Critical thinking and political matters.

Respect for the wishes of the families who died there is the reason I've heard given most often. Some are very against it and it seems unlikely that any of them have a strong desire for it.

Denying it out of respect for the dead and the families of the dead (which is kind of what respect for dead is about) is a reason.

9/11 Families for a Safe & Strong America, called the proposal "a gross insult to the memory of those who were killed on that terrible day."[24] Debra Burlingame, a co-founder of the group, whose brother died in the attacks, said:

This is a place which is 600 feet from where almost 3,000 people were torn to pieces by Islamic extremists.... it is incredibly insensitive and audacious ... for them to build a mosque ... so that they could be in proximity to where that atrocity happened... The idea that you would establish a religious institution that embraces the very shariah law that terrorists point to as their justification for what they did ... to build that where almost 3,000 people died, that is an obscenity to me.

Terry Rockefeller, whose sister was killed, said: "this celebrates the city she loved living in. It is what makes America what we are."

Quote:

If the president did not want to do what was right, and point out that although the group did have the legal right to build, that, under the particular circumstances, it was wrong of them to build at that site,

That confirms my suspicions. You have decided the issue and now are attempting to attack the President because he doesn't hold your viewpoint.

That leads me to ask you again. On what basis is it immoral for them to build there?

You still haven't dealt with the Con Ed issue I raised earlier in pointing out it would violate the rights of Muslims if Con Ed refused to sell based on the fact that they were Muslims.

Turning ground zero into a garbage dump would be wrong even if there were no relatives to object, don't you think?

Who can say what 'the families of the dead' want?

You mentioned one person who was really against it - Debra Burlingame. You didn't mention (maybe didn't know) but she is a Republican political operative who runs an attack group called 'Keep America Safe' along with Liz Cheney. She has a dog in this fight which is purely unrelated to her brother's death.

Quote:

Turning ground zero into a garbage dump would be wrong even if there were no relatives to object, don't you think?

I don't think so. I mean, why not? We need garbage dumps.

This whole sentimental attachment to the site of a disaster, as if the ground was somehow consecrated, is the worst sort of ridiculously illogical tribalism.

EVEN WORSE, however, is the fact that you continually say the words 'ground zero' as if that had anything to do with where the mosque is being built, even though you know it doesn't. That hardly shows critical thinking on your part.

Cycloptichorn

The specific location of the planned mosque, so close to the World Trade Center “where a piece of the wreckage fell,” was a primary selling point for the Muslims who bought the building.[28] Abdul Rauf said it “sends the opposite statement to what happened on 9/11.” and “We want to push back against the extremists”.[

This sounds paranoid to me cyclop. Her wiki page says she is the sister of one of the pilots who died and became involved in the memorial afterwards. It seems like she cares about it very deeply. Are you suggesting that all of that is a partisan ploy unrelated to her brother?

We respect the dead for several reasons, a big one is out of respect for the families of the dead:

it is incredibly insensitive and audacious ... for them to build a mosque ... so that they could be in proximity to where that atrocity happened

The idea that you would establish a religious institution that embraces the very shariah law that terrorists point to as their justification for what they did ... to build that where almost 3,000 people died

And it seems to me that the cordoba house, although I believe the imam rauf is well intentioned and wants outreach, is an awkward and insensitive statement. He seems to care primarily about the public perception of islam, and his own mission to change how it is perceived, than about a memorial-

parados wrote:

Quote:

If the president did not want to do what was right, and point out that although the group did have the legal right to build, that, under the particular circumstances, it was wrong of them to build at that site,

That confirms my suspicions. You have decided the issue and now are attempting to attack the President because he doesn't hold your viewpoint.

That leads me to ask you again. On what basis is it immoral for them to build there?

You still haven't dealt with the Con Ed issue I raised earlier in pointing out it would violate the rights of Muslims if Con Ed refused to sell based on the fact that they were Muslims.

It is only immoral in the sense of not wanting to give offense to other Americans, and we have that thought because American Christians are Americans first, and only Christians to the extent that they can abuse people with it... From a spiritual point of view, where does it matter where one prays??? When we cannot divorce ourselves from our material being we cannot grasp the spiritual, and if we once touch the spiritual the material never seems so real as illusion...

Quote:

Some years ago, when a group of Catholic nuns decided to pray for the souls of the dead at the death camp at Auschwitz where the great majority of the murdered victims were Jews, and there was a protest by Jews concerning this, Pope John told the nuns that although he understood their good intentions, he wanted them to understand the sensitivity of the protesters, and he ordered them to do their praying for the dead at Auschwitz elsewhere. Maybe the president should have learned from that example.

By your analogy of the story about the Pope and the protesters, you seem to be weighing in on the side of those who hold that it is morally wrong to build the mosque there. If so, you are making an appeal to emotion.

You seem to think that most people are unthinking puppets who follow blindly without knowing what they are doing. You do a disservice to many Americans. I not sure if you are American. I am not.

Also, given your example of Con Edison. How could they legally refuse to sell something based on the religion of the buyer?

What you refer to as a red herring is turning into sour grapes.

kennethamy wrote:

You mean that if I have the right to spank my child hard that I am right to exercise that right whenever I like, even if the child is, say, very ill? So if the child is dying of cancer, I am right to spank him because I have the right to spank him?

Do you have a valid reason to spank the child?

Quote:

We respect the dead for several reasons, a big one is out of respect for the families of the dead:

We respect reasonable requests of the families of the dead, Would we kill all muslims out of respect for the families of the dead if they requested it?

That means we are debating whether the request is reasonable.

Quote:

And it seems to me that the cordoba house, although I believe the imam rauf is well intentioned and wants outreach, is an awkward and insensitive statement. He seems to care primarily about the public perception of islam, and his own mission to change how it is perceived, than about a memorial-

Why should he care about a memorial? It isn't on the WTC site. Why should he put a memorial above his religion? But he is including a memorial according to news reports so we are dealing with nothing but an emotional appeal from you again.

Quote:

This sounds paranoid to me cyclop. Her wiki page says she is the sister of one of the pilots who died and became involved in the memorial afterwards. It seems like she cares about it very deeply. Are you suggesting that all of that is a partisan ploy unrelated to her brother?

I believe that her outage is completely ginned up, yes. You can call that paranoid if you like, but the truth is that she does run an organization dedicated to electing Republicans, and statements like the one she's made fit directly in with her receiving a paycheck. It's right there on her wiki page, after all.

And that is what this entire controversy is about: Republican political fortunes this Fall. Nobody actually gives a **** about the placement of the mosque. The whole thing is a proxy.

Cycloptichorn

kennethamy wrote:

RealEyes wrote:

Very interesting read! Thanks for the contribution.

Thank you. People like to say that logic is useless or too distanced from "real life" but that isn't true. Of course, logicians can refuse to address any issues other than theoretical ones. But that is up to them and has nothing to do with logic. The great theoretical mathematician, G.H. Hardy once proposed a toast which went, "To mathematics: may it never be of use to anyone". But first of all, that was mathematics, and second of all, he may have been posturing just a little.

You are an idiot, but no one can call you an illogical idiot... You must remember that ever line of reasoning has its premises, which is where most logic fails... Look at conservative and liberal opinion writers and you see their logic is correct given the presumptions they dump on the table... It is all examples of gigo, and gigo is what you are good at... If you really looked at the meaning of your words, you would never have said what you said in regard to rights.... If a thing is right it is just because rights have the support of law, and as Abalard, a logician said: Jus, Ius, is the Genus, and Law, Lex, is a species of it.... What is politically acceptible in a land deeply divided, where the people are taught to believe that the majority can abridge or deny rights, is not the same as what is right, which is what should be a right...

The enumerated rights of the constitution are behind our division when unity is a stated goal of the constitution; so IT fails... Then party rights, which are not in any sense clearly stated, divide the people and make all issues national when they are not... And because a frustrated people denied the essential ability to control events in their lives, and to protect themselves from injustice are left with the paltry ability to deny their fellows their rights based upon political considerations... -When this is the downfall of all because no government which denies basic needs and powers, as rights are, will ever have the support of the population... Those who would deny rights are not more happy with government than those who have their rights denied.... The government cannot move better when doing good than in doing harm, and individuals within government see the harm done to people when rights are denied, so they act outside the constitution; and it all means that even those sworn to defend the constitution act outside of it and have no faith in it because the form is rotten, and needs to be replaced...

Do you see what I am saying: People acting under the premise that religious freedom is good are led in that view of good to deny all manor of rights which people need because they think they need them, including the right to free assembly and religion which is their foundation....The church leaders want power, and in their desire for power they take a right which is a power, and us it to destroy the whole country... That right of religous freedom should be limited to protection from the government, as all rights are, and the government which should be the people should be able recognize right by support of law, -but never deny any right unless it can be shown to injure the people... Government should not attack the people to defend itself, but should exist to defend people and defend rights, and when a right of one group is shown to injure the whole it should be denied... A people without rights have no freedom, and it is not for the religious who have denied to themselves the faculty of reason in favor of faith to guide this nation into oblivion... Their right is their liberty and their liberty in not the right to a general attack on liberty... They need limits... And they should be taught that what is good for the goose is good for the gander... We all need rights because they are right.

kennethamy wrote::

Quote:

If the president did not want to do what was right, and point out that although the group did have the legal right to build, that, under the particular circumstances, it was wrong of them to build at that site, then he should, at least, have not done what was wrong, and actually mislead some into thinking that the issue was really a constitutional one, and actually encouraged the building. In other words, if it was wrong for him to say what he did say, he should have, at least kept quiet about it. But few, if any, politicians take the opportunity to shut up. And, anyway, I am not sure that Obama took the time to think things through, or was even capable of doing so.

This seems to indicate that you are so much concerned with the topic of discussion as you are with your dislike of your American president.

You are not using critical thinking.

InfraBlue wrote:

Quote:

Some years ago, when a group of Catholic nuns decided to pray for the souls of the dead at the death camp at Auschwitz where the great majority of the murdered victims were Jews, and there was a protest by Jews concerning this, Pope John told the nuns that although he understood their good intentions, he wanted them to understand the sensitivity of the protesters, and he ordered them to do their praying for the dead at Auschwitz elsewhere. Maybe the president should have learned from that example.

By your analogy of the story about the Pope and the protesters, you seem to be weighing in on the side of those who hold that it is morally wrong to build the mosque there. If so, you are making an appeal to emotion.

Why, for heaven's sake is the reason that something is wrong an appeal to emotion? If I tell you that it would be wrong for you to rape a little child would you reply, "That is just an appeal to emotion"?

In any case, my attitude toward the President is irrelevant to whether what I argued is correct. Suppose I accuse someone of murder, but it is also true that I do not like the person I accused. What is that supposed to show about whether or not the person did the murder?

Quote:

If the president did not want to do what was right, and point out that although the group did have the legal right to build, that, under the particular circumstances, it was wrong of them to build at that site, then he should, at least, have not done what was wrong, and actually mislead some into thinking that the issue was really a constitutional one, and actually encouraged the building. In other words, if it was wrong for him to say what he did say, he should have, at least kept quiet about it. But few, if any, politicians take the opportunity to shut up. And, anyway, I am not sure that Obama took the time to think things through, or was even capable of doing so.

Obama was right to say what he did; there is no moral, ethical or constitutional problem in the mosque being built.

I don't think you've actually put any real critical thinking into this issue, funnily enough.

Cycloptichorn

kennethamy wrote:

In any case, my attitude toward the President is irrelevant to whether what I argued is correct. Suppose I accuse someone of murder, but it is also true that I do not like the person I accused. What is that supposed to show about whether or not the person did the murder?

It shows that you would be more likely to accuse them. Regardless whether they committed the murder or not.

Quote:

We respect the dead for several reasons, a big one is out of respect for the families of the dead:

We respect reasonable requests of the families of the dead. Would we kill all muslims out of respect for the families of the dead if they requested it?

That means we are debating whether the request is reasonable.

Debra's statements while an emotional appeal aren't reasonable because she argues with non facts.

Quote:

it is incredibly insensitive and audacious ... for them to build a mosque ... so that they could be in proximity to where that atrocity happened

Unreasonable since a mosque already exists at the site.

Quote:

The idea that you would establish a religious institution that embraces the very shariah law that terrorists point to as their justification for what they did ... to build that where almost 3,000 people died

Emotional but not factual. We can discuss if 2 blocks away is really that close. There is no evidence that the mosque embraces the same shariah law that the terrorists embrace. Facts would seem to point out that isn't the case.

Quote:

And it seems to me that the cordoba house, although I believe the imam rauf is well intentioned and wants outreach, is an awkward and insensitive statement. He seems to care primarily about the public perception of islam, and his own mission to change how it is perceived, than about a memorial-

Why should he care about a memorial? It isn't on the WTC site. Why should he put a memorial above his religion? But he is including a memorial according to news reports so we are dealing with nothing but an emotional appeal from you again.

Critical thinking means you should make reasoned arguments Jeb and I am not seeing that from you.

The only reason we would be discussing this is that the site of the WTC is considered some kind of public ground to be used for statement making.

However, opponents reacted against the IFC's mission, saying that plans to promote international freedom through exhibits and displays about various genocides and crimes against humanity through history, including genocide of Native American genocide and the slave trade in the United States, were inappropriate at a site that many people consider to be sacred. On September 28, 2005, New York Governor George E. Pataki barred the IFC from the World Trade Center site.."

Jeff Jarvis, a journalist and 9/11 survivor, noted that the IFC's proponents stated they "will tangibly link September 11 and the lives of its victims to humanity’s greatest idea: freedom", but objected:

“ But what is that link? Nothing about September 11 was about liberating people. The people who were killed that day were free. They were not struggling to be free. The murderers, too, were free and exploited that freedom to commit this act. Of course, I support the celebration of freedom; who but a tyrant or a terrorist would not? But the struggle here is not against or for freedom. The struggle here is for civilization against extremism, fanaticism, and criminality. So make your center, elsewhere, about terrorism, then. Have your seminars and events and debates about extremism. Study religious fanaticism. This actually is not about freedom.

So the question is: what do we want future generations to remember about us? That we had some kind of hang-up about Islam? Or that we were insightful enough to know what's really important in the long-run: mutual respect.