Ground Zero Mosque

Black Swan · 25-07-2010 10:03PM

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Last I checked it wasn't Christian and Jewish terrorists who flew airplanes into the WTC, the Pentagon and one for Capital Hill that was avoided. Its was Muslim Terrorists.

I had read someplace that there were about 300 million people in the world that were Muslims and practiced the Islamic faith. I would assume that they are not all terrorists; rather, that terrorists are in the tiny minority in comparison to the hundreds of millions of Islamic believers. Yet, the message you would send to these hundreds of millions of non-terrorist Muslims is that people of Islam are not welcome to peacefully practice their faith 2 blocks from ground zero (where many of the Islamic faith that worked in the twin towers died along side Christians and Jews)? To what extent will this message of Muslim profiling and religious discrimination play into the hands of those terrorists that are seeking funding and recruits to make future attacks on NYC or other parts of the USA?

metrovelvet · 25-07-2010 10:19PM

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Actually it would be pretty gross to put a st patrick's church up on the site or proximity to a place like Omagh or place in London where the IRA hit.

Podman · 25-07-2010 11:12PM

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

It's not against the law (yet) to show some humanity and tact when it comes to planning and design in such a sore spot, unless someone stands to make millions from the deal.

As far as re-landscaping the area around ground zero goes, I wouldn't touch it with a ****ing barge pole.

To me, the 911 events are mostly political / financial, when you mix politics and religion like that, the results will be arguments, protests and a division of public spirit.

So, passions rise on all sides, and it becomes easier to get public support for war, especially if you also control the Media, then you can control what "news" people are exposed to.
There is no question about who the Mainstream Media depicts as "the good guys" and which ethnic group has been demonized as "terrorists".

It's just pre-war propaganda to me.

There is also a strip club two blocks from Ground Zero, a fact that is not often invoked when we talk about our reverence for this "hallowed ground."

Which is less sensitive to the victims of 9/11—young women dancing naked to entertain local stockbrokers and businessmen, or Muslims praying in a mosque?

As long as it distracts from the bigger agenda, the government/city will approve it.

Overheal · 26-07-2010 12:12AM

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

I had read someplace that there were about 300 million people in the world that were Muslims and practiced the Islamic faith. I would assume that they are not all terrorists; rather, that terrorists are in the tiny minority in comparison to the hundreds of millions of Islamic believers. Yet, the message you would send to these hundreds of millions of non-terrorist Muslims is that people of Islam are not welcome to peacefully practice their faith 2 blocks from ground zero (where many of the Islamic faith that worked in the twin towers died along side Christians and Jews)? To what extent will this message of Muslim profiling and religious discrimination play into the hands of those terrorists that are seeking funding and recruits to make future attacks on NYC or other parts of the USA?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism

jank · 26-07-2010 01:14AM

metrovelvet wrote: »

Actually it would be pretty gross to put a st patrick's church up on the site or proximity to a place like Omagh or place in London where the IRA hit.

Eh what??

Black Swan · 26-07-2010 02:03AM

The first news about the ground zero mosque broke around December 2009 and January 2010? Then it pretty much died down, until Sarah Palin recently twitters to her worshiping followers to "refudiate" the mosque, shortly followed by the resurrection of Newt Gingrich blogging mosque condemnations.

Is it a coincidence that both Palin and Gingrich made their ground zero mosque statements so close together? Could it be that one does not want the other to steal the limelight from a controversial issue? Perhaps they are running for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination against each other, and this religious-loaded issue had great potential for them to exploit and get their names and faces before the voting public during the controversy?

What did Sherlock Holmes say about "coincidences" Sr Arthur Conan Doyle?

Overheal · 26-07-2010 03:06AM

http://www.google.com/dictionary?q=repudiate&langpair=en|en&hl=en&sa=X&ei=de1MTOv2JsL98AaghbAy&ved=0CBQQmwMoAA

thats actually why it took me a while for the penny to drop on her refudiate comment. Because I knew Repudiate was a word and despite the typo she did use it in the correct context.

I think she kinda dogged herself though by re-tweeting it with the word "Refute" and not Repudiate though.

Black Swan · 26-07-2010 06:15AM

Overheal wrote: »

... her refudiate comment. Because I knew Repudiate was a word and despite the typo she did use it in the correct context.

But "refudiate" was not a typo for Palin. She used it before on Sean Hannity's Fox News show:

“[The Obamas] could refudiate what it is that this group is saying. They could set the record straight.”

Source: http://popwatch.ew.com/2010/07/19/sarah-palin-refudiate/

Overheal wrote: »

I think she kinda dogged herself though by re-tweeting it with the word "Refute" and not Repudiate though.

Until she got bombarded by criticism, she really did think "refudiate" was a word in the English language.

dlofnep · 26-07-2010 09:55AM

I can appreciate why some people might be sensitive to such an issue, but it's 2 blocks away from the twin towers. That's quite a substantial distance from the site. There really should be no correlation between extremists and ordinary muslims. America, and indeed Americans have shown great maturity by allowing this to be built. They have shown that despite their losses, they are still above the extremists who attacked them.

New York is the melting pot of the United States, where tolerance is high - and this proves it. New Yorkers should be proud. Sarah Palin can refudiate whatever she wants. She's irrelevant.

JohnMc1 · 26-07-2010 12:44PM

Its not just the locations its also that they advertised the official opening on 9-11-11 [The 10th anniversary of 9-11] If they weren't trying to start anything why pick that day of all days?

BluePlanet · 26-07-2010 01:56PM

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Its not just the locations its also that they advertised the official opening on 9-11-11 [The 10th anniversary of 9-11] If they weren't trying to start anything why pick that day of all days?

If true, did you consider that maybe they intentionally picked that date to show the rednecks they are in fact "good americans", to show that they are people of Peace and demonstrate to others that usa is actually an inclusive society where all members are equal?

JohnMc1 · 26-07-2010 02:48PM

BluePlanet wrote: »

If true, did you consider that maybe they intentionally picked that date to show the rednecks they are in fact "good americans", to show that they are people of Peace and demonstrate to others that usa is actually an inclusive society where all members are equal?

Wow the "redneck" card. Well I know for sure you're not part of an inclusive and tolerant society anyway.

dlofnep · 26-07-2010 03:07PM

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Its not just the locations its also that they advertised the official opening on 9-11-11 [The 10th anniversary of 9-11] If they weren't trying to start anything why pick that day of all days?

I don't know. I can understand why someone might be upset with it. But Muslims didn't cause 9/11. Extremist Muslims did. There is a difference, and those who see the difference surely wouldn't be offended by a Mosque being erected 2 blocks away from ground zero. People are free to practice whatever religion they want in America. Afterall, it proclaims to be the land of the free. So why would anyone object to a building of religion being created? Or is it - freedom to practice for some, flights out of the US for others?

wes · 26-07-2010 03:21PM

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Its not just the locations its also that they advertised the official opening on 9-11-11 [The 10th anniversary of 9-11] If they weren't trying to start anything why pick that day of all days?

Have any links on that? I have seen this being claimed a few places, but from what I have seen, they have not announced a date, and are still trying to sort out all the funding. So it seems odd that any date was announced.

Also, there is no mention of a date on there web site about the Cordoba House (which is according to them a community center, that will have a prayer space, and not exclusively a Mosque), and they mention no date on the page about the Community centre:

Why the Cordoba House?

Cordoba House is a Muslim-led project which will build a world-class facility that promotes tolerance, reflecting the rich diversity of New York City. The center will be community-driven, serving as a platform for inter-community gatherings and cooperation at all levels, providing a space for all New Yorkers to enjoy.

This proposed project is about promoting integration, tolerance of difference and community cohesion through arts and culture. Cordoba House will provide a place where individuals, regardless of their backgrounds, will find a center of learning, art and culture; and most importantly, a center guided by Islamic values in their truest form - compassion, generosity, and respect for all.

The site will contain tremendous amounts of resources that otherwise would not exist in Lower Manhattan; a 500-seat auditorium, swimming pool, art exhibition spaces, bookstores, restaurants - all these services would form a cultural nexus for a region of New York City that, as it continues to grow, requires the sort of hub that Cordoba House will provide.

Additional information and resources will be made available in the coming months. Please check www.cordobainitiative.org periodically.

So, it seems to me that someone made up that date, and has been spreading it around, as there is no date mention on there web page, and it seems they are still very much in the planning stages.

Overheal · 26-07-2010 05:11PM

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Its not just the locations its also that they advertised the official opening on 9-11-11 [The 10th anniversary of 9-11] If they weren't trying to start anything why pick that day of all days?

What would have been a more appropriate date, assuming what you say is ture? December 25th?

Amerika · 26-07-2010 05:54PM

I think it’s admirable for all those here to demand such tolerance in support of the mosque being built in the shadows of the once standing Twin Towers. What say we all start a petition for an "Images of Muhammad" art gallery right next to that mosque? Better yet... in the same building.

viva la tolerance!

Overheal · 26-07-2010 05:59PM

Amerika wrote: »

I think it’s admirable for all those here to demand such tolerance in support of the mosque being built in the shadows of the once standing Twin Towers. What say we all start a petition for an "Images of Muhammad" art gallery right next to that mosque? Better yet... in the same building.

viva la tolerance!

Ah now, being silly.

Ludicrous art gallery aside, I'm sure it will be a nice target for Draw Mohammad Day.

dlofnep · 26-07-2010 06:02PM

Amerika wrote: »

I think it’s admirable for all those here to demand such tolerance in support of the mosque being built in the shadows of the once standing Twin Towers.

On what grounds do you object to a Mosque being built 2 blocks away from the Twin Towers? Just curious.

Amerika · 26-07-2010 06:05PM

Overheal wrote: »

Ah now, being silly.

Ludicrous art gallery aside, I'm sure it will be a nice target for Draw Mohammad Day.

But do you favor it being built if someone so wished? If not, why not?

Amerika · 26-07-2010 06:15PM

dlofnep wrote: »

On what grounds do you object to a Mosque being built 2 blocks away from the Twin Towers? Just curious.

First and foremost… The grounds of common decency. And I object to the preachings of Feisal Abdul Rauf, the NYC imam who wants to build this mosque. He preaches that the radical Islamic terrorist problems we face today is the fault of Christians.

(I’d also be against the building of an "Images of Muhammad" art gallery next door to the mosque for the same grounds of common decency). But if common decency be damned... fair is fair, right? And a Right?

Anyone care to take a guess at the amount of synagogues that have been allowed to be built in Iran or Saudi Ariaba?

Overheal · 26-07-2010 06:33PM

Amerika wrote: »

Anyone care to take a guess at the amount of synagogues that have been allowed to be built in Iran or Saudi Ariaba?

We're not Iran.

We're not Saudi Arabia.

We're not Rome.

We're not Jerusalem.

We are The United States of America.

metrovelvet · 26-07-2010 06:33PM

You can't have a Muhammad art gallery because in Islam it's forbidden to make representations of him. And as pro free speech as America is, all the liberal artists living in Soho, you know those guys who walked around in Che Guevara tee shirts while their parents signed 45,000 checks to NYU, wont want to offend the muslims so they wouldn't paint them either and you'd have an empty gallery, suggesting that Muhammed is...well.. nothing...and that would probably be offensive too so...you'd have to throw a giant burkha over the whole thing.

Amerika · 26-07-2010 06:39PM

Overheal wrote: »

We're not Iran.

We're not Saudi Arabia.

We're not Rome.

We're not Jerusalem.

We are The United States of America.

Yup, I guess that's why we can only damn America. Well, at times that's how it feels anyway.

Nodin · 26-07-2010 06:40PM

Amerika wrote: »

First and foremost… The grounds of common decency. And I object to the preachings of Feisal Abdul Rauf, the NYC imam who wants to build this mosque. He preaches that the radical Islamic terrorist problems we face today is the fault of Christians.

(I’d also be against the building of an "Images of Muhammad" art gallery next door to the mosque for the same grounds of common decency). But if common decency be damned... fair is fair, right? And a Right?

Anyone care to take a guess at the amount of synagogues that have been allowed to be built in Iran or Saudi Ariaba?

Well, taking your logic out and applying it, you should have no problem with the idea of banning synagogues there or elsewhere in the Arab/Persian world, as you seem to think its ok to blame all members of a religion for the actions of a minority.

What other Saudi practices do you think the US should emulate?

(There are however 40,000 Jews in Iran, with at least 20 Synagogues, protected by Fatwa of the late Ayatollah khomeini.....)

Amerika · 26-07-2010 06:43PM

Nodin wrote: »

(There are however 40,000 Jews in Iran, with at least 20 Synagogues, protected by Fatwa of the late Ayatollah khomeini.....)

And how many were recently built?

And FYI... the mosque can be built... no problem. But we can protest it also... no problem.

What other Saudi practices do you think the US should emulate?

Hmmmm... a fatwa against “liberalism,” as they perceive it to be a form of moral corruption, might sound pretty appealing on the surface. But I’d have to be against it, being a compassionate conservative and all.

Memnoch · 26-07-2010 07:02PM

metrovelvet wrote: »

You can't have a Muhammad art gallery because in Islam it's forbidden to make representations of him. And as pro free speech as America is, all the liberal artists living in Soho, you know those guys who walked around in Che Guevara tee shirts while their parents signed 45,000 checks to NYU, wont want to offend the muslims so they wouldn't paint them either and you'd have an empty gallery, suggesting that Muhammed is...well.. nothing...and that would probably be offensive too so...you'd have to throw a giant burkha over the whole thing.

Which is why no one drew their interpretations of Mohammed on draw Mohammed day.

Here's the thing I don't understand. People are complaining about this mosque being built on the grounds that it will be offensive to the sentiments of some in New York (though this seems to be far from the majority view of the citizens of the city - thankfully).

The thing is, the people who want to build the mosque. Or rather, turn the building that is already used as a Muslim prayer space, into a mosque, which is slightly more official and with more facilities, I'm guessing, aren't looking to do so with a view to offend. They are doing it because they see it as a show of solidarity. They see it as a sign of reconciliation and tolerance and as a beacon to the world's Muslims to show them that America does not hate them or their religion and that Muslims and those of every faith can co-exist and pray and that the actions of terrorists will not succeed in fracturing the spirit of the city of New York, nor that of its citizens.

I can see a lot of good in that.

What I fail to see good in, is the idea that you should build an "art" gallery of Mohammed, for no other reason than the sole and express purpose to antagonise people of an Islamic faith. And what I also don't understand, is how the two actions are comparable.

Freedom of speech, expression and religion allow us to do many things. That doesn't mean we should abuse those freedoms with the specific intent of causing injury or offence to others.

But by all means, if you can find the funding, then pick a building, rent it out for art displays, and invite people to come and hang their representations of Mohammed in it. To me, it seems like a pointless exercise that is unlikely to lead to re-conciliation or positive outcome (not surprising since the intent is anything BUT positive).

I think it can be quite fairly stated that those who are opposed to the idea of the mosque so vehemently have no real interest in re-conciliation to begin with.

Amerika · 26-07-2010 07:18PM

Yeah... this imam who wants to build the mosque is so interested in promoting reconciliation and tolerance.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/behind_the_mosque_yXUJDCpszRLF9dG1heLU1H

Memnoch · 26-07-2010 07:26PM

Amerika wrote: »

Yeah... this imam who wants to build the mosque is so interested in promoting reconciliation and tolerance.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/behind_the_mosque_yXUJDCpszRLF9dG1heLU1H

I'm sorry, I was hoping for some sort of quote from the guy saying he supported terrorism or something like that. Or that he hated the western way of life etc. etc.

Instead you posted a very well-written op-ed strawman, but it's still a strawman. This kind of stuff to me falls in the same category as the "Obama is secretly a Muslim," diatribes.

Amerika · 26-07-2010 07:37PM

Memnoch wrote: »

I'm sorry, I was hoping for some sort of quote from the guy saying he supported terrorism or something like that. Or that he hated the western way of life etc. etc.

Instead you posted a very well-written op-ed strawman, but it's still a strawman. This kind of stuff to me falls in the same category as the "Obama is secretly a Muslim," diatribes.

Hmmm, so you are saying the facts in the article are incorrect?

Memnoch · 26-07-2010 07:42PM

Amerika wrote: »

Hmmm, so you are saying the facts in the article are incorrect?

There are no facts, it's all speculation and really, really stretched "links." i.e. Standard mud-slinging without anything concrete. Building pyramids out of shadows.

As I said, reminds me of a lot of the stuff that was said about Obama, re: Muslim, Birth Cert, and all that Bill Ayers nonsense.

I'm sure if there was ANYTHING even remotely tangible that suggested this guy was interested in promoting terrorism the US authorities would be on his head like a ton of bricks.

So the guy seems to believes in Sharia? So what? Big deal. There are many different forms of Sharia, including some that can be implemented safely and fairly within western democracies while still respecting the overall law of the state.

There are plenty of Christians who believe that US law should be based on the bible (i.e. religious doctrine superseeding secular state law) are they all terrorists also now?

Ground Zero Mosque

Comments