Jump to content
NinjaSamurai

Ground Zero Mosque

Recommended Posts

I wasn't really paying attention to this story, because I didn't know it was such a huge deal. BUT it made the front page of msn, which is the closest I get to reading the newspaper.

 

 

"NEW YORK — A city commission on Tuesday denied landmark status to a building near the World Trade Center site, freeing a group to convert the property into an Islamic community center and mosque that has drawn national opposition.

The Landmarks Preservation Commission voted 9-0, saying the 152-year-old building blocks from the site of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks wasn't special or distinctive enough to meet criteria to qualify as a landmark. Commissioners also said that other buildings from the era were better examples of the building's style.

National and New York politicians and the Anti-Defamation League have come out in recent weeks against plans for the mosque, saying it disrespects the memory of those killed in the 2001 attacks carried out by adherents of radical Islam. Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who also chairs the foundation building the Sept. 11 memorial, has defended plans for the mosque.

High-profile opposition

Former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin are among the opposition.

"Many Americans, myself included, feel it would be an intolerable and tragic mistake to allow such a project ... to go forward on such hallowed ground," Palin wrote in a Facebook message originally posted July 20.

"No mosque," Gingrich stated on his website late last month.

"The time for double standards that allow Islamists to behave aggressively toward us while they demand our weakness and submission is over," he wrote, adding that the decision over whether to build the facility was "a test of the timidity, passivity and historic ignorance of American elites." "

 

 

Additionally, there was a poll underneath the story where a whopping 86 percent of respondents thought that the mosque would be offensive.

 

I was just wondering what some of the educated opinions were for this?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I find substantially more offensive than having a mosque near the

WTC site is the conflation of radical Muslims with those that practice the religion and have no terrorist connections at all by people like Gingrich and Palin, and their belief of by having everyday Muslims practicing near the WTC, suddenly we're soft and have given in to radical Islam. If they wanted to put the mosque literally on top of the site (which some conservative commentators are claiming they might as well be doing), I would understand the complaint because it certainly should have landmark status. However, the site for the mosque is blocks away, which brings up the question: how close it too close? I wouldn't be surprised if some of the same people that are against the mosque site where it is believed that there shouldn't be any mosques in NYC at all, which is of course ridiculous. Absent any reasonable criteria for figuring out where one could be placed in proximity to the WTC site, there isn't in my mind a compelling reason to prevent the mosque from being established.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've heard that the people building this Mosque got a large donation from some shady people in the Middle East. I don't care enough to verify this, but someone else might?

Edited by Chaos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've heard that the people building this Mosque got a large donation from some shady people in the Middle East. I don't care enough to verify this, but someone else might?

 

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2010/07/terror-finded-ground-zero-mosque-imam-raufs-bin-laden-link.html

 

If this is true, it would certainly change my opinion, but this remains to be seen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What I find substantially more offensive than having a mosque near the

WTC site is the conflation of radical Muslims with those that practice the religion and have no terrorist connections at all by people like Gingrich and Palin, and their belief of by having everyday Muslims practicing near the WTC, suddenly we're soft and have given in to radical Islam. If they wanted to put the mosque literally on top of the site (which some conservative commentators are claiming they might as well be doing), I would understand the complaint because it certainly should have landmark status. However, the site for the mosque is blocks away, which brings up the question: how close it too close? I wouldn't be surprised if some of the same people that are against the mosque site where it is believed that there shouldn't be any mosques in NYC at all, which is of course ridiculous. Absent any reasonable criteria for figuring out where one could be placed in proximity to the WTC site, there isn't in my mind a compelling reason to prevent the mosque from being established.

I wouldn't normally oppose the establishment of a mosque, but the fact that it's called "Cordoba" is offensive. It connotes that Islam won a battle here at ground zero, and that is offensive. I mean, imagine if I opened a Vietnamese Restaurant near the Vietnam Wall called "You Lost." Holy shit I would probably get shot for that.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm divided on this issue. On one hand, I understand the arguments that putting the mosque there is offensive. On the other, I think putting the Mosque there is a great example of religious tolerance and freedom - as well as a reminder that real Islam was not what we saw in action on 9/11.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On the other, I think putting the Mosque there is a great example of religious tolerance and freedom - as well as a reminder that real Islam was not what we saw in action on 9/11.

 

my thoughts exactly, also, im not sure exactly what cordoba means in arabic, i always thought it was a place. politicians need to stop spreading the thought that "all brown men are evil and want to bomb your house" and instead look to spread tolerance. there is no reason why it would ever be offensive, because these people had nothing to do with 9/11, and people should stop connecting them because it spreads the thought that muslims = terrorists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On one hand, I understand the arguments that putting the mosque there is offensive.

 

You do? Can you explain them to me, because I totally don't get it at all?

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
random article

 

I don't think that's it at all. The vast majority of this project's opponents seem to be alarmed by the idea that a mosque might exist near ground zero. I don't think putting Badshah Khan himself in charge of the project would change their minds. That is, they fear Islam, not the Imam in charge of the project. The same can be said about the objections regarding funding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You do? Can you explain them to me, because I totally don't get it at all?

They are not particularly persuasive to rational people, but the arguments are quite compelling to those who are unable or unwilling to acknowledge that Islam can be peaceful and not Anti-American. Others I know see it as an affront to the victims of 9/11 (because they are unable/unwilling to separate Islamic radicals from Islam, and to acknowledge that it's not really that close to the site of the towers anyway).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Others I know see it as an affront to the victims of 9/11 (because they are unable/unwilling to separate Islamic radicals from Islam, and to acknowledge that it's not really that close to the site of the towers anyway).

The way the media spins it, it sounds like they are building a mosque ON ground zero (it's really 2 blocks away)

 

Trying to turn ground zero into a landmark just to prevent a mosque being built just seems asshatted and ignorant, though

 

Then again, if Sarah Palin backs it up, it must be a joke

Edited by thisissparta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is that people see "Islam" as a single entity, with virtually no divisions or distinctions. Gingrich implies that treating moderate, peaceful Muslims with respect is the same as blowing Osama bin Laden, and many people are quick to agree. Not a single person I talk to even seems to acknowledge the fact that Islam has spawned less terrorists than Christianity, or the fact that the middle east has been sciencing circles around western civilization since the 7th century. The only Muslim-related facts that reach our ears are the ones about the war, and that's skewed a lot of people's perspectives.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The problem is that people see "Islam" as a single entity, with virtually no divisions or distinctions. Gingrich implies that treating moderate, peaceful Muslims with respect is the same as blowing Osama bin Laden, and many people are quick to agree. Not a single person I talk to even seems to acknowledge the fact that Islam has spawned less terrorists than Christianity, or the fact that the middle east has been sciencing circles around western civilization since the 7th century. The only Muslim-related facts that reach our ears are the ones about the war, and that's skewed a lot of people's perspectives.

 

Have we flown planes into large buildings in the middle east and killed 3000 civilians in the process? Or blown up buses in the middle east? Didn't think so. These are only the extremists though, I'm aware of that.

 

Also, if "the fact that Islam has spawned less terrorists than Christianity" is truly a fact, I'd like to see the evidence (the meaning of terrorist is subjective, but I still want to see the proof).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Have we flown planes into large buildings in the middle east and killed 3000 civilians in the process? Or blown up buses in the middle east? Didn't think so. These are only the extremists though, I'm aware of that.

 

The Islamic terrorists crashed a plane into a building in a single account, killing 3,000 people. Iraqi civilian deaths in the war are estimated at about one hundred fucking thousand. (http://www.iraqbodycount.org/, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War)

 

Terrorists may have blown up buses and trains, but the U.S. military has bombed ENTIRE CITIES that never housed a single opponent of the U.S., simply because they could. Many people see the war as retaliation against attacks, but it's more like a one-sided military blitzkrieg.

 

Also, if "the fact that Islam has spawned less terrorists than Christianity" is truly a fact, I'd like to see the evidence (the meaning of terrorist is subjective, but I still want to see the proof).

 

The number of documented cases of terrorism in the U.S. name much more white Christians than anyone else. But, more specifically, I'd like to point out fundamentalist organizations. The Ku Klux Klan (which did indeed use fear to control people, hence "terrorists") held at some point 6 million members in the early 1900's, whereas the Taliban peaked at a mere 45,000 in 2001. The term "terrorist" is open to interpretation, but historical records on the middle east show that organized persecution has pervaded western history much more than theirs.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scu: I guess I understand the gut reaction to the mosque being near Ground Zero. People just heat "Ground Zero" "Mosque" and they stop thinking. Some find it offensive because it is a reminder that Islam is negatively linked to 9/11. I guess that's what I get. I say the Mosque is a big middle finger to those who say that America is oppresive and intolerant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wouldn't normally oppose the establishment of a mosque, but the fact that it's called "Cordoba" is offensive. It connotes that Islam won a battle here at ground zero, and that is offensive. I mean, imagine if I opened a Vietnamese Restaurant near the Vietnam Wall called "You Lost." Holy shit I would probably get shot for that.

This is the opposite of correct: http://gotmedieval.blogspot.com/2010/08/professor-newts-distorted-history.html

 

Next time, try to research your opinion before just repeating false talking points from Newt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is the opposite of correct: http://gotmedieval.blogspot.com/2010/08/professor-newts-distorted-history.html

 

Next time, try to research your opinion before just repeating false talking points from Newt.

 

[Cordoba] was captured in 711 by a Muslim army: in 716 it became a provincial capital, depending from the Caliphate of Damascus; in Arabic it was known as قرطبة (Qurṭuba).

Yay I have evidence too, and this isn't bullshit from either a blog or Newt. This is history. Muslim city conquers Christian city. Simple fact, hard evidence. Don't get me wrong, I don't buy Newt and the whole transforming church dealio, but the fact is, Cordoba was a Muslim conquest over Christians.

 

Next time, don't use the first thing that comes up on a google search.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps people would feel better if they named it either the Charles Martel Center or the Poitiers Center.

Edited by hylanddd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Next time, don't use the first thing that comes up on a google search.

 

Well, here's a first hit on google indicating that they changed the name of the Mosque 2 and a half weeks before your original post to Park51 to emphasize community development as opposed to religion.

 

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/07/14/2010-07-14_new_name_doesnt_mosque_their_ire_tense_hearing_on_park51_near_ground_zero.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Random cross-x guy being reactionary

 

You should read what he posted there. Cordoba was home to one of the largest libraries in the Western world housing Jewish, Christian, and Muslim scholars. It also describes the relatively peaceful way in which that city was acquisitioned by its first followers of Islam, and the centuries of tolerance of its Christians that followed. The article suggests that for these reason, Cordoba is probably more accurately seen as a symbol of cooperation between these three faiths, and not whatever you Mr. Gingrich are implying, warranted by one-setence-ultra-simplistic versions of its history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...