Mosque going up in NYC building

[Guest American Woman]

Methinks you are mixing me up with someone else or you are misinterpreting my past comments.

Just noticed this - if that's not how you feel, most likely I did .... so I withdraw my comment - and my wink - and I'll add a for good measure.

When have the powers that be ever made it easy?

Sometimes it's even less easy than other situations/times. Especially when one is going it alone. That's my point.

So since they failed they should just give up and learn to live with it?

Sometimes people see that as the only option - if they want to live. And sometimes they are fed propaganda that makes them believe they already have it good - better than the rest of the world, which they know little about - other than what they are told.

[Machjo]

Ummmm .... your comment was in regards to Saudi Arabia, therefore my reply - to your comment - was in regards to Saudi Arabia, not "all Muslims."

I was linking it back to the point about opposing the development of the Islamic Center project in NYC. The members of NYC's Muslims community themselves lost family and friends to 9/11, and openly condemned the attacks on 9/11. Yet you propose they should still feel guilty for what others have done. That in my mind is equivalent to saying that because Saudi Arabia restricts freedom of religion in their country, we must therefore punish American Muslims for it, or saying that because one black man robbed, raped or killed someone, all blacks ought to feel guilty about it more so than whites. It's a matter of collective blame for the actions of individuals.

[Machjo]

So I'll ask another question; should a black man kill a white man, do you think the entire black community should "be a little more sensitive" to the feelings of the white? Or let's say a black man kills a white woman's white husband, and then another black man eventually marries her. Would you argue that that black man was somehow insensitive to the feelings of the white community, that his marriage is somehow a "victory" marriage for the black community? Or do you treat each person on his own merits?

And why should it be any different for an Islamic Center:

Some people killed thousands on 9/11 in the name of Islam (the black man killing the white woman's white husband). Later, an Islamic Center is built in a building damaged by 9/11 (another black man marries the same white woman). And suddenly a bunch of people start crying foul over a "victory mosque" (crying foul over a "victory marriage" and lack of sensitivity).

So, explain to me how there is no parallel.

Edited August 28, 2011 by Machjo

[Guest American Woman]

I was linking it back to the point about opposing the development of the Islamic Center project in NYC. The members of NYC's Muslims community themselves lost family and friends to 9/11, and openly condemned the attacks on 9/11. Yet you propose they should still feel guilty for what others have done.

That's not what I propose at all. To quote gosthacked, reading comprehension is key here....

That in my mind is equivalent to saying that because Saudi Arabia restricts freedom of religion in their country, we must therefore punish American Muslims for it, or saying that because one black man robbed, raped or killed someone, all blacks ought to feel guilty about it more so than whites. It's a matter of collective blame for the actions of individuals.

I was replying to your comment only - that we should practice freedom of religion as an example to Saudi Arabia. And my response stands.

[Machjo]

That's not what I propose at all. To quote gosthacked, reading comprehension is key here....

I was replying to your comment only - that we should practice freedom of religion as an example to Saudi Arabia. And my response stands.

So you have no issue with the Islamic Center then?

[Guest American Woman]

So you have no issue with the Islamic Center then?

I've already clearly stated my position - and what you claim it is - isn't it.

Edited August 28, 2011 by American Woman

[Machjo]

I agree with you. I don't understand the mindset of having it coincide with the tenth anniversary of 9-11. If those involved feel the need to speak out more, have moderate Muslims' voices heard, seems to me there would be a lot of ways of going about doing that other than this. It will likely get a lot of press if it does play out that way, but I'm not sure it would be the type of press/reaction that would be considered good/positive; ie: attention that would help moderate Muslims' cause.

I've been to Ground Zero, and an 11 story Mosque in its shadow will likely upset some.

I tend to agree.

i.e. Some Muslims are responsible for 9/11, therefore other Muslims need to be sensitive.

[Guest American Woman]

i.e. Some Muslims are responsible for 9/11, therefore other Muslims need to be sensitive.

You're getting closer. Which is a whole lot different from "feel guilty," eh?

[Machjo]

You're getting closer. Which is a whole lot different from "feel guilty," eh?

I still don't get it. If a black man killed a white woman's white husband, why should another black man then be "sensitive" about marrying her because some members of the white community might be offended by such a "victory marraige"?

I see the example above as being totally parallel. In the eyes of the Muslim community, it may have been viewed as a victory against fanaticism in the name of Islam. Would that not be a positive thing? And as for those offended by a "victory marriage", why care about them?

[Guest American Woman]

I still don't get it. If a black man killed a white woman's white husband, why should another black man then be "sensitive" about marrying her because some members of the white community might be offended by such a "victory marraige"?

I see the example above as being totally parallel. [...]

The two situations are so not parallel that they're on a direct collision course ............

That you see them as parallel tells me that you have no concept of the reality of the situation and all that it involves.

[Smallc]

I don't understand how those two situations can be seen as different really. I still, after all of this time, see no room for someone to be against the Islamic Centre for non bigoted reasons.

[Guest American Woman]

I still, after all of this time, see no room for someone to be against the Islamic Centre for non bigoted reasons.

Your lack of ability to see it doesn't change the reality.

[msj]

Your lack of ability to see it doesn't change the reality.

Funny, I think just because you don't understand reality doesn't mean smallc doesn't see it.

[Guest American Woman]

Funny, I think just because you don't understand reality doesn't mean smallc doesn't see it.

Let's recap, shall we?

Smallc doesn't see how anyone could oppose the project on that specific property for any reason other than bigotry. Yet I oppose it for different reasons. So the reality is that some people do oppose it for reasons other than bigotry. I leave it to you who has the inability to see reality.

Again. I posted the update because I find the changes interesting - the time frame, the fact that Rauf is no longer involved - no Imam is, apparently, that the project might be on a much smaller scale, that the Muslims who were upset over not being consulted have met with dialog, that the head of the project is listening to non-Muslims as well - and that the head of the project says it should have been handled this way from the beginning ..... no comments. Nothing about any of that. No discussion.

Just more accusations of bigotry. Which, quite frankly, I see as against the rules.

[Machjo]

Let's recap, shall we?

Smallc doesn't see how anyone could oppose the project on that specific property for any reason other than bigotry. Yet I oppose it for different reasons. So the reality is that some people do oppose it for reasons other than bigotry. I leave it to you who has the inability to see reality.

Again. I posted the update because I find the changes interesting - the time frame, the fact that Rauf is no longer involved - no Imam is, apparently, that the project might be on a much smaller scale, that the Muslims who were upset over not being consulted have met with dialog, that the head of the project is listening to non-Muslims as well - and that the head of the project says it should have been handled this way from the beginning ..... no comments. Nothing about any of that. No discussion.

Just more accusations of bigotry. Which, quite frankly, I see as against the rules.

The consultation part is not so new. Even before the public announcement, before this thread was even started, they had already consulted with the Jewish, Chritisn and possibly other communities. The initial announcement had gotten the blessing of NYC's Jewish and Chritian leadership, plus the local government. None of this was even required by law. So if anything, they'd already gone way beyondthe call of duty here. Heck, even Fox News was supportive until Geller spewed her hate.

[Guest American Woman]

The consultation part is not so new. Even before the public announcement, before this thread was even started, they had already consulted with the Jewish, Chritisn and possibly other communities. The initial announcement had gotten the blessing of NYC's Jewish and Chritian leadership, plus the local government. None of this was even required by law. So if anything, they'd already gone way beyondthe call of duty here. Heck, even Fox News was supportive until Geller spewed her hate.

They didn't consult with local Muslims - who were upset, so that's a recent development, and others who had not been consulted are now being consulted, too. I realize none of it was required by law, and never indicated otherwise - but no - they didn't consult the general population. It's in the link I provided. Again, the project director says it should have been done differently:

Sharif El-Gamal, the lead developer, who controls the property at 45-51 Park Place, has spent the past year trying to regroup. He has severed ties with the project’s original imam, Feisal Abdul Rauf.

He has crisscrossed the country to attract donors, built relationships with neighborhood groups and Muslim organizations and recruited the aunt of a 9/11 victim to his advisory board — all things he says he should have done before going public last year.

“

Everything was backward,” Mr. El-Gamal, 37, acknowledged

in an interview on Wednesday in his Chelsea real estate office. “We’re going back to basics.”

Edited August 29, 2011 by American Woman

[msj]

Just more accusations of bigotry. Which, quite frankly, I see as against the rules.

Then report us.

We have already stated our position on why we think you are a bigot many, many pages ago.

No it is not intended as an ad hominem attack.

It is based on a belief that you are, in fact, being bigoted on this issue per the reasons already provided.

That is an important distinction.

Edited to add: I do not intend on arguing this thread all over again and we will just have to agree to disagree on this.

Edited August 29, 2011 by msj

[Guest American Woman]

Then report us.

We have already stated our position on why we think you are a bigot many, many pages ago.

No it is not intended as an ad hominem attack.

It is based on a belief that you are, in fact, being bigoted on this issue per the reasons already provided.

That is an important distinction.

Edited to add: I do not intend on arguing this thread all over again and we will just have to agree to disagree on this.

And I repeat: I have quoted Muslims who feel the same way I do. If I am a bigot, so are they. And that includes Raheel Raza, a founding member of the Muslim Canadian Congress.

[Machjo]

They didn't consult with local Muslims - who were upset, so that's a recent development, and others who had not been consulted are now being consulted, too. I realize none of it was required by law, and never indicated otherwise - but no - they didn't consult the general population. It's in the link I provided. Again, the project director says it should have been done differently:

Sharif El-Gamal, the lead developer, who controls the property at 45-51 Park Place, has spent the past year trying to regroup. He has severed ties with the project’s original imam, Feisal Abdul Rauf.

He has crisscrossed the country to attract donors, built relationships with neighborhood groups and Muslim organizations and recruited the aunt of a 9/11 victim to his advisory board — all things he says he should have done before going public last year.

“

Everything was backward,” Mr. El-Gamal, 37, acknowledged

in an interview on Wednesday in his Chelsea real estate office. “We’re going back to basics.”

Fair enough. But if Muslims are the main group he did not consult, then that is more of an internal matter for the Muslims, but I agree none the less that they should have been consulted. That would still be an internal matter though.

[Sir Bandelot]

So the good news is, this was all just a misunderstanding and a problem created largely by just one muslim person, or a small group of persons.

Now that there is new leadership on this project, they're demonstrating what many of us suspected all along. This mosque isn't intended to antagonize or be provocative towards people who were affected by the Sept. 11 attacks. It's not intended to show muslim triumph over the west, by building too near to the site. Since I'm guessing that they're still building on the same spot as originally planned, but not as tall a building, the notion that it is too close to the WTC site must have been dismissed.

But does this mean that citizens of New York are now satisfied, and we can move on? No, I think some will still be against it.

Edited August 29, 2011 by Sir Bandelot

[bloodyminded]

Now that there is new leadership on this project, they're demonstrating what many of us suspected all along. This mosque isn't intended to antagonize or be provocative towards people who were affected by the Sept. 11 attacks. It's not intended to show muslim triumph over the west, by building too near to the site.

Yes, some people were making this claim originally. The technical term for them is "paranoid, bigoted conspiracy theorists."

[Black Dog]

Our mosque segregates men and women. The one(s) in your city doesn't, I gather?

I see: you simply don't understand the difference between private practices and public policy.

[Guest American Woman]

Sir Bandelot, on 29 August 2011 - 01:54 PM, said: Now that there is new leadership on this project, they're demonstrating what many of us suspected all along. This mosque isn't intended to antagonize or be provocative towards people who were affected by the Sept. 11 attacks. It's not intended to show muslim triumph over the west, by building too near to the site.

Yes, some people were making this claim originally. The technical term for them is "paranoid, bigoted conspiracy theorists."

You mean like this paranoid, bigoted, conspiracy theorist?

“I oppose the idea [...] because it’s confrontational. It is in bad faith. And it doesn’t really set up any kind of dialogue or discussion on tolerance. …

How does building a mosque in the very place where Muslims murdered so many other Americans … create any kind of respect? …

Building a mosque or a place of worship … across the street from Ground Zero is a slap in the face upon Americans. … I can’t begin to imagine how they would even conceive an idea that building a mosque there … would in any way build tolerance and respect. …

Mayor Bloomberg and other bleeding-heart white liberals like him don’t understand the battle that [...] moderate Muslims are faced with in terms of confronting radical Islam and Islamization and political Islam in North America, which has only grown since 9/11 because of political correctness and people because of their politically-invested agendas [are] not speaking out against issues like this.”

No, I'm not quoting Pamela Geller - I'm quoting Raheel Raza, a board member of the Muslim Canadian Conference.

"We should be very sensitive.........." Imagine that. The bigot!! - blaming all Muslims.

As for whether she thinks it's a "victory mosque" in Imam Rauf's mind - "Well, it could be ........."

Edited August 30, 2011 by American Woman

[bloodyminded]

You mean like this paranoid, bigoted, conspiracy theorist?

“I oppose the idea [...] because it’s confrontational. It is in bad faith. And it doesn’t really set up any kind of dialogue or discussion on tolerance. …

How does building a mosque in the very place where Muslims murdered so many other Americans … create any kind of respect? …

Building a mosque or a place of worship … across the street from Ground Zero is a slap in the face upon Americans. … I can’t begin to imagine how they would even conceive an idea that building a mosque there … would in any way build tolerance and respect. …

Mayor Bloomberg and other bleeding-heart white liberals like him don’t understand the battle that [...] moderate Muslims are faced with in terms of confronting radical Islam and Islamization and political Islam in North America, which has only grown since 9/11 because of political correctness and people because of their politically-invested agendas [are] not speaking out against issues like this.”

No, I'm not quoting Pamela Geller - I'm quoting Raheel Raza, a board member of the Muslim Canadian Conference.

"We should be very sensitive.........." Imagine that. The bigot!! - blaming all Muslims.

Yeah, and I was responding to the people like Gellar who opined it was "intended to show Muslim triumph over the West," the direct remark to which I was responding.

As someone sensitive to being misconstrued, I'd think you'd be sensitive to the same issue for others.

Even those you think of as "assholes," and with whom you are "not going to discuss anything any more" [sic].

[Guest American Woman]

Yeah, and I was responding to the people like Gellar who opined it was "intended to show Muslim triumph over the West," the direct remark to which I was responding.

As for whether Raheel Raza thinks it's a "victory mosque" in Imam Rauf's mind - "Well, it could be ........."