Unf**king Believable, A mosque to be built at Ground Zero

[phlogistician]

Tell a few reasons,why muslims want to build at Ground Zero and not elsewhere a muslim cultural center?

Prime real estate, location, accessibility, because they are US citizens and may buy whatever piece of land they want to, ...

... tell you what, why don't you establish why they shouldn't build there, given that there were Muslim victims of 9/11 too.

 

[GeoffP]

I did not say that you were on their side in the push to ban mosques more generally, but you do shae the same high quality thinking when it comes to ascertaining the legal rights of those building the the Park 51 mosque. Also, as I said, they are clearly on your side (even if you are not on theirs).

Denial, and then association.

This is a legal issue I was not expecting. My side will still win, of course, but I do agree that if a private company owned the land and was not willing to sell it to them, they'd be SOL. But, in reality, this is only a delay. The Muslims have a valid purchase option and ConEd isn't argung it has the right to breach it.

You may well be right, although the triumphalist message in your position is disturbing. I wonder if the moral wheels would be as easily greased if the KKK had decided to make such a purchase.

Besides, if you believe the Cordoba Institute is a bunch of terrorists...if they get denied the sale they will sue NYS for millions and win...and by your logic, that money will no doubt fund terrorism. So you should let them build their mosque.

Er: would they win? This is more speculation.

It can be if the claims are legitimate

Which you're completely disinterested in.

You certainly have the right to ask questions, but no right to compel others to answer. Feel free to learn what you can from those who want to answer you, but you don't get a private subpoena power just because you fear the effects of radical Islam and you believe based on limited evidence that Rauf is a radical.

I'm amazed at the incredibly personal way in which you've interpreted this entire thing from the beginning: first, the insinuation that I'm attempting to organize a lynching, then banging on unflaggingly about some 'personal' option I'm attempting to exercise here. Do you have some personal stake in this decision? And how would such an option work? I've stated repeatedly that what I want is a more full investigation of Rauf, but you take this position and run it completely out of bounds to justify your pre-conclusions - on several fronts. "Private subpoena power", indeed. Let us see where Mr. Rauf's money is coming from, since his donation box in the United States is none too full.

I ignored the remainder of your post as it had nothing to do with the issues, or reality.

 

[Emil]

Prime real estate, location, accessibility, because they are US citizens and may buy whatever piece of land they want to, ...

... tell you what, why don't you establish why they shouldn't build there, given that there were Muslim victims of 9/11 too.

It is not convincing.The same thing exists in thousands of other sites
Returning to the question why is so important for Muslims that location?

 

[GeoffP]

The Guv is seeking funds to move the mosque site elsewhere. What will Rauf say?

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/...n_offers_state_help_to_2JxWuBLAyGbLsDGVMt2sTP

 

[phlogistician]

It is not convincing.

What isn't, and why?

The same thing exists in thousands of other sites

Exactly, and the assembled mass of right wing bigots aren't making a fuss over those, so why this one?

Returning to the question why is so important for Muslims that location?

Seems more important to anti Muslim bigots. Muslims are free to build wherever they want. It's only bigots who have a problem with them building where they are. Remember, Muslims were victims inside the towers too.

 

[phlogistician]

The Guv is seeking funds to move the mosque site elsewhere. What will Rauf say?

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/...n_offers_state_help_to_2JxWuBLAyGbLsDGVMt2sTP

Fucking hell, what a hypocrite. He's advocating segregation, effectively.

'Can you go be Muslim somewhere else please?', etc.

 

[S.A.M.]

They should sue the state. They will get millions.

 

[GeoffP]

They should sue the state. They will get millions.

If they got $10 million, that would only leave them $89,999,800 to go to fund the build. (I understand they've already collected $200 in the jar.) Odd, though: what kind of religious center gets built on the assumption they'll just pull $100M (or $89,999,800) out of one's ass? Strange, no?

Phlog: I get your argument. I think it's rather "hey, don't build right here, it's insensitive". I'm more interested in the philosophies behind the mosque/center myself: why there? would seem to be dictated by why Rauf?

 

[GeoffP]

Remember, Muslims were victims inside the towers too.

Yes, but of Islamic extremism. I can see why it's thought insensitive: I wouldn't go slapping an American war memorial on the blast-site for Nagasaki, either.

 

[phlogistician]

Yes, but of Islamic extremism. I can see why it's thought insensitive:

Nah, that's BS.

When the IRA were bombing the shit of out of Northern Ireland and Mainland Britain, we wouldn't have prevented the Catholic Church from having a service on one of the sites, nor building a new Church in the vicinity.

The IRA terrorist atrocities were linked to religious sects, Catholics vs Protestants, if you were unsure. I see no major distinction between schizms of the same religion, and different branches of two Abrahamic ones. They're all following the same God, from the same original source.

I wouldn't go slapping an American war memorial on the blast-site for Nagasaki, either.

A war memorial? In what way is that relevant? Apples to Oranges. I bet there's a MacDonalds nearby. That's an American 'Cultural' landmark, that's a closer comparison. Oh, a quick Google reveals two MacD's in Nagasaki.

 

[GeoffP]

Nah, that's BS.

When the IRA were bombing the shit of out of Northern Ireland and Mainland Britain, we wouldn't have prevented the Catholic Church from having a service on one of the sites, nor building a new Church in the vicinity.

That's a new one on me, phlog: but if so, that would be reprehensible too. Have you got a link for this? What were the inclinations of the builders of the new Catholic churches or services?

A war memorial? In what way is that relevant? Apples to Oranges. I bet there's a MacDonalds nearby. That's an American 'Cultural' landmark, that's a closer comparison. Oh, a quick Google reveals two MacD's in Nagasaki.

Not exactly the same thing, mind: capitalism. But if a significant part of Nagasaki thought it were offensive, that would be reason enough for me not to further contaminate them with suspicious beef.

 

[Emil]

Most likely scenario is the following:
American extremists will go to different actions,while their posting only able to save America from Muslims.Also will increase their sympathizers.In response Muslims will grow their extremism.Following American extremists will intensify their actions.And so on.Who has profited?However no simple people who want to live peacefully.

Even with the risk to be labeled bigoted and anti-democratic, to eliminate this risk,I am firmly against the construction of a Muslim center there.

I make the following statement:
I firmly condemn any manifestation of extremist.Specifically,I condemn unequivocally Muslim extremists who carried out the attack on 9 / 11 against the Twin Towers.
Those who argue there to build a Muslim center and not make such a declaration,I will assume they are among those who have advantage due to growth of extremism and I'll ignore them.

 

[phlogistician]

That's a new one on me, phlog: but if so, that would be reprehensible too. Have you got a link for this? What were the inclinations of the builders of the new Catholic churches or services?

You miss the point. It's not if new churches were built, but that we wouldn't have cared if they were. It would not reprehensible at all. It would be the epitome of freedom, and open mindedness. We did not equate the work of terrorists with the religion they allegedly follow, even though their violence was sectarian. Get it yet?

It is therefore also false to identify the 9/11 bombers with regular Muslims.

We have much more direct and deliberate antagonistic scenarios to deal with. What you might not be aware of, is 'The Orange Day Parade', where Northern Irish protestants literally take a marching band though Catholic areas of Northern Ireland. THAT is inflammatory, and given the very real bombs and bullets traded regularly by both sides note more than inciting hatred and fuelling the divide. But guess what? We allowed it to happen, and policed it, and tried to keep it safe. Banning freedom of expression is not something we take lightly over here. Seem too many Americans think freedom only applies to white christians.

Not exactly the same thing, mind: capitalism. But if a significant part of Nagasaki thought it were offensive, that would be reason enough for me not to further contaminate them with suspicious beef.

They lost the war and had sanctions imposed upon them. Like they felt like that they could complain.

 

[iceaura]

Well, you can go and see, once it's built, 'cos you aren't going to stop it.

Of course anyone with enough money can jam something like this down all of our throats - and I have no objection to the basic legal structure that guarantees them that right. If they legally bought the Statue of Liberty and put a burka on it, as an effort to promote mutual understanding and bring the true face of Islam into America to create peace and good will, I would have no objection to the fact that they were exercising their legal rights in that case, either.

But you have to agree that describing such an effort as a promotion of mutual understanding and comity, is problematical. Is their offered description ignorant, or dishonest?

So you are against the centre because YOU DON'T KNOW who is paying for it?

No. I am against it partly - an only partly - because I can't find out who is paying for it.

One of the implications of that is that you can't either, which means when you say this:

Saudi Arabian culture is Islamic culture? Inherently?
I haven't said that.

The centre being built is for the promotion of Muslim culture. Seem people are trying to attach a bunch of baggage to it.

you don't know what you are talking about. You don't know what culture, if any, that center is being built to promote. The evidence so far is that is being built to promote the specific aspects of the specific culture that produced the people who carried out 9/11, and celebrated its success.

What culture would that be? Saudi Arabia's? I'm not going to be accepting of that culture in my country, no.
”
Islamic culture, and you're just going to have to bite that one, Muslims are just as much American citizens as you are

Saudi Arabians are not American citizens, nor is all of their dominant culture compatible with basic American values - or any reasonable human civilization's values, actually.

 

[GeoffP]

You miss the point. It's not if new churches were built, but that we wouldn't have cared if they were. It would not reprehensible at all. It would be the epitome of freedom, and open mindedness. We did not equate the work of terrorists with the religion they allegedly follow, even though their violence was sectarian. Get it yet?

Utterly. But have you got a single site where 3,000 Protestants or Catholics were killed, and someone wants to throw a church up on it? If no one cared, that's great; but that's a group dynamic, a group agreement. Here, there isn't that. If you consider that acceptable for yourselves, that's fine. Here, it isn't that: so maybe it's kind of a shitty, insensitive deal.

It is therefore also false to identify the 9/11 bombers with regular Muslims.

Yes.

We have much more direct and deliberate antagonistic scenarios to deal with. What you might not be aware of, is 'The Orange Day Parade', where Northern Irish protestants literally take a marching band though Catholic areas of Northern Ireland. THAT is inflammatory, and given the very real bombs and bullets traded regularly by both sides note more than inciting hatred and fuelling the divide. But guess what? We allowed it to happen, and policed it, and tried to keep it safe. Banning freedom of expression is not something we take lightly over here. Seem too many Americans think freedom only applies to white christians.

Yes, I am blisteringly well aware of the Orangemen, and their heartfelt work in the arena of being astoundingly ignorant assholes. If you choose to let that fly, then great: it's pretty insulting, but fine. Personally, I'd shut it down and give them all a slap. This is kind of the same case: Rauf and his ilk (who don't seem too representative of average Muslims themselves) could stand with a stiff one as well. He's treading on people's sensitivities, and I think it's inappropriate. Now, given certain provisos, I'd be all for it: like if they asked Suleyman Schwartz to run it, as one example. There are others.

They lost the war and had sanctions imposed upon them. Like they felt like that they could complain.

Arg. That's not the point. But by what you're saying, I can see that you do get it: they didn't feel like they could complain. Meaning they probably bloody would have done, and they should have had the right to.

 

[S.A.M.]

In all this I find it highly intriguing that Orthodox Jews have supported the mosque and rabbis have spoken up for its construction while liberals at sciforums, constitutionalists and the Anti-Discrimination League [chuckle] have opposed it.

 

[GeoffP]

I haven't said that.

And you don't know, as iceaura points out, who's footing the bill. I note Rauf is off on a State-Department-sponsored trip to Saudi Arabia today. Wonder what he's doing there. Maybe he needs a new gold collection plate.

 

[S.A.M.]

And you don't know, as iceaura points out, who's footing the bill. I note Rauf is off on a State-Department-sponsored trip to Saudi Arabia today. Wonder what he's doing there. Maybe he needs a new gold collection plate.

Americans of course, who else?

A word from the sponsors:

Joy Levitt, executive director of the Jewish Community Center on the Upper West Side of Manhattan, remembers her first conversation with Daisy Khan around 2005, years before Ms. Khan's idea for a Muslim community center in Lower Manhattan morphed into a controversy about Sept. 11, Islam and freedom of religion.

"Strollers," said Ms. Levitt, whom Ms. Khan had approached for advice on how to build an institution like the Jewish center -- with a swimming pool, art classes and joint projects with other religious groups. Ms. Levitt, a rabbi, urged Ms. Khan to focus on practical matters like a decent wedding hall and stroller parking.

"You can use all these big words like diversity and pluralism," Ms. Levitt recalled telling Ms. Khan, noting that with the population of toddlers booming in Manhattan, "I'm down in the lobby dealing with the 500 strollers."

Clearly, the idea that Ms. Khan and her partners would one day be accused of building a victory monument to terrorism did not come up -- an oversight with consequences. The organizers built support among some Jewish and Christian groups, and even among some families of 9/11 victims, but did little to engage with likely opponents. More strikingly, they did not seek the advice of established Muslim organizations experienced in volatile post-9/11 passions and politics.


Read more at: http://www.ndtv.com/article/world/for-mosque-sponsors-early-missteps-fueled-storm-43612?cp

As a group, Muslim Americans, especially women are among the most highly educated group, second perhaps only to Jews. They are also highly religious [80%]

They can manage to raise the money from their fellow Americans.

http://www.oismidwest.org/statement-on-galluppoll.htm

 

[Pandaemoni]

And you don't know, as iceaura points out, who's footing the bill. I note Rauf is off on a State-Department-sponsored trip to Saudi Arabia today. Wonder what he's doing there. Maybe he needs a new gold collection plate.

Yes, no doubt the State Department wants to send him to raise funds for his many pro-terrorism activities. Either that, or since he's known as a moderate voice within Islam, that's why they chose him.

Also, the reports I have read say he's going to Qatar, Bahrain and the UAE, not Saudi Arabia. See: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-state-department-drop-sponsorship-imam-trip/

Looking at the State Department website, it''s easy to find problems. It almost seems like Saudi Arabia is an ally of the U.S., which can't possibly be the case given your hysteria. Someone also seems to have accidentally dropped them from the "State Sponsors of Terrorism" list. http://www.state.gov/s/ct/c14151.htm

Rauf has worked in New York for a long time. Even if you stomped on his civil rights in the manner you would like to, he would just go to a different mosque and speak his same message. Why are you opposed to Park 51, but not opposed to the Masjid al-Farah mosque that already sits in triumph just four blocks away from Ground Zero? Because it's small? How many stories is a mosque allowed to have before you start getting worried about it? Is there a "building size to blocks away from Ground Zero" ratio that Muslims can use as a guideline? Rauf served as Imam at the Masjid mosque for some time, and I believe still does. Do you imagine you have the right to see their finances too?

 

[phlogistician]

Of course anyone with enough money can jam something like this down all of our throats

Just what the fuck has it got to do with you in the first place? It's American citizens going about their lawful business, and it's none of your business.

But you have to agree that describing such an effort as a promotion of mutual understanding and comity, is problematical. Is their offered description ignorant, or dishonest?

Neither. They aren't really under any obligation to explain to others what the purpose of the building is. But the people behind it have a laudable mission statement.

No. I am against it partly - an only partly - because I can't find out who is paying for it.

Boohoo for you. Do you know who paid for all the other structures in the vicinity? No. Why get a hard on over this one?

One of the implications of that is that you can't either, which means when you say this: you don't know what you are talking about. You don't know what culture, if any, that center is being built to promote. The evidence so far is that is being built to promote the specific aspects of the specific culture that produced the people who carried out 9/11, and celebrated its success.

The centre is to promote Islam. You are conflating Islam with Terrorism. George Bush was a Christian, you think all Christians undertake illegal foreign wars, that have killed over a hundred thousand innocent civilians? Or we could say George Bush was an American so all Americans support the slaughter of the innocent.

Saudi Arabians are not American citizens, nor is all of their dominant culture compatible with basic American values - or any reasonable human civilization's values, actually.

I thought this centre was being built in America, for American Muslims. So it might be getting bankrolled with the aid of some foreign money. So what. The Japanese buy up land and build Golf course. Large parts of America are foreign owned. Why have you got a boner for this one building?