[ExI] Religions and violence

[samantha]

Ben Zaiboc wrote:
> "Fred C. Moulton" <moulton at moulton.com> wrote:
>
> "I will say this very clearly.  There has been no evidence presented that
> shows that the people who want to build the center were involved with
> attack of Sept 11; therefore building the center is NOT PROVOCATIVE."
>
>
> So your definition of 'provocative' has nothing to do with actual provocation, but instead with the history of the people concerned?
>
> The Neo-Nazis in my example are not in fact being provocative?
>
> You don't think proposing to erect a plaque extolling the virtues of gun ownership at Columbine High School would be provocative and objectionable?  Of course, it would be a plaque that emphasised /responsible/ gun ownership, and the proposers wouldn't be related to the murderers, so that would be ok?
>   

Yes, I think it would be ok and very appropriate.  If responsible 
non-psychotic people had been armed that day the result would have been 
much different.

> (Actually, a better example would be not a plaque, but a gun club, in a new building on or very near to the spot where the killings took place)
>   
Hell yes.  Bring it on.  That would be great.
> I wasn't aware that the guy behind the Cultural Centre plan was a Sufi, thanks to Damien for pointing that out.  I do think that he either hasn't thought things through, or just doesn't care, though.  If someone wanted to build something to try to build bridges between the different cultures here, to foster understanding and tolerance, why on earth would they specifically call it an ISLAMIC cultural centre? Why would they place it on the spot that a piece of wreckage from the attack fell?  Why would the inauguration date be on the 10-year anniversary of the attack? (that last is unverified, so may be wrong).  
>
>   
Actually perhaps it will defuse a bit of the rabid attack dog mentality 
toward an entire religion and anyone that calls it their own that 
followed 911.  About time in my book.


- samantha