A Mosque at Ground Zero?

imho Either build the Islamic community center, or tear down all the strip clubs and bars in Manhattan.   The Republicans are desperate for traction on any issue, and fanning the flames of prejudice prior to elections is an old trick.

The Taliban recently killed doctors in Pakistan -- now it's under deluge, and millions need a doctor -- a bit more than ironic indeed.  The connection I see between these two statements is that racism, sexism, etc will destroy any community from within, regardless of what buildings (or more to the point, people) you take down--  or build up.

This is one of three men charged with terrorism related offences in Canada over the last 36 hours.  I don't know whether to laugh or cry.  The accent is totally fake - he's born and bred in Montreal.  The whole thing is rather clever and well executed gag. Graduated medical school in 2005 or so and is a practicing pathologist.  How do you go from there, to today?

>>> GratefulFan wrote: This is one of three men charged with terrorism related offences in Canada over the last 36 hours.  I don't know whether to laugh or cry.  The accent is totally fake - he's born and bred in Montreal.  The whole thing is rather clever and well executed gag. Graduated medical school in 2005 or so and is a practicing pathologist.  How do you go from there, to today? <<<

This is truly disturbing because it shows how integrated they can be - or pretend to be. Like Atta - who frequented strip clubs just to appear like 'one of the guys'. Disturbing and intimidating.

>>> 7Innuendo7 wrote: The Taliban recently killed doctors in Pakistan -- now it's under deluge, and millions need a doctor -- a bit more than ironic indeed.  The connection I see between these two statements is that racism, sexism, etc will destroy any community from within, regardless of what buildings (or more to the point, people) you take down--  or build up. <<<
Good points and if this were simply about a mosque in a regular neighborhood, I would agree completely. My issue here, however, is as it's been all along - the opposition to THIS center in THIS spot is supposed to accept it in the name of 'tolerance' yet tolerance is not equally demanded of the organizers. 

I like this piece from NBC news -

Two Views on the Downtown Mosque and Cultural Center
By Gabe Pressman

NBCNewYork.com

The mosque near Ground Zero has stirred controversy around the world. And the contrasting words of two men should have special meaning to New Yorkers.

You have to hand it to Mayor Bloomberg. He is passionate about his defense of the guarantee of religious freedom in this country and, despite an avalanche of criticism of the planned mosque at Ground Zero from people throughout the country and New York, the Mayor sticks to his guns.

His viewpoint is worth examining even as we consider the words of another man who has an emotional stake in what happens. He is Judea Pearl, father of Daniel Pearl, the journalist who was beheaded by Muslim extremists seven years ago. And he wants the mosque moved.

Bloomberg, at a dinner for Muslim leaders at Gracie Mansion this week, spoke fiercely of his devotion to religious liberty. He declared: ..if we say that a mosque and community center should not be built near the perimeter of the World Trade Center site, we would compromise our commitment to fighting terror with freedom.

He said he understood the desire of many people to find a compromise in the controversy, perhaps to build the cultural center and mosque elsewhere. He knew some were hoping for a compromise to end the debate.

But, said Bloomberg, it wont. The question will then become, how big should the no mosque zone around the World Trade Center be?

Its a test, the Mayor said, of our commitment to American values. He added: We must do what is right, not what is easy.
On Thursday, at City Hall, he honored a Muslim cab driver who was slashed a crazed anti-mosque passenger.

Judea Pearl, in an interview with the Jewish Telegraph Agency, recalled that he was touched by a eulogy the mosque projects leader, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf delivered at a memorial service for Daniel Pearl in 2003.

The slain journalists father said he was discouraged, though, that the Muslim leadership had not followed through on what he hoped would come from his sons death. At the time I truly believed Dannys murder would be a turning point in the reaction of the civilized world toward terrorism.

With an edge of bitterness, the father said the Muslim leadership has had had nine years to build up trust by pro-actively resisting anti-American ideologies of victimhood, anger and entitlement.

"Reactions to the mosque project indicate that they were not too successful in this endeavor.

If I were Mayor Bloomberg I would reassert their right to build the mosque, but I would expend the same energy trying to convince them to put it somewhere else, Judea Pearl told the Jewish Telegraph Agency.

The Mayor seems to have softened his attitude toward those who disagree with him on this issue. Now, the question is: can the Mayor, despite his own strong feelings, assume a new leadership role in the controversy? Can he endeavor to bring the parties together in a solution that honors the views of both sides?

One Israeli scholar, Yossi Klein Halevi, suggests an interfaith center that would include a mosque, a church and a synagogue as well as a common space for people of all faiths and none.

I spoke to Judea Pearl about this. He endorsed the idea wholeheartedly. "It's something Mayor Bloomberg should endorse, putting this multi-religious building under community control. By doing that, you obtain transparency."

As for the mosque and cultural center, Pearl said "Today we have a very enlightened imam, but tomorrow you don't what imam will be in charge."

Leadership doesnt consist solely of being passionate about what you believe in. It also involves understanding the feelings of all those you lead and trying to bring people together.

==

Let's be honest:

We're all writing and forming opinions so much about the Park51 Muslim cultural center planned downtown because of two things:  Fox (FAUX) News (?) (Noise) and other factually incorrect media sources and hatemongers

Fox News has gone to such an extreme to stir up controversy that they're deliberately ignoring a glaring hypocrisy. That is, the potential 'holy ground, Ground Zero' mosque financial backer that they accuse of having dangerous Middle East ties is also the second largest shareholder in Fox's parent company, News Corp.

Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal owns about $2.3 billion in stock with News Corp. and is an ally of Rupert Murdoch. Fox commentators would have you believe that you should be worried about him funding Park51 because he is dangerous.

You won't hear a contradiction or retraction regarding their beliefs or the above information.

(This 'news' network recently won a court hearing in Florida that, despite blatent innacurracies in a story, they were protected by the First Amendment and free speech.  I can claim that Michelle Bachman and Sarah Palin were in a daisy chain, and Newt and BillO and Glenn and Sean jerked off to it while Keith Olbermann provided commentary........and, well,
...........I have a First Amendment right to say this.     oy......frickin.........vey)

So, what has happened in recent days.  A Mormon holds a rally that the USA was founded on Christian beliefs, and is 'returning to God'.  Constantly berates the building of any mosque.  In the days that follow, arsonists in Tennessee destroy equipment of a mosque being built, put up hate signs, while hate signs go up in California, along with bullet holes in Islamic buildings.

Coincidence?

Oh, and 24% of US idiots think our president is a Muslim.  Thanks for the 'facts'.  btw, if he was, so what?  At least he was born in the USA (unlike McCain, who was born in what is now no longer a US territory).

A brief snippet of our 44th president's biography:
A native of Honolulu, Hawaii, Obama is a graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School, where he was the president of the Harvard Law Review. He was a community organizer in Chicago before earning his law degree. He worked as a civil rights attorney in Chicago and taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School from 1992 to 2004.

Compare that to a reformed alcoholic, born again Christian, I'll listen to my 'FATHER' (not my father), got into Yale due to legacy and not merit (then will fight affirmative action college admittance regs), go bankrupt, fail as a baseball owner and ignore juicing of players, be fairly decent as a governor, take a budget surplus and go in the hole, take us into a war under false pretences..............but.............damnit............he was white.

Morons.

Sadly..........FAKES and all the hubbubbers had US going for a while on moving this community center.  Now, we're looking forward to seeing it in a couple of months, and going inside when it's completed (unless some 'patriotic' idiot destroys it first..........right, Tim McViegh?)

(parts of this comment borrowed from AP)

later edit:  just received the recent 'Newsweek'.  The cover:  The Making of A:  Terrorist-Coddling, Warmongering, Wall Street Loving, Socialistic, Godless, Muslim President* (*who isn't actually any of these things)

Sadly.........some of the dumber f*cks will see the big print and say, 'told ya, Martha'.

Nope, we don't get Fox News in the UK and I don;t watch Sky, which is another Murdoch channel. We do get The Daily Show though ...

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/greg-gutfield-to-open-a-gay-bar-next-to-ground-zero-mosque-to-cater-to-islamic-gay-men

[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Greg Gutfeld To Open A Gay Bar Next To Ground Zero Mosque To Cater To “Islamic Gay Men” [/QUOTENAME] No, this is not a joke. In fact, it is instead one of the most brilliant pieces of provocations in recent years. Greg Gutfeld from Fox News’ Red Eye announced today via his blog  that he is actively speaking to investors and plans on opening a gay bar next to the controversial mosque being built near Ground Zero in New York. To make matters worse (better?) the bar will be specifically designed to cater to homosexuals of the Islamic faith. God, this is going to be an exciting block. Here’s Gutfeld’s entire post which he will expand upon during tonight’s Red Eye:    “So, the Muslim investors championing the construction of the new mosque near Ground Zero claim it’s all about strengthening the relationship between the Muslim and non-Muslim world.     As an American, I believe they have every right to build the mosque – after all, if they buy the land and they follow the law – who can stop them?     Which is, why, in the spirit of outreach, I’ve decided to do the same thing.     I’m announcing tonight, that I am planning to build and open the first gay bar that caters not only to the west, but also Islamic gay men. To best express my sincere desire for dialogue, the bar will be situated next to the mosque Park51, in an available commercial space.     This is not a joke. I’ve already spoken to a number of investors, who have pledged their support in this bipartisan bid for understanding and tolerance.     As you know, the Muslim faith doesn’t look kindly upon homosexuality, which is why I’m building this bar. It is an effort to break down barriers and reduce deadly homophobia in the Islamic world.     The goal, however, is not simply to open a typical gay bar, but one friendly to men of Islamic faith. An entire floor, for example, will feature non-alcoholic drinks, since booze is forbidden by the faith. The bar will be open all day and night, to accommodate men who would rather keep their sexuality under wraps – but still want to dance.     Bottom line: I hope that the mosque owners will be as open to the bar, as I am to the new mosque. After all, the belief driving them to open up their center near Ground Zero, is no different than mine.     My place, however, will have better music.” Hot Air contacted Andy Levy who reiterated that Gutfeld is serious. And, on his blog, Gutfeld points to the lack of humor in the post as further proof of his intentions (although, I think he’s under estimating himself. That last line about the music is hilarious). I, personally, think it’s a brilliant idea. I absolutely abhor all of this anti-mosque nonsense currently going on in this country. It’s disgusting bigotry plain and simple. However, just because I support Muslim Americans in their fight against anti-Islam prejudice, doesn’t mean they shouldn’t get a few dings for their religion’s own prejudice against homosexuals. If you want to be treated fairly, you should treat others fairly as well. Still though, the only thing that would make this plan perfect would be if Gutfeld created a chain of gay bars and plopped them down next to churches and synagogues since it’s not like those religions have been super open-minded. Insomniacs around the country already know that Red Eye is underrated genius. If Gutfeld goes through with his plan, hopefully it will be enough to finally thrust them into the satirical limelight with Stewart and Colbert like they deserve. UPDATE: Gutfeld outlined his plans on Red Eye last night. Check out the segment here.  [/QUOTE]

Old-ish news, this "most brilliant piece of provocation in recent years"

'Brilliant provocation'.  That's a couple of words you don't hear together too often. Shows where this debate has gone in some quarters. Though I suppose some opponents see the location of the centre as a provocation in and of itself, so I guess the language is appropriate for that argument .

Still, I sometimes feel like there's a whole lot of people who need to be saved from themselves on this issue.  I realize how obnoxious that might sound, because it feels a bit obnoxious. But the whole thing has gotten surreal.

*goodco* wrote: Let's be honest:

We're all writing and forming opinions so much about the Park51 Muslim cultural center planned downtown because of two things:  Fox (FAUX) News (?) (Noise) and other factually incorrect media sources and hatemongers

Fox News has gone to such an extreme to stir up controversy that they're deliberately ignoring a glaring hypocrisy. That is, the potential 'holy ground, Ground Zero' mosque financial backer that they accuse of having dangerous Middle East ties is also the second largest shareholder in Fox's parent company, News Corp.

Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal owns about $2.3 billion in stock with News Corp. and is an ally of Rupert Murdoch. Fox commentators would have you believe that you should be worried about him funding Park51 because he is dangerous.
=====================================

It's been a perfect storm of a hot button issue, an election year and rabid far right element that turned the thing about as ugly as it can get. It's the two latter things that turned it from a resolvable local community issue into an international fist fight.  Media gets an assist, though I see it as far more of a far right blogosphere issue and politicians jockeying for position thing than a Fox News problem.  It didn't help either that the face of the project was out of the country during the escalation of tensions and the rapid plummet in the tone of the discourse.

I've heard the money issue termed as 'Saudi money is halal for corporate America and haram for mosques', which is kind of funny, if anything about this can be termed funny.

You mentioned visiting the centre in a couple of years.  I think it's far, far from a done deal.  In fact, if I was a betting person I would think the odds were firmly on the 'not going to happen' side at this point.  I don't know how they possibly get from here to the kind of stability and certainty you need to raise a hundred million dollars.  We'll see what the Imam can do on his return.  If it were me, I'd halt everything.  Then I'd make a public statement that I was committed to the location, that that was not going to change, but that no further advancement in plans was going to happen for x number of weeks while dialogue was initiated to share concerns and ease tensions.  The way I see it they have to continue the good fight for that location as I can't see any alternative as anything other than some shade of disasterous at this point.

GratefulFan wrote: "Old-ish news, this "most brilliant piece of provocation in recent years""


"'Brilliant provocation'. That's a couple of words you don't hear together too often. Shows where this debate has gone in some quarters. Though I suppose some opponents see the location of the centre as a provocation in and of itself, so I guess the language is appropriate for that argument .

Still, I sometimes feel like there's a whole lot of people who need to be saved from themselves on this issue. I realize how obnoxious that might sound, because it feels a bit obnoxious. But the whole thing has gotten surreal."
=====================================

I completely agree with you. I've stayed away from this thread as the last discussions I was involved in got toxic, but I've been following it and I really admire and completely agree with your posts.

I've also become much firmer in my view that if someone wants to build an Islamic centre on land that they own, they absolutely should have the right to do so, and it is their opponents, not them, who need to be sensitive.

When you say that 'I sometimes feel like there's a whole lot of people who need to be saved from themselves on this issue', I think that's an understatement. The level to which this has descended is both extraordinary, and in many cases horrifying.

The idea of having a gay club next to the Islamic centre, in a neighbourhood which already has strip clubs anyway, is bizarre. The motivation for it, in regards to the 'brilliant provocation', is disturbing.

GratefulFan wrote:


*goodco* wrote: Let's be honest:

"We're all writing and forming opinions so much about the Park51 Muslim cultural center planned downtown because of two things: Fox (FAUX) News (?) (Noise) and other factually incorrect media sources and hatemongers

Fox News has gone to such an extreme to stir up controversy that they're deliberately ignoring a glaring hypocrisy. That is, the potential 'holy ground, Ground Zero' mosque financial backer that they accuse of having dangerous Middle East ties is also the second largest shareholder in Fox's parent company, News Corp.

Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal owns about $2.3 billion in stock with News Corp. and is an ally of Rupert Murdoch. Fox commentators would have you believe that you should be worried about him funding Park51 because he is dangerous."
=====================================

"It's been a perfect storm of a hot button issue, an election year and rabid far right element that turned the thing about as ugly as it can get. It's the two latter things that turned it from a resolvable local community issue into an international fist fight. Media gets an assist, though I see it as far more of a far right blogosphere issue and politicians jockeying for position thing than a Fox News problem. It didn't help either that the face of the project was out of the country during the escalation of tensions and the rapid plummet in the tone of the discourse.

I've heard the money issue termed as 'Saudi money is halal for corporate America and haram for mosques', which is kind of funny, if anything about this can be termed funny.

You mentioned visiting the centre in a couple of years. I think it's far, far from a done deal. In fact, if I was a betting person I would think the odds were firmly on the 'not going to happen' side at this point. I don't know how they possibly get from here to the kind of stability and certainty you need to raise a hundred million dollars. We'll see what the Imam can do on his return. If it were me, I'd halt everything. Then I'd make a public statement that I was committed to the location, that that was not going to change, but that no further advancement in plans was going to happen for x number of weeks while dialogue was initiated to share concerns and ease tensions. The way I see it they have to continue the good fight for that location as I can't see any alternative as anything other than some shade of disasterous at this point."
=====================================

goodco and GratefulFan, I love your posts! :D

GratefulFan, you are absolutely right that this is about the far right in general. The most disturbing thing about the whole 'Obama is Muslim' thing, for example, isn't IMO that people don't know his actual religion but that being Muslim has become connected to being un/anti-American. But putting that aside and focusing on this issue; the far right, including people like Gingrich and Palin, have been truly horrible.

The 'Saudi money is halal for corporate America and haram for mosques' quote is brilliant, as it ecapsulates the hypocricy of the far right; Obama was accused of bowing to the king of Saudi Arabia, which is bad, however Bush has financial ties with the Saudi royal family, and that's okay?

I fully agree with you conclusion. I really hope it works out for the best, and that I can visit this centre in the near future.

godco, your recent post said it all. Bravo! :D

BTW, did you watch Jon Stewart's take on the Faux 'News' hypocricy? It was really superb and spot on. I hate those people.

>>> GratefulFan wrote: We'll see what the Imam can do on his return.  If it were me, I'd halt everything.  Then I'd make a public statement that I was committed to the location, that that was not going to change, but that no further advancement in plans was going to happen for x number of weeks while dialogue was initiated to share concerns and ease tensions.  The way I see it they have to continue the good fight for that location as I can't see any alternative as anything other than some shade of disasterous at this point. <<<
.

I could be wrong, but I think a suggestion of dialogue at this point is too little, too late.

A commentary I read about the protests held last week, made a lot of sense to me. The author spoke about how this center has now become the focus of all the frustrations in the country, and how we've been so divided these past years, that, in a way, the project has become a "cause" against which Americans can unite. Clearly, Americans are NOT united on this but I thought the concept was interesting.

He went on to say the following... the last part of which, I think, is what could help close the divide that the 'good fight for that location' has caused...

==
"...the vast majority of the signs I saw were sobering: "It's Not About Freedom of Religion, its about Respect for the (3000) Dead;" "The mosque is salt in the wound of 9/11;" "It's my first amendment right to protest this travesty...just because you have the right doesn't mean you should." These are not signs of so-called "Islamophobia," let alone hatred of all Muslims, as the wife of the Imam, Daisy Kahn, sweepingly asserted this week. They are instead common sense and easily anticipated concerns in a community that lost so many lives to Islamist (not Islamic) terrorism less than a decade ago. If the goal of the center is really to promote healing, the reaction so far is evidence of failure. A genuinely inter-faith center on that site would better accomplish those aims. "
==

Personally, I don't see how moving the site would be disastrous. If anything, I think it would show a willingness to accomplish the supposed goals of improving relations. And, in my opinion, the responsibility to show sensitivity automatically lies with the developers, not the opposition, since it was the developers who instigated this project while acknowledging the rift between sides as the reason for doing so.

Religion: the biggest cause of war in history. Nothing nasty or idiotic about that comment really. Build the mosque and see what the Americans do next.

I don't think that the developers need to show sensitivity. I think it's the opponents who need to do so.


William Saletan, in an essay in Slade said it best: (I took this quote from another site, but the link for the essay is http://www.slate.com/id/2264754/.)

'Feelings about 9/11 are raw and real. Many people, including families who lost loved ones that day, find the prospect of a mosque near Ground Zero upsetting. I've heard this reaction in my family, too. But feelings aren't reasons. You can't tell somebody not to build a house of worship somewhere just because the idea upsets you. You have to figure out why you're upset. What's the basis of your discomfort? Why should others respect it? For that matter, why should you? [...]

It's natural to be angry at Muslims for 9/11. In fact, it's natural to want to kill them. We've hated and killed each other for centuries. You kill us; we kill you. The "you" is collective. You aren't exactly the infidel who slew my grandfather. But you're close enough. [...]

But if our revulsion at the idea of a mosque near Ground Zero is irrational--if it's based on group blame and a failure to distinguish Islam from terrorism--then maybe it isn't the mosque's planners who need to rise above their emotions. Maybe it's the rest of us.

Once we recognize the sensitivity argument for what it is--an appeal to feelings we can't morally justify--there's no good reason why the Islamic center shouldn't be built at its planned site, in the neighborhood where its imam already preaches and its members work and congregate. Asking them to reorder their lives to accommodate our instinctive reaction is wrong. We can transcend that reaction, and we should.

By all means, let's have a thoughtful conversation about Islam and its place in the United States. Let's ask the imam what he means when he says sharia is compatible with the U.S. Constitution. Let's confront the reluctance of Muslim clerics, including this one, to denounce Hamas. And let's demand transparency in the fundraising process so extremists don't finance the new building. Moving the building farther away from Ground Zero won't advance any of these discussions. It's the wrong fight. Let it go.'

Politics is also about making concessions in order to better acommodate differences of interest and worldview. Today, in the New York Times, we read:

"Two-thirds of New York City residents want a planned Muslim community center and mosque to be relocated to a less controversial site farther away from ground zero in Lower Manhattan, including many who say they favor the project, according to a New York Times poll[...].Over all, 50 percent of those surveyed oppose the project’s construction two blocks north of the World Trade Center site, even though a majority believe that the developers have the right to do so. Thirty-five percent favor it.Opposition is most intense in the city’s outer boroughs — 54 percent in the Bronx — but it is even strong in Manhattan, considered a bastion of religious tolerance, where 41 percent are against it. "   

I think the New Yorkers' demand is fair. Really fair. And maybe it's time for the muslim community and other intellectuals and business men who have financial and political interest in building the mosque to make concessions: no one's saying "don't build it"; people are not saying: "you're not entitled to". People are demanding whether it could be built elsewhere - well, I guess it's a fair demand which could be very well met.  

Being entitled to something doesn't mean that you HAVE TO DO IT. Sometimes it's not prudent nor desirable to exercise a certain right, and people can always try to exercise it in a more responsible, peaceful and less contentious way.  

After all, the muslim community has to think about international responsibility as well: how many Muslim theocracies are willing to let churches to be built next to their most sacred sites? Even so, the U.S, albeit all its wrongdoing, is enough of a democracy to be willing to accept this community instead of going after each and every Muslim, as it'd have happened in a good deal of countries.

If one can build it elsewhere, do it: people outside the islamic community will respect this mosque even more for the willingness of its supporters to avoid upsetting and offending the rest of the population. 

New Yorkers know these people are not to blame for 9/11. They know they have the right to build the mosque wherever they want. They just ask themselves why, for the sake of the memory of the victims, the building cannot be erected elsewhere to better accommodate the wishes of all people involved in this.