Ground Zero Mosque

[stebo0728]

Ok, so I havent seen anyone else post about it yet, and theres more news today in that landmark status has been denied for the site, meaning once again the road is clear for the building of this thing, right where it should NOT be, IMO anyway.

Whats the rest'a you folks think?

[IBCoupe]

There is no legitimate reason to oppose it.

[stebo0728]

I fully expected that response from you IB, and we will probably go back and forth for days on it, but IMO there is a legitimate reason for opposition. Location is everything, and the location chosen shows poor taste, and lack of respect. Again thats just my opinion.

[IBCoupe]

I fully expected that response from you IB, and we will probably go back and forth for days on it, but IMO there is a legitimate reason for opposition. Location is everything, and the location chosen shows poor taste, and lack of respect. Again thats just my opinion.

I can understand that, and that's certainly a reason to write them an angry letter.

It's not, however, a legitimate reason for opposing their use of the property they're buying.

But let's explore this "poor taste." What exactly is wrong?

[stebo0728]

Would you build a Japanese temple near the Arizona?

[Cold_Zero]

It would be a Shinto Shrine and only if it could float. j.k.

Personally, I think it is bad taste and the mosque could move to other locations outside of Ground Zero.

[wingFeather]

Will this be a recruitment location? "Hey, we knocked down these buildings - help us do more!"

[ADDirishboy]

It's disgusting. No building should be built there. A statue built in memory of the 343 should be the ONLY thing to grace that ground.

[vikesfankevin1986]

Only in America...Our government cares so much about what is going on in the rest of the world but doesn't give a s*** what goes on here.

[IBCoupe]

Would you build a Japanese temple near the Arizona?

What's one got to do with the other?

Will this be a recruitment location? "Hey, we knocked down these buildings - help us do more!"

I love it when you post; you illustrate quite nicely the 500-lb gorilla in the room - both the real issue and the real reason why the people who oppose this thing are wrong.

The only reason a person could take umbridge with this thing is if they equate the 9/11 attacks with Islam as a whole, and, derivative of that: with all Muslims. The word I'm thinking of begins with an "I" and ends with an "slamophobia."

[bigbadberry3]

Maybe something more similar would be outside any concentration camp having a building housing supremacists.

[stebo0728]

Would you build a Japanese temple near the Arizona?

What's one got to do with the other?

Both would be examples of religious institutions, based in the origin of an attack on our country, being built in the very spot of the attack.

Will this be a recruitment location? "Hey, we knocked down these buildings - help us do more!"

I love it when you post; you illustrate quite nicely the 500-lb gorilla in the room - both the real issue and the real reason why the people who oppose this thing are wrong.

The only reason a person could take umbridge with this thing is if they equate the 9/11 attacks with Islam as a whole, and, derivative of that: with all Muslims. The word I'm thinking of begins with an "I" and ends with an "slamophobia."

Islam was the source of the attack, plain and simple, yes it was people following their interpretation of their religion, and other religions exhibit similar issues ... blah blah ... its still absolutely the wrong thing to be doing if these "good muslims" you speak of really exist. It really seems to me to be an exhibition in the dark age modus operandi of building your newest headquarters on the rubble of the tribe you just wiped out.

With that said, my implication is not that these people should be FORCED to not do this, if in fact they legally own the property, and can fit their plans into pre-existing zoning laws. I am a private property protectionist, so even in this extremely distasteful example, I do not advocate abridging private property rights to stop this, but my point is that if the "nation of Islam" was truely out to prove that these terrorists were the extremists of the group, and the rest of them are normal, then this is one heck of a means to that end.

[IBCoupe]

Maybe something more similar would be outside any concentration camp having a building housing supremacists.

Once again, we're equating the acts of some Muslims to be acts attributable to Islam and thusly all Muslims.

Stop it. It's bigoted. It's illogical.

[IBCoupe]

Both would be examples of religious institutions, based in the origin of an attack on our country, being built in the very spot of the attack.

I actually meant: what's the Japanese temple have to do with the Arizona?

Islam was the source of the attack, plain and simple, yes it was people following their interpretation of their religion, and other religions exhibit similar issues ... blah blah ... its still absolutely the wrong thing to be doing if these "good muslims" you speak of really exist. It really seems to me to be an exhibition in the dark age modus operandi of building your newest headquarters on the rubble of the tribe you just wiped out.

You see the hijackers as Muslims, rather than as members of al-Qaeda. You see them using vague, religious excuses that are not at all disputed in the Muslim world, when in reality, they gave very specific, politically- and policy-based reasonings.

I know you see this because in calling this community center (which has a prayer room inside it) the "newest headquarters" of the group that committed the acts on 9/11. Also because you said, "Islam was the source of the attack."

With that said, my implication is not that these people should be FORCED to not do this, if in fact they legally own the property, and can fit their plans into pre-existing zoning laws. I am a private property protectionist, so even in this extremely distasteful example, I do not advocate abridging private property rights to stop this, but my point is that if the "nation of Islam" was truely out to prove that these terrorists were the extremists of the group, and the rest of them are normal, then this is one heck of a means to that end.

I don't think the nation of Islam is out to prove anything about the terrorists. I think the nation of Islam is out to worship, pray, and live as is consistent with their beliefs. I think you're assigning them an objective that you have no business assigning.

[Cold_Zero]

Al Qaeda by its charter (to bring Global Jihad against Israel and the US), its philosophy (Wahhab), its membership (Sunni Muslims) and name (the Base) is religious to its core. Unlike say the South Lebon Army that get's confused for a Christian militia (during the Lebanese Civil War) even though it was comprised of Druze, Christian and Shia members and had a charter to take control of Southern Lebanon from the PLO and Amal.

While they are an Islamic terrorlst group, they obviously dont speak for all of Islam. No one really does.

[bigbadberry3]

Maybe something more similar would be outside any concentration camp having a building housing supremacists.

Once again, we're equating the acts of some Muslims to be acts attributable to Islam and thusly all Muslims.

Stop it. It's bigoted. It's illogical.

Fact: Nazis killed Jews.
Fact: Muslims destroyed the WTC.

End history lesson.

It isn't illogical to dislike something that has or does harm to oneself or views as potentially harmful.

[stebo0728]

Both would be examples of religious institutions, based in the origin of an attack on our country, being built in the very spot of the attack.

I actually meant: what's the Japanese temple have to do with the Arizona?

Ok first are we on the same page? The Arizona being the Pennsylvania Class battleship destroyed in the Pearl Harbor attack. Ok if were still on the same page, then asking the above is like asking "What does the muslim mosque have to do with the World Trade Center complex?" Not expeditious to the issue.

Listen, Im christian, and I dont believe abortion is the way to go, but I dont blow up clinics, and when others carrying my banner do, I make sure people know that murder or arson, or whatever the crime, is completely unjustified, and was the act of a individual or small group. Maybe its not my "place" to do so, maybe it is, thats not yours or my decision to make in this context, but part of the whole notion of being "above reproach" is that regardless of what you "should do", or what you are "obligated" to do, you step up and do it anyway. And you dont thumb your nose at the victims of the heinous act by building institutions that are supportive of the perpetrators of the act AT THE VERY SITE of the act. Thats just altogther wrong no mater what angle you come at it from. This falls solely into the court of public opinion, and regardless of what litigation may exist, the court of public opinion is where the battle lies, and this mosque is NOT evidence of the passive peaceful islamic community that has been rumored to exist.

[AppleBonker]

Fact: Nazis killed Jews.
Fact: Muslims destroyed the WTC.

End history lesson.

It isn't illogical to dislike something that has or does harm to oneself or views as potentially harmful.

Ok, al Queda destroyed the WTC. They happen to be a subset of muslims who generally happen to be a subset of middle-easterners. Nazis killed Jews. They happen to be a subset of germans who are a subset of white people.

Do you hate all germans? All white people?

And you dont thumb your nose at the victims of the heinous act by building institutions that are supportive of the perpetrators of the act AT THE VERY SITE of the act

A muslim place of worship automatically supports al Qaeda? You completely contradict yourself. According to you, all muslims MUST support killing us because a small subset of them feel that way. Similarly, I will choose to believe you support murdering doctors who perform abortions because a small subset of the christian faith feels that way.

[UpStar]

There is no legitimate reason to oppose it.

I’m a little sensitive about anyone throwing up a building on this site, but I agree….I don’t see any legitimate reason to deny this. Keep in mind the word “legitimate”

Fact: Muslims destroyed the WTC.

End history lesson.

Timothy McVeigh was a Christian, but no one stooped to level of blaming Christians or Christianity for what he did. Stop blaming Muslims for 9/11!

Marwan Al-Shehhi, Fayez Ahmed, Mohald Alshehri, Hamza Alghamdi, Ahmed Alghamdi, Waleed M Alshehri, Wail Alshehri, Mohamed Atta, Abdulaziz Alomari, Satam Al Suqami, Khalid Al-Midhar, Majed Moqed, Nawaq Alhamzi, Salem Alhamzi, Hani Hanjour , Ahmed Alhaznawi, Ahmed Alnami, Ziad Jarrahi and Saeed Alghamdi are the ones to point the finger at, so when you say “muslims” be specific. Do not tie all muslims together with this event.

Class is back in session, so take a seat and listen!


edit

The new building is a block away from the site, so are americans being to sensitive or are we being fueled by the media? Yes!

[Cold_Zero]

No one would associate Timothy McVeigh's attack on the Federal building in Oklahoma City because it was not a religiously motivated attack. You tend to imply that these guys (911 conspirators) just happened, by blind luck, to all be Muslim. 911 was a religious attack in some misguided Islamic Magisterium to take global Jihad to the United States.

[vikesfankevin1986]

I think that everyone is missing one big point. Whether or not its right, there is the fact that if a mosque gets built there it will cause problems. People will protest and make threats. It will be vandalized and possibly even burned down. I can already see the headline..."Mosque built on ground zero gets burned down."
If anything we should not allow it to be built there because it's a saftly issue. But if anyone thinks they have the right to build it there, I don't want to hear the same people complaining about how those people are being discriminated against and how their lives are in danger when all they are trying to do is worship.

Just because I have the right to build a KKK hangout or whatever in the hood in Atlanta doesn't make it a good idea.

[wingFeather]

A memorial to the dead should be built - like in Oklahoma City. There shouldn't be a mosque, Taco Bell or anything else there.

equating the acts of some Muslims to be acts attributable to Islam and thusly all Muslims

You aren't too familiar with Muslims, are you?

[IBCoupe]

Ok first are we on the same page? The Arizona being the Pennsylvania Class battleship destroyed in the Pearl Harbor attack. Ok if were still on the same page, then asking the above is like asking "What does the muslim mosque have to do with the World Trade Center complex?" Not expeditious to the issue.

Yeah, I'm aware of this. But what does this Japanese temple have to do with the Arizona? Were the people building it cheering when it sank? Were they pilots in the attack? What's the connection, besides some vague racial association?

Now substitute "Japanese temple" with "Community Center built by Muslims featuring a prayer room" and "the Arizona" with "World Trade Center" and ask the same questions.

Listen, Im christian, and I dont believe abortion is the way to go, but I dont blow up clinics, and when others carrying my banner do, I make sure people know that murder or arson, or whatever the crime, is completely unjustified, and was the act of a individual or small group. Maybe its not my "place" to do so, maybe it is, thats not yours or my decision to make in this context, but part of the whole notion of being "above reproach" is that regardless of what you "should do", or what you are "obligated" to do, you step up and do it anyway. And you dont thumb your nose at the victims of the heinous act by building institutions that are supportive of the perpetrators of the act AT THE VERY SITE of the act. Thats just altogther wrong no mater what angle you come at it from. This falls solely into the court of public opinion, and regardless of what litigation may exist, the court of public opinion is where the battle lies, and this mosque is NOT evidence of the passive peaceful islamic community that has been rumored to exist.

If an abortion clinic is bombed by extremists, is it bad taste to erect a church two city blocks away? Nevermind that you shouldn't be required to denounce anything you haven't had a part in, and nevermind the fact that the people behind this project have already denounced the acts on 9/11, what the heck does one have to do with the other? These are not the same people.

[IBCoupe]

No one would associate Timothy McVeigh's attack on the Federal building in Oklahoma City because it was not a religiously motivated attack. You tend to imply that these guys (911 conspirators) just happened, by blind luck, to all be Muslim. 911 was a religious attack in some misguided Islamic Magisterium to take global Jihad to the United States.

Neither were the attacks on 9/11 entirely religiously motivated. Religion sure helped, like that candy coating on the outside of an aspirin, but Al-Qaeda pointed to our policies in Israel and our military presence in Saudi Arabia as directly motivating their attacks. You can disagree with their motives while acknowledging that they had them.

These guys were crazy, but they weren't completely crazy.

[IBCoupe]

A memorial to the dead should be built - like in Oklahoma City. There shouldn't be a mosque, Taco Bell or anything else there.

This thing is supposed to be two blocks away from Ground Zero. Exactly how big do you want this memorial to be?

You aren't too familiar with Muslims, are you?

Know a lot of them, do you?

[AZhitman]

These guys were crazy, but they weren't completely crazy.

Then neither was McVeigh. Or Jim Jones. Or Wayne Williams. Or Richard Reid.

I'm gonna [rare, I know] tread the line that UpStar drew... Good post.

However, I think the opposition of the families of those killed is ENOUGH reason to say, "Nope. This isn't a good idea."

Respect them - They suffered the loss. Not Islam. Not the Muslim community. The families of the 9/11 victims.

Every once in a while, it's ok to do the right thing, even if there's no, as IBC says, "rational opposition".

EDIT: And yes, a Japanese community center over the USS Arizona would be inappropriate. Period. End of story. I saw my Dad's face when he toured the USS Arizona (whose sinking dragged him into the military) and one of the tour guides had a Japanese surname. You can say, "So what", but it matters TO HIM. And it matters to the families of those killed.

How would you feel if the KKK bought the Lorraine Motel?

[IBCoupe]

I couldn't care less, Greg, about that happening. My opposition to the KKK is absolutely unaffected by where they choose to be. If I were to protest the KKK building a center, my protest would exist regardless of where they chose to build it.

But the difference is: this isn't the group that did the crime. Collective guilt is wrong. Tell me you can at least recognize the glaring hypocrisy, when you lump all Muslims together for a crime committed by a few among them who lumped all Americans together for the "crimes" of a few among them. That's what allowed them to be indiscriminate in their attacks, when their true, stated enemies were the policy-makers. You're falling prey to the same logical fallacies, and you've got the same arrogant self-righteousness.

I get that this is an emotional issue, but I'm dumbfounded that so many otherwise intelligent people can take such irrational and bigoted positions. We don't blame people for things they haven't done, and we don't punish people for the crimes of their family members, let alone people who self-identify as belonging to the same massive organized religion.

[AZhitman]

Do you really think I don't get that?

I can comprehend that not all Muslims attacked America. F***ing duh.

It STILL doesn't mean I think it's appropriate for them to build on the site that, were it not for the attacks, buildings would still be standing.

Given the choice between showing respect for those who perished in the attacks, and those who want a mosque built, I'm gonna go with the former. If you had to donate a kidney to an ailing person, would you choose a relative or a stranger?

It's equally arrogant to think that just because someone WANTS to build something someplace, that they should be allowed unfettered access to do as they please over the legitimate objections of others. You're not gonna FORCE the survivors to think the way you do, nor should you expect to.

On a side note, my interactions with people of all walks of life speaks a lot more loudly than my position on this issue to the fact that I'm far from "bigoted". If I were, I wouldn't have close personal relationships with people of all walks of life, colors, backgrounds, beliefs. I'm a bit offended that just because I don't accept something that's being forced on me, I'm perceived as bigoted. Unfair and unfounded.

[IBCoupe]

But there are no legitimate objections, Greg. The only ones presented are irrational and emotional. They involve the sacrificing of one person's rights for another person's comfort. That's the sort of thing conservatives hate, right?

Given the choice of allowing someone access to land they own and unlimited access to their mode of prayer or making sure that no one's feelings get hurt, I'm going to go with the Constitutionally-guaranteed rights over the made-up ones.

[AZhitman]

But there are no legitimate objections, Greg. The only ones presented are irrational and emotional. They involve the sacrificing of one person's rights for another person's comfort. That's the sort of thing conservatives hate, right?

You'd advocate sacrificing the families' rights to NOT look at what THEY PERCEIVE as a slap in the face for another group's "comfort". It works both ways.

Opposition to abortion is an "emotional" issue too. But I'm sure you're going to claim my position is "wrong" and arrogant as well.