Ground Zero Mosque. Yes or No?

[Sterling]

Well, I am just going to re-enforce my stance on this subject:

It's definitely against the Constitution to bar any sort of attempt to get this Mosque put into place. While I agree it should be built, I can still protest the fact that I find it morally insensitive, because this is my right as an American citizen. American is a very opinionated country, and if you don't like that every person in America has the right to provide an opinion, you can get over it.

 

[Bri]

If morality is irrational, can it truly be called moral?
QUOTE(Bri @ Aug 23 2010, 09:26 PM) While I agree that something isn't necessarily morally right just because it can be rationalized, that's a red herring. We were discussing your opinion which you said wasn't rational. The question is whether an irrational position can be morally right. I don't see how it can be.

-Bri

Ok, let's see if I can answer this, as it's a very good question. It's taking us off track slightly but it's a good example of why an irrational opinion can be morally right. And please don't for one second think I'm comparing the example I'm about to use to the building of a Islamic Community Centre/Prayer Hall. It's just a nice easy example.

Do you think a man of 50 marrying an 11 year old girl is morally acceptable?

Probably not under most circumstances. But I'm not sure what that has to do with the question.

-Bri

 

[Blood Fetish]

Well, I am just going to re-enforce my stance on this subject:

It's definitely against the Constitution to bar any sort of attempt to get this Mosque put into place. While I agree it should be built, I can still protest the fact that I find it morally insensitive, because this is my right as an American citizen. American is a very opinionated country, and if you don't like that every person in America has the right to provide an opinion, you can get over it.

I think you are arguing against an invisible enemy. No on is saying that you don't have the right to disagree with this (or with anything). What they are saying is that if you are going to argue against citizen's constitutional rights then the burden is on you to explain why.

 

[Bri]

While I agree it should be built, I can still protest the fact that I find it morally insensitive, because this is my right as an American citizen.

The reason your find it morally insensitive is because it's your right to find it morally insensitive? Can you provide an actual reason that you believe it to be morally insensitive?

-Bri

 

[Depravo]

While I agree it should be built, I can still protest the fact that I find it morally insensitive, because this is my right as an American citizen.

The reason your find it morally insensitive is because it's your right to find it morally insensitive? Can you provide an actual reason that you believe it to be morally insensitive?

-Bri

Haha. It's also his right to poo his trousers in the privacy of his own home. I wonder if he does that too?

 

[omgpwn666]

I say no to a Ground Zero Mosque. To me it naturally sounds messed up to build it near the 9/11 site. Also I feel afraid for the Mosque, feel like racist pigs would vandalize or do something worse just to hurt people because they believe all Muslim are terrorist. The whole idea sounds bad, maby it would just be better for everyone to have it in a different area.

 

[TrolleyDave]

If something cannot be rationalized then it has no structure. There is no criteria to apply to other situations. Instead you are left with a situation in which anything that any person says is moral is moral, simply because they they claim it to be. This obviously renders the entire concept of morality bankrupt.

TLDR: if you cannot explain why you believe something then perhaps you should question why you believe it.

Well it's pretty much like this. I feel that if I lost someone in the attack that it would upset me that a religion, any religion, was building a religious centre there. Simply because it would feel like a religion not understanding the concept of how disturbing it is to another person that someone could be twisted enough by a religion, any religion, to massacre thousands of innocent people. I understand this, and after all, aren't their emotions also worth respecting? Therefore it would lead to me choosing not to do it. Therefore, according to the moral code of conduct I have built up over my life I see it as wrong, therefore I find it morally dubious. I don't have to question why I believe it's morally dubious because my morals have held me well, and by the majority of people I come across I am considered a good person. More importantly, people I have alot of respect and consider to be morally good people think I'm a good person.

Ok, let's see if I can answer this, as it's a very good question. It's taking us off track slightly but it's a good example of why an irrational opinion can be morally right. And please don't for one second think I'm comparing the example I'm about to use to the building of a Islamic Community Centre/Prayer Hall. It's just a nice easy example.

Do you think a man of 50 marrying an 11 year old girl is morally acceptable?
No, but it's also not very rational.


Why not? If she's reached puberty then she's ready to breed, and after all isn't that one of the things that we're supposed to do as humans? Plus shouldn't we respect his freedom of choice? We all have the right to freedom of choice don't we, and if she believes she wants to be with him then shouldn't she be allowed her freedom of choice as well? And what about the basic human right of freedom of expression? He'd simply like to express his love for a member of the female species.

You can see where I'm going with this.

QUOTE(Blood Fetish @ Aug 23 2010, 09:44 PM) QUOTE(TrolleyDave @ Aug 23 2010, 09:36 PM)

Do you think a man of 50 marrying an 11 year old girl is morally acceptable?

No, and let me explain rationally why that is the case. It is a well known scientific fact that the brain is still undergoing rapid development during childhood years and this actually continues well into the 20s. Due to this children lack higher thought-processes like abstraction, the concept of the self, and long-term consequences. It is for these same reasons that children are not allowed to smoke, drink, sign contracts, do pornography, etc.

Given that criteria a man of 50 marrying an 11 year old is not acceptable, as it is very likely the child does not fully understand the contract they are getting into.

But that simply means that she's at the right age to begin learning how to be a good wife. If the husband treats her with respect and caring and educates her until she's fully ready to begin the relationship then what would the psychological damage be?

 

[_Chaz_]

I say no to a Ground Zero Mosque. To me it naturally sounds messed up to build it near the 9/11 site. Also I feel afraid for the Mosque, feel like racist pigs would vandalize or do something worse just to hurt people because they believe all Muslim are terrorist. The whole idea sounds bad, maby it would just be better for everyone to have it in a different area.

It's not too close to Ground Zero, it's not even a Mosque. It's a community center for Muslim citizens.

 

[Depravo]

It's not too close to Ground Zero, it's not even a Mosque. It's a community center for Muslim citizens.

It's not even that. It's an Islam-themed community centre for citizens of all faiths.

 

[Overlord Nadrian]

But that simply means that she's at the right age to begin learning how to be a good wife. If the husband treats her with respect and caring and educates her until she's fully ready to begin the relationship then what would the psychological damage be?

Again, what she thinks is most likely bollocks because she isn't old enough to understand (at least for most people this would be so), and thus she should (and will be) denied all right to marry the old geezer.

Et vice versa.

EDIT: Holy shit, I just noticed I already posted 25 posts in this topic.

 

[omgpwn666]

In 2010 controversy arose concerning the development of Cordoba House, a mosque and cultural center planned at a site two blocks from the World Trade Center site. The builders say it is intended to represent moderate Islam. But, given its proximity to Ground Zero, it has stirred controversy among people suspicious of the motives behind it, and led to comments for and against it being built at that location from families of 9/11 victims, politicians, organizations, and academics.

It says something about a mosque and a cultural center.

 

[Pyrate02]

It really doesn't matter if all the Islamists on GBAtemp say yes - what matters is what New Yorkers think. And if you read the polls, the overwhelming majority of New Yorkers are AGAINST this.

It's unbelievable - the Islamists are trying to take over GBAtemp now!

 

[Overlord Nadrian]

In 2010 controversy arose concerning the development of Cordoba House, a mosque and cultural center planned at a site two blocks from the World Trade Center site. The builders say it is intended to represent moderate Islam. But, given its proximity to Ground Zero, it has stirred controversy among people suspicious of the motives behind it, and led to comments for and against it being built at that location from families of 9/11 victims, politicians, organizations, and academics.

It says something about a mosque and a cultural center.

The video (and a bit of common sense) tells us otherwise.

 

[Blood Fetish]

Well it's pretty much like this. I feel that if I lost someone in the attack that it would upset me that a religion, any religion, building a religious centre there would upset me. Simply because it would feel like a religion not understanding the concept of how disturbing it is to another person that someone could be twisted enough by a religion, any religion, to massacre thousands of innocent people. I understand this, and after all, aren't their emotions also worth respecting?

This is the awesome thing about the US and freedom of speech: you don't have the right to not be offended. Just because something has your panties in a bunch does not allow you to trample on the first amendment unless you believe it poses a real threat to you. And if you do think it poses a threat then you are basically admitting that you equate all Muslims with terrorists.

It is worth noting that more people die of hearth disease every two days in the US than died in the 9/11 attacks, yet there is a McDonald's at "ground zero".

 

[TrolleyDave]

But that simply means that she's at the right age to begin learning how to be a good wife. If the husband treats her with respect and caring and educates her until she's fully ready to begin the relationship then what would the psychological damage be?

Again, what she thinks is most likely bollocks because she isn't old enough to understand (at least for most people this would be so), and thus she should (and will be) denied all right to marry the old geezer.

Et vice versa.

EDIT: Holy shit, I just noticed I already posted 25 posts in this topic.

Why does she need to be old enough to understand as long as he's not harming her physically or emotionally?

 

[Blood Fetish]

But that simply means that she's at the right age to begin learning how to be a good wife. If the husband treats her with respect and caring and educates her until she's fully ready to begin the relationship then what would the psychological damage be?

She needs to make the decision to enter into that contract (both social and legal) on her own. She cannot do that until she is of a sound mind and fully understands what it implies.

 

[omgpwn666]

In 2010 controversy arose concerning the development of Cordoba House, a mosque and cultural center planned at a site two blocks from the World Trade Center site. The builders say it is intended to represent moderate Islam. But, given its proximity to Ground Zero, it has stirred controversy among people suspicious of the motives behind it, and led to comments for and against it being built at that location from families of 9/11 victims, politicians, organizations, and academics.

It says something about a mosque and a cultural center.

The video (and a bit of common sense) tells us otherwise.

Well, help me out then please. I want to watch the video, where is it? You're supposed to help me out. lol Also thanks for the video if you link it.

 

[TrolleyDave]

Well it's pretty much like this. I feel that if I lost someone in the attack that it would upset me that a religion, any religion, building a religious centre there would upset me. Simply because it would feel like a religion not understanding the concept of how disturbing it is to another person that someone could be twisted enough by a religion, any religion, to massacre thousands of innocent people. I understand this, and after all, aren't their emotions also worth respecting?
This is the awesome thing about the US and freedom of speech: you don't have the right to not be offended. Just because something has your panties in a bunch does not allow you to trample on the first amendment unless you believe it poses a real threat to you. And if you do think it poses a threat then you are basically admitting that you equate all Muslims with terrorists.

It is worth noting that more people die of hearth disease every two days in the US than died in the 9/11 attacks, yet there is a McDonald's at "ground zero".


When was I trampling on the first Amendment? I've never stated that they should be forced to stop. I said people should have the right to be offended and protest. For me the protesting of said building is more of an attempt to appeal the same kind of emotion that I feel, and to understand why some people feel it is insensitive. As for saying that people don't have th right to not be offended you've kind of got me confused? Are you saying it's not alright to agree with the building? And when have I ever said that I believe it poses a threat? (Sorry never noticed that part originally).

QUOTE(TrolleyDave @ Aug 23 2010, 09:58 PM)

But that simply means that she's at the right age to begin learning how to be a good wife. If the husband treats her with respect and caring and educates her until she's fully ready to begin the relationship then what would the psychological damage be?

She needs to make the decision to enter into that contract (both social and legal) on her own. She cannot do that until she is of a sound mind and fully understands what it implies.

Why though? I mean does she truly need to understand any more than she has a home for life, someone who will always take care of her and love her. And after all, they could get divorced when she's older if she truly is unhappy with the situation.

 

[Blood Fetish]

It really doesn't matter if all the Islamists on GBAtemp say yes - what matters is what New Yorkers think. And if you read the polls, the overwhelming majority of New Yorkers are AGAINST this.

It's unbelievable - the Islamists are trying to take over GBAtemp now!

It matters what the constitution says, not New York. Freedom of religion isn't just for the Christians. It is telling that you can only imagine a world in which Muslims are the only ones who would not be against this.

 

[Bri]

Simply because it would feel like a religion not understanding the concept of how disturbing it is to another person that someone could be twisted enough by a religion, any religion, to massacre thousands of innocent people.

I suspect that the terrorists who crashed into the World Trade Center twisted Islam in order to justify their actions rather than the other way around.

QUOTEYou can see where I'm going with this.

No I can't. That sounds like a red herring to me. Sure, someone could rationalize anything and that doesn't make it morally right. But that's not what we were discussing. We were discussing whether something irrational can be morally right.

You admitted that your position is irrational, but said that you believe it to be the morally right position. I don't see how that can be.

-Bri