Mosque going up in NYC building

[Guest American Woman]

No, I'm saying Muslims in New York were just as affected by this as Christians and Jews, and that they were more affected on the whole that those living in other cities. So they should have the same right to mourn, no?

And they do have the same right to mourn, whether the mosque goes up in that spot or elsewhere. Having the mosque built elsewhere doesn't mean they can't mourn, or that their right to mourn has somehow been taken away or lessened. Do you think they'd be less able to mourn if they built on property that wasn't damaged by the attacks on 9-11?

As for that ground being made available, it was not made available just to that Muslim community but to anyone who wants to buy there.

I never said it was available just to them.

You make it sound like a conspiracy.

Only to someone who wants to see it that way. In reality, I made it sound exactly as it is. What I said is nothing more than the facts.

You could build a restaurant there if you wanted to. If I built a restaurant there, would you then complain that it was made possible only because of 9/11?

Now I have to think that you're just being purposely dense. At least I hope it's purposely. What in God's name does a restaurant have to do with 9-11? You think anyone would look at a restaurant and be reminded of their loved ones dying at the hands of Islamic terrorists??

Are you saying that the best way to honour the victims of 9/11 is not to rebuild but to just leave a hole in the ground?

In case you really do need it spelled out for you, I'm saying the most empathetic/sensitive way to honor the victims of 9-11 is to not build a Mosque in the shadow of Ground Zero; I'm saying it would be best if the Mosque were built elsewhere; I'm saying it's not cool to build a Mosque where the property is available only because of the actions of Islamic terrorists.

Would you be saying the same if a church and YMCA were being built there instead? I doubt it.

Do you even read what I say?? REPEATING:

if a church were to go there, it wouldn't be going there because the property was available due to the murderous/destructive actions of other members of their faith. Do you really not see that?

So no, I wouldn't be saying that, because the church/members of that faith had nothing to do with 9-11. Members of the Islamic faith, on the other hand, had everything to do with it.

Edited June 6, 2010 by American Woman

[Machjo]

Really try to grasp this concept, because I've repeated it several times now. So please try really hard.

People aren't in opposition of the Mosque being built there, in that particular spot, in the shadow of Ground Zero because the building is available only because of 9-11, because they are opposed to Islam. I know you've assigned them with anti-Islamic feelings, but that doesn't make it so.

I am totally aware that not all Muslims are terrorists. I am totally supportive of Muslims wanting to build their Mosque anywhere else in NYC.

Why anywhere ELSE? They'd lost members too. I don't understand why this would be so offensive?

And while I'm repeating things for the bajillionth time, I don't think they should be prohibited from building there; I think they should have enough empathy to choose not to build there. I'm critical of them for not being empathetic to those who lost loved ones and don't want to see a Mosque in the shadow of the memorial.

And what about those who lost loved ones who are members of that congregation and who have to face opposition to build what they may believe to be a fitting memorial to their loved ones. Like I said, they're two blocks away from Ground Zero. Someone could build another memorial of their choosing even closer to Ground Zero. Or for all we know it will be a McDonald's? Will they be offended if a McDonald's is built there one day? At least that congregation has a claim to having lost personally on 9/11 to build there, yet I'm sure you'd say nothing of a Mcdonald's being built there purely for profit. Actually, with all the tourists in the future, it would be a money-maker.

See above: I don't oppose the freedom. And if a church were to go there, it wouldn't be going there because the property was available due to the murderous/destructive actions of other members of their faith. Do you really not see that?

The people who crashed those planes were no more Muslim than those who bomb abortion clinics and assassinate abortionists are Christian. As I thought, you equate them and so guilt them all by association. You do realize don't you that many mosques were firebombed and vandalized and a few Muslims and even just Middle-Eastern-looking people, including even Hispanics, were beaten and sometimes even murdered in the weeks after 9/11? So, do we prohibit the building of Churches near all of the sites of these attrocities? I'm sure you wont' apply the same standard.

How does building a mosque there show that Islam is victorious against terrorism when it was Islamic terrorism? Way to be victorious over Muslims' actions; build a Mosque. I'm sure they would have hated that! I'm sure other extremists of like mind are cringing at the prospect of a Mosque going up in the shadow of Ground Zero. And in case you really don't get it, that's sarcasm.

You really don't get it, do you. First off, that terrorism was not 'Islamic', but rather in the name of Islam, just as the Crusades were in the name of Christ. By building a Mosque there, they are sending the message that they are law-abiding Americans who intend to stay in the country of their birth and defend it against such terrorism, and will not just run away to the Middle East to fight a war against America.

Again, you're blaming all Muslims for the attrocities of a few.

Could you get off the "poor Muslim" victims at least long enough to recognize that there were many, many, many, many more victims that weren't Muslim? Or aren't I supposed to care about their feelings?

Again the either/or. Is it not possible to be happy for those Muslims who want to build their mosque and at the same time be happy for the others who may wish to build their own memorials to their families? Why does one have to come at the expense of another. There is plenty of land in that area for all of them to share, no?

[Machjo]

But since you brought up your expectations, I didn't expect you to comment on the fact that it's wrong for Americans to build a huge embassy in Iraq but it's not wrong for Muslims to build a huge Mosque/Islamic center on Ground Zero. And you didn't.

If that embassy is being built with the blessing of the Iraqi government, just as is the case with the mosque, then what's the issue?

[Machjo]

And I'm well aware Muslims are Americans. In fact, I'd once met an Odawa Muslim in Ottawa. Seeing that the Odawa were on this land before the Europeans even discovered it, we certainly can't say Muslims are foreigners. And I wouldn't be surprised to find some American Indian Muslims too. Certainly you do not blame them or their Muslim Faith for the atrocities of 9/11 do you?

[Machjo]

http://www.esnips.com/doc/a0036397-f499-4652-a993-dd6f21f23cba

Why would a person convert to Islam right after 9/11 if Islam were a fanatical religion?

Clearly Islam has nothing to do with 9/11 except as an excuse for the attacks. You're just reinforcing the beliefs of these fanatics.

[Machjo]

And clearly the families of the victims of 9/11 don't associate Is;am with terrorism either:

[Machjo]

Here's what some Muslims go through in the US around ground Zero:

Why should the last woman in that video have received the treatment she'd got when she was near Ground Zero, with peopel saying they wanted to bomb the Muslim world?

Edited June 6, 2010 by Machjo

[Guest American Woman]

If that embassy is being built with the blessing of the Iraqi government, just as is the case with the mosque, then what's the issue?

Why would it have to have been built with the blessing of the Iraqi government? Are you saying that if the American government didn't give Muslims their blessing to build this Mosque, you would have no issue with that? Because it sure seems to me as if you've been arguing for their right to build there, which is totally at odds with this "Iraqi government blessing" you've now attached to the building of the embassy.

But all that aside, the issue with the embassy is that there are Iraqis who are opposed to it. Iraqis who see it as a reminder of the U.S.'s actions/power. Even though not all Americans or government officials supported the war and some likely think it will help strengthen ties between Iraq and the U.S. And of course Americans have died in Iraq, too.

So you think the Iraqis who don't like it are wrong? You're just as critical of them? You think they are prejudiced against Americans? You think they are uncaring towards the Americans who died there? You think the U.S. had every right to build that huge embassy there?

Because I empathize with the Iraqis in that situation, just as I empathize with those who lost family, friends, and co-workers on 9-11. I think there's a time and a place for things, and I think there's a time and a place for putting other people's feelings first.

I've been totally supportive of Islam. I've been very outspoken about Muslims' right to have foot baths built on the University of Michigan campus, for example, when that was a big issue; and my daughter was going there at the time, so I was literally putting my money where my mouth is, since my money was going to the university. I thought one of the best things Bush did/said after 9-11 was to make sure Americans knew we weren't at war with Islam; that all Muslims weren't to blame. I support Muslims' right to build a Mosque anywhere else in NYC, outside the shadow of Ground Zero, on property not made available by Islamic terrorism. I'm a very tolerant person, but if I go back to Ground Zero and see that Mosque/Islamic center standing out in the shadow of the memorial, it will not give me good feelings about Islam; about those who went ahead with it, knowing it would be very difficult for some of the victims.

As I've said over and over, I hold Muslims to the same standards I hold myself, my country, other religions, anyone else. I see people bending over backwards to justify the mosque, but I don't think being tolerant means automatically agreeing with everything that's done, and in this case, I think the Muslims supporting this project are wrong.

Edited June 6, 2010 by American Woman

[bush_cheney2004]

...Why should the last woman in that video have received the treatment she'd got when she was near Ground Zero, with peopel saying they wanted to bomb the Muslim world?

Gee.....I don't know...maybe Anne Coulter can explain it after her trip to Ontario!

[Machjo]

Why would it have to have been built with the blessing of the Iraqi government? Are you saying that if the American government didn't give Muslims their blessing to build this Mosque, you would have no issue with that?

I believe in freedom of religion, and so I support their freedom to build that mosque. That said, I also believe that Muslims like anyone else ought to respect the law, and that includes zoning regulations. So yes, had the City Council removed their right to build that mosque, as long as it applied equally to all religions, then yes, the local government would have every right to do that.

As for the US embassy in Iraq, well again it is being built on foreign soil after all.

[dre]

I dont think the legitimacy of any project to build any building should be decided based on how many people died in any kind of disaster.

Presumably the city has criteria for how to make these kinds of decisions... theres likely zoning bylaws, a permitting process, etc. I see no reason to deviate from this process because the property in question is close to place where a terrorist attack took place 10 years ago.

If its legal to build a facility like this, and the prospective builders filled out the right paperwork and got the right permits and were qualified applicants under whatever municiple laws that apply I see no reason to reject them. In fact... I doubt that rejecting the application based on the fact this is muslim project would even be legal or constitutional.

Can I get a comment on this from anyone?

Is there any real reason to oppose this project besides just appeal to emotion? Does the project violate any sort of city ordinance or zoning bylaw? Does it conflict with the community plan?

And would it even be legal to deny a permit for this project based on it being associated with a particular religion?

Are people REALLY suggesting that the city craft its zoning policy and its community plan around people who are offended by something on ethnocentric or religiocentric grounds?

I think its ok if people are mistakenly angry with Islam over the actions of a radical terrorist groups that happens to be islamic. Illogical but OK. I even thing its ok for people to flat out have a hatred or bias against muslims. Misguided but to each his own. But for these people to expect a municipal government to adopt this sort of thing as a means of determining who can apply for a building permit in a certain area and who cant seems really really stupid to me.

[Machjo]

But all that aside, the issue with the embassy is that there are Iraqis who are opposed to it. Iraqis who see it as a reminder of the U.S.'s actions/power. Even though not all Americans or government officials supported the war and some likely think it will help strengthen ties between Iraq and the U.S. And of course Americans have died in Iraq, too.

I don't know the details about the embassy issue, but one difference is that to treat one religious community differently from another infringes on freedom of religion. I don't see how the building or not of a US embassy in Baghdad will infringe on anyone's freedoms. Could you explain how that would be the case?

So you think the Iraqis who don't like it are wrong? You're just as critical of them? You think they are prejudiced against Americans? You think they are uncaring towards the Americans who died there? You think the U.S. had every right to build that huge embassy there?

I don't know the full details of it, but from the little I got from what you're saying, one has to do with personal freedom of religion, the other with intergovernmental relations. So they don't relate much now do they.

Because I empathize with the Iraqis in that situation, just as I empathize with those who lost family, friends, and co-workers on 9-11. I think there's a time and a place for things, and I think there's a time and a place for putting other people's feelings first.

There is a fundamental difference here. Regardless of whether Americans supported the war or not, the US government did as a matter of official policy, and the embassy is a US governmental institution. Thus their opposition to the embassy in no way affects those Americans who did not support the war; it only affects the government which did officially support the war.

Now let's suppose that some Christians decided to open up a church in Baghdad, since that church has nothing to do with the US government, it would be totally inappropriate for them to oppose the building of a Church, within local bilaws of course, and with the expectation that they do not discriminate on the basis of religion. If they decided to establish a local English-Speaking community centre, again, the local English-speaking community did not necessarily support the war in Iraq, and so again I'd see no reason to oppose that. But an embassy is an official governmental institution.

A more apt comparison would be if Al-Qaeda wanted to build an office anywhere on US soil. Al-Qaeda is officially at war with the US, and so opposing the building of such an office would be quite appropriate. Just as it's not appropriate to blame the Christian Faith for the Iraq War (even if many supported it in the name of Christ), so the same applies to the Muslim Faith. If we support discrimination against Muslims because of 9/11, then we must also support the same treatment for Christians in Iraq because of the Iraq War. I support neither.

I've been totally supportive of Islam. I've been very outspoken about Muslims' right to have foot baths built on the University of Michigan campus, for example, when that was a big issue; and my daughter was going there at the time, so I was literally putting my money where my mouth is, since my money was going to the university. I thought one of the best things Bush did/said after 9-11 was to make sure Americans knew we weren't at war with Islam; that all Muslims weren't to blame. I support Muslims' right to build a Mosque anywhere else in NYC, outside the shadow of Ground Zero, on property not made available by Islamic terrorism. I'm a very tolerant person, but if I go back to Ground Zero and see that Mosque/Islamic center standing out in the shadow of the memorial, it will not give me good feelings about Islam; about those who went ahead with it, knowing it would be very difficult for some of the victims.

Notice the highlighted parts. So, you blame Islam for 9/11? Haven't Muslims suffered enough abuse since 9/11? If you don't blame Is;am for 9/11, then why be offended by the building of a Mosque there? How do you think the Muslim victims of 9/11 feel about this, that not only did they lose loved ones, but then in the weeks following 9/11 Muslims across the US got their mosques firebombed, some Muslims and even some who just looked Muslim were murdered. Then we had racial profiling at airports, and one instance of a Muslim booted off a plane because some passengers refused to travel with him, etc. etc. etc.

After all of that, we still insult Muslims by implying that they are responsible for 9/11.

And as for tolerance, that's not good enough. If have to welcome, love, embrace, not just tolerate.

As I've said over and over, I hold Muslims to the same standards I hold myself, my country, other religions, anyone else. I see people bending over backwards to justify the mosque, but I don't think being tolerant means automatically agreeing with everything that's done, and in this case, I think the Muslims supporting this project are wrong.

Again, why are they wrong? you say because it may hurt some people's feelings? Whose feelings?Those of the people who blame Is;am for 9/11 of course, because if they didn't their feelings would not be hurt. So why succumb to the feelings of those who blame Muslims for 9/11? They're the very same people who'd firebombed mosques, beat Muslims and anyone looking Middle Eastern, and kicked them off airplanes. You sympathize with them? As for me, i just pity their ignorance.

[Machjo]

Gee.....I don't know...maybe Anne Coulter can explain it after her trip to Ontario!

So do you walk around town telling any Muslim you see that you want to bomb the Muslim world? Remind me of those guys who'd 'bombed' the World Trade Center. Birds of a same feather.

[Hydraboss]

So do you walk around town telling any Muslim you see that you want to bomb the Muslim world? Remind me of those guys who'd 'bombed' the World Trade Center. Birds of a same feather.

World Trade Center

You mean the OTHER muslims that attacked America? You mean THOSE murderous muslims?

[Oleg Bach]

Christianity is what made the west prosper..now that we have gotten rid of it - the Muslims will take over in time.

[BubberMiley]

So no, I wouldn't be saying that, because the church/members of that faith had nothing to do with 9-11. Members of the Islamic faith, on the other hand, had everything to do with it.

Great, albeit lengthy, argument. So then if they don't want to be associated with terrorists, they should really build the mosque there.

Edited June 9, 2010 by BubberMiley

[Oleg Bach]

Great, albeit lengthy, argument. So then if they don't want to be associated with terrorists, they should really build the mosque there. Way to go.

Semi-radical Islamics inhabit North America - they have a quiet agenda that consists of displacing all and eventually taking over..that is the bottom line.

[WIP]

Can I get a comment on this from anyone?

Is there any real reason to oppose this project besides just appeal to emotion? Does the project violate any sort of city ordinance or zoning bylaw? Does it conflict with the community plan?

I gave AW all the room necessary to provide a logical reason why a mosque can't be built near the former WTC complex, and after more than a month and more than 30 pages of arguments, she still provides no underlying reason why a mosque can't be built because the existing building received minor damage from the wing of one of the airplanes. Everybody gets the same reply. In the most recent version:"Do you think they'd be less able to mourn if they built on property that wasn't damaged by the attacks on 9-11?"

Since no other reason is given for this conclusion, I am left to presume that the WTC is now a sacred site, and that includes not only the trade center towers that were destroyed, but any building that may have been touched by the plane's flight-path. And of course the sanctity of this holy site is defiled by the presence of Muslim worshipers.

[BubberMiley]

She even fails to distinguish whether a Shi-ite mosque would be acceptable, given most of the terrorists considered themselves Sunnis. Sunnis and Shi-ites do hate each other, after all, so there's no reason why one would identify himself with the other.

By that logic, perhaps it would be disrespectful for all sky-god cults to build a shrine to their demented ideologies anywhere near 9/11. The terrorist attacks did, after all, have everything to do with sky-god cults.

[sharkman]

I gave AW all the room necessary to provide a logical reason why a mosque can't be built near the former WTC complex, and after more than a month and more than 30 pages of arguments, she still provides no underlying reason why a mosque can't be built because the existing building received minor damage from the wing of one of the airplanes. Everybody gets the same reply. In the most recent version:"Do you think they'd be less able to mourn if they built on property that wasn't damaged by the attacks on 9-11?"

Since no other reason is given for this conclusion, I am left to presume that the WTC is now a sacred site, and that includes not only the trade center towers that were destroyed, but any building that may have been touched by the plane's flight-path. And of course the sanctity of this holy site is defiled by the presence of Muslim worshipers.

Just because you don't personally care for the reasons coming from her side it certainly doesn't make them wrong. You gave her all of the room? You are not getting a little full of yourself, are you?

[Machjo]

Great, albeit lengthy, argument. So then if they don't want to be associated with terrorists, they should really build the mosque there.

Agreed. If they should acquiesce to public pressure, it's like accepting guilt for something they did not do, which is anathema to American tradition.

By building the mosque there, they are emphatically saying:

We have f**k-all to do with this, so go blame the perpetrators and stop blaming us.

[Machjo]

Semi-radical Islamics inhabit North America - they have a quiet agenda that consists of displacing all and eventually taking over..that is the bottom line.

Right...

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

And these professed Christians don't share the same goal?

So should we therefore fear the Christian Faith because of the KKK?

[Guest American Woman]

Just because you don't personally care for the reasons coming from her side it certainly doesn't make them wrong. You gave her all of the room? You are not getting a little full of yourself, are you?

Exactly. Disagreeing with my reasons doesn't make my reasons "not logical." My reasons are perfectly logical, and anyone with at least an ounce of intelligence could see the "logic" in them whether they agree with them or not. By the same token, I could say I gave them all the room to come up with logical reasons why the Muslims involved shouldn't feel empathy towards those who lost loved ones, and choose not to build there considering the property is only available because of the terrorist attacks; and after more than a month and more than 30 pages of arguments, they still provide no underlying reason why a mosque should be built there considering the circumstances. Everyone gets the same reply.

I could say that, but I won't. Because that would make me as stupid as they are as incapable of engaging in a discussion where everyone doesn't agree with me as they are.

[dre]

Christianity is what made the west prosper..now that we have gotten rid of it - the Muslims will take over in time.

No ESCAPING Christianity is what made the west prosper. The Church was booted out as a civil authority and completely marginalized. Without the removal of the church as a legal authority the kind of progress we have seen could never have happened. The west prospered because it was able shrug religious oppression of its back, and relegate the church to being a private club with absolutely no authority or power over the state.

[WIP]

Just because you don't personally care for the reasons coming from her side it certainly doesn't make them wrong. You gave her all of the room? You are not getting a little full of yourself, are you?

If you can't articulate your feelings in logical reasons why others should feel the same way after 10, 15, or 20 posts, then there is no argument based on reason or facts. None of the facts presented a compelling case for trying to stop a Sufi imam from building a mosque two blocks away from the trade center, it was just an endless repetition of this is wrong...this is wrong...this is wrong...which seems to be a compelling argument to you, but it doesn't work for me.