Mosque going up in NYC building

[GostHacked]

Actually your certain group is actually two groups: Sunni and Shi'ite. Do you make a distinction, or does that require too much insight?

Actually there is 3 groups, the other is Sufi I think.Could be more!

[Guest TrueMetis]

Actually there is 3 groups, the other is Sufi I think.Could be more!

I'd be surprised if there wasn't, considering how many Muslims there are.

[ToadBrother]

I'm certain Jews and gays will feel quite welcome at this Islam interfaith community center.

Which is entirely beside the point. Either the government is blind to the religious beliefs of its citizens, or it is in fact picking and choosing.

Tell me, what kind of state would you like to live in? Guys like you seriously make me wonder whether you really are just closet theocrats.

[Shady]

Which is entirely beside the point

It is beside the point. Legally they have every right to build. But the point is that tolerance is a two-way street. And so far, it seems pretty one-sided.

Personally, I don't mind if the mosque is built, I just wish they could keep the structure of the 150 year old building in tact, and renovate from within. Despite what the NYC council ruled, that building has historical significance.

[punked]

It is beside the point. Legally they have every right to build. But the point is that tolerance is a two-way street. And so far, it seems pretty one-sided.

Personally, I don't mind if the mosque is built, I just wish they could keep the structure of the 150 year old building in tact, and renovate from within. Despite what the NYC council ruled, that building has historical significance.

We follow the rules because we fight for the rules.

[Black Dog]

What everyone is ignoring is the fact that the site wouldn't even be available for the Mosque but for the destructive/murderous actions of other Muslims.

Because its not true. It's not on the WTC site and it's not a mosque.

[Guest American Woman]

American Woman, on 11 May 2010 - 01:35 PM, said: What everyone is ignoring is the fact that the site wouldn't even be available for the Mosque but for the destructive/murderous actions of other Muslims.

Because its not true. It's not on the WTC site and it's not a mosque.

It most certainly is true.

The building was damaged on 9-11 by the plane hijacked by the terrorists and flown into the WTC. But for their actions, the building wouldn't be available. Just as I said. And yes, there most definitely is a Mosque. And I didn't say it was on the WTC site.

[ToadBrother]

It most certainly is true.

The building was damaged on 9-11 by the plane hijacked by the terrorists and flown into the WTC. But for their actions, the building wouldn't be available. Just as I said. And yes, there most definitely is a Mosque. And I didn't say it was on the WTC site.

You seem keen to blame all Muslims for 9-11, and then you condemn me as a bigot because I point out that your view is a textbook form of bigotry.

[Guest American Woman]

You seem keen to blame all Muslims for 9-11, and then you condemn me as a bigot because I point out that your view is a textbook form of bigotry.

You seem keen to ignore the fact that I've said over and over again that I don't blame all Muslims for 9-11, so I'll continue to condemn you for calling me a bigot based on something I haven't done. If you can't understand what empathy is, fine, but if that's the case, don't accuse me of blaming all Muslims for 9-11 because of your ignorance in that regard.

Once again.

I DO NOT BLAME ALL MUSLIMS FOR 9-11.

I DO NOT BLAME ALL MUSLIMS FOR 9-11.

I DO NOT BLAME ALL MUSLIMS FOR 9-11.

It don't think they should build on the site out of empathy. I expect no more of them than I expect of anyone else. I'm not asking any more of them than I ask of myself.

Now see if you can respond to what I actually said. I won't, however, hold my breath or put any money on your ability to do so.

Edited August 6, 2010 by American Woman

[Black Dog]

It most certainly is true.

The building was damaged on 9-11 by the plane hijacked by the terrorists and flown into the WTC. But for their actions, the building wouldn't be available. Just as I said.

And?

And I didn't say it was on the WTC site.

So what's the problem?

And yes, there most definitely is a Mosque.

I didn't know mosques had swimming pools and food courts.

I DO NOT BLAME ALL MUSLIMS FOR 9-11.

It don't think they should build on the site out of empathy.

Does not compute.

[Guest TrueMetis]

It most certainly is true.

The building was damaged on 9-11 by the plane hijacked by the terrorists and flown into the WTC. But for their actions, the building wouldn't be available. Just as I said. And yes, there most definitely is a Mosque. And I didn't say it was on the WTC site.

I'm getting tired of this argument, it was random chance that this building was hit. It's available not because of 9-11, but because of random chance and the owners didn't want to fix it. What's your alternative? Leave it decrepit with no one using it. Essentially what has happened with the former site of the trade towers. If you want to deny people the right to build there because other people that believe in the same god as they do (Christians and Jews believe in the same god btw) did something horrible that place is going to remain empty. If you want that place to get revitalized your going to have to let people build there.

[Guest American Woman]

Does not compute.

And there's the problem. You are incapable of computing the reality of the situation as well as what I actually said.

If you think feeling empathy is the same as accepting blame, you are the one who is wrong, and I can't help you with your inability to compute; you need more education than I can give you here in the amount of time I'm willing to spend on you. Sorry.

[Guest American Woman]

I'm getting tired of this argument, it was random chance that this building was hit. It's available not because of 9-11, but because of random chance and the owners didn't want to fix it. What's your alternative? Leave it decrepit with no one using it. Essentially what has happened with the former site of the trade towers. If you want to deny people the right to build there because other people that believe in the same god as they do (Christians and Jews believe in the same god btw) did something horrible that place is going to remain empty. If you want that place to get revitalized your going to have to let people build there.

You're getting tired of it??

Random chance?? It's available because of 9-11. But for the actions on 9-11, this building would not have been damaged and it would not have been available. It was hit by the plane that the terrorists deliberately hijacked. Is there seriously something wrong with you that you can't understand that?? It wasn't "chance" that damaged the building; it was the result of the deliberate actions of the extremist Islamic terrorists on 9-11.

And again:

I NEVER SAID I WANTED TO DENY THEM THE RIGHT TO BUILD THERE. I'VE SAID, IN FACT, THE EXACT OPPOSITE, THAT I RESPECT THEIR RIGHT TO BUILD THERE BUT I THINK THEY SHOULD CHOOSE NOT TO OUT OF EMPATHY. And it has NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH WHATEVER GOD THEY OR I OR ANYONE ELSE HAPPENS TO BELIEVE IN.

Can you seriously not comprehend what I am saying?? Can you seriously try not to attribute beliefs to me that I don't have??

It has nothing to do with wanting the building to stand empty. It has everything to do with believing that Muslims should choose a different site for their project. OUT OF EMPATHY. THE SAME EMPATHY I HOLD MYSELF TO AS WELL AS EVERYONE ELSE. I'M NOT HOLDING THEM TO ANY DIFFERENT STANDARDS.

I've repeated that over and over and over again.

You don't have to agree with me, but to CHANGE what I've said, to CONSTANTLY, FALSELY ACCUSE ME OF SOMETHING THAT ISN'T TRUE is TOTALLY DISHONEST.

Is it beginning to sink in yet?? As I said, I've repeated myself over and over and over again ....

[Shady]

And there's the problem. You are incapable of computing the reality of the situation as well as what I actually said.

If you think feeling empathy is the same as accepting blame, you are the one who is wrong, and I can't help you with your inability to compute; you need more education than I can give you here in the amount of time I'm willing to spend on you. Sorry.

Well said. There is a huge difference between empathy and blame. However, it may be too complicated for some of the individuals in this forum to grasp. Or they're being purposely obtuse.

POPE ORDERS NUNS OUT OF AUSCHWITZ

WARSAW, April 14— In a last-minute letter apparently intended to defuse the controversy on the 50th anniversary of the Warsaw ghetto uprising, Pope John Paul II told Roman Catholic nuns today to move from their convent at the Auschwitz death camp.

NYT

Hmmm, sounds similar doesn't it? Except in the current case, this particular Imam could care less about any real tolerance and understanding. Except of course as long as the tolerance and understanding is of him and his actions.

[DogOnPorch]

AW: I NEVER SAID I WANTED TO DENY THEM THE RIGHT TO BUILD THERE. I'VE SAID, IN FACT, THE EXACT OPPOSITE, THAT I RESPECT THEIR RIGHT TO BUILD THERE BUT I THINK THEY SHOULD CHOOSE NOT TO OUT OF EMPATHY. And it has NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH WHATEVER GOD THEY OR I OR ANYONE ELSE HAPPENS TO BELIEVE IN.

Agreement. It's a rather provocative move...and I believe that's the correct terminology...as it has provoked quite the reaction not only from New Yorkers, 9-11 casualties/families and such...but from folks all around the planet. Both for and against.

Like AW, I feel the plan to build there was far from random...the name alone tells me that. Here's a chance to build a symbol of Islam literally in the ashes of 9-11...for good or worse. They're going to do it no matter the disharmony it causes...in the so-called name of harmony. Not so sure about that motive...and I wonder who is dishing out the dough...but time will tell at this point. Crazy ol' world...

[Guest TrueMetis]

You're getting tired of it??

Random chance?? It's available because of 9-11. But for the actions on 9-11, this building would not have been damaged and it would not have been available. It was hit by the plane that the terrorists deliberately hijacked. Is there seriously something wrong with you that you can't understand that?? It wasn't "chance" that damaged the building; it was the result of the deliberate actions of the extremist Islamic terrorists on 9-11.

No it was chance, any other building could have been hit it just happened to be this one. The only building that was purposely targeted was the trade towers, everything else is just collateral damage. Collateral damage is by very definition accidental.

I RESPECT THEIR RIGHT TO BUILD THERE BUT I THINK THEY SHOULD CHOOSE NOT TO OUT OF EMPATHY.

Yes yelling great way to get your point across. What your essentially saying is they have the right to build here but they shouldn't build there. I get it you trying to not come off as a bigot, it's not working. It would be like telling me I shouldn't build anything in Russia because of "empathy" towards victims of Stalin because we're both atheists, while completely ignoring all the other aspects of it.

And it has NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH WHATEVER GOD THEY OR I OR ANYONE ELSE HAPPENS TO BELIEVE IN.

B*llshit we wouldn't even be having this discussion if they weren't Muslims. The only reason this is an issue is because they just happen to share the same god as some nut job extremists. You can keep saying that your not painting all Muslims with the same brush all you want, but by saying they shouldn't build there because of some other wackos who share their god that's exactly what you are doing. This has f*ck all to do with empathy because your making it a one-way street, empathy to the Christian and Jewish victims of 9-11 but who cares about the Muslim ones, who cares about there families who are part of this, and fro some reason who cares about all the families of non-Muslim victims who have come out and supported this. That's the most f*cked up thing, families of victims supporting this thing and yet somehow not building it is being empathetic. Don't give me that crap.

ETA AW ask yourself this question. Would you be arguing against this if it was a different religious group building this place? If the answer is yes than you should have been arguing against all religious symbols near ground zero. If the answer is no, then your a bigot.

Edited August 6, 2010 by TrueMetis

[GostHacked]

No one would have a problem if it was a church of some other denomination.

How about a little empathy for those who were Muslim who died in the attack (aka not the attackers). People from all walks of life, following all religions had died in that attack. Most of the Muslim world prayed for those killed that day. Iran helped out the US in regards to Afghanistan.

If the 9/11 attackers where white Christians, no one would be complaining about a christian church going up in the same place where this mosque / community center will go.

American Woman, I empathize with your view, however this mosque is going up regardless. And it seems like they empathize with you as well, this is why it is more of a community center than a mosque, which can bridge a gap so that we understand each other more. Either it will become quite popular for all people, or some asshats are going to torch the place down. And that will definitely not help at all.

[Black Dog]

And there's the problem. You are incapable of computing the reality of the situation as well as what I actually said.

If you think feeling empathy is the same as accepting blame, you are the one who is wrong, and I can't help you with your inability to compute; you need more education than I can give you here in the amount of time I'm willing to spend on you. Sorry.

Who should they feel empathy towards? The select few not necessarily representative members of 9-11 victims who are opposed to this development? Sarah Palin? The vast majority of those opposed to this are basing their opposition on the erroneous notion of collective responsibility. Choosing not to build out of "empathy" towards those nutters is a tacit acceptance of those nutjob's views.

[Smallc]

And there's the problem. You are incapable of computing the reality of the situation as well as what I actually said.

No, the problem is you aren't making sense. If muslims in general aren't to blame for the attack, then it doesn't make sense that they should decide not to build the centre because of empathy. If muslims aren't to blame, it doesn't hurt anyone for them to build near the site.

Edited August 6, 2010 by Smallc

[dre]

Agreement. It's a rather provocative move...and I believe that's the correct terminology...as it has provoked quite the reaction not only from New Yorkers, 9-11 casualties/families and such...but from folks all around the planet. Both for and against.

Like AW, I feel the plan to build there was far from random...the name alone tells me that. Here's a chance to build a symbol of Islam literally in the ashes of 9-11...for good or worse. They're going to do it no matter the disharmony it causes...in the so-called name of harmony. Not so sure about that motive...and I wonder who is dishing out the dough...but time will tell at this point. Crazy ol' world...

My guess is it wont cause much disharmony at all. A few people will whine like you guys are, but when all is said and done its just no big deal. And my guess is that most of the people who whine will generally be the same people that are just constantly looking for an excuse to oppose muslims... hard to really place much stock in anything those people say anyways. I say fuck em.

Dont get me wrong... I think its stupid to build expensive buildings in tribute to false gods, but we allow that all the time so I just dont see an issue.

[Guest American Woman]

Agreement. It's a rather provocative move...and I believe that's the correct terminology...as it has provoked quite the reaction not only from New Yorkers, 9-11 casualties/families and such...but from folks all around the planet. Both for and against.

It's become a provocative move even if those involved in the project initially had no idea of the reaction it would invoke. Once it became to very apparent, however, they could have reconsidered; they should have reconsidered, out of empathy. That's been my point all along.

Over half of the people polled throughout the U.S. have some misgivings about the project, and even those involved realize that a lot of those people are people who generally have a favorable view of Islam.

Yet people here, even now, after I've repeated myself yet again, keep attributing feelings/beliefs to me that I don't have. They keep insisting that we wouldn't be having this discussion if it were any other religion even though I've pointed out repeatedly that if it had been a different religion involved in 9-11 and that was the religion building there, I would feel the same.

Shady, I believe, gave a perfect similar example in this post of another religion acting out of empathy.

And saying that this building wasn't damaged because of the actions of the terrorists on 9-11, but by chance, is really so far fetched that I can only shake my head in disbelief. Or hit it against a brick wall, as that would be less painful than reading such utter nonsense.

--------

Getting back to what I had posted earlier, this building is the only building thus far of the 29 that had been proposed for landmark status that hasn't been granted landmark status. Five are still pending, but the previous 23 were all granted landmark status.

A pic of this building and a pic of a similar building of the same architectural style that was granted landmark status makes one wonder what the difference is.

I've read, too, that the people involved in the project are going to be sensitive to keeping the same architectural feeling of the block, but I'm just not seeing that in this pic of the proposed project.

Edited August 6, 2010 by American Woman

[Smallc]

Yes yelling great way to get your point across. What your essentially saying is they have the right to build here but they shouldn't build there. I get it you trying to not come off as a bigot, it's not working. It would be like telling me I shouldn't build anything in Russia because of "empathy" towards victims of Stalin because we're both atheists, while completely ignoring all the other aspects of it.

Exactly. There is no reason for muslims in general to stop what they are doing because of the actions of some. Conversely, there is no reason for people to feel upset about the cultural centre if they don't blame muslims in general.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Exactly. There is no reason for muslims in general to stop what they are doing because of the actions of some. Conversely, there is no reason for people to feel upset about the cultural centre if they don't blame muslims in general.

You may be interested in this.

My link

Edited August 6, 2010 by TrueMetis

[dre]

It's become a provocative move even if those involved in the project initially had no idea of the reaction it would invoke. Once it became to very apparent, however, they could have reconsidered; they should have reconsidered, out of empathy. That's been my point all along.

Over half of the people polled throughout the U.S. have some misgivings about the project, and even those involved realize that a lot of those people are people who generally have a favorable view of Islam.

Yet people here, even now, after I've repeated myself yet again, keep attributing feelings/beliefs to me that I don't have. They keep insisting that we wouldn't be having this discussion if it were any other religion even though I've pointed out repeatedly that if it had been a different religion involved in 9-11 and that was the religion building there, I would feel the same.

Shady, I believe, gave a perfect similar example in this post of another religion acting out of empathy.

And saying that this building wasn't damaged because of the actions of the terrorists on 9-11, but by chance, is really so far fetched that I can only shake my head in disbelief. Or hit it against a brick wall, as that would be less painful than reading such utter nonsense.

--------

Getting back to what I had posted earlier, this building is the only building thus far of the 29 that had been proposed for landmark status that hasn't been granted landmark status. Five are still pending, but the previous 23 were all granted landmark status.

A pic of this building and a pic of a similar building of the same architectural style that was granted landmark status makes one wonder what the difference is.

I've read, too, that the people involved in the project are going to be sensitive to keeping the same architectural feeling of the block, but I'm just not seeing that in this pic of the proposed project.

Over half of the people polled throughout the U.S. have some misgivings about the project, and even those involved realize that a lot of those people are people who generally have a favorable view of Islam.

Im not so sure about that. My guess is that demographic lines up almost PERFECTLY with this one, and its no coincidence at all that numbers of people who oppose this mosque are about the same as the number that hold various negative views about Islam.

Public views of Islam are one casualty of the post-Sept. 11, 2001 conflict: Nearly six in 10 Americans think the religion is prone to violent extremism, nearly half regard it unfavorably, and a remarkable one in four admits to prejudicial feelings against Muslims and Arabs alike.

In the most basic measure, 46 percent of Americans express a generally unfavorable opinion of Islam, a new high and again nearly double what it was in early 2002 -- a troubling assessment of the world's second-largest religion, one practiced by an estimated 1.3 billion people worldwide, or about 20 percent of humanity.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=1700599

[Black Dog]

It's become a provocative move even if those involved in the project initially had no idea of the reaction it would invoke. Once it became to very apparent, however, they could have reconsidered; they should have reconsidered, out of empathy. That's been my point all along.

So once they realized their project would stir up a bunch of whackjobs like Palin, they should have reconsidered out of empathy for the feelings of said whackjobs?

And saying that this building wasn't damaged because of the actions of the terrorists on 9-11, but by chance, is really so far fetched that I can only shake my head in disbelief. Or hit it against a brick wall, as that would be less painful than reading such utter nonsense.

What difference does it make? Hey, maybe that was the masterplan all along:

Step 1: Destroy the WTC

Step 2: Snap up real estate.

Step 3: Prophet..er...profit