A Mosque at Ground Zero?

YourValentine wrote: @GratefulFan I agree that the Imam is in an uncomfortable position and I did not imply that he was threatening the country. However, as an American Muslim he should not consider how Muslims elsewhere feel about the issue. It's grotesque that an American Muslim tells a TV interviewer that somewhere else people might feel that "Islam is under attack" . When he mentioned national security the interviewer even did not seem to get the point. How can a religion feel insulted when free citizens discuss the location of a cultural center? How can a religion feel insulted at all? And even if there are "radicals" in Pakistan or Indonesia or wherever who are offended - why would US citizens have to take it into account? They do nothing wrong - they execute their right to voice their opinion in public and if some "radicals" have a problem with that - well, tough luck. Nobody in their right minds can accept that dropping a specific location before the center is even built can insult anyone except for raving maniacs. If the imam says he does not consider to drop the location because it's his right under the constitution and he thinks that the 9/11 victim families are overreacting, he is perfectly entitled to do that. He should not insist that it's a matter of bridge building, though,  when it's obviously not. It's his bad luck that the targets of his bridge building happen to not like the idea. Continuing to insist on this rhetoric only enrages the opponents who feel patronized. I think we all agree that this pastor in Florida is a nutcase who only wants to add fuel to the fire. I wonder if he knows that he stands in the tradition of the Nazis and Ku-Klux-Klan. If the Muslim leaders would speak out against flag burning, hate killings, death threats etc in the same way as the complete American public and political leadership spoke out against the Quran burning we probably would not even have a discussion like this. ================================ Though I certainly wouldn't cast it as anything like 'grotesque', I did come across some thoughts that were similar to yours on the casting of the issue outside the US... http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/akbar_ahmed/2010/09/national_security_does_not_hingeon_mosque.html I agree with you I think about the rhetoric of bridge building being somewhat excessive and unhelpful at this point, but I think it's so on both sides.  It's neither the reason the centre should go up, nor the reason it shouldn't.  At the heart of it, the building is meant to be a place of bricks and mortar that serves a concrete community need for recreation, faith, fellowship and the arts in what has become an economically depressed area of NYC.  The people who understand this project better than most  - the community board who passed it - knew this.   Polling in the borough in which it sits has consistently supported the project in greater numbers than have opposed it. The Bronx is now also at about 50% support in the latest Marist poll.  But the farther away from Park Place you get the more it becomes an increasingly vague symbol of everything and nothing.  Literally, in concentric circles emanating out from the heart of New York, the poll numbers drop, and drop and drop from about 43% in opposition (the rest in support or undecided)  to that 71% of Americans, most of whom would never set foot in the centre, and likely never set foot in NYC either, in opposition.   The farther away you get, the more people are arguing over vapour summoned up from a lot more than just the ghosts of 9/11. I do think you unfairly diminish the Imam's position.  He has never dismissed the feelings of 9/11 victims or implied they were overreacting.   In fact it is the proponent's side in general who have far more often and far more consistently seen this as a complex issue with multiple competing principles.  In fact, in all the weeks I've been following this I don't think I've heard anybody, anywhere get past "it's offensive" and into why they felt that needed to matter in a practical way until Holly's points today.  William Saleten in Slate said "Palin, Gingrich, and their chorus of right-wing commentators have had four months to explain, without resort to group blame or religious discrimination, why no Muslim house of worship should be built near Ground Zero. They have yet to answer the question. That's why they keep talking about "sensitivity" and "provocation"—words that cloak the intellectual crudity behind the sentiment."  Feisal on the other hand has touched consistently on many aspects, and many times that has included the feelings of the victim's families.  Of course those feelings feelings matter.  They matter a lot.  Every one of them, and some of them are wildly irrational.  The question is in a country where freedom is almost everything whether those feelings are appropriately ministered through what is essentially religious persecution that is specifically proscribed by the First Amendment. Certainly one should think no less of him for suggesting that they perhaps are not?  That the goals and hopes of everyone may be better served by some other means?

magicalfreddiemercury wrote: >>>> GratefulFan wrote: magicalfreddiemercury wrote: The pastor has the legal right to carry out his project but that does not mean he is right to do so.

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

...People say it like they've just said something profound and binding when they've literally said absolutely nothing at all.<<<<

.
On the contrary, it's saying a lot. It is saying, in this case, that this pastor has the same rights and privileges as everyone else, including the organizers of this community center and that along with those rights come the responsibility to do the right thing. It is in no way restricting the rights of them to do so, is not unreasonable, disingenuous or unintended. It's about looking at the effects  their actions will have on others. And I posted it here specifically to show just how similar the two situations are, despite some who say they have nothing to do with each other, or that those opposed to the center are islamophobic. Many against the center, myself included, are also against the burning of the quran.
==============================================

Fortunately we have our samosas and magical cats, because we're not going to get this one either. :)   First amendment (or their equivalent) rights just are.  I don't think of them in terms of responsibilities really, but freedoms.  Having freedom to act means also having freedom not to act. It means the freedom to make an ass out of yourself and be an idiot, and be judged an idiot, if you so choose. 'Responsibilities' seems to me to imply some outside standard or arbiter of taste. Enforced by who?  The rest of us?  We humans are too fallible for that, too vulnerable to squirrelly behaviour, especially in groups.  You would prevent the free speech of the Florida pastor on principle using your body as a shield, where I would not.  I think about it like I think about my relative liberalism compared to the relative conservatism of someone else.  It's all about what side you want to err on, because nothing is going to be perfect. Society makes mistakes.  So you have to decide what kind of mistakes you're willing to live with.  And I'll take that fruitbat burning the Qurans every time over even the tiniest step toward what I view as some of the more grave mistakes of the past.

Donna13 wrote: Well, let's say that this pastor did burn Beatles records when John Lennon said that the Beatles were more popular than Jesus.  What if he had?  Would the Beatles fans then have declared that they should kill all non-Beatles fans because of this protest?  I don't think so.  I think the fact that an American cannot burn any book if they feel like it for fear of antagonizing somebody into murdering others is proof that we really have bent over backwards too much.  Why should we as Americans give up our freedom of speech?  Will the next step be to tell the people writing opinion columns that they cannot say anything negative about religion at any time?  Will the government ask newspapers to stop printing anything that might be taken as offensive to any religion?

There is nothing wrong with denouncing somebody's religion or aspects of their religion.  It is when the denouncing moves on to violence and trying to prevent a person from practicing that religion that it has gone too far.  But there is nothing wrong with saying you don't like the Islamic religion and there is nothing wrong in burning a book of any sort.  It is a standard form of protest around the world to burn things.  Ha.  Usually it looks pretty silly, and barbaric, but it is a form of expression.  People are burning American flags all the time.  When I worked in DC, there was some sort of protest every week.

People who say they do not like the Catholic church do not have death threats put upon them.  A person could go out and burn Bibles and it wouldn't even make the news.

So, I say, let any American or any non-American protest if they want to.  They can't legally stop Muslims or any other faith from being in this country or practicing their faith or trying to change American laws, but they can protest all they want.  It is their right. 

Unless a constitutional amendment changes freedom of speech, the government officials should not be trying to use their influence in this way.  If General Patraeus is so worried about this sort of thing, maybe they should pull the troops out of there.

So, bottom line of what I think is:  let the pastor burn the books; let this group build their community center anywhere they have the legal right to do so.  Government officials and political candidates should stay out of it.
=========================

I enjoyed a lot of this post...thanks for it.

Amazon = Growly freedom fighter tigress!

Holly2003 wrote:

I strongly disagree this has anything to do with freedom of religion: do you deny that if this was not close to the 9-11 site there would likely have been no dispute?
===========================================

And if somebody had been trying to build a YMCA with a Christian prayer space in the same spot, would there likely have been no dispute? If they're not free to practice there, specifically and only because of their faith, then they're not free. It's not about just getting to have some mosque somewhere that suits people.  That would be an absurd and unacceptably slippery way to structure a law, let alone a fundamental and defining right.  It's about practice without fear and without restriction on your own private property wherever that property may be, in accordance with local laws and with the full freedoms and protections that everybody else has.

GratefulFan wrote: Holly2003 wrote:

I strongly disagree this has anything to do with freedom of religion: do you deny that if this was not close to the 9-11 site there would likely have been no dispute?
===========================================

And if somebody had been trying to build a YMCA with a Christian prayer space in the same spot, would there likely have been no dispute? If they're not free to practice there, specifically and only because of their faith, then they're not free. It's not about just getting to have some mosque somewhere that suits people.  That would be an absurd and unacceptably slippery way to structure a law, let alone a fundamental and defining right.  It's about practice without fear and without restriction on your own private property wherever that property may be, in accordance with local laws and with the full freedoms and protections that everybody else has. ====================================================================================

I fully accept that if this was a christian centre there would be no problem. Then again, 9-11 happened in the name of Islam  not christianity, and that's why people make the connection. Do you deny that if this center was built at some other spot well away from ground zero there probably would've been no dispute?

>>> GratefulFan wrote: Fortunately we have our samosas and magical cats<<< . lol. True. ;-) . . >>> First amendment (or their equivalent) rights just are.  I don't think of them in terms of responsibilities really, but freedoms.  Having freedom to act means also having freedom not to act. It means the freedom to make an ass out of yourself and be an idiot, and be judged an idiot, if you so choose.<<< . Along with every right/freedom comes a responsibility. Cause and effect. We have the right to drink, and the responsibility to avoid driving if we've had too much. We have the right to cook whatever meal we like in our own home, and the responsibility to keep our kids away from the hot pans. The world is bigger than each of us and while, yes, the pastor has the right to burn whatever he wants to burn, I have the right to try, peacefully, to stop him. Each of us would then be responsible for whatever follows - peace or melee. . . >>>And I'll take that fruitbat burning the Qurans every time over even the tiniest step toward what I view as some of the more grave mistakes of the past. <<< . What of the result of his actions? Despite their value to some, he would only be destroying objects, not people. We are at war with extremist from the religion he is (irresponsibly) insulting. A religion whose followers have turned to violence against people, not just objects, for far less. Would he not bear any responsibility if they did the same because of his actions? . When we see what we perceive as an injustice, it is not only our right but our responsibility to, peacefully, speak out against it.

Holly2003 wrote: "I didn;t say or infer 'it's all the muslims fault' -- I noticed you misinterpreting or (less charitably) misrepresenting the views of others like this, please don't do it to me."


I don't misrepresent anybody's views, and if I misinterpret them, it's up to the poster to correct me (and they don't need you to rush to their defence). I also wouldn't get on a high horse about this since you accused me of saying that the feelings should be ignored. I never said that. I said they 'could' be ignored, not 'should'. There is a difference. So if you don't want me to misrepresent your views, don't do it to me.

"Ivory tower discussions about freedom of religion don;t change the real-life facts on the ground. The center-builders are forcing their views on others,regardless if they are doing it legally."

If you are going to talk about 'real-life facts on the ground' at least get your facts straight. There was a planning process and a community consultation, in which people had the opportunity to present opposing views. The organisers won the right to buld this centre. They are not 'forcing' anything on anyone; they are simply exercising their rights.

Tell me, if the organisers decide not to go ahead, wouldn't that be an example of the opponents 'forcing' their views onto the organisers? Or is only the organisers who are 'forcing' their views?

"They are ignoiring the views of many New Yorkers and many Americans."

Many New Yorkers and many Americans are also for it. Don't pretend that everybody are against it. Irrespective, considering that quite a few Americans don't want any mosques or Islamic centres to be build anywhere in the US, sometimes it is not a bad thing to ignore views.

"If you and they want to go down that road, you shoudl be prepared to face the consequences of that in due course."

It's not really up to me whether they go down that road or not; I'm a supporter, nothing more.

Anyway the conseqeunces are? You denied that you said it's all the Muslims' fault, but when you talk about 'ignore that at your peril' and 'you shoudl be prepared to face the consequences of that in due course', what are you implying?

"As I said, cause and effect: emotions are running high and if it takes 20 or 50 years then that's better than the violence and hostily that could ensue if this center is built."

There is violence and hostility already, and the organisers should not have to wait 20 or 50 years. The people who commit the violence should be arrested, and those responsible for the hostility should stop.

"As for the freedom of religion angle, there have indeed been other incidents of anti-muslim feeling in the US -- hardly unexpected of course, but totally unacceptable. You've yet to make a case that these are connected to this particular site."

So it's a coincidence is it? I don't need to make a case that these are connected, it should be obvious. But if you want to talk about this centre specifically, people have talked about how building it is a 'victory for the terrorists' and have referred to it as a 'victory mosque.' You have the disgusting contributions of people like Limbaugh and Palin. There is much Islamophobia which has been connected to this issue. There has also been attempts to compare it to Nazies building near concentration camps, which is incredibly offensive not just to Muslims but Jews as well.

"Just because Fox News and other right wing crackpots have joined in the debate doesn't mean that there aren't valid reasons for complaint."

Then provide one. The problem is that I don't think that one has been provided yet (and yes, I'm only speaking for myself). Saying that there are still strong feelings about 9/11 is not a valid reason.

"And you're ignoring the huge elephant in the room, the 9-11 site which is a stone's throw away from the proposed center."

Oh please. It's not a stone's throw away. It's not that near.

GF's latest response said it best IMO: 'And if somebody had been trying to build a YMCA with a Christian prayer space in the same spot, would there likely have been no dispute? If they're not free to practice there, specifically and only because of their faith, then they're not free. It's not about just getting to have some mosque somewhere that suits people. That would be an absurd and unacceptably slippery way to structure a law, let alone a fundamental and defining right. It's about practice without fear and without restriction on your own private property wherever that property may be, in accordance with local laws and with the full freedoms and protections that everybody else has.'

" You can't see the wood for the trees."

So now you're resorting to insults because you have no other arguments. Very mature. Anyway I can say the same about you.

GratefulFan wrote: "Amazon = Growly freedom fighter tigress!"


Yes, that's me! :D :D :D It's funny, I've been called that (or similar) before and I certainly admit that I do get passionate about the things I believe in.


BTW, I love your latest reponse to Holly. I even quoted it in my latest response to him.

@ Amazon - the reason why I did not correct you when I felt misinterpreted is that I do not enjoy being called bigoted or ignorant when I happen to disagree with you, therefore I chose to ignore your posts and I will continue to to that.

@GrateFulFan - I did not intend to diminish the imam's position towards the victim's families - it has been a grammatical error, sorry. I should have said: If the Imam chose to ignore their oppostion he would have every right to do that.  I think that he has two options:  to ignore the opposition and carry on to build his center as planned and drop the bridge building rhetoric or to drop the location and build his center somewhere else. I think Holly hits the nail on the head with his posts - if the Cordoba Initiative insists on this project, bridge building is probably the last thing that will happen.  The professor whose blog you linked to seems to say the same : there is no gain in fuelling the bad feelings -  find us a way out.

Certainly freedom of religion is not in danger and there is certainly no persecution going on. As to the freedom of religion: the Cordoba Initiative has all permissions from the authorities and can build the center. If people should try to block them, the police will certainly protect them as the law provides. As to persecution - persecution is what Christians in Iraq have suffered since the Saddam Hussein regime ended: being killed because of their faith, fearing for their lives, getting no jobs, being expelled from their homes and driven out of the country. Persecution means that your religion makes you an outcast with no protection by the government. In NYC we only speak about opposition against a specific building. Freedom of religion is only one aspect of this discussion as Holly correctly pointed out. Freedom of religion should not be used as the hammer that kills all possible discussion.

YourValentine wrote: "@ Amazon - the reason why I did not correct you when I felt misinterpreted is that I do not enjoy being called bigoted or ignorant when I happen to disagree with you, therefore I chose to ignore your posts and I will continue to to that."


That's your choice. However I should note, for the record, that I don't enjoy being misrepresented by you and told, among other things, that I rationalize hate killings and terrorism. You may feel that I misrepresented you but rest assured I feel the exact same way about you.

Amazon wrote: Holly2003 wrote: "I didn;t say or infer 'it's all the muslims fault' -- I noticed you misinterpreting or (less charitably) misrepresenting the views of others like this, please don't do it to me."

I don't misrepresent anybody's views, and if I misinterpret them, it's up to the poster to correct me (and they don't need you to rush to their defence). I also wouldn't get on a high horse about this since you accused me of saying that the feelings should be ignored. I never said that. I said they 'could' be ignored, not 'should'. There is a difference. So if you don't want me to misrepresent your views, don't do it to me.

"Ivory tower discussions about freedom of religion don;t change the real-life facts on the ground. The center-builders are forcing their views on others,regardless if they are doing it legally."

If you are going to talk about 'real-life facts on the ground' at least get your facts straight. There was a planning process and a community consultation, in which people had the opportunity to present opposing views. The organisers won the right to buld this centre. They are not 'forcing' anything on anyone; they are simply exercising their rights.

Tell me, if the organisers decide not to go ahead, wouldn't that be an example of the opponents 'forcing' their views onto the organisers? Or is only the organisers who are 'forcing' their views?

"They are ignoiring the views of many New Yorkers and many Americans."

Many New Yorkers and many Americans are also for it. Don't pretend that everybody are against it. Irrespective, considering that quite a few Americans don't want any mosques or Islamic centres to be build anywhere in the US, sometimes it is not a bad thing to ignore views.

"If you and they want to go down that road, you shoudl be prepared to face the consequences of that in due course."

It's not really up to me whether they go down that road or not; I'm a supporter, nothing more.

Anyway the conseqeunces are? You denied that you said it's all the Muslims' fault, but when you talk about 'ignore that at your peril' and 'you shoudl be prepared to face the consequences of that in due course', what are you implying?

"As I said, cause and effect: emotions are running high and if it takes 20 or 50 years then that's better than the violence and hostily that could ensue if this center is built."

There is violence and hostility already, and the organisers should not have to wait 20 or 50 years. The people who commit the violence should be arrested, and those responsible for the hostility should stop.

"As for the freedom of religion angle, there have indeed been other incidents of anti-muslim feeling in the US -- hardly unexpected of course, but totally unacceptable. You've yet to make a case that these are connected to this particular site."

So it's a coincidence is it? I don't need to make a case that these are connected, it should be obvious. But if you want to talk about this centre specifically, people have talked about how building it is a 'victory for the terrorists' and have referred to it as a 'victory mosque.' You have the disgusting contributions of people like Limbaugh and Palin. There is much Islamophobia which has been connected to this issue. There has also been attempts to compare it to Nazies building near concentration camps, which is incredibly offensive not just to Muslims but Jews as well.

"Just because Fox News and other right wing crackpots have joined in the debate doesn't mean that there aren't valid reasons for complaint."

Then provide one. The problem is that I don't think that one has been provided yet (and yes, I'm only speaking for myself). Saying that there are still strong feelings about 9/11 is not a valid reason.

"And you're ignoring the huge elephant in the room, the 9-11 site which is a stone's throw away from the proposed center."

Oh please. It's not a stone's throw away. It's not that near.

GF's latest response said it best IMO: 'And if somebody had been trying to build a YMCA with a Christian prayer space in the same spot, would there likely have been no dispute? If they're not free to practice there, specifically and only because of their faith, then they're not free. It's not about just getting to have some mosque somewhere that suits people. That would be an absurd and unacceptably slippery way to structure a law, let alone a fundamental and defining right. It's about practice without fear and without restriction on your own private property wherever that property may be, in accordance with local laws and with the full freedoms and protections that everybody else has.'

" You can't see the wood for the trees."

So now you're resorting to insults because you have no other arguments. Very mature. Anyway I can say the same about you.

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

I've said my piece. I don't intend to respond or defend myself against your misrepresentations and distortions of my p.o.v.

ps stone's throw:

http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d63b46ef1869.jpg

Holly2003 wrote:

I've said my piece. I don't intend to respond or defend myself against your misrepresentations and distortions of my p.o.v."

Oh please, I haven't misrepresented or distorted your p.o.v. I can only go by what you write, and making comments like 'I don't intend to respond or defend myself against your misrepresentations and distortions of my p.o.v.' doesn't mean anything. If you think I misrepresented what you said, explain why, otherwise I can only assume that the real reason you're leaving the discussion (just like you resorted to insults) is that you have no arguments.

BTW I note that you haven't responded to my observation that you misrepresented my p.o.v. which tells me everything I need to know about you.

"ps stone's throw:

http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d63b46ef1869.jpg"

That is not a stone's throw away at all!

Amazon wrote:

http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d63b46ef1869.jpg" "

That is not a stone's throw away at all!
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

You've obviously never met anyone from Northern ireland ;)

>>> Holly2003 wrote: And you're ignoring the huge elephant in the room, the 9-11 site which is a stone's throw away from the proposed center. <<<
.
Holly, I agree with everything you've said in this thread, but just to clarify the above statement... while the location for the community center may not be in the actual footprints of the towers, locals consider "Ground Zero" to be the area directly affected by the attacks. This building was not only damaged by the landing gear of one of the planes that day, but also happens to sit just yards away from where human remains have been found. Also, at a mere 1,000 feet from the footprints, the building is 200 feet closer than where other human remains have been found.
.
So, it is not a stone's throw away from Ground Zero but rather part of its core.