I recognize that the world would be a very uncomfortable place if everyone went right up to the limit of what they were legally allowed to do, even if they never crossed that limit. So I am generally willing to make allowances for other people’s mishugayos, and hope that other people will similarly make allowances for mine
( ... )
Whether or not these particular signs are a good idea depends, I think, on the broader context of how that community is relating to its neighbors.
I think the same could be argued about the mosque. I think it could be said that the protests against other mosques are largely an emotional reaction to the conflict in NYC.
Sometimes public opinion should be ignored. I'm trying to figure out if there's a neat, bright-line rule to differentiate those situations from the rest.
Both are legally permissible and both are out of touch.vz85September 2 2010, 04:11:00 UTC
There is no question that both are legally permissible. Both may be offensive though I think the mosque is especially provocative and ill-advised. Within five to ten years of its operation, I fully expect to see anti-American rhetoric and terrorist apologetics emanating from individuals affiliated with the mosque. They will undoubtedly turn out to be squishy on issues of Palestinian suicide bombers and the like. Just watch. The imam has already made some controversial statements on 9/11 and I think the mosque will ultimately turn out to be a black eye for the Muslim community. Even the name of the project, the Cordoba Initiative, reeks of medieval Muslim imperialism
( ... )
Re: Both are legally permissible and both are out of touch.onionsoupmixSeptember 2 2010, 13:21:24 UTC
But the imam has repeatedly denounced terrorism. Why should he start approving it after the mosque is built? There is a mosque there now, you know that, right? It is just cramped in. The name of the project reflected the idea that Cordoba was a place of interfaith unity.
The welfare lifestyle choices of KY are, of course, disturbing. But this post is about their offensive tznius signs. Should they take them down so as not to offend? I guess you think they should.
What they actually say in inner circles is often a different story. I recommend this British documentary that exposed a lot of "moderate" British Muslim imams who said one thing in public and another in private about those outside the faith--like another religion that comes to mind. Many of these Muslim imams, teachers and spokespeople also had ties to interfaith tolerance initiatives. I would learn to be skeptical.
The Cordoba Initiative doesn't want to disclose its funders and I'm not surprised. I suspect the Saudis.
The name of the project reflected the idea that Cordoba was a place of interfaith unity.
Sure.
Of course, the whole notion that Islamic Spain was extraordinarily tolerant is itself a myth.
I guess you think they should. They have a legal right to do so. I think it's a bad idea, but my opinion is entirely irrelevant. How I feel doesn't really
( ... )
Re: Both are legally permissible and both are out of touch.vz85September 2 2010, 21:44:12 UTC
I think the KJ sign wouldn't be that offensive if the local Jews weren't so offensive. It would simply be regarded as a quaint custom the locals would like to see respected.
If I could advise both groups on public relations, I would tell the Cordoba crowd to relocate the mosque and the Jews of KJ to keep the sign and get off welfare. Neither is going to happen voluntarily.
the mosque & the sign
anonymous
September 3 2010, 01:35:52 UTC
Again, the parallel is wrong.
the mosque: In any other legally zoned place no one should care. But the fact that they chose specifically this location is to me indicative of their intention - to stick a thumb into the infidel's eye. Therefore it is sensible to fight this mosque (or for the jaded lazy ones like myself at least to dislike it). The issue here should not be their "lack of sensitivity", but their intent. I suspect that it isn't that they don't care how people feel, but that they DO care and that is why they chose this location above all others.
the sign: I would have no problem with a Muslim enclave in NJ putting up such a sign and I don't have a problem with Kiras Joel putting up such a sign. Why would anyone that wants to visit this village be offended anyways? One would presume that a friendly visitor never wants to offend the aborigines and would be happy to be informed about their peculiar sensitivities. Would it even ever enter your mind to be offended should such a sign be in fact put up by a Muslim entity? An
( ... )
Re: the mosque & the signonionsoupmixSeptember 3 2010, 02:02:01 UTC
The mosque was there since before 9-11. It is crammed in and there is no space. They want to build a larger center, like a JCC.
The KJ sign could have been polite if they just left it at "we ask that you behave in a modest way." The details about covered necklines and gender separation are offensive. And yes, if I visited a country where I was told that I can't leave the house without a male chaperone, I would be offended. And that's another country all together. This here is public property, paid by American taxpayers. Whereas the mosque, if you really want to make distinctions, is on private land.
OneIronString
anonymous
September 8 2010, 05:12:39 UTC
I think your analogy is totally wrong. There is simply no comparison between a group that has perpetrated so much violence on the world and on America and NYC in particular, and a group that is insular and weird but really just asking visitors to be modest. The mosque is offensive because it is an assertion of victory for Islamic terrorists. I don't for a minute believe that the imam in charge has truly denounced terrorism. His comments after 9/11 have to be taken seriously. He is not retracting them -- why are you? OneIronString
Re: OneIronStringonionsoupmixSeptember 8 2010, 05:21:03 UTC
Acc to Newsweek, the Taliban is very happy as long as the mosque is not being built, they say the controversy has increased new recruits tremendously. So how is building the mosque a victory for terrorists again?
Re: OneIronString
anonymous
September 8 2010, 15:35:40 UTC
It is not difficult to see how it is a win-win situation for terrorists. Building the mosque follows a long islamic tradition of erecting a minaret at the site of a victorious assault. Being refused the right to build the mosque gives them an excuse to perpetrate more violence on infidels.
Since it is on private land, they can do what they want, no matter how obnoxious.
When I first started to read your post, I had another thought though.
Legally, visitors can dress however they like, but they are being asked to be sensitive to modesty to avoid offending the locals. Would you see this as being analogous to the mosque being legally allowed to build but being asked to show sensitivity?
Comments 45
Reply
I think the same could be argued about the mosque. I think it could be said that the protests against other mosques are largely an emotional reaction to the conflict in NYC.
Sometimes public opinion should be ignored. I'm trying to figure out if there's a neat, bright-line rule to differentiate those situations from the rest.
Reply
Reply
The welfare lifestyle choices of KY are, of course, disturbing. But this post is about their offensive tznius signs. Should they take them down so as not to offend? I guess you think they should.
Reply
Sure. They all denounce terrorism publicly (while getting a jab in at the United States and other western countries).
What they actually say in inner circles is often a different story. I recommend this British documentary that exposed a lot of "moderate" British Muslim imams who said one thing in public and another in private about those outside the faith--like another religion that comes to mind. Many of these Muslim imams, teachers and spokespeople also had ties to interfaith tolerance initiatives. I would learn to be skeptical.
The Cordoba Initiative doesn't want to disclose its funders and I'm not surprised. I suspect the Saudis.
The name of the project reflected the idea that Cordoba was a place of interfaith unity.
Sure.
Of course, the whole notion that Islamic Spain was extraordinarily tolerant is itself a myth.
I guess you think they should.
They have a legal right to do so. I think it's a bad idea, but my opinion is entirely irrelevant. How I feel doesn't really ( ... )
Reply
If I could advise both groups on public relations, I would tell the Cordoba crowd to relocate the mosque and the Jews of KJ to keep the sign and get off welfare. Neither is going to happen voluntarily.
Reply
the mosque: In any other legally zoned place no one should care. But the fact that they chose specifically this location is to me indicative of their intention - to stick a thumb into the infidel's eye. Therefore it is sensible to fight this mosque (or for the jaded lazy ones like myself at least to dislike it). The issue here should not be their "lack of sensitivity", but their intent. I suspect that it isn't that they don't care how people feel, but that they DO care and that is why they chose this location above all others.
the sign: I would have no problem with a Muslim enclave in NJ putting up such a sign and I don't have a problem with Kiras Joel putting up such a sign. Why would anyone that wants to visit this village be offended anyways? One would presume that a friendly visitor never wants to offend the aborigines and would be happy to be informed about their peculiar sensitivities. Would it even ever enter your mind to be offended should such a sign be in fact put up by a Muslim entity? An ( ... )
Reply
The KJ sign could have been polite if they just left it at "we ask that you behave in a modest way." The details about covered necklines and gender separation are offensive. And yes, if I visited a country where I was told that I can't leave the house without a male chaperone, I would be offended. And that's another country all together. This here is public property, paid by American taxpayers. Whereas the mosque, if you really want to make distinctions, is on private land.
Reply
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20015448-504083.html
-cfkaMP
Reply
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2010/08/31/welcome-to-kiryas-joel-please-dress-accordingly/
Reply
OneIronString
Reply
Reply
Reply
When I first started to read your post, I had another thought though.
Legally, visitors can dress however they like, but they are being asked to be sensitive to modesty to avoid offending the locals. Would you see this as being analogous to the mosque being legally allowed to build but being asked to show sensitivity?
JRKmommy
Reply
Leave a comment