Proposed Mosque Near Ground Zero

[morningstar55]

There's a heated debate in New York over plans to build a mosque near the World Trade Center site
What do you think???
why can't they build it somewhere else??
why there???
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/...ag=mncol;lst;3

Opponents call it a mosque that's in the worst possible place.

This site should be turned into a museum," said one New Yorker.

Supporters call it a cultural center in the best spot to encourage understanding.

"If a mosque were built then you guys would know what Islam is about," said mosque advocate Dania Darwish.

At issue, a building in lower Manhattan, the proposed site of a 13-story community center and Islamic prayer space, reports CBS News correspondent Jeff Glor.

"This is the Muslim community's effort to rebuild Manhattan," said Park 51 Project spokeswoman Daisy Khan.

The controversy is that it's only two blocks from ground zero. Tthis week Sarah Palin upped an already raucous debate when on Twitter she called on "peaceful" Muslims to "refudiate" the plan, calling it "a stab in the heart" for America.

Palin's "Refudiate" Tweet on Mosque Draws Fire

Liberal bloggers pounced on the made-up word "refudiate" and Palin retracted her Tweet but not her sentiment, saying Shakespeare "liked to coin new words too."

Grammatical debates aside, New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg has come out firmly in support of the plan. "Everything the United States stands for and New York stands for is tolerance and openness," he said.

"My hope is that [the community center] attracts a lot of people who don't understand Islam," said Valerie Lucznikowska of 9/11 Families for a Peaceful Tomorrow

Tim brown, a former New York City firefighter who lost 93 colleagues on Sept. 11, calls the proposal a slap in the face. He has a message for the developers.

"Stop it. Stop hurting the families. Everyday there are stories in the newspaper. They're hurting the families again. They don't deserve it. These American families have paid too much," he said.

Brown and others, including New York gubernatorial candidate Rick Lazio, are calling for an investigation into financing behind the $4.8 million building purchase.

Their concerns, spurred in part by comments the center's imam, Faisel Rauf, made to "60 Minutes" in 2001, just weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks:

"I wouldn't say that the United States deserved what happened but United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened," said Rauf.

Citing anti-Americanism, opponents are pushing to have the building declared a landmark making it far more difficult for any Muslim center construction to begin.

[Manul]

Originally Posted by morningstar55

There's a heated debate in New York over plans to build a mosque near the World Trade Center site
What do you think???
why can't they build it somewhere else??
why there???

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/...ag=mncol;lst;3


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

[Dylan]

Islam and Muslims (as a whole) didn't blow up the World Trade Center anymore than christianity and christians blew up the Federal Building in Oklahoma City.

You think anyone in Oklahoma (or the country for that matter) is cryin' because there's a church near the OK Federal Building?

I'll even bet there's LOTS of churches near abortion clinics christians like to blow up in the name of god too. Anyone cryin' about that?



I Doubt It,
Dylan

[Soon]

By objecting to the building of this 15 story community center--with a gym, swimming pool, performance center and mosque--there is an implication that one believe all Muslims are terrorists and the Muslim community--at large--is to be blamed for 9/11.



Partial List of Muslim 9/11 Victims:

Note: This list is as yet incomplete and unconfirmed. It has been compiled from the Islamic Circle of North America, the Newsday victims database, and reports from other major news organizations. The victims' ages, employers, or other personal information is included when available, along with links to further information or photos.

Samad Afridi
Ashraf Ahmad
Shabbir Ahmad (45 years old; Windows on the World; leaves wife and 3 children)
Umar Ahmad
Azam Ahsan
Ahmed Ali
Tariq Amanullah (40 years old; Fiduciary Trust Co.; ICNA website team member; leaves wife and 2 children)
Touri Bolourchi (69 years old; United Airlines #175; a retired nurse from Tehran)
Salauddin Ahmad Chaudhury
Abdul K. Chowdhury (30 years old; Cantor Fitzgerald)
Mohammad S. Chowdhury (39 years old; Windows on the World; leaves wife and child born 2 days after the attack)
Jamal Legesse Desantis
Ramzi Attallah Douani (35 years old; Marsh & McLennan)
SaleemUllah Farooqi
Syed Fatha (54 years old; Pitney Bowes)
Osman Gani
Mohammad Hamdani (50 years old)
Salman Hamdani (NYPD Cadet)
Aisha Harris (21 years old; General Telecom)
Shakila Hoque (Marsh & McLennan)
Nabid Hossain
Shahzad Hussain
Talat Hussain
Mohammad Shah Jahan (Marsh & McLennan)
Yasmeen Jamal
Mohammed Jawarta (MAS security)
Arslan Khan Khakwani
Asim Khan
Ataullah Khan
Ayub Khan
Qasim Ali Khan
Sarah Khan (32 years old; Cantor Fitzgerald)
Taimour Khan (29 years old; Karr Futures)
Yasmeen Khan
Zahida Khan
Badruddin Lakhani
Omar Malick
Nurul Hoque Miah (36 years old)
Mubarak Mohammad (23 years old)
Boyie Mohammed (Carr Futures)
Raza Mujtaba
Omar Namoos
Mujeb Qazi
Tarranum Rahim
Ehtesham U. Raja (28 years old)
Ameenia Rasool (33 years old)
Naveed Rehman
Yusuf Saad
Rahma Salie & unborn child (28 years old; American Airlines #11; wife of Michael Theodoridis; 7 months pregnant)
Shoman Samad
Asad Samir
Khalid Shahid (25 years old; Cantor Fitzgerald; engaged to be married in November)
Mohammed Shajahan (44 years old; Marsh & McLennan)
Naseema Simjee (Franklin Resources Inc.'s Fiduciary Trust)
Jamil Swaati
Sanober Syed
Robert Elias Talhami (40 years old; Cantor Fitzgerald)
Michael Theodoridis (32 years old; American Airlines #11; husband of Rahma Salie)
W. Wahid

[PapaC]

You beat me to the punch. TY, Dylan.

Originally Posted by Dylan

Islam and Muslims (as a whole) didn't blow up the World Trade Center anymore than christianity and christians blew up the Federal Building in Oklahoma City.

You think anyone in Oklahoma (or the country for that matter) is cryin' because there's a church near the OK Federal Building?

I'll even bet there's LOTS of churches near abortion clinics christians like to blow up in the name of god too. Anyone cryin' about that?



I Doubt It,
Dylan

[Medusa]

These whole "Mosque that shouldnt be there" debates are springing from racism and intolerance and helping to foster a very unhealthy "us" versus "them" mentality.
What is sad is that the "us" who are fighting so diligently to keep the Trade Center ground as "America - Fuck Yeah" as possible want people to believe that you are "unAmerican" or "unChristian" or whatever if you think that it's racist to make a sqwuak over a Mosque being built near the grounds.
The even sadder thing is that the "them" that are supposed to be this evil mass-killing entity of "Down with America!!" lost friends and family in the bombings as well (since not everyone who worked at the Twin Towers, the Pentagon, or who was on one of the planes was the lily-white hyper-Christians that are portrayed in the ridiculously cheesy "The Statue of Libbertee is shakin' her fi-yust!!" country songs and propaganda that is so rampant since that time).

"They" are not the enemy.

Ignorance is.

[Glenn]

I designed a beautiful memorial to be built there as well as others, and I shall believe to my death that a memorial should stay there.

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by popcorninthesofa

I designed a beautiful memorial to be built there as well as others, and I shall believe to my death that a memorial should stay there.

What better memorial could there be for those that died than a community center that would fly in the face of the what people on *both* sides would be the preferred result. The jihadis would like nothing more than for this Muslim community center *not* be built. If it isn't, then they can look at their brethren and say, "see! Did we not tell you that all of America's promise of religious freedom does not apply to Muslims? Did we not try to pull the scales from your eyes that America, despite the honeyed words, does not truly welcome diversity? Here some of our brethren in America wanted to build a community center in a city where many Muslims live and it could not be done. Now do you believe that we must strike against America?" There are Christians who do not want this community center built because having a community center normalizes Muslims. It is one thing to get people to fear and ostracize Sharif, when he is nothing more than a collection of stereotypes made from a pastiche of movies from Lawrence of Arabia to the latest summer action shoot-em-up. It is quite another thing to get people to fear and ostracize Faud, the young father who takes his girls to the community center twice a week for swimming and who sits in the park playing chess.

The groups concerned about sharia law in America (which is just a smokescreen to justify a conclusion they've already arrived at) have as their selling point fear of Muslims. What's amazing about this is that it's not *just* this community center. In Tennessee there's a similar flap over a different Muslim community center. So what happens in New York has potential ramifications across the country *beyond* the public relations stupidity that denying the permit would be. If New York City, the most diverse city in the country, does not permit this community center then the folks in Tennessee will be emboldened in not permitting a community center or mosque built in their backyards. And that can spread like a wave.

One fascinating thing is that this is make all of these folks who are so quick to pronounce themselves more Constitutional-than-thou, is that it is forcing them to come out and say what many of us presumed they have meant all along vis a vis the Establishment clause. While the words are "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion..." what they want it to mean is "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of Christian religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." In other words what they mean by 'freedom of religion' is really, "freedom to practice the sect of Christianity you wish". But they don't mean freedom of religion.

Ultimately, if this community center doesn't get built both groups of fanatics-Christian and Muslim--will get precisely what it is they are hoping for. I can think of no greater memorial to those who were sacrificed at the altar of intolerance than to build this community center.

[Glenn]

Yes Aj I agree that a learning center is good. A memorial should be built there too.

[Apocalipstic]

I believe in division of church and state. It should have no bearing what buildings go in 2 blocks from the site.

[morningstar55]

what religion was .. Timothy McVeigh ?? should maybe what ever his was , should we have the same view on what is being built in OK , where he blew up that building and killed all them people and kids??
i dont think all muslims are to blame, ...just like are all catholics to blame to be child molestors seeing how there's a lot of priest getting caught these days?? and have not read anywhere that they are foreigners either.. im not rooting for them or this in NYC but im just trying to look at this from all views.

wait.... just found McVeighs religion.. Throughout his childhood, he and his father were Roman Catholic and regularly attended daily Mass at Good Shepherd Church in Pendleton, New York..

Throughout his childhood, he and his father were Roman Catholic and regularly attended daily Mass at Good Shepherd Church in Pendleton, New York

[UofMfan]

While I understand the sentimental impact if this, I cannot understand the blatant ignorance and racism that would make this even an issue.

For the eight Bush years 9/11 was used as a tool to backtrack the US in Human Rights, Civil Liberties, etc. The scare tactics and the racial profiling that followed are still used today, as is evident by this thread.

I agree with Dylan, Muslims were not responsible for 9/11, and his analogy it is right on target.

I also want to thank Manul for bringing up an excellent point.

Funny how racism makes all of us throw the very laws the US was built on out the window.

[Linus]

It's not a mosque but a community center (the main purpose of the facility). I think it would open up discussion between the Christian side of the US and others. There are many interfaith discussions that happen without MSM views. It may be worthwhile to start letting the community have those discussions.

I have to agree with Dylan.

[Melissa]

I think the mosque should be built. Denying this mosque goes against the constitution and religious freedom. Denying this mosque tells the world that the US blames all Muslims and lumps them altogether as terrorists and people to be feared. If a mosque cannot be built within two blocks of the trade center site then where can it be built? Within a mile, 10 miles, 100 miles? Banned altogether from the state of New York? Yes, this might be slippery slope thinking, but if two blocks is too close then why isn't a mile too close. The mosque should be built.

Melissa

[dreadgeek]

""I wouldn't say that the United States deserved what happened but United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened," said Rauf. "

I don't understand why this is such a controversial statement. Unless someone is wedded to the idea that a bunch of "crazy Arabs" just decided that since there wasn't anything good on TV, they'd plan an attack on the US it seems to me to be painfully self-evident that US policies in the Middle East, Southeast Asia and the Arabian Peninsula might have *something* to do with other people's actions. That's not a justification and what Mr. Rauf said wasn't justification--he was merely pointing out the obvious in the name of trying to understand why things happen. Given that bin Laden had made it very, painfully clear in the late 90's that the presence of thousands of troops on Saudi Arabian soil was unacceptable and that to the end of changing that he was exhorting the shedding of American blood, I cannot understand why anyone would be surprised by the idea that Al Qaeda had a *reason* for attacking the US. Not saying it was a good reason but it was a reason nevertheless.

Cheers
Aj

Originally Posted by morningstar55

There's a heated debate in New York over plans to build a mosque near the World Trade Center site
What do you think???
why can't they build it somewhere else??
why there???
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/...ag=mncol;lst;3

Opponents call it a mosque that's in the worst possible place.

This site should be turned into a museum," said one New Yorker.

Supporters call it a cultural center in the best spot to encourage understanding.

"If a mosque were built then you guys would know what Islam is about," said mosque advocate Dania Darwish.

At issue, a building in lower Manhattan, the proposed site of a 13-story community center and Islamic prayer space, reports CBS News correspondent Jeff Glor.

"This is the Muslim community's effort to rebuild Manhattan," said Park 51 Project spokeswoman Daisy Khan.

The controversy is that it's only two blocks from ground zero. Tthis week Sarah Palin upped an already raucous debate when on Twitter she called on "peaceful" Muslims to "refudiate" the plan, calling it "a stab in the heart" for America.

Palin's "Refudiate" Tweet on Mosque Draws Fire

Liberal bloggers pounced on the made-up word "refudiate" and Palin retracted her Tweet but not her sentiment, saying Shakespeare "liked to coin new words too."

Grammatical debates aside, New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg has come out firmly in support of the plan. "Everything the United States stands for and New York stands for is tolerance and openness," he said.

"My hope is that [the community center] attracts a lot of people who don't understand Islam," said Valerie Lucznikowska of 9/11 Families for a Peaceful Tomorrow

Tim brown, a former New York City firefighter who lost 93 colleagues on Sept. 11, calls the proposal a slap in the face. He has a message for the developers.

"Stop it. Stop hurting the families. Everyday there are stories in the newspaper. They're hurting the families again. They don't deserve it. These American families have paid too much," he said.

Brown and others, including New York gubernatorial candidate Rick Lazio, are calling for an investigation into financing behind the $4.8 million building purchase.

Their concerns, spurred in part by comments the center's imam, Faisel Rauf, made to "60 Minutes" in 2001, just weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks:

"I wouldn't say that the United States deserved what happened but United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened," said Rauf.

Citing anti-Americanism, opponents are pushing to have the building declared a landmark making it far more difficult for any Muslim center construction to begin.

[AtLast]

As is always the case, this religion is being singled out as the culprit. It isn't. The people that were responsible for 9/11 were a fringe group just like Christian Tea Party whackos and others commit violent acts against intitutions.

Also, Muslims died in 9/11...... as did people from various faiths and non-religious backgrounds it was a World Trade Center.... in a city that has always been a key melting-pot in the US.

It is exactly this kind of thinking that got the US attacked in the first place....

[Apocalipstic]

I am still not 100% convinced that the US Govt at the time had no hand/knowledge in/of the 911 attack.

Think of all the rights we have lost since then. The fear mongering.

I knew the second W was elected that we would be going to war. I sat in the middle of my living room crying, wondering how they would frame it.

[Toughy]

I have no issues at all with this Islamic Community Center being built. I am ever amazed that any thinking person would object.


just cuz.....

If memory serves.......Tim McVeigh was no longer a Catholic. When he went searching for who he was after his military service, he ended up with white separatist christian militia......that is who all those whack wing nut militia folk are: fundamentalist separatist christians.

Rachel Maddow did a great special on Tim McVeigh. Most of it was the words of Tim McVeigh.....he did extensive interviews with some press guy before he was murdered by the State.

(I do not think he should have been murdered by the State..........I do not believe in the death penalty under any circumstances for any human being........it's state-sanctioned murder and makes us no better than the person we murdered.........why should we as a country crawl in that gutter? no response necessary...it's a rhetorical question.)

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by AtLastHome

As is always the case, this religion is being singled out as the culprit. It isn't. The people that were responsible for 9/11 were a fringe group just like Christian Tea Party whackos and others commit violent acts against intitutions.

Also, Muslims died in 9/11...... as did people from various faiths and non-religious backgrounds it was a World Trade Center.... in a city that has always been a key melting-pot in the US.

It is exactly this kind of thinking that got the US attacked in the first place....

Well, I'm not sure that it's this kind of thinking that got us attacked. Al Qaeda had a reason--and it was a policy-based reason--but it was not so much our internal dynamics than it was our external actions. The thing is, bin Laden made it *clear* why he felt the US should be attacked in a 1998 fatwa. In that statement, it was the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia, our complete and utter control of the waters in the Persian Gulf, our support for Israel and our propping up of some of the most brutal dictators around while talking about democracy and human rights.

The great strategic stupidity of the Bush administration is that in invading Iraq, they made bin Laden right that the United States would, without provocation, invade a Muslim nation and he played right into it making bin Laden appear both correct *and* prescient. One should not let terrorists dictate the terms upon which foreign policy is played out and the Bush administration certainly did that.

They don't hate us for our freedom and they don't hate us for generally libertine ways. I'm not even sure that they hate us--they take a very dim view of our government's foreign policy but most international surveys I've seen on the topic suggest that both America (the ideas of our nation) and Americans (all us ordinary schmucks) are actually thought of pretty well globally. US government foreign policy? Not so much with the love.

I think that there are things we could do that would actually go quite a ways toward giving us firmer ground to stand on, defang some of the terrorist rhetoric and help us withdraw from our empire at the same time. There's no strategic region to be in Saudi Arabia so we should leave. While we're on our way out the door we should cut the House of Saud loose and let them work it out with their own people. We should, in fact, cut loose Mumbarak in Egypt and perhaps King Abdullah in Jordan unless they hold free, fair and UN monitored elections. I'm not suggesting these things because I think that they will prevent another attack--I don't. I'm suggesting we do these things because they're strategically smart things to do. The fact that these moves would likely reduce the energy behind the next attack is something we get 'for free'. Oh and it goes without saying that we should get the hell out of Iraq and Afghanistan.

If I can make a suggestion--when thinking about why the opposing force is doing what they are doing, try to get in their heads. You can start by looking at why your nation does things. Have we *ever* attacked another nation because we didn't like the way they ran their internal politics? No. Not that I am aware of, at least. We *have*, on the other hand, attacked other nations in pursuit of strategic policy goals. Assume that the OpFor is at least intelligent and sane enough to operate in much the same manner.

Cheers
Aj

[AtLast]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

Well, I'm not sure that it's this kind of thinking that got us attacked. Al Qaeda had a reason--and it was a policy-based reason--but it was not so much our internal dynamics than it was our external actions. The thing is, bin Laden made it *clear* why he felt the US should be attacked in a 1998 fatwa. In that statement, it was the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia, our complete and utter control of the waters in the Persian Gulf, our support for Israel and our propping up of some of the most brutal dictators around while talking about democracy and human rights.

The great strategic stupidity of the Bush administration is that in invading Iraq, they made bin Laden right that the United States would, without provocation, invade a Muslim nation and he played right into it making bin Laden appear both correct *and* prescient. One should not let terrorists dictate the terms upon which foreign policy is played out and the Bush administration certainly did that.

They don't hate us for our freedom and they don't hate us for generally libertine ways. I'm not even sure that they hate us--they take a very dim view of our government's foreign policy but most international surveys I've seen on the topic suggest that both America (the ideas of our nation) and Americans (all us ordinary schmucks) are actually thought of pretty well globally. US government foreign policy? Not so much with the love.

I think that there are things we could do that would actually go quite a ways toward giving us firmer ground to stand on, defang some of the terrorist rhetoric and help us withdraw from our empire at the same time. There's no strategic region to be in Saudi Arabia so we should leave. While we're on our way out the door we should cut the House of Saud loose and let them work it out with their own people. We should, in fact, cut loose Mumbarak in Egypt and perhaps King Abdullah in Jordan unless they hold free, fair and UN monitored elections. I'm not suggesting these things because I think that they will prevent another attack--I don't. I'm suggesting we do these things because they're strategically smart things to do. The fact that these moves would likely reduce the energy behind the next attack is something we get 'for free'. Oh and it goes without saying that we should get the hell out of Iraq and Afghanistan.

If I can make a suggestion--when thinking about why the opposing force is doing what they are doing, try to get in their heads. You can start by looking at why your nation does things. Have we *ever* attacked another nation because we didn't like the way they ran their internal politics? No. Not that I am aware of, at least. We *have*, on the other hand, attacked other nations in pursuit of strategic policy goals. Assume that the OpFor is at least intelligent and sane enough to operate in much the same manner.

Cheers
Aj

Oh, I see what your saying. I just feel that the US has always been so Christian focused, it has influenced how we treat, interact and make policy about non-Christian nations which has caused so much alienation. The only country I can think of in which this different is Israel.

I also feel that the US lacks the capcity to understand governments in which religion is central to policy and their societal structures and values. I may not agree with them, either, especially in terms of the role and treatment of women in particular, but, I think our Christian focus (blindness?) keeps us from contributing to the kinds of things that can bring glocal piece. Although, this just isn't a simple situation. Looking at oil for example, certainly brings up a lot of things and most certainly was in play during Dub'ya's terms! Cheny as VP made that very clear.