peaceful Muslims refuse to be intimidated, the same bunch of morons decide to go out and burn korans, specifically for the purpose of antagonising and offending Muslims.

And yet somehow, people try to equate the two actions as some kind of level footing. As similar "lessons in insensitivity." What a bunch of total crap.

If you can't see the difference between practising a peaceful, democratic right and doing something to INTENTIONALLY to cause offence and insight hatred, then I feel sorry for you.

This kind of equivocation is just more generalised anti-muslim sentiment veiled as some kind of "reasonable argument" in my book and not a very far cry from the idiots who want to go around burning Korans.

And what's this nonsense about "americanophobia?" We already know that there are plenty of people in the middle-east and elsewhere who have a huge issue with the States (not surprising considering the number of Muslim countries the US has invaded and the number of Muslims they have killed (far more than on 9/11 I'd venture)). So a bunch of crazies (and we know they exist) decided to blame all of America for some idiot wanting to burn a book, and this is supposed to be news to us?

Hey, that woman is an ass, she campaigned for breast cancer awareness but didn't say **** about prostate cancer, LOCK HER UP.

Laminations

Who is suggesting we forget the muslim victims? I'm sure they are listed in all registers of victims and will remembered in any commemoration or ground zero memorial which will be all inclusive. I don't find the centre insensitive myself but because of it's inconsideration for the views of many others. Put simply if something will hurt other peoples feelings it's insensitive, even if it is meant with best intentions or when viewed rationally is completely innocuous and correct. I'm not expecting government to legislate to stamp out insensitive actions, I'm just expecting groups involved to reflect in their actions and recognise possible insensitivity.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Laminations

Memnoch wrote: »

A bunch of extremist idiots, who hate Muslims in any way shape or form, jump on this and try to get it shut down.

Wow way to pigeon hole all those Americans who are against the centre. So all Muslims involved are peaceful with best intentions while all non Muslims opposed are hateful islamophobes? You are as bad as the redneck idiots who paint all Muslims as terrorists

Memnoch

Laminations wrote: »

Wow way to pigeon hole all those Americans who are against the centre. So all Muslims involved are peaceful with best intentions while all non Muslims opposed are hateful islamophobes? You are as bad as the redneck idiots who paint all Muslims as terrorists

I do not see a legitimate reason to be "offended," unless you consider all muslims to be terrorists or have a problem with Islam in general.

Either that or you're just an idiot who can't differentiate between EXTREMIST terrorists and people who want to peacefully practise their religion.

And yeah, unless you've got proof that the people building the community centre are convicted terrorists or have committed some violent act, I'm unaware of, they ARE peaceful. You know, INNOCENT until proven guilty?

Edit: P.S. There are two more reasons that I forgot to list why you might be offended by this.

1) You're a right wing politician looking to stoke up the ignorant for your own personal gain and publicity.
2) You're a media personality looking to stoke up the ignorant for your own personal gain and publicity.

Laminations

Memnoch, I'm saying I agree with the centre and respect the right of Muslims to build it but think it's insensitive. I also accept rather than respect the right of that pastor to burn a book. As donegalfella says, no one has the right to not be offended. Do you think it acceptable that there were death threats and killings of random Americans for the actions (proposed actions) of that pastor?

It's hypocritical to reject new titled offence and demand property rights be respected while threatening death on someone who should have the freedom to offend, however horrid his act

Memnoch

Laminations wrote: »

Memnoch, I'm saying I agree with the centre and respect the right of Muslims to build it but think it's insensitive. I also accept rather than respect the right of that pastor to burn a book. As donegalfella says, no one has the right to not be offended.

There are Muslims AND Christians who get extremely offended by the idea that a man wants to have sex with another man. Those people are homophobic idiots.

The point is that people get offended by all kinds of nonsense, that doesn't mean there is any validity to their taking offence, and it doesn't mean they aren't idiots.

If you are claiming it is "insensitive" to build the community centre, on grounds that they have ALREADY been conducting Muslim prayer for YEARS, then please demonstrate HOW exactly this is insensitive. What is the BASIS here?

Do you think it acceptable that there were death threats and killings of random Americans for the actions (proposed actions) of that pastor?

It's hypocritical to reject new titled offence and demand property rights be respected while threatening death on someone who should have the freedom to offend, however horrid his act

The people who made the death threats and killed people are obviously extremist idiots. But that has nothing to do with the community centre or with those building the community centre, unless you've got proof that those building the community centre engaged in the above actions?

Of course you don't, but what you're doing is taking the violent action of some people who happen to be Muslim and using it to condemn or de-legitimise the peaceful actions of other people who also happen to be Muslim.

Laminations

Memnoch wrote: »

I do not see a legitimate reason to be "offended," unless you consider all muslims to be terrorists or have a problem with Islam in general.

Either that or you're just an idiot who can't differentiate between EXTREMIST terrorists and people who want to peacefully practise their religion.

Fine. A lot of American idiots are offended. Do you dismiss their feelings because you deem them idiots? An example I gave would be the GPO being turned into a British embassy. Many would take offence at this while not for one second hating all British or thinking the current government building the embassy were in any way involved in 1916 put down of Irish rebels

Nodin

Laminations wrote: »

Fine. A lot of American idiots are offended. Do you dismiss their feelings because you deem them idiots? An example I gave would be the GPO being turned into a British embassy. Many would take offence at this while not for one second hating all British or thinking the current government building the embassy were in any way involved in 1916 put down of Irish rebels

You do understand the difference between Sufis and Wahabais?

Memnoch

Laminations wrote: »

Fine. A lot of American idiots are offended. Do you dismiss their feelings because you deem them idiots? An example I gave would be the GPO being turned into a British embassy. Many would take offence at this while not for one second hating all British or thinking the current government building the embassy were in any way involved in 1916 put down of Irish rebels

You keep saying that Americans are offended. I'm asking you, on WHAT basis?

If there isn't a legitimate basis, then they can be offended all they like, but the very fact of them being offended doesn't legitimise it.

Black Swan

Laminations wrote: »

Put simply if something will hurt other peoples feelings it's insensitive

When Rosa Parks was told to sit in the back of the bus by the bus driver in 1955 Montgomery, Alabama, and she refused, was she being "insensitive" to the Whites that did not want a Black sitting with them?

Or near the same time in America when 15-year-old Claudette Colvin refused to move from her seat on the bus, was she being "insensitive" to the feelings of the Whites?

Both Parks and Covin had Constitutional rights to sit where they liked in the public bus system, but it was "insensitive" of them to sit with the Whites? In like manner the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution gives Muslims the right to build a community center in Lower Manhattan, provided that they meet all the city planning codes, etc. (which they have), but they are to be considered "insensitive" if non-Muslim Christians, Jews, etc., feel differently about it, just like the way Whites felt about Blacks in 1955 Alabama?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Laminations

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

When Rosa Parks was told to sit in the back of the bus by the bus driver in 1955 Montgomery, Alabama, and she refused, was she being "insensitive" to the Whites that did not want a Black sitting with them?

Or near the same time in America when 15-year-old Claudette Colvin refused to move from her seat on the bus, was she being "insensitive" to the feelings of the Whites?

The above is not really comparable. The white opinion of blacks at that time was completely unfounded and racist. It'd be more comparable if at the site of black hangings a white person wanted to build a centre celebrating the good acts white people have done. While this person no doubt condemns the hangings and was in no way involved and is for all intents and purposes a good person with good intentions, I'm sure some black people may object and feel his plan is slightly insensitive. They can have this feeling without hating all white people or blaming all white people for the treatment of blacks at the hands of a few white racists/supremacists.

Nodin wrote: »

You do understand the difference between Sufis and Wahabais?

You do understand the difference between a white person and a white supremacist? To some people the above plan would still be insensitive. Dismissing them as idiots and racists is also insensitive (although I'm sure some of them are).

I think memnoch labelling all protestors as muslim haters shows his true colours

Laminations

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I agree the comparison is flawed as there is the conflicting issue of heritage and the fact that the british dont own the GPO. What about if it was Pennys beside the GPO? Again I wouldnt have a problem with a british embassy there but I'd understand those who did.

caseyann

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

When Rosa Parks was told to sit in the back of the bus by the bus driver in 1955 Montgomery, Alabama, and she refused, was she being "insensitive" to the Whites that did not want a Black sitting with them?

Or near the same time in America when 15-year-old Claudette Colvin refused to move from her seat on the bus, was she being "insensitive" to the feelings of the Whites?

Both Parks and Covin had Constitutional rights to sit where they liked in the public bus system, but it was "insensitive" of them to sit with the Whites? In like manner the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution gives Muslims the right to build a community center in Lower Manhattan, provided that they meet all the city planning codes, etc. (which they have), but they are to be considered "insensitive" if non-Muslim Christians, Jews, etc., feel differently about it, just like the way Whites felt about Blacks in 1955 Alabama?

Wow talk about take one thing and turn it into something completely different ,it may be their right to put that there.Question is should they? Out of respect for those who died and their families.I dont see why they cant move it to another location(which had been suggested a little further away from the site).They would get alot more respect if they did.It was under the guise of Islam they attacked and when the attack was aired,people were in the streets celebrating those attacks.
And nothing like getting the rights of those people to be allowed on a bus or attend school or walk on same side of street or into a restaurant.IMO

caseyann

Laminations wrote: »

Who is suggesting we forget the muslim victims? I'm sure they are listed in all registers of victims and will remembered in any commemoration or ground zero memorial which will be all inclusive. I don't find the centre insensitive myself but because of it's inconsideration for the views of many others. Put simply if something will hurt other peoples feelings it's insensitive, even if it is meant with best intentions or when viewed rationally is completely innocuous and correct. I'm not expecting government to legislate to stamp out insensitive actions, I'm just expecting groups involved to reflect in their actions and recognise possible insensitivity.

I dont know how true this is,but i saw on tv other night there was only one Muslim victim.

Laminations

Put it this way. Would a jewish museum in palestine beside the grounds of the largest palestinian loss due to israeli attacks be insensitive? or would you be so quick to argue that judaism is not synonymous with israeli zionism, not that that would be the reason the palestinians would undoubtedly protest.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Laminations

No, nor do I have a problem with the islamic cultural centre, nor would I have a problem with a british embassy located close to the GPO. Like I said, I just understand why people might.

Would you have a problem with Jews building a cultural centre in Palestine, maybe beside a school that was rocket attacked by the Israeli government? Again, I wouldn't especially if their message was peaceful as with the muslim centre but I can understand why palestinians might, if if palestinians did find it offensive, I'd see it as insensitive if the Jews pushed on with it regardless.

Laminations

And the sex shop comparison is only relevant if the shop was to be built beside the spot of a notorious rape or something which was actually related to sex and not just protestations from old tradionalist squares. Did people really try and argue that Ann Summers disrespected the memory of the 1916 rebels? I think those type of people would object to sex shops anywhere, again not comparable as NYers are happen with mosques just a short few blocks away.

Memnoch

So you've studiously and thoroughly avoided the key question of WHAT BASIS there is for this so called offence?

Probably because you're smart enough to know that there isn't one and that it shatters your entire argument.

Laminations

I haven't avoided it, I just am unsure how to put it into words so I gave comparisons. So to clarify, the offence is taken on the same basis that a black community may take offence at a white preacher erecting a centre for white achievement next to the site of infamous hangings, or in the same way irish people may take offence if Pennys beside the GPO was turned into a British embassy, or for the same reasons Palestinians may take offence if Jews wanted to build a cultural centre next to the shell of a school destroyed by Israeli missiles. Clear enough? Or have all these groups no basis to take offence?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

mackerski

Laminations wrote: »

The above is not really comparable. The white opinion of blacks at that time was completely unfounded and racist.

That sounds entirely comparable. Any members of the New York public who hold the view that Muslims as a group are responsible for the Twin Tower attack hold a completely unfounded view. And insofar as this view revolves around prejudice towards Islam, then it is also a sectarian view, something very close to racism.

caseyann

Memnoch wrote: »

So you've studiously and thoroughly avoided the key question of WHAT BASIS there is for this so called offence?

Probably because you're smart enough to know that there isn't one and that it shatters your entire argument.

I tell you what it would be like,Orange men building an office next to the Talbot and Parnell Street Where a third blast rocked South Leinster Street near Trinity College.Basically same thing.

wes

Laminations wrote: »

Put it this way. Would a jewish museum in palestine beside the grounds of the largest palestinian loss due to israeli attacks be insensitive? or would you be so quick to argue that judaism is not synonymous with israeli zionism, not that that would be the reason the palestinians would undoubtedly protest.

Not Palestine by a Beirut synagogue was recently restored, and Lebanon was a country that was occupied by Israel for several years:

Beirut synagogue restored to glory, despite tensions with Israel

Also, a transcript from CNN's Fareed Zakira's show, about the Ground Zero Islamic Center and the about the above mentioned synagogue:

FAREED ZAKARIA GPS

--SNIP--
FAREED ZAKARIA, HOST: This is GPS, the Global Public Square.

Welcome to all of you in the United States and around the world.

I'm Fareed Zakaria.

Pakistan is in the news, of course, with its massive floods and the terrible tragedy that is ensuing there. We'll talk about that soon, but I first wanted to draw your attention to something else that's been going on in Pakistan in recent months.

This is an al Qaeda triple suicide bombing from July, killing 42 and injuring 175. What's strange is that the attack took place at a site of Muslim prayer -- you might call it a mosque -- just before prayer time.

Why would al Qaeda attack a holy place at a time of prayer? Because it is a Sufi shrine, part of a sect that al Qaeda despises and regards as a deadly foe in the real battle it is fighting, the battle within Islam.
--SNIP--

--SNIP--
People have asked all sorts of questions about Imam Rauf. I don't know him personally. I have read some of his writings. But I'm struck by this simple fact -- if al Qaeda wants to blow up people like him, isn't that a pretty good indication of where he stands in the world of Islam?
--SNIP--

--SNIP--
And now for the "Last Look." With all the talk about places of worship and where they do and don't belong, I wanted you to see this. This is the Magen Abraham synagogue. It's not in Miami. It's not in Tel Aviv. It's in Beirut. That's right, Beirut, Lebanon.

The synagogue is just now emerging from a painstaking restoration project. When the repairs began over a year ago, the temple was literally a shell of its former self. So why did this nation, often teetering on the brink of religious hostilities and hostilities with Israel, restore a Jewish house of worship? To show that Lebanon is an open and tolerant country.

And indeed, the project is said to have found support in many parts of the community, not just from the few remaining Jews there, but also Christians and Muslims and Hezbollah. Yes, Hezbollah -- the one that the United States has designated a foreign terrorist organization.

Hezbollah's view on the renovation goes like this. "We respect divine religions, including the Jewish religion. The problem is with Israel's occupation of Arab lands, not with the Jews." Food for thought. Thanks to all of you for being part of my program this week. I will see you next week. Stay tuned for "Reliable Sources."
--SNIP--

I find it funny that Hezbollah of all people are showing more tolerance than some American's......

Laminations

Well I really think objections to Ann Summers were more about the fact it is a sex shop.

So are you accepting the location and timing of the centre may be insensitive but saying that doesnt matter? Are the other examples of insensitivity
I have given equally as easily dispelled?

Memnoch

caseyann wrote: »

I tell you what it would be like,Orange men building an office next to the Talbot and Parnell Street Where a third blast rocked South Leinster Street near Trinity College.Basically same thing.

Don't tell me what it would be like. Tell me what the actual basis is here.

Memnoch

Laminations wrote: »

I haven't avoided it, I just am unsure how to put it into words so I gave comparisons. So to clarify, the offence is taken on the same basis that a black community may take offence at a white preacher erecting a centre for white achievement next to the site of infamous hangings, or in the same way irish people may take offence if Pennys beside the GPO was turned into a British embassy, or for the same reasons Palestinians may take offence if Jews wanted to build a cultural centre next to the shell of a school destroyed by Israeli missiles. Clear enough? Or have all these groups no basis to take offence?

Nope, because you can use all the analogies you want. I don't want to get into a debate about how valid or not these analogies are. Because just as you are using this analogy, others are using the analogy of Rosa Parks. And who is to say that THAT analogy is more or less valid than the analogy you want to use. And then it stops being a debate and becomes a game of who can google the most analogies that they THINK apply to their argument.

I want you to tell me the actual reason why building THIS centre is offensive.

Laminations

wes wrote: »

Not Palestine by a Beirut synagogue was recently restored, and Lebanon was a country that was occupied by Israel for several years:

Beirut synagogue restored to glory, despite tensions with Israel

Also, a transcript from CNN's Fareed Zakira's show, about the Ground Zero Islamic Center and the about the above mentioned synagogue:


I find it funny that Hezbollah of all people are showing more tolerance than some American's......

Just to reiterate, I'm in favour of the centre. What I think makes it insensitive is pushing ahead despite widespread objection. If there was little or no objection (as with the Lebanese synagogue), that'd be a better scenario all round. The building of the Jewish synagogue would only be insensitive if a majority objected but the idea was pushed ahead regardless. I'm not saying the protesters are right to be offended, or that they even have a right or grounds to be offended, I'm just recognising that they are, and disregarding this is what makes the whole plan (a good plan) insensitive.

RandomName2

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

Why don’t the Americans rule by poll? The current poll says that “70% of people” think that the Muslim community center should not be built 2 blocks from Ground Zero? How about if the Americans toss out the First Amendment to their Constitution and simply rule by what they happen to be “sensitive” about at the moment?

For example, before the 2nd Gulf War (Iraq II) 62% of Americans wanted war in 2002 and they got it. Then in 2008 they change their polling minds to 54% against.

10 October 2002 Pew Research Center reported:

As in previous surveys, a solid majority (62%) of Americans say they support military action to "end Saddam Hussein’s rule," about the same percentage indicating support for military action last month.

19 March 2008 Pew Research Center reported:

"In Pew's latest national survey, conducted Feb. 20-24 among 1,508 adults, a 54% majority said the U.S. made the wrong decision in using military force in Iraq, while 38% said it was the right decision."

On the other hand, maybe there was a reason why the framers of the US Constitution and Bill of Rights made it so difficult to change these documents? Were they aware that the "sensitivities" of Americans blow like the wind, this way and that, sometimes trampling the rights of some of their citizens?

Another example about sensitivities... "On December 1, 1955 in Montgomery, Alabama, [Rosa] Parks, age 42, refused to obey bus driver James Blake's order that she give up her seat to make room for a white passenger." Apparently it was "insensitive" for a Black female to ride with the Whites near the front of the bus, although she was within her constitutional rights to sit with them.


Sources:
http://www.cfr.org/publication/5051/most_americans_support_war_with_iraq_shows_new_pewcfr_poll_commentary_by_lee_feinstein.htmlhttp://www.cfr.org/publication/5051/most_americans_support_war_with_iraq_shows_new_pewcfr_poll_commentary_by_lee_feinstein.html
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/770/iraq-war-five-year-anniversary
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosa_Parks

You have used this example quite a bit - but I don't think it is a very good example. If anything it shows quite a sensible streak on the part of Americans.

US government say that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction and has links to 9/11, coupled with the fact that he was a known crazy, genocidal, belligerent loose cannon of a dictator and the American public support action to topple him. Give the US public correct information on the danger posed to him, after the fact, and a messy war that is won and the public no longer want a part of it.

I don't know exactly what you are trying to prove...

If you say that the public require half a decade and and one of the most highly reported wars in the last century for 24% of them to change their minds: then if anything that shows that their judgement was anything but fickle.

But maybe you are right about the 'right to offend'

Laminations

Memnoch wrote: »

I want you to tell me the actual reason why building THIS centre is offensive.

Read the title, I'm not arguing that it is right or wrong to take offence. I'm not trying to explain or excuse how or why some people (a majority in many polls) have taken offence. I'm merely stating a fact - a large number of people have taken offence - and then suggesting that in ignoring their feelings we get a lesson in insensitivity. Argue with me why you think ignoring the feelings of a vast number of others is not insensitive?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Nodin

Laminations wrote: »

You do understand the difference between a white person and a white supremacist?

I do indeed.

Laminations wrote: »

To some people the above plan would still be insensitive.

So basically, because people can't be persuaded to recognise real, factual differences between groups and ideologies, its better for all concerned to pander to ignorance......?

Eliot Rosewater

I don't see why you should have to pay heed to someone's sensitivities if that someone is being irrational and fighting against something that won't actually affect them anyway. The conservatives fighting against the mosque don't really have a case, and I don't see why anyone has a moral obligation to consider their, let's face it, ridiculous arguments.

At the end of the day, there being a Mosque near Ground Zero won't actually affect Sarah Palin's life in any remotely perceptibly way. So why should her opinion count?

Nodin

RandomName2 wrote: »

.

US government say that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction

Actually the CIA etc didn't give a strong enough indication, so a special unit was set up just to show he had them - evidence of which was thoroughly discredited, albeit too late and well after the fact. Dick Cheney set up that unit, funny enough.

RandomName2 wrote: »

.
and has links to 9/11,

Not in this dimension

Ten days after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, President Bush was advised that U.S. intelligence found no credible connection linking the attacks to the regime of Saddam Hussein, or evidence suggesting linkage between Saddam and the al-Qaida terrorist network, according to a published report.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10164478

Should you want a full discussion on the matter, please set up a thread.