A Mosque at Ground Zero?

thomasquinn 32989 wrote: You really don't understand any of this, do you?

As you might've noticed, if you ever noticed anything other than your own narrow-minded prejudice, I followed this thread when it was still new, back in 2010, so I know pretty well what it is about.

But apparently you are such a bigot that you believe nobody has any right to even criticize the leaders of the Catholic church, but it's ok to violate the religious freedom of Muslims wholesale. I support equal treatment for everyone, regardless of race, gender, religious views, etc. You clearly don't.

No, you just haven't read the arguments. Or perhaps you simply don't understand them. Lashing out in dimwitted frustration is your trademark.

Stop it, boys. There's more serious stuff to discuss... like conspiracy theories, which, of course are already swirling.

Apparently pictures show what looks like a rope tied or tangled around the landing gear they found between these buildings.

On the "pro-mosque" side, people are saying someone lowered the gear into place as a way to halt the project - partly by reigniting the debate and partly by forcing the city to declare it a historical site or war memorial.

On the "anti-mosque" side, people are saying el-Gamal, the owner of the two properties who intends to build what he once labeled a 'community center', but has recently started calling an “islamic cultural center", knew about the landing gear between the buildings and intended to somehow incorporate it into his cultural center as a 'trophy'.

And then there are those, who I'd like to think are the majority, saying this is what is left of the landing gear that punched a hole into the roof of this building on the morning of 9/11.

The clear winner for me is the third option.

Whatever the outcome, though, right now, the area is cordoned off and will be tested for contaminants. There's also a possibility the medical examiner will want to sift the soil between the buildings to determine whether it contains additional 'artifacts' and/or human remains. If that happens, they'll need better access to the area and that might require some degree of controlled demolition of both buildings.

Either way, the entire project is now on hold.

**

EDIT - Add Police Commissioner Kelly to the list of those suggesting the gear might have been deliberately placed between the buildings. He's not offering a possible motive for such an act, but said he's not ruling anything out especially since there are no scars on the buildings to suggest the gear landed there naturally.

Wouldn't it be nice if they all kept quiet until they had solid information to share?

thomasquinn 32989 wrote:

So, because the culprits of the 9/11 attacks were (bad) Muslims, we should not build any more mosques in lower Manhattan? Then I suppose they shouldn't build any churches in Oklahoma City anymore either, because Timothy McVeigh was a (bad) Christian.

And they won't be building any new churches in Norway where Christian terrorist (the media refused to use the term) Anders Breivik went on his shooting rampage, since 78% of Norwegians don't believe in a theistic god.

thomasquinn 32989 wrote:

You really don't understand any of this, do you?

As you might've noticed, if you ever noticed anything other than your own narrow-minded prejudice, I followed this thread when it was still new, back in 2010, so I know pretty well what it is about.

But apparently you are such a bigot that you believe nobody has any right to even criticize the leaders of the Catholic church, but it's ok to violate the religious freedom of Muslims wholesale. I support equal treatment for everyone, regardless of race, gender, religious views, etc. You clearly don't.

People who don't know how to stick to the subject at hand never will learn. Don't waste your time and energy on people who default to shooting the messenger when they read something they know they can't rationally disagree with, like holding up the mirror.

Bullshit. Let me repeat my main point for you: would you build a shinto shrine at Pearl Harbor in Jan 1942? Would you build a Catholic Church on the site of the Shankill bombing? Would you build a Church of England on the site of the Amritsar massacre or the site of Bloody Sunday in Londonderry? What about the Nariman House Jewish community centre in Mumbai? After the 2008 attacks, would it have been appropriate to put a Muslim holy site there? If you are Lebanese, why not build a synogue or Christian church at the site of the Sabra and Shatila massacre? Legally, of course, you probably could. None of these would be illegal and individuals could argue they have the right to practice their religion. But it wouldn't be very sensitive to do any of those things and it would likely lead to more hostility, violence etc when that doesn't have to happen because it takes time for people to heal. People can acknowledge they have rights without always having to practise them.That's all I've argued in this thread. I'm fully aware there are rational and sensible counter-arguments to my pov. The irony is, I could make those better than you and without resorting to condescending bullshit.

With every single one of those examples you mention, you are equating the religion with the crime. If you make a certain religion taboo at the site of some horrendous act, you are not just sending out the message that said religion is responsible for said horrendous act, you are also emphasizing the pain associated with the site and you are delaying the healing process. Perhaps you need to read up on the effects of taboos on a society. Anthropologists and sociologists have written plenty of fascinating works on the subject.

So, bottom line, despite all the nonsense and attempts at 'intellectual' bullying from your side, I oppose your view on respecting 'sensitivities' because it is counter-productive.

thomasquinn 32989 wrote: With every single one of those examples you mention, you are equating the religion with the crime. If you make a certain religion taboo at the site of some horrendous act, you are not just sending out the message that said religion is responsible for said horrendous act, you are also emphasizing the pain associated with the site and you are delaying the healing process. Perhaps you need to read up on the effects of taboos on a society. Anthropologists and sociologists have written plenty of fascinating works on the subject.

So, bottom line, despite all the nonsense and attempts at 'intellectual' bullying from your side, I oppose your view on respecting 'sensitivities' because it is counter-productive.

No Thomas, try to think instead of just react. I'm aware that there are many who think this way, hence the danger of stirring up more violence and hatred. Is that such a difficult concept to understand -- that my commentating on real-life feelings of others doesn't mean I agree with them or excuse them? 

So would you do all or any of those things I mentioned, or do you think it might be insensitive and possibly dangerous?

I think it is much more dangerous to give in to those feelings, for the reasons I mention above. You keep telling me to read and consider what is written, why don't you take a page out of your own book and consider the argument I mention?

thomasquinn 32989 wrote:

I think it is much more dangerous to give in to those feelings, for the reasons I mention above.

There is a process of healing. It's a normal thing. You mention how giving into these feelings would perpetuate the process. Maybe that's true. But what is definitely true is having a place representative of the very thing that caused immense pain to be planted in the shadow of that pain BECAUSE of that pain.

That's what, I feel, has been constantly overlooked in this thread.

It's not about a mosque being built. There are plenty of mosques and other religious centers around lower Manhattan and elsewhere. It's about this mosque in this spot for this reason.

New Yorkers - probably most Americans and beyond - were looking for a sign from the Muslim community condemning the attacks, and the mindset behind them, in no uncertain terms. If the organizers of this project had taken hold of that need in a more constructive way, I have no doubt the project would have been supported by a great majority. Not all, but a great majority.

The organizers should have, perhaps, called a press conference to announce their intent to build the bridge they kept referring to. They should have openly, publically, from the beginning, announced a desire for input from others to enhance this goal of diversity and respect. Instead they announced a somewhat finalized plan between two entities – The Cordoba Initiative and the American Society for Muslim Advancement – to build a 100 million dollar, 13-story community center that would include a mosque. They would not say who was funding them or how they intended this to be a bridge-builder, but instead coyly said, "They will see."

That's not what the opposition wanted to hear. The opposition wanted details. The opposition wanted to hear unwavering contempt for the attacks since it was because of the attacks, according to the organizers' own words, that this project had been started in the first place...

That makes me think of the Boston marathon bombers' uncle. He immediately came out swinging against his nephews. He called them jerks. He said their actions ruined the good name of his community (paraphrasing), he said they do not represent his beliefs or the rest of his family's beliefs. He went on, angry yet proud. He was impressive and sympathetic and made people who listened, see how this was not an 'us' vs. 'them' situation.

Anything similar to that from these promoters would have changed the flavor of the debate.

And for the record, despite the intense opposition to this project and beyond the initial picketing, plans have progressed without major incident.

It has not been about the public not wanting a mosque in that spot. It's about the way it was presented in the name of sensitivities only to have those sensitivities dismissed as being an invalid argument against the project… even when the developers went as far as to petition for the right to use part of the 9/11 fund for their contentious project.

And now, all of this might be wasted energy because after the discovery of the landing gear wedged between the buildings, the medical examiner has decided to sift the soil for human remains, starting tomorrow morning, and demolition of both buildings now seems likely.

thomasquinn 32989 wrote: I think it is much more dangerous to give in to those feelings, for the reasons I mention above. You keep telling me to read and consider what is written, why don't you take a page out of your own book and consider the argument I mention?

Dangerous in the long run maybe (and even that's open to debate): in the short term, it's much more dangerous to ignore those feelings and perceptions.You didn't answer my question. Do you think it would be sensitive and appropriate to open religious sites at any of the places I mentioned? Or would it be insensitive and possibly damaging to the healing process?

ps you can apologise for calling me a bigot, racist etc at any time now.

Holly2003 wrote:
ps you can apologise for calling me a bigot, racist etc at any time now.

As it appears that won't be forthcoming I'd note again that TQ generally appears to mull things in the middle of a perpetual cerebral stroke, and identifying anybody as anything pretty much gives his subject a lock on being the exact opposite. I'd personally be thrilled if he thought I was a racist bigot.

So the answer to the mysterious rope, apparently, is simple - a detective first on the scene said he tried to move the part in an effort to locate possible identifying marks on it. Conspiracy theorists will have to come up with something else, if they haven't already.

For those interested, this FEMA graphic shows how far from the footprints Ground Zero actually extends -

Would you build a Church of England on the site of the Amritsar massacre?

We (Indians) don't consider the Jalianwala Baugh (Amritsar) Massacre as being a "Christianity influenced" action againt the native Sikhs and Hindus attending the meeting that day. So building a CoE Church at the site would not offend anyone in that way. We just look at it as British oppressive action. It would only be wiered as there would be hardly any people attending the service. Putting up a statue of a British monarch would probably be met with opposition.

What about the Nariman House Jewish community centre in Mumbai? After the 2008 attacks, would it have been appropriate to put a Muslim holy site there?

Like 9/11, the attackers were religious fanatics. So any steps taken towards converting the Jewsish place into an Islamic center would be certainly considered as offensive and insensitive.

So... all these years later, the opposition to this project never gave up the fight, and supporters have grown quiet. And now, it seems, developers have decided to scrap the idea of building a mosque, a community center or a museum on this spot. They've, instead, shifted their focus to a most capitalistic venture - an upscale condominium tower with typical high-priced NY apartments, plus several full-floor luxury apartments costing upwards of $3,000 per square foot, or $1,000,000+.

A rather interesting turn of events I'd say. Though who knows how many more ideas will be considered before a final decision is made.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-09-25/45-park-place-pricing-ground-zero-mosque-condos-aim-above-market-rate

Surprising indeed, that this happened under Obama's presidency. I don't think America has ever been as pro-Islam (policy-wise) as it is today.