A Mosque at Ground Zero?

magicalfreddiemercury wrote:

Excellent points, and I say no as well. However... :-) ...a point that applies to the fears and concerns of the West is that while Jim Jones contained his followers, bin Laden disperses them.
============================

I agree, absolutely. There is a persistent fear factor in the ongoing threat of terrorism that cannot be minimized.  It remains ever present and there are still thousands of radicalized Islamists that would like nothing more than to kill as many people as possible, most particularly in richly symbolic targets like NYC.  It's an on going victimization of sorts that affects everybody, and blameless Muslims doubly so because the random and public nature of the targets means that not only do they have to fear for themselves like everyone else, but they must live with both voluntary and involuntary fear and suspicion from the rest of us.  Many if not most of us will never experience a circumstance that allows us to  be close enough to Muslim individuals, families or groups to have that sense of strangeness and foreigness melt away.  Bin Laden inflicted that burden on blameless Muslim individuals in numbers many magnitudes greater than his misguided terrorist disaspora will ever see in a hundred lifetimes.

I think that we as both individuals and a collective have a moral responsibility and a practical duty, in the interest of a just and secure society, to do our best to sort out the dangerous from the blameless when we can.  What think you? :)

>>>GratefulFan wrote: I think that we as both individuals and a collective have a moral responsibility and a practical duty, in the interest of a just and secure society, to do our best to sort out the dangerous from the blameless when we can.  What think you? :) <<<

==

I agree, though as a New Yorker, my suspicions will remain until and unless the blameless establish themselves as such by opening and/or maintaining a dialogue rather than doing as the organizers of this project have done, which is to push through a project despite objection and without clear explanation and transparency about its purpose and funding.

The issue here is not at all about blaming our neighbors for atrocities others have committed. It’s about the perception given by the developers that their will be done, others be damned. That is an attitude Americans – New Yorkers in particular – will not readily accept. From anyone.

And yes, there are those who suffer doubly because of 9/11 and the resulting prejudices. It’s obvious and open and, in fact, it’s supposedly THE reason this project was put forth in the first place. And yet, they (the developers) refuse to show regard for those opposed to it. That, apparently, is okay. But those opposed to it, it seems, are not permitted to voice their objections without being told to be more tolerant, accepting, understanding… and the exhausting list goes on.

I’ve watched coverage of this debate on various news channels, have read about it and have participated in live discussions as well. What I’ve come away with is frustration at having a legitimate issue and, rather than having it addressed, having it dissected, analyzed and twisted into something it is not. And, unfortunately, that’s where this national discussion has gone. My only hope now is that the building of this center does not become a new flashpoint and that the conflict ends here.

I hope you don't feel that I'm twisting your thoughts into something new and nefarious, or attempting to subtly delegitimize your position.  Not at all! My hope is only to establish whether we agree on some of the foundational stuff so we don't end up talking around each other should we spent a bit more time discussing this.

Just briefly, in what way do you feel they haven't been transparent about the purpose and scope of the project?  It was my sense that it was fairly well put forward on their website, and in part modeled after an existing Jewish community centre that could be referenced. I wholly understand your point about the funding because of the history of the way external funding has been used previously by those with Islamic interests, but I'd point out that it's not at all unusual at this point in any project not to have highly specific information available about funding.  I do think more time is needed before judgements are made about that.

You mentioned the group having no regard for the public objections, and you'd previously mentioned a compromise in location.  Would you describe a new location that could still serve the community without offending it as a bottom line of sorts?

>>> I hope you don't feel that I'm twisting your thoughts into something new and nefarious, or attempting to subtly delegitimize your position.  Not at all! My hope is only to establish whether we agree on some of the foundational stuff so we don't end up talking around each other should we spent a bit more time discussing this. <<< No, not at all. I’m sorry if it sounded as though I was referring to you. The written word is hard to decipher sometimes. I actually meant the discussions locally and in the media (which, yes, I know are skewed). What I like about all you’ve said is the unemotional aspect of it and how you’ve focused on the logic. Clearly, my reactions come from emotions first. Bottom line, however, is that my feelings are not against people of any faith. My feelings are against the manner in which this project was billed and the way the opposition is considered intolerant despite the validity of the objections. === >>>  Just briefly, <<< Briefly? Me? lol === >>> …in what way do you feel they haven't been transparent about the purpose and scope of the project?  It was my sense that it was fairly well put forward on their website, and in part modeled after an existing Jewish community centre that could be referenced. <<< The project has been explained as a way to build bridges and improve relations with the west. I want to know how a community center containing a secular prayer area, is expected to do this. The Imam himself, when asked in an interview how this project will improve relations, simply smiled and said, “They will see.” I found the comment insulting and arrogant. I do not want to “see” after the fact, I want to know the intention now. I think after what this city has endured, we are entitled to full disclosure. If it were an evangelical center with an evangelical prayer area, public opinion would lean toward it being exclusive rather than inclusive. Such is the way with this. === >>>I wholly understand your point about the funding because of the history of the way external funding has been used previously by those with Islamic interests, but I'd point out that it's not at all unusual at this point in any project not to have highly specific information available about funding.  I do think more time is needed before judgements are made about that. <<< While it might not be unusual for developers of high-profile projects to withhold funding details, this is a highly unusual case given the sensitivities – legal, national and personal – and so those details should be openly discussed. In fact, they should be discussed in the name of bridge building. Instead, the information is being withheld. The secrecy of what might be perfectly honest and innocent, makes it difficult to enlist a wait-and-see attitude. We are at war with terrorism. We are told to report suspicious activity. Plans to build a center containing a mosque near ground zero, without disclosing where the funding comes from and intending to open said center - regardless of public opinion - on the 10th anniversary of the worst attack on American soil by people of a faith under the name of which the attacks were made, is suspicious in and of itself and should not only be thoroughly questioned but thoroughly answered. === >>> You mentioned the group having no regard for the public objections, and you'd previously mentioned a compromise in location.  Would you describe a new location that could still serve the community without offending it as a bottom line of sorts?  <<< An offer of compromise would have made all the difference, IMO. The immediate area – meaning the entire area damaged by debris from the attacks – should be off limits. Outside of that area would be the compromise and would still serve that community. It’s Manhattan. People walk. Another few avenues wouldn’t make a difference yet at the same time would make all the difference in the world. Another compromise would be to remove the mosque/prayer area or make it appropriate for all faiths. That gesture might show how tolerant the organizers truly are. I have to repeat something I’ve said before… this center in not the only project people have objected to. Other ideas for building ON the actual site were met with just as much, if not more, hostility. There were people who wanted the entire area to be deemed a memorial with fountains and plaques and nothing more. That’s important to remember because objections have been raised for reason besides religion. However, this issue is receiving more attention because of its controversial nature and because it’s been connected to 9/11 by its developers. Something else we should remember is that human remains are still being found on rooftops and elsewhere around this area  as recently as last week, in fact - and that only helps to keep emotions raw. Having said all that, I did hear a comment from someone who felt this entire project – location, content and all – was perfect. He said, “In NY we have an opportunity for the muslim community in the US to really put something together to show how the people who took down those towers did not represent their faith.”  I don’t think this is that “something” but at least a dialogue has begun.

magicalfreddiemercury wrote:

[QUOTE]Yes, he is definitely an extremist, but I must admit, I love the lack of apology in his voice. I wish more people were less afraid of being politically correct and more concerned with explaining their ideas. But in a perfect world, people would not just talk but listen, and many of the problems wouldn’t arise in the first place.[/QUOTE]

I was actually being sarcastic !  I think it's an absolute shame that in a time when we are able to see things millions of light years away, anyone who wants to live in a world without fairy tales is seen as an extremist.  I personally don't think eliminating organized religion would be any kind of solution (i.e. people would still talk instead of listen, as they'd have some other reason to divide themselves from others), but his point of view is very valid.

>>> Sir GH wrote: I was actually being sarcastic !  <<< Seriously? How funny. Actually, I determine 'extreme' by how angered my family would become, and this guy would piss them all off from word one. lol. >>> I think it's an absolute shame that in a time when we are able to see things millions of light years away, anyone who wants to live in a world without fairy tales is seen as an extremist. <<< I agree wholly, but fact is, when Pat Condell titles his posts "Was Jesus Gay" or "God the Psycho"  or "Pimping for Jesus" he's not aiming for the middle. And while I feel many of his comments are brilliant, I'm not left with the impression he's looking for compromise. It's that tone/attitude/whatever, that makes me see him as extremist. JMO. However, he calls it as he sees it and I only wish he could sit face to face with someone with opposing views. How enlightening that would be. >>> I personally don't think eliminating organized religion would be any kind of solution (i.e. people would still talk instead of listen, as they'd have some other reason to divide themselves from others), <<< Couldn't agree more. >>> but his point of view is very valid. <<< I had a feeling you'd appreciate his point of view. :-)

magicalfreddiemercury wrote:

"I determine 'extreme' by how angered my family would become, and this guy would piss them all off from word one. lol."

Ha.. !  Hilarious.

"And while I feel many of his comments are brilliant, I'm not left with the impression he's looking for compromise."

I bet he would if put in the right situation.  In his videos he's just taking the Michael Moore stance - assume the opposite position, just to get the reaction (attacking the person, i.e. him, instead of the problem).  Works like a charm.  Guys like these know that the middle of the road doesn't really get you anywhere.

@magicalfm "The project has been explained as a way to build bridges and improve relations with the west. I want to know how a community center containing a secular prayer area, is expected to do this. The Imam himself, when asked in an interview how this project will improve relations, simply smiled and said, “They will see.” I found the comment insulting and arrogant. I do not want to “see” after the fact, I want to know the intention now. I think after what this city has endured, we are entitled to full disclosure. If it were an evangelical center with an evangelical prayer area, public opinion would lean toward it being exclusive rather than inclusive. Such is the way with this." Just so we're talking about the same thing, I've nicked this broad description of the proposed project from their website: Cordoba House is a Muslim-led project which will build a world-class facility that promotes tolerance, reflecting the rich diversity of New York City.  The center will be community-driven, serving as a platform for inter-community gatherings and cooperation at all levels, providing a space for all New Yorkers to enjoy. This proposed project is about promoting integration, tolerance of difference and community cohesion through arts and culture.  Cordoba House will provide a place where individuals, regardless of their backgrounds, will find a center of learning, art and culture; and most importantly, a center guided by Islamic values in their truest form - compassion, generosity, and respect for all.   The site will contain tremendous amounts of resources that otherwise would not exist in Lower Manhattan; a 500-seat auditorium, swimming pool, art exhibition spaces, bookstores, restaurants - all these services would form a cultural nexus for a region of New York City that, as it continues to grow, requires the sort of hub that Cordoba House will provide. I can say without hesitation that it's a lovely dream. Perhaps his 'They will see" was not meant to be patronizing, but the only way to answer a question to which the answer probably *is* somewhat diffuse and indefinite.  I can share something from my own community that may be relevant, though of course less the always present and always important spectre of 9/11. Quite near to my home, up on one of the highest points in the city and with a spectacular view of one of the large lakes in my city's core sits a big honkin' Pentecostal Church complex that was completed a few years ago. It's one of only two Pentecostal Churches that I can think of in my city, because it's a pretty fundamentalist school of religious thought for this area. The centre that they constructed includes a large auditorium and communal area that serves the general needs of the community at large.  I have season tickets to my local symphony orchestra, which uses the space several times a year. It's also used as a lecture hall and as any other number of things for which you might want to gather 1200 people.  In addition, because of the site's high vantage point over the city, a couple of hundred adults and children gravitate there on Canada Day night to watch the fireworks and avoid the crowds down lakeside.  This just kind of happened, but once the church noticed it happening they decided to quietly provide coffee and kool-aid in subsequent years.  It's very informal and warm and fun.  They also run a summer program/daycare for kids, which unlike the other things I've mentioned does have a small religious component through a short bible study among the other activities each day. I can say that somehow it does work to bring people together and diminish the sense of strangeness, though I can't quite say how.  When I'm at the symphony, there is a sense of awareness and gratitude that the church has provided this badly needed space for the city.  I'm happy for the beautiful space, and happy for the success of the project for those in the Pentecostal church who gambled on putting it together.  The fireworks evenings are nice because they are just a very genuine and spontaneous gathering together of a bunch of people whose lives would likely not otherwise intersect.  The church people are happy to quietly share their goodwill and refreshments with those of us who do nothing beyond leave a bunch of cups and tire tracks behind.  I leave, and I don't come back until there is some other non religious reason to be there, but I come and go with a new appreciation for a group that are no longer quite strangers. They're proud of their contribution to the city, and they should be.   All this to say the I am able to personally attest that the potential for a positive community impact from these multi use facilities does exist, again always mindful that every comparison can't help but be imperfect because of the singularness of the New York circumstance. "While it might not be unusual for developers of high-profile projects to withhold funding details, this is a highly unusual case given the sensitivities – legal, national and personal – and so those details should be openly discussed. In fact, they should be discussed in the name of bridge building. Instead, the information is being withheld." I meant that at this point in time there is a strong possibility that funding is not even in place. Raising capital and gathering investors usually happens after the developers are assured of a location etc.  Should the project move ahead, hopefully there is a significant chunk of domestic funding.  However, there is value in having Muslim groups around the world with a common interest in improving relations put their money where their mouth is and risking something tangible for the goal. And I guess I disagree that there is an undue cause for suspicion at this juncture, as the record of this guy over a number of years is pretty consistent with his stated goals.  Given his high profile and extensive writing and speaking engagements over the years, there is actually very little to point at, and when the handful of controversial positions are seen through the context of his work as a self styled bridge builder, I believe they can be understood even if not directly sanctioned.  He seems to be what every expert concerned with terrorism and global security says we want: a moderate Muslim presiding over a contemporary Mosque. To be continued shortly, when I'm more awake .... :)

America's beliefs are built upon religious freedoms and expressions........

just ask those who were drowned during the Salem Witch Trials.

Or............WTF were we thinking when we allowed Mr. Smith to build his Mormon congregation.  Oh, I am sorry, they were white people.

btw...........I absolutely HATE the idea of the mosque being built so close to Ground Zero, replacing the Burlington Coat Factory store.

but....................this is America.  Religious toleration is supposed to be.............well.......tolerated.

Just because you have the right doesn't mean you have to exercise it all the time and in every situation. Clearly this is going to be a real slap in the face to many New Yorkers and therefore those advocating it should applaud the fact that the US lets them exercise their religion and in this case they will respond by choosing not to exercise it at this particular site at this particular time.

magicalfreddiemercury wrote:

An offer of compromise would have made all the difference, IMO. The immediate area – meaning the entire area damaged by debris from the attacks – should be off limits. Outside of that area would be the compromise and would still serve that community. It’s Manhattan. People walk. Another few avenues wouldn’t make a difference yet at the same time would make all the difference in the world. Another compromise would be to remove the mosque/prayer area or make it appropriate for all faiths. That gesture might show how tolerant the organizers truly are.

I have to repeat something I’ve said before… this center in not the only project people have objected to. Other ideas for building ON the actual site were met with just as much, if not more, hostility. There were people who wanted the entire area to be deemed a memorial with fountains and plaques and nothing more. That’s important to remember because objections have been raised for reason besides religion. However, this issue is receiving more attention because of its controversial nature and because it’s been connected to 9/11 by its developers. Something else we should remember is that human remains are still being found on rooftops and elsewhere around this area  as recently as last week, in fact - and that only helps to keep emotions raw.

==================================

It takes me a while to answer your points sometimes because you really push me to think.  I appreciate and respect that quite a lot.  I've been thinking about this part of your last post on and off for a few days and I've arrived at what feels like my final position.  This is the best I've got, and if you find little of it compelling we'll just have to have a virtual beer and be grateful for the chance to have learned from each other. This was a great topic you started.

I'll begin by noting that the difference between Ground Zero proper and the surrounding blocks that were damaged is that the crimes of 9/11 turned the WTC ground into nothing for which some entirely new future had to be envisioned, while the surrounding area is in large part what it has always been: a functioning part of the cityscape of one of the most notable places in the world. It was likely never feasible or desirable to freeze the damaged buildings in time, to preserve them or  let them decay in and around the many places of life and work that continue to function in the immediate area.  NYC has had a number of years to make zoning and rule changes to disallow development in the area or to require vetting of proposed changes, and they haven't done so. They likely haven't done so for all the best reasons, because outside of the emotion this controversy has rubbed raw it seems apparent to me that such a move would be contrary to key aspects of fundamental things that make America great, from freedom right through to the value the culture places on hard work and entrepreneurship. I'm glad NY didn't do that. It's right that it hasn't.

It's likely true that nobody ever envisioned this particular challenge to the limits of human tolerance however. Rights and freedoms are in some ways an honour system, and we agree I think that this issue which has become so terribly divisive is the fault of the cultural centre/mosque development group. Because of the protections offered to Americans, it was unilaterally thrust upon the city the moment that the group staked it's claim on that building.  In my mind the time for compromise was long before anybody ever heard of this project, and entirely in the hands of the people who could have avoided all of this by choosing another site in the first place.  But, right or wrong, they didn't.  They wanted the symbolism of the site to make a strong statement on what they see as the true face of their faith, to make a strong statement against extremism, to contribute to healing, and to advance Muslim acceptance through a contribtion to New York life and culture. Right or wrong, that's what they want and that's what they did.

As such, compromise at this point is a different thing all together. People want the development group to respond in a way that implicitly accepts that there is some valid, actionable connection between their decades old peaceful Mosque community and 19 terroristic criminals and their dysfunctional global network, and they want to call that compromise. Compromise is a very seductive word.  It sounds like a perfect solution for any seemingly intractable issue.  It sounds like the least any well intentioned people would agree to, particularly people whose stated goal is harmony, as you've pointed out. It sounds like common decency. It sounds, in short, like a small thing.  It's not.  As it pertains to this issue, it's a really big thing.  I think too big.  Compromise here is really not compromise at all, but something more like capitulation.  Capitulation to an emotional tidal wave that wants the group to stay away from Ground Zero because it offends people or makes them feel bad.  I can think of no precedent for this kind of alleged moral imperitive. In civil and consitutional law - the pillars of nearly everything in a free society - the perils of emotion and the tyranny of the majority are well known and fiercely guarded against. Suddenly, because of the terrible scope of the horror of 9/11 we're to accept that emotion and anger are not in fact something to be kept at arms length from critical judgements, but in fact great clarifiers? That the angst ridden and angry tail should in fact wag this dog? I don't think so.

Everything is a turned on it's head. Your own words in earlier posts indicated that you will remain suspicious until they prove to you that you needn't be, a sentiment that is widely shared by many other perfectly normal and thoughtful people.  Guilty until they prove themselves innocent. With no judgement implied, I would like to say that I believe that this is so contrary to basic principles of the Western world that it should be a red flag in anyone's thinking. Secondly, the thought we discussed previously about the responsibilities that come with rights, and echoed above by Holly earlier, has been taken up by no less than the Governor of NY as well via offers of assistance if they'd like to voluntarily relocate the centre.  I liked that thought well enough at first. It was attractive and seemed compelling.  I went on a couple of dates with that thought, but I've since had to break up with it and tell it we're just going to be friends.  The burden, so goes this thought, is on the developers to forgo their right in the name of something like sensitivity, cooperation, common sense or decency. That might fly if what was being asked was that they not mow the mosque lawn before 8:00 am on Saturday, but what they're being asked to forgo is something like equality.  In any other area, no right that precious is ever taken or surrendered without the gravest consideration preceded by the most formal of processes.  Shifing this burden to the developers is unfair, and though it's not intended, it's also sleight of hand. The burden is always on the state, on the individual or body who would like the right removed or superceded. So should it be here.  You want them to voluntarily surrender a right and privilege of American citizenship so New York is not offended.  Why should they. There is no constitutional right, no social covenant that protects anyone from being offended, for reasons that are once again abundantly clear away from the pain and emotion of this situation.

Continued...

I know that my distillation of this issue into people taking 'offense' may feel glib.  I don't mean it to be.  9/11 families and New Yorkers suffered and in many ways continue to suffer greatly.  9/11 families are different from the families other murder victims: there was no trial to attend, no satisfaction in seeing the guilty punished, no guarantees of future protection from the very same menace, and for far too many, no gravesite to visit. For that reason more than any other, Ground Zero is a special, even sacred place. I truly get that. Most of us are fortunate enough never to have to suffer for our democracy, as it just gives endlessly and asks little or nothing in return. It feels unjust that people who have already suffered so much be asked to carry the burden of this one more thing, when the entire debate would be unnecessary but for the desires of a much smaller group of people. I get that too. I don't know if this centre will ever be built or if the project can withstand the pressures being put on it. But if it is, let me make a prediction right now.  Someday, there will be columns written about the Imam who quietly and firmly insisted on American greatness when many around him were too vulnerable and too wounded to do so. Whether it's put down to arrogance or stubborness or insight or divine grace, it will have taken some courage and I think America will be better off for it.  If this project does go ahead, the burden of proving that this social rift and reopening of fragile wounds was worth it is entirely on the people who want this centre. Preservation of Amerian values or no, history will not judge this kindly if the centre is even a benign presence. It must succeed in meeting stated goals and in earning and honouring it's proximity to such hallowed ground. They believe they can, and with adequate good will from a portion of the community I think maybe they can too.  Time, I suppose, will tell.

Thanks again for such a thought provoking discussion.

-GF

>>> Sir GH wrote: I bet he would if put in the right situation.  In his videos he's just taking the Michael Moore stance - assume the opposite position, just to get the reaction (attacking the person, i.e. him, instead of the problem).  Works like a charm.  Guys like these know that the middle of the road doesn't really get you anywhere. <<<
And I suppose this very notion could apply to the organizers of this community center. By taking this stand they are making a statement that cannot be ignored. Almost like Arizona and their sweeping illegal immigration laws. As unconstitutional as parts of it are, it at least started a dialogue. Maybe that’s part of the purpose – expected or not – of this. I guess we can only hope.

>>>Grateful Fan wrote: Just so we're talking about the same thing, I've nicked this broad description of the proposed project from their website: … and most importantly, a center guided by Islamic values in their truest form - compassion, generosity, and respect for all.   <<< I believe the contradiction lies right there. Compassion, generosity and respect for all. Not one of those virtues is shown by doing something so obviously against the will of those they say they want to serve. == >>> I leave, and I don't come back until there is some other non religious reason to be there, but I come and go with a new appreciation for a group that are no longer quite strangers. They're proud of their contribution to the city, and they should be.  <<< This is a beautiful example of how things can work. I would like to see the same at ground zero, but with the, as you said, ‘always present and always important spectre of 9/11’, some concessions must be made, IMO, for this outcome to occur. == >>> I meant that at this point in time there is a strong possibility that funding is not even in place. <<< Actually a fortune in funding has already been spent by the CEO of SoHo Properties – the owner of this building. So far he’s invested millions in the property while only a few short years ago had been waiting tables in a NYC restaurant. Tips? == >>> It takes me a while to answer your points sometimes because you really push me to think.  <<< I think it’s because I talk too much. lol == >>> This is the best I've got, and if you find little of it compelling we'll just have to have a virtual beer and be grateful for the chance to have learned from each other. <<< I would take you up on that virtual beer as I’ve had to sit back and consider many of the points you’ve made as well. == >>> You want them to voluntarily surrender a right and privilege of American citizenship so New York is not offended. <<< Not exactly. I would like them to do so as the show of compassion and respect they say they are intending and as a way for New Yorkers to join in the creation of this project rather than rally against it. == >>> It must succeed in meeting stated goals and in earning and honouring it's proximity to such hallowed ground. They believe they can, and with adequate good will from a portion of the community I think maybe they can too.  Time, I suppose, will tell. <<< While I understand and see the validity in your points, my concern and doubt remain. However, there’s rarely been a time when I hoped more to be proven wrong.

magicalfreddiemercury wrote: I believe the contradiction lies right there. Compassion, generosity and respect for all. Not one of those virtues is shown by doing something so obviously against the will of those they say they want to serve. First and most importantly,  we don't vote for everything in a democracy.  And we most certainly don't leave the most important things to instant straw polls. That said, there is no consensus anyway.  Not among the New York public, and not among the 9/11 families. The Marist poll released August 10th puts support by Manhattanites at 53%, opposition at 31%.  I realize Ground Zero belongs to everyone in important ways, but If you would have the group be guided by public opinion (and I wouldn't), why should special emphasis not be placed on the opinion of the neighbourhood most likely to be directly served by the proposal? Actually a fortune in funding has already been spent by the CEO of SoHo Properties – the owner of this building. So far he’s invested millions in the property while only a few short years ago had been waiting tables in a NYC restaurant. Tips?  Faisal Abdul Rauf answers that here, though not apparently to the satisfaction of the poster as the title of the video indicates, and then a few days later he answers the same question again posed by the same person he already answered, this time with questions about Shari'a compliant financing.  Tribeca is a place of immense wealth,  and I find it completely credible that many, many, many members of the congregation could have easily written checks for 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 20 etc. thousand dollars.  A thousand of those members, and you've easily got 5 million dollars.  If there is a reason to disbelieve the Imam, and such a reason certainly could exist, it's not presented in either of the two exchanges. Not exactly. I would like them to do so as the show of compassion and respect they say they are intending and as a way for New Yorkers to join in the creation of this project rather than rally against it. I know how reasonable this is to very many people.  To me, after a lot of thought that resulted in a 180,  it's lipstick on a pig. Why is this compassion and respect a one way street, or at least being withheld until one group of people does what another group of people wants it to?  Why doesn't New York start with the compassion and respect? Honestly, who has suffered more for 9/11 - Muslim New Yorkers or the average native New Yorker? One of the unintentional cruelties I've come to perceive in this is that Muslims are treated as if they're selfishly intruding on the memory of an event that happened to other people, something upon which that have no claim. My God.  Aside from direct Muslim victims and their feelings as New Yorkers and Americans, how many Muslims have perished in the two wars that started as a direct result of the attacks? For every one emergency worker who tragically lost his or her life in 9/11, how many Iraqi police officers or recruits and other personnel attempting to combat extremism on American terms have died? Maybe 100 for every 1? More?  Some estimates of violent civilians deaths reach over 1,000,000 in Afghanistan and Iraq.  How many of those Muslims died as persons who through thoughts or actions wished to be partners in peace with America under the most dangerous of circumstances? And yet a Muslim group with 25+ year old roots in the New York community are asked to skulk away from Park Place in the name of compassion and respect and in order not to offend anyone. It makes less sense every time I think about it.  So I should probably stop thinking about it. :