A Mosque at Ground Zero?

magicalfreddiemercury wrote: "I'm not disagreeing with you but this comment struck me. If "they" - meaning those 'of faith' - have the right to showcase their faith and religious pride, then the same right should apply to those who do not adhere to any faith or religious sect."


Absolutely. However I contrasted it with Christians because Christians are the dominant religion in the West (which does not make the West Christian BTW).

"However, the people against the building of this mosque are called 'islamaphobic'."

It depends on why they are against the building of this mosque and what comments they make. L-R-TIGER1994 on this thread, and others who talk about bombing it are Islamophobic. Similarly those who claim that it is a victory for the terrorists even when it is pointed out that the terrorists perverted Islam are either Islamophobic or needlessly ignorant. Similarly those who claim that it would be an 'insult to the memory of those who died on 9/11' even though some of the 9/11 victims were Muslim are also Islamophobic. Additionally 'It would be more appropriate maybe to build a center dedicated to expunging the Quranic texts of the violent ideology that inspired jihad, or perhaps a center to the victims of hundreds of millions of years of jihadi wars, land enslavements, cultural annihilations and mass slaughter' is horribly Islamophobic.

People may be concerned, and personally it doesn't concern me either way, but we do need to acknowledge that in the US there is a high level of Islamophobia (Obama was even 'accused', god forbid, of being Muslim!) as well as anti-Muslim acts and quite frankly I am sick of people trying to rationalise it (I am not saying that you are.)

"People who do not believe in 'the prophet' are called infidels"

No, that's not true. While extremist Muslims do use the term infidel, it was actually originally used by Christians and often against Muslims; and people who do not believe in The Prophet are not referred to as infidels at all in traditional Islam. In fact, no traditional Islamic text features to the word, which as I mentioned wsa used originally by Christians.

"and, therefore, are deemed disposable."

By extremist Muslims, yes, but not moderates. Please, if we are going to debate this, can we draw a distinction between moderates (those that want to build the mosque) and extremists? Let us not forget that afterall that the majority of terrorist attack victims have been Muslim. I would hope as well that this does not turn into an anti-Islam discussion.

"There's no hint that this particular situation is for showcasing faith and religious pride but rather of forcing islam into the faces of those who suffered because of the 9/11 attacks"

I very much doubt that. I am aware of the work of the Cordoba Initiative and I know of Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, and I can honestly tell you that this is not about 'forcing Islam into the faces' of anyone. If anything it's about tolerance and building bridges.

BTW, I don't like the phrase 'forcing islam into the faces.' It is a religion, and Muslims shouldn't have to hide themsleves simply because bigots and Islamophobes (again, I'm not referring to you) don't want it forced in their faces.

As Michael Bloomberg says, "If somebody wants to build a religious house of worship, they should do it and we shouldn’t be in the business of picking which religions can and which religions can’t. I think it’s fair to say if somebody was going to try to on that piece of property build a church or a synagogue, nobody would be yelling and screaming. And the fact of the matter is that Muslims have a right to do it too. What is great about America and particularly New York is we welcome everybody and I just- you know, if we are so afraid of something like this, what does it say about us? Democracy is stronger than this. You know, the ability to practice your religion is the- was one of the real reasons America was founded. And for us to say no is just, I think, not appropriate is a nice way to phrase it."

"attacks made in the name of islam."

Attacks which perverted Islam. You know what, I would be more sensitive to the opposition if I knew that they would have no problem if the reverse occured; that is, if in Iraq, plans to build a church were rejected because of Bush's evangelical christianity. Would they accept it?

"It's been made clear - in multiple town-hall meetings about this issue - that the mosque would cause pain rather than 'improve relations between muslims and the west' and yet they insist on pushing the project through."

They aren't insisting on pushing the project through. They are exercising their democratic rights. If America is the liberal democracy it claims to be, then it should not fear this.

"That's not about faith or religious pride. It's about arrogance."

Knowing what I do about the Cordoba Initiative, arrogance is not a word I would use.

It's interesting though, you would think that Americans would want to showcase their religious freedom and tolerance to the world. Or does it apply to all religions save for Islam?


Bill Keller, a Florida televangelist, wants to build a Christian evangelical center there. Personally I find him more confronting than any plan for a mosque (“My whole thing is to get into the marketplace and not battle Islam for souls but battle Satan for souls,” “Rather than a [protest] event we’re going to have an ongoing work of God right there because the Bible says you combat the darkness with the light.”) but I don't think he should be denied his religious freedom.

http://theundergroundsite.com/index.php/2010/07/christian-center-to-be-built-near-ground-zero-12984


America is either a liberal democracy or not. If it is, then IMO the mosque should be allowed. That's not arrogance, that's the exercising of a right to live as equal members of society.

Panchgani wrote: "Imam Faisel Abdul Rauf is the leader of the American Society for Muslim Advancement and the Cordoba Initiative, and while he talks a good game about peace, he does appear to have some radical fundamentalist views about Shariah law and seems to sympathize with the radical elements of Islam."


I will be happy to go into further detail, but he actually doesn't have 'radical fundamentalist views about Shariah law and seems to sympathize with the radical elements of Islam.' Those quotes you posted don't actually indicate that. They are actually quite reasonable. It may not appear that way, but as an example, with the first one, he's not saying that the US deserved 9/11, but that it was blowback; something which many American political/terror experts would agree with.

Amazon wrote: ...I am aware of the work of the Cordoba Initiative and I know of Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, and I can honestly tell you that this is not about 'forcing Islam into the faces' of anyone. If anything it's about tolerance and building bridges.

BTW, I don't like the phrase 'forcing islam into the faces.' It is a religion, and Muslims shouldn't have to hide themsleves simply because bigots and Islamophobes (again, I'm not referring to you) don't want it forced in their faces.

As Michael Bloomberg says, "If somebody wants to build a religious house of worship, they should do it and we shouldn’t be in the business of picking which religions can and which religions can’t. I think it’s fair to say if somebody was going to try to on that piece of property build a church or a synagogue, nobody would be yelling and screaming. And the fact of the matter is that Muslims have a right to do it too. What is great about America and particularly New York is we welcome everybody and I just- you know, if we are so afraid of something like this, what does it say about us? Democracy is stronger than this. You know, the ability to practice your religion is the- was one of the real reasons America was founded. And for us to say no is just, I think, not appropriate is a nice way to phrase it."

"attacks made in the name of islam."

Attacks which perverted Islam. You know what, I would be more sensitive to the opposition if I knew that they would have no problem if the reverse occured; that is, if in Iraq, plans to build a church were rejected because of Bush's evangelical christianity. Would they accept it?

"It's been made clear - in multiple town-hall meetings about this issue - that the mosque would cause pain rather than 'improve relations between muslims and the west' and yet they insist on pushing the project through."

They aren't insisting on pushing the project through. They are exercising their democratic rights. If America is the liberal democracy it claims to be, then it should not fear this.

"That's not about faith or religious pride. It's about arrogance."

Knowing what I do about the Cordoba Initiative, arrogance is not a word I would use.

It's interesting though, you would think that Americans would want to showcase their religious freedom and tolerance to the world. Or does it apply to all religions save for Islam?

Bill Keller, a Florida televangelist, wants to build a Christian evangelical center there. Personally I find him more confronting than any plan for a mosque (“My whole thing is to get into the marketplace and not battle Islam for souls but battle Satan for souls,” “Rather than a [protest] event we’re going to have an ongoing work of God right there because the Bible says you combat the darkness with the light.”) but I don't think he should be denied his religious freedom.

http://theundergroundsite.com/index.php/2010/07/christian-center-to-be-built-near-ground-zero-12984

America is either a liberal democracy or not. If it is, then IMO the mosque should be allowed. That's not arrogance, that's the exercising of a right to live as equal members of society.

======

I think I failed to make my point clear. What I referred to in my entire post is the Cordoba Initiative's desire to build this community center - which will house a mosque - as a way for New York muslims to 'give back' to the community. The Cordoba Initiative's goal, supposedly, is to improve relations between the west and islam. You mention in your post how you disagree with my saying they're trying to force islam into the faces of those who endured the attacks of 9/11 and instead expressed it as ‘tolerance and building bridges’.

How can any of this be viewed as tolerance and building bridges when the community they say they're trying to do this in is still suffering the effects of an attack in the name of the very religion backing this project? Yes. The attacks were perpetrated by extremists in that religion, but the average muslim is not out there denouncing those attacks - then or now. Instead, there seems to be an eerie silence from the community.

And yes, as you say, they are exercising their democratic right to continue with this project. But so are those opposed to it.

You mentioning knowing something about the Cordoba Initiative and that you wouldn't use the word 'arrogance' to describe it. I will be very honest - I know nothing about the Cordoba Initiative except this project and from it I can only see arrogance since the desires of this community are being ignored and plans for building are intended to move forward. If that is not arrogance, I do not know what it is.

America is not always tolerant - of various religious beliefs, personal choices and marriage, for example - however this is not about intolerance. This is about pain. YourValentine said it beautifully in her post - "It's like Germany would build a Goethe institute near a Holocaust memorial: you just do not do that - even though no living German who is capable of building anything is responsible for the Holocaust. You can claim your constitutional rights and ignore the feelings of your neighbours but it certainly won't improve any relationships."

Pushing this project through despite the desires of the community certainly won't improve the relationship between muslims and the west. Can they do it? Sure. Is it their democratic right to do so? Yes. Should they? No. Not if a majority of people are opposed to it. Pulling the project would be the neighborly, bridge-building thing to do. Not this.

"America is either a liberal democracy or not. If it is, then IMO the mosque should be allowed. That's not arrogance, that's the exercising of a right to live as equal members of society."

And a responsibility of being an equal member of society is considering the wants and needs of that society, not simply those of a select group without regard for the effect on others.

Amazon... I should say... I respect your opinions and I do appreciate hearing the 'other side'. I simply disagree with it. :-)

I honestly think people are missing a rather crucial point, here - a mosque does not need to be there.  There's no racial prejudice in that statement, it's just (for want of a better word ...) a fact.  Why does it have to go there, specifically?

Anyone with a brain knows that Islam had virtually nothing to do with 9/11.  If they weren't claiming to be muslims, then they would've just had some other doctrine to back up their actions.  But all the same, there's a mental association for some people between 9/11 and that religion, and if you can spare people heartache by just putting the mosque somewhere else, then why the fuck not? 

Building a mosque there will upset people, whether they have a reason to be upset or not.  Sometimes the decent thing to do is take it easy on people and compromise, even if you happen to think their reasons for being upset are not very well thought out.  There are perfectly rational, non-prejudiced reasons for not wanting a mosque there.  Admittedly, I'm one of those people who feels that there are enough churches, temples and mosques on the planet to last us until (heh) Judgement Day, but I don't have anything against more of them being built if it makes people happy.  

This one is not making people happy.

@ Amazon: please tell me what Angela Merkel thinks, I would want to know because she is the head of German government (unfortunately!). We have no mosque discussions or Burqua prohibitions in Germany - yet.

As to the Cordoba Initiative: from their website I see that they think that Cordoba was such a model of "interfaith tokerance" - but let''s not forget that it was under Muslim rule. When the Muslims conquered Spain they built the great mosque of Cordoba on the premises of an old Christian church they had torn down using the material of the church. Of course we do not see any analogy here at all :-) The Spanish reconquista turned the Mosque into a Catholic church when they drove the Muslims out of the country centuries later.

It is true that the Christian faith was ecxcuse and pretended reason for many imperialistic and colonialistic atrocities throughout the existance of Christianity. However, we want to advance as a human race and a culture and I do not see anything good in exchanging one religious dominance for another one. Please let me point out that I have no problem at all with any faithful person of any religion but I have loads of problems with religious organisations "Sharia indexing" countries - what is that supposed to mean? I do not want any pope to tell me which laws a democracy can have and I certainly do not want some medieval mullah to tell me if the laws of my country comply with Islamic law!  For all I care they can Sharia-index Iran or Saudi-Arabia where the majority of the people live by that law but in a Western country they have to accept the constitution which says that church and state have to be separated.

Sorry, I cannot trust an organisation who spits on the feelings of so many people. I understand Mayor Bloomberg but I do understand the people who lived through the horror of 9/11, as well. If the Cordoba Initiative were an organisataion who wants to bring Islam and Western culture together, they would not insist on their right to build that mosque in that area.

Yeah, I get it! Grace farted a shitty shit shit! A juicy, ranking, horrible fart! STINKY! DIRTY! CUNTISH! BITCHES! GRACE THAT SON OF A PRICK!

Zebonka12 wrote: I honestly think people are missing a rather crucial point, here - a mosque does not need to be there.  There's no racial prejudice in that statement, it's just (for want of a better word ...) a fact.  Why does it have to go there, specifically?

Anyone with a brain knows that Islam had virtually nothing to do with 9/11.  If they weren't claiming to be muslims, then they would've just had some other doctrine to back up their actions.  But all the same, there's a mental association for some people between 9/11 and that religion, and if you can spare people heartache by just putting the mosque somewhere else, then why the fuck not? 

Building a mosque there will upset people, whether they have a reason to be upset or not.  Sometimes the decent thing to do is take it easy on people and compromise, even if you happen to think their reasons for being upset are not very well thought out.  There are perfectly rational, non-prejudiced reasons for not wanting a mosque there.  Admittedly, I'm one of those people who feels that there are enough churches, temples and mosques on the planet to last us until (heh) Judgement Day, but I don't have anything against more of them being built if it makes people happy.  

This one is not making people happy. 

====

I was going to quote the last sentence of your second paragraph but as I read I found myself still nodding in agreement. It's all beautifully said. I concur. :-)

YourValentine wrote:

Sorry, I cannot trust an organisation who spits on the feelings of so many people. I understand Mayor Bloomberg but I do understand the people who lived through the horror of 9/11, as well. If the Cordoba Initiative were an organisataion who wants to bring Islam and Western culture together, they would not insist on their right to build that mosque in that area. 

=====

This sums it all up. Mayor Bloomberg is saying what is right legally. The town-hall meetings, however, are for the average person to express feelings and reasons for those feelings. If the organizations were indeed trying to carry out their stated mission, they would listen and not follow through with the project as is. Unfortunately, it seems they are determined to do the opposite.

Something else we need to remember when discussing this - and calling the opposition islamaphobic - is that other ideas, ideas without religious connections - for building on or near the site were met with the same resistance and most of those plans were dropped. It took years of negotiating to build a consensus and, though rebuilding has begun, the negotiations continue. Shouldn't it be the same for this center?

Just another example of how religion always, & for the rest of time fucks everything up! Mosques are like McDonalds, they appear everywhere & nobody quite knows how or why.

More Cowbell wrote: "Just another example of how religion always, & for the rest of time fucks everything up! Mosques are like McDonalds, they appear everywhere & nobody quite knows how or why."


Opinions like yours are like McDonalds; cheap and completely unhealthy.

I love having discussions on QZ, but every so often someone comes along and contributes a really idiotic and nasty comments. Like yours.

YourValentine wrote: "@ Amazon: please tell me what Angela Merkel thinks,"


I don't have the exact quote, however she warned that Muslims should not build mosques with too big minarets. Look it up on the Time website, it should be there.

" I would want to know because she is the head of German government (unfortunately!). We have no mosque discussions or Burqua prohibitions in Germany - yet."

Really? I seem to recall parts of the country wanting to prevent teachers from wearing the veil? Also Islamic related, Germany is against Turkey joining the EU, and newspapers published the Mohammed cartoons even though you don't believe in absolute freedom of speech. I bring up the last two examples as examples of intolerance towards/of Islam, which I suspect is motivating many of the critics of this proposal.

"As to the Cordoba Initiative: from their website I see that they think that Cordoba was such a model of "interfaith tokerance" - but let''s not forget that it was under Muslim rule...."

True, however it's all relative. Non-Muslims such as Jews lived more peacefully under Muslim rule in Spain than under Christian rule. When Jews were expelled or forced to convert, it was under Christian rule.


BTW, I'm not suggesting that Islam is perfect. I simply have a deep personal connection to Islam, I know much about it, and I don't always think that one has to be completely balanced. :D

Amazon wrote: YourValentine wrote: "@ Amazon: please tell me what Angela Merkel thinks,"

I don't have the exact quote, however she warned that Muslims should not build mosques with too big minarets. Look it up on the Time website, it should be there.

" I would want to know because she is the head of German government (unfortunately!). We have no mosque discussions or Burqua prohibitions in Germany - yet."

Really? I seem to recall parts of the country wanting to prevent teachers from wearing the veil? Also Islamic related, Germany is against Turkey joining the EU, and newspapers published the Mohammed cartoons even though you don't believe in absolute freedom of speech. I bring up the last two examples as examples of intolerance towards/of Islam, which I suspect is motivating many of the critics of this proposal.

"As to the Cordoba Initiative: from their website I see that they think that Cordoba was such a model of "interfaith tokerance" - but let''s not forget that it was under Muslim rule...."

True, however it's all relative. Non-Muslims such as Jews lived more peacefully under Muslim rule in Spain than under Christian rule. When Jews were expelled or forced to convert, it was under Christian rule.

BTW, I'm not suggesting that Islam is perfect. I simply have a deep personal connection to Islam, I know much about it, and I don't always think that one has to be completely balanced. :D

Quite interesting points. I apologise to magicalfreddie for my off-topic reply.

 -  Not "parts of the country" prevent teachers form wearing scarves during work (they can wear in their private time whatever thy want), courts do. The courts had to decide if the rights of the teacher to wear religious clothing or the right of school children not to be influenced by religion in school is more important. Since most parents in the schools in question were not Muslims the court upheld the ban which was decreed by the school. In another rulings a school had to provide for a prayer room for a 13 year old Muslim who then never used the room, so in another ruling the school got permission to use that room for other purposes. In yet another ruling a school had to remove the cruxifixes from the classrooms. You tell me about the anti-Islamic tendencies of these rulings.

- "Also Islamic- related, Germany is against Turkey joining the EU".  This is not "Islamic related", it's "economy-related" and it's not Germany who is against Turkey in the EU, it's the current administration and the majority of the population. The reason: The Turkish economy is very backward, the Turkish government does not respect the  human rights and the Turkish state solves conflicts with their minorites (for example the Kurds) in a very violent way. It has nothing to do with Islam - Turkey is a laicist state and the restrictions against religion are much stricter than - for example - in Germany. These days when German tax payers have to provide for 20 billion euro to bail out Greece and to provide for hundreds of billions to prevent more EU members from going bankrupt, not many here want another economically weak member in the EU. There are limits, it has nothing to do with "anti-Islam" - that is just ridiculous.

- "newspapers published the Mohammed cartoons although you do not believe in absolute freedom of speech" - I am not quite sure what you mean by that but not many newspapers re-published the cartoons and they only published them after lots of Muslims raised merry hell about them, rallied the streets, burnt Danish flags and called for murder. Two. editors of newspapers were killed for publishing the cartoons. I have not heard much regret from any Muslim organization about these murders and my opinion is that it was completely right to re-publish the cartoons : in my country no mullah tells an artist what he can draw and what he cannot draw and we have to defend the right of  artists to express themselves even if other people are offended and even if I think the art is in bad taste.

-"examples for intolerance towards Islam" - My answer: you call defending  our values like freedom of speech, separation of state and religion and even the freedom to choose our economic partner intolerant of Islam - I cannot accept that: Muslims can exercise their religion in every possible way, they are not restricted in any way - even not in the height of their minarets (Merkel has no say in this matter, the cities decide about buildings). They can not, however, tell the non-Muslims to surrender their rights which have been obtained in a long process of enlightenment and progress only to please the more extreme Muslim organizations. There is always a need to improve respect and cooperation of all members of a society, there is certainly a need to be aware of intolerance but "intolerance" cannot be used as the magic word to annihilate the right of the other person.

YourValentine wrote: -"examples for intolerance towards Islam" - My answer: you call defending  our values like freedom of speech, separation of state and religion and even the freedom to choose our economic partner intolerant of Islam - I cannot accept that: Muslims can exercise their religion in every possible way, they are not restricted in any way - even not in the height of their minarets (Merkel has no say in this matter, the cities decide about buildings). They can not, however, tell the non-Muslims to surrender their rights which have been obtained in a long process of enlightenment and progress only to please the more extreme Muslim organizations. There is always a need to improve respect and cooperation of all members of a society, there is certainly a need to be aware of intolerance but "intolerance" cannot be used as the magic word to annihilate the right of the other person.

====

No apology necessary. Your entire post is brilliant and I agree 100%.

magicalfreddiemercury wrote: "How can any of this be viewed as tolerance and building bridges when the community they say they're trying to do this in is still suffering the effects of an attack in the name of the very religion backing this project?"


Because it will show that the religion is about peace and not violence.

"Yes. The attacks were perpetrated by extremists in that religion, but the average muslim is not out there denouncing those attacks - then or now. Instead, there seems to be an eerie silence from the community."

Not true. Many average Muslims have denounced the attacks. Just because you don't always hear about it does not mean that there is an 'eerie silence.'

It's actually completely false to say that average Muslims didn't denounce it. Many did. It's just that Islam doesn't have an organised structure, the media often prefers to report the bad over the good, and of the Muslims who did not denounce it, they (like many Catholics concerning sex abuse for example) probably don't feel that they need to denounce something that they had nothing to do with.

I have to say that while I don't know what you think about Islam, statements like "People who do not believe in 'the prophet' are called infidels and, therefore, are deemed disposable" (which as I pointed out was not accurate), and "forcing islam into the faces" and your comment about average Muslims on 9/11 concern me. You may not care, I'm just saying.

"And yes, as you say, they are exercising their democratic right to continue with this project. But so are those opposed to it."

Well, yes, but that is democracy for you. Not everybody will be happy with the outcome.

"from it I can only see arrogance since the desires of this community are being ignored and plans for building are intended to move forward. If that is not arrogance, I do not know what it is."

Is it arrogant to ignore intolerance? You know, the sad truth is that if many Americans got their way, there would be NO mosques in the country at all. Is it arrogant to override those wishes? Or would you support there being no mosques at all since so many Americans don't want mosques? To take it further, many Americans don't want a Muslim president and don't want a Muslim politician swearing on the Koran. Should prospective Muslim politicans bow to these wishes? If the answer is yes, then my response is that sometimes you have to ignore intolerance.

"America is not always tolerant - of various religious beliefs, personal choices and marriage, for example - however this is not about intolerance."

Yes it is. You can justify it, but call it for what it is. If it was a temple or a buddhist temple, people wouldn't care. If it was an evengelical christian centre (set up by someone who hates Muslims and non-evengelical christians), people wouldn't care. I know that you think that it is valid to oppose it but at least have the intellectual honesty to admitt that it's about intolerance.

These people are opposing the mosque because they are intolerant. Does that mean that they should automatically not get their way? No. People are intolerant of alot of things (gay marriage for instant which is illegal is most nations), but at least have the intellectual honesty and courage of admitting that it's intollerance, and then we can talk about whether the intolerance is justified.

Furthermore, if you truly believe it's not intolerance, then what do you say about some of the quotes I mentioned in my previous response to you?

"This is about pain."

As I pointed out in my earlier post, Muslims also died on 9/11. Nonetheless, it's irrelevent that it's about pain. Don't get me wrong, I feel for the people who lost loved ones in 9/11 (I still remember where I was when it occured), but simply because one feels pain does not automatically justify intolerance and ignorance. While the pain of the 9/11 families should be taken into account, I don't think that it should be the only thing taken into account.

"YourValentine said it beautifully in her post - "It's like Germany would build a Goethe institute near a Holocaust memorial: you just do not do that - even though no living German who is capable of building anything is responsible for the Holocaust. You can claim your constitutional rights and ignore the feelings of your neighbours but it certainly won't improve any relationships.""

Please do not bring The Holocaust and Germany into this. It is entirely different and is not a valid analogy. I don't mean morally different, but structually different. Comparing 9/11 with The Holocaust is like comparing apples with oranges.

That said, Muslims are equal members of American society, so maybe their neighbours need to get over their ignorance and intolerance. It's not as of their neighbours have made such an effort to improve relationships.

"Pushing this project through despite the desires of the community certainly won't improve the relationship between muslims and the west. Can they do it? Sure. Is it their democratic right to do so? Yes. Should they? No. Not if a majority of people are opposed to it. Pulling the project would be the neighborly, bridge-building thing to do. Not this."

Oh, please. So in order to build bridges, they need to disappear. To be seen and not heard is that it? Sorry, but that is intolerance.

"And a responsibility of being an equal member of society is considering the wants and needs of that society, not simply those of a select group without regard for the effect on others."

Oh, give me a break. Do you really believe that every group does this? Or most groups? That they 'consider the wants and needs of that society, not simply those of a select group without regard for the effect on others'?

The problem is that it is subjective. You believe that this is not 'considering the wants and needs of that society', well I believe that allowing an evengelical christian centre for someone who hates Muslims and non-evengelical christians (see the link I provided in my previous post) is not 'considering the wants and needs of that society'.

Who is to say who's right?


One last comment. I mentioned this in my previous post, but you didn't respond to it. Imagine if in Baghdad, plans to build a church were rejected because of Bush's evangelical christianity. What do you think the reaction would be? My guess is that it would be taken up by evengelical Christians, conservatives and Islamophobes as 'another example of Islamic intolerance towards Christianity!' I would also bet that many of the people you claim to oppose the mosque for understandable reasons would condemn the Baghdad decision. I think it's hypocritical, and considering that America is a liberal democracy, the hypocricy is enhanced.


"Amazon... I should say... I respect your opinions and I do appreciate hearing the 'other side'." Thanks. :D

"I simply disagree with it. :-"

Nothing wrong with that. I must say, that while QZ sometimes gets abusive and troll-affected, I do apreciate a good QZian discussion. :D