Mosque to be Built Near Ground Zero

Sometimes things combine in a poor way.

Now, if you're the people effected by this story, you probably aren't happy about this ad.

If you're people who paid for the ad, you can probably see that putting the ad elsewhere would have be better.

If you're a reader of the paper (a citizen), you might be inclined to focus your anger on either the people who make the ad (the Mosque) or the paper (the city). Now it would be unethical to say that the ad can't go there, but it's not out of bounds to say that putting it there is a poor idea.

A
R
T

Concurring - and I'm in Manhattan. Banning someone or something on grounds of religious prejudice is unconstitutional and abhorrent - even in wartime, where an emergency can be shown to exist. Gen. Ulysses S. Grant banned the "Israelites" from territories controlled by his armies in 1862, during a very difficult period in the Civil War. That order had to be rescinded 3 days later. There's even less excuse for similar actions now.

I will ignore the sarcasm.

Do you have another location in mind? Do you think that the reaction would be different in a different location? Do you think that it should be located in New York?

Darn, high seas. We agree on something.

I can agree the mosque has the right to be there and think it's a poor idea can't I? Is it both or none?

A
R
T

I think what bothers me about this is Muslims' habit of erecting mosques to denote conquest. It's hard to know this habit and not to see the very clear connection of that site. Why there?

Actually there is of course nothing illegal about it - just very inappropriate and a like I said earlier a lose/lose situation.

You hurt people (whether that is the intention or not) directly impacted by it and you potentially hurt yourself by retaliation - it is just a plain dumb decision.

There may simply be a matter of real estate. Manhattan is some of the most expensive real estate in the USA. If 9/11 had not happened, the appeal of having lower Manhattan property like this for a mosque would still be here. The complication is a social one, not a legal one. Obviously they have the right.

I don't think the mosque has anything to do with conquest. I do agree however that this will be the emotional conclusion by both non-Muslims and many radical Muslims globally.

A
R
T

You are assuming that most people would be open minded about this - I am not assuming most would be.

And this comes from some one who knows some Muslims that are really sweet people.

More importantly.

A
R
T

Exactly my point - it is in poor taste and insenstive - I never said it is illegal and never would state so.

Art-

Your statement

I don't think the mosque has anything to do with conquest. I do agree however that this will be the emotional conclusion by both non-Muslims and many radical Muslims globally.


URL: http://able2know.org/topic/159601-3#post-4306438

I agree, and think the inappropriateness and sensitivity toward those who died and their loved ones should have precluded the request for the mosque on this particular piece of real estate. The USA is often cited for such sensitivity. Weren't we roundly boo-ed for placing our flag in Iraq after the war - and we promptly removed it? Same thing...they plant mosques, we plant flags...to denote victory.

Who is "they?" They, if you mean Muslims, build mosques all the time that have nothing to do with conquests. The group itself isn't building this in some sort off declaration of victory or conquest. I'm only agreeing that its construction will be used in global propaganda to this exact point. If I was a part of some religion and some radical element was salivating over an action of mine so that they could exploit it, I'd be tempted to reconsider.

I don't want to grant any sort of legitimacy that the USA (a country) is in war with Islam (a religion). That is the exact narrative that groups like AQ and the Taliban use. It's also the narrative that Christian conservatives use. This place will only be used by non-Muslims to engender more fear of Muslims.

Edit: It already is.

A
R
This isn't about "inappropriateness" in my opinion.

Muslims are not some foreign army that is planting a flag. They are US citizens exercising their religious rights granted under the constitution. I don't see how a reasonable person could even compare the two.

1111

I agree with the mayor.

These people have every legal right to construct a mosque on that property.
And that is the only reverent issue in this particular case.

The building of that mosque is not a deliberately provocative act. It not like a neo-Nazi group opening a storefront across the street from a synagogue at which Holocaust survivors worship.

The objections to this mosque are based on the overly emotional responses of people who claim that the WTC site is "sacred ground". This same claim is part of the reason why nothing has yet been built on the WTC--all proposals meet with bickering over what is appropriate to be built on "sacred ground".

The WTC site is not "sacred ground". It is the site of a horrendous tragedy, in terms of loss of lives, but it is not "sacred ground".

And I knew someone who died in one of the WTC towers on 9/11. I know that his pulverized remains are somewhere on that site, but I still do not regard the entire area as "sacred ground".

So how far away from the WTC site, and this "sacred ground", would one have to go before a mosque could be built without offending anyone? One mile? Three miles? Five miles? Manhattan is a small densely packed island. Available space is hard to come by. Who will decide what is an appropriate distance from the WTC for the building of a mosque?

That people feel that emotional sensibilities and sensitivities will be offended by the building of this mosque so close to the WTC might be true, but it is not an adequate objection, and it is an objection based on a biased and prejudicial attitude toward all Muslims which borders on the slightly irrational.

I am frankly surprised at this outpouring of hatred and suspicion and prejudice toward all Muslims based on what a small group of Islamic extremists did on 9/11 as an act of terrorism. When we start reacting to all members of a religious group, on the basis of the attitudes and behaviors of a small radical group in their midst, we have fallen prey to the evils of stereotyping and bigotry. And we make ourselves as bigoted and hate filled as those people we claim to deplore.

Al Qaeda achieved no victory on 9/11. They were not looking for victory, they were not looking to conquer Manhattan. They staged a terrorist attack only to wreak death and destruction, and that they did accomplish, beyond their wildest dreams. And Al Qaeda does not speak for or represent all Muslims, and there is no reason for any rational person to make the assumption that they do, or to assume that all Muslims represent some sort of threat and the sight of their mosques represents an assault on our sensibilities and sensitivities.

A mosque in the general vicinity of the WTC site is no more offensive or inappropriate than a mosque in any other part of NYC. NYC is one of the most ethnically diverse places on earth. It embraces all religions and their houses of worship, and it should continue to do so.

If we start letting our prejudices and stereotypes and irrational fears trample on other people's rights to built a lawful house of worship, we will be handing those 9/11 murderers a victory they do not deserve. We will be allowing them to erode our democratic principles and constitutional rights. I, for one, am not prepared to hand them that victory.

I think they should be allowed to built the mosque.

Yes I know and I"m saying that I think it's only inappropriate if you hold an ignorant and monolithic view of Muslims.



So? A black guy marrying a white woman will offend some bigots too but their offense should be given all the consideration it is due: none.

No, I am not. I am just saying that they are being ignorant and that their bigotry should not be taken seriously.

Why on the site of the worst attack on American soil which happened to be perpetrated by members of the religion, who often erect such buildings in order to denote a military victory? Why not a block over?

I know everybody feels they have to perform now for the crowd - as if I think all Muslims are terrorists or such crap. But really. Why in that specific place? Why not nearby?

You do realize it is more than a block away, don't you?

It is inappropriate for the very reason you state.