You're barking up the wrong tree here Pooch 
Plane was indeed more accurate in his analogy, since this isn't a scenario of a proposed Islamic Cultural Center wanting to be built over a large Islamic atrocity in the Middle East. This is being proposed thousands of miles away, at the gravesite of a large Islamic atrocity, here in the U.S. So, plane is far more accurate in his analogy, than yourself. And if we've decided to redefine what the term prejudice means, to include taking the feelings of thousands who lost loved ones on one of the worst days in American history, into account, then fine, I'm prejudiced.
No, Plane's analogy is ONLY valid if all Muslims are terrorists. ALL NAZI's were evil. Now I know that some poor Nazi private in a foxhole might have been just doing his job and never laid a hand on a Jew (or condoned it) but the very philosophy of the Nazi's was to exterminate the Jews. It wasn't a few Nazi's, it was the whole movement. It wasn't a few quotations taken too literally by a small faction of overzealous SS troops, it was the official philosophy, endorsed and commanded by Der Fuehrer himself. The policy of islam is NOT to murder innocent people. It DOES include going to war for Allah, depending on how literally you interpret it, but the Christian and Jewish religions have exactly the same kinds of scriptural admonishments. In fact, on several occasions in the Old Testament the people of Israel are scolded and punished for failing to commit full-scale genocide against non-believers. Plane is directly comparing a Mosque to a Swastika. That is an invalid analogy.
I have not, in any way, re-defined prejudice. It is, was, and shall remain the simple act of PRE-JUDGING. That's the literal denotation and the general connotation of the word. When you look at a Mosque and think "terrorism" that is prejudice. When you look at a Mosque and think "swastika" that is prejudice. There is no association between Islam and terrorism that cannot also be made between Christianity and terrorism, Judaeism and terrorism or pretty much any faith and terrorism at some level. When I was a young boy I was assaulted and robbed by a gang of black kids. (They took my Halloween candy, the RAPSCALLIONS!) After that, everytime I saw a group of black kids I avoided them. Did I have a rational reason for that fear? Yes. But was it a fair judgement? No. It was simple prejudice. A lot of perfectly good black kids wandered through the park who might have become friends with me had they been white. That was my fault, not theirs - and NOT the fault of those candy-thieving rascals. (Hope they got fat on it!)
It is natural that people would be prejudice in this situation but that does NOT change the reality that it is still prejudice.
Distance is not relevent in this case at all.
It was Islamic terrorists who perpetrated this act. It is Islamic terrorists and radicals we are still at war with. It is Islamic terrorists that many Islamic Religious leaders have an apparent acute difficulty in denouncing. This doesn't brand all Muslim, in any way shape or form. They simply are the unfortunate repercussions of the few that screwed it up for them.
Is this an Islamic Terrorist Mosque? I hadn't heard that. I understood it was an Islamic Mosque. If this is an Islamic Terrorist Mosque well then by all means, stop this right now. Also, please explain to me how, if this doesn't brand all Muslims, what, exactly, are the unfortunate repercussions you refer to? It seems to me that if I want to build a Mosque in New York to reach out to Americans as a gesture of goodwill after a horrible tragedy, the only objection you could have to that is based on my religion's "association" with terrorism. That means you are, in fact, branding me. That also means you are, in fact, judging my religion based on YOUR association of it with terrorism. I am a Christian. Many people associate my religion with the Inquisition, the burning of heretics and witches, centuries of war between factions and against Islam, conquest and subjugation of foreign peoples in the name of Christ. THEY associate me with those things - I don't. I dissassociate myself. I want to tell people about the good news of Christ - not force them to believe it or burn to death. But some people will instantly view me as a fanatic. That's prejudice. Some people think I am a racist because many right-wing extremist groups are avowed racists. The KKK, the Aryan Nation, the Skinheads and a host of little nutcase groups - not to mention the crazy SOBs who bomb gay bars and abortion clinics! They are all (at least most often) Right Wing nutcases. So when MT or XO or someone else comes on here and associates them with us, is that valid? After all, it's just the unfortunate repercussions of a few idiots who screwed it up for the rest of us. No, it's prejudice.
My wife and I can't work in the same hospital in the same department, because we are married. When I investigated, it was found that a very few married and unmarried couples would bring their troubles to work. Hospital decided to produce a blanket policy of no couples can work the same dept. My wife and I didn't do anything wrong, but we have to deal with those repercussions caused by a scant few others
That is an employment policy - and probably not a very fair one. But many companies follow the same sorts of policies. There is no inherent civil right to work in the same office with your wife. There is a codified Constitutional right to build a house of worship where you want to. It is one thing to feel that prudent family hiring practices stop potential problems. It is another to suggest (as this example implies) that keeping a Mosque away from the WTC area will prevent any further similar sorts of troubles. Your work policy is a change to a policy that was abused. There was no Mosque there before 9-11 and nobody but the most out there conspiracy theorists are suggesting this will be a base for another terror attack. So the analogy isn't valid. Your work policy is based on actual problems. It has nothing to do with how people (your boss included) view married people. The objection to the Mosque is based soley on feelings. Prohibiting married couples working together WILL help cut down on marital strife showing up at work. Banning a Mosque near Ground Zero will NOT prevent another terrorist attack.
I wanted to flex my schedule with Home Health, in order to help save our company money. Taking short days when the case load was light, and working perhaps a little longer on other days, but as long as it was within a 40hour week, it was cool. I'm non-union. Low and behold legislation was passed that made it mandatory for me to take overtime, anything over 8 hours, and to have a fixed schedule, regardless of my not being union. Again, I'm actually trying to keep our Home Health agency afloat, but a minority of both Union activists, and the legislators they'd own in their hip pocket, screwed it up for the rest of us. I can see making it mandatory for all Union Workers, but for those non-union that didn't wish to participate in such, we get screwed.
There are endless examples of the majority being screwed by a minority of the idiotic or even the dangerous. Way back when (my lifetime), we could keep our doors unlocked & windows open at night. We chose not to any longer because of those few dangerous folk that make it inappropriate any longer. The 19 Islamic Terrorists that killed thousands of Americans on 911, on American soil, did so in the name of Islam. Their terrorist act screwed the vast majority of perfectly innocent Muslims, into America accepting an Islamic Cultural Center, so close to the gravesite of those murdered in the name of Islam. And it doesn't help that this Imam is showing no signs of his acknowledgement to that, nor have I heard him take back how America, kinda-sorta had it coming
Having served twenty in boots I well understand the concept of mass punishment. That is not, however, a free ticket for those who object to this Mosque. The sole reason given as rejection here is because it IS a Mosque. That's wrong. Nobody would object if it were a church, a synagogue or a Mormon Temple. (Well, except the usual suspects in the atheist world - but they would object equally.) The sole reason that a Mosque alone is rejected is because the objectors UNFAIRLY associate Islam with terrorism due to the acts of a few fanatics. Those same people would NOT object to a Christian church being built there even if the planes were flown by crazed Presbyterians. We would be more aware of the faith, and we all know some Presbyterians who we could go talk to. It's a pretty safe bet a good chunk of Presbyterians would denounce it to us personally - even if they wouldn't come out in public for fear of being murdered by the Fundabyterians. It's also a safe bet some Presbyterians (assuming there was any perception of persecution or such analogous to the middle eastern view of America) would say something like "Well, look it was wrong and all, but you Americans DID invade Presbyteristan and you are constantly giving weapons and support to those damned Martinists in Luthrael.
So, no, this isn't a 1st amendment issue, legal issue, or anthing having to do with the Constitution. Neither is it a religious intolerance issue or one of bigotry, since no one is denying a Muslim's right to practice their religion, or build a mosque/cultural center. The issue is the location of such building, and how completely insensitive & disrespectful folks are being, in insisting that it be built right there, and no where else
And I don't think I need to go into the realm of how this Mosque/Cultural center is having the polar opposite effect of the supposed reason one is to be built there...that of bringing people together, with a supposed sense of Islamic sensitivity and tolerance. Where the hell's the tolerance & respect being shown the families of the 911 victims??
Actually, it IS an issue of religious intolerance. Before the government entities tasked with providing appropriate permits ruled, it was also a constitutional issue. It no longer is. I completely understand the gist of your argument, but this IS an issue of prejudice (not bigotry - different bird).
And since you asked where the hell is the tolerance and respect for the victims of 9-11 I'll ask you - where the hell is the respect for Muslims who are American citizens? I'll tell you where it is - it is in the White House and in the halls of government in New York. That's where it ought to be, and where our constitution mandates (for our own safety) it be. So long as we continue to equate the free practice of religion with an act of aggression, I hope the Muslims stick to their principles (which are, in this case, quintessentially American principles) and I will make a point of visiting after it is done.
