Jump to content
NinjaSamurai

Ground Zero Mosque

Recommended Posts

hyland - your view point is irresponsible. You make no effort to verify anyones' crazy claims. Its lazy and ignorant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Does anyone have any idea how this even started? I wake up one morning and all of a sudden Muslims can't build a mosque anywhere they want? Jesus.

 

It started after 9/11. Alot of mosques in my neighborhood (including my own) were vandalized. People would drive by and throw out curse words. Every NCISesque TV show suddenly had an Arab terrorist. I think the issue is more cultural than anything else; somehow, in the American mind, it has become okay to associate Islam with terrorism. And that's the root of the problem. Muslims and Islam have become the next persecuted breed - honestly, this controversy is a perfect example of the fact. Any objection clearly violates the first amendment, and yet it still exists. Why? Well, because in some American mentalities, Muslims don't deserve first amendment rights.

 

I think now, BECAUSE of the publicity, it is NECESSARY to build the mosque at the site. Any backing down would be acknowledging that no, we don't deserve our first amendment rights. And yes, bigotry can take them away from us. That would really be the beginning of the end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, Medusa - your logic is like the cascade after the Dr. closed it. You say that someone going "don't build the mosque in that space" is somehow violating your first amendement rights. 70% of America, including me, thinks that the group has the right to the build the mosque - that supports your 1st amendment rights. It's the location people object to. It's not a violation of your rights for me to say "well, I think you have the right to do X, but I think X is a very bad idea." The mosque will get built, and only time will tell if the decision was wise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw something recently that said it might not even have the funding to get built.

 

Hyland: do you refuse to watch Fox News since Newscorp has a lot of Saudi investors? Is is it inappropriate for them to report from Ground Zero because of this?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you think the mosque is bad, recently there have been reports that Jews want to open up a JCC (Jewish Community Center) a mere block away from the New York Stock Exchange. After they caused the financial collapse of 2008 I see it as offensive that they would stake their claim so close to the scar they left on the American landscape. Frankly its disgusting that the Jews would do this.

  • Upvote 5
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Coov: Actually, I've given up watching most televised news except for my local news. Most of the national and international news I get comes from the Washington Post to which I subscribe, Media Matters, Newsbusters, Daily Kos, and Red State - see.. I am pretty balanced in my sourcing.

 

Evan: If you feel that way, then that's the way you feel. And you have the right to feel that way.

 

Oh..and someone on this thread talked about the mosque at the Pentagon. Sadly, there is no mosque at the Pentagon, Politifact having rated that statement False: http://politifact.com/florida/statements/2010/aug/19/kendrick-meek/kendrick-meek-theres-mosque-pentagon/

 

What this discussion boils down to is can a person have an opinion on the practices of an other? Does exercising a right make one immune to criticism of that exercise? What if construction workers refuse to work on the site? Are they bigots? Or are they simply choosing not to participate in a construction project?

Edited by hylanddd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What this discussion boils down to is can a person have an opinion on the practices of an other? Does exercising a right make one immune to criticism of that exercise? What if construction workers refuse to work on the site? Are they bigots? Or are they simply choosing not to participate in a construction project?

 

Just because one does not invoke the power of the state to enforce it does not mean the opinion is not bigoted.

 

So go ahead and express your opinion. Readers can judge your character from your expression.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Coov: Actually, I've given up watching most televised news except for my local news. Most of the national and international news I get comes from the Washington Post to which I subscribe, Media Matters, Newsbusters, Daily Kos, and Red State - see.. I am pretty balanced in my sourcing.

This ignores the 2nd question, which was the actual substantive point. To reiterate,

do you refuse to watch Fox News since Newscorp has a lot of Saudi investors? Is is it inappropriate for them to report from Ground Zero because of this?
The project may have funding from people in particular places, but that has no logical bearing on the motives or intent of the project managers themselves, nor is it accurate to assume that the financial backers would have any influence in the functioning of the project once the building was completed.

Also, do keep in mind that there are plenty of reasons a project might not wish to discuss its funding sources. This is particularly true when associations to terrorism have already been suggested - once the accusation has been made, even though it is groundless, donors/financiers who do not otherwise desire anonymity might be uncomfortable if they thought their connection to the project would be construed as connections to terrorism.

 

Evan: If you feel that way, then that's the way you feel. And you have the right to feel that way.

No one is questioning whether people have the right to be bigots. And if this statement were made non-satirically, it would evidence bigotry. Notice the bold

After they [Jews] caused the financial collapse of 2008 I see it as offensive that they ... the Jews would do this.
emphasis added

There is clearly homogenization and assumption of group guilt, possibly sniffing toward a vast conspiracy theory. That's bigoted.

 

What this discussion boils down to is can a person have an opinion on the practices of an other? Does exercising a right make one immune to criticism of that exercise? What if construction workers refuse to work on the site? Are they bigots? Or are they simply choosing not to participate in a construction project?

No. The accusations against you would never have been leveled if you had said 'I don't think it's a good idea for this building project to go on here. I don't think anyone should be allowed to do new construction within 800 feet of WTC.' Instead, the reason you oppose the project is the religion/ethnicity of the project managers and the prospective beneficiaries. This makes your reasoning suspect to bigotry.

So what this discussion boils down to is whether those opinions are or are not bigoted simply because their reasoning relies on an aspect of identity of the persons involved.

I don't think they necessarily are. It would be possible to oppose the project on pragmatic grounds, following the reasoning you originally laid out. 'If a future (attempted) terrorist is shown to have spent time at Cordoba House, that will cause a really bad backlash against Muslims and Arabs, so the risk associated with the project is too high.' This sort of argument could have come up, for example, in a meeting of the project organizers themselves - 'we would have to assure everyone that this isn't a terrorist threat. What if a jihadist uses the facility before blowing something up; how will we do damage control? This reasoning is still probably wrong, but it wouldn't rely in any degree on racist assumptions. I don't really have a qualified opinion, hylandd, on whether your view is actually this pragmatic approach, or if it masks bigotry.

Edited by meanmedianmode
clarify conclusions
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you think the mosque is bad, recently there have been reports that Jews want to open up a JCC (Jewish Community Center) a mere block away from the New York Stock Exchange. After they caused the financial collapse of 2008 I see it as offensive that they would stake their claim so close to the scar they left on the American landscape. Frankly its disgusting that the Jews would do this.

 

Im sorry I should have some fine print.

 

 

 

 

*This statement was made sarcastically to point out the illogicalness of the anti-mosque movement.

 

Also can I just say as a New Yorker there isnt a community center in that area of Manhattan and I think it would be very useful for there to be a center in lower Manhattan

Edited by Sweet Ev
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Good analysis (as always) by Glenn Greenwald: [/url]

 

He uses the poisoning the well fallacy when I have a hard time thinking Howard Dean (who stands against the) is a racist. Its a visceral issue--of course there are going to be people like this. (Don't create a reverse witch hunt based on the lowest common denominator of ones opponents)

 

Second, if the point of the mosque is building bridges--it would seem a small compromise which would radically increase trust. (Their own moniker is improving Muslim-West relations) From Howard Dean on the issue:

 

"This center may be intended as a bridge or a healing gesture but it will not be perceived that way unless a dialogue with a real attempt to understand each other happens," he writes. "That means the builders have to be willing to go beyond what is their right and be willing to talk about feelings whether the feelings are 'justified' or not."

 

Dean argues that most of the people opposed to the "ground zero mosque" - actually a planned Islamic community center that would include a mosque two blocks from the former site of the World Trade Center -- "are not right-wing hate mongers." He says that while the developers have a right to build what and where they want, they should consider that many Americans "have very strong emotional resistance to building on this site."

 

"This is about ending the poisonous atmosphere engendered by fear and hate, and in order to do that there has to be genuine listening, hearing and willingness to compromise on both sides," he writes.

 

And Dean in a Greenwald article:

 

The rights of the builders are not in dispute. This is about ending the poisonous atmosphere engendered by fear and hate, and in order to do that there has to be genuine listening, hearing and willingness to compromise on both sides I personally believe that there are other possible solutions that could result from such a process and that a genuine exploration of those possibilities is something we ought to try.

 

Third, if you think about the twin towers as a gigantic graveyard--citing the towers 5 to 10 blocks is hardly a violation of freedom of religion. (it might even be safer and more amenable to practicing freedom of religion)

 

Fourth, (and a side issue of sorts) the issue of where funding is coming from is less than transparent.

 

Freedom of religion, but respect the death and suffering of others. While the idealist part of me sees the point of having an absolutist interpretation of freedom of religion--the one which says our politics have to pay attention to both sides--it suggests a moderate compromise would be a more lasting and viable solution.

Edited by nathan_debate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There goes the thread.

 

(Don't create a reverse witch hunt based on the lowest common denominator of ones opponents)

I'll be the 1st to say it: if you oppose the mosque, you are a racist. Fuck the witch hunt: its obvious what those who oppose it are.

 

Second, if the point of the mosque is building bridges--it would seem a small compromise which would radically increase trust. (Their own moniker is improving Muslim-West relations) From Howard Dean on the issue:

What is a small compromise?

 

Third, if you think about the twin towers as a gigantic graveyard--citing the towers 5 to 10 blocks is hardly a violation of freedom of religion. (it might even be safer and more amenable to practicing freedom of religion)

Sure, but that logic makes hospitals graveyards too.

 

Also, if we think about a log being a house, then of course we can live in a log.[/end bad logic]

 

Fourth, (and a side issue of sorts) the issue of where funding is coming from is less than transparent.

Cause we know christians are a fuck-load better at transparency-- mormons and the pope anybody?

 

Freedom of religion, but respect the death and suffering of others. While the idealist part of me sees the point of having an absolutist interpretation of freedom of religion--the one which says our politics have to pay attention to both sides--it suggests a moderate compromise would be a more lasting and viable solution.

No, you're a racist, shut up.

Edited by Enterprise
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He uses the poisoning the well fallacy when I have a hard time thinking Howard Dean (who stands against the) is a racist. Its a visceral issue--of course there are going to be people like this. (Don't create a reverse witch hunt based on the lowest common denominator of ones opponents)

My question above still stands. Does anyone oppose the community center on grounds other than a dislike of Islam/Muslims, dislike of Middle Easterners, or piggybacking on the bigotry of others?

 

Why, specifically, do you oppose the Islamic center?

 

Second, if the point of the mosque is building bridges--it would seem a small compromise which would radically increase trust.

Whose trust is needed? Why is their trust lacking?

 

Third, if you think about the twin towers as a gigantic graveyard--citing the towers 5 to 10 blocks is hardly a violation of freedom of religion. (it might even be safer and more amenable to practicing freedom of religion)

These sentences make no sense; they are not complete thoughts. Whose freedom of religion is "safer"? And how is opposing a community center based on the religion of its staff and clientèle not a violation of their freedom of religion?

 

Fourth, (and a side issue of sorts) the issue of where funding is coming from is less than transparent.

Why are the sources of funding relevant? If the government is satisfied that the funding is legal, then why would you care what the sources are?

 

Freedom of religion, but respect the death and suffering of others. While the idealist part of me sees the point of having an absolutist interpretation of freedom of religion--the one which says our politics have to pay attention to both sides--it suggests a moderate compromise would be a more lasting and viable solution.

The only way this makes any sense is if you think that the building of an Islamic community center is disrespecting "the death and suffering of others." Please explain how the center itself will be disrespectful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why are the sources of funding relevant? If the government is satisfied that the funding is legal, then why would you care what the sources are?
Any capitalist or marxist knows that fundings shapes organizations. The ideological bent of the funding is important. Is it peaceful Islamists or Islamic fundamentalists.

 

Whose trust is needed? Why is their trust lacking?
The community of New York. And perhaps the 9/11 families--after all its a graveyard of their relatives.

 

Third, if you think about the twin towers as a gigantic graveyard--citing the towers 5 to 10 blocks is hardly a violation of freedom of religion. (it might even be safer and more amenable to practicing freedom of religion)

 

These sentences make no sense; they are not complete thoughts. Whose freedom of religion is "safer"? And how is opposing a community center based on the religion of its staff and clientèle not a violation of their freedom of religion?

Not a question of what the government should do--perhaps a question of what the Center leaders should do. If they compromised (by citing their building a couple blocks away) they are far less likely to be harrassed & subject to backlash.

 

Why, specifically, do you oppose the Islamic center?
I don't oppose the center. I oppose the citing of the Center. I opposed it because the process lacks transparency (ie the funding transparency) and they are using divisive means (ie lack of community engagement) to launch a center thats supposed to be about eroding the East-West divide.

 

Howard Dean summarizes my thoughts:

 

"This center may be intended as a bridge or a healing gesture but it will not be perceived that way unless a dialogue with a real attempt to understand each other happens," he writes. "That means the builders have to be willing to go beyond what is their right and be willing to talk about feelings whether the feelings are 'justified' or not."

 

Dean argues that most of the people opposed to the "ground zero mosque" - actually a planned Islamic community center that would include a mosque two blocks from the former site of the World Trade Center -- "are not right-wing hate mongers." He says that while the developers have a right to build what and where they want, they should consider that many Americans "have very strong emotional resistance to building on this site."

 

"This is about ending the poisonous atmosphere engendered by fear and hate, and in order to do that there has to be genuine listening, hearing and willingness to compromise on both sides," he writes.

 

Or Dean in a Greenwald article:

 

Quote:

The rights of the builders are not in dispute. This is about ending the poisonous atmosphere engendered by fear and hate, and in order to do that there has to be genuine listening, hearing and willingness to compromise on both sides I personally believe that there are other possible solutions that could result from such a process and that a genuine exploration of those possibilities is something we ought to try.

Edited by nathan_debate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think what most aren't grasping that is that the majority of Americans support the mosque, they just dont' support it being built on that location. I have no doubt if they moved the mosque about 5 blocks or more away, that people wouldn't care. The mosque being built that close to Ground Zero stirs an emotional response that is likely not to dissipate.

 

And the claim that this is a cultural center first with a prayer space and not a mosque has been rated false: http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/aug/23/al-hunt/ground-zero-mosque-not-even-mosque/ Apparently the mosque is within the space but governed separately from the cultural center.

Edited by hylanddd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have no doubt if they moved the mosque about 5 blocks or more away, that people wouldn't care.

 

Yeah, definitely only the location

 

And the claim that this is a cultural center first with a prayer space and not a mosque has been rated false: http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/aug/23/al-hunt/ground-zero-mosque-not-even-mosque/ Apparently the mosque is within the space but governed separately from the cultural center.

So it's a mosque inside of a community center then? I can see how this is a devastating blow to supporters. Unless your point here is that it's okay for an Muslim Community Center to be built here without a mosque, in which case I'm really confused.

 

they are using divisive means (ie lack of community engagement) to launch a center thats supposed to be about eroding the East-West divide.

Okay I'm confused again for many reasons by this statement. How should they have involved the community more than the zoning meetings? If your answer is anything, why is that not the case for building a Christian church anywhere?

But more importantly, is the front page of the NYT good enough? Or how about appearing on the O'Reilly Factor? I suggest skipping to the end if you're curious about what Lauren Ingraham thinks back in December.

Edited by A Girl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think what most aren't grasping that is that the majority of Americans support the mosque, they just dont' support it being built on that location. I have no doubt if they moved the mosque about 5 blocks or more away, that people wouldn't care. The mosque being built that close to Ground Zero stirs an emotional response that is likely not to dissipate.

 

Here's what I think you and similarly thinking people aren't grasping: there shouldn't be any problem with the location IF people object to hurting the sensitivities of 9/11 families, because those associated with the mosque had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks and there is no evidence that it will either be a terrorist training ground or that it'll somehow lead to Shari'a law in the U.S. Moderate Muslims are not inherently terorrists or terrorist supporters, so the issue people have with the location is indicative of their conflation of moderate and radical Islam. To me, ignorance, and in some cases outright bigotry, like you might have seen in videos of the recent NYC protest, is not an acceptable reason to garner sympathy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Any capitalist or marxist knows that fundings shapes organizations. The ideological bent of the funding is important. Is it peaceful Islamists or Islamic fundamentalists.

The only way this makes sense as a basis for any opposition is if you think that the building of an Islamic house of worship at that location is disrespecting the death and suffering of others. Please explain how the facility will be disrespectful.

 

The community of New York. And perhaps the 9/11 families--after all its a graveyard of their relatives.

The only way this makes sense as a basis for any opposition is if you think that the building of an Islamic house of worship at that location is disrespecting the death and suffering of others. Please explain how the facility will be disrespectful.

 

Not a question of what the government should do--perhaps a question of what the Center leaders should do. If they compromised (by citing their building a couple blocks away) they are far less likely to be harrassed & subject to backlash.

The only way this makes sense as a basis for any opposition is if you think that the building of an Islamic house of worship at that location is disrespecting the death and suffering of others. Please explain how the facility will be disrespectful.

 

I don't oppose the center. I oppose the citing of the Center. I opposed it because the process lacks transparency (ie the funding transparency) and they are using divisive means (ie lack of community engagement) to launch a center thats supposed to be about eroding the East-West divide.

The only way this makes sense as a basis for any opposition is if you think that the building of an Islamic house of worship at that location is disrespecting the death and suffering of others. Please explain how the facility will be disrespectful.

 

I think what most aren't grasping that is that the majority of Americans support the mosque, they just dont' support it being built on that location. I have no doubt if they moved the mosque about 5 blocks or more away, that people wouldn't care. The mosque being built that close to Ground Zero stirs an emotional response that is likely not to dissipate.

The only way this makes sense as a basis for any opposition is if you think that the building of an Islamic house of worship at that location is disrespecting the death and suffering of others. Please explain how the facility will be disrespectful.

 

And the claim that this is a cultural center first with a prayer space and not a mosque has been rated false: http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/aug/23/al-hunt/ground-zero-mosque-not-even-mosque/ Apparently the mosque is within the space but governed separately from the cultural center.

Fair enough. I didn't know that.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The only way this makes sense as a basis for any opposition is if you think that the building of an Islamic house of worship at that location is disrespecting the death and suffering of others. Please explain how the facility will be disrespectful.

 

You attempted to inappropriately group multiple arguments together--I happen to think that more transparency is important in community citing decisions.

 

The press has covered this a lot--but the main stream media hasn't exactly had a lot of diversity in its coverage.

 

I think its unfortunate that these centers have experienced resistance--but in some ways a semi-natural reaction to something they don't understand.

Edited by nathan_debate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Any capitalist or marxist knows that fundings shapes organizations. The ideological bent of the funding is important. Is it peaceful Islamists or Islamic fundamentalists.

But why is the 'funding shapes policy' argument relevant here, given that they're collecting money for construction costs, ie one-time expenses, rather than continuous expenses?

When people are asking hot-button questions like this one, who could avoid being reluctant to call attention to having funded the project?

When all the funding sources are going to be scrutinized in a friend-of-a-friend-of-a-friend-of-a-friend degree to generate more trash to defame the project, anyone with sense would be reluctant to come forward, or put others forward into the public eye.

BTW, Freudian slip, you meant 'peaceful Muslims', not peaceful Islamists.

 

The community of New York. And perhaps the 9/11 families--after all its a graveyard of their relatives.

Ok... so, are all building projects w/in this radius disrespectful of the graveyard? If not, then it's a question of bigotry, which doesn't really deserve respect, or area to be cited, or anything else...

Don't say yes they are. We all know that if this weren't being built by and for Muslims, there would be no question whatsoever.

Also, for the nth time, not that it matters, note that Manhattan residents have been majority in favor of the project.

 

Not a question of what the government should do--perhaps a question of what the Center leaders should do. If they compromised (by citing their building a couple blocks away) they are far less likely to be harrassed & subject to backlash.

Again, the center already is 2 blocks away from the outside boundary of the WTC, which is already a 5-block campus N-S and equivalent distance E-W (fewer cross-streets, but E-W blocks are longer). So, when does the recursion end? How many couples of blocks further away does the project need to go? Where do you propose it would go, if they did agree to move it... it's not as though downtown Manhattan has a lot of undeveloped plots waiting to be bought up...

And note analysis from various sources that people in America are harassing and backlashing against mosques everywhere.

 

I don't oppose the center. I oppose the citing of the Center. I opposed it because the process lacks transparency (ie the funding transparency) and they are using divisive means (ie lack of community engagement) to launch a center thats supposed to be about eroding the East-West divide.

What would constitute non-divisive means of building the ICC? You're not going to deny that many of the objections are groundless bigotry (unless you are...?), so obviously public sentiment is not the metric...

 

hylandd:

I have no doubt if they moved the mosque about 5 blocks or more away, that people wouldn't care. The mosque being built that close to Ground Zero stirs an emotional response that is likely not to dissipate.

We're in complete agreement here. That's really the point - there is no rational basis for the opposition. It's a non-rational response which is rooted in conscious or unconscious prejudice. It wouldn't cause a negative emotional response if it weren't being built by and for Muslims. Ergo prejudice.

As such, it isn't really something that we want to influence decisions. We seem to disagree here. Can you explain further your reasoning for taking as the basis for decisions?

Edited by meanmedianmode
comment to duane

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...