A Mosque at Ground Zero?

>>> Can I say that I think you're uncharitable to Rauf to the point of irrationality? <<< . You can say it and I can object to it. But it won’t matter as we seem to have come to an impasse. . === >>> Can I say that without sounding insufferable?<<< . I'll have to get back to you on this. == >>>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. <<< . I don’t know whether I dropped the sentence or whether it was not originally included. What I do know is the sentences I posted seemed to say it all. If I included the sentence you quoted - "Let us condemn the use of holy texts or religious symbols for political or financial gain, or fame." - it wouldn’t have changed my interpretation since I see that merely as a reaction/response to current events. == >>>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 don’t think it’s supportable while I do. Very much so. I understand the concern that a small minority in opposition is using 9/11 in a warped and extreme way. But then… “extreme” is what caused 9/11. And so, it’s naïve, at best, to be surprised extremism has surfaced again. And it would be disingenuous to give credence to the extremists in this instance while describing extremists from the other side as a small minority not representative of the whole. == >>> You hold the 'desire to continue it' against the group as though turning tail is the only acceptable option. <<< . No. In all these pages, I’ve have repeatedly voiced the need for compromise. I have not implied an all or nothing solution, and when it was insinuated that I had, regardless, I clarified. == >>> Is that reasonable?  There is a process going on!  The country is in the middle of a discussion.  The discussion isn't finished. <<< . This is funny, because the imam peppers his speech with comments which leave no room for discussion. He has said the project will move forward. Period. And to many, that sounds very much like an end-of-discussion statement. === >>> A large minority of New Yorkers hold completely different beliefs and hopes for that space than you do. <<< . Okay… and… that’s why I said a conversation needs to be had. That’s why I said maybe the governor’s offer to hold talks could help the two sides reach common ground. I also said I didn’t  know what that common ground might be. I have not said it’s my way or no way. === >>>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?   <<< . If anything, I think my posts have shown respect for my fellow New Yorkers. === >>> Of course the developers desire to continue it.  They think they're doing the right thing. <<< . Of course the opposition desires to end 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. <<< . Yes. It is America. And in America, both sides are entitled to speak and be heard. One side is not expected to sit quietly while the other makes its case. And when the issues are of such a sensitive nature that so many voices are raised, words begin to carry more weight. To assume otherwise is shortsighted and dangerous. === It seems we must agree to disagree.

magicalfreddiemercury wrote: 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. I respectfully but strongly disagree. The responsibilities and rights that flow from electing to drink alchohol to excess and electing to burn books are not at all easily comparable. Social response to drinking and driving or child neglect does not require your subjective judgement, as they are acts that were codified in law as a result of rigorous and formal processes that were reflective of the values of society as a whole, but (ideally and usually) insulated from whim and mob rule. On matters like book burning as free speech, when you slip past attemping to influence through peaceful protest into projecting your own or your group's own sense of right and wrong on individuals or other groups to the point of trying to stop them physically or through so much intimidation you've effectively forced them to stop, you're someplace else all together. I felt my own society slip under my feet surrounding a surreal and stunning sociopolitical response to shocking sex killings committed by a young 'beautiful' couple in southern Ontario. I witnessed everything that had felt solid and generally reliable - the fairness of government, the objectivity, independence and courage of a free press, the fair and consistent and dispasssionate application of law, the freedom to speak and act within the law without punishment, freedom in academia and the general ability of a society to police itself and it's fundamentals - utterly corrupted in a witch hunt directed at the female half of the duo.  It was fueled by pure emotion and vigilantism, and almost completely unencumbered by reason, sufficient facts or awareness. It's difficult to overestimate the effect this had on my worldview as it relates to human behaviour.  I know with unshakable certaintly that I witnessed mechanisms over these many years that have in the past underlain some of the worst human misdeeds by and with the acquiesence of the people. A lot of informal study for my own personal interest  in related disciplines followed for me, and it's fascinating and compelling stuff. We simply don't know ourselves as reliably as we think we do, and we can't trust ourselves or our judgements like we think we can.  That's why for me any whiff of mob behaviour, even as uncontentious as surrounding a pile of holy books to prevent their distateful use in a free speech ritual, is one step too far. That might seem pedantic. I swear to you it's not. The places you can get to by degrees are at once subtle and stunning. You could rationalize that act.  And that's what's scary as hell.  That road should simply not be started down in my view. 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? You know, I have the feeling I'm just not very good at this pastor issue.  I can't find the will to care all that much.  As you said, the books are just objects.  To me the power he had was given to him by the media, and by the statesmen.  Did the issue need breathless checking in on every 15 minutes and comments from leaders around the world?  I don't think so.  Obama could have simply talked about free speech, that disrepect for the holy book was not reflective of majority belief, that Americans were disgusted as well.  Cut to pictures of Americans burning their own flag in DC or wherever as illustration of free speech.  Done.  The Gainsville Gator covers whatever Pastor Jones does or doens't do on September 11.  End of.  It truly couldn't have been handled any worse.  I'll have to defer to you on this one, as I just don't care about burning books in this context, ie a dumb free speech and intolerance ritual. . When we see what we perceive as an injustice, it is not only our right but our responsibility to, peacefully, speak out against it. See the first part of my response.  I think peacefulness is abandoned when you actually impede the rights of others.  Picketing and lobbying is responsible, blocking is a step too far.  None of us are as reliably good at correctly perceiving injustices as we think.

Just read your last thoughts magicalfm... thanks for those.   I just want to add that Rauf has not at all said that he is pushing forward.  He hopes to solve it where the building stands, that remains his goal, but has said all options are on the table.  His full remarks seemed to indicate very clearly that he in no way sees pushing blindly forward in this climate as a good plan in line with his hopes and goals.  The full text of the Council of Foreign Relations speech is available in pdf, and there is a podcast where you can listen to the speech, along with a very blanaced Q & A that followed.  I think you'd like some of it, be put a bit more at ease by some of it, and still object to some of it. If you haven't heard the recording and think you might be interested let me know and I can direct you to the link.

Holly2003 wrote:

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?
=======================================

The full and truthful answer to this, quite honestly, is I don't know anymore.   I don't know how to interperet the unfolding facts.   However, for the sake of the discussion I'll state that yes, there are multiple places in New York City that this building could have eventually been built.  So what?

I understand why people make the connection, of course.  But it's not a rational connection because the Muslim Americans that have long been part of the fabric of life in downtown NYC are not the ones that attacked the United States, and choosing to give over to irrationality without even trying doesn't seem desirable to me. Your points about Northern Ireland were well taken.  For weeks I was banging my head against the wall waiting for somebody in the papers and punditry to say something, anything, about why 'it's offensive' was supposed to be a complete argument.  Though I'd strongly disagree with your characterization of the Muslim Americans forcing (or shoving) their religion (or views or whatever - sorry, I forget the exact quote) on New York, the other things you said made a great deal of sense to me, though I had to twist them up a little, until it wasn't completely what you said I don't think.  It ended up for me something like "irrational feelings matter...because they're irrational". They can lead to violence and escalation from which it's hard to climb down, and who is 'right' must be secondary to avoiding such a destructive path.  I could understand that, finally, as something to grab on to.  So thanks for that.

*Last time I posted a Queen related article that contained the words "Northern Ireland" on this forum some poster who I forget mildly  freaked out and slapped my wrist, making me somewhat skittish on the topic.  I have no idea if I've mischaracterized anything important, so please forgive me if I have, or if I do. Okay?

America is not there yet. Although I know that it's a very short walk from toeing the brink to being over the brink, they are not there yet. We're likely all bringing the sociological phenomenon of cultural bias to this argument to some degree.  It's likely that we all have pieces of this whole, but that no one projection is perfect.  You spoke to Amazon of an 'ivory tower' debate on this side.  That's just not true.  Although I can't deny being burdened with a significant amount of idealism and comparative liberalism, my strong beliefs on this are not liberal minded abstractions. They're very much born of decades of boots on the ground in a real place - a country of literally everybody -  that similar to the US generally holds on to the principals argued on the mosque proponent side for dear life, as part self definition and part necessity.  In a culture built entirely from blending other cultures, equality and tolerance and dignity for all is inestimably important in even having something that feels like a culture.

And we have a history here in Canada too of a country trying to shake itself apart, first under an IRA style paramilitary group called the FLQ (don't intend a direct comparison to NI beyond that in any way - we were so much more fortunate with only 8 deaths and several hundred injuries through bombings etc. over about 7 years only, between 1963 and 1970, and confined to Quebec) , and from 1970 onward to today through a peaceful if heated political process , so there is real knowledge about what disenfranchisement and power imbalance looks like and what it can do, and how it might move between violence and the political process. Though it's interesting that it took your NI points to bring this into focus for me.  The difference between the authority of living it and just reading about it I guess.

There are other things: As I wrote in my last post, I have also been profoundly affected by watching the majority rain hell on one small but significant slice of justice and fairness and common sense in Ontario in the years since the early 1990's, on a wave of emotion and vigilantism. There have been consequences in the ability of this public to think straight which I would happily demonstrate if asked. Every Monday we have a sitcom on CBC called 'Little Mosque on the Prairie' where moderate Muslims make fun of themselves.  In 2005, Ontario debated an independent recommendation for Sharia tribunals as a voluntary form of dispute resolution in family law, fully subject to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and parallel to existing tribunal options for Christians and Jews.  There was much hue and cry and back and forth that echoes the tone of the mosque debate in many ways, but ultimately two strong lobby groups defeated the idea.  Those groups were the Canadian Council of Muslim Women and the moderate Muslim Canadian Congress (there was a conservative Muslim group that supported it).  In the spirit of full freedom and full respect Ontario Muslims were offered Sharia and they essentially said "No thank you.  We embrace the society we have".  Not feeling like you have to fight for a place for your culture's mainstream, along with freedom and respect, are very powerful things.  When given unconditional freedom and respect, most don't want to give it back. There is still much suspicion between Muslims and non Muslims in Canada, and we live under threat of homegrown terrorism just like everybody else, but in the mainstream we are fortunate through different immigration patterns and a different history to not have the same integration problems of the European situation at this time.

So all this to say that while I certainly don't know if I'm right on the mosque issue, I know for sure I'm not in an ivory tower. My experience, and I suspect Amazon's experience as well,  is real and relevant, just as everybody else's is.

I wrote 750 million words on here last night on the premise that I was going camping this weekend because my son is away until Sunday night.  And now it's raining.  Fu........

I came back to tell you something magicalfm that I thought you might laugh at.  You know that New York guy from that Bridal store Kleinfeld's or whatever from 'Say Yes to the Dress'.  That TLC show?  I've always thought of him as gay New York personified.  Anyway, my son works as an assistant DJ semi regularly - that's where he is this weekend at an out of town gig. So last night apparently it was a bridal show, and the organizers threw huge piles of money at that 'Say Yes to the Dress' guy to come up to the wilds of Ontario and be at this show, and my son just emailed me a picture of them together looking dapper.  It made me laugh right out loud.

Disclaimer:  All wedding dresses over a thousand dollars should be shredded and reverse engineered until they are once again suitable for important things like food for hungry people rather than sold as dresses for people to wear for 6 hours. Seriously North America.

[i]GratefulFan wrote:

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[/i]

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

I guess this is the very root of your misunderstanding of many people who oppose the building of this center: you just can't conceive that there are actually people who, despite opposing it, have never felt like doing harm to the next muslim he or she happens to see.

I still spend part of the year in Israel. I've been living with Muslims ever since I was a kid. I have never, ever felt an irrational hatred for a person just because he or she happens to be muslim. The whole "muslim thing" was not even an issue when I was a kid - I had, and still have, Muslim friends and, both as a human being and as a Jewish person, I feel utterly annoyed by any statement suggesting that any group of people should be gotten rid of or have their rights trampled because of their beliefs or ethnic background. 

I'm generally a very peaceful and collected human being. It's hard to make me angry. The building of this center doesn't make me angry at all - I oppose it, but I don't hate it. 

What does get on my nerves, however, is violence, for political or religious reasons, and racism. These are things I just can't stand.

I'd be opposed to anyone trying to prevent the building of the center on legal grounds - religious freedom is much more sacred than religion itself in my worldview because it is one of those values which hold societies together and prevent them from falling apart.

This is what I think. It's quite clear. No one has to resort to guesses or make inferences to find out what I think. I make the lives of the people I debate with quite easy! : )

Gratefulfan wrote:

I understand why people make the connection, of course.  But it's not a rational connection because the Muslim Americans that have long been part of the fabric of life in downtown NYC are not the ones that attacked the United States, and choosing to give over to irrationality without even trying doesn't seem desirable to me

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

It always comes back to the issue of responsibility, doesn't it? Of course the Imam Rauf and his associates did not attack the USA, I think everybody knows that. The difference is that he claims that building the Cordoba House is only about the freedom of religion while other people - mainly the opponents - think it's a political act designed to cause a rift rather than build a bridge. Personally, I cannot understand how anybody fails to see that it is indeed a political issue and not  solely a religious issue. The Imam Rauf is apparently not a "man of the church" as we say, i.e. a priest by main occupation. He is a business man, a leader of a Muslim organisation, he travels on behalf os the state dept in order to conduct talks with politicians in the Middle East. He of all people should have had anticipated that this project would cause problems in NYC - mainly because he introduced it as an act of reconciliation between New Yorkers and the Muslim world.

You say that the opposition to this cultural center is irrational. In your view it is irrational when people make their trauma an issue in a discussion about a building. This is a perfectly reasonable and understandable point of view. However  - I saw 9/11 happen on TV and still my hair stands up when I only think about these planes crashing into the WTC and I cannot even imagine how people felt who saw it happen in real life - people who had family in the buildings or in the rescue teams, people who lost family members in the attack, people who never even got the body of their family member back. For these people the trauma is very real, it is probably more real than many other "real" aspects of their lives. Yes, you can ask them to "get over it" for the better of the country and the freedom of religion but to deny that there is huge pain is just inhuman.

As to irrational - for me it is irrational to spend millions in order to build a house in which you can pray to a non-existing god, call him God, Allah or anything else. However, I would never tell people they should not build that house, it's not my business. I know that "God" or "Allah" is real for them. Now why is the irrationality of building a prayer house so much more important than the irrationality of a traumatized part of the city population? Because it's labelled "freedom of religion" and "freedom of religion" is supposed to shut up any other opinion and mark the opponents as mob, racists, Islamophobes etc. I know that freedom of religion is important - it shows how civilized a society is. However, the whole rhetoric of the Imam Rauf is political, it's not religious. Moving an unbuilt mosque a few blocks away in order to respect the feelings of the traumatized neighbours is not hurting the freedom of religion imo. Always assuming that he has every right to ignore the whole "irrationality" and proceed with his project. He has the law on his side.

I want to add an article by the leader of another Muslim organisation. It was published in the wall street journal. I am not a subscriber, so I had to look it up in the google cache.

The link is
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ysLrMfILbRQJ:online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704644404575481882969581708.html+M.+ZUHDI+JASSER&cd=7&hl=de&ct=clnk&gl=de

I do not know if there is any kind of political fight between the author and the Imam Rauf. Maybe it is all politically motivated - I do not know that.I post the complete article mainly because he has such another idea of responsibilty - and because here is an American muslim asking for the separation of state and mosque rather than trying to make the US constitution Sharia -compatible.

article:

Questions for Imam Rauf From an American Muslim
He may not appear to the untrained eye to be an Islamist, but by making Ground Zero an Islamic rather than an American issue he shows his true allegiance.

By M. ZUHDI JASSER
After a long absence while controversy over the mosque near Ground Zero smoldered, Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf finally held forth this week both in the New York Times and on CNN.
Imam Rauf and his supporters are clearly more interested in making a political statement in relation to Islam than in the mosque's potential for causing community division and pain to those who lost loved ones on 9/11. That division is already bitterly obvious.
As someone who has been involved in building mosques around the country, and who has dealt with his fair share of unjustified opposition, I ask of Imam Rauf and all his supporters, "Where is your sense of fairness and common decency?" In relation to Ground Zero, I am an American first, a Muslim second, just as I would be at Concord, Gettysburg, Normandy Beach, Pearl Harbor or any other battlefield where my fellow countrymen lost their lives. 

I must ask Imam Rauf: For what do you stand—what's best for Americans overall, or for what you think is best for Islam? What have you said and argued to Muslim-majority nations to address their need for reform? You have said that Islam does not need reform, despite the stoning of women in Muslim countries, death sentences for apostates, and oppression of reformist Muslims and non-Muslims.

You now lecture Americans that WTC mosque protests are "politically motivated" and "go against the American principle of church and state." Yet you ignore the wide global prevalence of far more dangerous theo-political groups like the Muslim Brotherhood and all of its violent and nonviolent offshoots.
In your book, "What's Right With Islam," you cite the Brotherhood's radical longtime spiritual leader Imam Yusuf Qaradawi as a "moderate." Reformist American Muslims are not afraid to name Mr. Qaradawi and his ilk as radical. We Muslims should first separate mosque and state before lecturing Americans about church and state.

Imam, tell me if you can look into the eyes of children who lost a parent on 9/11 and convince them that this immodest Islamic center benefits them. How will it in any way aid counterterrorism efforts or keep one American any safer? You willfully ignore what American Muslims most need—an open call for reformation that unravels the bigoted and shoddy framework of political Islam and separates mosque and state.

There are certainly those who are prejudiced against Muslims and who are against mosques being built anywhere, and even a few who wish to burn the Quran. But most voices in this case have been very clear that for every American freedom of religion is a right, but that it is not right to make one's religion a global political statement with a towering Islamic edifice that casts a shadow over the memorials of Ground Zero.
As an American Muslim, I look at that pit of devastation and contemplate the thousands of lives undone there within seconds. I pray for the ongoing strength to fight the fanatics who did this, and who continue their war against my country with both overt violence and covert strategies that aim to undo the very freedoms for which so many have fought and died.

Imam Rauf may not appear to the untrained eye to be an Islamist, but by making Ground Zero an Islamic rather than an American issue, and by failing to firmly condemn terrorist groups like Hamas, he shows his true allegiance.
Islamists in "moderate" disguise are still Islamists. In their own more subtle ways, the WTC mosque organizers end up serving the same aims of the separatist and supremacist wings of political Islam. In this epic struggle of the 21st century, we cannot afford to ignore the continuum between nonviolent political Islam and the militancy it ultimately fuels among the jihadists.
Dr. Jasser, a medical doctor and a former U.S. Navy lieutenant commander, is the founder and president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy based in Phoenix, Ariz.

What an amazing article. I applaud every word of it. Thank you for posting it, YV.

I love it all but think this line sums it up the best - "We Muslims should first separate mosque and state before lecturing Americans about church and state."

>>>GratefulFan wrote: The full text of the Council of Foreign Relations speech is available in pdf, and there is a podcast where you can listen to the speech, along with a very blanaced Q & A that followed.  I think you'd like some of it, be put a bit more at ease by some of it, and still object to some of it. If you haven't heard the recording and think you might be interested let me know and I can direct you to the link. <<<
.
After 9/11, I had the news on 24/7. Every time then-president Bush would speak, I’d sit riveted. Waiting, hoping for some insight, some form of comfort, some sense of him having a solid grasp on the situation. Like Giuliani. When I listened to my then-mayor speak, I felt secure, as if he and his people were looking into things and doing all they could to keep us safe. Lip-service or not that’s how his words made me feel. As if he was worrying so I wouldn’t have to. It was that sense of security I looked for in Bush’s talks. It never came. He said the same things repeatedly and those things were not helpful. “Bring it on”, “Dead or Alive”. Useless baiting. He had a plan – which seemed to be a predetermined plan that happened to fit beautifully (for him) into the events of the day. And he intended to move forward with that plan, focused only on carrying it out, not on the controversy, the hardship, the right or wrong.
.
As far as I’m concerned, all the above is the same for the imam. I’ve heard him speak. I’ve read his comments. I’m left neither impressed nor hopeful and wish he would stop talking long enough to see the effects of his words before those effects, like Bush’s, become irreparable.

YV, that was a very good article.  Thanks for posting it.

So, it's been a couple of weeks, and I have thought about this thread from time to time in that span.  It's striking to me that the core of us who thought and typed the most about this seemed to get farther away from understanding each other's positions rather than closer, and seemed to feel more misunderstood, on both sides, for all that work. It seems a shame to leave with nothing - essentially an agreement to disagree - again, for all that work.  I'd like to at least have learned something.

We're all normal people who presumably care about the same sorts of things, and yet we've tripped 10 feet out the gate unable to even agree what the fundamental pieces of this are.  My overarching argument - that bin Laden wins if this development doesn't go forward for any reason related to this controversy - seems hopelessly far off when we can't even agree about something basic like the fact that freedom of religion is (or isn't) a factor.  It baffles me when Yara says "I wouldn't like it if it was being objected to for legal reasons because freedom of religion is very important" (paraphrasing you Yara...sorry!)  Well, how is it not important anyway?

I've been trying hard to find something that would bridge the understanding of each other a little, find something that didn't make me perceive prejudice and injustice in all opposing arguments, and I think I might have succeeded in some small way.  It's never come up, but I would have a really hard time supporting this if the community centre was built *on* ground zero (using that term to connote the WTC site only), or anywhere in direct sight of visitors to the planned memorial.  I'd probably be able to argue some of the same principles, but my heart wouldn't be in it the same way at all.  For the sake of families and all visitors to that memorial, I'd want a different outcome.

It wouldn't be about the Muslim religion really, but about invading the space and peace of mourners and visitors to the memorial with a symbolic reminder of the horrible event rather than providing a safe place to reflect about the whole lives of the lost in a place of some tranquility, or as much tranquility as can be managed in downtown New York.   It would be akin to me to having a huge American Airlines advertising billboard in the same space, or a billboard admonishing people to eat heart healthy or something like that looming in view of any regular graveyard.

I guess it's those two and half blocks that change everything for me.  Which I guess I knew from the beginning, because it was that Google street view trip I took that moved me away from the original reaction of 'Huh?  You want to put a what where?'.  Two and half blocks away, the priorities shift.

>>>GratefulFan wrote: I've been trying hard to find something that would bridge the understanding of each other a little...<<< . I think the two sides understand each other well enough, they simply do not agree. . . >>>Two and half blocks away, the priorities shift.<<< . Opinions such as this from supporters, for example, are well understood by the opposition yet are vehemently rejected. That difference of opinion is one of many keeping the two sides apart.

I know that speaking very narrowly about this conversation, I certainly don't feel that understood.  I think YV called me inhuman or something. LOL  I don't feel like I understand anybody else much either.  More than once I've written a big long thing about some thing or other and gotten back that that's not what the other person meant at all.  As I said before, I just regret that after a fair bit of 'work' I haven't been able to take more away from this.  I still have doubts this development will ever be built anyway, making this all a little theoretical.  Still, it reveals a pretty amazing chasm in America and beyond.

GFF, I definitely did not call you inhuman :-) I always thought my English is better than to create such a misunderstanding. I looked up the sentence and I thought it was obvious that I was making a general statement to the effect that it is inhuman when "one" denies the families of the 9/11 victims the right to grieve in a way they think appropriate. I think that this is the heart of the matter. Unfortunately, many political figures have jumped on the bandwagon and heated the conflict when it should have been between the New Yorkers on both sides. Right now there is no real chance left to compromise.

We all come to this discussion with our various experiences in life and I thought this made the discussion really interesting. It was also quite civil for Queenzone standard  ;-) I also want to say that I had a private conversation with Amazon and we are totally okay with each other as far as I am concerned. This topic has a lot of implications we did not even touch. This cultural center is like a prototypical example of issues we face in this globalized world. Why else would so many people have an opinion about a planned building in NYC. All of a sudden the most liberal people in the whole USA are in the middle of a culture war which nobody saw coming. I think that there is a widespread insecurity and unhappiness within the civil democratic society about the way this society is going and about the way this society is being represented by politics and media. Imo too much is asked from the middle class and there is too little understanding and appreciation for the normal citizen, their wishes and their needs. I think the developers of the Cordoba House are not getting anything positive from insisting on this project. They made such a huge mistake by creating this conjecture between an Islamic center and the WTC that all they get is a rift which was not there before the project and a wave of anti-Islamic sentiments that was not there before the project.