[QUOTE=Fear Itself]
I do not hate Jews, not even a little bit. I do hate hypocrisy, though.
For the record, I am not a Muslim. I am an adherent to no religion. Sometimes I am a hard atheist, sometimes I am an agnostic.
[/QUOTE]
Thank you for explaining that, can you now answer a much earlier question, how could you listen to the NPR report and come up with such a one sided Op from it?
[QUOTE=What Exit?]
Thank you for explaining that, can you now answer a much earlier question, how could you listen to the NPR report and come up with such a one sided Op from it?
[/QUOTE]
I believe an institution that is dedicated to promoting tolerance shouldn’t confuse winning a court judgement with the moral high ground when relatives ask them not to dig up their loved ones. But I’m funny that way.
[QUOTE=Fear Itself]
I believe an institution that is dedicated to promoting tolerance shouldn’t confuse winning a court judgement with the moral high ground when relatives ask them not to dig up their loved ones. But I’m funny that way.
[/QUOTE]
Except the primary objector doesn’t have any relatives buried there. And it hasn’t been a cemetary since 1948. And no one raised any objections when it was a parking lot.
[QUOTE=John Corrado]
Except the primary objector doesn’t have any relatives buried there.
[/QUOTE]
I fail to see how this weakens the arguement that disinterrment disrespects the dead in Islam.
Once a cemetery, always a cemetery, I say. It doesn’t stop being a cemetery after the last person is buried there.
My understanding is that Muslims only object to disinterring the dead. If you leave them in the ground, you can put what you wish over them.
[QUOTE=Fear Itself]
I believe an institution that is dedicated to promoting tolerance shouldn’t confuse winning a court judgement with the moral high ground when relatives ask them not to dig up their loved ones. But I’m funny that way.
[/QUOTE]
That is a fair statement, but it still glosses over the facts that the Museum did everything correctly and made a very fair offer of compromise. I strongly believe you should have including these facts, especially the fact the cemetery has spent 30 years as a parking lot in your Op and then complained that it seems silly to build a Museum of Tolerance by first pissing of the living relatives of the cemetery.
I probably would have even agreed with that sentiment, if you had opened with it. I wonder what the overall sentiment of the descendants involved are however. This could be a classic case of one or two outspoken people and then a group with in this case an anti-Israeli agenda rallying around it.
Jim
This tolerance center is totally gonna get haunted. Blood running from the walls and everything. You always get cursed when you build over an ancient Islamic burial ground.
[QUOTE=What Exit?]
That is a fair statement, but it still glosses over the facts that the Museum did everything correctly and made a very fair offer of compromise.
[/QUOTE]
If the second party is not free to reject the offer, it is hardly fair.
God, I hate it when those Israelis have the nerve to do stuff like… build buildings. And… live in their country. And… uh… breathe.
Intolerant jerks.
[QUOTE=Fear Itself]
If the second party is not free to reject the offer, it is hardly fair.
[/QUOTE]
True, but they were free to object to it and they did object to it which is why it is in court.
[QUOTE=Fear Itself]
If the second party is not free to reject the offer, it is hardly fair.
[/QUOTE]
So far they have rejected it and held up construction. Seems fair so far.
Jim
I agree with Autumn Almanac. We Jews shouldn’t be allowed to, like, do stuff. If there’s been a parking lot over a sixty-year-old burial site, and we weren’t informed that it was burial ground until big plans were made, and we still offer to compromise, yeah, man, we’re real assholes. How can you say Palestinian terror attacks are unjustified when we do horrible shit like that!?
[QUOTE=FrantzJ]
**How can you say Palestinian terror attacks are unjustified ** when we do horrible shit like that!?
[/QUOTE]
I guess your argument must be terribly weak if you must resort to lying about what I said.
[QUOTE=kaylasdad99]
Also, in an earlier post, you wrote:Where I come from (planet Earth), we calculate the age of a cemetery from the day it was first used as a cemetery, not from the day it stopped being used as such. Satisfy the xenoanthropologist in me, please, and explain why the opposite tends to be the case on your world.
[/QUOTE]
And on my planet, which must be an alternative Earth, people are more concerned about whether the grave to be bulldozed is where Aunt Ammy has been buried last year or an unmarked grave dug 5 centuries ago than about how long the cemetary has been in use. I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make by nitpicking about the age of the cemetery.
Anyway, it doesn’t matter. People are offended, regardless whether or not you find this reaction sensible. And ignoring this fact when buiding a museum of tolerance seems pretty idiotic to me.
If I’m not mistaken (I believe there has been threads on this topic in GD in the past), there are also issues in the USA about amerindian burial grounds. Would you consider building a similar museum on such lands if it became an issue? Even if the cemetary hasn’t been in use for, say, 1000 years? Would you go to court so be allowed to complete your project? Wouldn’t it be more sensible to build your tolerance museum in some other place where nobody will be offensed, and nobody will accuse you of precisely being uncaring and intolerant of other people’s sensitivity?
[QUOTE=Cheesesteak]
Apparently, though, they’re not opposed to parking cars on their dead. I learn something every day.
[/QUOTE]
What Cheesesteak says.
How is it dreadful to build a museum on where Aunt Fatima used to be buried, but not to park a Buick on her chest?
Regards,
Shodan
[QUOTE=Fear Itself]
I guess your argument must be terribly weak if you must resort to lying about what I said.
[/QUOTE]
I wasn’t referring to anything that you said. That was a sarcastic joke. It helped make my “I agree” post even longer than it should have been.
I’m sure that you aren’t anti-Semitic and don’t believe that the killing of Israeli civilians is justified. That doesn’t change the fact that I believe that the opposition to this museum’s location is overreactive.
[QUOTE=clairobscur]
And on my planet, which must be an alternative Earth, people are more concerned about whether the grave to be bulldozed is where Aunt Ammy has been buried last year or an unmarked grave dug 5 centuries ago than about how long the cemetary has been in use. I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make by nitpicking about the age of the cemetery.
Anyway, it doesn’t matter. People are offended, regardless whether or not you find this reaction sensible. And ignoring this fact when buiding a museum of tolerance seems pretty idiotic to me.
If I’m not mistaken (I believe there has been threads on this topic in GD in the past), there are also issues in the USA about amerindian burial grounds. Would you consider building a similar museum on such lands if it became an issue? Even if the cemetary hasn’t been in use for, say, 1000 years? Would you go to court so be allowed to complete your project? Wouldn’t it be more sensible to build your tolerance museum in some other place where nobody will be offensed, and nobody will accuse you of precisely being uncaring and intolerant of other people’s sensitivity?
[/QUOTE]
This is a good and compelling argument, I still sympathize with the Museum but it might be better to build what is specifically a “Tolerance Museum” in another location.
Jim
[QUOTE=John Corrado]
Unfortunately- or possibly fortunately - museums usually aren’t designed as standard buildings that can go anywhere, like ranch houses or McDonalds. Most good museums are designed by the architect with the landscape and environs in mind, to best utilize the space for form and function.
Given that, moving to a new location probably means negotiating for new space (which, in a historical city, ain’t gonna be cheap anyways); it will then mean redrawing up the plans for the site, and rehiring construction firms. Given that they had already progressed to the point of hiring crews (who discovered the remains in the first place), getting the current site approved may be the difference between getting it built and going back to fundraising for another five years to hire new architects and construction firms.
[/QUOTE]
… and, of course, as soon as they do start digging at the new site, some bones will turn up there as well. The Holy Land is funny like that…
[QUOTE=clairobscur]
If I’m not mistaken (I believe there has been threads on this topic in GD in the past), there are also issues in the USA about amerindian burial grounds. Would you consider building a similar museum on such lands if it became an issue? Even if the cemetary hasn’t been in use for, say, 1000 years? Would you go to court so be allowed to complete your project? Wouldn’t it be more sensible to build your tolerance museum in some other place where nobody will be offensed, and nobody will accuse you of precisely being uncaring and intolerant of other people’s sensitivity?
[/QUOTE]
Again, if I didn’t know I was building something on an American Indian burial ground until construction was well underway, and I had a choice between
offering a fair settlement to American Indians that would respect their ancestors and their beliefs, and continuing to build my museum knowing that I had given plenty of fair chances for objections to be raised at prior community hearings
scrapping millions of dollars of charity money already spent on groundbreaking and architectural designs, being left with a piece of land that is now completely worthless for anything other than donation to the government (and as I’m a non-profit, tax write-offs do jack-shit for me), and having to go literally back to the drawing board to raise the money, put down architecutral plans, negotiate for land, and go through another two years of committee meetings and open board discussions to get approval to build
then I think it might be sensible to go with the first option. I don’t know; I don’t know the numbers, I don’t know how much money the Weisenthal Center is about to outright lose if it stops construction.
But throwing your hands in the air and saying, “Oh, the horrible Israelis! They should just eat it in order to avoid pissing off Muslims!” doesn’t seem like a sensible solution, either.
[QUOTE=clairobscur]
And on my planet, which must be an alternative Earth, people are more concerned about whether the grave to be bulldozed is where Aunt Ammy has been buried last year or an unmarked grave dug 5 centuries ago than about how long the cemetary has been in use. I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make by nitpicking about the age of the cemetery.
Anyway, it doesn’t matter. People are offended, regardless whether or not you find this reaction sensible. And ignoring this fact when buiding a museum of tolerance seems pretty idiotic to me.
If I’m not mistaken (I believe there has been threads on this topic in GD in the past), there are also issues in the USA about amerindian burial grounds. Would you consider building a similar museum on such lands if it became an issue? Even if the cemetary hasn’t been in use for, say, 1000 years? Would you go to court so be allowed to complete your project? Wouldn’t it be more sensible to build your tolerance museum in some other place where nobody will be offensed, and nobody will accuse you of precisely being uncaring and intolerant of other people’s sensitivity?
[/QUOTE]
It is interesting that you mention American Indian burial grounds, because I go to school at Shoreline Community College, which is built on dead Indians.
This doesn’t necessarily make me feel good, but it makes me think about the practicalities: can we essentially zone off every place someone is ever buries for the rest of eternity? Does my school have no right to exist?