I did not wake up with any bizarreness in the middle of the night last night. I also had rice with terriyaki sauce for dinner, which Patty had to make because I have not yet mastered rice, because anything else seemed too challenging. On the other hand, now I am cured.
Yay, thing that was fucked up with new lease is now unfucked up. Although management company person on speaker phone, with music playing, filing your nails (yes, I could hear the emery board), you completely suck.
There was also an incident this morning involving city inspectors and a caulking gun.
Everything I hear about Torchwood S4 is making me so excited. Yesterday's big news, at least in my book, is that it will be taking place 2 years after the events of CoE. We're not sure if that means Ianto and Steven's deaths, or when Jack takes off from earth six months later. But it's a really compelling amount of time to me either way, in terms of where Jack's head is going to be, and is really a random piece of info I've felt those of us who want to be writing speculative S4 fic really, really need. I am all over this detail. ALL OVER IT.
Last night on Buffy: It's the apocalypse sex episode! Hey, own your tropes. Also, jeez, how is Spike the only grownup around? And really, King ARthur? The sword in the stone, really? What's most ridiculous is the degree to which it works, at least in the moment of watching.
It doesn't introduce religion overtly, but it's there by the back door, in the implication that a gun range somehow has a comparable function within a community to a mosque.
While I understand what you mean I think you are really painting the devil on the wall here. I don't think it's safe or realistic to automatically assume that they were placing Islam and a gun range on par. They were putting two acts of mass murder on par. I grant that I was there for the conversation, and other people here were not - but I think that too many times the default path is to assume that people are inherently evil and bashing until proven otherwise. IMHO that is dangerous.
But if the analogy isn't placing the mosque and the gun range on a par, it ceases to be an analogy and becomes meaningless a string of unrelated words. You might as well say it would be like building a swimming pool at Columbine if you're not supposed to draw some conclusion about equivalency here. I really think you're reaching.
There are two locations. At each location an act of mass murder was committed. Building a structure on the location where the event happened that has a direct relation to the event ( Columbine Shooting -> Firing Range for high school kids , 9/11 -> Religious house of worship that the people who performed the attacks were members/taught hate ).
I think they are both being referred to as educational resources that people used as a basis to take action and commit acts of mass murder. It doesn't necessarily demonize either, but it does put them on equal footing as educational facilities that were (mis)used.
What I'm trying to say is that the people who are holding this opinion ( that they are on par ) are looking at it from a perspective of 'This is where the murders went to learn murder' , and less about religious bias or racism.
That depends on your point of view. Here in the USA you will rarely ( if ever ) find a Mosque where ' Death to Americans ' is taught , but in other places in the world .....
Teaching people that it's correct / religiously mandated to kill others is just as bad / dangerous as teaching them how to load and fire a gun.
When we shut down Fox News stations for similar reasons, I will listen to this line of argument. Also, last time I checked:
a) this mosque is in the US, so what other places teach in other places is irrelevant;
b) the mosque is already there. It wants a new building. Just sayin'.
Otherwise, see below re: cathedrals. I have no more to add except this: please stop pretending this is an unbiased and rational line of argument, kthx.
I don't have to 'pretend' when this sort of thing is peddled as a reasonable and neutral viewpoint. Also, I'd like to call out the intent fallacy here. I didn't call anyone a hater or a racist; I said that this line of argument is hardly free from bias. Big difference, and if you can neatly separate your personal opinions from those you hear around you, you can do this trick, too. I'll wait.
Sorry, ATD;EOF not unlike "kthx" means " Agree To Disagree " , and " End Of File " ( Geek term , meaning this is the end. ). Similar to TL;DR ( Too Long, Didn't read )
I really can't understand how you can't see the blatant religious bias in defining mosques - and not just a specific mosque but any hypothetical mosque - as a place where people go to learn to kill. The entire argument pretty much hinges on that understanding of the word; there is nothing neutral about its usage here.
Just like there are Churches in the US that tell people to kill doctors who perform abortions, there are Mosques in which in / around people are taught to kill those who do not follow Islam. Equally real, equally dangerous.
I don't see it as bias, I see it as it is. This does not mean that EVERY Church / Mosque does this, but they do exist, and they both train people to do things that in my opinion are completely stupid.
Just like we see people carrying signs that read " GOD HATES FAGS " , there are people carrying signs that say " DEATH OT AMERICA / AMERICANS ". Even the external to the USA news media has images of them.
Again, I'm not saying that ALL Churches / Mosques are like this, but there are radical ones that do exist, and they do give this message. It reflects on them as a whole, but does not define them as a whole.
You misread my use of the word hypothetical - my point was you are equating extremism with all mosques by treating this one building as inherently problematic just because it is a mosque. I doubt you'd associate *all* churches with the vile work of Fred Phelps or with other atrocities perpetrated by Christians in the name of god.
Right on. I did not intend to equate extremism with all Mosques, however all Mosques bear the stigma of extremism, just like all Catholic Churches must bear the stigma of their extremists.
Let's be clear here. 9/11 is an act of Bin Laden/Al Qaeda/Wahabbi "inspiration", and not an act of Islam.
Conflating it thusly is Islamophobic. You've consistently been merging *that particuar Islamic center in that particular location* with "a terror front masquerading as a mosque".
This is bias on your part toward Islam. You're not alone in this, and I'm nor surprised to hear that people can find Muslims who go along with this viewpoint when it's presented. You can find Asian Americans who will claim that the internment of American citizens of Japanese ancestry was right and proper, too.
See again you are wrong, but insist on painting me into something I am not.
Islam was used as part of the Bin Laden/Al Qaeda/Wahabbi "inspiration". If you have any doubts, read this : http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1996.html If you can read that and tell me that it is not related at all to Islam .. well , I'd like to hear how that could be.
If I was biased against Islam I would not be constantly saying that the religion is bearing the burden of it's extremists, and that they bring down the religion as a whole. I would simply say that they are all evil and so on... and clearly that's not what I am saying. I also have said on multiple occasions that I have peacefully lived next to Mosque, and interacted with the people therein. I also have mentioned that I have friends who follow Islam. I have not said anything against them. Your statement of me being biased is without basis.
Islam was used, and in the opinions of some was misrepresented, by Bin Laden in declaring a fatwa against the United States. That's not bias, just read the statement as linked above.
Now , to some people the mere presence of a Mosque makes them think of this - and while that is a byproduct of fear, there is some basis to that fear. This reduces their comfort level. On the other hand there are people who would be uncomfortable having a Catholic Church next to a day care center. while this is extreme, it's not unfounded.
Instead of looking at this objectively, it's much easier to slap a racist/Islamiphobic sticker on someone and condemn them, and move on to the next person. This is very similar to McCarthyisim when being a Communist was used in a similar fashion. That is what I personally have a problem with. It seems that a person can not have an opinion without being told that they have a secret back door purpose or hidden agenda .. especially if they don't. It's frustrating to have people draw assumptions and refuse to even consider that their assumptions could be wrong.
A bunch of people fired up some discontents by selectively quoting from Holy Writ.
That covers a *lot* of the sins of both Islam and Christianity. It's when you go beyond that, to "and so saying that by definition, putting a mosque there is the wrong thing to do", that you're making a bad leap of logic.
My mother has a bird phobia. It has no reasonable basis. She knows this. She still has the phobia. She just doesn't try to rationalize it.
On the other hand, a lot of people who are homophobic, racist, misogynistic, Islamophobic, etc. all *justify* their bias. They have reasons why they dislike or disrespect or apply the actions of the few to the whole.
I suspect you're quite kind to individual Muslims. I think you're too willing to paint all Islam with the taint of a few extremists.
I strongly believe, rather than saying, "oh, the people who lump in all Islam do have a point", that it's important to highlight the schism. This isn't the same as the Catholic Church, since there isn't a single Islamic religious head who is signing off on the twisted dogma. It wasn't a Catholic schism, like the ones that Mel Gibson's father follows, that were engaged in the coverup of pedophile priests. But it *is* a radical offshoot that is fueling Al Qaeda. Failure to recognize that leads to a radicalization of mainstream Islam. This does not benefit anyone except Al Qaeda. And those who profit from this "war" -- Halliburton and other related interests.
In sum - there's something that the rationalization is based on. But it's still a rationalization, and worse, one that aids the cause it's allegedly fighting against.
"In sum - there's something that the rationalization is based on. But it's still a rationalization, and worse, one that aids the cause it's allegedly fighting against."
Exactly. I'm not trying to justify it , I'm just saying that it is what it is. People will feel that way, and there is a reason for it. Whether or not that reason is justified is a matter of personal opinion. I'm not willing nor trying to paint all of Islam as evil because of that has happened in it's name, but it is happening.
There is a giant hole in the ground and several thousand people dead. A person has stood up and claimed that they did it in the name of Islam. That's a reasonable basis for people to be afraid of it. What they do with that fear is what separates them.
I've found that most phobias have a reasonable basis, if you look hard enough and analyze it. I have a phobia of flying. It's based on having been on a hijacked airplane, and watching 9/11 happen from the fire escape of my apartment.
Some people *believe* that it was done in the name of "Islam" because they don't have enough exposure to Islam to have been innoculated against this idea.
If someone had claimed to have done it in the name of Christianity, most people would roll their eyes and say, "idiot extremist".
If someone had claimed to have done it in the name of feminism, would that merit doing away with all women's groups in a certain radius?
The answer to this wrongful bias is to have the Islamic center there to educate people. To keep that Islamic center away is to pander to the irrational bias.
I can only agree that having an Islamic center to educate is an excellent idea. I just think that the location is not the best choice. The noise created by it's presence there - right or wrong - would block out the signal that it's trying to send. Saying to not put it in one particular block out of all of Manhattan is better than saying no don't do it at all. It may be pandering to bias, but I think it would be better to look at the long term goal of eradicating that bias than the short term.
That's really the place where it *should* be. Anywhere else, and we're pretty much engaging in the Douglas Adams "oh, what do you mean you didn't know your house was going to be demolished, it was POSTED!" scenario. Only those in the know will go to some other place, the very people who needed the education will never see it, smug in their satisfaction at having chased away "those damned terrorists".
Excuse me, but we call things "phobias" because they aren't reasonable.
It's not reasonable to assume, given the number of flights that go smoothly, that you'll be hijacked again; the odds are just against it. That's why it's called a phobia. It's not reasonable for me to be terrified to go out on unprotected balconies because I'm sure I'll fall, but I am. That's why it's called a phobia.
If it is a phobia, it is not reasonable. The word "phobia" is a psychiatric term. People have phobias of many things that are reasonable to fear, but the degree and pervasiveness of their fear of those things, and the fact that it can't be quelled by the reasonable precautions most people would take, is pathological and unreasonable by definition.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rm
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-08-10 04:29 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-08-10 05:12 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-08-10 05:21 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-08-10 05:33 pm (UTC)I think they are both being referred to as educational resources that people used as a basis to take action and commit acts of mass murder. It doesn't necessarily demonize either, but it does put them on equal footing as educational facilities that were (mis)used.
What I'm trying to say is that the people who are holding this opinion ( that they are on par ) are looking at it from a perspective of 'This is where the murders went to learn murder' , and less about religious bias or racism.
no subject
Date: 2010-08-10 05:53 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-08-10 05:58 pm (UTC)Teaching people that it's correct / religiously mandated to kill others is just as bad / dangerous as teaching them how to load and fire a gun.
no subject
Date: 2010-08-10 06:02 pm (UTC)a) this mosque is in the US, so what other places teach in other places is irrelevant;
b) the mosque is already there. It wants a new building. Just sayin'.
Otherwise, see below re: cathedrals. I have no more to add except this: please stop pretending this is an unbiased and rational line of argument, kthx.
no subject
Date: 2010-08-10 06:06 pm (UTC)A : I'm sure that if it was possible some radicals would teach it within the USA.
B : As I pointed out , location, location, location.
Also , don't confuse my personal opinions with those I hear around me. I've made my feelings clear in other points.
Please stop pretending that everyone is a racist, Islamiphobe , hater. It is possible to see it without hidden agendas or back doors.
ATD;EOF;
no subject
Date: 2010-08-10 06:10 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-08-10 06:53 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-08-10 07:16 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-08-10 09:38 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-08-10 09:47 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-08-10 06:39 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-08-10 06:51 pm (UTC)Just like there are Churches in the US that tell people to kill doctors who perform abortions, there are Mosques in which in / around people are taught to kill those who do not follow Islam. Equally real, equally dangerous.
I don't see it as bias, I see it as it is. This does not mean that EVERY Church / Mosque does this, but they do exist, and they both train people to do things that in my opinion are completely stupid.
Just like we see people carrying signs that read " GOD HATES FAGS " , there are people carrying signs that say " DEATH OT AMERICA / AMERICANS ". Even the external to the USA news media has images of them.
Again, I'm not saying that ALL Churches / Mosques are like this, but there are radical ones that do exist, and they do give this message. It reflects on them as a whole, but does not define them as a whole.
no subject
Date: 2010-08-10 07:16 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-08-10 09:40 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-08-10 07:32 pm (UTC)Conflating it thusly is Islamophobic. You've consistently been merging *that particuar Islamic center in that particular location* with "a terror front masquerading as a mosque".
This is bias on your part toward Islam. You're not alone in this, and I'm nor surprised to hear that people can find Muslims who go along with this viewpoint when it's presented. You can find Asian Americans who will claim that the internment of American citizens of Japanese ancestry was right and proper, too.
no subject
Date: 2010-08-10 09:52 pm (UTC)Islam was used as part of the Bin Laden/Al Qaeda/Wahabbi "inspiration". If you have any doubts, read this : http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1996.html If you can read that and tell me that it is not related at all to Islam .. well , I'd like to hear how that could be.
If I was biased against Islam I would not be constantly saying that the religion is bearing the burden of it's extremists, and that they bring down the religion as a whole. I would simply say that they are all evil and so on... and clearly that's not what I am saying. I also have said on multiple occasions that I have peacefully lived next to Mosque, and interacted with the people therein. I also have mentioned that I have friends who follow Islam. I have not said anything against them. Your statement of me being biased is without basis.
Islam was used, and in the opinions of some was misrepresented, by Bin Laden in declaring a fatwa against the United States. That's not bias, just read the statement as linked above.
Now , to some people the mere presence of a Mosque makes them think of this - and while that is a byproduct of fear, there is some basis to that fear. This reduces their comfort level. On the other hand there are people who would be uncomfortable having a Catholic Church next to a day care center. while this is extreme, it's not unfounded.
Instead of looking at this objectively, it's much easier to slap a racist/Islamiphobic sticker on someone and condemn them, and move on to the next person. This is very similar to McCarthyisim when being a Communist was used in a similar fashion. That is what I personally have a problem with. It seems that a person can not have an opinion without being told that they have a secret back door purpose or hidden agenda .. especially if they don't. It's frustrating to have people draw assumptions and refuse to even consider that their assumptions could be wrong.
no subject
Date: 2010-08-10 10:21 pm (UTC)That covers a *lot* of the sins of both Islam and Christianity. It's when you go beyond that, to "and so saying that by definition, putting a mosque there is the wrong thing to do", that you're making a bad leap of logic.
My mother has a bird phobia. It has no reasonable basis. She knows this. She still has the phobia. She just doesn't try to rationalize it.
On the other hand, a lot of people who are homophobic, racist, misogynistic, Islamophobic, etc. all *justify* their bias. They have reasons why they dislike or disrespect or apply the actions of the few to the whole.
I suspect you're quite kind to individual Muslims. I think you're too willing to paint all Islam with the taint of a few extremists.
I strongly believe, rather than saying, "oh, the people who lump in all Islam do have a point", that it's important to highlight the schism. This isn't the same as the Catholic Church, since there isn't a single Islamic religious head who is signing off on the twisted dogma. It wasn't a Catholic schism, like the ones that Mel Gibson's father follows, that were engaged in the coverup of pedophile priests. But it *is* a radical offshoot that is fueling Al Qaeda. Failure to recognize that leads to a radicalization of mainstream Islam. This does not benefit anyone except Al Qaeda. And those who profit from this "war" -- Halliburton and other related interests.
In sum - there's something that the rationalization is based on. But it's still a rationalization, and worse, one that aids the cause it's allegedly fighting against.
no subject
Date: 2010-08-10 10:39 pm (UTC)Exactly. I'm not trying to justify it , I'm just saying that it is what it is. People will feel that way, and there is a reason for it. Whether or not that reason is justified is a matter of personal opinion. I'm not willing nor trying to paint all of Islam as evil because of that has happened in it's name, but it is happening.
There is a giant hole in the ground and several thousand people dead. A person has stood up and claimed that they did it in the name of Islam. That's a reasonable basis for people to be afraid of it. What they do with that fear is what separates them.
I've found that most phobias have a reasonable basis, if you look hard enough and analyze it. I have a phobia of flying. It's based on having been on a hijacked airplane, and watching 9/11 happen from the fire escape of my apartment.
no subject
Date: 2010-08-10 10:45 pm (UTC)If someone had claimed to have done it in the name of Christianity, most people would roll their eyes and say, "idiot extremist".
If someone had claimed to have done it in the name of feminism, would that merit doing away with all women's groups in a certain radius?
The answer to this wrongful bias is to have the Islamic center there to educate people. To keep that Islamic center away is to pander to the irrational bias.
no subject
Date: 2010-08-10 11:10 pm (UTC)Again, my opinion.
no subject
Date: 2010-08-10 11:34 pm (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2010-08-11 01:07 am (UTC)It's not reasonable to assume, given the number of flights that go smoothly, that you'll be hijacked again; the odds are just against it. That's why it's called a phobia. It's not reasonable for me to be terrified to go out on unprotected balconies because I'm sure I'll fall, but I am. That's why it's called a phobia.
If it is a phobia, it is not reasonable. The word "phobia" is a psychiatric term. People have phobias of many things that are reasonable to fear, but the degree and pervasiveness of their fear of those things, and the fact that it can't be quelled by the reasonable precautions most people would take, is pathological and unreasonable by definition.