A Mosque at Ground Zero?

>>Because it will show that the religion is about peace and not violence.<< Surely you understand building something in a community where it is clearly not wanted will do nothing to show this religion is about peace and not violence. >>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.' << There is indeed an eerie silence. If we were to make this situation smaller, and say it was a member of my family who attacked another, and a portion of the public considered my family to be as violent and evil as that one member, you can bet my family would be very vocal and honest about our feelings. There would be no doubt as to where we stand on the issue. >>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 don’t know what to make of this statement. First, there may not be a central spokesperson for Islam, but if Islam is indeed a peaceful religion and if the attacks were considered an atrocity by muslims around the world, then there need not be a central figure to speak out against them. Instead, clerics from various countries could have made their voices heard by standing up as individuals with followers to openly denounce the attacks – and not just the 9/11 attacks but other violent attacks and movements by extremists. That is the eerie silence to which I refer. Second, if someone is so appalled by what people within their community have done, they would absolutely feel the need to denounce it. When you denounce something, you’re not apologizing for it, you’re showing disgust and disapproval. How many leaders from around the world denounced the 9/11 attacks? Queen Elizabeth was one of them. Did she have something to do with 9/11? Because, according to your theory, since she didn’t she would have had no reason to denounce it. >>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.<< My feelings about islam are the same as my feelings about all religions. And in the case of the Cordoba Initiative and this project, they are indeed forcing islam into the faces of those who suffered on 9/11. They have acknowledged that the reason for building in this spot was to show how muslim’s can be and are part of the community and how they want to ‘give back’. They are already distinguishing themselves as the underdog. Yet when they are called on it, the opposition is called ‘phobic’. I reject that statement as you reject several of my statements, and in all honestly, the attempt to reverse perceived prejudice concerns me as well. >>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? << Yes, I would support there being no mosques in America. I would also support there being no temples, churches, or other religious symbols. But I would never support forcibly removing them just for the sake of it. I have mentioned this before… in my area there is a huge Korean community. Members of this  community have purchased many of the old stately homes only to demolish them and build churches in their place. There are now more Korean churches in my area than bars, and that’s saying something. Is it Korea-phobic to speak out against the building of more of these churches? Is that intolerant? If so, why is that intolerant but dismissing the will of the people who do not want these churches is not? >>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.<< Americans don’t want an Atheist as president either. You ask, should prospective muslim or atheist politians bow to these wishes? There is no bowing. There’s public opinion. And if the public doesn’t want them in, they won’t get the votes. And if they don’t get the votes, they don’t get the job. That’s as it should be in this scenario and in the one proposed by the Cordoba Initiative. >>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.<< I will freely admit it’s about intolerance, but not as you describe it. IMO, it’s intolerance toward the wishes of the community. >>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. << And yet the very reason for the building of this center is BECAUSE of the pain of 9/11 and the desire to ‘help heal’ it by helping New York Muslims ‘give back to the community’. I have to repeat those words from the Cordoba Initiative because the cause and conflict are already built in, yet when the opposition points them out, they’re called phobic or intolerant. I reject that fully. A lot of good people died on 9/11 – there was no distinction between them. On that day, they were all New Yorkers. >>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. << It’s not comparing the Holocaust with 9/11 but comparing the sensitivities of the people. Surely you see that. >>"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. << Yes. Those were my exact words. Re-read my statement and you’ll see that. Oh, wait. I didn’t say that at all, did I? >> 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'? << Yes I do. I’ve been to town-hall meetings. I’ve voiced my opinion. Hell, I’ve even been swayed by the opposition at times. More often than not, when public opinion is overridden, it’s because someone was paid off. And yet, there are times, like with the community board who found no legal reason for this mosque not to be built, public opinion is heard but without changes to the laws, opinion are ignored. It’s at that time when the developer has an option to respect the wishes of the people or trample all over them.

Clearly, my message was too long because I have to post it in parts... === >>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'. << And I would agree with the evangelical centre issue as not considering the wants and needs of that society. I’m not sure why you would imply that because I do not agree with the mosque at Ground Zero that I might agree with another religious symbol being built where it is not welcomed. Though maybe I’m reading more into that than is intended. >>Who is to say who's right? << Me. And I am. That’s all there is to it. I jest, of course. >> 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. << I think there are many people who would support the building of an evangelical church in every town in all the world. Baghdad included. I would not be one of them. Yes, there is hypocrisy and there is intolerance, but those two attitudes cannot and should not be the go-to reasons for all disagreements and yet, too often, true discussions turn to screaming matches and neither side wins.

magicalfreddiemercury wrote: "Surely you understand building something in a community where it is clearly not wanted will do nothing to show this religion is about peace and not violence."


No I don't. Simply because the community 'does not want something' does not mean that they should get their way. In NSW, Australia, a community prevented an Islamic school from being build due to extreme racism. The community did not want the school, however it is absolutely outrageous that they got their way. It's like if white supremecists in the American South prevented a black church from being built.

"There is indeed an eerie silence.."

Except there was not. You should have read letters to newspapers. You should have heard individual Muslims speak. I'm sorry, but that statement is simply incorrect.

"First, there may not be a central spokesperson for Islam, but if Islam is indeed a peaceful religion and if the attacks were considered an atrocity by muslims around the world, then there need not be a central figure to speak out against them."

And individual Muslims did speak out against it. You even had Iranians holding a candle vigil outside the (I believe) Swiss embassy.

"Instead, clerics from various countries could have made their voices heard by standing up as individuals with followers to openly denounce the attacks – and not just the 9/11 attacks but other violent attacks and movements by extremists. That is the eerie silence to which I refer."

Okay. You need to understand that there is a massive gap between the clerics and the followers. The clerics have different motivations for what they do and do not say. One American journalist said that when disaster struck, his mother always told him to focus on the helpers. In the case of Islam, focus on the followers.

That said, in recent years, clerics have spoken out. Several have issued fatwas against violence and terrorism, and in fact after 9/11, a group of clerics (I believe that Imam Faisel Abdul Rauf was involved) wrote a letter condemning terrorism in the name of Islam.

"Second, if someone is so appalled by what people within their community have done, they would absolutely feel the need to denounce it. When you denounce something, you’re not apologizing for it, you’re showing disgust and disapproval. How many leaders from around the world denounced the 9/11 attacks? Queen Elizabeth was one of them. Did she have something to do with 9/11? Because, according to your theory, since she didn’t she would have had no reason to denounce it."

I'm simply saying that failure to publicly condemnd something does not indicate that you approve of it.

"My feelings about islam are the same as my feelings about all religions. And in the case of the Cordoba Initiative and this project, they are indeed forcing islam into the faces of those who suffered on 9/11. They have acknowledged that the reason for building in this spot was to show how muslim’s can be and are part of the community and how they want to ‘give back’. They are already distinguishing themselves as the underdog."

Obviously we are unlikely to ever agree on this.

"Yet when they are called on it, the opposition is called ‘phobic’. I reject that statement as you reject several of my statements, and in all honestly, the attempt to reverse perceived prejudice concerns me as well."

'the attempt to reverse perceived prejudice'? I don't quite understand what you're saying.

"Yes, I would support there being no mosques in America. I would also support there being no temples, churches, or other religious symbols."

This is probably why we are unlikely to ever agree. As I would hate to live in a world in which there are no mosques, churches, temples, etc... People talk about how society is secular. That is true. However that does not mean that religion can not have an equal place. They just can't have the dominant place.

"But I would never support forcibly removing them just for the sake of it."

Glad to hear that.

"I have mentioned this before… in my area there is a huge Korean community. Members of this community have purchased many of the old stately homes only to demolish them and build churches in their place. There are now more Korean churches in my area than bars, and that’s saying something. Is it Korea-phobic to speak out against the building of more of these churches? Is that intolerant? If so, why is that intolerant but dismissing the will of the people who do not want these churches is not?"

It's not intolerant. As I said before, the statements attempting to justify to opposition to the building of the Mosque are intolerant. Similarly if you used similar statements in your opposition to the building of Korean churches, then yes, it is intolerant.

You know, Islamophobia is serious and it is real. On this thread, we already had one member talk about bombing the Mosque, and another compared Mosques to McDonalds. Opposing the building of new churches, mosques etc.. is not by its nature intolerant. However many of the statements uttered regarding the building of the Mosque are horrible, and I think that it should be recognised that regarding the mosque, intolerance is at play. Don't forget that there are numerous instances of intolerance being sanctioned by the law.

BTW, interesting that you mentioned this example. One could argue that it is simply democracy, or capitalism, at work.

"Americans don’t want an Atheist as president either. You ask, should prospective muslim or atheist politians bow to these wishes? There is no bowing. There’s public opinion. And if the public doesn’t want them in, they won’t get the votes. And if they don’t get the votes, they don’t get the job. That’s as it should be in this scenario and in the one proposed by the Cordoba Initiative."

But why? If the Cordoba Initiative follow the rules, and their application gets approved, why can't they build their mosque? There may be opposition to it, just as there is opposition to the building of the Korean churches. But just as with the building of the Korean churches, you can't always get what you want in a capitalist liberal democracy. We are probably unlikely to agree on this point, however I do think you will find that there are multiple examples in democracies of groups doing things (within the law) which other groups may not approve of. The Cordoba Initiative isn't unique.

"I will freely admit it’s about intolerance, but not as you describe it. IMO, it’s intolerance toward the wishes of the community."

You should read some of the statements on this thread ('bombing' and 'McDonalds'), and in your opening post (the '100 millions', 'insult to the memory' and 'symbolic victory). You should also read comments on some of the articles on this. To claim that the people who oppose it do not do so out of intolerance is astounding IMO. Our viewpoints are obviously poles apart.

"And yet the very reason for the building of this center is BECAUSE of the pain of 9/11 and the desire to ‘help heal’ it by helping New York Muslims ‘give back to the community’. I have to repeat those words from the Cordoba Initiative because the cause and conflict are already built in"

Yes, but it still does not mean that the views of the 9/11 families are the only ones which should be taken into account. It may be one factor, but it shouldn't be the only factor.

"yet when the opposition points them out, they’re called phobic or intolerant. I reject that fully. A lot of good people died on 9/11 – there was no distinction between them. On that day, they were all New Yorkers."

Yes, and rather than repeat myself, I will simply point out that if the statements you posted are not Islamophobic or intolerant, they are extremely ignorant.

Amazon wrote:

"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."

Fair point.  But however rational or irrational the reasons are, if the majority of the public doesn't like an idea and the end result will be inconsequential, then the idea shouldn't be implemented.  In a democracy this is the way things should work.

I wouldn't be as blunt as More Cowbell who says religion "fucks everything up", but the comment isn't too far off the mark.  Most of the west has spent centuries freeing itself from the shackles of medieval religious ideas, and this forward progression needs to continue.  In a world where millions have AIDS and billions are starving and/or oppressed, it saddens me that we're even wasting our time on the subject of where to build yet another place of worship, as if there aren't enough of them.

If everyone in this world decided not to adhere to ideas from 1+ thousand years ago, roughly 90% of the world's major problems would cease to exist overnight.  While there are some positives to organized religion, its underlying purpose is to divide people into groups of thought.  If and when the human race understands this simple concept, weapons will be put away and will live in harmony with one another.  And the 9/11 site can become a park where our children can play.

"It’s not comparing the Holocaust with 9/11 but comparing the sensitivities of the people. Surely you see that." No, because it's a completely different situation. Without wanting to go into which was worse, 9/11 was a terrorist attack comprising mass murder launched by religious extremists; extremists who actually hate members of their own faith more than they hate members of other faiths. The Holocaust was genocide launched by a government upon its citizens and with the support/acceptance of a large number of the wider citzenry. Neither event is 'worse' however the structual/ideological differences are such that I don't think you can compare them at all. "--Oh, please. So in order to build bridges, they need to disappear." << "Yes. Those were my exact words. Re-read my statement and you’ll see that. Oh, wait. I didn’t say that at all, did I?" My apologies. I leaped before I looked. ">>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'? <<" "Yes I do. I’ve been to town-hall meetings. I’ve voiced my opinion. Hell, I’ve even been swayed by the opposition at times. More often than not, when public opinion is overridden, it’s because someone was paid off." Are you suggesting that payoffs were involved in this case? Public opinion is overridden all the time, it's done legally, and people aren't always paid off. In regards to development, public opinion may be overriden for political reasons, it may be for commercial reasons, it may be for ideological reasons or it may simply be that the authorities made the rare decision to do what is right. Beyond development, there are so many examples of public opinion being overridden. In Australia, the Government was forced to alter a proposed resource tax after extensive campaigning by the wealthy resources sector. "And yet, there are times, like with the community board who found no legal reason for this mosque not to be built, public opinion is heard but without changes to the laws, opinion are ignored. It’s at that time when the developer has an option to respect the wishes of the people or trample all over them." Well, all I can say is that, depending on where you live, I think you'll find that many (if not most) developers choose to trample over the wishes of the people. That said, simply because many, or the majority, of people are opposed to something does not mean that the proposal should be rejected, or that if the developer goes through with it, he is 'trampling' over the wishes of the people. Sometimes, quite honestly, it does no matter what the people think. In NSW, that particular community did not want the Islamic school. Well, quite honestly, if the proposal had not been rejected, their wishes absolutely should have been 'trampled' on. Just because the people in this community are a pack of redneck racists, does not mean that their wishes should be respected. The same goes for a group in the Deep South opposing a black church. If there is one Muslim in Texas, and he wants to build a Mosque, who really cares if the community opposes it? "I’m not sure why you would imply that because I do not agree with the mosque at Ground Zero that I might agree with another religious symbol being built where it is not welcomed. Though maybe I’m reading more into that than is intended." No, I'm not implying that. I'm simply showing that it's subjective. "Me. And I am. That’s all there is to it. I jest, of course." Of course you would say that. :D :D "I think there are many people who would support the building of an evangelical church in every town in all the world. Baghdad included. I would not be one of them. Yes, there is hypocrisy and there is intolerance, but those two attitudes cannot and should not be the go-to reasons for all disagreements and yet, too often, true discussions turn to screaming matches and neither side wins." True, however (and clearly we are unlikely to agree on this) but I do think that intolerance is the go-to reason here. This has been a great discussion. I'm sorry if my posts read too much like essays, and if you want to call a 'truce' I will completely understand, but I really did (do) enjoy our discussion. :D

Amazon wrote:

"It's like if white supremecists in the American South prevented a black church from being built."

I completely disagree.  A very important distinction needs to be made.  White supremacists want non-white people to disappear and would make it happen themselves if they could.  On the other hand, most people who don't like a particular religion (or even religion as a whole) simply don't like the ideology.  To compare people in favour of dogma-free thought to white supremacists is a complete skewing of the natural world and an insult to everything that rationality stands for.. so I certainly hope that's not what you're doing.

'the attempt to reverse perceived prejudice'

If I may jump in, magicalfreddiemercury.. This is when someone is condemned for being "intolerant" of someone or a group of people who are intolerant in the first place.  Instead of focusing on the issue at hand, they simply attack the messenger (i.e. label them as having a phobia), and hope the counter-attack will be louder than the original point.

This has nothing to do with Islamophobia.  Even if it did, to have a problem with a single faith group is to completely miss the point here.  Simply put, the 9/11 site is pretty touchy subject for most Americans, and a single faith group shouldn't have a monopoly on it.  Put up a plaque and let's move on to something of greater importance.

Yes, try to build a Christian church anywhere in Baghdad - really funny. More than half of the 1 million Christians in Iraq had to flee the country since the fall of the laicist regime of Saddam Hussein. Thousands were killed by militant Muslims and almost all of them were diplaced within the country. I have not heard many Muslim calls for more tolerance of Christians in Iraq.

I have no doubt that people might use this issue as a means to air their own ignorant agendas, but the fact remains that there are perfectly sane reasons for not wanting a mosque to go there.  I hate to go all Treasure Moment on you guys, but it's a Fact Fact Fact Fact Fuckety Fact.  

I don't think a mosque should be there - but I don't think ANYTHING should be there, 'cept maybe a park or something.  I think the idea of building a new tower there is just insane.  I think putting a mosque there is rewarding the misguided people who organised the attacks in the first place.

Would it kill anyone to put it a few blocks downtown?  If you move it from Ground Zero, then the only protests you have are from the bigots who just don't want mosques at all, and then the debate is a much easier one to settle.  You can just ignore them.  

People who are saying it's prejudiced to say no to a mosque at Ground Zero are being so bloody ignorant towards the concept of there being a traumatic association between 9/11 and certain other topics.  Should I be allowed to open a guns and ammo shop next to the book depository?  

Saying that there's no reason not to put it at Ground Zero, in one sentence, completely dismisses people's feelings as a factor.  It's callous, and it's only as bad as the other shit in this thread (re: 'bomb it' or 'it's like McDonalds').  If I had my way, the tower, the mosque, the complex - all of it would be scotched and there'd be a hospital there.  Or a park, like I said.  Anything but these endless bloody debates that really do show the worst in people.

[QUOTE][QUOTENAME] Zebonka12 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]

I don't think a mosque should be there - but I don't think ANYTHING should be there, 'cept maybe a park or something.  I think the idea of building a new tower there is just insane.  

[/QUOTE]

Thats exactly what I thought when I visited NY years ago and went to the site......... NY doesnt need yet another tall building. A park of some sort would have been a better idea imo....

As for building a mosque there - that is a no for a start. Anywhere else would be fine, just not there.

My way of thinking is this - muslims were not responsible for 9/11, ASSHOLES were responsible for 9/11.  There might not be an actual problem with putting a mosque there, but there is a perceived one, and it would be the human thing to do to just accept that it's going to cause offense, and put it somewhere else.

>> Zebonka12 wrote: My way of thinking is this - muslims were not responsible for 9/11, ASSHOLES were responsible for 9/11.  There might not be an actual problem with putting a mosque there, but there is a perceived one, and it would be the human thing to do to just accept that it's going to cause offense, and put it somewhere else.<< Especially if the declared reason for building there in the first place is to help unify two sides. It's like taking a vegetarian to dinner at a steak house then getting annoyed because they seem ungrateful. It's seems deliberately misunderstood. >>Sir GH wrote:  If I may jump in, magicalfreddiemercury.. This is when someone is condemned for being "intolerant" of someone or a group of people who are intolerant in the first place.  Instead of focusing on the issue at hand, they simplyattack the messenger (i.e. label them as having a phobia), and hope the counter-attack will be louder than the original point. << Absolutely, and I thank you for it! >>Amazon wrote: Well, all I can say is that, depending on where you live, I think you'll find that many (if not most) developers choose to trample over the wishes of the people.<< True. And by showing such disregard, they anger the community - no intolerance, phobia or prejudice about it. >>Amazon wrote:  This has been a great discussion. I'm sorry if my posts read too much like essays, and if you want to call a 'truce' I will completely understand, but I really did (do) enjoy our discussion. :D << I found your points thought-provoking and, though my opinion has not shifted, I appreciate the opportunity to discuss it so thoroughly.

If you Google "Mosques in Manhattan", you can see that there are already more than a few - just look at all the dots on the map.  Some of those dots may represent places of worship and others community centers (maybe both).  And Manhattan is some of the most expensive real estate in the world.  

I would say, that because this organization is looking to change certain laws to be in agreement with Islam, they would be wanting to build near "ground zero" just for the purpose of exposure - as in "location, location, location."  They have a political agenda that they want to work on, and they think this is the way to get started.  It's obvious, especially to all the New Yorkers who are routinely exposed to people from all around the world, different religions, and different cultures.  They are not such an ignorant group (New Yorkers), nor are they intolerant, except maybe of people from New Jersey (who, apparently, are very bad drivers).

Sir GH wrote: "I completely disagree. A very important distinction needs to be made. White supremacists want non-white people to disappear and would make it happen themselves if they could. On the other hand, most people who don't like a particular religion (or even religion as a whole) simply don't like the ideology."


Violent acts have occured against people of a particular religion, because people 'simply don't like the ideology.' You can't divorce the ideology from the person. When someone is assaulted/threatened/made to feel unwanted in their own country and told to go back to where they came from/discriminated against because of their religion, you can't simply divorce the ideology. Additionally saying to someone that I simply don't like your religion is like telling a gay person that you don't like their sexuality. In the case of both a gay and a religious person, their sexuality and religion is an intrinsic part of whom they are. I know that as Jew who is bi, I couldn't be friends with someone who disliked Judaism and homosexuality. The community in NSW who opposed the Muslim school are no different to homophobes and are complete bigots.

They are also no different to white supremecists, since many of them probably want Muslims 'to disappear and would make it happen themselves if they could.' At the very least, the hatred which they put out (which includes calls for Islamic immigration to be cut) creates an atmosphere in which Muslims get attacked.

"To compare people in favour of dogma-free thought to white supremacists is a complete skewing of the natural world and an insult to everything that rationality stands for.. so I certainly hope that's not what you're doing."

Oh please. I want it on the record that I have never attacked athiesm, not on this site, not anywhere. However you have absolutely no problem in attacking religion.

Anyway, the people who opposed the Muslim school in NSW (whom I compared to white supremecists) are not simply in favour of 'favour of dogma-free thought'. They are horribly and disgustingly Islamophobic in the true sense of the word. They are repulsive bigots and to try to give them any credibility at all does your case tremendous harm.

"If I may jump in, magicalfreddiemercury..

This is when someone is condemned for being "intolerant" of someone or a group of people who are intolerant in the first place. Instead of focusing on the issue at hand, they simply attack the messenger (i.e. label them as having a phobia), and hope the counter-attack will be louder than the original point."

Two comments. One, as I have constantly said (all to no avail it seems), it is not intolerant to oppose the mosque, but many of the statements to justify the opposition to it are. It really frustrates me because time and time again, I have provided examples of intolerant statements, and yet people are saying that I am calling the general opposition intolerant. I am simply referring to some of the statements which are completely intolerant.

Two, the Muslims who proposed it are not necesarilly intolerant (I know that Imam Faisel Abdul Rauf is not.)

"This has nothing to do with Islamophobia. Even if it did, to have a problem with a single faith group is to completely miss the point here."

How is it to miss the point? Are you saying that Islamophobia can be justified? You know, there are rational and reasonable reasons to oppose the mosque, but Islamophobia is not one of them.

"Simply put, the 9/11 site is pretty touchy subject for most Americans, and a single faith group shouldn't have a monopoly on it."

That is reasonable (especially if it means that the evangelical christian centre shouldn't be build as well), but it is unreasonable to even attempt to defend Islamophobia.

I mentioned this before, but it doesn't really concern me whether the mosque gets built. What does concern me are some of the statements provided by some of the opposing parties, as well as the hypocricy.

stupid anyway to build that!!!! moslems should save their money then will be rich as the jews

"YourValentine wrote: "Yes, try to build a Christian church anywhere in Baghdad - really funny."


I guess that we consider different things to be funny. Anyway my point was (in case you missed it) and I didn't have to pick Baghdad, was that plenty of people in the West would be up in arms if an evelgelical christian group was prevented from building a church in a Muslim majority nation.

"More than half of the 1 million Christians in Iraq had to flee the country since the fall of the laicist regime of Saddam Hussein. Thousands were killed by militant Muslims and almost all of them were diplaced within the country."

It wasn't just Christians who suffered.

"I have not heard many Muslim calls for more tolerance of Christians in Iraq."

Perhaps not, but as members of a liberal democracy, I hope that we would be better than that. Anyway, as I said, I only brought up Baghad as an example.

BTW, I was going to respond to your previous post, but I lost it. I'll sum it up in just a few sentences. I confused Germany with Spain/Belgium/France in regards to Islamophobically calling for bans on Muslim clothing.

While you may claim that many, or most, Germans are opposed to Turkey's joing the EU on economic grounds, I am not convinced that there are Germans, as well as French and other Europeans, who are not opposed on religious grounds.

Regarding freedom of speech, the Mohammed cartoons simply showcased Western hypocricy. I don't think that republishing the Mohammed cartoons makes one a freedom of speech hero. If anything it makes one a freedom of speech coward, since you won't go to prison for it; and in the West, freedom of speech has been reinterpreted as freedom to villify Islam. Afterall if you truly support the republication of freedom of speech, because no mullah tells you what to write, then stand up in public and deny The Holocaust. You won't of course.

I don't oppose the Holocaust laws, but I find it absurd that you think that by republishing the cartoons (whose original purpose was to provoke), you're striking a blow for our values like freedom of speech and on behalf of Western society. You aren't; you're simply executing speech within the safe confines of your nation, which won't have any negative consequences for you, and at the sake of a minority.