|Mosques in Manhattan
||[Aug. 20th, 2010|01:26 pm]
hits it out of the park in his argument for why the Islamic Cultural Center should be allowed to be built in Manhattan.I know y'all read him, but my sweet baboo really |
This has fallen off my friend page so this shall be my farewell post to this particular thread.
You skipped a step in my logical train. I had an if A and B then C, not if A then B. I even laid it out like that, just without the A, B, and C attached. I have encountered very few people who could not at least see where I was coming from on this. They have not all agreed with me that it is a valid reason to not build there, but they understood why I believe it to be in bad taste.
That said, I came to grips long ago with the fact that I do not necessarily have the skill or eloquence to make everyone I encounter understand what I think, believe, or feel. I generally do a pretty good job but sometimes the task is beyond the amount of effort I am willing to invest. It seems to be so with this issue and yourself. Not something I'm gonna lose sleep over. :)
As to your comment about the mosque not being at the site - yes, it is. Back before the controversy really heated up over it the backers themselves were referring to it as a Ground Zero Mosque. If that is what the people building it thought of it as then who am I to argue with them? Also, it is close enough to Ground Zero to make no difference, only 2 blocks from where the towers stood in an area that was a front row seat to the devastation of the attack, an area that was showered by debris from the falling towers. I do not believe any of our nation's historic parks and monuments so narrowly define their areas as what people are now trying to do with Ground Zero in their attempt to say this mosque is not there.
2010-08-27 03:03 pm (UTC)
It seems a little unfair to respond when I know you have no opportunity to reply, but since you've brought that situation on yourself it also seems unfair to me to prevent me from responding. So, for what little it's worth in the event someone else in the universe cares about this conversation . . . .
The difference between "X implies Y" and "A plus B implies C" is not really relevant. My point was that, whatever the assumptions are that lead to the conclusion, my question revolves around the connection between the assumptions and the conclusion. As I said, perhaps you think the connection is obvious, and perhaps these other people who see where you are coming from are in agreement with you in that regard. I'm not.
I'm not saying that you have to explain yourself to me; I'm just trying to help you do it if you're inclined to. What you have done so far is orthogonal to the question I'm asking.
But while I have a personal interest in my own understanding (being a curious sort), I think we agree that, from your perspective, "some random person doesn't understand me" is not something to lose sleep over. I will, as "threatened," go on believing that you don't have a good reason for your position until proven otherwise. If you can live with that, then that's where the conversation will end.
As for whether the proposed site is "at" ground zero, well, it is both true that we disagree, and it is true that you're ignoring the second part of my analysis, namely whether the site is unique in its position.
I disagree in principle because while I would object to a strip club being "at" ground zero, there are at least two (the New York Dolls Gentleman’s Club and the Pussycat Lounge, not to mention Thunder Lingerie and More, a sex shop which has peep shows) closer in than the proposed center site. That's what Manhattan is like: very different things are cheek-by-jowl, and consequently the demarcations are closer in and sharper than they might be elsewhere.
Even ignoring that fact, I also need to point out again that it's important that the proposed site is not unique. There are at least two churches (Trinity and St. Paul's) within the same radius. And yes, being one amongst a group is hugely different than being one alone.
Finally, as to whether the backers referred to it as a "ground zero" project, I don't know. But one of their stated goals is to try to promote positive and neighborly relations with other religions. To that end, the symbolism of physically repairing some of the collateral damage from the attack seems, if anything, appropriate.