Mosque At 9/11 site.

frostytheplebe

Seventh Part of the Seal
A Few Links about the Topic:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=38021

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=179037

I know this is somewhat old news, but it has picked up heat recently.

I'm in several different debates about this, including a new political science class I've decided to take over the summer. I would like to get everyone's view on this point. American and International. Pros and Cons.

Lets just please try to keep it clean, I know this is somewhat of a heated issue. So I'll give my viewpoint and listen to yours. Feel free to pick mine apart.

My View: I'm opposed to this...

1. Though not on the actual site, it is one of the buildings that was damaged as a result. It was one of the buildings that survived the attack.

2. This is extremely distasteful and disrespectful, and will only raise the level of anti-muslim anger.

3. This is clearly a political statement by a Muslim, Rauf, who has bias against Christians and Americans. I seriously doubt it's coincidence that they plan on opening it on 9/11/11 (10th aniversary of the disaster.)

Now I know, SOMEONE is going to say that extremists did this, NOT the Religion and that is true. But they were MUSLIM extremists, doing this in the name of Islam.

It just seems like they're doing this with the specific intent to cause problems.
 

Dundradal

Frog Blast the Vent Core!
Seriously? Not the topic I'd really expect/want to see (even in off-topic) here.

Bad call.
 

Bandit LOAF

Long Live the Confederation!
This is clearly a political statement...

Well, okay--but isn't it one of those basic freedoms that we argue makes America great in the first place the fact that people can make political statements *even if we don't like them*?

Think about it this way--what would you rather have, a government that can step in and tell you that you can't do what you want with your property or one that defends that freedom absolutely? I don't see a middle ground and I know which one would make me sleep better at night.

If the whole thing is some kind of obnoxious America-is-awful rant (and I don't know if it is or not--maybe it's just a mosque) then isn't the best argument in our favor letting it exist in the first place?
 

frostytheplebe

Seventh Part of the Seal
Well, okay--but isn't it one of those basic freedoms that we argue makes America great in the first place the fact that people can make political statements *even if we don't like them*?

Think about it this way--what would you rather have, a government that can step in and tell you that you can't do what you want with your property or one that defends that freedom absolutely? I don't see a middle ground and I know which one would make me sleep better at night.

If the whole thing is some kind of obnoxious America-is-awful rant (and I don't know if it is or not--maybe it's just a mosque) then isn't the best argument in our favor letting it exist in the first place?

Perhaps Loaf. You definitely make a good argument there and I thank you for it.

I guess part of me is sitting here watching the news and seeing things like veterans having sheeps blood thrown on them, Churches defaced, war monuments spray painted or stolen, funerals protested, anything christian on public display getting defaced, and now we're facing what in my mind is the use of a religious structure to make a political statement. (I really see no other reason for the chosen locale.)

I bring this up, and people say it's covered under the 1st Amendment. But I see it more as America is begining to lose it's morals, values, and sense of decency.

I am curious Loaf, what's your opinion on all of this, and where do you think the cut off should be like where do we say, "Ok that's it, enough is enough, this is amoral and it's just flat out wrong and should not be tolerated?"
 

Frosty

a full fledged GF
This is an indelicate thread that could cause a lot of ugly yelling and crying, so I'm going to keep my personal opinion to myself and reply very simply...
I bring this up, and people say it's covered under the 1st Amendment. But I see it more as America is begining to lose it's morals, values, and sense of decency.
I believe you're mistaken, and that it indicates a lack of a sense of identity and self-confidence among New Yorkers, without really reflecting on the American population at large.
I am curious Loaf, what's your opinion on all of this, and where do you think the cut off should be like where do we say, "Ok that's it, enough is enough, this is amoral and it's just flat out wrong and should not be tolerated?"
Your question misses LOAF's point in an odd way. Morality really doesn't enter into it. There's nothing illegal going on, so there's no problem.

I don't live there, so it's not my problem and I have no say in the matter. In my town there used to be a large building we called "the castle" which sat right on the edge of the water. It may have been a private home at one time, and when I was a very young child it was a restaurant and perhaps even a hotel. For many years it sat basically abandoned.

A few years ago, someone purchased it and knocked 70% of it down, turning the rest of the structure into a couple expensive condos. What struck me most at the time was the sudden hurricane of keening wails from the townspeople lamenting the loss of a town landmark. I still get a little tingle of satisfaction out of that even now, because I relish the pain of the stupid and careless. If it mattered so much, they should have done something to preserve it before someone else with a different idea bought the place.

If New Yorkers gave a damn about the Burlington Coat Factory building or whatever - or just didn't want a mosque right there - they would have succeeded in preserving it as a city landmark. Instead, someone else is paying to screw with the property. Let that be an object lesson to everyone.

If things like this bother us, maybe we should act like it for a change.
 

Bandit LOAF

Long Live the Confederation!
I am curious Loaf, what's your opinion on all of this, and where do you think the cut off should be like where do we say, "Ok that's it, enough is enough, this is amoral and it's just flat out wrong and should not be tolerated?"

I suppose what you're probing here is whether I'm an America-can-do-no-right longhair with crazy ideas about peace and love and Volkswagen ownership; I am not. I'm proud to be an American and if it matters (and it shouldn't) I probably vote for the same folks you do.

Which is to infer that yes, hearing about this sort of thing makes me angry, too. (If it is some sort of angsty protest against my way of life, that is; I can't really argue against building a mosque if there's a population that wants to worship there. I haven't read about the situation beyond this thread and I don't really intend to beyond the needs of this conversation--if it is just someone wanting to make me mad, there are lifetimes worth of more interesting things to read about before I get to studying this.)

I would be more than angry, though, if it lead to my government doing the wrong thing--going against that great founding Enlighement-era 'I disagree with what you have to say but will defend your right to say it' concept that is so essential to our makeup. We need to know that the government will defend absolute jerks so we can be sure it will be there to protect our own speech.

As for what should happen, it's not a question of morality--the Supreme Court exists to exactingly set as strict a possible standard for what is not free speech... and the current standard says the government shouldn't step in unless the speech in question is intended to incide imminent lawlessness. Somebody making us feel bad just doesn't meet that.

(You know what *really* makes me mad about the whole situation, though, is that it's nine years later and there's no giant new mega-skyscraper. The greatest country in the world should have built some even bigger super Sim City 2000 arcology building immediately after 9/11.)
 

Dundradal

Frog Blast the Vent Core!
(You know what *really* makes me mad about the whole situation, though, is that it's nine years later and there's no giant new mega-skyscraper. The greatest country in the world should have built some even bigger super Sim City 2000 arcology building immediately after 9/11.)

And this is the argument this thread should really be about. Not about a house of worship that can be built wherever they so chose.

I think they've got the cornerstone in for the Freedom whose design isn't even finished if I remember correctly Tower laid and that's it. I was at Ground Zero 5 years ago and even then it looked like very little had been done. Looking at current pictures it looks almost the same.
 

t.c.cgi

Vice Admiral
I can see just from the title alone that this some knee-jerk crap. The first paragraph of the first article screams of religious profiling. They are Muslim therefore they are getting money from Osama bin Laden. Let's hassle them terrorists! Yeehaw!

And let's face it, a man who loses friends to terrorism is not ever going to have an unbiased view of the matter. So I also call shenanigans on the second article. He's still mad and without closure so he's picking on a group that made themselves a very convenient target for the lingering rage in America.

If it were anywhere else in the world or any other group of people, nobody would notice or care. And that's where I have to say the original Frosty has it absolutely right.

Now I know, SOMEONE is going to say that extremists did this, NOT the Religion and that is true. But they were MUSLIM extremists, doing this in the name of Islam.

Because Christians, Jews, Hindus, Atheists, etc, have never done something exceptionally terrible under someone else's ideals before right? Right?

I would like to say that, from my experience and study, human beings and flawed and evil. There is no one perfect group, and there never will be. Keep that in mind and be careful with your judgments.
 

Dundradal

Frog Blast the Vent Core!
Because Christians, Jews, Hindus, Atheists, etc, have never done something exceptionally terrible under someone else's ideals before right? Right?

Yeah like when healthy eating extremists took away our biggie sizes! Those bastards! And now they've got their health food stores popping up all around my beloved American fast food!

This thread really should just blow up and be deleted. We should all be arguing whether the Kilrathi utilized agriculture or not.

Want to talk about this crap? Take it to some politico site. The only politics I want to read about here should be about Harold Rhodam and whether he was a good President :p
 

Bandit LOAF

Long Live the Confederation!
If it were anywhere else in the world or any other group of people, nobody would notice or care.

I don't think this is true at all--tense relations with Muslim populations are a much bigger deal in various western European countries then they are in the US; for all our whining at each other about news stories like this, we don't have anything similar to the sort of issues that have developed in places like France.
 

t.c.cgi

Vice Admiral
Want to talk about this crap? Take it to some politico site. The only politics I want to read about here should be about Harold Rhodam and whether he was a good President :p

That's fine and well and all. Honestly I don't see why the issue was brought here. But the thread is here and I do see some guarded discussion, and generally these threads are allowed to run their full course directly into unfettered mutually assured stupidity.
 

Prometheus

Spaceman
Well, no, I take that back, that wasn't very well thought out. Please ignore this; if I still have something to say about it after I thought it through I'll post it.
 

Dundradal

Frog Blast the Vent Core!
That's fine and well and all. Honestly I don't see why the issue was brought here. But the thread is here and I do see some guarded discussion, and generally these threads are allowed to run their full course directly into unfettered mutually assured stupidity.

Yeah all those damn Dave Quinson supporters! They always screw threads up :p
 

Madman

Vice Admiral
I'm completely unnaffected by any of this and mostly apathetic - but i have to say the following points:

it would benefit the case for building the mosque if the immam were more open about his money sources - i believe it's not essential or necessary but it would reduce the public pressure

it is certainly going to be percieved as being either an intentional dig OR as being in incredibly bad taste - ignore the fact that legally people can worship what they like, where they like, it's plain and simple bad taste to do it there!

HOWEVER, if this is not a dig, and is simply a religious group attempting to reunite with the society they were alienated from by september 11th then this is a great idea and heartily to be supported.


The issue then is what is made of it, more transparency will reassure people that this is in fact being done in good faith and not intended to be a comment other than "the non-extremist muslims are still here, and mean you no harm". Without it, this has the potential to become a political mine-field and very quickly blow out of proportion, in which case the government may well be forced to step in, not to challenge free speech but to stop a nasty situation forming and riots, in which case an investigation to prove the good intentions would be needed - not pretty!

So in short, i see that people may find this in bad taste and question the motives, but assuming that this is innocent, then theres no problem in my mind, and, if anything, it will go some way towards repairing the rift between islamic people and the rest of US society. (also to be a tad callous, if close enough, it stops someone repeating the trick with the freedom tower! at least without islamic casualties).

As i say though, I'm from the UK so not too affected by this.
 

Mace

Vice Admiral
There are several views on this one, and not just the mosque but the Muslim religion in general.

Muslims overhere are shouting 9/11 is a lie and created by the pro-israeli allied american government. I take the simple matter in this one, one side is lying, and I am not involved, and neither side would care about my personal views on this matter.

I'm not a big fan of muslims, and within their culture and way of trading, I don't give a shit if I get respect or disrespect from a muslim. Even if they put up a plague that says they care about all the innocents who died, the "kuran" says it is okay to lie to a "Kafir", if it puts a muslim in a better position.

A mosque on that location does not mean anything, but if I was a US resident, I would not have allowed it to be there, because it is a slap in the face to the family of some victims.
 

wcs

Spaceman
A mosque in that location may not mean anything in a physical sense, but it certainly does in a symbolic sense. That symbolic sense was significantly altered by 9-11. Whether that was positive or negative depends all on the eye of the beholder.

I do agree with you, Mace, that it is a slap in the face to families of the victims.
 

LeHah

212 Squadron - "The Old Man's Eyes And Ears"
I don't think this is true at all--tense relations with Muslim populations are a much bigger deal in various western European countries then they are in the US; for all our whining at each other about news stories like this, we don't have anything similar to the sort of issues that have developed in places like France.

Or in London, which is suppose to be the biggest center of Muslim activity in the world outside of the Holy Land last I read.

(As to the situation, I'd rather have a building put up thats being used than leave one in its place that people don't occupy or care much about. The old building seemingly only become a city landmark since some people want to stonewall the mosque, not because anyone actually wants to save it.)
 

frostytheplebe

Seventh Part of the Seal
So in short, i see that people may find this in bad taste and question the motives, but assuming that this is innocent, then theres no problem in my mind, and, if anything, it will go some way towards repairing the rift between islamic people and the rest of US society. (also to be a tad callous, if close enough, it stops someone repeating the trick with the freedom tower! at least without islamic casualties).

See, if that were the case, I'd have no issue with this. But I can't buy into that, it's just too hard to stomach. I have no problems with Muslims, never really have. But for one, this isn't being built according to Shariah, which is a part of Muslim law, and when you have a guy like Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf a man who has made anti-american comments in the past, and some of his radio interviews are borderline pro-extremist, then said he wants it there to "to counteract the backlash against Muslims in general."

To me this spells a single, rather self centered individule wants to use his own religion to make a political statement. He's trying to cause trouble, that's all there is to it.

Honestly, in addition to those who are offended by this, I think that self respecting Muslims should also be offended by this because this guy is trying to build a Temple of thier faith as a political statement. It's an offensive misuse of religion on multiple levels.

I mean as a Catholic, if someone were to put up a Church in a very close Muslim community (for example) where it would clearly not be wanted, without it even being sanctioned by the Palpacy, and then start saying "We're here to counter the negative things muslims have said about Catholics." Yes I would be offended by this.
 

Mace

Vice Admiral
Well, the religious rulebook of the sharia, is just like the ten commandments, only applied and written under different circumstances. While the core meaning of the ten commandments still stand(something I would refer to as common sense), so does the sharia, however, we are not living in the desert on an eye-for-an-eye basis, so those rules do not apply to western-european(dutch, english, german, french, spanish) cultures.

But to get back to the topic; Unless the mosque publicly renounces anyone involved in 9/11, and places judgement on Bin Laden and his gang, it has no place there. It's thesame thing as placing a large swastika near Arnhem to honour the fallen german soldiers.

Edit: Just read this: http://www.spitsnieuws.nl/archives/binnenland/2010/07/nl_subsidieert_moskee_ground_z.html , the netherlands are partially financing the damn thing, now i know my country needs a new government.
 
Top