Even a wronged person can still be wrong.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

Sympathy for one's loss does not necessarily equate into sympathy for how one reacts to that loss.

Just my general thoughts on things such as family members of victims who demand the death penalty for the perpetrator, or survivors of 9-11 who oppose the Islamic Center in lower Manhattan because they equate all of Islam with the acts of Al Quaeda.

Yes, it is a narrow tightrope to walk, but when recognizing one is a victim, it does not mean you should be forced to give that person carte blanche on everything he or she thinks.

[Warpy]

1. I learned that lesson early in life

when a Holocaust survivor landlord was involved in a scam, pumping up the paper prices of his buildings through a bunch of dummy corporations, milking the tenants for all they were worth, then burning them down with tenants still living there. His buildings were overinsured and underassessed and he got very rich very quickly on fire insurance.

He eventually went to prison, thank goodness.

Surviving horror doesn't confer sainthood on anyone. The survival must always be respected, but the survivor shouldn't be given a pass to hurt other people.

[pscot]

2. That is a profound insight

[Deep13]

3. Let me ask you something that I wonder about.

First, I agree that the opinions of victims should not be controlling in criminal justice.

I grant you that the promoters of the Park 51 center have a 1st Amend. right to build on their site. I'm not asking about the legality of it. If the promoters are morally justified in building as a religious expression, why are opponents not morally justified in opposing it for religious reasons? In both cases it is protected religious expression under the 1st Am. What critics of the P.51 critics are really saying is that the religious views of the promoters are correct and those of the opponents are wrong. I really can't see any factual basis for arriving at that conclusion. Is it a question of live-and-let-live? If it is, doesn't it apply to everyone's religious views, not just those who espouse ecumenism?

I don't think any thinking person equates all Muslims with al Quaeda. Still, it is impossible to escape the fact that al Quaeda is based on a very devout form of Islam that many Muslims do approve of, at least in principle. See e.g.:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/15/international/15poll.html

Note this poll does not include Saudi Arabia, Pakistan or Iran. I point this out because I think that the claim that extremists are somehow apart from Islam is based on wishful thinking and not fact.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

4. Interesting question....

"If the promoters are morally justified in building as a religious expression, why are opponents not morally justified in opposing it for religious reasons?"

My answer would be simple: It's not their (the opponents) religion. The proponents argument is based on expression of their own faith, while the opponent's argument is based on their own personal perception of what they believe the other's religion is. So it's not an equal, zero sum situation to me.

[Deep13]

7. Acceptance of one religion necessarily rejects all others.

If the pronouncements of the Nicean creed are correct, then Islam is wrong. If the Koran is the one true, final and unimprovable revelation of God, then Christianity at best is a flawed and dangerously misleading idea. Christians are admonished to "Go ye therefore and teach all nations baptising in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost." While it doesn't specifically say to be violent about it, reliance on the OT certainly invites that conclusion. I'm not as familiar with Islamic texts, but I am aware that there are provisions in the Koran and especially the Hadiths that encourage conversion by conquest, which is in fact how Islam initially spread. I also have to reject the implicit claim that only followers of a specific religion really know what it is all about. Frankly, the devout are often uninformed.

So objection to other people's religions is often part of ones own faith. For many of those opposed to Park 51, I suspect this is their real motivation.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

8. Strictly dogmatically, perhaps.

But even the most devout adherents often take a more pragmatic and ecumentical viewpoint when it comes to other religions.

[Ozymanithrax]

5. The Klu Klux Klan is based on a devout form of Christianity...

but we do not equat Christians with white supremacists.

[Deep13]

6. Not anymore.

But when it existed, slavery and then segregation both found moral justification in Christianity. It's holy book plainly endorses slavery and bids slaves to be faithful to their masters. Further, the whole idea that there is a natural order to things and that seperation of the races and the subservience of the black race to the white was what God wanted is grounded in Christianity.

Today, most Christians simply choose to disregard that part of their religion and put their humanity before their theology. I tend to think it is that way with Muslims, especially those living in Muslim-minority countries who are no longer under the iron thumbs of theocracy. Still, there seems to be a lot of folks resisting the trend just as there are among Christian extremists here.

[ljm2002]

9. You say, "What critics of the P.51 critics are really saying..."

"...is that the religious views of the promoters are correct and those of the opponents are wrong."

No one that I know of who supports building the center is commenting on the RELIGIOUS VIEWS of those who oppose the center. We are saying that their POSITION ON THIS ISSUE is wrong, not only morally / ethically but Constitutionally.

That is quite different from what you are claiming.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.