A Mosque at Ground Zero?

I read some interesting comments last night on the Washington Post web site - a few pro-Muslim comments, but it seemed there were more anti-Muslim comments (though I didn't count them).  I got started reading that site with an article that was linked from here.  There were comments that were saying that Islam is not a religion at all, but more of a political movement or cult.  And they were saying that the Koran gives permission to use physical violence against women and teaches men to control women.  Also, it was mentioned that the Koran allows believers to try to convert non-believers by force, if necessary. So, boiling it down, they were basically saying that Islam is not compatible with our laws in the United States.  I have never read the Koran.  I don't even know how to spell it (is it Koran, Quran, Qoran, Kuran?).  I'm just wondering if any of these things are true (your opinion or expertise).  Some of you must have read it.  I also heard that some churches were going to be reading from the Kuran as part of a peaceful movement of sorts, during their church services.  So, it seems people are taking more of an interest in the basics, in order to further their understanding.

Anyway, I have not observed or heard of any anti-Islamic behavior in my surroundings.  But to read such comments on the Washington Post website - that was eye-opening to me.  It certainly goes against the way Obama is trying to represent our country to the Muslim countries (all of us as one big happy family - accepting of all religions equally).  I have to take anything I read on the Internet with a grain of salt, but eventually I will get to reading the Koran.  I suppose I should finish reading the Bible first!

Also this brings me to the question, how are regular Muslims turned into radicalized home-grown terrorists?  I mean, other than meeting other terrorists and getting along with them and possibly being brain washed, is there something in the Koran that is pointed out to them to convince them to not only kill others but to kill themselves?  And if this is the case, is it because they are misinterpreting the Koran, or is it actually spelled out in certain language in the Koran for them to latch onto and be emboldened by as terrorists?

-----------------------------------------

Edit / addition:  

Meet The Press this morning (Sunday) was pretty good.  David Gregory interviewed Rudy Giuliani.  Here is the link to the transcript.  Scroll down because Giuliani comes after David Axelrod's interview.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39114416/ns/meet_the_press-transcripts

Here is part of it:

------

We turn now to a Republican candidate for the 2008 presidential election and, of course, the mayor of New York City at the time of the September 11th attacks; Rudy Giuliani joins me now from 30 Rockefeller Plaza in the heart of Manhattan.

Mr. Mayor, welcome back to MEET THE PRESS.

MR. RUDY GIULIANI: Good morning. How, how are you, David?

MR. GREGORY: I'm very well, thank you.

I want to talk about a tumultuous week leading up to the ninth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. As you look at the controversy surrounding what happened, this debate over the mosque and community center in lower Manhattan, the threat to burn the Quran by a Florida pastor, and this anti-Muslim sentiment in the country on the ninth anniversary, what's happening? What's behind that?

MR. GIULIANI: I can't, I can't tell you exactly what's behind it. I mean, something like this probably could have happened at any time. It's--these controversies happening right now I don't think necessarily are connected to each other. But if you had told me, you know, four years ago someone wants to put a mosque up near Ground Zero, I would have told you that 80, 90 percent of the family members would be very offended by that and very hurt by that for a whole host of reasons having nothing to do with Islamaphopia, but having all to do with how they feel this is sacred ground, that a Moslem center there would not be appropriate, someplace else would be perfectly appropriate.

If you had told me that people would have gotten very upset if somebody wanted to burn the Quran three, four, five years ago, same thing would have been the case. So why these things are happening together right now, they could be connected, they could be unconnected. And I analyze them both the same way. The, the imam has a right to put the mosque there. Freedom of religion gives him that right. The minister has the right to burn the Quran. The same amendment to the Constitution gives him that right, the First Amendment. In either case, common sense and a real dedication to healing that these men of God would theoretically have would tell you not to do it because you're hurting too many people.

MR. GREGORY: You mention Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, who is imam who wants to build a community center in lower Manhattan. He appeared on CNN this week and, and issued a warning of sorts about this debate moving forward and its impact. Let me play a portion of that.

MR. GIULIANI: Yeah.

(Videotape, Wednesday)

Imam FEISAL ABDUL RAUF: If we move from that location, the story will be that the radicals have taken over the discourse. The headlines in the Muslim world will be that Islam is under attack. And I'm less concerned by the radicals in America than I'm concerned about the radicals in the Muslim word.

(End videotape)

MR. GREGORY: Are you concerned about that warning?

 MR. GIULIANI: I'm concerned about the imam doing that. I think that tactic is not the kind of tactic I would have expected from an imam who's featured as a man of conciliation. You know, I analyzed this imam's history pretty carefully, and I hate to simply it, but it's the only way to do it. There's the good imam and the bad imam. The good imam is about reconciliation. He's about being open and transparent about what he's doing and how he's doing it. Then there's the bad imam who said America is an accessory to September 11. America has more Muslim blood on its hands than vice versa. He can't condemn Hamas as a terrorist group. And he will not be transparent about where he's getting the money, how he's getting the money, and has virtually not been open at all about this. And now we have the imam who tells us if doesn't get his way there could be significant and very dangerous violence. Look, those are very, very strong words, and to enter a sort of a suggestion of a threat into this, I worry about this as the kind of tactics he, he pursues.

More to add soon, but just a quick response to the Guiliani thing: the Imam has both condemned the terrorist arm of Hamas, as recently as late last week, and assured transparency in funding multiple times.  Rudy is popular with many, but about as many will tell you he has always been a bit too happy to throw kerosene on a fire. Among other things, this opinion piece covers a little bit about why Islam and those who preach it can't be talked about like a monolith, with parallels to more familiar Christian models.  I linked to it previously in another context. http://www.slate.com/id/2266870/ Unrelated, I really enjoyed a piece today by a 9/11 widow.  I've read a couple of her other pieces in the past.  She's really evolved into an effective and moving communicator.  For whatever reason, perhaps just because I'm a girl, it made me cry.  And probably not in the spots you'd expect.  It started with "when did 9/11 victim become sloppy shorthand for white Christian'.  That made me cry, like really cry. Then again, this thread has made me cry twice. Being a girl is so cool.  You get to cry, like all the time, if you want.  http://911stories.org/stories/text-article/71-911-widow-the-media-duped-us  Similarly themed was this one: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/11/nyregion/11religion.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp  They're both really important I think, and I hope some will read them. And finally, to Amazon, my little growling freedom fighter tigress.  I can't help but have noticed that you've gotten in a conversation ending fight with virtually everybody on this thread.  Even people it's usually kind of hard to get in a fight with! :)  You've spent too much time on this, and you have too much to offer in this and the more serious conversations on QZ in general, to do this.  Plus, I know these are people you like and who like you.  What gives?

About the Rudy Giuliani's comments - I think he is right in saying that it could have been antagonized that people might be offended by the prospect of an Islamic center near Ground Zero as well as by the announcement of the Quran burning. However, he should make a difference: building a mosque or an Islamic center is not offensive per se while burning the Quran is always offensive - just a stupid act of provocation and hate incitement.

I also had to smile about the "good imam - bad imam" part - speaking about hating to simplify it :-) It's funny how many Americans seem to think that any lip service against the Hamas turns a potentially "bad" Muslim into a good one :-)

About the "home-grown" terrorism - I do not know why young men are turned into suicide terrorists. From the Hamburg group (alleged pilots of the 9/11 attacks) we know that they were not poor or deprived and even not very religious when they came to Hamburg. From what we know they were turned into "jihad warriors" in the radical Al-Quds mosque in Hamburg which was recently closed by the police. How that happened and why it happened is a mystery to me.

As to Islam not being a religion - that is just wrong, of course it's a religion. We have to make a difference between Muslims who follow ther religion and are usually as peaceful, tolerant and friendly as any other people and Islam as a cultural concept which is very different to the Western cultural concept. There is no use in trying to overpaint these differences on the pretext of freedom of religion.

@ GratefulFan - you are a girl? :-) Funny how we have debated for weeks and this is the first time I realise you are female :-)

About Amazon - it's nothing personal on my part. It's just that I do not waste my time discussing with people who resort to personal insults. I do not mind if people attack my point of view but I would not discuss with people who call me any names in reality, either.  That does not mean we cannot talk about any other topic. I do not even know Amazon and I think we had nice talks in other threads.

YourValentine wrote:

@ GratefulFan - you are a girl? :-) Funny how we have debated for weeks and this is the first time I realise you are female :-) ====================================

Really? That's funny.  That always happens to me on forums...I suspect it happens to many women. For whatever reason, unless there's something immediate and obvious to suggest otherwise I think the default assumption is often that you're male.  People start referring to you in the masculine, and it always feels dumb to interrupt a thread just to say you're a girl, so I don't. At some point though I find a way to somehow communicate it  somewhere unrelated because you start to feel like you're being dishonest or something.  I don't know why it happens.  I think I talk like a girl.   I certainly get up to a great deal of girl friendly emoting and personal life rambling at times. LOL  Anyway, for whatever reason, that misperception seems particularly sticky here at QZ.  I've often thought it's related to my NOTW avatar which looks kind of masculine. Maybe not.  Don't know, but it would be interesting to find out.

I want to make some on topic responses as soon as I have time to organize my thoughts, but until then I have a thought experiment type question for anybody who'd like to answer it.  Imagine that in the near to medium term a set of equal solutions for the community centre/mosque issue could be developed through discussion and reflection etc. from both sides.  In each case, a healthy majority that would include regular citizens of all faiths and victim families would be satisfied with the proposals.  You can assume that neither solution produces a greater or lesser threat of radical type violence than the other at home or abroad as well.

One proposal would leave the community centre in it's proposed location, and the other would move it some distance away. Remember, the main issues of both sides of the debate are no longer relevant for the purposes of this question as concerns on all sides have been removed.  Which proposal would you see as most ideal and reflective of the goals and needs and structure of post 9/11 American society and the larger world in this all-things-being-equal circumstance? And, if you like, why? You don't get to say 'it doesn't matter then' because there is still a Muslim community centre in lower Manhattan, and that still means something both to you and to observers. 

Purely a thought experiment.  Not intended to be used for or against anyone in any manner in further discussion and debate etc.

>>> GratefulFan wrote: Remember, the main issues of both sides of the debate are no longer relevant for the purposes of this question as concerns on all sides have been removed.  Which proposal would you see as most ideal and reflective of the goals and needs and structure of post 9/11 American society and the larger world in this all-things-being-equal circumstance? <<<
.
.
If the main issues of both sides are no longer relevant then the goals, needs and structure of post 9/11 American society are irrelevant as well since post 9/11 American society was stated as THE reason for the project’s development.
.
Which leads to this statement by the imam to the Council of Foreign Relations: "Let us therefore reject those who would use this crisis and the sacred memory of 9/11 to achieve their own ends. Let us especially not exploit the memories of the victims of that tragedy or the suffering of their families and friends."
.
I was stunned to read this and find the hypocrisy staggering. He and his fellow organizers are the ‘those’ who used the ‘sacred memory of 9/11 to achieve their own ends’ as a reason for starting this project. He is the one who linked 9/11 and its aftermath with the city’s need for this community center. Now that 9/11 is being used for the same purpose by those in opposition, suddenly it must be rejected.
.
I don’t know what his true intentions are but if he is indeed a man of peace, then he needs a new speech writer because his own words are fueling the fire in the gut of the opposition.
.
So, GratefulFan, if there were no 9/11, and therefore no post 9/11 American society, there would not be a ‘need’ for this “bridge-building” islamic community center/mosque and there would be no Ground Zero. Instead, this would simply be yet another religious building being used in the happily diverse city of New York. No fuss no muss.

magicalfreddiemercury wrote: If the main issues of both sides are no longer relevant then the goals, needs and structure of post 9/11 American society are irrelevant as well since post 9/11 American society was stated as THE reason for the project’s development.
.
Which leads to this statement by the imam to the Council of Foreign Relations: "Let us therefore reject those who would use this crisis and the sacred memory of 9/11 to achieve their own ends. Let us especially not exploit the memories of the victims of that tragedy or the suffering of their families and friends."
.
I was stunned to read this and find the hypocrisy staggering. He and his fellow organizers are the ‘those’ who used the ‘sacred memory of 9/11 to achieve their own ends’ as a reason for starting this project. He is the one who linked 9/11 and its aftermath with the city’s need for this community center. Now that 9/11 is being used for the same purpose by those in opposition, suddenly it must be rejected.
.
I don’t know what his true intentions are but if he is indeed a man of peace, then he needs a new speech writer because his own words are fueling the fire in the gut of the opposition.
.
So, GratefulFan, if there were no 9/11, and therefore no post 9/11 American society, there would not be a ‘need’ for this “bridge-building” islamic community center/mosque and there would be no Ground Zero. Instead, this would simply be yet another religious building being used in the happily diverse city of New York. No fuss no muss.
================================

A bit of a meander about what I see as an overemphasis on the rhetoric first: I do think it's worth remembering that the idea for the project and the entire broader agenda was initiated several years before the 9/11 attacks, though the attacks certainly changed the face of just about everything, including the realities and concerns of Rauf's American Society for Muslim Advancement (est. 1997).  The need for the bridge building existed in the eyes of the bridge builders well before, so perceiving an intent to tie it solely to 9/11 is probably a somewhat selective reading of the facts.   Though it's clear that the rhetoric and their embrace and touting of the symbolism of the building's location has really gotten under the skin of many opponents becaue the actuality of some of the feelings being stirred up are counter to the stated goal of bridge building, the rhetoric is not really the reason that you object to the centre.  Dropping the rhetoric would not drop the objections.  The centre is meant to fill a very real, vey practical and very non rhetorical gap in services downtown, while hoping to address broader and more diffuse social issues, and it's the centre, in that location downtown, that is objected to. The expressed connection to 9/11 is clearly galling to many, but overemphasis turns your argument into a strawman that it doesn't need to be.  You don't object to it because the group has expressed a stake and sense of ownership of their own in the events of 9/11 that they'd like to materialize in this particular way, as irritating as that line of expression might feel. You object to the building, in that location, period, for your own reasons.

To address your points more directly: Everybody has repeatedly stressed the difference between legitimate opposition and opposition that has clearly slid into something much uglier and more opportunistic.  He's not talking about *all* the opposition, he's talking about some of the opposition. Some of the politicians and others trying to advance a narrow and twisted subset of the pertinent facts to grow their own lot in life that manifest in things like the burning tower bus ads or in whipping up the base through refererences that equate all Muslims with Nazis.

There is a difference between invoking 9/11 to emphasize a need to mitigate fear and distrust between  Muslim and non-Muslim American neighbours when 9/11 clearly had an impact on that very thing, and Rick Lazio etc. trying to get elected or increase blog hits by shocking and scaring the masses. Rauf pointed that out, and he's right.  I see no reasonable interpretation of the facts that say Rauf et al were callously or inappropriately leveraging 9/11 to acheive their personal goals no matter what one actually thinks of their ideas and plans.  In my mind, there is no hipocrisy at all. He says only that the discourse has been hijacked by the frothing elements on both sides, which includes neither him, nor opponents like you.

>>> GratefulFan wrote: I see no reasonable interpretation of the facts that say Rauf et al were callously or inappropriately leveraging 9/11 to acheive their personal goals no matter what one actually thinks of their ideas and plans. <<< . I do not feel the initial rationale was callous. However, given the negative response to his offer of this particular attempt at bridge building, his desire to continue it, and his desire to revoke 9/11 as reason when he initially invoked it, is indeed callous and inappropriate. And dangerous. . . >>> The need for the bridge building existed in the eyes of the bridge builders well before, so perceiving an intent to tie it solely to 9/11 is probably a somewhat selective reading of the facts. <<< . I do not see it as such. The very public explanation for building this center in this spot has come from this imam for months and it has been centered on supposedly improving relations between islam and the west. Unless he has been living in another world for the past nine years, he should have known when you compare islam and the west in this post 9/11 atmosphere, 9/11 will be thought of as reason for it. That he himself spoke of 9/11 as the reason for building this center rather than say it was initially unrelated, is enough to take away all subjectivity. . . >>> You object to the building, in that location, period, for your own reasons. <<< . Um… no. I object to the building in that location because of the inappropriate and callous expression of the organizers to dismiss the very raw, very real, hurt of their neighbors as they plow through with a project that is supposedly intended to heal when in fact, it hurts. I object when a specific reason for doing so is stated until that very reason, when used by the opposition, is suddenly rejected. I have stated more than once in this thread, including in my last reply, that if 9/11 had not happened – and, by extension, Ground Zero did not exist – then the location of this center would not be an issue.

Building a religious center in order to worship a God, period, is a religious act - apart from the particular places considered especially holy by either Islam or Judaism, and Ground Zero is not one of them, God is wherever people are correctly and sincerely praying for him; wanting to have it built on a particular and controversial place, being adamant at denying the possibility of erecting it elsewhere and claiming as one of the its main goals the improvement of the relationship between different creeds, is a political act - whether it's a good or a bad one, a well-intentioned or a provocative one, that's all open to discussion, but it's still a political statement.

Political statements, based on solid legal ground or thin air, can always be discussed and negotiated. The claim that the very act of asking the organizers if they could move the center elsewhere means disregarding or disrespecting religious freedom is outright absurd. It'd make sense if 9/11 hadn't happened and the organizers didn't want to have it built at Ground Zero, and only there. And, of course, if they had been asked to move to a remote and abstruse place. It's, again, never been the case.    

It's clearly become by now much more a matter of political affirmation than of religious freedom. And many people don't like the political dimensions of the islamic faith: the fact that a religious center can be built only on a single place, otherwise violence and terror are likely to follow, makes it even more difficult for liberal-minded New Yorkers, many of whom oppose the building of the center according to the most authorative polls, to be more receptive towards Islam.  

Then again, I'm sure that, if they go on with this project, the organizers won't face any legal obstacles. They'll indeed face obstacles from abroad if they don't go on with it - why? Because there are way too many people who, as the Imam suggested, are willing to kill and behave violently if the center is not built at Ground Zero. The Imam is stating a fact, but a rather sad one: after all, no civilized society can hope to survive having to bow to this kind of permanent threat. 

Islamic extremism has obviously become a widespread and serious problem. The victims are too much, as the women who must suffer in silent in so many islamic regions and countries. There's an unavoidable and understandable spill-over effect and the islamic religion is not going to be completely dissociated from its radical members in a forseeable future.

That's the world the Imam is living in. I've lived in Israel for all too long to be charged with being ignorant of Islam and the problem of Islamophobia. Still, New Yorkers are not the Israeli Army. When they object to the building of the center, they have legitimate reasons for doing so: namely, thousands of innocent civilians were brutally killed in the name of Islam - by people who go as far as to kill themselves in order to take other people's lives. 

As a Jewish person, I don't expect to be easily greeted by Palestinians; when Ariel Sharon "visited" the Temple Mount, he had the right to do so - it was not ilegal for him to be there. But he acted as an absolute jerk, and his irresponsible, offensive act was one of the reasons why the second intifada began. Peaceful Jews still face the consequences of his idiotic act. There's nothing outlandish about claiming that rights are better exercised in a responsible and careful way whenever possible - this common sense is still one of the reasons why the fabric of a society based on rights doesn't tear apart.       

We've come to a pretty pass when the building of a religious center on a specific place becomes for some a matter of life and death.      

The most serious obstacle to peaceful Muslims comes unfortunately from their fellow muslims. If it were not for so many radicals and extremists, this discussion wouldn't even exist.

I have to say it once again, Yara - your entire post was beautifully said.

Hi! I'm coming back to fight with some of you later, so I thought I'd offer an advance peace token.  Actually it's 70% an excuse to post a Rob Thomas video because I'm so totally in love with his sound, but it's 30% because it's got some great shots of New York City streets and New York City people, and it's a rare happy Rob Thomas song, with a nice message about hope and patience and peace and humanity and some other vague things that might be mildly related to this discussion.  Even if they're not related, they're nice things anyway, and it's impossible for me to listen to this song and watch this video and not feel happy. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6pODq8_FxE&ob=av2e Bye. You're in big trouble when I get back.  Especially you magicalfm! :[

>>>GratefulFan wrote: Bye. You're in big trouble when I get back.  Especially you magicalfm! :[ <<<
.
LOL. Don't be angry. It's just about opinion. Besides, we still have samosas. :-)
.
We DO still have samosas, yes?

Right I have a solution to all of this. Let the iman build his mosque-cultural centre, in fact let him build two, then let some crazy christian fundamentalists hijack some Saudi planes and crash them into them. Everybody's happy. In the aftermath, Iran will invade the Bible Belt, declare victory after taking Lubbick, Texas, them to fall foul of an insurgency led by Billy Ray Cyrus and Ann Coulter. Allah el Akbar, bubba!

magicalfreddiemercury wrote: >>>GratefulFan wrote: Bye. You're in big trouble when I get back.  Especially you magicalfm! :[ <<<
.
LOL. Don't be angry. It's just about opinion. Besides, we still have samosas. :-)
.
We DO still have samosas, yes?
============================

Oh yes.  We will always have samosas. :)   But I'm keeping all the chutney until you stop being so mean!

On an (only slightly more) serious note, you wrote 'Don't be angry. It's just about opinion'.  I was going to ask before what the psychological experience, if any, of this thread was for opponents. I like these kinds of discussions, but at the same time I find this one stressful to the point of having to run off for a few days sometimes.  Although I know intellectually that it's not the case, every last one of you sometimes feel like you'd happily shove an ice pick into the ear of the next Muslim you see. I perceive injustice and something like suffering on the other end of your arguments. It gets hard to stay engaged on an even keel.  Anyway, again, those thoughts are a reflection of me on this topic and not meant to express the actuality of other opinions at all. So don't ice pick me. LOL

Ann Coulter once said that Canada was lucky the US allowed it to exist on the same continent.  That we're lucky the US doesn't just roll over one night and crush us.  Which was kind of funny, but mean. She built an entire Iraq war non-participation bashing argument around the fact that Canada sent troops to Vietnam. We didn't.  Pat Buchanen calls us Soviet Canukistan (also kind of funny) and accused us of being too scared to go to war. Canada has been in Afghanistan since 2002 and no nation has lost more troops in that country relative to size of military or per capita population at home than Canada, because we've been operating in the most dangerous areas at the tip of the spear. A couple of years ago Newt Gingrich called us a terrorist Shangri-la responsible for the majority of the 9/11 hijackers getting over the Canada/US border.  Zero 9/11 hijackers came through Canada.

So a funny but wildly, wildly ignorant bunch.

magicalfreddiemercury wrote: >>> GratefulFan wrote: I see no reasonable interpretation of the facts that say Rauf et al were callously or inappropriately leveraging 9/11 to acheive their personal goals no matter what one actually thinks of their ideas and plans. <<< . I do not feel the initial rationale was callous. However, given the negative response to his offer of this particular attempt at bridge building, his desire to continue it, and his desire to revoke 9/11 as reason when he initially invoked it, is indeed callous and inappropriate. And dangerous. . . >>> The need for the bridge building existed in the eyes of the bridge builders well before, so perceiving an intent to tie it solely to 9/11 is probably a somewhat selective reading of the facts. <<< . I do not see it as such. The very public explanation for building this center in this spot has come from this imam for months and it has been centered on supposedly improving relations between islam and the west. Unless he has been living in another world for the past nine years, he should have known when you compare islam and the west in this post 9/11 atmosphere, 9/11 will be thought of as reason for it. That he himself spoke of 9/11 as the reason for building this center rather than say it was initially unrelated, is enough to take away all subjectivity. . . >>> You object to the building, in that location, period, for your own reasons. <<< . Um… no. I object to the building in that location because of the inappropriate and callous expression of the organizers to dismiss the very raw, very real, hurt of their neighbors as they plow through with a project that is supposedly intended to heal when in fact, it hurts. I object when a specific reason for doing so is stated until that very reason, when used by the opposition, is suddenly rejected. I have stated more than once in this thread, including in my last reply, that if 9/11 had not happened – and, by extension, Ground Zero did not exist – then the location of this center would not be an issue. =============================== Can I say that I think you're uncharitable to Rauf to the point of irrationality?  Can I say that without sounding insufferable? I don't mean to be insufferable. It's just not...true... in my mind to imply that he's 'revoking 9/11 as a reason when he initally invoked it'.  He's not in any way objecting to the use of 9/11, he's objecting to the misuse of 9/11 on the exact grounds that many others are objecting, including some victim's families.  The very next sentence in the quote you included was "Let us condemn the use of holy texts or religious symbols for political or financial gain, or fame."  Those thoughts were a unit.  Why drop that sentence off, when it made the intent to focus on the radical and inappropriate use of symbolism, including 9/11 sybolism, much more clear? If you dropped it, I don't think that was fair.  If you read it from a source that dropped it, then I think that source is not balanced. In introductory remarks in the same speech he was listing people and things he was grateful for in the midst of the crisis and he said "And for those who have voiced their objections to our plans with civility, with respect, and with open minds and hearts, I am also grateful.  You affirm my belief in the decency and the morality of the American People." and; "I do recognize that among the critics are some who lost their loved ones on 9/11.  To all of them, I offer my heartfelt sympathy and prayers for their departed souls.  Every year we mark the anniversary with great sadness but also with greater resolve to fight against the radical philosophies that are used to justify these acts".  Clearly he is aware that these objections are based on 9/11. He's not trying to 'take 9/11 away'.  I just don't think that's supportable. You hold the 'desire to continue it' against the group as though turning tail is the only acceptable option.  Is that reasonable?  There is a process going on!  The country is in the middle of a discussion.  The discussion isn't finished.  A large minority of New Yorkers hold completely different beliefs and hopes for that space than you do. You didn't even like my idea of a hold on the project to explore reconciliation, even though the Imam had been gone for weeks. Why so much contempt by proxy for  for your fellow New Yorkers, for that process?   Of course the developers desire to continue it.  They think they're doing the right thing.  At some point, things might evolve such that right or wrong it would be irresponsible to continue, but you're not there yet.  It's America.  Let them time to make their case. *Small note on my use of the term "for your own reasons" in my last post. It seem that was received as somewhat dismissive.  Sorry for the less than optimal choice of words.  I was just trying to capture the sense of a breadth of valid reasons for objection. **I'm giving you back your chutney for reading! Yay!