46
   

Mosque to be Built Near Ground Zero

 
 
failures art
 
  0  
Reply Wed 4 Aug, 2010 03:12 pm
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:

failures art wrote:

You are correct that even if they had the worst intentions, the law would still allow for them to build. I don't need to be convinced that they can build it. I agree. So what's you're point?

Well, that certainly isn't it. My point isn't that they can build it, it's that their motives in building it don't matter. You, on the other hand, think they do.

No Joe. I do not think their motives matter. If this was Fred Phelps, my position would remain the same that they can build. I don't care about the motive, and have said all I need to establish exactly that. My saying that they can build near ground zero is not based on assuming good motives, it's based on the fact that we can't pick and choose who can legally purchase land and build as they please. Don't attribute a false argument to me.

joefromchicago wrote:

failures art wrote:
I'm not assuming something ill about their intentions. I'm assuming they have the BEST intentions for that matter. I'm saying that other will seek to exploit this, and their intentions will be lost or irrelevant. That's a bad thing, and probably work's against their own goals.

So what? If they're making a mistake in building a mosque there, then that's their problem.

As I said, I can accept that. If it's a mistake, it's their's to deal with. It (hopefully) won't affect me.

If extremist groups use this as propaganda, it could very well be more than just their problem. It could quickly become ours as well. Let us hope I am simply being over-worried.

A
R
T
Robert Gentel
 
  2  
Reply Wed 4 Aug, 2010 03:14 pm
@Phoenix32890,
Why? If a couple of Jews bomb someplace should other Jews have to stay away because of the mere guilt by association?
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  6  
Reply Wed 4 Aug, 2010 03:14 pm
@Phoenix32890,
I did know someone who died on 9/11 in one of the towers, and I still cannot understand this outpouring of outrage about the building of a mosque, simply because it is in the vicinity of the WTC site.

All Muslims should not be expected to bear responsibility, or guilt, or shame, or any other burden, for what a small group of radical extremists did on 9/11. And their right to build a house of worship should not be obstructed by people who use emotionally manipulative tactics to block its construction.

Do the people who say that their sensitivities will be "offended" by the sight of this mosque near the WTC site ever consider how their words will affect every peace loving Muslim American that lives in this country? Do they not realize how they are offending those people?

I was just watching a discussion of this issue on CNN. I cannot believe that I just heard a representative from the Anti-Defamation League, an organization devoted to fighting bigotry and intolerance, compare the insensitivity of building this mosque near the WTC , to constructing a memorial to kamikaze pilots next to Pearl Harbor. He defamed all innocent Muslims by comparing them to the kamikaze pilots. And, when this kind of support for stereotyping and bigotry comes out of the mouth of the ADL, something is seriously wrong. The hysteria over this issue has gotten out of hand.

What's next, no people in Muslim garb will be allowed to walk in the area of the WTC site?

There is nothing inherently offensive about the siight of a Muslim mosque near the WTC site, any more than the sight of a church there would be offensive, or the sight of mosques elsewhere in the City is offensive and disturbing.

This is emotional blackmail being directed against Muslims, who played no role in 9/11, to get them to back down and not build their mosque. It is bigotry and paranoia thinly disguised as an attempt to honor the memories of those who died on 9/11. This type of prejudice honors no one. They should be allowed to build their mosque and everyone should respect it once it is up.

0 Replies
 
Robert Gentel
 
  2  
Reply Wed 4 Aug, 2010 03:22 pm
@failures art,
failures art wrote:
If extremist groups use this as propaganda, it could very well be more than just their problem. It could quickly become ours as well. Let us hope I am simply being over-worried.


Extremists will use whatever happens as their propaganda. Hasn't this kind of guilt by association F.U.D. gotten old yet? It's essentially: "If the people we call bad say it is good then it is bad." It's a decidedly poor line of argument.

Thankfully America's seems to be growing out of the fear mongering theater about terrorism and back to treating it like the statistically insignificant threat it is.
failures art
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Aug, 2010 03:28 pm
The escalation of language in this thread is kind of out of control as well. So even if FOX and CNN are drumming up sensationalist media, it's no excuse for us to be accrediting unnecessary emotions to each other.

I'm not "offended" by the idea of the mosque, I just conscious about how this is going to be used.

People are being a bit cowboy about firing off "bigot" and "prejudice" from their rhetorical six-gun as well.

A
R
T
failures art
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Aug, 2010 03:38 pm
@Robert Gentel,
Robert Gentel wrote:

failures art wrote:
If extremist groups use this as propaganda, it could very well be more than just their problem. It could quickly become ours as well. Let us hope I am simply being over-worried.


Extremists will use whatever happens as their propaganda. Hasn't this kind of guilt by association F.U.D. gotten old yet? It's essentially: "If the people we call bad say it is good then it is bad." It's a decidedly poor line of argument.

Thankfully America's seems to be growing out of the fear mongering theater about terrorism and back to treating it like the statistically insignificant threat it is.

RG, I'm only making the observation here. I'm not saying that they can't build it.

As I pointed out with this post, the juxtaposition of things can draw up a great deal of emotion. I'm not saying we have to give into these emotions, but they are there and they WILL and DO create extra challenges. That's all. I didn't say we can't deal with those challenges, but pointing them out is perfectly in bounds.

"Fear mongering" would be if I said they can't build it. It would be saying that what I predict (powerful propaganda) means that we will mean driving some future policy or restriction. I am not, and I do not.

A
R
T
0 Replies
 
Phoenix32890
 
  2  
Reply Wed 4 Aug, 2010 03:50 pm
@Robert Gentel,
Quote:
Thankfully America's seems to be growing out of the fear mongering theater about terrorism and back to treating it like the statistically insignificant threat it is.


Bob- I am not quite as assured as you that the threat of terrorism is "statistically insignificant". It is a state of affairs that I certainly would desire, but I am not convinced that we have reached that point.
parados
 
  4  
Reply Wed 4 Aug, 2010 03:53 pm
@failures art,
Quote:
I'm not "offended" by the idea of the mosque, I just conscious about how this is going to be used.


Why would a new mosque be used any different from the one it is replacing?

If terrorists want to use it for propaganda what prevents the mosque from fighting back and turning it into a positive?
dyslexia
 
  3  
Reply Wed 4 Aug, 2010 04:01 pm
@Phoenix32890,
Phoenix32890 wrote:

Quote:
Thankfully America's seems to be growing out of the fear mongering theater about terrorism and back to treating it like the statistically insignificant threat it is.


Bob- I am not quite as assured as you that the threat of terrorism is "statistically insignificant". It is a state of affairs that I certainly would desire, but I am not convinced that we have reached that point.
I am overwhelming convinced that the threat of terrorism is statistically insignificant, at the time of the creation of "Homeland Security" I considered it the worst knee-jerk reaction ever in the history of the US (including WW I)
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Aug, 2010 04:06 pm
@Lash,
Lash wrote:

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?


Maybe that is the only place available to them?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  4  
Reply Wed 4 Aug, 2010 04:14 pm
Quick hits after reading the thread:

- I'm glad that common sense has prevailed for the most part here on A2K.
- I don't think that Muslims 'plant mosques' any more than Christians did. When you come in and take over, you build temples. It's not unique to any religion.
- I don't care at all if people who were affected in some way by 9.11 are upset by this. If they are, it's a sign that they have reacted to the attack by lumping Muslims into a giant group. It's not appropriate to respond to tragedy with bigotry.
- I do think that most people don't realize that it's a block away;' right-wingers portray this as if they are building it right in the ******* hole.

I am in NY this week, and on Friday I will go to the site and take a video, showing just how far away the proposed site is from the WTC site. I'll post that video as soon as I can so that people can see what we're talking about here.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  6  
Reply Wed 4 Aug, 2010 04:20 pm
Quote:
Which brings me back to the Muslim community center/mosque, known as Park51. It is proposed to be built two blocks north of where the twin towers stood and would include a prayer space, a 500-seat performing arts center, a swimming pool and a restaurant. The Times reported that Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the Muslim leader behind the project, who has led services in TriBeCa since 1983, said he wants the center to help “bridge and heal a divide” among Muslims and other religious groups. “We have condemned the actions of 9/11,” he said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/04/opinion/04friedman.html


Well, a lawsuit was just filed to block destruction of the building that was to make way for the construction of the mosque. And look who is behind the lawsuit, Rev. Pat Robertson, a spokesman for the fundamentalist Christian right. This what Robertson said about 9/11:

Quote:
The week of September 11th, 2001, Robertson discussed the terror attacks with Jerry Falwell, who said that "the ACLU has to take a lot of blame for this" in addition to "the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays, and the lesbians [who have] helped [the terror attacks of September 11th] happen." Robertson replied, "I totally concur." Both evangelists later issued apologies for their statements.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Robertson


Intolerance and hatred. That is what Pat Robertson preaches.

Quote:
\
Opponents Of Mosque Near WTC Site File Lawsuit

Opponents of a plan to build a mosque two blocks from the World Trade Center filed a lawsuit today, challenging the decision not to grant landmark status to the building set to be demolished to make way for the project.

The American Center for Law and Justice, founded by the Reverend Pat Robertson, filed a petition that the Landmarks Preservation Commission acted arbitrarily and abused its discretion.

Yesterday, the panel voted unanimously to deny landmark status to the building at 45 Park Place that would be torn down so the mosque can be built.

Commissioners said the building did not warrant protection.

That sparked protests from some attending the vote, who say building a mosque so close to the site of the September 11th terrorist attacks will cause pain to the victim's families.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg has been outspoken on this issue. He gathered with a group of religious leaders in support of the mosque, saying our nation was founded on the freedom to worship as we choose.

"Political controversies come and go, but there is no neighborhood in our city that is off limits to God's love and mercy,” said the mayor.

A group called the Cordoba Initiative plans to build a 13-story, $100 million cultural center on the site. The plans call for a mosque as well as performing arts spaces, a gym, and other facilities.
http://www.ny1.com/content/news_beats/politics/123195/opponents-of-mosque-near-wtc-site-file-lawsuit/


This trying to block construction of the mosque is all about bigotry and prejudice toward Muslims. This is what Pat Robertson has said about Islam

Quote:
On November 9, 2009, Pat Robertson said that Islam is "a violent political system bent on the overthrow of the governments of the world and world domination." He went on to elaborate that "you're dealing with not a religion, you're dealing with a political system, and I think we should treat it as such, and treat its adherents as such as we would members of the communist party, members of some fascist group."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Robertson


It's people like Robertson who contribute to the hatred in the world, and not the Muslims who want to build that mosque.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  2  
Reply Wed 4 Aug, 2010 04:22 pm
Just to weigh in, I don't find the new mosque facility (in place of the old mosque facility) in any way threatening or even insensitive; this is especially so re the "reformed" nature of the mosque, but my opinion is not dependent on the "reformed" aspect.

I'm glad the city of New York has Bloomberg at the helm.

The tangent on the thread about muslims being conquerors by nature is ludicrous to me in the face of the various conquerings of other religion reps - and not so few in number, at that - through the centuries.

I thus agree with such varied posters as Dys, firefly, Robert Gentel, Parados and maybe more. I see Failure's Art's point, but don't see it as a serious argument for why the mosque members wouldn't want a new mosque as planned, or that they should worry about sensitivity and somehow just go away.
Intrepid
 
  4  
Reply Wed 4 Aug, 2010 04:23 pm
Pat Robertson doesn't speak for all Christians any more that a handful of Islamic terrorists speak for all Muslims.
failures art
 
  2  
Reply Wed 4 Aug, 2010 04:24 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:

Quote:
I'm not "offended" by the idea of the mosque, I just conscious about how this is going to be used.


Why would a new mosque be used any different from the one it is replacing?

I think the new one could be used in that this is a step up in facilities as I understand. It's larger. The old mosque is hard to use for propaganda as it was already there and therefore hard to relate it's existence to the success of the 9/11 attacks. A newer larger mosque is more easily spun into propaganda that the attack are working and more attacks will create more growth blah blah.

The challenge for this mosque remains the same as before, only it will summon perhaps more feelings now that it has been drawn into the national and international media sphere. It's the same song, but the volume is louder. The challenge is that American Muslims are socially treated with suspect. This is unfortunate and unfair to them. However, they must anticipate how this is going to complicate their own goals to find greater acceptance in the country. That is not fair, but it will be the product of this. It does not mean I will be a part of the complication.

If you need more proof that the new mosque is easier to use for propaganda, look no further than this topic itself. We are only talking about this mosque because it is new. Conservative groups who want to villianize Islam, certainly see the value in crafting their propaganda on the new mosque.

parados wrote:

If terrorists want to use it for propaganda what prevents the mosque from fighting back and turning it into a positive?

Nothing, and this is my greatest hope. I'm hoping that they will be able to use the national spotlight they have been given to become a progressive platform to fight back and bridge the social gaps. It is easier said than done, and many do not want these gaps to be bridged to begin with.

A
R
T
0 Replies
 
failures art
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Aug, 2010 04:28 pm
@ossobuco,
ossobuco wrote:
I see Failure's Art's point, but don't see it as a serious argument for why the mosque members wouldn't want a new mosque as planned, or that they should worry about sensitivity and somehow just go away.

I have not argued that it is not understandable to want this. I understand why they want a newer and larger mosque with better facilities. It's quite a reasonable desire.

I have not argued that they should go away.

A
R
T
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Aug, 2010 04:30 pm
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:

Darn, high seas. We agree on something.


i was gonna say that
failures art
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Aug, 2010 04:32 pm
The fact that Pat Robertson is the at the forefront of the opposition highlights what I'm saying is going to be the challenge here. Even if the threat of international terror is over-stated, the national threat of evangelical fascism is under-stated. The new mosque is a perfect battleground for a culture war for those who wish to wage one.

A
R
T
dyslexia
 
  3  
Reply Wed 4 Aug, 2010 04:34 pm
@Intrepid,
Intrepid wrote:

Pat Robertson doesn't speak for all Christians any more that a handful of Islamic terrorists speak for all Muslims.
true enough, the problem is when it comes down to having the media microphone Pat becomes the face and voice of american christians. Did I not personally know christians such as our own Eva or Lash I would most likely consider people like Pat Roberson or James Dobson the face of christianity.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Aug, 2010 04:34 pm
@failures art,
failures art wrote:

The fact that Pat Robertson is the at the forefront of the opposition highlights what I'm saying is going to be the challenge here. Even if the threat of international terror is over-stated, the national threat of evangelical fascism is under-stated. The new mosque is a perfect battleground for a culture war for those who wish to wage one.

A
R
T


That seems to give Pat Robertson much more credit than he deserves.
 

Related Topics

T'Pring is Dead - Discussion by Brandon9000
Another Calif. shooting spree: 4 dead - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Before you criticize the media - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fatal Baloon Accident - Discussion by 33export
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Robin Williams is dead - Discussion by Butrflynet
Amanda Knox - Discussion by JTT
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 05/20/2024 at 03:39:09