Mosque at Ground Zero

[Nenga]

You're pointing out ulterior motives for building a mosque there, correct? But why? There is no reason to suspect that they are doing anything other than building a mosque.

 

Like I've said time and time again, the fact that 9/11 happened and that it was being casually celebrated raises a bit of suspicion. I'm not jumping to conclusions though. I'm merely being speculative. But the fact that you guys are going to complain about me being speculative really shows how biased you are towards always giving Islam the benefit of the doubt.

 

Don't get me wrong - no ulterior motives behind the mosque is a possibility as well, but this isn't the only possibility. And with religion being involved, that's just a little too hard to swallow that easily.

 

PS: I was responding to Bentomat in that post.

Yes, it was casually celebrated by people who were Muslims. Now these people (who also happen to be Muslims) want to build a community center, and you are suspicious of them because some other Muslims celebrated 9/11?

I believe a Muslim holiday falls around that time. So no, it's not suspicious they would celebrate their holiday, unless you know absolutely nothing about the Muslim religion.

[sees_all1]

I've been listening to talk radio for the past week, and some of the hosts have brought up points I think are being overlooked.

 

1. The mosque is being built two blocks away from where the WTC stood, but it's still ground zero. The building at the current address (where the "community center" is planned on being built) was hit by a large section of airplane, several floors of this building were destroyed by the airplane debris.

 

("The location was precisely a key selling point for the group of Muslims who bought the building in July. A presence so close to the World Trade Center, 'where a piece of the wreckage fell,' said Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the cleric leading the project, 'sends the opposite statement to what happened on 9/11.

'We want to push back against the extremists,' added Imam Feisal, 61." - NYT 12/8/2009)

...So?

Anyone claiming "it's not ground zero" probably doesn't know this. The spot wasn't randomly chosen either, they deliberately picked it. Anyone that knows this and maintains that the proximity to ground zero has nothing to do with the "community center" is flat out wrong.

 

2. One of the proposed goals in building this "community center" is to reach out to the community, and improve relations between Muslims and Americans. What I can't understand (and maybe a few of you could help me out) is how they plan on improving relations when they're offending so many people by this. If you want to improve the relationship you have with someone, you shouldn't start by spitting in their face.

Seems ironic, yeah, but it's not really their fault if people are up in arms about it for no real reason, is it?

It becomes their "fault" when they persist. They know it upsets some Americans, they know it'll tread on the sensitivities of others. If I go to the deep south and plan to paint a giant confederate flag on a building to remember know how far we've come in the civil rights movement, it's not my fault that my ancestors were racist or bigots. If someone tells me its insensitive and that I shouldn't do that but I persist, it is my fault that people get up in arms for "no real reason".

 

3.Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the man leading the project is not without controversy. In 2005 while speaking in a lecture sponsored by the University of South Australia, he said:

"We tend to forget, in the West, that the United States has more Muslim blood on its hands than al-Qaeda has on its hands of innocent non Muslims."

He also refuses to describe Hamas as a terrorist organization (in an interview last June).

...So...you're saying he's a terrorist sympathizer, or what? What exactly is this supposed to imply? Also:

He also refuses to describe Hamas as a terrorist organization (in an interview last June).

So does Wikipedia. Big deal.

Wikipedia actually says "The European Union,[8] Israel,[9] Japan,[10] Canada,[11] and the United States[12] classify Hamas as a

terrorist organization.

 

My point is that not wanting Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf to build a "community center" at ground zero (or anywhere else, for that matter) is different than not wanting a Mosque or community center built (religious intolerance).

 

If you put the three facts I pointed out together, you'd get:

Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, radical Islam sympathizer, wants to build a "community center" at ground zero of the 9/11 attacks in order to help relations between Americans and Muslims, despite the fact that a large number of Americans don't want him to do it.

 

His stated goal doesn't agree with the way he's going about doing this. At the very best he's misguided, but I seriously doubt it.

[Naraku893]

They shouldnt build it.

[Atom Smash40]

I think that the mosque should be allowed. It's technically an Islamic Community Center, so that will (hopefully) promte community service and give kids a place to hang out after school.

 

Also, many ignoramous Americans who oppose it (not all of them who oppose it) see radical Muslims and true Muslims as one in the same. That obviously is NOT true. In fact, Islam has roots in Christianity, and nowhere in the Koran does it preach violence. Honestly, those Americans need to get off their fat asses, put some sunblock on their necks, and stop protesting the community center because they think "it's salt in the wount". That's the most BS thing I've ever heard. If radical Jews attacked the trade centers and a Rabbi wanted to build a temple 2 blocks away, I'm fairly certain those AMERRKINS would protest that. What about radicall Bhuddists (yes, there are some out there)? Protestants? This isn't a matter of religious tolerance/intolerance; it's American feelings. And that shouldn't be the basis to oppose something that would otherwise benefit the community. TBH, those Americans protesting the construction because it's related to Islam are the ones that make all the others ashamed to call themselves Americans. Those Americans protesting the construction because it's related to Islam are the reason the world hates America.

 

GW Bush said something after the 9/11 attacks that was probably the most intelligent thing he's ever said. He said, "the face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. ... Islam is peace. These terrorists don't represent peace. They represent evil and war." It's time for those ignorant Americans to THINK about the reason they're protesting: it is because they don't like terrorists, whom hey equate with all Muslims, and that is NOT what Islam is about.

[Troacctid]

It becomes their "fault" when they persist. They know it upsets some Americans, they know it'll tread on the sensitivities of others. If I go to the deep south and plan to paint a giant confederate flag on a building to remember know how far we've come in the civil rights movement, it's not my fault that my ancestors were racist or bigots. If someone tells me its insensitive and that I shouldn't do that but I persist, it is my fault that people get up in arms for "no real reason".

It's not insensitive. There is no real reason to be offended by it. #-o

[sees_all1]

It's not insensitive. There is no real reason to be offended by it. #-o

It is insensitive because people are offended by it.

[Troacctid]

It's not insensitive. There is no real reason to be offended by it. #-o

It is insensitive because people are offended by it.

That doesn't make it insensitive.

[Skully]

It becomes their "fault" when they persist. They know it upsets some Americans, they know it'll tread on the sensitivities of others. If I go to the deep south and plan to paint a giant confederate flag on a building to remember know how far we've come in the civil rights movement, it's not my fault that my ancestors were racist or bigots. If someone tells me its insensitive and that I shouldn't do that but I persist, it is my fault that people get up in arms for "no real reason".

It's not insensitive. There is no real reason to be offended by it. #-o

 

So, because you don't find it insensitive, nobody else can? You seem pretty touchy if people don't agree with you.

[Troacctid]

It becomes their "fault" when they persist. They know it upsets some Americans, they know it'll tread on the sensitivities of others. If I go to the deep south and plan to paint a giant confederate flag on a building to remember know how far we've come in the civil rights movement, it's not my fault that my ancestors were racist or bigots. If someone tells me its insensitive and that I shouldn't do that but I persist, it is my fault that people get up in arms for "no real reason".

It's not insensitive. There is no real reason to be offended by it. #-o

 

So, because you don't find it insensitive, nobody else can? You seem pretty touchy if people don't agree with you.

There's nothing to be offended about. How is it insensitive at all?

[Flyingjj]

Even if some people are offended by it and find it insensitive (which I don't think they should), that is no reason for them not to build the community center when all laws and regulations say that they can.

 

It is just like (and I hesitate to make this comparison, for reasons which should be obvious) Neo-Nazis are allowed to hold rallys and other events across the U.S. because it is perfectly legal for them to do so, even if many, many people find it "offensive and insensitive."

 

Now, since it's been made such a big deal of, the builders of the community center are between a rock and a hard place. If they back down and move the community center elsewhere (which is not likely to be a viable alternative, given that the building of Muslim buildings is being protested everywhere now, not to mention that costs would skyrocket anywhere else in NY, due to the fact that the real estate was dirt cheap. Oh yeah, has that been thoroughly discussed? The area where it is proposed to be built in was not being used for anything else, and had in fact turned into a pretty desolate neighborhood.), People will be claiming a "victory" over the Muslim population, which would only serve to increase negative feelings toward Muslims, and increase the idea that they are second-class citizens (where have we heard that before? Oh, yeah, when slaves were freed. And for the next 100+ years). If they stick it out, and build the place, hopefully this will all blow over and most people will forget about its existence entirely besides those Muslims and other rational New Yorkers who take advantage of the new community center. However, I doubt that will be the case. The community center is likely to experience at least a lot of vandalism, and is likely to experience more than that. I sincerely hope that is not the case, but with how intense people are getting about this, I just don't know.

[Skully]

It becomes their "fault" when they persist. They know it upsets some Americans, they know it'll tread on the sensitivities of others. If I go to the deep south and plan to paint a giant confederate flag on a building to remember know how far we've come in the civil rights movement, it's not my fault that my ancestors were racist or bigots. If someone tells me its insensitive and that I shouldn't do that but I persist, it is my fault that people get up in arms for "no real reason".

It's not insensitive. There is no real reason to be offended by it. #-o

 

So, because you don't find it insensitive, nobody else can? You seem pretty touchy if people don't agree with you.

There's nothing to be offended about. How is it insensitive at all?

You may think that, but nobody else should think the same as you simply because you do. You are on the same level as everybody else here. If you re-read through the thread, you may actually understand why people are against it, if you couldn't pick that up then I don't even know why you're still here.

[Nenga]

It becomes their "fault" when they persist. They know it upsets some Americans, they know it'll tread on the sensitivities of others. If I go to the deep south and plan to paint a giant confederate flag on a building to remember know how far we've come in the civil rights movement, it's not my fault that my ancestors were racist or bigots. If someone tells me its insensitive and that I shouldn't do that but I persist, it is my fault that people get up in arms for "no real reason".

It's not insensitive. There is no real reason to be offended by it. #-o

 

So, because you don't find it insensitive, nobody else can? You seem pretty touchy if people don't agree with you.

There's nothing to be offended about. How is it insensitive at all?

You may think that, but nobody else should think the same as you simply because you do. You are on the same level as everybody else here. If you re-read through the thread, you may actually understand why people are against it, if you couldn't pick that up then I don't even know why you're still here.

Then why dont you sum it up for our insignificant minds, o' mighty one.

[Skully]

It becomes their "fault" when they persist. They know it upsets some Americans, they know it'll tread on the sensitivities of others. If I go to the deep south and plan to paint a giant confederate flag on a building to remember know how far we've come in the civil rights movement, it's not my fault that my ancestors were racist or bigots. If someone tells me its insensitive and that I shouldn't do that but I persist, it is my fault that people get up in arms for "no real reason".

It's not insensitive. There is no real reason to be offended by it. #-o

 

So, because you don't find it insensitive, nobody else can? You seem pretty touchy if people don't agree with you.

There's nothing to be offended about. How is it insensitive at all?

You may think that, but nobody else should think the same as you simply because you do. You are on the same level as everybody else here. If you re-read through the thread, you may actually understand why people are against it, if you couldn't pick that up then I don't even know why you're still here.

Then why dont you sum it up for our insignificant minds, o' mighty one.

I said nothing of the sort of myself being mighty. Read.

[Spiffeh]

Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, radical Islam sympathizer

 

Rauf wrote three books on Islam and its place in contemporary Western society, including What's Right with Islam, which was later printed in paperback with the changed title What's Right with Islam is What's Right with America.

 

Rauf worked to build bridges between American society, the American Muslim community and the wider Muslim world. In 1997, he founded the American Society for Muslim Advancement (originally named the American Sufi Muslim Association[9]), a civil society organization aimed at promoting positive engagement between American society and American Muslims.

 

In 2003, Rauf founded the Cordoba Initiative, another registered nonprofit organization with offices in both New York and Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. As CEO of Cordoba Initiative, Rauf coordinates projects that emphasize the bonds that connect the Muslim world and the West.

 

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

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/17/ground-zero-imam-helped-f_n_685071.html

 

http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/ground-zero-imam-starts-us-paid-middle-east-tour/19601656

 

http://www.silive.com/news/index.ssf/2010/08/ground_zero_mosque_imam_feisal.html

 

http://intoxination.net/jamie/imam-feisal-abdul-rauf-was-bush-partner-middle-east-peace

 

radical, eh?

[Guthorm]

I am just asking here, is there ANY legal reason why it cannot be built?

[magekillr]

Imam Abdullah Salem arrived at the Madera Islamic Center on Tuesday to find a pair of menacing signs, including one that read "Wake up America, the enemy is here."

 

It was the latest in a series of incidents that the Madera County Sheriff's Department is investigating as hate crimes. On Sunday, a brick nearly smashed a window at the center on Road 26 just outside Madera. Last week, another sign left on the property read "No temple for the god of terrorism."

 

Signs left at the mosque claimed to be from a group called the "American Nationalist Brotherhood." Sheriff's officials said they hadn't heard of such an organization.

~Vandalism at Madera mosque called hate crime

 

It is an empty restaurant in the West Rogers Park neighborhood. Some wanted to turn into a mosque. Business leaders and the city apparently don't agree. CBS2's Vince Gerasole reports.

 

It sounds a bit like the controversy over the proposed mosque in New York near where the Twin Towers fell. Perhaps at first glance, but not when you scratch beneath the surface.

 

We're hearing from the local chamber of commerce and alderman's office that the city has denied a special use permit that would allow a mosque to replace a shut down hot dog grill.

 

It's based on the need to generate tax revenue on the former site of the original Fluky's and later U Lucky Dawg, at 6821 N. Western Ave.

 

But at a time when opposition to mosques in general is making headlines, the particulars here, for some, sound disturbing.

 

It's one of Chicago's more diverse communities, with a strong Muslim presence; where for some opposition to a proposed mosque is frustrating at best.

~Permit Denied For Mosque In West Rogers Park

 

The American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky says it is trying to get more information about this Western Kentucky city's rejection of a petition by a group of Somalis to build a mosque.

 

The Mayfield Board of Zoning Adjustment cited a lack of parking as the reason for Tuesdays decision, which The Paducah Sun reported was cheered by more than 250 residents.

 

William Sharp of the ACLU said his organization is looking into how the procedures were followed by the board. He also cited concern about anti-religious sentiments voiced by members of the public immediately prior to the committee's decision."

~Mayfield rejects planned mosque

 

Not contained to NY, oh, and look, there's that anti-religion ACLU again.

[sees_all1]

Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, radical Islam sympathizer

 

Rauf wrote three books on Islam and its place in contemporary Western society, including What's Right with Islam, which was later printed in paperback with the changed title What's Right with Islam is What's Right with America.

 

Rauf worked to build bridges between American society, the American Muslim community and the wider Muslim world. In 1997, he founded the American Society for Muslim Advancement (originally named the American Sufi Muslim Association[9]), a civil society organization aimed at promoting positive engagement between American society and American Muslims.

 

In 2003, Rauf founded the Cordoba Initiative, another registered nonprofit organization with offices in both New York and Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. As CEO of Cordoba Initiative, Rauf coordinates projects that emphasize the bonds that connect the Muslim world and the West.

 

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

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/17/ground-zero-imam-helped-f_n_685071.html

 

http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/ground-zero-imam-starts-us-paid-middle-east-tour/19601656

 

http://www.silive.com/news/index.ssf/2010/08/ground_zero_mosque_imam_feisal.html

 

http://intoxination.net/jamie/imam-feisal-abdul-rauf-was-bush-partner-middle-east-peace

 

radical, eh?

 

sympathizes with radical Muslims? yes. radical himself? probably not, definitely not publicly. He hasn't thoroughly convinced me. However, I didn't mean to call him radical - there's other nutters better deserving of that title.

 

Probably should've said sympathizes with Muslim extremists to avoid confusion.

[Dupin]

Zierro: Surprisingly, my point had nothing to do with lizard men. I was pointing out that you are making a large assumption based on distorted evidence which you have not even shared. Even if you have posted this video of a bunch of Muslims celebrating, how do you know they are celebrating 9/11? How do you know it's a real video with real Muslims? How do you know those opinions haven't changed?

 

These questions are irrelevent when faced with the fact that one video of some happy Arabs does not prove anything about the entire religion. I may be wrong in assuming American Muslims don't secretly sympathize with terrorists, but you are more wrong in taking one questionable video as proof of the ideology of an entire people.

 

I am just asking here, is there ANY legal reason why it cannot be built?

Nope. Even the troublemakers in this thread have agreed that legally it should be allowed. It's hard to argue with the Constitution.

 

Edit: Stop saying radical. Terrorists are reactionary. A radical is an extreme liberal, a reactionary is an extreme conservative.

[Troacctid]

sympathizes with radical Muslims? yes. radical himself? probably not, definitely not publicly. He hasn't thoroughly convinced me. However, I didn't mean to call him radical - there's other nutters better deserving of that title.

 

Probably should've said sympathizes with Muslim extremists to avoid confusion.

 

Fanaticism and terrorism have no place in Islam. That's just as absurd as associating Hitler with Christianity, or David Koresh with Christianity. There are always people who will do peculiar things, and think that they are doing things in the name of their religion. But the Koran is... God says in the Koran that they think that they are doing right, but they are doing wrong.

 

Doesn't seem very sympathetic to me.

 

I said nothing of the sort of myself being mighty. Read.

Okay.

 

*goes back and browses some previous posts in the thread*

 

Nope, still don't see it. Mind quoting the post that you're referring to?

[magekillr]

Does it make you a sympathizer of terrorism to point out that America's foreign policy is coming back to bite them in the ass? If so, count me as a terrorist sympathizer, too. As a matter of fact, you might as well count Britain's intelligence agency and the Pentagon terrorist sympathizers, too. It's people who refuse to acknowledge our foreign policy blunders who are too proud and ignorant who want to start a war of cultures, and you're falling right into al Qaeda's hands.

[Nenga]

It could be possible muslims did celebrate 9/11 but not for the same reason you guys are thinking of. Like I said, there is a muslim holiday that falls around that time.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/holydays/eidulfitr.shtml

 

Falls around early September.

[Alg]

Does it make you a sympathizer of terrorism to point out that America's foreign policy is coming back to bite them in the ass? If so, count me as a terrorist sympathizer, too. As a matter of fact, you might as well count Britain's intelligence agency and the Pentagon terrorist sympathizers, too. It's people who refuse to acknowledge our foreign policy blunders who are too proud and ignorant who want to start a war of cultures, and you're falling right into al Qaeda's hands.

That almost starts to border on oversimplification. Yes, it is the foreign policy coming back to bite us in the ass, but that isn't nearly the only reason, nor does it absolve guilt from any other party involved.

[Spiffeh]

Does it make you a sympathizer of terrorism to point out that America's foreign policy is coming back to bite them in the ass? If so, count me as a terrorist sympathizer, too. As a matter of fact, you might as well count Britain's intelligence agency and the Pentagon terrorist sympathizers, too. It's people who refuse to acknowledge our foreign policy blunders who are too proud and ignorant who want to start a war of cultures, and you're falling right into al Qaeda's hands.

That almost starts to border on oversimplification. Yes, it is the foreign policy coming back to bite us in the ass, but that isn't nearly the only reason, nor does it absolve guilt from any other party involved.

Right, I agree, and that pretty much lines up with Rauf's so called controversial statement, "I wouldn't say that the United States deserved what happened. But the United States' policies were an accessory to the crime that happened."

[magekillr]

Does it make you a sympathizer of terrorism to point out that America's foreign policy is coming back to bite them in the ass? If so, count me as a terrorist sympathizer, too. As a matter of fact, you might as well count Britain's intelligence agency and the Pentagon terrorist sympathizers, too. It's people who refuse to acknowledge our foreign policy blunders who are too proud and ignorant who want to start a war of cultures, and you're falling right into al Qaeda's hands.

That almost starts to border on oversimplification. Yes, it is the foreign policy coming back to bite us in the ass, but that isn't nearly the only reason, nor does it absolve guilt from any other party involved.

 

Of course it's an "oversimplification." No, it does not absolve the guilt of those involved. Aggressive violence involving the death of mass-innocents isn't the answer. However, it more or less is the only reason. I mean, I will add extreme poverty and illiteracy into those reasons, but largely, the reason it's so easy to rouse up those people is because they see their families and friends being bombed endlessly.

 

Most people like to put fingers in their ears and not listen, though. It was our blockade of Iraq which was the main cause, both directly and indirectly, of the al-Qaeda attacks against us. Bin-Laden pointed to Iraq in all three of his justifications for his ruling that "to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it." Our forces in Saudi Arabia irritated al-Qaeda, but they were only stationed there to enforce the embargo and no-flight zone in the south of Iraq.

 

Those two reasons, both of which overlap one another, are the reasons why.

 

It is much easier to have a clash of civilizations aimed at destroying Islam than to acknowledge our foreign policy blunders.

[Hamtaro]

Proof or it didn't happen. They don't have endless resources, guy, they would not waste them on private property. I call shenanigans.

 

Ok, so that's some random member, not the ACLU's lawyers. I can find plenty of [wagon] who belong to any organization, friend. Hey, isn't it a little ironic that you picked one member out and chose to lambaste the entire organization over it in this very thread? A little too ironic.

 

These are all nice little anecdotes, but the one where they threatened a lawsuit against private property--which they wouldn't do because they don't have infinite resources and would not go after a case they know would be found to be frivolous--is thus far lacking in any evidence or circumstances of said case, and the latter is some [wagon] member with no legal action provided.

 

Moreover, saying Merry Christmas isn't even a problem for the actual organization, nor even for me, who is an atheist who's quite hostile to religion. Christmas is actually quite secular nowadays, and has been accepted as a secular holiday. However, the religious connotations still present a problem--things like nativity scenes. Trees, wreaths, ribbons, etc do not. This is why even if something can be seen as religious, the ACLU will not go after it per se because it can also be seen as historical. See the Supreme Court cases of County of Allegheny v. ACLU and Capitol Square Review and Advisory Bd. v. Pinette to examine this stark difference that the SCOTUS and ACLU have recognized.

 

Lol, I guess you didn't see the endless examples of them standing up for religion that were from this decade alone, then?

 

Lol, more equating the two "extremes," I see. Once again, I have evidence, you don't. Your little anecdotes are more or less [cabbage] compared with my concrete linking. If you want to come into a debate with me, as some people on here know, you damn better be well-sourced, because I don't come empty-handed. If you have a problem with those endless examples, which I will cite once more, then go through each case and tell me why it's biased or factually untrue. They're all documented on the government's websites or any major law school such as Cornell. If you'd like to say that "well they have defended religion, but they go after it more so obviously they're anti-religion," they may or may not do that, I don't have the numbers of cases in front of me. However, if it were true, it would be obvious why: religious people constantly want their cake and they want to eat it, too. Thus their opposition to gay marriage, which is so clearly unconstitutional.

 

Also, the Salvation Army is a piece of [cabbage] organization full of bigots and xenophobes while receiving tax-dollars despite their active discrimination. (1, 2, 3). Faith-based initiatives must end, they are unconstitutional.

I already cited why there is no proof (reading sure is difficult, eh?). Call them anecdotes all you want. You're the one who cited ACLU's website as "non-biased proof." This just in, Fox News says they are fair and balanced. Thus, it must be true! Standing up for a "lesser" (fewer members, not as well known) religion (over extremely trivial issues) while impeding on a heavily practiced religion sure is standing up for religious freedom amirite? Political extremes exist and you are the prime example of someone on the far left (atheist, smug, claim tolerance but hate anyone with different beliefs, etc). Btw, I already said I support same-sex marriage so that doesn't apply to me.

 

What really terrifies me is that you think an organization that feeds, clothes, and houses (not to mention giving toys to poor children) tens of thousands of people every year is bad while supporting an organization that impedes on the first amendment on a daily basis. I can't tell if that's sheer ignorance or trolling. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are, indeed, a troll. Enjoy this meal, I won't be back to watch you regurgitate it in your smug, arrogant, and over-all sarcastic tone.

 

OT: Anything that reduces crime is a +10 in my book. There's no legit reason the community center shouldn't be built.