Obama's Mosque Remarks Reverberate

[Just_A_Guy]

New Yorkers are opposed and New York is a very liberal place.

Depends on how you define "New Yorker", methinks. Most Manhattanites are in favor.

[bytor2112]

Depends on how you define "New Yorker", methinks. Most Manhattanites are in favor.

New Yorker breakdown:

[Dravin]

New Yorker breakdown:

That is quite broken down, enough so the images don't work.

[Faded]

Just for laughs, I'm going to see what happens when I try it:

Edit: LOL worked. Okay so that's what Bytor was trying to post.

[Sean1427]

Traveler, regarding your post 107 which was a reply to one of my replies. I have a very similar background to yours, I suspect. But I would like to comment on the following which you wrote:

"You are right – Americans should appreciate the gesture. But the majority do not. So what is the will of Allah? A step towards conflict or a step towards peace? And who should take that step first?"

My posts have been consistent. As anyone reading them sincerely should note, I'm referring to principles which we as Americans, Christians and Mormons profess to believe in. I'm not talking about ending the conflict. I never have written about ending the conflict. I entered this fray when, based on my experience and employment background, I believed that you had misrepresented Islamic law and had accused Rauf of being a terrorist sympathizer and supporter because of views I myself believe. Yet once I made that post in an attempt to at least show a different side to those two particular issues, you posted a very polite and welcome response, yet it was also one in which you changed tack from Islamic law and Rauf to the need to be sensitive to the families of the victms. Then when I make a post telling you that I appreciated and agreed with much of what you said, you post a new reply talking about who should be responsible for ending the conflict.At this point I confess--I have a hard time keeping up with things. But rest assured that nothing I will say on this thread will ever directly deal with how to end the conflict. That will never be my point. Contrary to Byotor's accusations of my sounding sanctimonious and elitist, I do not have the wisdom of Solomon, and I freely admit my ignorance on many topics. But I also choose my battles carefully and refuse to enter something about which I know little. I will say, however, that because I believe that the root of this national controversy is the ignorance of most Americans regarding Islam, Muslims, and the doings of our own government, an ignorance which I've pointed out is simply meant to refer to a lack of knowledge, I do believe that this would not have become the controversy it is if people had been better informed. Now, if you'll excuse me (I hope you understand a bit of my sense of humor here), the sanctimonious and elitist side of me begs me to attend once more to Byotor's comments and accusations.

Edited August 27, 2010 by Sean1427

[bytor2112]

, I do believe that this would not have become the controversy it is if people had been better informed. Now, if you'll excuse me (I hope you understand a bit of my sense of humor here), the sanctimonious and elitist side of me begs me to attend to Byotor's comments and accusations.

Respectfully....this is where you just refuse not to get it. It's not ignorance...it's emotion. The wounds haven't healed and this building...be it community center or mosque is re-opening those wounds for many. I will not lose sleep either way, but I do understand and can empathize with those who feel it is in bad taste. Suggesting that people are "ignorant" of the real issues and simply haven't educated themselves with regard to Islam or this particular issue may be true, BUT, it still ignores the harsh reality of the pain caused by the 9-11 attacks. So again I say, if they really want to heal the wounds.....now is not the time to build the community center/mosque.

[Sean1427]

Byotor, don't think I've forgotten about you. I'll be addressing the issue of emotions soon enough. But I'll do it in my own time and in my own way. But for now, I simply say that most of those emotions of anger most Americans seem to feel are rooted in ignorance. Until I'm able to explain better, you're certainly free to assume that I just refuse to get it.

[Traveler]

Traveler, regarding your post 107 which was a reply to one of my replies. I have a very similar background to yours, I suspect. But I would like to comment on the following which you wrote:

"You are right – Americans should appreciate the gesture. But the majority do not. So what is the will of Allah? A step towards conflict or a step towards peace? And who should take that step first?"

My posts have been consistent. As anyone reading them sincerely should note, I'm referring to principles which we as Americans, Christians and Mormons profess to believe in. I'm not talking about ending the conflict. I never have written about ending the conflict. I entered this fray when, based on my experience and employment background, I believed that you had misrepresented Islamic law and had accused Rauf of being a terrorist sympathizer and supporter because of views I myself believe. Yet once I made that post in an attempt to at least show a different side to those two particular issues, you posted a very polite and welcome response, yet it was also one in which you changed tack from Islamic law and Rauf to the need to be sensitive to the families of the victms. Then when I make a post telling you that I appreciated and agreed with much of what you said, you post a new reply talking about who should be responsible for ending the conflict.At this point I confess--I have a hard time keeping up with things. But rest assured that nothing I will say on this thread will ever directly deal with how to end the conflict. That will never be my point. Contrary to Byotor's accusations of my sounding sanctimonious and elitist, I do not have the wisdom of Solomon, and I freely admit my ignorance on many topics. But I also choose my battles carefully and refuse to enter something about which I know little. I will say, however, that because I believe that the root of this national controversy is the ignorance of most Americans regarding Islam, Muslims, and the doings of our own government, an ignorance which I've pointed out is simply meant to refer to a lack of knowledge, I do believe that this would not have become the controversy it is if people had been better informed. Now, if you'll excuse me (I hope you understand a bit of my sense of humor here), the sanctimonious and elitist side of me begs me to attend once more to Byotor's comments and accusations.

I wish you well in your efforts. Part of the problem I see is a disconnect between cultures. In Christian cultures if a group of “peaceful” Christians construct a place of worship – they will exclude other “Christians” that do not uphold their doctrines of peace. They will not allow other Christians that do not agree with their doctrine of peace to even come into their place of worship to speak of their understanding of religion in anyway that is different. Without question any efforts to “proselyte” and teach doctrines not in complete harmony with theirs just will not be tolerated in their places of worship.

The culture of Islam is different – mosques are not considered secular. Though one “sect” of Islam may claim peaceful co-existence with non-believers another sect may have a more aggressive approach towards other religions they see as a threat (be the threat direct or indirect) to Islam. The mosque is believed to belong to Allah – not to any particular sect. Allah controls what is taught - so that in essence whatever is taught at a mosque is the will of Allah.

There is another thought here - Most citizens of the USA realize it is not just law that makes a society free or oppressed but much more the interpretation of law.

There are many citizens in the USA that feel that those involved in the mosque near ground zero need to come forward with a commitment to allow only those of Islam that intend peaceful co-existence with all religions (and non religious infidels of NY) to use the mosque in question. Those of Islam involved in the mosque realize that to extend such a promise would be contrary to certain Islamic core beliefs. But after 9/11 Americans want to be safe in their country – they want a guarantee that any Muslim that means them harm and will accept innocent collateral damage not be allowed access to mosque near “ground zero” for their prayers – thinking that they would pray to do damage to those non-Islamic that tolerated the mosque.

My point as LDS is that all parties that realize where there are points of misunderstanding and potential escalation of differences be avoided by all until we are able to create greater understandings and trust in things in which we agree. So I suggest that the mosque be built elsewhere and those concerned about the mosque being used in anyway against their person take a deep breath – show thanks for the move and perhaps stop by the new mosque (as well as other mosques near where they live) and listen to the things being taught.

The Traveler

Edited August 28, 2010 by Traveler

[Sean1427]

Traveler,

I agree with you that there’s a cultural problem here, but that goes back to what I’ve been focusing on, a widespread ignorance among the American people regarding Muslims and Islam. I agree with several here who have wondered what would this controversy would be like if 9/11 had been committed by an offshoot Mormon cult. Of course, I think that given the view many Americans apparently have of Mormonism, I suspect we already know the answer to that. But looked at in a slightly different way, we’d likely find a different situation altogether. For instance, if 9/11 had been committed by a violent Christian cult and an unrelated Christian denomination wanted to build a church in this spot, I seriously doubt anyone would really care. The only difference would be that in this hypothetical, American Christians would recognize the perps as a group of fanatics and not represtantive of most Christians, but when it comes to Islam, as in this particular case, our national ignorance of Islam kicks in.

In none of my posts have I shared my views on what those proposing the project should do. I provided facts about the project and Rauf that were missing in the discussion. I mentioned how some could make an argument that could be made for Obama’s making his statement. I’ve shared my opinions on why this has become a hot-button issue. But I’ve never shared what those among whom I work think of the issue. Nor have I actually said whether I support the project, think it’s a wise idea, or shared what I think should be done to resolve it. In essence, my focus has been on ignorance and on us, not them.

Given that my emphasis has consistently been what I view as ignorance regarding this and related topics, I wanted to share something with you that perhaps helps explain why this has been my emphasis. I share it publicly so that others might also understand where I’m coming from on this issue and because it involves posts that you and I initially made.

I actually never wanted to get involved with this thread because I realized it was a very touchy issue. When I read the very first post on this thread, I suspected the direction this thread would take, and I wanted no part of it. However, it was your first post that triggered my decision to become involved. In your first post you stated that Islamic law requires all Muslims in a mosque to protect a known terrorist and then you essentially accused Rauf of being a sympathizer and supporter of terrorism. I disagreed with you regarding Islamic law, shared a teaching Muslims have similar to our own about obeying the laws the land in which they live, and then provided information regarding Rauf and the proposed Cordoba House project. At that time I felt that the facts were missing for this thread, facts about Shari’a, about Rauf, and about the proposed project itself. In my mind, what you shared in that first post contributed to the misunderstanding and the cultural disconnect that is rooted in ignorance, both of which your most recent post addresses quite well. But in that first post, you actually accused Rauf of being a sympathizer and supporter of terrorism for expressing the same views that many Americans/Christians, including many prominent Republicans, have.

While I hate to do this, let’s go back to your first post for something I’ve never addressed. I address it here purely to show again why I became involved and why my emphasis has been on ignorance and the need to have the facts before we can rationally discuss something like this. So please do not take this personal, as I mean no insult. I’m simply using it to show where I’m coming from. In that post you wrote the following (post #82):

“There are some interesting facts concerning Islam in New York City. There already are several Mosques in New York City. In fact there is no need for an additional Mosque. There is no overcrowding or a large number of Muslims having to travel difficult distances to worship. The size of the proposed Mosque along with the location and the number of Muslims that will live in proximity makes no sense what-so-ever. The Mosque is not serving any need within New York City.”

Everything expressed in that paragraph, you introduced as facts as your first sentence indicates. In your second and third sentences you wrote that there are already “several” mosques in NYC and “[t]he fact” is that there is no need for an additional mosque in NYC. (Of course, we should point out that NYC has a population of about 8 million.) One could say you are correct in saying “several.” However, it also serves to distort reality given the actual number of mosques and Muslims in NYC. You also stated as fact that there is no further need for an (i.e., one) additional mosque, an idea you used in your concluding sentence. You stated as another fact that “there is no overcrowding or a large number of Muslims having to travel difficult distances to worship.” Yet Reuters and other sources show that while there are about 800,000 Muslims in NYC, or about 10% of the population, there are only about 100 mosques.* (Let’s see the LDS Church try to accommodate 800,000 members, or even 10% of this number, into 100 chapels and see if there is no overcrowding.) Moreover, where this project was proposed to be located is a place where Muslims have been worshipping since before 9/11 and has been repeatedly described as an overcrowded basement. Regarding your statement that there were no travel difficulties involved, you failed mention that this part of NYC is a transportation hub where large numbers of people pass through daily. You also failed to point out that Muslims pray up to five times a day, and two to three of those prayers often occur during business hours, which makes it difficult for Muslims working in any given area to travel to another mosque when they get a work-break which they use to pray. (I'm sure you've seen it, but some of their prayers don't take long, but having to travel adds to the time it takes to pray. Then, too, we need to remember that their prayer times change daily.) Lastly, when you referred to the size of the proposed “mosque,” you failed to mention everything else that was proposed to be part of the project, which leads to the belief that it is strictly a "mosque." (Of course, the reality is that there is nothing yet, and there likely won't be simply because Cordoba House doesn't have enough money to buy the second half of the lot!)

Please note that I admire much of what you have shared here and elsewhere. I agree with much of what you have added to this thread. But your initial post on this thread was, in my opinion, misleading. Moreover, no one countered you or even addressed the issue of facts. And silence, in our society, is generally interpreted as lending consent. It was that post which made me decide to weigh in. Perhaps no one knew what the facts were, but that’s the point I’ve been addressing all along. We have a duty to learn the facts before we can discuss an issue such as this rationally. Failing to do so, we only contribute to misunderstandings and misrepresentations when we offer our opinions.

Facts are an important first step if we wish to unshackle our minds from ignorance. You and I would likely agree with Jefferson’s words that “f a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.” We as Mormons should be adding to the light that is fading, not contributing to an enveloping darkness. Of course, even when we have the facts, there is the issue of interpretation of those facts, which can be complicated in itself. For instance, we constantly hear of the violence promoted in the Quran and how the Quran teaches that Muslims are justified in killing the infidel and any who convert to another religion. But before we can truly discuss these two issues, we first need to find the passages invovled, put them in context, and then see how such things are interpreted by Muslims today. If we fail to do these things, then how do we handle the same accusation when it’s made about us as Christians. After all, anyone who has ever read the OT in its entirety knows it is full of violence. I also remember very well experiences I’ve had where ultra-orthodox Israeli Jews have pointed out to me the verses in the OT and the Torah that “teach” that believers are obligated to kill anyone who converts to another religion and anyone who persuades them to do so. And then what do we Mormons do when our critics speak of all the violence and bloodshed in the BOM, a book we hold sacred, but one that begins with a decapitation, that also begins and ends with the destruction of two great nations, and that contains 180 pages of war and violence, that even include the violent destruction of a third nation? (Of course, then there's that second decapitation!)

This same principle applies to all we hear about how the Quran encourages men to have many wives, with an emphasis on their being virgins Yet what do we do when critics point to our history and specifically point to our verses in the D&C that “teach” that a man can have and be “given” up to ten virgins in marriage?

You’ll notice that in my posts I’ve not really taken sides on what the Cordoba House should do. The fact that I’ve shared facts and a possible alternative argument regarding Obama’s statement does not mean that I necessarily agree with the proposed project or what Obama did. I’ve certainly expressed my opinion as to how insane I think this controversy is and as to whom I believe are responsible for making it such a controversy. I’ve also written about the possible implications of this. I’ve written about the problems Mormons and Americans are facing now in the ME because of this controversy. The questions I’ve asked about our behavior and how it affects our foreign policy abroad are certainly questions that should be asked along with many others. But I haven’t yet stated whether I actually agree with the proposed project or Obama’s involvement. But these things are simply part of what my focus has been—the role that ignorance is playing in this. I’ve been writing about both ignorance and the related need to know the facts. And in doing so, I’ve been talking about us, not them. It means nothing to me to say that because the majority oppose this they can’t all be ignorant. Such an argument simply reminds of words such as those of Marcus Aurelius, “The opinion of 10,000 men is of no value if none of them now anything about the subject.” I’m also reminded that one of the principal reasons for the US Constitution was to help prevent the passions of a majority from using the federal governemt to trample on the rights and liberties of a minority. We need to remember that America’s founders feared the passions of the masses as much as they feared an imperial presidency. But the reality is this, we’re all ignorant, just on different subjects and to differing degrees. And I believe very much that even the issue of sensitivity to others’ feelings on this particular issue (and even our problems abroad) can be linked to ignorance. That, however, I haven’t yet had time to address.

*SEE NY Muslim project spurs support coalition | Reuters

[Sean1427]

Traveler,

I agree with you that there’s a cultural problem here, but that goes back to what I’ve been focusing on, a widespread ignorance among the American people regarding Muslims and Islam. I agree with several here who have wondered what would this controversy would be like if 9/11 had been committed by an offshoot Mormon cult. Of course, I think that given the view many Americans apparently have of Mormonism, I suspect we already know the answer to that. But looked at in a slightly different way, we’d likely find a different situation altogether. For instance, if 9/11 had been committed by a violent Christian cult and an unrelated Christian denomination wanted to build a church in this spot, I seriously doubt anyone would really care. The only difference would be that in this hypothetical, American Christians would recognize the perps as a group of fanatics and not represtantive of most Christians, but when it comes to Islam, as in this particular case, our national ignorance of Islam kicks in.

I actually never wanted to get involved with this thread because I realized it was a very touchy issue. When I read the very first post on this thread, I suspected the direction this thread would take, and I wanted no part of it. However, it was your first post that triggered my decision to become involved. In your first post you stated that Islamic law requires all Muslims in a mosque to protect a known terrorist and then you essentially accused Rauf of being a sympathizer and supporter of terrorism. I disagreed with you regarding Islamic law, shared a teaching Muslims have similar to our own about obeying the laws the land in which they live, and then provided information regarding Rauf and the proposed Cordoba House project. At that time I felt that the facts were missing for this thread, facts about Shari’a, about Rauf, and about the proposed project itself. In my mind, what you shared in that first post contributed to the misunderstanding and the cultural disconnect that is rooted in ignorance, both of which your most recent post addresses quite well. But in that first post, you actually accused Rauf of being a sympathizer and supporter of terrorism for expressing some of the same views that many Americans/Christians, including several prominent Republicans, have.

While I hate to do this, let’s go back to your first post for something I’ve never addressed. I address it here purely to show again why I became involved and why my emphasis has been on ignorance and the need to have the facts before we attempt to rationally discuss something like this. So please do not take this personally, as I do not mean it as such. Please know that while I think the following paragraph is a very inaccurate portrayal of the situation you addressed in that paragraph, I also believe that you were sincerely attempting to portray reality as you thought it to be. I do not think for a minute that you were attempting to share inaccurate information. I’m simply using this to highlight where I’m coming from. In any event, you wrote the following--

“There are some interesting facts concerning Islam in New York City. There already are several Mosques in New York City. In fact there is no need for an additional Mosque. There is no overcrowding or a large number of Muslims having to travel difficult distances to worship. The size of the proposed Mosque along with the location and the number of Muslims that will live in proximity makes no sense what-so-ever. The Mosque is not serving any need within New York City.” (Post #82)

Everything expressed in that paragraph you introduced as facts as your first sentence indicates. In your second sentence you wrote that there are already “several” mosques in NYC. (Of course, we should point out that NYC has a population of about 8 million.) One could say you are correct in saying “several,” which actually suggests far fewer mosques than what there really are. However, in the context its use unfortunately distorts reality given the actual number of Muslims per mosque there are in the city. In your third sentence you stated as fact that there is no further need for "an (i.e., one) additional mosque" in NYC, an idea you echoed in your concluding sentence. You stated as facts that “there is no overcrowding or a large number of Muslims having to travel difficult distances to worship.” Yet Reuters and other sources show that while there are about 800,000 Muslims in NYC, roughly 10% of the population, there are only about 100 mosques.* (Let’s imagine the LDS Church trying to accommodate 800,000 members, or even 10% of this number, into 100 chapels and see if there is no overcrowding.) Moreover, the place where this project was proposed to be located, a place where Muslims have been worshipping since before 9/11, has been repeatedly described as an overcrowded basement. Regarding your statement that there were no travel difficulties involved, your paragraph failed to take into account that this part of NYC is a transportation hub where large numbers of people pass through daily. It also did not take into account that Muslims pray up to five times a day, and two to three of those prayers often occur during business hours, which makes it difficult for Muslims working in any given area to travel to another mosque when they get a work-break which they often use to pray. (I'm sure you've seen in your travels that some of their prayers can be relatively short, but if they have to tack on travel time to that prayer, then there can easily be travel-related difficulties, especially in a place like NYC. Then, too, we need to remember that their prayer times change daily.) Lastly, when your paragraph referred to the size of the proposed “mosque,” it failed to mention everything else that was proposed to be part of the project, which leads to the belief that it is be strictly a "mosque."

Please note that I admire much of what you have shared here and elsewhere. As I've said before, I agree with much of what you have added to this thread. But your initial post on this thread had, in my opinion, problems related to the facts that I felt need to be corrected. Moreover, no one countered you or even addressed the issue of facts. And silence, in our society, is generally interpreted as lending consent. It was that post which made me decide to weigh in. Perhaps no one knew what the facts were, but that’s the point I’ve been addressing all along. We have a duty to learn the facts before we can discuss an issue such as this rationally. Failing to do so, we only contribute to misunderstandings and misrepresentations when we offer our opinions.

Facts are an important first step if we wish to unshackle our minds from ignorance. You and I would likely agree with Jefferson’s words that “f a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.” We as Mormons should be adding to the light that is fading, not contributing to an enveloping darkness. Of course, even when we have the facts, there is the issue of interpretation of those facts, which can be complicated in itself. Let me share two examples that I've heard repeatedly since 9/11 from non-Mormons and Mormons alike, which is something I find strange for Mormons to buy into. My first example is this--we constantly hear of the violence promoted in the Quran and of how the Quran teaches that Muslims are justified in killing the infidel and anyone who converts to another religion. But before we can truly discuss these two issues, we first need to find the passages involved, put them in context, and then see how such things are interpreted by Muslims today, including their definitions of infidel and conversion. If we fail to do these things, then how do we handle the same accusation when it’s made about our scriptures? After all, anyone who has ever read the OT in its entirety knows it is full of violence. I also remember very well experiences I’ve had where ultra-orthodox Israeli Jews have pointed out to me the verses in the OT and the Torah that “teach” that believers are obligated to kill anyone who converts to another religion and anyone who persuades another to do so. Worse, what do we Mormons do when our critics speak of all the violence and bloodshed in the BOM, a book we hold sacred, but one that begins with a decapitation, that begins and ends with the destruction of two great nations, and that contains 180 pages of war and violence, that even include the violent destruction of a third nation? (And, of course, there's that second beheading in Ether.)

This same principle applies to another example where we hear how the Quran encourages men to have many wives, with an emphasis on their being virgins Yet what do we do when critics point to our LDS history, point to so-called Mormon polygamists in Utah, Arizona and Texas, and then specifically point to verses in the D&C that “teach” that a Mormon man can have and be “given” up to ten virgins in marriage?

In my posts I’ve not really taken sides on what the Cordoba House should do. The fact that I’ve shared facts and a possible alternative argument regarding Obama’s statement does not mean that I necessarily agree with the proposed project or what Obama did. I’ve certainly expressed my opinion as to how insane I think this controversy is and as to whom I believe are responsible for making it such a controversy. I’ve also written about the possible implications of this. I’ve mentioned the problems Mormons and Americans are facing now in the ME because of this controversy. The questions I’ve asked about our attitudes and behavior and how it affects our foreign policy abroad are certainly questions that should be asked along with many others. But I haven’t yet stated whether I actually agree with the proposed project or Obama’s involvement. But these things are simply part of what my focus has been—the role that ignorance is playing in this. I’ve been writing about both ignorance and the related need to know the facts. And in doing so, I’ve been talking about us, not them. The fact that a majority oppose this does not mean that the majority are in possession of the facts. The masses can be just a ignorant as the few. To argue this, as some in our society would, reminds me of the words of Marcus Aurelius that “[t]he opinion of 10,000 men is of no value if none of them know anything about the subject.” I’m also reminded that one of the principal reasons for the US Constitution was to help prevent the passions of a majority from using the federal governemt to trample on the rights and liberties of a minority. We need to remember that America’s founders feared the passions of the masses as much as they feared an imperial presidency. But the reality is this, we’re all ignorant, just on different subjects and to differing degrees. And I believe very much that even the issue of sensitivity to others’ feelings on this particular issue (and even our problems abroad) can be linked to ignorance. You and I, I believe, are on the same page in many ways. We're just approaching this issue from different angles. While you seem to be more focused on how to resolve it, I'm more focused on its root cause.

*SEE NY Muslim project spurs support coalition | Reuters

Edited August 29, 2010 by Sean1427

[pam]

Sheesh, could you guys write any longer posts? Don't answer that.

[Traveler]

According to the law - the mosque can be build where ever those building it can obtain place. I personally support the law.

Sometimes there are considerations other than the law alone that have more to do with the agenda of specific single groups. I support actions (compromises) that allow communities to live in peace and without fear.

The Traveler

(PS. Short enough for you Pam?)

[bytor2112]

Byotor, don't think I've forgotten about you. I'll be addressing the issue of emotions soon enough. But I'll do it in my own time and in my own way. But for now, I simply say that most of those emotions of anger most Americans seem to feel are rooted in ignorance. Until I'm able to explain better, you're certainly free to assume that I just refuse to get it.

Ignorance= self imposed stupidity. That's a thinly veiled insult...why not just accept that many Americans don't want a cultural center/mosque so close to ground zero? It really isn't complicated. Time heals all wounds....but the critical element of healing in this case.....hasn't had long enough to perform it's miracle.

Edited August 30, 2010 by bytor2112