Park51 and Attitudes Towards Attitudes
A map to illustrate the location of Park51, dubbed by some the so-called "Ground Zero Mosque". Its location has been designated by a superposed red dot. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
The main thing that happened to me yesterday was a fierce debate about whether the proposed building of a “mosque at ground zero” (quotation marks intentional, and I’ll explain why later) is moral or not. I was being fed the line that this is “disrespectful” to those who died during the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, as “they” (i.e. Muslims) were the ones who took down the twin towers of the World Trade Center. Obviously, I was arguing for equality: that, as long as the proposed building adheres to planning laws, we should not restrict anyone’s faith based on our personal beliefs.
There are many issues with the argument that was presented to me, and the foremost of these is bigotry. According to Time Magazine,
“the site has been the scene of frequent demonstrations in which protesters carry signs saying such things as “All I Need to Know About Islam, I Learned on 9/11.”…the Park51 uproar, says Ebrahim Moosa, an associate professor of Islamic studies at Duke University, “is part of a pattern of intolerance” against Muslims that has existed since 9/11 but has deepened in the past few years.”
The “mosque” is not actually a mosque; instead, it is
“a vibrant and inclusive community center, reflecting the diverse spectrum of cultures and traditions, and serving New York City with programs in education, arts, culture and recreation…[which] aims to foster cooperation and understanding between people of all faiths and backgrounds through relevant programs and initiatives.” (Mission Statement, Park51 Community Center)
Does that sound like a mosque to you? No. Admittedly, there is a small mosque within it, but I fail to see why this is a problem, unless you are a Republican Islamophobe. It will lack the usual features of a traditional mosque, according to Clyde Haberman of the New York Times:
“That it may even be called a mosque is debatable. It is designed as a multi-use complex with a space set aside for prayer — no minarets, no muezzin calls to prayer blaring onto Park Place.”
Furthermore, its original name was Cordoba House, based upon the Cordoba Initiative, which aims to break
“the cycle of mistrust, misunderstanding and irrational fear that exists between Islam and many parts of the Western world”.
This sounds all rather utopian to me, but there was clearly too much liberal and not enough condescending, so it was changed to Park51, which is a twist on its location (at 51 Park Place).
Talking of its location, it’s not even “at ground zero”. If you look at the map above (although a better but copyrighted one is available here), you’ll see that it’s two blocks away. Nobody is complaining about the two Christian places of worship that are next to it, or even the foreign curry establishment that is marked on the map above. It won’t tower over Ground Zero even before the building of the One World Trade Center, let alone after the construction of that hideous monument to capitalism. Haberman again:
“For a two-letter word, it packs quite a wallop. It has been tossed around in a manner both cavalier and disingenuous, with an intention by some to inflame passions. Nobody, regardless of political leanings, would tolerate a mosque at ground zero. “Near” is not the same, as anyone who paid attention back in the fourth grade should know.”
Author, filmmaker, and generally outstanding guy Michael Moore pointed out:
“There is a McDonald’s two blocks from Ground Zero. Trust me, McDonald’s has killed far more people than the terrorists.”
Time Magazine gives me a quick tour round some other businesses one can find near this “sacred” ground:
“it’s also a stone’s throw from strip clubs, liquor stores and other establishments typical of lower Manhattan.”
Is it okay if I stop now? I think that’s evidence enough for that point. In fact, everything in the development proposals of Park51 has been more than above board:
“Ro Sheffe, a [Lower Manhattan Community] board member, said the project did not need to get the board’s approval. “They own the land, and their plans don’t have any zoning changes,” Sheffe said. “They came to us for our opinions and to let us know their plans. It was purely voluntary on their part.”" (Mosque to go up near New York’s ground zero, CNN)
And finally, I ought to point out the Muslims that are praying behind your backs in the Pentagon, and have been doing so since November 2002.
“As part of its massive renovation, the Pentagon opened the nondenominational chapel in November 2002. The chapel hosts a daily prayer group and weekly worship service for Muslims.” (Mosques already near World Trade Center site, MSNBC)
But this was only the secondary thing that pissed me off. I was totally infuriated by the person who was presenting the counter-argument (if it is worthy of such a name), who claimed that “you can’t change my opinion…I’m entitled to an opinion”. This attitude towards attitudes is totally ridiculous. Where would we be if we all clung on so desperately to our preconceptions? Philosophy, morality, psychology, science, sociology, and ethics would never have existed if humankind had never argued with each other and changed their opinions.
The idea that entitlement to an opinion = no opinion is wrong is also bullshit. Many opinions are wrong. Hitler was of the opinion that the Jews and Communists caused the problems in Weimar Germany. That was wrong, but he was still entitled to have an opinion. One of the funniest opinions I have ever heard someone believe is that Finland is in Wales. That’s definitely wrong.
Such attitudes are the product of a society that believes in rights over responsibilities. Sure, you have the right to an opinion, but first, you really ought to check your facts.
But facts? What are they worth? I guess that’s just my opinion.
Related articles
- “Ground Zero Mosque”: How Far is Far Enough? (jaclblog.wordpress.com)
- Ground Non-Zero Non-Mosque and Evangelical Nonsense (theparish.typepad.com)
- I Was Expecting A Wardrobe (inurbase.wordpress.com)
- Opposition to ground zero mosque goes viral (theglobeandmail.com)
- Ground zero Islamic center opens doors (cbsnews.com)
- Judge tosses suit against N.Y.C. Islamic center (cbsnews.com)
Like this:
Things are changing.
I’ve decided to change things round a bit on Toastmen, since I’m finding it harder to write updates, and nobody else is/has ever bothered.
So, this blog is going to become a bit more political, and if I can, I’m going to throw in some interviews with local people and people of a more national interest, if I can get them. I’ve already got a couple of interviews in the pipeline, and ideas for further interviews bopping around in my head.
Of course, I’ll be keeping my usual opinionated posts, but this time I’ll be working in line with the wonderful people at The Icasm (theicasm.com). If you want some of my more creative stuff, they’ll either be on Icasm or on my Tumblr, although this blog is the one most likely to be updated.
That make sense? I hope it does, anyway. I’ll see you in the next post!
Envelopes and Why They Will Haunt Me
This post is for Luke and Mark, who thought my spoken account of this story (accompanied by my disturbed face) would be good in a blog post. Secondly, apologies for having left this blog deserted for so long – a bit of an oversight on my part. Do forgive me.
Dear all,
For many millennia, it seems that humankind has had an innate hatred of Mondays. I’ve never understood this. Mondays have their pros and cons: sure, you might feel sort of reluctant to work after the weekend, but I’ve had an equal amount of Mondays where I’m ready to face the week
ahead, happy to see all my school friends again (and now I’m in sixth form, I get my first hour on Monday off).
By contrast, I have a great problem with Thursdays. You wake up, but you’re still exhausted. No, it is by no means nearly the weekend. You’ve had people telling you all week how shit you are, how many deadlines you’ve missed, how your grades are dropping. Your work is piling up again. There’s double history at the end of it all, which just drags. Nothing interesting ever happens on Thursday nights. Previous notably bad Thursdays for me include the smashing of my GCSE graphics project, exam clashes, attempting suicide, and next week, my birthday. That’ll be awful.
But last Thursday in particular stood out from the rest, due to a disturbing incident that occurred during that day’s lunchtime. Had I eaten any lunch, I would have regurgitated it. The simplest way to describe it is a condom lottery, but I don’t think that really covers the problems here.
There is a particular girl in our sixth form who is so ugly, a friend and I once considered a campaign to prevent her from procreating, which given recent events, may now progress. This would save the NHS a good proportion of its budget on padded walls, especially for her current boyfriend. I don’t have any real problems with this girl’s personality; she’s okay to talk to, but preferably with a sheet of thick lead between your face and hers. Luckily, this girl was in possession of 30 freshly-packaged condoms, which would have furthered our cause. Unfortunately, she instead decided to give them to 30 random males, which was unfathomably inappropriate. It’s like Gary Glitter giving you a small child. “No, thank you,” I wanted to say. “You’re probably going to make more use of it yourself.”
Obviously, this unexpected condom dispersion demands many questions: how does one get their hands on 30 condoms? Where did you get them and when? Why are you giving them to us? What is wrong with you? However, upon asking the first of these questions, I was answered by a tap on the nose. Since last Thursday, I have tested a variety of noses with a wide selection of different currencies, and I am yet to find a nose that dispenses a condom. When I moved onto the following questions, a third party told me that I was asking “too many questions”, which is simply untrue. Every action demands some questions, and this one demanded more than others. Infamous Nigerian warlord Joseph Kony, should he be asked why he was using child soldiers, is not particularly eligible to say we are asking “too many questions”. In my opinion, these events are pretty equal in pointlessness and mindfuckery.
I have been told that this whole stunt was a joke. Yet this joke was not received particularly well by thirty estranged males. When I handed this condom to another of my friends, unaware of this incident, with his name on it, they didn’t particularly find it funny either. It’s just disturbing, even when you know you’re not being propositioned to.
If this isn’t weird enough for you, I ought to explain the manner in the condoms were given out. Rather than casually handing them around, as if it were spontaneous humour, each condom was in a separate, homemade envelope, sellotaped delicately, with each of our names written intricately
on the front. It was the envelopes that really got me. If a butt ugly person randomly giving you ondoms isn’t enough to make you head for the hills, to know they’re doing so with all the OCD of a serial killer makes you want to become a hermit and deport her to Zimbabwe.
This has made me become genuinely paranoid about envelopes. I’m not even joking. I’m going to have significant problems with paying bills and bank charges if I can’t open letters in later life. All those who have no idea about this girl, her appearance, and her past life; agree that this ‘joke’ is
sadly perverted, leading to some of my friends telling me I “have a messed up life”. Part of the reason for making this blog post is to gather the thoughts of strangers on this incident.
I suppose that, in conclusion, I should draw some sort of high-horse moral judgement about early sexuality in our culture. But, to be honest, I don’t see the problem with two people loving each other at a young age. Nowadays, younger relationships will probably last longer than the ones
their parents are having. My problem is when that overflows into sick and twisted actions, like the tale I’ve just shared with you all.
Love, hugs, and condoms for all,
Gregor
P.S. It’s important to note that I’m allergic to latex, so I couldn’t have used the thing anyway. Why don’t ugly people care about my allergenic needs?
Related articles
- This article came up in my related articles box, and the title made me chuckle. (socialmediaalley.wordpress.com)
Why Age Limits Fail
The offending substance (Photo credit: ☮)
Yes, I’m 16 and I’m biased. I get it. You probably hadn’t even said it yet, but I wanted to get there first to let you know.
In this country, there are age limits for a ridiculous number of things, from smoking and driving to crossbows and keeping pet pigs. I went down to the Co-Op last week to buy my father some Lemsip (which is a popular sort of medicinal drink), and was told that there was a 16 year old age limit on them. All this is based on the ideology that, the minute you turn 16/17/18, you are suddenly responsible enough to deal with these things. Which, it’s clear from the fact that there’s a crime rate, isn’t true. But this point has been argued many times before, and it’s not really what I want to moan about.
Referring back to my earlier anecdote: they wouldn’t let me buy something with a 16 year old age limit. But I’m 16. They didn’t even ask for ID, they just refused me the product, which wasn’t exactly a lethal drug. Should they have asked me for ID, I would have posed them the question: but what ID can I show?
The party line to this question is: anything with a PASS hologram. But ID with the aforementioned hologram is rare, and expensive. A CitizenCard costs £15 at its cheapest, plus whatever you’re paying for a passport photograph, and takes a month to be delivered. Every time you reach a new age boundary, your card has to be renewed. Surely, the economy suffers from not allowing certain items to be bought?
It would make sense if the government gave ID out for free. Although I would make a few changes to the existing methods first. The hologram is totally unnecessary – as long as you’ve got a photo, then it should be obvious who you are. The issue of fake ID would become less relevant, since everyone should have a card of their own.
I would also get rid of age limits, and rank people’s ID instead. It would be measured on how responsible a person actually was. For example, a serious criminal would have a red card, someone who had committed minor offences would receive a bronze card, a blemish-free person would get a silver card, and those who volunteered and actually put something back into their communities would receive a gold card. They would each allow you to buy different things – a red card would mean no weaponry or drugs of any kind, and a citizen with a gold card could probably have a collection of guns next to their fridge of hydrogen peroxide. Obviously, young children would not be allowed cigarettes and alcohol – that’s why bar staff and newsagents are trained in reasoning.
Doesn’t this seem more just? Isn’t this way better for society, and the economy? But it’s not in Osborne’s plans, and “there is no alternative”. Ho hum.
Related articles
- Apparently, the Americans need a similar law on crossbows. (tampa.cbslocal.com)
- Ask a Cop: How to spot a fake ID (ksl.com)
- More ID Mumbo Jumbo (beelte.wordpress.com)
Like this:
Why local news is dying out: ad rates
Every day we see more depressing headlines about how local newspapers are dying out. More and more dailies are turning into weeklies, more and more weeklies are closing down, and more and more communities are being left without local news coverage.
Online news – my specialist topic since I started The West Londoner – is an easy market to tap into.
Occupy Infographics
Today, I thought I’d share a couple of images with you. I took them from occupydesign.org, one of the many websites inspired by the Occupy Movement, where you can find the artists (whose names I couldn’t be bothered to copy) and more graphics like these. Related articles Printing Infographics On Money Shows Reality Of Occupy [...]
A maximum voting age?
Image via Wikipedia
In my last post on Scottish independence, I said there was one final issue I would talk about in a later post. Well, that time has come. Another issue between Cameron and Salmond is whether 16 and 17 year olds should be permitted to vote in the (hopefully) upcoming referendum. Cameron says no. Salmond says yes.
Like your usual politicians, neither of them have stated a reason for their position. I don’t claim to understand Cameron – who does? – but I think it’s perfectly acceptable that elder teenagers should be allowed to vote.Teenagers, remember, are the future. Decisions that are being made now will affect them in the future. Taxes on fuel, health reforms, and tuition fees are all good examples of this. So why shouldn’t they vote?
If you’re afraid of them voting for ridiculous parties based on Facebook groups and Twitter hashtags, don’t fear. The people who would do that are, logically, less likely to be the people who will get off their arses and vote. They won’t care about politics. It’s boring. Much rather watch the latest manufactured pop group on The X Factor.
These elder teenagers, aged 16 and 17, are particularly important. According to UK law, they can get married, be shot at in our armed forces, work, join a trade union, and pay taxes. These are all issues that adults base their vote on, but these taxpayers, soldiers, husbands, wives, unionists, workers and labourers aren’t allowed to vote.
It’s on this basis that I propose a maximum voting age. And before you ask, yes, when I reach such an age, I would cohere to these terms. Once you reach the age of 80, your views are almost certainly irrelevant.
You can read the rest of this article by clicking here
Related articles
- Using Facebook for political views – let’s all Go Colbert (amanwithaphd.wordpress.com)
Like this:
News flash: American Protestant ministers overwhelmingly reject evolution, are split on Earth's age
A survey conducted by the Christian polling organization LifeWay Research, and released on January 9, shows that Protestant pastors as a group are not only antievolution, but pretty much split on how old the Earth is. 1,000 pastors were polled, randomly selected from a list of all Protestant churches. This means that there is a mixture of liberal and conservative faiths here.
Scottish Independence and the Dilemma of the Bigoted Woman
Image via Wikipedia
It’s been four hundred years of fun. We’ve had our ups and downs (occasionally they took the high road, and we took the low road, but anyway). Now those cheeky, wee, gallus Scottish imps have decided they want to leave. They’ve elected a new leader into the Scottish Parliament, a man by the name of Alex Salmond, who leads the Scottish National Party (SNP). As their name suggests, he wants Scotland to be a nation, not a devolved country, and part of the United Kingdom.
This isn’t the opinion held by David Cameron, leader of the Conservative Party and the Houses of Parliament. He desperately wants to use and abuse Scotland, as have every previous Tory government (Thatcher being the most obvious example). So he’s been trying to mess with their right to independence, as an independent Scotland would mean a bankrupt England. Scotland hold our nuclear defenses. Scotland hold our pathetic oil reserves. Scotland holds a decent proportion of our workforce. We’d go bust. George Osborne never accounted for an independent Scotland, much as he didn’t account for an unsolved Eurozone crisis.
But it’s Osborne, Cameron, Boris and their rich, suited chums that gave Scotland this independent urge. It’s no coincidence. There was a strong anti-Labour vibe throughout England and Wales in the run-up to the 2010 General Election. When Labour aren’t going to get elected, it’s a strong indicator that the Conservatives will, and remembering Thatcher, the Scots voted for the party that best represented their views. It’s actually the bigotry of our own country that will lead to its bankruptcy. When Gordon Brown visited Rochdale in 2010, he was right to call Gillian Duffy a “bigoted woman” – the majority of this nation is bigoted, and that’s why fools like Cameron keep getting in.
Cameron realises this and is trying to create Salmond’s downfall. He is trying to meddle with the referendum for independence. Alex Salmond has the right to hold a referendum in Scotland – Cameron says it’s illegal. The truth is the referendum is only advisory.
So Cameron offers a legally binding referendum. But this has never been used in the history of British politics. Cameron could well be offering something he’s not actually going to give. He wants it held this year, rather than in Autumn 2014 as was originally planned. In this referendum he’s offering, Cameron doesn’t want to include the option of so-called “devo max”. It’s not an energy drink, but a higher form of devolution, where only a few elements remain similar between the countries, such as the currency. Cameron knows this seems like the most popular option in Scotland right now, so of course he doesn’t want it in the referendum.
Salmond has rightly told Cameron to fuck off. Cameron has, albeit unintentionally, granted Salmond a fantastic piece of propaganda: Conservative English bureaucrats dabbling in the rights of the Scots. So the Scots are happy.
But, playing the villainous role of the bigoted woman, we (or should I say, the fools with whom I share nationality) aren’t happy at all. We have all sorts of questions: what about the pound? what about our missiles? what about passports? what about us? what about me? These questions can’t be answered yet. The whole process of independence takes time; it won’t happen in a day. All these issues will be resolved in consultation and at meetings far too boring for your tiny, bigoted minds to cope with.
The final issue of Scottish independence, however, is the one I feel most passionately about (despite having written 600 words for this), and I’ll discuss it in another post sometime next week. Adieu.
Related articles
- British PM clashes with Scotland on independence(vancouversun.com)
The ‘IT’ Curriculum
cantor1995 here: I’m the other Toastman. The following post is taken from my own blog at cantor1995.wordpress.com (you must follow now). A lot of my posts on AotT will be taken from this. But some of them won’t. Such is the mystery of my mind.
Finally, the government seems to be trying to improve education. And they’re doing all the right things too: today I read that Michael Gove MP, Secretary for Education, plans to make it easier for rubbish teachers to be sacked. And that’s good – it’s time we stopped caring about teachers and remember who education is really for.
Anyway, another thing I’ve been reading is that people have realised how much of a shambles our IT (Information Technology) curriculum is. And I couldn’t agree more. I did GCSE IT (it was actually OCR National IT which every Y9 pupil started but you only finished if you could be bothered to do an extra subject for the next two years) and I was bored all the way through. And this is coming from a technology enthusiast. This is not a good sign.
The reason I was so bored was not because of the standard of teaching, which was actually fairly good as I had an IT teacher who knew what he was doing (and I’m telling you now, not all of them do). No, it was because of the curriculum. OCR (the exam board) seemed convinced that the equivalent of a GCSE in IT should require you to be able to use a keyboard and mouse and follow instructions. It was all context-based too, which is a stupid idea: it takes the emphasis off of skills and puts it on the situation. I, for example, learned more about how to advertise and run Freshers’ Week for Sheffield Hallam University than I did about how to use a computer.
In fairness, I’ve always been competent with technology. I taught myself using my grandparents’ Windows 95 PC in the first 6 years of my life. But even so, your grandmother wouldn’t have struggled with OCR Nationals. I remember saying to my friend during a lesson, ‘We’re not learning about computers: we’re learning how to be secretaries.’ And this was no word of a lie.
‘But what do you suggest IT students do instead?’ I hear you cry. Well, I suggest they learn how to correct technical issues. For too long people have been resorting to getting a man in. Even I have to look on the internet if I want to fix more complex problems with my PC. And that’s because nobody has ever taught me how to delve deep into the system of a computer rather than just using the options that are fed to me on a plate (which, incidentally, some people don’t even know exist). I would love to be able to work out codes, write Javascripts and develop software from scratch. But I can’t. And I feel deprived. And we wonder why all the best software comes from the USA and not here.
Hopefully our government will take the right steps to move our IT curriculum into the 21st Century. Because we’re falling behind the rest of the world, and I don’t like it.
SocialVibe