Obama supports Ground Zero mosque. Religious freedom or is he being too PC?

They are called torrents.

quote:

---

They are called torrents.

---

I know about torrents, but the thing is I'm very cautious about going to many sites like those because they are often attack sites.Thanks.Edited by Tram law, : No reason given.

Wasn't that the reason for one of the Infitadas (sp?) against Israel, that Ariel Sharon visited a Mosque he was not welcomed at?Also, from the wiki on mosques:

quote:

---

Under a few interpretations of Islamic law, non-Muslims may be allowed into mosques, as long as they do not sleep or eat there. The prevailing opinion is presented by followers of the Maliki school of Islamic jurisprudence, who argue that non-Muslims may not be allowed into mosques under any circumstances.[42]

​

The Qur'an addresses the subject of non-Muslims, and particularly polytheists, in mosques in two verses in its ninth chapter, Sura At-Tawba. The seventeenth verse of the chapter prohibits those who join gods with Allah polytheists from entering mosques:

​

It is not for such as join gods with Allah, to visit or maintain the mosques of Allah while they witness against their own souls to infidelity. The works of such bear no fruit: In Fire shall they dwell. (Yusuf Ali [Qur'an 9:17])

​

The twenty-eighth verse of the same chapter is more specific as it only considers polytheists in the Sacred Mosque, the Masjid al-Haram in Mecca:

​

O ye who believe! Truly the Pagans are unclean; so let them not, after this year of theirs, approach the Sacred Mosque. And if ye fear poverty, soon will Allah enrich you, if He wills, out of His bounty, for Allah is All-knowing, All-wise. (Yusuf Ali [Qur'an 9:28])

---

I have been in a couple of Mosques in Jerusalem. most notably Al Aqsa.ABEI get it. He made a typo At least I hope it is a typo.Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

That one's safe, but if you don't want to use torrents, how do you feel about Rapidshare?

onifre responds to me:

quote:

---

Censorship is not restricted to just the government

---

Yes, it is. If it isn't being done by the government, it isn't censorship. Your freedom of speech does not give you the right to say anything anywhere. If you're sitting in a movie theatre and continue to talk throughout the showing, the owners of the theatre have every right to kick you out and prevent you from sharing your wit and wisdom with the rest of the audience.That isn't censorship. Despite the fact that they may be running The Rocky Horror Picture Show at the time and thus are expecting audience participation, you do not have a right to spout absolutely anything you want in that space. The government isn't restricting your rights and it isn't censorship.

quote:

---

many news, radio and TV stations censor material that they don't want aired.

---

In the common-use sense of "censor," yes. But just as "theory" doesn't mean the same thing when used in a discussion of science as it does when used in a general discussion, "censorship" does not mean the same thing when used in a discussion of First Amendment rights as it does when used in a general discussion. The "Standards and Practices" department at network studios were often called the "censors," but they were more accurately called the "editors" because that's what they were doing: Exercising editorial control over the content being broadcast through their medium.All media do this, even those that claim to be the most open and free. There are only so many stories that can fit in a given space (be it paper or timeslot) and decisions have to be made about what is going to go in and what is going to be left out. Every choice regarding what story to run with and how to present it is a "censorship" of all the other stories and methods and to go down that road is to make the word "censorship" meaningless.Censorship is the active prevention of speech from ever getting out. That requires governmental activity for they are the only ones able to do so. Stone and Parker don't have to broadcast their shows on Comedy Central. Nobody is stopping them from deciding that the editorial decisions of the network don't match their artistic vision and go elsewhere. They aren't being put in jail, they aren't being arrested, no investigations, no criminal records, nothing.The only thing that happened to them was that the editors, the ones paying for everything, decided that they were going to exercise their editorial control.Is it sad? Yes. Stupid? Of course. Pathetic? Absolutely. And the more people complain to Comedy Central about their ridiculous actions, the more they'll pay attention. Perhaps Stone and Parker should consider moving their show to another network that doesn't have such a weak constitution.

quote:

---

But the corporate spinelessness resulted in Trey and Matt being censored by Comedy Central.

---

Incorrect. The corporate spinelessness resulted in Stone and Parker being edited by Comedy Central.That's their job. They own the network, they are responsible for everything that gets broadcast over their network and thus, since Parker and Stone aren't the ones paying for the use of Comedy Central's network, they get to exert editorial control over the content that gets broadcast.Question: Do you think Parker and Stone should be able to broadcast anything and Comedy Central should simply accept it and send it out without question? Does Comedy Central have no ability to tell the producers of content, "We won't show that"? If not, if you think they do have the right to exert editorial control, then what makes you think there's a line for which Comedy Central cannot cross? It's their network. They're the ones paying for it and he who pays the piper calls the tune. If Parker and Stone don't like it, they can go somewhere else. Nobody is censoring them.

quote:

---

Granted, it wasn't the government doing it, but I think that would still be considered censorship.

​

At least that's what the news called it.

---

Right, because the popular news is always getting technical terms right and using them correctly. They'd never describe evolution as something for which there is a "controversy" in science, pointing out that a "theory" in science means it is a highly justified conclusion based upon all of the available evidence that is capable of making predictions that turn out to be true. They'll always point out that there is no "debate" over global warming and they've gone out of their way to retract all of those stories about the emails from the University of East Anglia and point out that the emails actually showed support for anthropogenic climate change.Yeah, the popular media never overinflates stories in order to attract viewership, describing every event in the most hyperventilated terms lest somebody think that the world isn't going to end and possibly change the channel.It isn't censorship.Yes, Comedy Central wouldn't broadcast what Parker and Stone wanted to. They don't have to. They own the network and their editorial decisions rule. If Parker and Stone don't like it, they can always go somewhere else. Nobody is stopping them from publishing their work.They just can't use Comedy Central's nickel to do it.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

But you are saying that they only allow non-muslims, in other words, muslims are not welcome in their own mosques. That would be extremely weird.

Well yes, I know they allow non-muslims in them, but only? Yeah, me too.

Did you read the wiki quote?And I am saying some mosques, not each and every single one of them.For example, The Dome Of The Rock allows limited and restricted access:

quote:

---

The Dome is maintained by the Ministry of Awqaf in Amman, Jordan.[11]

​

Until the mid-nineteenth century, non-Muslims were not permitted in the area. Since 1967, non-Muslims have been permitted limited access, however non-Muslims are not permitted to pray on the Temple Mount.[12]

​

In 2006, the compound was reopened to non-Muslim visitors between the hours of 7:30-11:30 a.m. and 1:30-2:30 p.m. during summer and 7:30-10:30 a.m. and 1:30-2:30 p.m. during winter. Non-Muslims are prohibited from entering after 2:30 p.m. and may not enter on Fridays, Saturdays, or Muslim holidays. Entry is through a wooden walkway next to the entrance to the Hebrew Western Wall. Non-Muslims are prohibited from entering the mosques and accessing the Temple Mount through the Cotton Market. Visitors are subject to strict security screening, and items such as Jewish prayerbooks and instruments are prohibited.

​

Many Orthodox rabbis regard entry to the compound to be a violation of Jewish law. This is based on the belief that since the time the Temple was destroyed during the siege of Jerusalem in 70 CE, the precise location of the Holy of Holies, the sanctuary entered only by the High Priest, is not known. Hence a restriction applies to the entire compound. However, other rabbis believe that modern archeological and other evidence has enabled them to identify areas that can be safely entered without violating Jewish law. However even those opinions forbid Jews from entering the Dome of the Rock.[13]

​

---

onifre writes [about why the cultural center is "insensitive" and/or "arrogant"]:

quote:

---

Because many people feel it is.

---

So? And there are many people who feel that those trying to stop it are "insensitive" and/or "arrogant." Whose feelings are we going to have to trample on in this situation?

quote:

---

I don't agree with Muslims that the prophet shouldn't be shown in an image. But I would be, to some extent, sensitive to their feelings and can understand not showing the image under those conditions

---

Do you seriously not understand the difference between a request not to display an image and a request not to build a building? Let me see if I can provide other examples to help you see the difference:You're thinking of discussing a movie. Should do so in the theatre during the movie? If your neighbor tells you to please be quiet and not interrupt, is that reasonable? Suppose you wait until after and talk with your friends at the cafe next door. You're sitting at a table and your neighbors say that they're about to see the movie you're talking about and ask you to please not discuss it lest it be "ruined" for them. Is that reasonable?In the former case, the people watching the movie don't have anywhere else to go. Oh, there are other theatres in town, but this is the place where they bought their tickets and it is non-trivial for them to go somewhere else in order to get away from you. You, on the other hand, have the ability to hold your tongue for a bit so that the people who want to see this performance at this sole location can achieve that goal.But in the latter case, it's the reverse. A cafe is supposed to be a place where people go to talk with friends. And having one right next to a movie theatre is practically demanding that the clientele will be discussing the movies that are displaying on the other side of the shared wall. If this other person doesn't want to hear discussions about movies, they shouldn't be hanging around in a place where that is likely to be the topic of conversation.In this case, the Muslims own the building. It is non-trivial to have them move "somewhere else." In fact, it seems to be the case that there isn't anywhere they could possibly move without somebody complaining. And as it has been pointed out, there's already a full-blown mosque just a few blocks away that nobody is complaining about. And as it has also been pointed out, the idea that this place is "within sight" of "Ground Zero" is silly: The buildings in New York City are so tall that you couldn't see it from there no matter how hard you tried.And in a public situation like a business district, especially in such a large and diverse location as Manhattan, you'd expect to find a place of worship nearby.Those complaining about a gathering place that happens to have a room for Muslims to worship in (for this isn't a mosque by any stretch of the imagination) are akin to those complaining about the people in a cafe talking about a movie.Compare this to a picture of Mohammed. Is there really something in your life that requires you to be displaying your picture around? Here? Now? Maybe. Those who insist that you never, ever display a picture no matter what are going too far, but there is something to be said about being aware of time and place and practicing etiquette such that you don't deliberately antagonize people. You don't discuss the movie in the middle of the theatre when everybody else is watching it.

quote:

---

since the US, at least it's media, hasn't ever shown the image

---

Incorrect. That's part of Parker and Stone's reaction regarding Comedy Central: They've already shown Mohammed. He was a character in the "Super Best Friends" episode as well as appearing in the opening credits for a season. They were showing him all the time up until recently. Comedy Central suddenly lost their nerve.

quote:

---

Shouldn't they too...extend the same courtesy?

---

To an extent, yes. Building a gathering place that happens to have a room that Muslims can use for their prayer sessions is not a deliberate act of incitement no matter how many people receive it that way. The way it has been described to hang a picture of Mohammed directly across from it is a deliberate act of incitement (and I hesitate to use that word since "incitement" tends to imply justification for violent retribution and that isn't what I'm getting at...it's certainly an example of somebody being a prick, but such a thing seems deliberately designed to get a rise out of someone in order to play faux victim.)Edited by Rrhain, : Dropped a "not": Building a gathering place...is *NOT* a deliberate act of incitement.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

Fair enough. I read your whole post and get what you mean. I was using the word losely, I guess I should have called it editing.But I was just using the terms that Matt and Trey used. Of course, they don't have Rrhain to contend with. Absolutely, they're free to do as they please with their (sorta, they have a parent company) station. My only point was that they did edit the episode for what they claimed was fear of offending.I was trying to show how some consider offending Muslims and edit episodes, but Muslims, in this case of the mosque, have not considered not building the mosque when they are offending many people.Neither I feel is right or wrong, I was just showing the comparison.- Oni

Coyote writes:

quote:

---

It's all about symbolism.

---

Indeed.But we must remember that just because it is a symbol for you doesn't mean it is the same symbol for anybody else.Go to Japan and other places in the Far East and you'll see swastikas everywhere. But they don't mean the same thing as they do over here. The swastika is an Asian symbol of luck.Who gets to decide what the symbol means? Don't the people who are actively using it get to have a say?

quote:

---

There was the symbolism of Arabs dancing in the streets when the towers were destroyed.

---

Combined with the fact that the video you saw was heavily edited in order to manipulate you into a particular vision. So are you really sure that your "symbol" truly exists?

quote:

---

Now there is the symbolism of building a mosque on the same location.

---

Incorrect.First, it isn't "the same location."Second, it isn't a mosque.Third, there is an actual mosque already in the area that nobody seems to mind.

quote:

---

How is it that you can't see this?

---

Because just because you see it doesn't mean it is actually there. Nobody is denying your feelings. What is being denied is your justification of those feelings.

quote:

---

And are so insensitive toward those who can?

---

Because in a conflict between people, somebody is going to come away not getting what they want. That's why we have things like etiquette and the law to look to in order to mediate these disputes such that we can, hopefully, achieve a path that allows everyone not to necessarily be happy but reduce the amount of conflict as much as possible.And if we're going to deny the building of a community space space that also has a room that Muslims can use to pray, then how are you going to defend the construction of your pet project based upon unjustifiable bigotry on the part of a tiny minority?Only bigots get to define civilized behaviour?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

onifre writes:

quote:

---

These are their feelings, they should be respected, right?

---

Huh? What on earth does respecting someone's feelings have to do with acceding to their demands? In a conflict, somebody is going to come away without getting what they wanted. What about the feelings of those trying to build the center? Shouldn't their feelings be respected?Whose feelings get to be trampled upon because it's going to have to be somebody. We have etiquette and the law not because we expect to be able to make everybody happy. Instead, we have them so that we can reduce conflict as much as possible and have a consistent way in which conflicts are resolved. Somebody is going to have to suck it up and get over it.Who should it be?

quote:

---

We respect the feelings of Muslims who don't want their prophet shown

---

Who is this "we" you're referring to?

quote:

---

they can't seem to extend the same courtesy to those who feel offended.

---

Who is this "they" are you're referring to?

quote:

---

But I am also for freedom of speech, which is something the American media has shit on when it comes to showing the prophet.

---

Incorrect.Nobody's First Amendment rights have been violated. Not in any way, shape, or form.You do not have the right to publish your speech using my money. If I'm the one paying for it, I have every right to say no. If you don't like it, find your own money to spread your message.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

How do you know that the Muslims have not seriously considered this, but decided that on balance it will be best to build?How do you know that this will be "offending many people"? Maybe it is just political theater, and relatively few people will really be offended.

I think there will be people on both sides who will ultimately feel offended. They're both request made based on offending, in that sense, I find them the same.I don't disagree with your post. The point I was making was a much simpler one; no matter how irrational someone's feelings for being offended may be, if one side is recognized more than the other, it can, even just on the surface, seem a bit one sided.I find it irrational for Muslims to ask Americans to not show images of their prophet - ( no matter how many times it's happend, I didn't want to drag this out in that direction. Lets just acknowledge that it has happend). I also find it irrational for people to ask Muslims not to build a mosque near ground zero. But if we're going to respect the irrational requests of one, it's only fair we respect the irrational requests of the other side.Or... fuck everyone's sensitive issues, get over it, and expect to be offended plenty in life. Which is how I see it.- Oni