Controversy Over 911 Memorial & Museum Video
"The Museum's Portrayal of AL QAEDA".
Usama Dakdok addresses this issue after the Fox News program, "The Kelly Files", was broadcast. In the segment, Kelly's guest wants the museum to "soften" the portrayal of how Islam is depicted in the seven minute video and give a counter education to the viewer on the "softer" side of Islam. The video is to be shown in the museum beginning May 2014.

I think that Religion needs to be shown for what it actually preaches and says. And also what its most radical members do in its name.

Is it sad the mildly religious people have their Religion look bad? Not really, they chose to follow it and there's no truth and lies in what being shown, just an honest open look at what the religion really is.

Don't make atheists look back, Magnum. We live in the real world, not the world where you can be so blanketly stupid about extremist religion.

Alkeni Synair said
Don't make atheists look back, Magnum. We live in the real world, not the world where you can be so blanketly stupid about extremist religion.

Exactly, religious fanatics are no different than extremest atheists.

Intolerance in any form is just fucking lame. Let's not open religious argument No. 987,587,328,998,124,673 on the internet, shall we?

Alkeni Synair said
Don't make atheists look back, Magnum. We live in the real world, not the world where you can be so blanketly stupid about extremist religion.

Showing what a Religion really preaches/what their Bible says isn't a blanket statement. It's calling people to pay attention to what something actually says. It's no different than saying "Science should be taught for what it actually says, not what people wants Science to say". It's simply wanting honesty/the actual information to be spread, not altered/cherry-picked information.

Just, stop. Seriously.

@Gwazi: There is a significant difference between a religion, the book it was originally derived from, and the people who follow it. You can't always look at a religion and point out its endless flaws. Everything has flaws. Even science.

Asking for a softer view on Islam isn't a crime and it isn't "wrong". There are places for debates about the ethics of religion, this museum isn't one of those places.

Plain and simple. They aren't asking for anything outrageous like the silence of all criticism. They just do not want to be demonized. Which is pretty fair to ask here in a museum about a tragedy. We should come together over this, not get divisive.

Really, it should be as simple as changing the wording to clearly distinguish between the extremists and mainstream muslims. That's really about all that should be done. If someone gets upset about tying the words muslim or islam to an extremist group, then they should take a look at their own life and see if there's a reason why they are so offended that an extremist group is getting bad light.

Moral of the story:

Extremists != Mainstream practitioners.

People shouldn't get so butt-hurt over people calling out extremists in their own religion. Instead they should look to clean house and save face.

Dervish said
Just, stop. Seriously.

It's inevitable. Nothing can stop the coming tide.

Blitzkrieg said
Exactly, religious fanatics are no different than extremest atheists.

When was the last time an atheist fire bombed a church? Or wore a suicide vest into a hospital?
I don't really disagree with you, there are fanatics of all things out there. But there only seems to be one group that has been standing out of late. Take a look at EU and it's immigration problem with Muslims. Now normally people fleeing wartorn countries is perfectly acceptable and understandable, but they refuse to even aknowledge these European countries laws and rules and demand that they bend and change to fit their life style, while at the same time crime has sky rocketed because of the kidnappings and selling of children into sex slavery. Not to mention the riots.
Oh and the Arab spring.... that was fun.

I'm biased however, I know that. I am also a bigot, and ethnocentric.
In my defense however the last group of devout Muslims I dealt with tried to kill me.

cpldingo said
When was the last time an atheist fire bombed a church? Or wore a suicide vest into a hospital? I don't really disagree with you, there are fanatics of all things out there. But there only seems to be one group that has been standing out of late. Take a look at EU and it's immigration problem with Muslims. Now normally people fleeing wartorn countries is perfectly acceptable and understandable, but they refuse to even aknowledge these European countries laws and rules and demand that they bend and change to fit their life style, while at the same time crime has sky rocketed because of the kidnappings and selling of children into sex slavery. Not to mention the riots. Oh and the Arab spring.... that was fun.I'm biased however, I know that. I am also a bigot, and ethnocentric.In my defense however the last group of devout Muslims I dealt with tried to kill me.

Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim Jong-Il, Mussolini, Than Shwe.

Jeffery Dahmer, Israel Keyes,Ted Kaczynski.

Et cetera.

A few radicals, desperate people, fanatics, or however you want to put it still do not match the vast majority of good people, atheist or religious, that you don't hear about because they did nothing wrong.

A lot of those young men Al-Qaeda and the Taliban send to fight are rounded up from villages and basically forced to fight, or fighting for them pays a lot better than any other opportunity they had. I've read more than one convincing argument that it's very similar to someone being born in a disenfranchised intercity neighbourhood being pressed into a gang, with very similar causes and reasons.

It's not always about religion. People have the capacity for truly horrible things, faith or no faith.

At least you admit you have strong bias about the matter, a lot of people in your shoes don't or even acknowledge that maybe, just maybe, they might have it wrong.

Brovo said @Gwazi: There is a significant difference between a religion, the book it was originally derived from, and the people who follow it. You can't always look at a religion and point out its endless flaws. Everything has flaws. Even science.Asking for a softer view on Islam isn't a crime and it isn't "wrong". There are places for debates about the ethics of religion, this museum isn't one of those places.Plain and simple. They aren't asking for anything outrageous like the silence of all criticism. They just do not want to be demonized. Which is pretty fair to ask here in a museum about a tragedy. We should come together over this, not get divisive.

I realize that, and I wasn't trying to say that softer versions don't exist or should be recognized.
And Science already admit's it has flaws and doesn't know something's when it comes up. There's a rarely any point in stating that it has flaws though cause it's already accepted and stated, but Religion always tries to deny said flaws so it becomes a point that needs to be stated/debated more often because it's currently not accepted, and people will sometimes start thinking religion is flawless if no one ever bother's to highlight it.

If Religion came out and said "Yes, we admit we have these flaws", then it'd be different.
In the same sense where say we wouldn't be needing to debate it as much if they weren't trying to remove science education, they are doing or denying actions that cause action/rebuttal to be needed.
If they were more open/accepting, that wouldn't need to be the case.

But if some place want's to educate on something like Islam, and not say one branch or church of Islam but rather Islam as a whole the extremist part's should not be overlooked.

Dervish said a lot of people in your shoes don't or even acknowledge that maybe, just maybe, they might have it wrong.

I assume this is largely aimed towards me.

I always admit and am open to the fact I could be wrong.

One recent example, a few months ago I was Pro-Life and when I was exposed to arguments proving that abortion wasn't so wrong I reflected and became Pro-Choice.
It was this same open-mindedness and open to being wrong that led me from going to Christian to Atheist, Anti-Drug Legalization to Pro-Legalization, Emotional Thinking to Logical Thinking etc.

But that doesn't mean I will not still have opinions and stances on issues, and it doesn't mean I will change my mind all the sudden once someone disagree's with me. I will debate/argue them with reasons of my own if I find flaws/holes in them, and accept them if I can find no appropriate rebuttal to flaw to them. I then walk away with said new information and change my stance and views accordingly. It just so happens in the topic of Religion all the arguments I had for it when christian were easily crushed by atheists, and once atheists I had yet to find a good argument for Religion as I've found for many other issues.

It's why if say you only watch me in say Religious debates I may seem narrow-minded/can't be wrong, but see otherwise in different debates.
I simply have yet to see any good arguments from the side of Religion, therefore I have had no new information to absorb and change my views on.

Magic Magnum said but Religion always tries to deny said flaws so it becomes a point that needs to be stated/debated more often because it's currently not accepted, and people will sometimes start thinking religion is flawless if no one ever bother's to highlight it.If Religion came out and said "Yes, we admit we have these flaws", then it'd be different.

Actually, religious communities argue within themselves about what is acceptable or not all the time, such as some Muslims against sharia law being combined with secular law, or being held above secular law.

They don't "apologize" for holding their beliefs because they sincerely believe they're right. Most just attempt to find some compromise to conform: Which is why I'm saying it's not a problem for this museum to change its stance to be more lenient and have a better public image for Islam. There are plenty of places for Islam's flaws to be pointed out, a court of law, or a debate--but a museum? About a tragedy?... That is no place for a debate. That is a place for coming together and vowing to never let that happen again.

Magic Magnum said In the same sense where say we wouldn't be needing to debate it as much if they weren't trying to remove science education, they are doing or denying actions that cause action/rebuttal to be needed.

This isn't about science education, they're not asking to remove science education here, it's irrational to even bring this up, it side tracks from the point.

Magic Magnum said If they were more open/accepting, that wouldn't need to be the case.

Again, stop arguing about the validity of religion about a fucking tragedy-based museum, and stop broad stroking every religious person as being close minded or ignorant. And, yes, whether you intended to or not, this is what you're doing here. I can say from personal experience one of my family friends is a pastor, it doesn't bother him that I'm an atheist, I'm welcome in his church anytime so long as I'm respectful about his religion, just as he respects my non-religion. (...Note: Okay this is weird normally I'm arguing on the opposite end of the table of religion, but oh well. )

Magic Magnum said But if some place want's to educate on something like Islam, and not say one branch or church of Islam but rather Islam as a whole the extremist part's should not be overlooked.

Trust me. This isn't helping. There are plenty of places to learn about Islam, both the good and the bad, the enlightening and the ugly. This is not a museum about religion, it's a museum about a tragedy--committed by extremists wearing the flag of religion. Yes, I don't like Islam either, and I don't pretend that the religion wasn't used as justification, it was, but it can just be a side note here. It doesn't need to be put up in broad lights. Everywhere else does that already.

Because remember. Anything can be used as a justification for mass murder given the opportunity. If it wasn't Islam, it would have been the size of one's nose.

There are other places to debate about what part Islam played in this. This museum is not one of them. Let it go. Trust me. You know I wouldn't be arguing from this position unless I knew with near absolute certainty that it had to be right.

It actually wasn't aimed at you. Generally addressing how segments of the population think and act was what I was aiming for.

Usually, when I am addressing or using someone as an example, I try to mention them by name, because I tend to dislike people subtly referencing other people in a discussion.

I honestly don't know enough about you personally to make lump generalizations, Magic. I'll address things I think are off base, but I'm not about to paint by numbers to make a picture. Likewise, with dingo, I only know him by a few comments I happen to disagree with and offered another perspective for him to do with as he will, and I know he's a veteran who fought in a brutal, long conflict, so I can certainly understand why he feels that way about Muslims.

I was actually commending him for being honest and acknowledging he has a strong bias. My point was a lot of people don't.

I don't ask people to change their beliefs/ how they feel because of something I or anyone else say. I simply ask that they listen and at least consider another perspective.

Believe it or not, I'm agnostic and used to be hardcore atheist for similar reasons as what you guys have said, but time and no small amount of thinking about it made me decide against outright dismissing religious positions and deciding that the world would be a better place if people just accepted people aren't always going to conform to your values. You don't have to agree with them, but at least try to respect them. You rarely ever know the whole story, y'know?

Mussolini was not an athiest. He brokered the deal between the Italian government and the Catholic Church that solved a rift that had been in place since Italian unification. And he was very Catholic.

Stalin, Kim Jong-Il and Mao did not kill in the name of atheism. Neither did Dahlmer. What makes a crime a crime of religious extremism as opposed to a crime of just stupid nutfuckery (Dalhmer) or political oppression (Mao, Stalin, KJ-I)

Alkeni Synair said
Mussolini was not an athiest. He brokered the deal between the Italian government and the Catholic Church that solved a rift that had been in place since Italian unification. And he was very Catholic.Stalin, Kim Jong-Il and Mao did not kill in the of atheism. Neither did Dahlmer. What makes a crime a crime of religious extremism as opposed to a crime of just stupid nutfuckery (Dalhmer) or political oppression (Mao, Stalin, KJ-I)

Mussolini was a stanch atheist and had strong opinions against Catholicism until he became leader and realized it would be a lot easier to work with the church than against it and had his kids baptized. When the Vatican is such a powerful political force, it doesn't make much sense to actively work against it when it resides in your borders and most of your population is Catholic.

My point wasn't that they killed because they were atheists, my point was they all did terrible things and in a lot of cases had very vocal positions against religion to actively targeting it. Chances are, the same atrocities would have been committed if the people who committed them were religious, but I'm illustrating that religious extremism hardly has the monopoly on colossal disregard for human life. Likewise, I'm sure that a lot of dictators or other leaders who allegedly killed in the name of religion would have done so regardless of their so-called faith. It's rather convenient to do something for political reasons and then claim you did it for theology, because it's pretty easy to justify doing something when you say "I did it because God wanted it this way and calls for the death of heretics" is a lot easier to justify than "I want to remove a large segment of my population because they are most likely to oppose my rule".

I'm not saying that history isn't full of instances of governments or powerful individuals (or even just normal individuals, "honour killing" springs immediately to mind) acting on behalf of their faith to do terrible things, but it's rarely just religion that caused them to commit atrocities. That would be grossly oversimplifying things, especially since for every person who commits atrocities in the name of their religion, there's millions who have a decidedly more positive slant with it. Ignoring political, cultural, and economic cues when looking at extremist groups and saying the sole entire reason that they committed an atrocity is just because of religion would be exactly the same as saying Stalin murdered 30 million people over his 5 Year Plans because he was an atheist who didn't have a religious compass.

Point is, there's rarely ever one factor that leads up to people doing terrible things. It's not exactly fair to say the worst people humanity had to offer who were religious did what they did solely because of it and then say that the same kind of people who were atheist did what they did without their lack of faith not being a factor. Food for thought; Stalin and Mao's dictatorships both killed way more people under their rule than a religious dictatorship ever did. What if an entire lack of religious morals (like killing being a cardinal sin, belief in Hell) was a contributing factor to them being so callous about such vast disposal of human life to achieve their goals? Would things have turned out differently if Stalin had been, say, Russian Orthodox like the royal family, or Mao been a Buddhist?

Dervish said
Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim Jong-Il, Mussolini, Than Shwe.Jeffery Dahmer, Israel Keyes,Ted Kaczynski.Et cetera.A few radicals, desperate people, fanatics, or however you want to put it still do not match the vast majority of good people, atheist or religious, that you don't hear about because they did nothing wrong.A lot of those young men Al-Qaeda and the Taliban send to fight are rounded up from villages and basically forced to fight, or fighting for them pays a lot better than any other opportunity they had. I've read more than one convincing argument that it's very similar to someone being born in a disenfranchised intercity neighbourhood being pressed into a gang, with very similar causes and reasons. It's not always about religion. People have the capacity for truly horrible things, faith or no faith. At least you admit you have strong bias about the matter, a lot of people in your shoes don't or even acknowledge that maybe, just maybe, they might have it wrong.

Take it how you want to, in my opinion Islam is a problem. Sure those leaders and psychos you mentioned were terrible indeed but the most recent act was the Unibomber? I dunno i think its trying to compare apples to oranges.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/attacks-2013.htm
Thats ^ quite a rap sheet. I'm not one for fear mongering but i think this is deserving of a glance.

Brovo said Actually, religious communities argue within themselves about what is acceptable or not all the time, such as some Muslims against sharia law being combined with secular law, or being held above secular law.

They don't "apologize" for holding their beliefs because they sincerely believe they're right. Most just attempt to find some compromise to conform: Which is why I'm saying it's not a problem for this museum to change its stance to be more lenient and have a better public image for Islam. There are plenty of places for Islam's flaws to be pointed out, a court of law, or a debate--but a museum? ?... That is no place for a debate. That is a place for coming together and vowing to never let that happen again.

That's more religion fighting among themselves to find the one true religion though, not religion actually coming out and admitting their own system/core of beliefs has some flaws/holes to it.

Though with religion have so many branches (even right down to so many different bibles) it would be next to impossible to find one standard to view it on, so I can agree with the museum taking a certain stance on it.
If it's meant to be based on a tragedy though then why are they even making the museum somewhat about their religion? That almost seems the same as say a museum on the holocaust also being about Christianity, or a museum on 911 being about Muslims.

Shouldn't simply be on the tragedy in the first place? Why are they doubling up to also make it about their religion?

Brovo said Again, stop arguing about the validity of religion , and stop broad stroking every religious person as being close minded or ignorant. And, yes, whether you intended to or not, this is what you're doing here. I can say from personal experience one of my family friends is a pastor, it doesn't bother him that I'm an atheist, I'm welcome in his church anytime so long as I'm respectful about his religion, just as he respects my non-religion. (...Note: Okay this is weird normally I'm arguing on the opposite end of the table of religion, but oh well. )

I also know a really cool pastor, he ran a youth group I went to about every week for my high school career and have a ton of great memories at. I'm not arguing that all religious people are messed up, violent or anything. I'm simply saying it's foolish to try to ignore all the bad things said by religion or done because (or with the excuse) of religion simply to put it in a better light. It's hiding the religion's history and true colors, even if some followers may not have adopted the more barbaric things it is still part of that Religion's bible and history.

And it is odd debating you on this topic... We are normally agreeing with each other where this topic comes up. :/

Brovo said There are other places to debate about what part Islam played in this. This museum is not one of them. Let it go. Trust me. You know I wouldn't be arguing from this position unless I knew with near absolute certainty that it had to be right.

Which I can agree with, but brings me back to why are they even trying to fit a religion into the museum to begin with if it's simply meant to be about a tragedy?

Dervish said It actually wasn't aimed at you. Generally addressing how segments of the population think and act was what I was aiming for.

Ah, my bad for jumping to assumptions then... :/

Dervish said I don't ask people to change their beliefs/ how they feel because of something I or anyone else say. I simply ask that they listen and at least consider another perspective.

A good and healthy approach to be having. The world could do with more open mindedness and willingness to be wrong.

Dervish said Believe it or not, I'm agnostic and used to be hardcore atheist for similar reasons as what you guys have said, but time and no small amount of thinking about it made me decide against outright dismissing religious positions and deciding that the world would be a better place if people just accepted people aren't always going to conform to your values. You don't have to agree with them, but at least try to respect them. You rarely ever know the whole story, y'know?

So basically you're an atheist who doesn't care to debate the topic and try to convince others about it?

This is where tricky terminology come's into play that Brovo and Jorick can explain better than I can. But for the most basic elements there's four categories (there's more if you get complex... but that's part of where Brovo and Jorick are good at).

There's one scale of Agnostic and Gnostic to start with.
Agnostic = Willingness to believe, or simply doesn't care to debate the topic.
Gnostic = Strong in their stance, willing to debate the topic.

Then there's the other scale of Atheist and Religious.
Atheist = Lack of Religion/Belief in a God or Higher being
Religious = Follows a religion of some kind.

So scale wise I'm guessing (correct me if I'm wrong) you'd fall under Agnostic Atheist. You're atheist cause you do not have a religion, but you're agnostic because you simply don't care to debate the topic or convince others of your stance.

It's more of a I haven't seen evidence of there being a god and feel scientific theory is what guides and drives my interest and understanding of the universe, but I acknowledge that the potential might be there in a capacity we cannot measure. I also feel that if there is a god(s), there lies the potential for such a thing preseting itself differently to different cultures or coexisting with other gods and multiple planes of an afterlife could exist, which can tie into that whole multiple universe hypothesis. I'll find out when I die, I suppose. You are right that I don't really care/ want to debate it because it's literally an argument that has no achievable answer and people tend to be very set in their faiths or lack there of. It's more optimistic to let people have faith and not discourage them from it, because there's no way to prove one way or another if they're right or wrong. Besides, for all we know, everyone is correct regardless of their religion or lack of. There's plenty we still don't understand, and I think it's rather silly to fight over it. After countless arguments across human history, nobody has gotten closer to an answer and it goes into a big ouroboros of debate of demanding proof and being offered nothing tangible from either side. Let's just worry about coexisting, you know? We have much more tangible issues to solve that actually have answers.