Mosque going up in NYC building

[Guest American Woman]

It's interesting how these left wingers are so into gay and womens' rights except when it comes to a culture that won't let them drive, vote or hold office.

It is odd, isn't it? Of course they explain it as being tolerant; freedom of religion. But of course they don't hold that same tolerance/respect for Christian religions that don't allow equal rights for gays. Their 'tolerance' seems to go right out the window when any religion/group/nationality other than Islam is involved.

And so what if the imam involved in this project has said one or two questionable things about a couple of serious issues? I'm a bigot for questioning it. We all are. Can't question where the funding is coming from either, even though such questioning is pretty standard procedure. But apply those same liberal standards (non-standards?) to outspoken Christian leaders? Nope. Of course they don't. Neither do I, yet I'm the bigot, the one who's intolerant, the hypocrite, the one who's not making sense. I can't believe some are even trotting Bush out as some sort of character reference. But then, they aren't really muslims. Terrorist organizations/acts have nothing to do with the fact that they are all Muslims. It's that they're all men. (One of my favorites). It's just a coincidence that they are all Muslims. But yet, they aren't really Muslims. It all gets so confusing.

I guess because there are some nice, intelligent families living in Toronto (who would have thunk it, eh? ), everything else goes out the window. Same doesn't apply to all the wonderful Christian families out there, though. The Christian leaders are still seen for what they are, what they have said, and of course no bigotry in that.

I realize there are many, many moderate Muslims, but that doesn't erase the fact that there are some who are not. Some who are murderers. Some who would like their idea of Islam spread around the world. And of course, they look the same, worship the same, go to the same mosques, blend in with all the others. So the claim that there won't be any extremists praying at this mosque is ludicrous.

Bottom line. There are a lot of people with a lot of different feelings involved, and it's not all about one group of them. It's not all about the Muslims, who yes, have the right to build there, but should take the whole into account. How Imam Rauf can continue to say this project is about building bridges, when it's done the complete opposite, is difficult to understand. And if that is his goal, it's even more difficult to understand how he can still be going ahead with it in light of the fact that it's setting Muslim/non-Muslim relations way back. You'd think that would be upsetting, and in light of his goal, move to a different location. That would do more towards achieving his goal than just about anything could right now.

[Smallc]

It is odd, isn't it? Of course they explain it as being tolerant; freedom of religion. But of course they don't hold that same tolerance/respect for Christian religions that don't allow equal rights for gays. Their 'tolerance' seems to go right out the window when any religion/group/nationality other than Islam is involved.

Yeah, because no one on the left ever complains about human rights abuses in islamic countries.

And so what if the imam involved in this project has said one or two questionable things about a couple of serious issues? I'm a bigot for questioning it.

That isn't what you initially questioned, and that hasn't ever been your main contention. You continue to go on and on about your empathy point. You continue to link all of the Muslim world with the 9/11 terrorists...and then you say, no, you're not doing that....and we're supposed to believe you despite your statements to the contrary.

For example:

But then, they aren't really muslims. Terrorist organizations/acts have nothing to do with the fact that they are all Muslims. It's that they're all men. (One of my favorites). It's just a coincidence that they are all Muslims. But yet, they aren't really Muslims. It all gets so confusing.

and:

I realize there are many, many moderate Muslims, but that doesn't erase the fact that there are some who are not. Some who are murderers. Some who would like their idea of Islam spread around the world. And of course, they look the same, worship the same, go to the same mosques, blend in with all the others. So the claim that there won't be any extremists praying at this mosque is ludicrous.

Of course, we know that no one else ever murders or performs terrorist acts. Yes, a disproportionate amount of terrorists are muslims, but this project isn't the cause of that, and people like this Imam aren't supporters of that. Continue to link all of the Muslim world to terrorism though. Oh, and be sure to claim you aren't linking them to terrorism when you're done.

--------------

How Imam Rauf can continue to say this project is about building bridges, when it's done the complete opposite, is difficult to understand.

I'm not surprised you're having difficulty understanding. You've twisted and turned so much on this, trying to find any excuse to be against it, that I'm not sure you know what you think anymore. What a bunch of people think about this project is irrelevant to it's intent. Also, opinion right now is but only a snapshot in time, and does not speak to what this project will accomplish over its lifetime.

And if that is his goal, it's even more difficult to understand how he can still be going ahead with it in light of the fact that it's setting Muslim/non-Muslim relations way back.

This project has done no such thing. Irrational reaction to the project, on the other hand.....

You'd think that would be upsetting, and in light of his goal, move to a different location. That would do more towards achieving his goal than just about anything could right now.

Perhaps he was under the impression that he was living in a free country? Perhaps he believes that this is too important an issue to bow to the mob? Perhaps - just perhaps - it's none of your business.

Edited September 6, 2010 by Smallc

[kimmy]

The Imam knew there would be people who hated Islam protesting the building of the site. Therefore, he shouldn't build it because of the hatred from the other side? Wow. I have to admit, it takes a lot of balls to stand on an argument as flimsy as this one.

I've said all along that it's their property and they're free to build on it as they wish. However, the reaction to this project has been entirely predictable, and if he didn't want this sort of controversy he should have picked a different site.

Ah, so it's all their fault when we hate them? Makes Islamaphobia that much easier! They're not responsibile for what we do. We're responsible for what we do. Anything else is just an excuse for what people were going to do anyway.

WTF are you even talking about? That's not a rational reply to anything I wrote.

Nope. Books are routinely published under different names in different languages for the sake of many things, the biggest one being translation. Furthermore, writing a book which reflects on the direction of Islam after 9/11 in the United States, and calling it essentially that, isn't some conspiracy to make money off the victims of 9/11. If you want to look for people who exploited 9/11, look at the makers of the movies Flight 93 and World Trade Centre.

Again (and this has already been pointed out to you once) I didn't say he was attempting to profit from 9/11. I said he is exploiting the notoriety of 9/11 to spread his message.

His book title clearly shows he understands the symbolism. And considering he himself has said that the link between this site and 9/11 sends an important message, I don't think there's any denying it.

Whoah, look at you. And here I thought I was the one who only wanted ideas that I support. Hypocrisy is a bitch, no?

Nice try, speedy, but I never argued for suppressing anything. I just asked why people like you are so supportive of it.

I don't support banning conservative Islam any more than I support banning the JWs or the Mormons or the Snakehandlers.

People like me think that stone-aged ideology should be exposed and discussed and confronted.

People like you think (as you explained in the other thread) that discussing it should be avoided, because there might be a "backlash".

What of it? That his remarks have been distorted by his opponents does not prove that he is "liberal".

He is clearly dedicated to the idea that Islam and democratic government are compatible with each other. And he is clearly dedicated to the idea of co-existence and peace. But once again, these don't show that he's "liberal" in any western meaning of the word, and I've seen nothing to suggest that he is in fact "liberal" in any western meaning of the word, so I think your claim that he is a "liberal" could use some substantiation.

-k

[kimmy]

By the way: for those claiming that there wasn't a problem until Pam Geller got people all riled up, I offer this Rauf-friendly New York Times article for your consideration. The article is dated December 8, 2009, well before the controversy.

But though the imam is adamant about what his intentions for the site are, there is anxiety among those involved or familiar with the project that it could very well become a target for anti-Muslim attacks.

Joan Brown Campbell, director of the department of religion at the Chautauqua Institution in upstate New York and former general secretary of the National Council of Churches of Christ U.S.A., who is a supporter of Imam Feisal, acknowledged the possibility of a backlash from those opposed to a Muslim presence at ground zero.

Was the controversy predictable? One of Imam Rauf's key allies predicted it.

-k

[Guest American Woman]

Perhaps he believes that this is too important an issue to bow to the mob? Perhaps - just perhaps - it's none of your business.

"The mob" is who he is trying to build bridges with. He better listen to what they have to say if he has any hope at all of reaching out to them. But yeah, he's trying to reach out to Americans like me, but "perhaps" it's "none of my business."

Edited September 6, 2010 by American Woman

[Guest American Woman]

By the way: for those claiming that there wasn't a problem until Pam Geller got people all riled up, I offer this Rauf-friendly New York Times article for your consideration. The article is dated December 8, 2009, well before the controversy.

Was the controversy predictable? One of Imam Rauf's key allies predicted it.

I've actually linked to that article myself, for all the good it did. It's an interesting article.

Also from the article: The location was precisely a key selling point for the group of Muslims who bought the building in July. A presence so close to the World Trade Center, “where a piece of the wreckage fell,” said Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the cleric leading the project, “sends the opposite statement to what happened on 9/11.”

He's tied the mosque to 9-11, and the fact that the building was damaged on 9-11, himself. That bears repeating.

But I've read of moderate Muslims who feel Rauf is totally out of touch with moderates and the situation if he didn't think there was going to be strong objection to a mosque going up on this property; property he recognizes was part of the destruction on 9-11. Ordinary Muslims feel as if they are taking the fall for his decisions. It's like I said before, it's average Muslims and non-Muslim Americans who are affected most by this project, and they were never consulted.

I still can't understand Bloomberg's strong stance, to the point where he referred to checking into the funding "anti-American." It's pretty standard procedure for a non-profit. Makes me wonder if he's afraid of what they'd find. If Bush had refused to to have the funding of a similar project investigated, most of the liberals would have been accusing him of trying to hide something. I know I would have been.

Now it's gotten to the point where it's just ugly. We've got Hamas giving its support. Yeah, that's going to help matters tremendously. We've got loud mouths saying all kinds of extreme things against all Muslims. I still say most Americans are opposing it because of the property, not out of Islamaphobia. But they aren't the ones being heard.

It's never been about the distance to me. There's a mosque four blocks away that no one has cared about. It's this particular property. It's too close to 'to the victors go the spoils,' as anyone with any common sense/intelligence at all knows that no one can say extremists will not attend services there. It stands to reason that they would.

So I'll say it again. It's not the fact that it's two blocks away from Ground Zero. It's the fact that it's part of the destruction of 9-11. Rauf himself has made reference to that. Emphasis has been put on that fact right from the beginning. Of course that's going to make it emotionally charged. Either Rauf is not being honest about his having no clue as to the reaction it would cause, or he is totally out of touch with reality.

At any rate, it's the average American Muslims and non-Muslims who will carry the brunt of the backlash as there is more suspicion of Muslims and more dislike for non-Muslim Americans, and increased chance of violence.

Of course some of the oh-so-tolerant supporters are totally concerned about the increased threat to Muslims as the increased support/funding of terrorist organizations goes unnoticed. But then, it is all our fault. I tend to keep forgetting that.

[dre]

By the way: for those claiming that there wasn't a problem until Pam Geller got people all riled up, I offer this Rauf-friendly New York Times article for your consideration. The article is dated December 8, 2009, well before the controversy.

Was the controversy predictable? One of Imam Rauf's key allies predicted it.

-k

They probably DID anticipate a certain ammount of resistance to the project. But so what? In the end people are going to move on, and this place will be judged by the kind of facility it is, and not where it got built.

Besides so far the opposition really hasnt been that big a deal... sure the blogs and forums are kicking this thing around, and a lot of people when polled say they dont want a mosque there. But as far as real resistance theres been a few small protests with a few hundred quacks, and a couple frivilous lawsuits. You just dont go shutting down a realestate development project over that. Especially not after youve already spent a pile of money on planning, obtaining permits, etc.

[jbg]

I think much of Islam is to blame as well. Did anyone see Fareed Zakaria today? Yikes!

Video

Watch the 3rd interview. It's fascinating, but very scary.

I did. I hope that guy's just a lunatic but somehow I doubt it.

[nicky10013]

I've said all along that it's their property and they're free to build on it as they wish. However, the reaction to this project has been entirely predictable, and if he didn't want this sort of controversy he should have picked a different site.

So again, it's their fault they want to worship in their own neighbourhood. Got it.

WTF are you even talking about? That's not a rational reply to anything I wrote.

Of course it is. You keep on forwarding the notion that the controversy over the mosque is the fault of the people who build there. In essence, Islamaphobia and the fear mongering over the building is that much easier because in the end, it's their fault, and not the people who got pissy over it in the first place.

In the end, we're responsible for our own actions. The massive uproar over Islamic prayer space isn't the fault of the poor people who decided to build there in the first place, but of the people who for some reason can't live with it.

Again (and this has already been pointed out to you once) I didn't say he was attempting to profit from 9/11. I said he is exploiting the notoriety of 9/11 to spread his message.

His book title clearly shows he understands the symbolism. And considering he himself has said that the link between this site and 9/11 sends an important message, I don't think there's any denying it.

Even conceding the point, like I said, writing about the place of Islam in America after 9/11 and titling the book as such isn't some Islamic plot. Tone down the paranoia.

Nice try, speedy, but I never argued for suppressing anything. I just asked why people like you are so supportive of it.

I don't support banning conservative Islam any more than I support banning the JWs or the Mormons or the Snakehandlers.

People like me think that stone-aged ideology should be exposed and discussed and confronted.

People like you think (as you explained in the other thread) that discussing it should be avoided, because there might be a "backlash".

Why am I so supportive? Maybe because people deserve the right to pray without being lambasted with baseless accusations. Spreading lies about Islam should be avoided and that was my point. There's such thing as "rational" debate. Your point below goes beyond that.

What of it? That his remarks have been distorted by his opponents does not prove that he is "liberal".

He is clearly dedicated to the idea that Islam and democratic government are compatible with each other. And he is clearly dedicated to the idea of co-existence and peace. But once again, these don't show that he's "liberal" in any western meaning of the word, and I've seen nothing to suggest that he is in fact "liberal" in any western meaning of the word, so I think your claim that he is a "liberal" could use some substantiation.

-k

So, you admit he supports the ideas of democracy and pluralism but won't call him a liberal? Talk about fear mongering.

[nicky10013]

By the way: for those claiming that there wasn't a problem until Pam Geller got people all riled up, I offer this Rauf-friendly New York Times article for your consideration. The article is dated December 8, 2009, well before the controversy.

Was the controversy predictable? One of Imam Rauf's key allies predicted it.

-k

Nice try. Notice how the backlash didn't start after this article. Twisting the truth. I guess the problem with your absolute 100% of freedom of speech (and naturally my hatred of it), is that sometimes people can use that to slander entire groups of people without any certifiable evidence to back it up.

Edited September 7, 2010 by nicky10013

[nicky10013]

It is odd, isn't it? Of course they explain it as being tolerant; freedom of religion. But of course they don't hold that same tolerance/respect for Christian religions that don't allow equal rights for gays. Their 'tolerance' seems to go right out the window when any religion/group/nationality other than Islam is involved.

Oh wow. Talk about baseless accusations.

And so what if the imam involved in this project has said one or two questionable things about a couple of serious issues? I'm a bigot for questioning it. We all are. Can't question where the funding is coming from either, even though such questioning is pretty standard procedure. But apply those same liberal standards (non-standards?) to outspoken Christian leaders? Nope. Of course they don't. Neither do I, yet I'm the bigot, the one who's intolerant, the hypocrite, the one who's not making sense. I can't believe some are even trotting Bush out as some sort of character reference. But then, they aren't really muslims. Terrorist organizations/acts have nothing to do with the fact that they are all Muslims. It's that they're all men. (One of my favorites). It's just a coincidence that they are all Muslims. But yet, they aren't really Muslims. It all gets so confusing.

Sure, go ahead and question the funding. However, where does it lead to? The people who are claiming it's coming from terrorism, ironically, actually work for the guy. Surprise surprise, they name is organization but won't name him. They want to smear the project while keeping their benefactor. Are those critiques you can take seriously?

I guess because there are some nice, intelligent families living in Toronto (who would have thunk it, eh? ), everything else goes out the window. Same doesn't apply to all the wonderful Christian families out there, though. The Christian leaders are still seen for what they are, what they have said, and of course no bigotry in that.

One of my friends has family in Manhattan. Their Imam is Imam Faisel and they live in the area. The mosques there are overcrowded so they want to build a new one with a community centre. How horrible.

I realize there are many, many moderate Muslims, but that doesn't erase the fact that there are some who are not. Some who are murderers. Some who would like their idea of Islam spread around the world. And of course, they look the same, worship the same, go to the same mosques, blend in with all the others. So the claim that there won't be any extremists praying at this mosque is ludicrous.

You're right. As with every other religion. So which church are we going to go protest after the mosque thing?

Bottom line. There are a lot of people with a lot of different feelings involved, and it's not all about one group of them. It's not all about the Muslims, who yes, have the right to build there, but should take the whole into account. How Imam Rauf can continue to say this project is about building bridges, when it's done the complete opposite, is difficult to understand. And if that is his goal, it's even more difficult to understand how he can still be going ahead with it in light of the fact that it's setting Muslim/non-Muslim relations way back. You'd think that would be upsetting, and in light of his goal, move to a different location. That would do more towards achieving his goal than just about anything could right now.

Again, it's the fault of the people building it. Nice.

[jbg]

You just dont go shutting down a realestate development project over that. Especially not after youve already spent a pile of money on planning, obtaining permits, etc.

They did it with the Temple mount. They have the right to do it here, at Ground Zero. We have the right to make their lives miserable over it. And you can be sure their lives will be made miserable. I'm against violence but may the framers of this project sleep every night on a bed of thorns, their conscienced forever haunted. This is an act of wickedness, not religion.

[Smallc]

Nothing like punishing people for your self imagined fears. Edited September 8, 2010 by Smallc

[jbg]

Nothing like punishing people for your self imagined fears.

Please explain. Is Al Aksa Mosque or the September 11 attacks imaginary?

[DogOnPorch]

They did it with the Temple mount. They have the right to do it here, at Ground Zero. We have the right to make their lives miserable over it. And you can be sure their lives will be made miserable. I'm against violence but may the framers of this project sleep every night on a bed of thorns, their conscienced forever haunted. This is an act of wickedness, not religion.

Things that will never happen....

Christian terrorists screaming "Go and do thou likewise!" as they slam 757s into the Mecca skyline.

A Christian 'outreach center' (it's not a church...damnit) built anywhere near the impact crater(s).

[jbg]

Things that will never happen....

Christian terrorists screaming "Go and do thou likewise!" as they slam 757s into the Mecca skyline.

A Christian 'outreach center' (it's not a church...damnit) built anywhere near the impact crater(s).

And can you imagine Jewish businessmen stoning to death an unfaithful wife?

[DogOnPorch]

And can you imagine Jewish businessmen stoning to death an unfaithful wife?

Getting stoned has an entirely different connotation in the Western World, it would seem.

[Smallc]

Please explain. Is Al Aksa Mosque or the September 11 attacks imaginary?

The idea that the Mosque is some kind of insult is totally unsubstantiated.

[jbg]

The idea that the Mosque is some kind of insult is totally unsubstantiated.

Then why the inflammatory choice of location and the refusal to seriously examine any other placement?

[nicky10013]

Please explain. Is Al Aksa Mosque or the September 11 attacks imaginary?

Please explain how the mosque at ground zero and September 11 are related.

Edited September 8, 2010 by nicky10013

[nicky10013]

Then why the inflammatory choice of location and the refusal to seriously examine any other placement?

Because they have a right to a mosque in their neighbourhood.

[capricorn]

Then why the inflammatory choice of location and the refusal to seriously examine any other placement?

Because Bloomberg says it's OK?

In recent months, Mr. Bloomberg has become an outspoken advocate of a controversial proposal to build a mosque and Islamic cultural center two blocks from Ground Zero in Lower Manhattan. There is "nowhere in the five boroughs of New York City that is off limits to any religion," Mr. Bloomberg said during a speech at an annual Iftar dinner at Gracie Mansion last month.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704358904575478241873665072.html

[jbg]

The idea that the Mosque is some kind of insult is totally unsubstantiated.

Please explain how the mosque at ground zero and September 11 are related.

I guess you get a certain pleasure in having the obvious explained to you. The building of the Al Aksa Mosque was a desecration of a holy site and a monument to dhimitude, or domination of the then-subservient conquered Jewish population. The buildig of the Ground Zero Mosque is the celebration of a successful massacre.

[Smallc]

The buildig of the Ground Zero Mosque is the celebration of a successful massacre.

And since it's so obvious, I'm sure some kind of proof can be provided....other than supposition.

[jbg]

And since it's so obvious, I'm sure some kind of proof can be provided....other than supposition.

A proof is a proof. What is a proof. It's a proof. And when you have a good proof it's because its proven. And that is a really good proof.