Mosque to be Built Near Ground Zero

However, in my opinion, if there are a "few" that are radicalized, within the Muslim faith, to do acts of terrorism, then how do the "western nations" address terrorism that can use mosques as meeting places of radicalized Muslims?

If you're willing to deny a group of Americans their Constitutional Rights, all we're asking is why?

When you refuse to engage people in discussion to support your comments, it doesn't convince anyone that you AREN'T a bigot, that's for sure...

A Green Field
If there is to be a memorial, let it not be of stone and steel. Fly no flag above it, for it is not the possession of a nation but a sorrow shared with the world. Let it be a green field, with trees and flowers. Let there be paths that wind through the shade. Put out park benches where old people can sun in the springtime, and a pond where children can skate in the winter. Beneath this field will lie entombed forever some of the victims of September 11. It is not where they thought to end their lives. Like the sailors of the battleship Arizona, they rest where they fell. Let this field stretch from one end of the destruction to the other. Let this open space among the towers mark the emptiness in our hearts. But do not make it a sad place. Give it no name. Let people think of it as the green field. Every living thing that is planted here will show faith in the future. Let students from all lands take a sunny corner of the field and plant a crop there. Perhaps corn, our native grain. Let the harvest be shared all over the world, with friends and enemies, because that is the teaching of our religions. Let the harvest show that life prevails over death, and let the sharing show that we love our neighbors. Do not build again on this place. No building can stand here. No building, no statue, no column, no arch, no symbol, no name, no date, no statement. Just the comfort of the earth, to remind us that we share it.

Well, here you go-I'm someone who has said that I feel it respectful to give the most weight to the opinions of the families of the dead who are literally interred on that particular site.

In my mind it goes beyond politics, beyond religion and is about simple human respect.
If the majority of the people whose relatives died on that site that day wanted the Mosque, I would say fine.
It's only because it seems (from everything I've read) that the majority of the family members don't want it that I say they should move their project to another site.
If you can find some way to politicize that or make that a bigoted statement - feel free.

I would say it if it was the site where thousands of Muslims were killed by insane, fundamentalist Christians and they wanted to erect a church on the site.
It's not only about what ISN'T appropriate - it's also about what is MORE appropriate and less divisive.
I'm going to post again what I think is a more appropriate and less divisive choice for that particular piece of land:

This same degree of "respectful" has never been raised for the burial grounds of Native Americans, Aidan.

A small group of people don't have the right just because they are suffering some personal grief to tell others what they can build or where they can build. There has been no big kerfuffle from the get go about "sanctifying" the site. There has been no prior big push to prevent whoever had the legal right to build what they wanted. It's only come up with the idea of a "mosque".

If everything was decided because some made what are perfectly legal rights a divisive issue, where would we be? How could anything ever be decided in a rational manner? There is nothing inherently fair about divisive and rational decisions should never be made on that basis.

Well, here you go-I'm someone who has said that I feel it respectful to give the most weight to the opinions of the families of the dead who are literally interred on that particular site.

In my mind it goes beyond politics, beyond religion and is about simple human respect.
If the majority of the people whose relatives died on that site that day wanted the Mosque, I would say fine.
It's only because it seems (from everything I've read) that the majority of the family members don't want it that I say they should move their project to another site.
If you can find some way to politicize that or make that a bigoted statement - feel free.

I have nothing to say to you except that I'm not forgetting anything.

aidan wrote:

Well, here you go-I'm someone who has said that I feel it respectful to give the most weight to the opinions of the families of the dead who are literally interred on that particular site.

In my mind it goes beyond politics, beyond religion and is about simple human respect.
If the majority of the people whose relatives died on that site that day wanted the Mosque, I would say fine.
It's only because it seems (from everything I've read) that the majority of the family members don't want it that I say they should move their project to another site.
If you can find some way to politicize that or make that a bigoted statement - feel free.

You are saying that if some people who have suffered harm want to be bigots, you must respect their feelings and allow their bigotry to prevail out of "human respect". I don't see it. They certainly aren't stopping other development around the WTC site. They aren't shutting down strip clubs, betting parlors, bars, etc. It's bigotry by proxy. "I'm not a bigot, but they are and I have to respect their wishes." I understand their loss and how that loss fuels their bigotry, but I don't have to let their loss poison our whole society.

You are saying that if some people who have suffered harm want to be bigots, you must respect their feelings and allow their bigotry to prevail out of "human respect".

And that's not right, is it? It should have been.

It's not a small group of people - there were over three thousand families who were effected- that's a lot of people. And maybe some of those people are bigoted - but that doesn't mean that the people who understand their pain at the core of the issue are bigoted.

But it's a major, major logical error with your position.

What I have read says that the site is 400 feet from Tower 7 of the World Trade Center, which also fell in the attack.

If a loved one is killed by medical malpractice - the relatives of that loved one may grow to distrust hospitals and doctors. Is it right and always true to do so? Maybe not. But it is understandable to me.