A Mosque at Ground Zero?

GratefulFan wrote: It's grown from there,  and I've landed in a place where the situation is actually upsetting me at this point. Must sound so absurd given that I'm not even American!  But Canadians, huddled as we are in this massive country down around  that southern border, are not indifferent.  Most of us have friends there, many of us have family, and even without that there is shared history and a cultural and economic bond.  Given that, once you start perceiving this situation as your freedom loving neighbour blindly putting the jackboots to it's freedoms, it's distressing. ============================ Quoting myself to offer up a similarly themed extract from the Edmonton Journal (a major Canadian daily) today: We have our problems in this country, and racism is among them in some quarters. But, thank goodness, we don't have the likes of Newt Gingrich in our political front ranks, who declared the building of the New York centre as "pandering to radical Islam," a symbol of "Muslim triumphalism." Or Sarah Palin, whose mean-spirited, mindless (and misspelled) tweets on the subject should disqualify her for any public office. Frankly, as admiring friends and neighbours, it is painful for Canadians to watch our allies to the south engage in such a "conversation."

>>> GratefulFan wrote: Frankly, as admiring friends and neighbours, it is painful for Canadians to watch our allies to the south engage in such a "conversation." <<<

Maybe our admiring friends from the north should listen to the conversations of the people not the politicians. Besides, there is no true 'conversation' since the organizers have so far refused all dialogue.

magicalfreddiemercury wrote: Maybe our admiring friends from the north should listen to the conversations of the people not the politicians. Besides, there is no true 'conversation' since the organizers have so far refused all dialogue.
==========================

I was a bit worried that my post wouldn't quite get over what I intended, and it seems it hasn't. I only meant to say that I wasn't alone (read nutty) in perceiving something like distress over the situation. I included the bit about the politicians only to give context to her 'painful' statement.  And I should add that she began the article acknowledging that these things typically aren't for Canadians to weigh in on.

There has been extensive coverage of the situation here, and aware people are indeed aware of the scope of opinion and that  the more rigid statements are not reflective of everybody who is in opposition.   There has been extensive discussion too, and there is certainly nothing like consensus here either.

That journo was of course referring to the  'conversation' amongst Americans who have an opinion, which is without a doubt very noisily going on.  The organizers had conversations with plenty of people, not least other faith communities and their local community board.  That they have thus far shown little interest in a 'conversation' that appears predicated on accepting some kind of second class citizenship shouldn't really surprise anyone.

>>> YourValentine wrote: You are right about the planned burning of the Quran in NYC, I did not know that and of course every decent Christian person should stand up against this gross act and make it clear that it is not an attitude that can be excused with Christian values.<<<
Just to clarify - the planned burning of the Quran is from a pastor of a small parish in Florida. This isn't being planned in New York City.

btw................over 60% of Americans are against this open to all community center.

oh, and..........60% are for gay unions, for gay members to be enlisted in the miltary, for abortion rights, against the war in Iraq,.....

80% were against black people being integrated into the military (thank you, Harry Truman, for going against public opinion of the time and doing what was right)

another two cents worth

@goodco - Echoes a point earlier about how this should not be a poll driven issue.  Constitutional freedoms are enshrined specifically to protect against the whims of public opinion.  Whatever one believes you've got to respect Bloomberg for political courage for swimming upstream on this one.

Note to YV- I still owe you a reply. I've got one half written in my head, but I'm on holidays and have been here and there and staying up way too late. So just a quick note to thank you for your thoughts and let you know I'm on it. :)

What’s so disturbing is how the conversation – not just here but in the media as well - keeps going to freedom of religion or comparisons to the civil rights movement. The opposition isn't trying to prevent muslims from practicing their religion and it isn't treating muslims like second-class citizens. That connection – which is constantly being made in the press – is absurd and unsubstantiated. Red herrings.

This is about 9/11 and its aftermath. That’s it. 9/11. The worst terrorist attack on American soil. An attack from which we are still recovering – physically, emotionally and financially.

It’s about 9/11 because the organizers of this center have named that attack as their reason for initiating this project. Yet that obvious point is constantly overlooked.

And so, it’s a direct link to 9/11 that’s, supposedly, meant to heal the wounds of 9/11, yet those wounds should not be considered? The opposition is to be tolerant but intolerance is allowed from the organizers because they're minorities and because they’re within their legal right to continue the project?

NY’s governor wants to hold talks about a possible compromise and yet, again, the organizers refuse. They not only refuse, mind you, but proudly state on their website that no meeting is planned with the governor, and that the site will not be moved – meaning no compromise.

That intolerance toward the sensitivities of the community and beyond show, IMO, the true purpose of this center and, after all these pages and after the organizers inability or unwillingness to compromise, I can't help but to now believe their purpose is not to build bridges but to add to the already wide divide. And, unless they make some concessions, they will have no one to blame - or congratulate - but themselves.

@magicalfreddiemercury

(I might be going into an area where angels fear to tread.)

I understand how you feel and I agree that it is not conducive to good relations among the races to build the mosque there.  However, since it has been decided to go ahead, why not just accept it and see it this way:

If there was no 9/11 incident, would there be objections to a mosque being built there ?

If no, it means it all boils down to the 9/11 incident.  If you object because of the 9/11 incident, it might be a case of "punishing" the whole world (i.e. all the Muslims in the world) just because of one person. 

The more people voice their objections, the more publicity those culprits will get and that is what they want.

>>> tcc wrote: @magicalfreddiemercury (I might be going into an area where angels fear to tread.)<<< OMG. I don't know whether to laugh aloud (which I did) or worry over the impression I've given on this thread.   == >>> I understand how you feel and I agree that it is not conducive to good relations among the races to build the mosque there. However, since it has been decided to go ahead, why not just accept it and see it this way: If there was no 9/11 incident, would there be objections to a mosque being built there ?<<< IMO, no, there would not be objections. == >>> If no, it means it all boils down to the 9/11 incident. <<< Correct - as per the organizers. == >>> If you object because of the 9/11 incident, it might be a case of "punishing" the whole world (i.e. all the Muslims in the world) just because of one person. <<< Forgive me, I'm not sure I understand. One person? Do you mean the imam? == >>> The more people voice their objections, the more publicity those culprits will get and that is what they want. <<< True, which is why I'd originally said that since the project was okay'd legally, I hoped there wouldn't be protests and such. But the media, again in my opinion, has skewed the argument. They've made it a civil rights/religious fight and that's not what it is. And now the entire situation - which could have been handled in a more diplomatic way by the organizers - has grown into an international debate. I'm tired of the discussions because I feel as though the base points are being ignored and the action/inaction of the developers has created doubt as to their true motives. But yes... if the final legal measure goes in favor of the developers... which it no doubt will... then I would hope the brouhaha ends. And, as I've said before in this thread, I would like nothing more than to have my concerns proven wrong. **no angels were harmed in the making of this response**

The one person I am referring to is Osama bin Laden.

I say where angels fear to tread because I am afraid of being bombarded with all sorts of arguments etc and I am lazy to argue.  That's all I have to say folks  :-)

>>> tcc wrote: The one person I am referring to is Osama bin Laden. <<< Got it. Though I don't see him in the singular since his following is so vast. >>> I say where angels fear to tread because I am afraid of being bombarded with all sorts of arguments etc and I am lazy to argue. <<< lol. Fair enough. >>> That's all I have to say folks  :-) <<< And that's fine. Every opinion counts regardless how vehemently it's voiced.

magicalfreddiemercury wrote: What’s so disturbing is how the conversation – not just here but in the media as well - keeps going to freedom of religion or comparisons to the civil rights movement. The opposition isn't trying to prevent muslims from practicing their religion and it isn't treating muslims like second-class citizens. That connection – which is constantly being made in the press – is absurd and unsubstantiated. Red herrings. And this is probably the main reason the two 'sides' generally talk completely past each other - this basic disagreement you've identified.  To me arguing that this isn't about freedom of religion and the fundamental equality which is the spirit of it is not supportable.  That significant segments of the opposition are motivated by sensitivies surrounding 9/11 and have no objections to the practice of Muslim faith outside of this controversy does not mean it 's not about freedom of religion, because the solution - moving the centre - means the developers are being asked to surrender their constitutionally protected rights to worship on private property, in this case private property that is near Ground Zero.  Regardless of  the reasons for objecting, the end result is an impact on freedom of religion.  The argument that they can build their mosques anywhere else and are thus free to practice their relgion holds no weight. If I tell you that you have free speech, but that you (and only you) may not speak in the four blocks surrounding 1 WTC,  then you don't have free speech. It’s about 9/11 because the organizers of this center have named that attack as their reason for initiating this project. Yet that obvious point is constantly overlooked. I don't think that's completely reflective of the actual genesis of this project.  The group first envisioned the centre pre 9/11 back in 1999, and it didn't advance back then only because the financing fell through (I'm not sure where the property was at that time).  The article I posted a couple of days ago claims that the person contracted to find a property for the proposed centre in 2005 was told to look over a large area, and it was mere happenstance that the Burlington Coat Factory was one building identified and that the building was being shown the very next day at what was basically a firesale price. It's proximity meant the 9/11 connection came with it, and I would guess that they became inspired or excited or whatever about the symbolism simply by default, backfilling in the significance after the fact. Daisy Khan has been quoted as saying that it was 'divine' or 'meant to be' or something along those lines, implying the inspiration to connect it to 9/11 may have come later and was not a key part of the vision initially. It makes me think of an example from my own life.  I'm associated with an organization that uses a plain trinity cross as it's logo.  Back in 1999 that logo was a quick temporary fix pulled from a commercial set of computer graphics because our old logo was no longer relevant because of major changes to the organization.  A logo design contest was initiated, and the trinity cross filled in until that process was completed.  Except nobody submitted anything even remotely usable, so by default that temporary logo became our permanent one.  Once that was the reality, the pair of three intersecting arms of the cross were made to stand for six intersecting pillars of the organization identified for the purpose, with the result being that if you didn't know better (and most people don't) you'd think that the cross was picked to represent the ideals rather than the other way around.  Still, those ideals have become a celebrated and identifying part of the organization that people now relate to throughout. So it was backwards, but it worked.  I suspect this Park Place location may be something like that. Regardless, you're right that by the time this project was being publically pitched it was the organizers themselves that embraced post 9/11 symbolism as part of their vision.   But I'm not sure it started that way, and given the location of the building I don't see how it could be avoided.  Having said all this, I don't think they would have been wrong to directly seek a proximal building, but given the facts available right now I'm really not convinced that's what happened.  And so, it’s a direct link to 9/11 that’s, supposedly, meant to heal the wounds of 9/11, yet those wounds should not be considered? The opposition is to be tolerant but intolerance is allowed from the organizers because they're minorities and because they’re within their legal right to continue the project? NY’s governor wants to hold talks about a possible compromise and yet, again, the organizers refuse. They not only refuse, mind you, but proudly state on their website that no meeting is planned with the governor, and that the site will not be moved – meaning no compromise. That intolerance toward the sensitivities of the community and beyond show, IMO, the true purpose of this center and, after all these pages and after the organizers inability or unwillingness to compromise, I can't help but to now believe their purpose is not to build bridges but to add to the already wide divide. And, unless they make some concessions, they will have no one to blame - or congratulate - but themselves. Disagreement on the validity of this position seems to me to flow from the same fundamental disagreement about whether this is a freedom of religion issue or not.  To propenents of the project who see this as a freedom of religion issue at it's core all this language of negotiation - 'talks' 'compromise' 'refusal' 'concessions' - is incredibly presumptuous and best rejected on principle.  You have *no standing* for a 'negotiation'.  The group has a right to be there.  Period. They in no way have to enter into 'negotiations' about those rights.  The group has pledged to reach out to families and New Yorkers (many whom already support the project - this can't be brushed aside either) and has expressed understanding about sensitivies repeatedly, and though I know the developers are walking a fine line, in my view people who are demanding some kind of collective bargaining process as a display of reasonables are totally responsible for any failure in communication themselves by giving nothing more than lip service to their rights as fellow Americans. And what about their website statement is 'prideful'?  It's a clarification and a completely dry statement of facts. To me this shows that these people simply can't do anything right in the eyes of some, which isn't meant as a criticism, just a reflection of how hard people are dug in and in fact pretty deaf to the communication they say they want unless the communication is what they want to hear.

magicalfreddiemercury wrote:

OMG. I don't know whether to laugh aloud (which I did) or worry over the impression I've given on this thread.  

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

You've been wonderful on this thread, particulary given the emotions at play and at stake.

>>> GratefulFan wrote: Disagreement on the validity of this position seems to me to flow from the same fundamental disagreement about whether this is a freedom of religion issue or not. <<<
There are a myriad of valid points in your posts and while I agree as I follow your thoughts, I find your thoughts and mine still conflict, as you noted above. And while you mention the organizers have expressed sensitivity often, I haven't seen or felt it. Maybe it is as you say - because I've dug in so deeply that I'm not hearing it. I don't know. I certainly like to think I'm listening to both sides. In fact, I hear you well and wish someone like you could have been the designated spokesperson for this project. Maybe then, the two sides wouldn't be as far apart as they are today.

And speaking of today - the rallies in the city didn't at all reflect my views. I saw a lot of ignorantly-worded signs being held with pride and anger, and that's just what I had hoped would not happen.

>>> GratefulFan wrote: magicalfreddiemercury wrote:

OMG. I don't know whether to laugh aloud (which I did) or worry over the impression I've given on this thread.  

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

You've been wonderful on this thread, particulary given the emotions at play and at stake. <<< 

==

Thank you for saying this. I think I'll take that virtual beer now. :-)