Mosque to be Built Near Ground Zero

I tend to agree with many of those quotes too, in fact I said so in a very early post of mine. That's why I see the attacks of 9/11 as having been motivated by political factors, relating to U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East, rather than by religious views.

But, I don't think that anyone has yet mentioned in this thread, that the proposal for this cultural center/mosque became public, and began generating controversy, in May, right after the arrest of the Muslim terrorist who left a car bomb in Times Square. So that arrest kicked off renewed fears about terrorist attacks in NYC, and renewed concerns about Muslims. The timing for this proposal to become public couldn't have been worse because of that. And Rauf and Khan, who hadn't done enough PR work in the community beforehand, also didn't pay enough attention to the red flags once they began waving in May. They could have handled the objections better to begin with, and things might not have snowballed the way they have now.

Near the WTC might be a good place for fostering communication.

But the problem, with this situation, has been the fact that there is no real communication going on, Just opposing sides, without people really talking to each other to try to arrive at some meeting of the minds.

Amongst who? I'm no more concerned about Muslims than before.



What meeting of the minds is necessary? They are right to assert that they can build where they like, and those who seek to oppose them are wrong. There's no negotiation to be had here.

Cycloptichorn

In the first grade I was just learning my ABC's. Kindergarten was just playing with blocks, and crayons.

The nuns were praying for the souls of Jews murdered in the concentration camp. I believe it was the praying (in Catholic tradition) for Jewish souls that upset some Jews, not the building of an edifice.

And, pointing out a supposed equality to what is going on in Israel really means nothing.

Another thought - one of the streets near Ground Zero could be renamed Ecumenical Way, and a church, synagogue, mosque, Hindu temple, and Buddhist temple be built there. Food carts with each cultures respective cuisine could be on the pavement, outside the house of worship. Tour busses could stop by for a visit. A reality tv show could have contestants from each house of worship competing to answer questions about the other religions. An annual beauty pageant - Miss Ecumenical could be televised from the site.

It would be so American.

On the other hand foofie. If the mosque was built there we wouldn't run the risk of another 9/11 at ground zero.

That's not the opinion of security / military advisers to insurers selling terrorism insurance - banks and transportation companies are the highest-risk targets, hotels and restaurants pay the lowest rates. Vicinity to mosques, synagogues etc isn't a variable for risk calculations.

Source: http://insurancemarketreport.com/Default.aspx?alias=insurancemarketreport.com/terrorism2010

this thread should never have gone more than 2 pages.

Did anyone post Jon Stewart's take?
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-august-10-2010/municipal-land-use-hearing-update

Thanks for that link, hingehead. Funny and on target as always!

That spokesman for Part51 is a feisty little dude. He told one of the commenters on Twitter, "You need to get laid" LOL!

I was spoofin, HS

tsk, tsk, i would never joke about a serious matter

So sorry. Was doing my djjd impersonation!

i to your skill

I saw something in the paper today
that thay might be willing to build it somewhere else; maybe.





David

Just because it didn't renew your fears about terrorist attacks, particularly in NYC, doesn't mean it didn't affect many other people, especially NYers. You were also lucky enough not to have gone to work at the WTC on 9/11, or to have had a family member who worked there. Or to have to take the NYC subway to work, and think about the fact that people were arrested not long ago for planning an attack there.

The car bomb in Times Square set off renewed fears for many people. Particularly because this man was living here and suddenly seems to have become radicalized. Same was true of the psychiatrist who massacred people at the military base. Fears about home grown terrorists have increased. Luckily, the car bomb wasn't made well, otherwise it could have done a lot of damage. But they are constantly finding suspicious packages in the City and sending out the bomb squad. NYC is always on High Alert. And the car bomber was arrested around the same time the plans for the Muslim center became public, and the controversy developed.

So all the people who legitimately fear terrorist attacks, and who worry about radicalized or extremist Muslims living in our midst, aren't all bigots. These are real concerns and real fears, particularly for those who live in and work in NYC. And those fears influence many of the people who oppose the community center/mosque near Ground Zero. Which foreign governments are going to fund this operation? How friendly and accepting is Iman Rauf when it comes to anti-American terrorist groups and viewpoints? These are not inappropriate questions to raise, and they really haven't been answered by the person behind the building of this center.



There is no question that they have a constitutional right to put up a house of worship, that really isn't the issue anymore, because overwhelming opposition to it is now nationwide. And most of the opposition is simply to the location, not to the project itself. The real issue is how to resolve the intergroup conflict that is going on. If you want to live in harmony with your neighbors, you have to make some effort to reduce conflicts of interest when they arise--both sides have to be willing to talk, to negotiate.

I think we have a very dangerous climate of anti-Muslim feeling developing, that goes far beyond rational and reasonable fears of terrorism. We have organized groups of bigots, many of them within the Tea Party movement, who are using their fears to justify actions which are offensive, and deliberately provocative toward Muslims. The head of the Tea Party Express refers to the "monkey-god" of Islam. Tea Partiers deliberately take dogs to protests near mosques to intentionally offend Muslims. A group from Texas suddenly shows up in Connecticut to protest the building of a mosque. A church group plans a "Koran-burning" to commemorate 9/11 this year. The Freedom Defense Initiative, allied with the Tea Party, puts posters on NYC buses to deliberately link the attacks of 9/11 to the proposed mosque in the City, and brings in people from all over the country for organized anti-Islamic protests in NYC. Sure, these people have a constitutional right to be doing these things, but should such deliberately offensive and provocative actions be tolerated? If Muslims in the United States were doing similar things toward Christians, how long would it be tolerated?

Not only do we have bigotry, and religious harassment being tolerated, we have politicians (mainly Republicans and Conservatives) jumping on the anti-mosque bandwagon, which is questionable in itself, but they are also not condemning the more radical and outright bigoted elements in the Tea Party. Why are these politician such moral cowards, and why isn't more noise being made about that? When the office seekers and public officer holders, who are sworn to uphold the constitution, start protesting the building of religious edifices, our country is in deep trouble.When the political leaders aren't demanding an end to the organized bigotry, offense, and provocation of innocent, peace loving, Muslim Americans, that is going on within the Tea Party movement, our country is in deep trouble.

So, whether they have a constitutional right to build that mosque near Ground Zero, isn't the main issue anymore. They have the right. But without some meeting of the minds about how to resolve the conflicts swirling around this issue, as well as some dialogue about how to diffuse the potentially explosive anti-Muslim provocation that is going on all over the country, we will be entering dangerous territory.

I think it should start with real communication, and negotiation, between both sides, regarding the building of this mosque in NYC. The WTC site should not be a battleground. It was the site of a horrendous tragedy, which affected all Americans. Both sides have to start being more sensitive toward each other.

Sorry, but you are simply wrong. Nobody has to have a 'meeting of the minds' about this at all, because all this does is give legitimacy to what is at heart a bigoted position. There is no legitimacy to that position at all and there's no reason to engage proponents of it in legitimate discussion. Just ignore the **** out of them and go on with life, which is apparently what is happening.



It isn't being built on the ******* WTC site. God! How are we even still having this conversation? This is the most ridiculous **** I've ever heard. Muslims need to be sensitive of idiot's needs not to have their feelings hurt, because they want to practice their faith?

This whole conversation is so full of stupid it makes me want to pull my hair out. Suffice it to say that I don't believe that you have a single valid point and that this whole thing is ginned up for no reason other than to spread anti-muslim sentiment, which I'm sad to say you seem to accept as valid.

What if a group of African-Americans wanted to build a building close to where a civil war site was - do you think there should be a 'conversation' between them and white racists? Please!

Cycloptichorn

"radicalized", "massacred", "home grown terrorists", the propaganda works well, does it not?

Fears of home grown terrorists should have increased. There is nothing to indicate that the CIA has stopped recruiting.



Are you equally concerned about being struck by lightning, FF, one of the pythons in the sewers getting you? Think of the people around the world who have concerns that are actually based on a reality that is reality, the people of Iraq, Afghanistan, Cuba, ... .

Consider that what you sow is going to be the same as that which the swather cuts.

I disagree. Opposition is not just to the location, it is to the project itself. Mosques and other Muslim projects are drawing fire all around the country and those who live for this stuff are whipping up protests wherever they can. In this case, they can make hay by claiming that this is within some certain distance to ground zero, but if it were five blocks further away, they would make the same argument. Or they would say it should be smaller so that people wouldn't be offended. Or they would say that the leader needs to renounce whatever they decided he needed to renounce (and then they would say he didn't do it soon enough, of his own accord, or doesn't really mean it.) I agree that if you have a legitimate conflict of interest, it makes sense to negotiate, but there is not a legitimate conflict here. One side has a legitimate need to build a larger facility in the vicinity of their current location to better serve their community. The other side has ... outrage? Hurt feelings? I don't think the minority has to negotiate with the majority because the majority says they have to. Those who are making a big deal of this are doing more harm to people suffering the emotional after-effects of the terrorist attacks than the proposed community center ever would have.