Mosque going up in NYC building

[Bob]

So if the local Muslim community denounces 9/11 as against the principles of Islam, we criticize them for not asking forgiveness. Yet if they asked for forgiveness for the perpetrators of 9/11, all hell would break loose. I think they did the right thing. What? Are you trying to give them a beating?

Look, let's not pretend that there is some easy cookie-cutter answer to this dilemma. Of course if there is a problem with a particular group, there will be members of the group who are not a part of the problem. No social problem or cultural ill is uniform among all members of a given group of people.

I feel that some condemnations I've seen from Muslim groups, for example CAIR, denounce terrorism in one breath and then blame American foreign policy in the next breath. Never is there a clear denunciation of the warped perspective of politics held among the perpetrators, supporters, and apologists for terrorism that shapes how they view American policy. To these messed up people, everything America (and its allies) ever does is immoral and an affront to their Muslim or Arab communities. Therein lies the problem. This troubles me.

[Bob]

And what about a NYC congregation comprising Muslims from the Middle East and some not from the Middle East? Is that congregation X% responsible? Should it say we are X% sorry for what some foreign governemnt may have done to you?

As I've already said, we can't have a perfect accounting here of social/cultural trends. Don't try to be smart with me by acknowledging the obvious - that we can't perfectly quantify these things. I well aware of this fact. There is such a thing as collective responsibility, though. I think we, as Canadians, are collectively responsible for out government's actions. This means we can take pride in what's done right, and feel bad about what's done wrong. On the whole, obviously, Canadians have a lot to be proud of - we have an amazing country that's on the extremely short list of the best places in the world to live.

If a large organization is engaging in illegal activity, we can deal with the organization, even if not all members were participating in the activity. Obviously this is an oversimplified analogy to the much larger and more complex Muslim world, but let's not pretend that there aren't problems (political, cultural, social) present in the Muslim world that need to be dealt with, as they are a risk to our way of life.

[dre]

99.9% of the muslim population has absolutely nothing to do with any acts of agression. Expecting these people to "apologize" is the worst kind of guilt by association, and its in itself contrary to western values under which individuals are responsible for their own acts and not the acts of others.

This is no different than expecting a Christian to apologize for folks like Jerry Fallwell or catholic priests that *&@#^$ little kids in the a*s.

I care way more about what these people DO than what they SAY. And as long as the vast vast majority of them behave themselves then Im not going to lump them in with the conservative hardliners that predictably preach violence just like conservative hardliners always do no matter where they are found.

Edited June 14, 2010 by dre

[bloodyminded]

Introspection would then lead to a mea culpa from the broader Muslim world towards America and the West. What I was driving at was that if any large collective should apologize to any other large collection, it needs to come from the broader Muslim community to the USA, and not the other way around. The USA has little to apologize for, especially with respect to the responsibility for the depravity and totalitarianism of the Muslim Middle East.

I disagree with you about the Middle East/US relationship, but let's leave that aside, as i can think of a response that's more unambiguous.

When have the powerful Western nations offerred a mea culpa for their terrorist wars in Latin America? Remember, some of these death squads--notably the Contras--were worse than, say, Hamas or Hezbollah. (If we use number of murders and general amount of terror as our measurement...and indeed we must.)

When has the US, Canada, Australia, the UK et al offered even a faint mea culpa for our material and dipolomatic support for the attempted genocide of the East Timorese by our good freinds, the Indonesian Generals and the rape-happy militias?

Forget it...it's a rhetorical question. We not only have never offerred any sense of responsibility for wilfully supporting mass slaughters (that make 9/11 look like a walk in the park)...we have an intellectual culture that broadly tries to defend it. Including some people on this very board, who prove themselves indoctrinated cowards and defenders of terrorism every time they do so.

Usually, they will moan some unintelligible nonsense about the "Cold War," as if supporting genocide on the island of East Timor was somehow staving off the Soviets.

In other words, we have much to answer for as well...totally aside from the Middle East.

And if we can't do so...why should you hold Middle East Muslims to such a higher standard than we hold ourselves?

Edited June 15, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Machjo]

I feel that some condemnations I've seen from Muslim groups, for example CAIR, denounce terrorism in one breath and then blame American foreign policy in the next breath. Never is there a clear denunciation of the warped perspective of politics held among the perpetrators, supporters, and apologists for terrorism that shapes how they view American policy. To these messed up people, everything America (and its allies) ever does is immoral and an affront to their Muslim or Arab communities. Therein lies the problem. This troubles me.

Well, seeing that Saddam Hussain was once a US ally, and that the US funded the Taliban (and even that can be confusing now seeing that there are now six separate Taliban groups, but I'll get to that later in this post) during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, would you not say then that at least to some degree CARI is right? Let's just look to the historical facts. Had the US never allied itself with Saddam Hussain and had it never funded the Taliban, would those groups be as powerful today? Why must criticism be always of 'them' but never 'us'. By acknowledging historical fact, CARI is just being honest. What, you object to their acknowledging the US alliance with Saddam Hussain and its fundin of the Taliban as possible contributors to this problem? To some degree at least, we can say that Hussain and the taliban were US creations, either via US protection as in the case of Hussain, or US funding as in the case of the Taliban. So yes, the US invested in the development of the Taliban. Will you deny that?

And so on that front, Muslims have an equal right to be angry not only at the damage Hussain and the Taliban have done, but also at the support the US gave them, no?

[bloodyminded]

Well, seeing that Saddam Hussain was once a US ally, and that the US funded the Taliban (and even that can be confusing now seeing that there are now six separate Taliban groups, but I'll get to that later in this post) during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, would you not say then that at least to some degree CARI is right? Let's just look to the historical facts. Had the US never allied itself with Saddam Hussain and had it never funded the Taliban, would those groups be as powerful today? Why must criticism be always of 'them' but never 'us'. By acknowledging historical fact, CARI is just being honest. What, you object to their acknowledging the US alliance with Saddam Hussain and its fundin of the Taliban as possible contributors to this problem? To some degree at least, we can say that Hussain and the taliban were US creations, either via US protection as in the case of Hussain, or US funding as in the case of the Taliban. So yes, the US invested in the development of the Taliban. Will you deny that?

And so on that front, Muslims have an equal right to be angry not only at the damage Hussain and the Taliban have done, but also at the support the US gave them, no?

Of course; in fact, by the same token of Muslim self-reflection being demanded here, there should be Western self-reflection as well.

Obviously.

[Machjo]

Of course; in fact, by the same token of Muslim self-reflection being demanded here, there should be Western self-reflection as well.

Obviously.

There is a difference between Western self-reflection on the one hand, and having to be ashamed of being a Westerner, or having to accept collective blame, on the other.

We ought to acknowledge the past wrongs of our governments and try to rectify the errors of our forefathers, but that's not the same as us having to apologize on someone else's behalf.

Let's take the First Nations' treaties as an example. They were treaties signed in good faith. And yes, we ought to uphold those treaties today as we had signed them, in good faith. But yes we should express our opposition to those who chose to violate these agreements. But that does not mean we should apologize for wheat we are not responsible for.

In fact, apologizing and then doing nothing is worse than not apologizing and doing the right thing.

I don't want an apology from John for what Bill has done. I'd rather John stand up to Bill. This is what Muslims are doing. They are not apologizing on behalf of the terrorists, but rather standing up to the terrorists. The US should not apologize for having funded the Taliban and allied itself to Hussain; instead it ought to stand up to those who have done so.

[Machjo]

Also, when we consider that the US funded the Taliban, and that many Muslims have always been opposed to the Taliban and would never have dreamed of funding it, then we must say that the rise of Muslim fundamentalism is no longer the fault of the Muslims alone, yet our anger at building the mosque near the WTC site seems to be putting all the blame for this on the shoulders of Muslims alone. So, would you be offended at putting a US flag up near the WTC site seeing that the US government funded the Taliban?

If the answer is 'no' to that, then certainly a mosque can go up there too. After all, how many US troops have died at the hands of the Taliban, a creation of the US' itself? And if we are opposed to the building of a mosque near the WTC site because of what some professed 'Muslims' had done, then certainly we ought to be opposed to the putting up of a US flag near there too seeing how many US troops have died at the hands of the taliban, created by the US, now defending Bin Lade, then one who planned this attack.

To be fair, it' either one or the other. Either no US flag and no mosque, or US flags and mosques.

So I take it you acknowledge then that CAIR was right in criticizing terrorism on both sides equally?

Oh, yes. I forgot to go further with the Taliban issue. In the past year, the "Taliban' was responsible for the deaths of many children, yet the "Taliban" denied responsibility. ON the news yesterday it was explained that the anomaly here comes from the fact that there are now at least 6 separate Taliban factions. So like anything else, we need to blame the appropriate Taliban group for its actions and not blame it for the actions of another Taliban group. Like anything else in life.

[Moonlight Graham]

This issue has been back in the news lately...or at least on CNN.

One thing that has popped in my mind is: wouldn't preventing this mosque going up be unconstitutional according to the 1st ammendment? Freedom of religion, & freedom of speech. Certainly it would be if the state prevented the mosque from being built.

[Sir Bandelot]

This issue has been back in the news lately...or at least on CNN.

One thing that has popped in my mind is: wouldn't preventing this mosque going up be unconstitutional according to the 1st ammendment? Freedom of religion, & freedom of speech. Certainly it would be if the state prevented the mosque from being built.

I don't think the state will try to block it. Or would they? But a crystall-nacht type of event could. The whole issue is becoming so emotionally whipped up by certain types and the media, would not be surprised if the place is attacked by terrorists. And no I don't mean from the middle east.

[bush_cheney2004]

One thing that has popped in my mind is: wouldn't preventing this mosque going up be unconstitutional according to the 1st ammendment? Freedom of religion, & freedom of speech. Certainly it would be if the state prevented the mosque from being built.

Not necessarily....any new building or re-purposed structure still has to meet zoning and code requirements regardless of use.

[Oleg Bach]

America - Canada and the EU have opted for corporate secularism..they got rid of ancient Christian concepts that spawned and made great western society - Coporations do not like goodness or intellignence...the presense of God IS the presense of human intelligence - corporations do not like goodness - God or intelligent life...so they influence governments and get rid of goodness - God - and intelligence - THEN the Muslims come along and TAKE what Christ earned and give it to Mohamid - we deserve this outcome because we took the easy way out - the path of ignorance and hate of intelligence - God and the authority that goodness provides..the wages of sinisterism is death - and we will now parish while that second rate violent prophet Mohamid rules what was once ours.

[Guest American Woman]

Not necessarily....any new building or re-purposed structure still has to meet zoning and code requirements regardless of use.

And it's a 19th century building, so if it's granted landmark status, it can't be torn down.

[GostHacked]

And it's a 19th century building, so if it's granted landmark status, it can't be torn down.

If it's deemed structurally not safe, then it had to come down, landmark or not. That could be one way to solve this issue. Sounds a little dirty, but that to me is the only way it will not be built.

And I have noticed this in the news again, and people are making a stink about it. Could be an interesting development and could set some kind of precedent.

[Oleg Bach]

It is the Saudi Arabian sodomist rich and bored Islamics that funded 9 11 ---- and the American sodoists did not take their oily friends to task...kind of like a black mail going on of sorts--- It is the Saudi Arabians who are funding the mosque to be built at this location..as they have funded many in the states and Europe.

If you go to the Danforth in Toronto and look east you see the Islamic towering mosque to the east - they are taking over and they are serious about this - there is no such thing as a non-promotional Muslim. I have had some private conversations with some young Islamics - and...they are here to slowly oust us infidels...and Christians along with the percieved pesky Jews..

IF they allow this temple to be built...the weasil Muslims who speak like clever liar lawyers..will be ever so happy - that they can punch us in the face and later tell us it was a kiss. This drive to build as many mosques in the non-Islamic world is all about taking over the whole planet with this religion that consists of sun worshipping insects that bow to the east- Jesus Christ would be real pissed off at our submissive nature. In fact if you do not realize - the war on terror is a very old one - it is Christianity - fighting it our with Islam - nothing has changed ---other than the sad fact that we are so stupid that when we are attacked by BP oil and poisoned we forgive them - and when Islam - and remember the 9 11 - team that blew down the towers...were instigated by Islam..that is a fact that you can not get around no matter how emotional we all get and how the jerks cry out "Islamiphobia" ..

Damned right we should have a phobia - firstly we do not like getting sodomized so we are called homophobics..and if we don't like getting sodomized spiritually by Islam we are called Islamiphobics - our way of life and all that build the west is at risk here- deny these interlopers the right to dominate our society!

[Guest American Woman]

According to this article, the vote on whether or not to grant landmark status to the Burlington Coat Factory building will take place tomorrow.

The building slated to house a proposed Islamic center and mosque near ground zero leads Tuesday's agenda for a meeting of New York City's Landmarks Preservation Commission.

The 11 commissioners will vote whether to grant landmark status to 45-47 Park Place.

[WIP]

It appears that the Council has voted down the request to make the Burlington Coat Factory Building an historic landmark, as well it should! If you look at a few of the pictures of this building, it's an ugly piece of crap, no different than any other institutional building from the last century. Even if it was fixed up it would still be an eyesore! Of all of the excuses and objections to the construction of Cordoba House, this was the lamest of the lot!

[Guest American Woman]

Looks as if the building won't be getting landmark status. link

A city commission on Tuesday denied landmark status to a building near the World Trade Center site, freeing a group to convert the property into an Islamic community center and mosque that has drawn national opposition.

Can't say that I'm surprised.

[GostHacked]

And that's the end of this thread !!!

[DogOnPorch]

I imagine some folks are going to want to see the money trail. Who's dishing-out the 100 million as per the London 'Olympic' mosque.

[Guest American Woman]

I imagine some folks are going to want to see the money trail. Who's dishing-out the 100 million as per the London 'Olympic' mosque.

Now that the project is a go-ahead, I think that's true. So far, from what I've read, they're not disclosing that information.

[GostHacked]

Now that the project is a go-ahead, I think that's true. So far, from what I've read, they're not disclosing that information.

How many mosques are there already in NYC ???? And why is it just this new one people are complaining about?

[DogOnPorch]

Now that the project is a go-ahead, I think that's true. So far, from what I've read, they're not disclosing that information.

Plus Cordoba House is STILL a provocative name. Much like a big-ass church going-up in Mecca called "The Knights of St John Church of the Divine Crusaders".

[DogOnPorch]

...if such a thing could ever occur.

[Guest American Woman]

Plus Cordoba House is STILL a provocative name. Much like a big-ass church going-up in Mecca called "The Knights of St John Church of the Divine Crusaders".

They've renamed this particular project "Park 51" to de-emphasize the religious aspect of the project; I'm guessing that's in response to the large disapproval the project has received. From what I've read, this project has alienated many Americans who are otherwise tolerant/supportive of Muslims, so it'll be interesting to see what the project accomplishes regarding promoting better relations between Muslims and non-Muslims.

Some of the people involved with the project recognize that even New Yorkers who have a favorable opinion about Islam have reservations about this project. But according to the ilk here, anyone who questions the project is anti-Islamic.

I find it so typical that so many who don't agree with those in opposition can't accept that everyone who opposes it isn't bigoted, biased, anti-Muslim, et al. And the really funny part is that they think they are so tolerant, while anyone who questions this project is clearly intolerant. Yeah right. They're so tolerant that they can't even accept that everyone who opposes this project isn't bigoted, and they call them liars for not admitting that they are anti-Islamic or for not admitting that they think the project should be banned -- when it's not the way they feel. What they actually believe, think, feel means nothing to this 'tolerant bunch' who has put their biased opinion and intolerant views on others.