I disagree. If the memories of that day still didn't affect you in some tangible way it'd not matter...hell, it wouldn't even register.
The fact it still registers, the fact that it still engenders such emotion in people, the fact that it is still thought about, the fact people still actively go to visit the site it happened a decade later places it as still affecting people.
YOU don't feel it reaches a level that the affect is worth while. Great, that's your opinion, you're free to have it. Mine is that it does. However are you seriously going to dispute that 9/11 doesn't affect more people, even in a minimal way, ten years later than a drunk driver car crash killing 5 people in a town?
I'm not disputing that it doesn't affect more people n a minimal way. I'm disputing that it does so in a significant way.
The death of a father can be a non-issue in the day to day going ons of a persons life 10 years after the fact. That doesn't mean it still isn't a significant emotional moment that continues to have an affect on you and can instantly be recalled to your mind by random stimuli far easier than less affecting events.
Actually, the death of a close relative can sneaks up on you randomly at any given time. You might here a song on the radio that reminds you of the person and you end up having a moment where the loss is fresh in your mind. It might be a joke. It might be a phrase they often used. That's a significant affect, IMO. Most people do not have that with 9/11.
And seriously, don't give me this bull**** that if people pay attention to one issue it excludes them from possibly worrying about another one. OMG tuck, you're talking about the Mosque, that must mean you don't give a **** about any other issue at all!
In our ountry, there is a distraction method of politics. It works because of a combination of time and a steady stream of inane bull**** being tossed at us.
How is me saying that terrorists did actions in the name of Islam equaling me saying THIS Mosque represents terrorist values. Is there some kind of strange English translation I"m not hearing?
It's the only way your logical argumetn can follow. Otherwise it's a fallacy.
you are saying since
If A is B
and C is B
then A should be treated as though it was C.
This mosque and its leaders follow Islam and use it to guide many of their actions.
The Islamic terrorists of 9/11 followed Islam and use it to guide many of their actions.
The fact that I state things that are facts doesn't dictate that because its advantageous for your argument that I am saying that since both follow in name the same religion for their inspiration that those two things must be identical.
You may not be saying they are identical, but you are essentially saying they should be treated identically. It's a guilt by association argument.
And once again, well and good that its your opinion. I have a different opinion. I'm sure yours is based on what the people have said, mine is based on that too. Whether or not we take them for their word or not. Personally, I think it is a mixture between individuals seeking power and having a tool and also individuals who are truly zealotous. Regardless, the fact the religion is manipulated as a tool doesn't magically remove it from the equation. A hammer is a tool, however I'm not going to say I nailed an entire house together and when you asked me what allowed for me to be able to let myself do that I'm going to shrug my shoulders because suddenly something that is used as a tool can't be named.
But if someone uses a hammer to murder someone, you also aren't going to say that building a house should be treated differently due to that murder.
Yes, Islam was used as a leverage point for getting people angry and justifying their anger towards the rest. The fact it was a tool doesn't make their hatred and anger any less rooted or tied to their religious beliefs.
But that doesn't mean that the beliefs themselves should be blamed for the actions of the people.
I think we have too, and I think the location of this mosque simply furthers that damage not helps it. And spare me if I give a **** about "open distaste" being shown about a religion. I know of not a SINGLE solitary major religion in this country that is not routinely and regularly shown "open distaste".
None to the degree that islam is being held to right now. I don't think you are on that boat, but I know for a fact that a few people in the same camp openly hate Islam and have said as much.
Also, are you seriously suggesting that its only because of us pointing out that Islam played a hand in 9/11 that they have propoganda? That somehow if we never made mention of Islam the terrorists would magically be distraught and confused, unable to figure out how to use our words or actions in any way to spin it. That they wouldn't instead say "See! They are to afraid of the might of Islam to even mention our holy cause, trying to belittle it as simply an endeavor of man rather than a holy duty!"
No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that this feeds into their propeganda.
Such as suggesting anyone that dares thinks the mosque shouldn't be here is a bigoted hatemonger xenophobe that despises Islam?
Yes.
Yes, hyperbole doesn't help the situation...however its hardly at play on a single side.
True. But the hyperbole involved on one side involves outright lies, the other is at least partially based on people's perceptions of that side, because of the arguments presented by some people on that side.
While you have not presented "bigoted hatemonger xenophobe that despises Islam" arguments, there have been quite a few who
have presented these arguments. It doesn't make it right that people stereotype all of those who oppose the mosque as such, but it makes it understandable.
Calling it the mosque at ground zero, though, is just a lie.
Plus (and I admit that I'm in this camp) many people think that this side is making a big deal about nothing.
Depends how you wish to define real damage.
I'm thinking fairly literally.
That said, guessing what your definition might be, it'd likely be equally plausible to say there'd be no real damage done from the mosque existing elsewhere in the city.
I'm not sure about that. I think that it harms our national principles to treat a minority group as inferior or unworthy of being able to put up a mosque in a place where a christian church would be considered perfectly acceptable.
However, personally, I think the fact this many people are upset about it to the point that the mayor is offering land to the individuals to build it elsewhere speaks a bit to the emotional harm its doing. That's fine if you don't truly think it matters, or is of a level that is worth while, but then similarly the only "harm" you could find in moving it is its them doing something they don't have to do which is frankly not much "harm" either.
I think that the emotional harm is entirely self-inflicted. I think blaming the mosque for that is disingenuous.
Actually, I think its very comparable to the Crusades.
Christianity wasn't to blame for the Crusades.
Christianity was definitely unquestionably tied up in the motivation, justification, methodology, and promotion of the Crusades and is unquestionably identifiable with it.
True enough. But I don't think that should be held against christianity. I would lay the real blame on the crusaders.
Indeed. Doesn't change the fact that Islam is directly tied to 9/11.
And I lay the blame on the terrorists.
Then all the more that it is irrelevant of a comparison. A mosque is actively preaching Islam. A McDonalds isn't actively preaching democracy.
But a mosque isnt actively preaching terrorism.
Except for McDonalds doesn't actively, themselves, advocate Democracy. You even said, it was the PEOPLE proclaiming the "taste of freedom", not McDonalds employees going out and going "Everyone should have a right to vote! The people should have the power!"
A mosque/community center however is directly proclaiming and promoting Islam.
But the mosque isn't saying "everyone should fly an airplane into a building".
I was trying to work in line with your analogy, which was "democracy" for "Islam" but has been completely and utterly disjointed and backwards (backwards by your own admission) this entire time so was difficult to really grab a decent parallel. Perhaps giving it a bit more thought a better scenario would be...
Yeah. My bad on the analogy. It's awkward.
If the majority of people in that area had had some kind of horrible disaster occur to them in the "name of Democracy" (lets say a U.S. missile hit a building and killing thousands in the process) and as such the majority of people in that area did not want this "sign of democracy" near by due to the memories and emotions it causes, then I'd say its tactless as well to shove it down their throats while proclaiming its being built to "build bridges to democracy" and to teach people to be tolerant to Democracy despite what's Democracy helped inspire people to do just down the road at the place you may well be heading to.
Good choice. Much better.
Let's use the US missile analogy and make the "bridge builder" Canada. Should Canada be treated as though it was their missile, not the US's missile after they condemed the US for that missile?